Believe it or not, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is still taking heat from some Zionist commentators for having spoken referred to the “State of Palestine” and touching his head against the Israeli version of the Berlin Wall that separates the Palestinian Authority from Jerusalem while in Bethlehem on Sunday, May 25, 2014, the Fifth Sunday after Easter and the Commemorations of Popes Saint Gregory VII and Saint Urban I, and, of course, for endorsing the “two-state” solution upon his arrival at the Ben Gurion International Airport later that same day (see Jorge Gave a Great Victory To Islamic Terrorism). Even though Jorge Mario Bergoglio tripped all over himself to show his great esteem for Zionism, symbolically spitting on Pope Saint Pius X’s rejection of it when Theodore Herzl sought his approval on January 25, 1904, the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul the Apostle, and by kissing the backs of the hands of those who survived Nazi concentration camps and, more insidious than anything else, tucking his pectoral cross under his fascia.
The Talmudists will never be entirely pleased with any conciliar “pontiff” until the day comes when one of their number will say this in their presence while visiting Jerusalem: “I can to say you now that Christianity is a myth. I recognize Judaism as the true religion that pleases God. I am your humble servant.”
Don’t think that that can ever happen?
Happen it will as the path for Antichrist is prepared by precursors such as Jorge Mario Bergoglio. Each of the conciliar “popes” have helped to prepare the way for Antichrist. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is doing yeoman’s work in this regard no matter what some Talmudist critics may think.
Before leaving this particular subject for now, it is important to note again that those who criticize Jorge Mario Bergoglio for his having “endorsed” Mohammedan terror by speaking of the plight of the Palestinians, who have suffered so very much at the monstrous hands of Zionist racialists since they were dispossessed from their homes in 1948 and then treated as so much refuse by the thieves who rounded them up and stole their property (see Moral Monsters), is that they are as clueless as Bergoglio is concerning the roots of violence in the Holy Land. There will never be peace between Mohammedans and Talmudists in the Middle East as their souls are enslaved to the devil by means of Original Sin, thus predisposing them to hate each other and to use violence as the means to exact vengeance for various offenses.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes in the madness of “dialogue.” Mohammedans believe in the use of the sword, which is part of parcel of this diabolical religion, against infidels. Talmudists seethe with hatred for the Holy Name of Jesus, Christ the King, and the Zionists among them believe that violence is the only means to be employed to secure the nonexistent right of Jews to a land from they had been expelled by God Himself in 70 A.D. for their refusal to accept His Divine Son as their Redeemer and thus to abandon their superseded religion once and for all.
True peace, is the fruit of souls, having been cleansed of Original Sin in the Baptismal font and revivified in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance, thereafter, abiding in states of Sanctifying Grace as members of the Catholic Church. Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ alone is the Prince of Peace, and He has shown us in His Most Blessed Mother’s Fatima Message that the path to this peace runs through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary and her Most Holy Rosary.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes in his false religion’s path of “encounter” and “dialogue” as the means to build up the “civilization of love.”
Alas, a blaspheming heretic can only bring hatred, dissatisfaction and destruction in his wake of falsehoods.
By the way, see what happened at the Church of the Nativity two days ago?
There is a very direct connection between the answer that Jorge Mario Bergoglio gave while aboard his El Al flight from Ben Gurion International Airport in Tel Aviv, Israel, to Leonardo Da Vinci (Fiumicino) International Airport southwest of Rome, Italy, and his two appearances with Bartholomew I, the Greek Orthodox patriarch of Constantinople, a sort of “first among equals” in his heretical and schismatic church. (Please the appendix for yet another listing of the principal heresies and errors of Orthodoxy.)
Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s entire pilgrimage to the Holy Land was conceived as a means of honoring the “historic” meeting that took place in Jerusalem on January 5, 1964, between the soon-to-be “Blessed” Paul the Sick and the then Greek Orthodox patriarch of Constantinople, Athenagoras. Giovanni Eugenio Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI even genuflected before this heretic. This symbolic gesture was one of many made by the second conciliar “pope” to start the process of changing the nature of what most people in the world then believed–and what most people in the world still believe at present–is the papacy.
Although Montini/Paul VI knew that it would take a long time for such change to take place, it was his goal all along to effect some kind of “communion of love” with the Orthodox in the name of “episcopal collegiality.” Montini could not say this explicitly. However, a joint declaration he issued with Athenagoras on October 28, 1967, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude, made it clear where the path of “dialogue” was to lead in the years ahead:
Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I give thanks in the Holy Spirit to God, the author and finisher of all good works, for enabling them to meet once again in the holy city of Rome in order to pray together with the Bishops of the Synod of the Roman Catholic Church and with the faithful people of this city, to greet one another with a kiss of peace, and to converse together in a spirit of charity and brotherly frankness.
While recognizing that there is still a long way to go on the road toward the unity of all Christians and that between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church there still remain points to clarify and obstacles to surmount before attaining that unity in the profession of faith necessary for re-establishing full communion, they rejoice in the fact that their meeting was able to contribute to their Churches rediscovering themselves still more as sister Churches.
In the prayers they offered, in their public statements and in their private conversation, the Pope and the Patriarch wished to emphasize their conviction that an essential element in the restoration of full communion between the Roman Catholic Church on the one side and the Orthodox Church on the other, is to be found within the framework of the renewal of the Church and of Christians in fidelity to the traditions of the Fathers and to the inspirations of the Holy Spirit Who remains always with the Church.
They recognize that the true dialogue of charity, which should be at the basis of all relations between themselves and between their Churches, must be rooted in total fidelity to the one Lord Jesus Christ and in mutual respect for each one’s traditions. Every element which can strengthen the bonds of charity, of communion, and of common action is a cause for spiritual rejoicing and should be promoted; anything which can harm this charity, communion and common action is to be eliminated with the grace of God and the creative strength of the Holy Spirit.
Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I are convinced that the dialogue of charity between their Churches must bear fruits of a cooperation which would not be self-seeking, in the field of common action at the pastoral, social and intellectual levels, with mutual respect for each one’s fidelity to his own Church. They desire that regular and profound contacts may be maintained between Catholic and Orthodox pastors for the good of their faithful. The Roman Catholic Church and the Ecumenical Patriarchate are ready to study concrete ways of solving pastoral problems, especially those connected with marriages between Catholics and Orthodox. They hope for better cooperation in works of charity, in aid to refugees and those who are suffering and in the promotion of justice and peace in the world.
In order to prepare fruitful contacts between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, the Pope and the Patriarch give their blessing and pastoral support to all efforts for cooperation between Catholic and Orthodox scholars in the fields of historical studies, of studies in the traditions of the Churches, of patristics, of liturgy and of a presentation of the Gospel which corresponds at one and the same time with the authentic message of the Lord and with the needs and hopes of today’s world. The spirit which should inspire these efforts is one of loyalty to truth and of mutual understanding, with an effective desire to avoid the bitterness of the past and every kind of spiritual or intellectual domination.
Paul VI and Athenagoras I remind government authorities and all the world’s peoples of the thirst for peace and justice which lies in the hearts of all men. In the name of the Lord, they implore them to seek out every means to promote this peace and this justice in all countries of the world. (Common Declaration of Paul the Sick and the Ecumenical Heretic of Constantinople, Athenagoras I.)
In other words, forget about Council of Florence and the Council of Trent.
Forget about all of that business concerning Papal Primacy and Papal Infallibility at the [First] Vatican Council.
Just let the Holy Spirit guide us to overcome “obstacles” as He sees fit, doing so, of course, in perfectly “fidelity” to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
After all, there is no real reason for “sister churches” to remain separated if scholarly studies can return to the “true” traditions of the early Fathers of the Church in the First Millennium, when, of course, the “Petrine Ministry” was exercised in a different way.
We can see in retrospect what Paul the Sick and Athenagoras I wanted to do. It would be for others to reap the “harvest” of the evil seeds that they planted fifty years ago this year.
Pope Pius XII, writing in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, explained what those who were promoting the “New Theology” that was then warping the mind of the Reverend Mister Joseph Ratzinger in Germany wanted to do in this regard:
13. These new opinions, whether they originate from a reprehensible desire of novelty or from a laudable motive, are not always advanced in the same degree, with equal clarity nor in the same terms, nor always with unanimous agreement of their authors. Theories that today are put forward rather covertly by some, not without cautions and distinctions, tomorrow are openly and without moderation proclaimed by others more audacious, causing scandal to many, especially among the young clergy and to the detriment of ecclesiastical authority. Though they are usually more cautious in their published works, they express themselves more openly in their writings intended for private circulation and in conferences and lectures. Moreover, these opinions are disseminated not only among members of the clergy and in seminaries and religious institutions, but also among the laity, and especially among those who are engaged in teaching youth.
14. In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.
15. Moreover they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism or any other system. Some more audacious affirm that this can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. They add that the history of dogmas consists in the reporting of the various forms in which revealed truth has been clothed, forms that have succeeded one another in accordance with the different teachings and opinions that have arisen over the course of the centuries.
16. It is evident from what We have already said, that such tentatives not only lead to what they call dogmatic relativism, but that they actually contain it. The contempt of doctrine commonly taught and of the terms in which it is expressed strongly favor it. Everyone is aware that the terminology employed in the schools and even that used by the Teaching Authority of the Church itself is capable of being perfected and polished; and we know also that the Church itself has not always used the same terms in the same way. It is also manifest that the Church cannot be bound to every system of philosophy that has existed for a short space of time. Nevertheless, the things that have been composed through common effort by Catholic teachers over the course of the centuries to bring about some understanding of dogma are certainly not based on any such weak foundation. These things are based on principles and notions deduced from a true knowledge of created things. In the process of deducing, this knowledge, like a star, gave enlightenment to the human mind through the Church. Hence it is not astonishing that some of these notions have not only been used by the Oecumenical Councils, but even sanctioned by them, so that it is wrong to depart from them.
17. Hence to neglect, or to reject, or to devalue so many and such great resources which have been conceived, expressed and perfected so often by the age-old work of men endowed with no common talent and holiness, working under the vigilant supervision of the holy magisterium and with the light and leadership of the Holy Ghost in order to state the truths of the faith ever more accurately, to do this so that these things may be replaced by conjectural notions and by some formless and unstable tenets of a new philosophy, tenets which, like the flowers of the field, are in existence today and die tomorrow; this is supreme imprudence and something that would make dogma itself a reed shaken by the wind. The contempt for terms and notions habitually used by scholastic theologians leads of itself to the weakening of what they call speculative theology, a discipline which these men consider devoid of true certitude because it is based on theological reasoning. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950. Oh, by the way, this is one of the reasons that Jorge is not even “thinking” about “beatifying” Papa Pacelli.)
The “dialogue” between the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism and the Greek Orthodox church has been premised on a mutual hatred of the Scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas, which they believe “corrupted” the minds of the Fathers who met at the Church’s general councils in the Second Millennium up to and including the [First] Vatican Council. This is why Montini and Athenagoras wanted to “return” to what they claimed to be the “basics” without the supposedly corrupting “filter” of the Angelic Doctor.
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI noted this on numerous occasions in his writings before his “election” on April 19, 2005, most notably in Principles of Catholic Theology:
Nevertheless, a fact is emerging from these reflections that can guide us in our search for an answer. For we must admit, on the one hand, that, even for Catholic theology, the so-called Fathers of the Church have, for a long time, been “Fathers” only in an indirect sense, whereas the real “Father” of the form that ultimately dominated nineteenth century theology was Thomas Aquinas, with his classic systematization of the thirteenth century doctrina media, which, it must be added, was in its turn based on the “authority” of the Fathers. (Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI,Principles of Catholic Theology p. 142).
Jorge Mario Bergolio is merely bringing to “maturation” a process of dogmatic evolution that began on January 5, 1965, when Antipapa Montini met with Athenagoras in Jerusalem.
Indeed, Bergoglio is intent on putting into concrete form the means to exercise the “Petrine Ministry” in a different manner was was proposed first, at least publicly by a conciliar “pope,” by “Saint Paul II” in Ut Unum Sint, May 25, 1995:
Whatever relates to the unity of all Christian communities clearly forms part of the concerns of the primacy. As Bishop of Rome I am fully aware, as I have reaffirmed in the present Encyclical Letter, that Christ ardently desires the full and visible communion of all those Communities in which, by virtue of God’s faithfulness, his Spirit dwells. I am convinced that I have a particular responsibility in this regard, above all in acknowledging the ecumenical aspirations of the majority of the Christian Communities and in heeding the request made of me to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation. For a whole millennium Christians were united in “a brotherly fraternal communion of faith and sacramental life … If disagreements in belief and discipline arose among them, the Roman See acted by common consent as moderator“.
In this way the primacy exercised its office of unity. When addressing the Ecumenical Patriarch His Holiness Dimitrios I, I acknowledged my awareness that “for a great variety of reasons, and against the will of all concerned, what should have been a service sometimes manifested itself in a very different light. But … it is out of a desire to obey the will of Christ truly that I recognize that as Bishop of Rome I am called to exercise that ministry … I insistently pray the Holy Spirit to shine his light upon us, enlightening all the Pastors and theologians of our Churches, that we may seek—together, of course—the forms in which this ministry may accomplish a service of love recognized by all concerned“.
This is an immense task, which we cannot refuse and which I cannot carry out by myself. Could not the real but imperfect communion existing between us persuade Church leaders and their theologians to engage with me in a patient and fraternal dialogue on this subject, a dialogue in which, leaving useless controversies behind, we could listen to one another, keeping before us only the will of Christ for his Church and allowing ourselves to be deeply moved by his plea “that they may all be one … so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (Jn 17:21)? (Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint, May 25, 1995.)
Leaving aside all of the references to “imperfect communion” that have been discussed on this site before and was assessed years ago by Bishop Donald Sanborn in Communion: Ratzingers’s Ecumenical One-World Church, one can see a close connection between Wojtyla/John Paul II’s revisionist history about how the papacy functioned in the First Millennium and that of the then prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Cardinal” Ratzinger.
This revisionist history and heretical view of Papal Primary was also reiterated by the “unofficial” Ravenna Document on October 13, 2007, a document that was cited by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI on numerous occasions between that time and the day his resignation became effective at 8:00 p.m., Rome time, on Thursday, February 28, 2013:
It remains for the question of the role of the bishop of Rome in the communion of all the Churches to be studied in greater depth. What is the specific function of the bishop of the “first see” in an ecclesiology of koinonia and in view of what we have said on conciliarity and authority in the present text? How should the teaching of the first and second Vatican councils on the universal primacy be understood and lived in the light of the ecclesial practice of the first millennium? These are crucial questions for our dialogue and for our hopes of restoring full communion between us.
We, the members of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, are convinced that the above statement on ecclesial communion, conciliarity and authority represents positive and significant progress in our dialogue, and that it provides a firm basis for future discussion of the question of primacy at the universal level in the Church. We are conscious that many difficult questions remain to be clarified, but we hope that, sustained by the prayer of Jesus “That they may all be one … so that the world may believe” (Jn 17, 21), and in obedience to the Holy Spirit, we can build upon the agreement already reached. Reaffirming and confessing “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4, 5), we give glory to God the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who has gathered us together. (The Ravenna Document)
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI put his “papal” seal of approval on The Ravenna Document just forty-one days after its issuance on the ninetieth anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal:
This year we thank God in particular for the meeting of the Joint Commission which took place in Ravenna, a city whose monuments speak eloquently of the ancient Byzantine heritage handed down to us from the undivided Church of the first millennium. May the splendour of those mosaics inspire all the members of the Joint Commission to pursue their important task with renewed determination, in fidelity to the Gospel and to Tradition, ever alert to the promptings of the Holy Spirit in the Church today.
While the meeting in Ravenna was not without its difficulties, I pray earnestly that these may soon be clarified and resolved, so that there may be full participation in the Eleventh Plenary Session and in subsequent initiatives aimed at continuing the theological dialogue in mutual charity and understanding. Indeed, our work towards unity is according to the will of Christ our Lord. In these early years of the third millennium, our efforts are all the more urgent because of the many challenges facing all Christians, to which we need to respond with a united voice and with conviction. (Letter to His Holiness Bartholomaios I, Archbishop of Constantinople, Ecumenical Patriarch, on the occasion of the feast of St. Andrew, November 23, 2007.)
So much for the “unofficial” nature of The Ravenna Document.
Walter “Cardinal” Kasper, then the president of the “Pontifical” Council for Promoting Christian Unity, had mouthed the same Modernism when he addressed an assembly of the members of the schismatic and heretical Anglican sect in the United Kingdom on May 24, 2003:
It was Pope John Paul II who opened the door to future discussion on this subject. In his encyclical Ut Unum Sint (1995) he extended an invitation to a fraternal dialogue on how to exercise the Petrine ministry in a way that is more acceptable to non-Catholic Christians. It was a source of pleasure for us that among others the Anglican community officially responded to this invitation. The Pontifical Council for Christian Unity gathered the many responses, analyzed the data, and sent its conclusions to the churches that had responded. We hope in this way to have initiated a second phase of a dialogue that will be decisive for the future of the ecumenical approach.
Nobody could reasonably expect that we could from the outset reach a phase of consensus; but what we have reached is not negligible. It has become evident that a new atmosphere and a new climate exist. In our globalized world situation the biblical testimonies on Peter and the Petrine tradition of Rome are read with new eyes because in this new context the question of a ministry of universal unity, a common reference point and a common voice of the universal church, becomes urgent. Old polemical formulas stand at odds with this urgency; fraternal relations have become the norm. Extensive research has been undertaken that has highlighted the different traditions between East and West already in the first millennium, and has traced the development in understanding and in practice of the Petrine ministry throughout the centuries. As well, the historical conditionality of the dogma of the First Vatican Council (1869-70), which must be distinguished from its remaining obligatory content, has become clear. This historical development did not come to an end with the two Vatican Councils, but goes on, and so also in the future the Petrine ministry has to be exercised in line with the changing needs of the Church.
These insights have led to a re-interpretation of the dogma of the Roman primacy. This does not at all mean that there are still not enormous problems in terms of what such a ministry of unity should look like, how it should be administered, whether and to what degree it should have jurisdiction and whether under certain circumstances it could make infallible statements in order to guarantee the unity of the Church and at the same time the legitimate plurality of local churches. But there is at least a wide consensus about the common central problem, which all churches have to solve: how the three dimensions, highlighted already by the Lima documents on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (1982), namely unity through primacy, collegiality through synodality, and communality of all the faithful and their spiritual gifts, can be brought into a convincing synthesis. (A Vision of Christian Unity for the Next Generation.)
One way to effect this “reinterpretation” is to “demythologize” what most people think is the papacy today by an act of “papal” resignation, which Jorge Mario Bergoglio said three days ago while flying back to Rome from Tel Aviv is now an “institution”:
My potential resignation
“I will do what the Lord tells me to do. Pray and try to follow God’s will. Benedict XVI no longer had the strength and honestly, as a man of faith, humble as he is, he took this decision. Seventy years ago, Popes Emeritus didn’t exist. What will happen with Popes Emeritus? We need to look at Benedict XVI as an institution, he opened a door, that of the Popes Emeritus. The door is open, whether there will be others, only God knows. I believe that if a bishop of Rome feels he is losing his strength, he must ask himself the same questions Pope Benedict XVI did.” (Interview Number I’ve Lost Count of the Number.)
I predicted that conciliar “papal” resignations would become institutionalized when I wrote the following fifteen months ago now:
Moreover, as noted two days ago in Mister Asteroid Is Looking Pretty Good Right About Now, Ratzinger/Benedict’s resignation sets what will be considered as a mandatory precedent for all future executive directors of the Occupy Vatican Movement. And if God does not intervene to put an end the chastisement represented by the apostasies, blasphemies and sacrileges of conciliarism, the “papal” resignation might even lead to calls for “papal” “term limits” and for “re-election” by the conciliar college of colleges over four or eight years. After all, wouldn’t this be in line with the “episcopal collegiality” that false “pontiff” praised yesterday as he termed this deviation from the Holy Faith to be an essential part of his new ecclesiology? (Living In Fantasyland To The Very End, part one.)
As has been noted on this site in the past, however, the Ratzinger-Wojtyla-Kasper-Bergoglio contention about how the papacy functioned in the First Millennium in false.
Pope Leo XIII explained this very succinctly in Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 29, 1894:
First of all, then, We cast an affectionate look upon the East, from whence in the beginning came forth the salvation of the world. Yes, and the yearning desire of Our heart bids us conceive and hope that the day is not far distant when the Eastern Churches, so illustrious in their ancient faith and glorious past, will return to the fold they have abandoned. We hope it all the more, that the distance separating them from Us is not so great: nay, with some few exceptions, we agree so entirely on other heads that, in defense of the Catholic Faith, we often have recourse to reasons and testimony borrowed from the teaching, the Rites, and Customs of the East.
The Principal subject of contention is the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. But let them look back to the early years of their existence, let them consider the sentiments entertained by their forefathers, and examine what the oldest Traditions testify, and it will, indeed, become evident to them that Christ’s Divine Utterance, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, has undoubtedly been realized in the Roman Pontiffs. Many of these latter in the first gates of the Church were chosen from the East, and foremost among them Anacletus, Evaristus, Anicetus, Eleutherius, Zosimus, and Agatho; and of these a great number, after Governing the Church in Wisdom and Sanctity, Consecrated their Ministry with the shedding of their blood. The time, the reasons, the promoters of the unfortunate division, are well known. Before the day when man separated what God had joined together, the name of the Apostolic See was held in Reverence by all the nations of the Christian world: and the East, like the West, agreed without hesitation in its obedience to the Pontiff of Rome, as the Legitimate Successor of St. Peter, and, therefore, the Vicar of Christ here on earth.
And, accordingly, if we refer to the beginning of the dissension, we shall see that Photius himself was careful to send his advocates to Rome on the matters that concerned him; and Pope Nicholas I sent his Legates to Constantinople from the Eternal City, without the slightest opposition, “in order to examine the case of Ignatius the Patriarch with all diligence, and to bring back to the Apostolic See a full and accurate report”; so that the history of the whole negotiation is a manifest Confirmation of the Primacy of the Roman See with which the dissension then began. Finally, in two great Councils, the second of Lyons and that of Florence, Latins and Greeks, as is notorious, easily agreed, and all unanimously proclaimed as Dogma the Supreme Power of the Roman Pontiffs.
We have recalled those things intentionally, for they constitute an invitation to peace and reconciliation; and with all the more reason that in Our own days it would seem as if there were a more conciliatory spirit towards Catholics on the part of the Eastern Churches, and even some degree of kindly feeling. To mention an instance, those sentiments were lately made manifest when some of Our faithful travelled to the East on a Holy Enterprise, and received so many proofs of courtesy and good-will.
Therefore, Our mouth is open to you, to you all of Greek or other Oriental Rites who are separated from the Catholic Church, We earnestly desire that each and every one of you should meditate upon the words, so full of gravity and love, addressed by Bessarion to your forefathers: “What answer shall we give to God when He comes to ask why we have separated from our Brethren: to Him Who, to unite us and bring us into One Fold, came down from Heaven, was Incarnate, and was Crucified? What will our defense be in the eyes of posterity? Oh, my Venerable Fathers, we must not suffer this to be, we must not entertain this thought, we must not thus so ill provide for ourselves and for our Brethren.”
Weigh carefully in your minds and before God the nature of Our request. It is not for any human motive, but impelled by Divine Charity and a desire for the salvation of all, that We advise the reconciliation and union with the Church of Rome; and We mean a perfect and complete union, such as could not subsist in any way if nothing else was brought about but a certain kind of agreement in the Tenets of Belief and an intercourse of Fraternal love. The True Union between Christians is that which Jesus Christ, the Author of the Church, instituted and desired, and which consists in a Unity of Faith and Unity of Government.
Nor is there any reason for you to fear on that account that We or any of Our Successors will ever diminish your rights, the privileges of your Patriarchs, or the established Ritual of any one of your Churches. It has been and always will be the intent and Tradition of the Apostolic See, to make a large allowance, in all that is right and good, for the primitive Traditions and special customs of every nation. On the contrary, if you re-establish Union with Us, you will see how, by God’s bounty, the glory and dignity of your Churches will be remarkably increased. May God, then, in His goodness, hear the Prayer that you yourselves address to Him: “Make the schisms of the Churches cease,” and “Assemble those who are dispersed, bring back those who err, and unite them to Thy Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” May you thus return to that one Holy Faith which has been handed down both to Us and to you from time immemorial; which your forefathers preserved untainted, and which was enhanced by the rival splendor of the Virtues, the great genius, and the sublime learning of St. Athanasius and St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nazianzum and St. John Chrysostom, the two Saints who bore the name of Cyril, and so many other great men whose glory belongs as a common inheritance to the East and to the West. (See also the excellent discussion of the the history of what led up to the Greek Schism that is contained in Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki’s Tumultuous Times.)
Hegelian revisionists must deny history and Catholic doctrine both at the same time in an effort to build yet another story to the One World Ecumenical Church.
Yes, the conciliar “popes” have been whittling away at the last great Catholic bastion that they have sought to raze, a supposedly “triumphalistic” notion of Papal Primacy that does not correspond to the conciliar “orientation” in the direction of collegiality and service as opposed to monarchy and rule.
Ratzinger and Bergoglio have distorted history to suit their perverted purposes of effecting a false “communion” with the Orthodox. Those in the Motu world, especially those who believe in “resignationism,” must suspend all pretense of rationality to contend that their man “Benedict” is more “orthodox” that the “bad” Bergoglio. Each man is more [Greek] Orthodox than Catholic. Indeed, neither man is a Catholic as they defect from numerous points of Catholic doctrine, placing them outside of the the Catholic Faith.
Ratzinger issued a joint statement with the Greek Orthodox Patriarch, Bartholomew I, on November 30, 2006, that referred to their “responsibility as Pastors in the Church of Christ” while Bergoglio referred to Bartholomew as my “brother” last year:
This fraternal encounter which brings us together, Pope Benedict XVI of Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, is God’s work, and in a certain sense his gift. We give thanks to the Author of all that is good, who allows us once again, in prayer and in dialogue, to express the joy we feel as brothers and to renew our commitment to move towards full communion. This commitment comes from the Lord’s will and from our responsibility as Pastors in the Church of Christ. May our meeting be a sign and an encouragement for us to share the same sentiments and the same attitudes of fraternity, cooperation and communion in charity and truth. The Holy Spirit will help us to prepare the great day of the re-establishment of full unity, whenever and however God wills it. Then we shall truly be able to rejoice and be glad. (Common declaration by Benedict XVI and Patriarch Bartholomew I, November 30, 2006.)
First of all I thank my Brother Andrew [Bartholomew I] very much for what he said. Thank you very much! Thank you!
It is a cause for particular joy to meet today with you, delegates of the Orthodox churches, the Oriental Orthodox churches and ecclesial communities of the West. Thank you for having wanted to take part in the celebration that has marked the beginning of my Ministry as Bishop of Rome and successor of Peter.
Yesterday morning, during Holy Mass, through your persons I recognized as spiritually present the communities that you represent. In this manifestation of faith, I seemed to experience in an even more urgent way the prayer for unity among believers in Christ and together to see somehow foreshadowed that full realization, which depends on the plan of God and on our loyal collaboration. (Address to Representative of the Schismatic and Heretical Orthodox Churches, Protesant sects, Talmudists, Mohammedans and Other Infidels, Masons and Pantheists.)
Tornielli: This coming January marks the 50th anniversary of Paul VI’s historic visit to the Holy Land. Will you go?
Bergoglio: “Christmas always makes us think of Bethlehem, and Bethlehem is a precise point in the Holy Land where Jesus lived. On Christmas night, I think above all with the Christians who live there, of those who are in difficulty, of the many people who have had to leave that land because of various problems. But Bethlehem is still Bethlehem. God arrived at a specific time in a specific land; that is where God’s tenderness and grace appeared. We cannot think of Christmas without thinking of the Holy land. Fifty years ago, Paul VI had the courage to go out and go there and this marked the beginning of the era of papal journeys. I would also like to go there, to meet my brother Bartholomew, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and commemorate this 50th anniversary with him, renewing that embrace which took place between Pope Montini and Athenagoras in Jerusalem, in 1964. We are preparing for this.” (Never Be Afraid of Tenderness)
Jorge Mario Bergoglio made it clear yet again four days ago now on the nineteenth anniversary of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II’s Ut Unum Sint, May 25, 1995, that the heretical and schismatic Bartholomew I is his “brother.” The laugh of this is that Bartholomew is a true bishop, although one who is deprived of exercising episcopal authority, and Bergoglio is neither a bishop and a priest. Jorge and Bartholomew are only “brothers” in heresies and falsehoods.
Here is the “joint declaration” that Bergoglio and Bartholomew issued to commemorate the groundbreaking work of apostasy begun by the Sick One, Montini, and Athenagoroas I:
1. Like our venerable predecessors Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras who met here in Jerusalem fifty years ago, we too, Pope Francis and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, were determined to meet in the Holy Land “where our common Redeemer, Christ our Lord, lived, taught, died, rose again, and ascended into Heaven, whence he sent the Holy Spirit on the infant Church” (Common communiqué of Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras, published after their meeting of 6 January 1964). Our meeting, another encounter of the Bishops of the Churches of Rome and Constantinople founded respectively by the two Brothers the Apostles Peter and Andrew, is a source of profound spiritual joy for us. It presents a providential occasion to reflect on the depth and the authenticity of our existing bonds, themselves the fruit of a grace-filled journey on which the Lord has guided us since that blessed day of fifty years ago.
2. Our fraternal encounter today is a new and necessary step on the journey towards the unity to which only the Holy Spirit can lead us, that of communion in legitimate diversity. We call to mind with profound gratitude the steps that the Lord has already enabled us to undertake. The embrace exchanged between Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras here in Jerusalem, after many centuries of silence, paved the way for a momentous gesture, the removal from the memory and from the midst of the Church of the acts of mutual excommunication in 1054. This was followed by an exchange of visits between the respective Sees of Rome and Constantinople, by regular correspondence and, later, by the decision announced by Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Dimitrios, of blessed memory both, to initiate a theological dialogue of truth between Catholics and Orthodox. Over these years, God, the source of all peace and love, has taught us to regard one another as members of the same Christian family, under one Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, and to love one another, so that we may confess our faith in the same Gospel of Christ, as received by the Apostles and expressed and transmitted to us by the Ecumenical Councils and the Church Fathers. While fully aware of not having reached the goal of full communion, today we confirm our commitment to continue walking together towards the unity for which Christ our Lord prayed to the Father so “that all may be one” (Jn 17:21).
3. Well aware that unity is manifested in love of God and love of neighbour, we look forward in eager anticipation to the day in which we will finally partake together in the Eucharistic banquet. As Christians, we are called to prepare to receive this gift of Eucharistic communion, according to the teaching of Saint Irenaeus of Lyon (Against Heresies, IV,18,5, PG 7,1028), through the confession of the one faith, persevering prayer, inner conversion, renewal of life and fraternal dialogue. By achieving this hoped for goal, we will manifest to the world the love of God by which we are recognized as true disciples of Jesus Christ (cf. Jn 13:35).
4. To this end, the theological dialogue undertaken by the Joint International Commission offers a fundamental contribution to the search for full communion among Catholics and Orthodox. Throughout the subsequent times of Popes John Paul II and Benedict the XVI, and Patriarch Dimitrios, the progress of our theological encounters has been substantial. Today we express heartfelt appreciation for the achievements to date, as well as for the current endeavours. This is no mere theoretical exercise, but an exercise in truth and love that demands an ever deeper knowledge of each other’s traditions in order to understand them and to learn from them. Thus we affirm once again that the theological dialogue does not seek a theological lowest common denominator on which to reach a compromise, but is rather about deepening one’s grasp of the whole truth that Christ has given to his Church, a truth that we never cease to understand better as we follow the Holy Spirit’s promptings. Hence, we affirm together that our faithfulness to the Lord demands fraternal encounter and true dialogue. Such a common pursuit does not lead us away from the truth; rather, through an exchange of gifts, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it will lead us into all truth (cf. Jn 16:13).
5. Yet even as we make this journey towards full communion we already have the duty to offer common witness to the love of God for all people by working together in the service of humanity, especially in defending the dignity of the human person at every stage of life and the sanctity of family based on marriage, in promoting peace and the common good, and in responding to the suffering that continues to afflict our world. We acknowledge that hunger, poverty, illiteracy, the inequitable distribution of resources must constantly be addressed. It is our duty to seek to build together a just and humane society in which no-one feels excluded or emarginated.
6. It is our profound conviction that the future of the human family depends also on how we safeguard – both prudently and compassionately, with justice and fairness – the gift of creation that our Creator has entrusted to us. Therefore, we acknowledge in repentance the wrongful mistreatment of our planet, which is tantamount to sin before the eyes of God. We reaffirm our responsibility and obligation to foster a sense of humility and moderation so that all may feel the need to respect creation and to safeguard it with care. Together, we pledge our commitment to raising awareness about the stewardship of creation; we appeal to all people of goodwill to consider ways of living less wastefully and more frugally, manifesting less greed and more generosity for the protection of God’s world and the benefit of His people.
7. There is likewise an urgent need for effective and committed cooperation of Christians in order to safeguard everywhere the right to express publicly one’s faith and to be treated fairly when promoting that which Christianity continues to offer to contemporary society and culture. In this regard, we invite all Christians to promote an authentic dialogue with Judaism, Islam and other religious traditions. Indifference and mutual ignorance can only lead to mistrust and unfortunately even conflict.
8. From this holy city of Jerusalem, we express our shared profound concern for the situation of Christians in the Middle East and for their right to remain full citizens of their homelands. In trust we turn to the almighty and merciful God in a prayer for peace in the Holy Land and in the Middle East in general. We especially pray for the Churches in Egypt, Syria, and Iraq, which have suffered most grievously due to recent events. We encourage all parties regardless of their religious convictions to continue to work for reconciliation and for the just recognition of peoples’ rights. We are persuaded that it is not arms, but dialogue, pardon and reconciliation that are the only possible means to achieve peace.
9. In an historical context marked by violence, indifference and egoism, many men and women today feel that they have lost their bearings. It is precisely through our common witness to the good news of the Gospel that we may be able to help the people of our time to rediscover the way that leads to truth, justice and peace. United in our intentions, and recalling the example, fifty years ago here in Jerusalem, of Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras, we call upon all Christians, together with believers of every religious tradition and all people of good will, to recognize the urgency of the hour that compels us to seek the reconciliation and unity of the human family, while fully respecting legitimate differences, for the good of all humanity and of future generations.
10. In undertaking this shared pilgrimage to the site where our one same Lord Jesus Christ was crucified, buried and rose again, we humbly commend to the intercession of the Most Holy and Ever Virgin Mary our future steps on the path towards the fullness of unity, entrusting to God’s infinite love the entire human family. “ May the Lord let his face shine upon you, and be gracious to you! The Lord look upon you kindly and give you peace!” (Num 6:25-26). (Jorge and Bartholomew‘s Common, 25 May 2014.)
Churches of Rome and Constantinople?
There is one true Church, the Catholic Church, none other.
Such language is an implicit rejection of the doctrine of Papal Primacy as exercised throughout the history of the Catholic Church and as defined by the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council on July 18, 1870.
1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence , which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.
To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.
All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.
2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd .
4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.
5. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: “My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.” 
6. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.
7. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that this communication of the Supreme Head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the Apostolic See or by its authority concerning the government of the Church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.
8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment . The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon . And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema. (Chapter 3, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, Vatican Council, July 18, 1870.)
What does Jorge Mario Bergoglio think about this?
Indeed, he told as much four days ago now, that is, on Sunday, May 25, 2014:
Here I reiterate the hope already expressed by my predecessors for a continued dialogue with all our brothers and sisters in Christ, aimed at finding a means of exercising the specific ministry of the Bishop of Rome which, in fidelity to his mission, can be open to a new situation and can be, in the present context, a service of love and of communion acknowledged by all (cf. JOHN PAUL II, Ut Unum Sint, 95-96). (Ecumaniacal Love-In Between Jorge and Bart at the “Everybody’s OK Corral”, May 25, 2014.)
There has been a steady path of “dogmatic evolution” in the direction of more obvious statements of heresy and bolder acts of apostasy from the time that Paul the Sick genuflected before Athenagoras I on January 5, 1964.
Part of this “evolution” may even involve fixing the date of Easter, something that Jorge explained in Interview Number I’ve Lost Count of the Number three days ago now, Monday, May 26, 2014, the Feast of Saint Philip Neri and the Commemoration of Pope Saint Eleutherius:
Relationship with the Orthodox Church
“With Bartholomew we talked about unity, that comes along the path, during a journey, we could never create unity at a theological congress. He confirmed to me that Athenagoras did tell Paul VI; “Let’s put all theologians on an island and we’ll go on together.” We need to help one another, in terms of churches for example, even in Rome many Orthodox faithful use Catholic Churches. We spoke about the pan-Orthodox council so that something can be done about the date for Easter. It is a bit ridiculous: tell me, when does your Christ rise from the dead? Mine will next week. Well, mine was resurrected last week. Bartholomew and I speak as brothers, we love each other and we talk about the difficulties we face as leaders. We spoke a great deal about ecology and coming up with a joint initiative to deal with this problem.” (Interview Number I’ve Lost Count of the Number.)
The concern for “ecology” was expressed at length in Jorge and Bart’s joint declaration that defamed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jersualem where it was made public.
More to the point, however, discussion of fixing the date of Easter, which Pope Saint Pius X considered doing before he was talked out of it by theological advisers, who he did not banish to an island for sharing their judgment with him, was handled rather well by Saint Cuthbert in the First Millennium, something that was attested to by the Venerable Bede, whose feast day was Tuesday, May 27, 2014 (which was also the Commemoration of Pope Saint John I), in his life of Saint Cuthbert:
“With those who have wandered form the unity of the Catholic faith, either through not celebrating Easter at the proper time or through evil living, you are to have no dealings. Never forget that if you should ever be forced to make the choice of two evils I would prefer that you left the island, taking my bones with you, than you should be a party to wickedness on any pretext whatsoever, bending your necks to the yoke of schism. Strive most diligently to learn the catholic statutes of the fathers and put them into practice. Make it your special care to carry out those rules of the monastic life which God in His divine mercy has seen fit to give you through my ministry. I know that, though some may see that my teachings are not to be easily dismissed.” (Saint Cuthbert, as quoted by The Venerable Bede, The Life of Cuthbert. The Age of Bede, translated by J. F. Webb and edited with an introduction by D. H. Farmer, Penguin Books, published in 1965 and reprinted with revisions in 1988 and 1998, p. 95.)
Catholicism or apostasy?
No heretic/schismatic has any “pastoral ministry” to fulfill in the “Church of Christ” as the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church and none other.
Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, Wojtyla and Ratzinger did not have and Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not have such any “pastoral ministry” in the Catholic Church as each is an apostate who hads separated himself from the bosom of Holy Mother Church long before his supposed “election” to the conciliar papacy.
Yes, one must believe in everything taught by Holy Mother Church as it is been defined and understood from time immemorial or he is simply not a Catholic.
Who says so?
Well, perhaps it would be good to take a look at the following sources once again:
With reference to its object, faith cannot be greater for some truths than for others. Nor can it be less with regard to the number of truths to be believed. For we must all believe the very same thing, both as to the object of faith as well as to the number of truths. All are equal in this because everyone must believe all the truths of faith–both those which God Himself has directly revealed, as well as those he has revealed through His Church. Thus, I must believe as much as you and you as much as I, and all other Christians similarly. He who does not believe all these mysteries is not Catholic and therefore will never enter Paradise. (Saint Francis de Sales, The Sermons of Saint Francis de Sales for Lent Given in 1622, republished by TAN Books and Publishers for the Visitation Monastery of Frederick, Maryland, in 1987, pp. 34-37.)
The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. “There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition” (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic” (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)
Jorge Mario Bergoglio is either a Catholic or he is not. The evidence is clear that he is not, thus disqualifying him from any office within the Catholic Church.
What is your choice, the Catholic Church or the apostate church of conciliarism?
Saint Cuthbert, you see, had the sensus Catholicus.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes in a “communion of love” that can be effected if theologians, such as they are in his false church these days, can be sent to an island so that points of doctrine, which not being dismissed entirety, can be finessed for the sake of “fellowship” between two “sister churches.”
It was Our Lady who had prayed for our first pope while he was in chains. Her prayers secured the angel who rescued him miraculously from the clutches of Herod and the Jews. The event was so miraculous that the mother of Saint Mark the Evangelist, Saint Peter’s trusted disciple, saw that our first pope stood before her. Those with her refused to believe her. They refused to believe that the first pope had been miraculously rescued. Saint Peter had to continue to knock to gain entry!
The papacy is held in chains today. Our Lady will rescue the papacy just as miraculously as she rescued our first pope by means of her prayers. We must believe that she will do so as the Church Militant undergoes her Mystical Passion, Death and Burial in these our days. She is indeed our life, our sweetness and our hope. Saint Peter relied upon her. So must we!
We can plant the change for true change, that is, of a conversion of all men and their nations to the Catholic Faith, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order, by relying upon Our Lady just as Saint Peter did.
Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saint Mary Magdalene de Pazzi (whose feast is not commemorated today, the Feast of the Ascension of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ), pray for us.
Various Ways in Which the Orthodox Defect From the Deposit of Faith Entrusted to the Catholic Church
1. Papal Primacy.
2. Papal Infallibility.
3. The doctrine of Original Sin as defined dogmatically by the Catholic Church. The ambiguous doctrine of the Orthodox was noted by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794, when discussing the Greek rejection of Limbo that is, of course, shared by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:
Very few Greek Fathers dealt with the destiny of infants who die without Baptism because there was no controversy about this issue in the East. Furthermore, they had a different view of the present condition of humanity. For the Greek Fathers, as the consequence of Adam’s sin, human beings inherited corruption, possibility, and mortality, from which they could be restored by a process of deification made possible through the redemptive work of Christ. The idea of an inheritance of sin or guilt – common in Western tradition – was foreign to this perspective, since in their view sin could only be a free, personal act. (Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794.)
This is what the Orthodox still believe, which makes them fit “partners” for “ecumenical dialogue” with Ratzinger/Benedict, who has told us in his own murky way that he is of one mind with them on the matter of Original Sin, which he called in 1995 an “imprecise” term (!). Here is a statement on Original Sin from the Orthodox Church in America:
With regard to original sin, the difference between Orthodox Christianity and the West may be outlined as follows:
In the Orthodox Faith, the term “original sin” refers to the “first” sin of Adam and Eve. As a result of this sin, humanity bears the “consequences” of sin, the chief of which is death. Here the word “original” may be seen as synonymous with “first.” Hence, the “original sin” refers to the “first sin” in much the same way as “original chair” refers to the “first chair.”
In the West, humanity likewise bears the “consequences” of the “original sin” of Adam and Eve. However, the West also understands that humanity is likewise “guilty” of the sin of Adam and Eve. The term “Original Sin” here refers to the condition into which humanity is born, a condition in which guilt as well as consequence is involved.
In the Orthodox Christian understanding, while humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, chief of which is death.
One might look at all of this in a completely different light. Imagine, if you will, that one of your close relatives was a mass murderer. He committed many serious crimes for which he was found guilty and perhaps even admitted his guilt publicly. You, as his or her son or brother or cousin, may very well bear the consequences of his action - people may shy away from you or say, “Watch out for him - he comes from a family of mass murderers.” Your name may be tainted, or you may face some other forms of discrimination as a consequence of your relative’s sin. You, however, are not personally guilty of his or her sin.
There are some within Orthodoxy who approach a westernized view of sin, primarily after the 17th and 18th centuries due to a variety of westernizing influences particularly in Ukraine and Russia after the time of Peter Mohyla. These influences have from time to time colored explanations of the Orthodox Faith which are in many respects lacking. (Orthodox Church in America, Questions and Answers on Original Sin)
This is not Catholic doctrine. This matter cannot be “bridged” by concerts of music composed by Russians.
4. The Filioque, that God the Holy Ghost proceeds from both the Father and the Son.
5. The doctrine of Purgatory as defined by the authority of the Catholic Church.
6. The doctrine of Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception as defined by the authority of the Catholic Church.
7. The doctrine of Our Lady’s Assumption body and soul into Heaven as defined by the authority of the Catholic Church.
8. The doctrine of the indissolubility of a sacramentally valid, ratified and consummated marriage; the Orthodox hold that a person can marry up to three times following two divorces. Here is the Orthodox “consensus” (as there is no ultimate ecclesiastical authority within Orthodoxy to decide doctrinal matters) on the issue:
Marriage is one of the sacraments of the Orthodox Church. Orthodox Christians who marry must marry in the Church in order to be in sacramental communion with the Church. According to the Church canons, an Orthodox who marries outside the Church may not receive Holy Communion and may not serve as a sponsor, i.e. a Godparent at a Baptism, or as a sponsor at a Wedding. Certain marriages are prohibited by canon law, such as a marriage between first and second cousins, or between a Godparent and a Godchild. The first marriage of a man and a woman is honored by the Church with a richly symbolic service that eloquently speaks to everyone regarding the married state. The form of the service calls upon God to unite the couple through the prayer of the priest or bishop officiating.
The church will permit up to, but not more than, three marriages for any Orthodox Christian. If both partners are entering a second or third marriage, another form of the marriage ceremony is conducted, much more subdued and penitential in character. Marriages end either through the death of one of the partners or through ecclesiastical recognition of divorce. The Church grants “ecclesiastical divorces” on the basis of the exception given by Christ to his general prohibition of the practice. The Church has frequently deplored the rise of divorce and generally sees divorce as a tragic failure. Yet, the Orthodox Church also recognizes that sometimes the spiritual well-being of Christians caught in a broken and essentially nonexistent marriage justifies a divorce, with the right of one or both of the partners to remarry. Each parish priest is required to do all he can to help couples resolve their differences. If they cannot, and they obtain a civil divorce, they may apply for an ecclesiastical divorce in some jurisdictions of the Orthodox Church. In others, the judgment is left to the parish priest when and if a civilly divorced person seeks to remarry.
Those Orthodox jurisdictions which issue ecclesiastical divorces require a thorough evaluation of the situation, and the appearance of the civilly divorced couple before a local ecclesiastical court, where another investigation is made. Only after an ecclesiastical divorce is issued by the presiding bishop can they apply for an ecclesiastical license to remarry.
Though the Church would prefer that all Orthodox Christians would marry Orthodox Christians, it does not insist on it in practice. Out of its concern for the spiritual welfare of members who wish to marry a non-Orthodox Christian, the Church will conduct a “mixed marriage.” For this purpose, a “non-Orthodox Christian” is a member of the Roman Catholic Church, or one of the many Protestant Churches which believe in and baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity. This means that such mixed marriages may be performed in the Orthodox Church. However, the Orthodox Church does not perform marriages between Orthodox Christians and persons belonging to other religions, such as Islam , Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, or any sectarian and cult group, such as Christian Science, Mormonism, or the followers of Rev. Moon. (The Stand of the Orthodox Church on Controversial Issues.)
9. The absolute prohibition against the use of any form of contraception whatsoever. This is from the website of the Greek Orthodox Church in America:
General agreement exists among Orthodox writers on the following two points:
since at least one of the purposes of marriage is the birth of children, a couple acts immorally when it consistently uses contraceptive methods to avoid the birth of any children, if there are not extenuating circumstances;
contraception is also immoral when used to encourage the practice of fornication and adultery.
Less agreement exists among Eastern Orthodox authors on the issue of contraception within marriage for the spacing of children or for the limitation of the number of children. Some authors take a negative view and count any use of contraceptive methods within or outside of marriage as immoral (Papacostas, pp. 13-18; Gabriel Dionysiatou). These authors tend to emphasize as the primary and almost exclusive purpose of marriage the birth of children and their upbringing. They tend to consider any other exercise of the sexual function as the submission of this holy act to unworthy purposes, i.e., pleasure-seeking, passion, and bodily gratification, which are held to be inappropriate for the Christian growing in spiritual perfection. These teachers hold that the only alternative is sexual abstinence in marriage, which, though difficult, is both desirable and possible through the aid of the grace of God. It must be noted also that, for these writers, abortion and contraception are closely tied together, and often little or no distinction is made between the two. Further, it is hard to discern in their writings any difference in judgment between those who use contraceptive methods so as to have no children and those who use them to space and limit the number of children.
Other Orthodox writers have challenged this view by seriously questioning the Orthodoxy of the exclusive and all-controlling role of the procreative purpose of marriage (Zaphiris; Constantelos, 1975). Some note the inconsistency of the advocacy of sexual continence in marriage with the scriptural teaching that one of the purposes of marriage is to permit the ethical fulfillment of sexual drives, so as to avoid fornication and adultery (1 Cor. 7:1-7). Most authors, however, emphasize the sacramental nature of marriage and its place within the framework of Christian anthropology, seeing the sexual relationship of husband and wife as one aspect of the mutual growth of the couple in love and unity. This approach readily adapts itself to an ethical position that would not only permit but also enjoin sexual relationships of husband and wife for their own sake as expressions of mutual love. Such a view clearly would support the use of contraceptive practices for the purpose of spacing and limiting children so as to permit greater freedom of the couple in the expression of their mutual love. (For the Health of Body and Soul: An Eastern Orthodox Introduction to Bioethics.)
These are not minor matters. And this all going to be “bridged” by means of appeals to the “heart”? Preposterous.
The concliarists path to “dialogue” is not the foundation of any kind of true reconciliation between the Orthodox and the Catholic Church, admitting that the counterfeit church of conciliarism can indeed “live” with these differences in the name of a false notion of “unity” and “love.”