Although I am done wasting my time on Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s screeds at his daily sessions of the Ding Dong School Of Apostasy, the Argentine Apostate’s remarks made yesterday, Thursday, June 5, 2014, the Octave Day of the Ascension of Our Lord and the Commemoration of Saint Boniface, have direct relevance to the principal subject matter of this commentary.

True, there is nothing “new” contained in Bergoglio’s remarks as he has denounced “uniformity” and “rigidity” any number and in any number of ways, so many in fact that no sane human being can keep count of them at this point. What Bergoglio said yesterday is not really newsworthy. It is the context in which they were made that makes them ripe for very brief commentary:

(Vatican Radio) Pope Francis celebrated Mass in the chapel of the Casa Santa Marta residence in the Vatican on Thursday. In remarks following the readings of the day, the Holy Father focused on the need to cultivate a real sense of belonging in and to the Church, and spoke of three temptations into which people who call themselves Christians often fall: “uniformism”, “alternative-ism” and “exploitation-ism”.

Taking his cue from the Gospel reading of the day, which was from the 17^th chapter of the Gospel according to St John, and contains Our Lord’s prayer for the unity of the Church, the Holy Father spoke of some people, who seem to have “one foot inside” and one foot outside the Church, so that they reserve “the possibility of being in both places,” both inside the Church and out of it. The Holy Father said that such as these do not really feel that the Church is their own. He said that there are some groups that, “rent the Church, but do not claim it as their home.” He identified three specific groups or kinds of Christians: he began with those, who would have everyone be equal in the Church, whom he called “uniformists”:

“Uniformity, rigidity – these are hard. They do not have the freedom that the Holy Spirit gives. They confuse the Gospel that Jesus preached, with their doctrine of equality. Christ never wanted His Church to be so rigid – never – and such as these, because of their attitude, do not enter the Church. They call themselves Christians, Catholics, but their attitude drives them away from the Church.”

The second group or kind of Christian the Holy Father identified is made up of those who always have their own ideas about things – people who do not want to conform their minds to the mind of the Church.  The Pope called these, “alternativists”:

“[They] enter the Church, but with this idea, with that ideology, and so their membership in the Church is partial. They have one foot out of the Church. The Church is not their home, not their own, either. They rent the Church at some point. Such as these have been with us from the beginning of the preaching of the Gospel: think of the Gnostics, whom the Apostle John beats so roundly, right?  ‘We are … yes, yes … we are Catholics, but with these ideas – alternatives.’ They do not share that feeling of belonging to the Church.”

The third is made of those, who call themselves Christians, but do not come from the heart of the Church. These are the “exploitationists” he said, “those who ‘seek the benefits’, and go to church, but for personal benefit, and end up doing business in the Church”:

“The businessmen. We know them well! They, too, have been there from the beginning: think of Simon Magus, or Ananias and Sapphira. They took advantage of the Church for their own profit. We see them in the parish or diocesan community, too, in religious congregations, among some benefactors of the Church – many, eh? They strut their stuff as benefactors of the Church, and at the end, behind the table, they do their business. These, too, do not feel the Church as a mother, as their own.”

Pope Francis went on to consider that, in the Church, “There are many gifts, there is a great diversity of people and the gifts of the Spirit.” The Lord,” said Pope Francis, tells us, “If you would enter the Church, do so out of love,” in order “to give all your heart and not to do business for profit.” The Church, he remarked , “is not a house to rent,” the Church “is a home to live in.”

The Pope recognized that this is not easy, because, “the temptations are many.” Nevertheless, he stressed, it is the Holy Spirit, who achieves unity in the Church, “unity in diversity, freedom, generosity.” This, he said is the Holy Spirit’s task. “The Holy Spirit,” he added, “makes harmony in the Church – unity in the Church is harmony.”

“We are all different,” he noted, “we are not the same, thank God.” Otherwise, “Things would be hellish.” The Pope went on to say, “We are all called to be docile to the Holy Spirit.” Precisely this docility, the Pope said, “is the virtue that will save us from being rigid, from being alternativists, or exploitationists – or businessmen in the Church: being docile to the Holy Spirit.” It is precisely ” this docility that transforms the Church from a rented house, into a home.”

Pope Francis concluded, saying, “May the Lord send us the Holy Spirit and may the Spirit make this harmony in our communities: parish communities, diocesan communities, the communities of the [ecclesial] movements – let it be the Spirit that achieves this harmony, for, as one of the Fathers of the Church said: the Spirit Himself is harmony.” (Septugenarian Revolutionary Apostate Rants Against Believing Catholics Yet Again.)

Bergoglio has spoken in this manner time and time again. It is what I heard preached from the lecterns of Catholic churches in conciliar captivity in the1970s an 1980s. I heard it from the lips of vocations directors for various dioceses and religious communities. I heard it from some seminary professors.

As has been noted on this site about a dozen or so times before, the secular Talmudic psychologist who screened candidates for the Diocese of Rockville Centre for many years, Dr. Leonard Krinsky, now deceased, came to some interesting conclusions about me in May of 1979 following a psychological evaluation of me. Dr. Krinsky, now deceased, wrote that while I was free of any psychopathology and was able to develop deep and long-lasting interpersonal relationships, my concept of the priesthood as the sacerdos was preconciliar and that my desire to live a priestly life of prayer, penance, self-denial and mortification were “possible signs of masochism.” Dr. Krinsky’s report concluded by saying that while I was “intelligent, creative, and had the capacity for rich, interpersonal relationships,” I “lacked the sufficient flexibility needed to adapt to the changing circumstances of a postconciliar vocation.”’

It was none other than the soon-to-be “Blessed Paul the Sick” who saw it as his own personal “papal” mission to change the “mentality” of those “rigid” Catholics who were “stuck in the past,” something that can be seen from a news report of his general audience address of January 13, 1965:

We must all modify the mental habits we have formed concerning the sacred ceremony and religious practices, especially if we have believed that ceremony to be a performance of outward rites and that in practice no more was required than a passive and distracted attendance.

One must make oneself aware that a new spiritual pedagogy has been born of the Council. That is what is novel about it, and we must not hesitate to make ourselves, first of all, disciples and then upholders of the school of prayer that has begun.

We may not relish this, but we must be docile and trust. The religious and spiritual plan unfolded before us by the new liturgical constitution is a stupendous one for depth and authenticity of doctrine, for rationality of Christian logic, for purity and riches of culture and art. It corresponds to the interior being and needs of modern man. . . . [the liturgical reform] affects habits that are dear to us, habits respectable enough maybe. . . . [and it might also be true that the reform] requires of us some effort.

It is well that this should be so, as one of the goals of the reform was the sharing of the faithful in the rites the priest directs and personifies. And it is good that it is actually the authority of the Church that wills, promotes and kindles the desire for this new manner of praying, thus giving greater increase to her spiritual mission.

It was and is, the Church’s first care to safeguard the orthodoxy of prayer. Her subsequent care is to make the expression of worship stable and uniform, a great work from which the spiritual life of the Church has derived immense benefits. Now this care of hers is still further extended, modifying aspects of ancient rituals which are inadequate today.

The Church is aiming with courage and thoughtfulness to deepen the essential significance of community needs and the supernatural value of ecclesiastical worship. Above all, she is making more evident the part played by the word of God, whether of Sacred Scripture or that taught through the Church in the catechism and the homily, thus giving to the celebration its pure and, at the same time, its heart and center. (Giovanni Montini/Paul VI, as quoted in “Be ‘Docile’ To Liturgy Changes, Pope Says,” The Catholic Courier, January 21, 1965, p. 1. Be ‘Docile’ to Liturgy. See the appendix below for a rough translation from the Italian language original of the general audience remarks, which were divided into parts, the latter part of which reflects the Religious News Service wire report that was published in The Catholic Courier of the Diocese of Rochester. The then universal public face of apostasy Paul VI addressed the theme of false ecumenism on January 20, 1965, just in case you’d like to know what this egregious little man did for an encore seven days later.)

Re-read that as it has been almost exactly one year since I used this quotation for the first time. The plan of breaking down “rigidity” was plainly announced. Then again, only a handful of people even then actually read diocesan newspapers nor understood precisely what what was Giovanni Eugenio Antonio Maria Montini had in store for them.

Every revolutionary prescription imaginable is to be found in this gold mine of propaganda that has been preserved in the archives of the Diocese of Rochester, New York, which itself is a bastion of apostasy and of the lavender collective.

First, Paul The Sick noted that it was necessary to “modify mental habits,” meaning that Catholics had to be “open” to accept a revolutionary program of liturgical change.

Second, Paul The Sick disparaged the Immemorial Mass of Tradition as something that required no more than a “passive and distracted” attendance on the part of the lay faithful. Paul The Sick had to do this as the very ordinary and collects of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition were reproaches to his own immersion in the “mentality” of the mythical entity known as “modern man” and because they contained references to a God Who judges and the necessity of reforming one’s life that made his own conscience quite uncomfortable as a result of his proclivities (see “Blessed” Paul The Sick and In Death As In Life: The Antithesis Of Christ The King).

Third, Paul The Sick demanded complete adherence to the revolutionary liturgical agenda that had begun to unfold and which, quite indeed, had made its “transitional” appearance on Sunday, November 29, 1964, the First Sunday of Advent, as his Ordo Missae of 1965 went into effect, replacing the 1961/1962 Missal of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII that had been in effect for all of three years at that point and, once “revived” to satisfy the poor Catholics “who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition” (Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei adflicta, July 2, 1988, has become a means to incorporate various aspects of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service into its staging.

Fourth, Paul The Sick, having emphasized that the liturgical revolution had to be adapted to the “needs” of “modern man, further disparaged the Immemorial Mass of Tradition by claiming that its ceremonies and rites were “respectable enough maybe,” thus helping to inaugurate a global campaign in the counterfeit church of conciliarism to create a false memory of the past as “bad,” something that is being continued to this present day by the current universal public face of apostasy, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis (see Francis Takes Us To Ding Dong School Of Apostasy).

Fifth, Paul The Sick appealed to the “people” and the role envisioned for them in the new liturgical rites that conform to their needs and emphasized “community needs,” paving the way for the “inculturation of the Gospel” that one of Annibale Bugnini’s acolytes, “Monsignor” Piero Marini, who served as liturgical master of ceremonies from 1987 to 2007, used to plan the “papal” extravaganza liturgical services, which were billed as “Masses,” during the false “pontificate” of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, as the means to provide “papal” precedents for us at the local diocesan level. Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis has taken full advantage of this “inculturation of the Gospel” as envisioned by Montini and Bugnini and later prescribed in Paragraph 395 of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal:

395. Finally, if the participation of the faithful and their spiritual welfare requires variations and more thoroughgoing adaptations in order that the sacred celebration respond to the culture and traditions of the different peoples, then Bishops’ Conferences may propose such to the Apostolic See in accordance with article 40 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy for introduction with the latter’s consent, especially in the case of peoples to whom the Gospel has been more recently proclaimed. The special norms given in the Instruction On the Roman Liturgy and Inculturation should be carefully observed.

Regarding procedures to be followed in this matter, the following should be followed:

In the first place, a detailed preliminary proposal should be set before the Apostolic See, so that, after the necessary faculty has been granted, the detailed working out of the individual points of adaptation may proceed.

Once these proposals have been duly approved by the Apostolic See, experiments should be carried out for specified periods and at specified places. If need be, once the period of experimentation is concluded, the Bishops’ Conference shall decide upon pursuing the adaptations and shall propose a mature formulation of the matter to the Apostolic See for its decision. (Paragraph 395, General Instruction to the Roman Missal.)

“Cardinal” Bergoglio presided over all manner of liturgical travesties during his time as the conciliar “archbishop” of Buenos Aires, Argentina, from February 28, 1998, to March 13, 2013. He was doing so in perfect compliance with the sentiments expressed on January 13, 1965, by Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick.

Sixth, Paul The Sick‘s belief that his liturgical revolution would usher in a period of stability and doctrinal orthodoxy was the product of the sort of self-delusion that inspires both social and theological revolutionaries to march forward with their schemes that can do only one thing: produce instability as the means to accustom the faithful a steady regime of doctrinal deviations and a ceaseless wave of liturgical changes.

The progenitor of the Protestant Revolution, Martin Luther, decried the degeneration produced by his “reforms” but was powerless to stop it as he did not realize that those very “reforms” were the brainchild of the devils himself that of their very nature had to produce instability, novelty and ceaseless change to the point today where many “mainline” Protestants, particularly Anglicans, Presbyterians and Methodists, no longer believe in the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Similarly, even though Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick at times in the 1970s decried certain aspects of his vaunted “renewal” of the Church that, according to the translation of his January 13, 1965, general audience address, was supposed to produce what he called “the vision of the new spiritual springtime,” he was powerless to stop what he had put into motion as it was a revolution against the very integrity of the Sacred Liturgy that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ had taught the Apostles between the time of His Resurrection on Easter Sunday and that of his Ascension forty days thereafter.

The Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo litugical service was itself the chief vessel by which “rigidity,” that is the sensus Catholicus, by accustoming Catholics to a ceaseless regimen of change and unpredictability as a natural, normal part of the doctrinal, liturgical and pastoral life of what they presumed to be the Catholic Church. Newer generations of Catholics have known nothing other than change, novelty and innovation as part of what they believe is part of the very Divine Constitution of the Catholic Church, although they may believe this in a very inchoate and visceral manner.

As has been noted on other occasions, however, efforts to change the liturgical mentality of Catholics were undertaken by Fathers Annibale Bugnini, C.M., and Ferdinando Antonelli, O.F.M., in the 1950s, especially with the changes in the Holy Week liturgies and the elimination twelve of the Roman Rite’s fifteen octaves during the course of the liturgical year, continuing during the regime of “Saint John XXIII,” who suppressed various feast days and broke the Canon of the Mass by inserting the name of Saint Joseph, resulting in the 1961/1962 missal that is used, albeit with some variations and adaptations according to the provisions of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, by priests and presbyters in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

The 1961/1962 missal, which has been the “gold standard” for “legal” offerings or stagings of this variation of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that some us mistakenly thought in our indult years was a “rock of stability, was in use universally in the Roman Rite of the conciliar church for precisely three years before it was replaced by the Ordo Missae of Paul the Sick on the First Sunday of Advent, November 29, 1965.

The Ordo Missae of 1965 eliminated the recitation of Psalm 42 (Judica me) at the foot of the altar at the beginning of Holy Mass. The vernacular language could be used, except in the Canon of the Mass, which had to be prayed in Latin (until 1967, that is), if the priest desired. The Last Gospel, which had been mandated by Pope Saint Pius V when he issued the Missale Romanum of 1570, thereby codifying a de facto practice that had been observed by priests in many parts of Europe as a private devotion as they left the sanctuary at the conclusion of Holy Mass dating back to the Twelfth Century, was eliminated. The Leonine Prayers, which were made “optional” in the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that was promulgated by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII in 1961 were eliminated. The priest could also face the people, if he wished, a revolutionary change that became institutionalized universally in the life of Roman Rite Catholics attached to the counterfeit church of conciliarism with the implementation of the Novus Ordo service on November 30, 1969.

The nature and the extent of the changes were bound to–and did in fact–bewilder many ordinary Catholics. This is why the following announcement was inserted into the parish bulletin of Saint Matthew’s Church in Norwood, Ohio, a facility that is now Immaculate Conception Church, which operates under the auspices of the Society of Saint Pius V, to tell the sheep just to do what they were told as a revolution unfolded before their very eyes and with their own “full, active and conscious participation:”

Today is the First Sunday of Advent and the beginning of the Church’s new liturgical year. Today we begin our “New Liturgy”. Beginning today many parts of Holy Mass will be said in English. We ask each of you to do your very best to join the priest in the prayers of the Mass. Leaflets with the official text of these prayers were given most of your last Sunday. (For those of you who were unable to obtain your copies last Sunday, you may obtain one at the bulletin stands today.) For the Masses with singing (including the 9:45 a.m. High Mass), you are asked to use the cards found in the pews. Kindly stand, sit and kneel, according to the directions on your leaflet or the card. At the Masses today, seminarians will be on hand to help and guide you in this new participation. We wish to thank Msgr. Schneider, Rector of Mt. St. Mary’s Seminary, for his kindness in sending us his students; and also the young men themselves for their generosity in helping us. We know that it will take a while (perhaps even months) before we have this new method of participating in Holy Mass perfected; we earnestly ask each one to cooperate loyally and faithfully to the best of his or her ability to make the public worship of God in St. Matthew Parish a true and worthy “sacrifice of praise.” [Historical note: the Mount Saint Mary’s Seminary referred to in the bulletin was known as Mount Saint Mary’s Seminary of the West, located in Norwood, Ohio.]

As noted just above, the blitzkrieg of liturgical changes that took place from 1955 and thereafter institutionalized impermanence and instability in the lives of those Catholics who still bother to go to the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service, accustoming many of them to believe that doctrine can change just as easily and just as regularly as the liturgy. If we pray in novel ways then we are going to believe in novel things–and to be more readily disposed to accept novelties as being part of the normal life of the Catholic Church, which they are not. Indeed, the Catholic Church has condemned novelty and innovation, repeatedly, something that Pope Gregory XVI noted very clearly in Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834:

As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that, where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which it can be found without even a light tarnish of error. Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834.)

The “1962 Missal,” therefore, was no “rock of stability” as I thought in my indulterer days in the 1990s into 2001. It was merely a short-term transitional bridge between the “old” and the “new,” that is, between the true Faith and the synthetic one that has replaced It in the structures of a false church, one that is but a counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church.

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI himself justified his having lifted “Saint John Paul II’s excommunications on Bishops Bernard Fellay, Richard Williamson, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais and Alfonso de Galaretta by expressing the hope that this would help to break down “obstinacy” and “rigidity”:

Leading men and women to God, to the God Who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith – ecumenism – is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the need for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to draw closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their differing images of God, towards the source of Light – this is inter-religious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is Love ‘to the end’ has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to the suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity – this is the social dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical ‘Deus caritas est’.

“So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church’s real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who ‘has something against you’ and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents – to the extent possible – in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim Him and, with Him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?

“Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things – arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint. (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, March 10, 2009.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is merely finishing the job of “changing the mentality” of Catholics begun by the soon-to-be “Blessed Paul the Sick” and of tearing down the last bastions that his predecessor, Ratzinger/Benedict, did not tear down himself.

In like manner, Walter “Cardinal” Kasper, is serving as a both a prophet of “change” and as a loyal acolyte to “Pope Francis” by daring to say publicly that what he thinks is the Catholic Church will lose her “credibility” if she does not “listen” to the “voice of the people.

Conscious that some of you who continue to read articles on this site might have taken a pass on yesterday’s articles for reasons stated upon its posting, here is what Kasper said recently at that den of the lavender agenda, the Church of Saint Paul the Apostle in the Lincoln Square district of the Borough of Manhattan of the City of New York, New York:

To hear Cardinal Walter Kasper tell it, he became the pope’s point man for reform in the Catholic church thanks to a bit of serendipity, or, if you will, Providence, before anyone knew that Francis was going to be the next Roman pontiff.

The genesis of their partnership, Kasper recalled during a recent trip to New York, was a fateful encounter that took place a few days before last year’s conclave, when all the electors in the College of Cardinals from around the world were staying in the Vatican guesthouse.

Kasper’s room happened to be right across the hallway from that of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Buenos Aires, Argentina. A renowned German theologian who had just turned 80, Kasper had recently received a Spanish translation of his latest book, Mercy: The Essence of the Gospel and the Key to Christian Life. He brought a couple copies with him and gave one to Bergoglio.

“Ah, mercy!” the Argentine cardinal exclaimed when he saw the title. “This is the name of our God!”

The two men knew each other a bit — Kasper had been to Buenos Aires several times on church business — but it turns out Bergoglio’s reaction wasn’t just one of those pro forma compliments you might give to an acquaintance at a book party. Mercy had long been a guiding principle for Bergoglio’s ministry, and he devoured Kasper’s original, wide-ranging study in the days leading up to the voting.

Then, on the evening of March 13, it was Bergoglio who emerged on the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica as Pope Francis. Four days after that, the new pope addressed a huge crowd in the square — and as a surprised Kasper watched on television, he heard Francis praising him as a “very sharp theologian” and effectively blurbing his work: “That book has done me so much good,” Francis said.

“But don’t think I do publicity for the books of my cardinals!” the new pontiff quickly added.

Too late. The subsequent editions of Kasper’s book led with Francis’ praise above the title, and ever since Kasper has been enjoying the kind of influence that a short time ago would have been as unimaginable as, well, the kinds of reforms that Francis has been promoting.

‘A radical pope’

For years, Kasper had been an odd man out in the Roman power structure. When he was a bishop in Germany in the 1990s, Kasper led efforts to try to persuade Pope John Paul II to find a way to allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion. But that was thwarted by conservatives in Rome, led by another German theologian, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, John Paul’s longtime doctrinal czar.

Kasper continued to push for reforms, however, often sparring with Ratzinger in the pages of Catholic journals. Still, John Paul made Kasper a cardinal in 2001 and later named him head of the Vatican department for relations with other churches.

The post turned out to be something of a way station for Kasper, and when John Paul died in 2005 there were some who pitched Kasper as the last great hope for a progressive turn in the church: “Kasper the Friendly Pope,” as some quipped.

Instead, it was Ratzinger, Kasper’s longtime rival, who emerged from the Sistine Chapel as Pope Benedict XVI, apparently cementing the church’s turn toward conservatism. Kasper retired and settled down to writing books on topics such as mercy.

After Benedict announced he was resigning, Kasper once again entered the conclave by another stroke of fortune: Cardinals over 80 are barred from voting for a new pope, and Kasper’s 80th birthday was March 5 — one day after the cardinals began deliberating. He made it by just 24 hours.

Ten days later, Francis was elected.

To be sure, Francis shares a passion for mercy with Kasper. But he also relies on Kasper not only to provide the theological underpinnings for his views but also as a kind of front man to sell Francis’ push to renew Catholicism.

“This pope is not a liberal pope. He is a radical pope!” Kasper said as he sat in an office at the Church of St. Paul the Apostle on Manhattan’s Upper West Side during a weeklong U.S. sojourn. “This pope goes back to the Gospel.”

Contentious topics

After Francis publicly praised Kasper’s work, an older cardinal in Rome came to the pope and insisted: “Holy Father, you should not recommend this book! There are many heresies in it!” The pope smiled as he told Kasper the story, and reassured him: “It goes in one ear and out the other.”

Further proof of Francis’ trust in Kasper came in February when the pope tapped him to deliver a lengthy talk for a meeting of all the world’s cardinals who had gathered to discuss updating the church’s policies on a range of hot-button issues.

The meeting, or consistory, was the first in a series of discussions that Francis has planned to jump-start long-stalled talks on contentious topics — one of them whether divorced and remarried Catholics can receive Communion. It’s not the sexiest topic but it is a huge pastoral crisis, given that so many Catholics have remarried without an annulment and are barred from the altar rail. Even a murderer can confess and receive Communion, as Kasper likes to note.

“I told the pope, ‘Holy Father, there will be a controversy afterward,’ ” Kasper said. The pope laughed and told him: “That’s good, we should have that!”

Sure enough, fierce criticisms tumbled in.

“Such a shift wouldn’t just provoke conservative grumbling; it would threaten outright schism,” warned New York Times columnist Ross Douthat. Phil Lawler, editor of Catholic World News, agreed that such a change was beyond the pale: “The Kasper proposal, in anything approaching its current form, is unworkable,” he wrote.

To be sure, Kasper himself did not exactly tamp down the flames in his recent appearances at Catholic campuses and in interviews with U.S. media.

Speaking to the liberal Catholic magazine Commonweal, for example, Kasper said the pope himself “believes that 50 percent of marriages are not valid” — an assertion that left many conservatives aghast. “I am stunned at the pastoral recklessness of such an assertion. Simply stunned,” wrote canon lawyer and popular blogger Edward Peters.

At a public talk at Fordham University in New York, Kasper also irked the right, and pleased the left, when he tweaked the Vatican’s doctrinal chief, Cardinal Gerhard Müller, who had just delivered a blistering critique of leaders of most American nuns. Kasper expressed his “esteem” for Müller and said his office tended to take a “narrow” view and must be more open to dialogue and change. That, too, sparked a fresh round of complaints.

Risking change

Despite the pushback, colleagues describe Kasper as rejuvenated by the reform Francis has launched.

“I do not know if my proposals will be acceptable,” the cardinal said with a shrug. “I made them in agreement with the pope; I did not do them just myself. I spoke beforehand with the pope, and he agreed.”

Kasper’s ideas are controversial not so much for their content but because at heart they are about whether and how the church can change.

“Change is always a risk,” Kasper said. “But it’s also a risk not to change. Even a greater risk, I think.”

Kasper said he was confident that the process of debate that Francis had launched on the topic of family life and sexuality would in the end produce some significant reforms, in part “because there are very high expectations.”

He noted that the church has often changed, or “developed,” over the centuries, and quite recently in the 1960s when, for example, the Second Vatican Council reversed long-standing teachings against religious freedom and dialogue with other believers.

Kasper reiterates that he’s not advocating a change in the church’s dogma on the sanctity of marriage, but a change in the “pastoral practice” about who can receive Communion. “To say we will not admit divorced and remarried people to holy Communion? That’s not a dogma. That’s an application of a dogma in a concrete pastoral practice. This can be changed.”

Kasper said it is the voice of the faithful that has made the difference. “The strongest support comes from the people, and you cannot overlook that,” he said.

“If what people are doing and what the church is teaching, if there is an abyss, that doesn’t help the credibility of the church,” he said. “One has to change.” (Kasper is Jorge’s “papal” theologian.)

This is a remarkably bold, apostate statement that is heretical and blasphemous of its very nature.

Obviously, this is nothing new. I heard many such statements from the mouth of conciliar priests and presbyters as they preached from the lecterns of conciliar churches during their stagings of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service.

The decadence of the counterfeit church of conciiarism, led as it has been by its false spirits since October 28, 1958, has become so vast that a man who is believed to be a prince of the Catholic Church can claim publicly that contingent beings who did not create themselves and whose bodies are destined for the corruption of the grave until the General Resurrection of the living and the dead on the Last Day determine how the Catholic Church will “adapt” her teaching to tickle their itching ears.

Kasper’s boldness in this regard thus shows total contempt for the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, under Whose Divine inspiration Saint Paul the Apostle wrote the following words to Saint Timothy:

[1] I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: [2] Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. [3] For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: [4] And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. [5] But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober. (2 Tim. 4: 1-15.)

Holy Mother Church never changes her doctrine or liturgy to suit the “people,” who are forever clamoring “Give us Barabbas! Give us Barabbas!” “We want sin!” “We want to be approved in our sins!” “Those who do not approve of our sins are ‘haters.’”

Holy Mother Church, always guided infallibly by God the Holy Ghost in matters of Faith, Morals and Worship, never bases doctrine or pastoral praxis on the “high expectations” of “the people.”

God remains a majority One, and God speaks only through the Catholic Church, not the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Forget about all of that convoluted Hegelianism of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s “hermeneutic of continuity.” Kasper is kind enough to state clearly that the conciliar church’s teaching on religious liberty “dialogue with other believers” has changed. So much efforts for efforts on the part of “conservative” apologists of the conciliar revolution to claim that no such change ever took place. After all, Walter Kasper is the “pope’s” theologian. The folks at Catholics United for the Faith and other such organizations have been defending an “orthodoxy” that does NOT exist in the synthetic “faith” of conciliarism.

It just happens to be a doctrine of the Catholic Church that those who are in states of Mortal Sin cannot receive Holy Communion. Those who receive Holy Communion in a state of Mortal Sin make an offering of the Host that they have received to the devil himself.

This is all being labeled as “pastoral conversion” by the likes of Bergoglio and his chief commissar, Oscar Andres “Cardinal” Maradiaga Rodriguez (see Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part one, Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part two, Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part three and Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part four).

“Pastoral conversion”?

Apostasy.

Blasphemous heresy.

Efforts to break down the “rigidity” of those few remaining Catholics who have some residual sensus Catholicus have, of included, incorporating “interdenominational prayer” as one of the seemingly numberless “keys to peace.” This is why, at least according to my estimate of things, about 99.99% of Catholics worldwide who are aware of the syncretist “prayer meeting” that will take place within the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River on Pentecost Sunday, June 8, 2014, are ecstatic over the event. Even some non-Catholics who are aware of this blasphemous “prayer meeting” are absolutely agog over it, something that was conveyed to Sharon by a misty-eyed Protestant man yesterday as he said “Francis is the best one in a long, long time, so kind, so merciful, so humble”

Included in the upcoming “prayer meeting,” which only the “rigid,” of course, could reject and denounce, are the principals, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Israeli President Shimon Peres and their “prayer facilitator, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, but the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I, fresh off his hug-in with Jorge in Jerusalem on Monday, May 26, 2014 (see On the Road to Gehenna with Jorge, Abe and Omar, part four):

At the encounter to pray for peace in the Holy Land, called by Pope Francis at the Vatican on Sunday, June 8th there will be also the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew.   Vatican Insider received this confirmation from authoritative sources of the patriarchy. The decision will be made ​​official most likely tomorrow, after the meeting of the synod during which the patriarch will present the initiative.

It was Pope Francis who invited Bartholomew during the meeting held at the Greek-orthodox Patriarchate on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem. The patriarch of Constantinople had accepted the invitation, though reserving the right to respond.

The presence of the Successor of the Apostle next to the Successor of the Apostle Peter, on the occasion of the arrival of the Israeli and Palestinian presidents at the Vatican, is an important sign of the commitment of Christians for Peace in the Holy Land.  It testifies that the “Sister” Churches intend to continue along this path undertaken in Jerusalem.

As we recall, the meeting to pray for peace, in the initial intention of Francis, was to be held during the three-day pilgrimage, but political and organizational problems prevented it. For this Sunday, May 25th, from Bethlehem, the Pope announced the initiative after obtaining the approval of Abu Mazen and Shimon Peres.

Even Bartholomew, during his stay in Israel and Palestine met the two presidents who will be in the Pope’s home on the day of Pentecost. Francis explained that this is not a diplomatic initiative or mediation, but only a prayer for peace. (Prayer for Peace on June 8th: Bartholomew will be there too.)

Politics and spirituality do not always go hand in hand, not even in the quest for peace, but most certainly the religious aspect can summon unsuspected resources and cross what might appear as otherwise unsurmountable boundaries – as foreseen by Pope Francis when he extended his invitation to President Shimon Peres and President Mahmoud Abbas during his recent visit to Jerusalem.

Sunday’s prayer ceremony will see Israeli and Palestinian religious and political representatives praying side by side according to their faiths, along with nearly all the highest officials of Christian churches in the Holy Land, most of whom hold double responsibilities for their faithful in both Israeli and Palestinian territories, and some in Jordan as well.

Today’s political reality is that Israel will not return to peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority because President Abbas’ unity government now includes Hamas, which is inserted in the international list of terrorist organizations (even if the Palestinian “technocratic” coalition does not include ministers officially enrolled in Hamas). The new bone of contention and impasse is that Hamas, now an ally of the Palestinian Authority, will not accept the three conditions to which President Abbas, to the contrary, has offered guarantees: 1) recognition of Israel’s right to exist 2) halting all operations of violence and terrorism 3) recognizing the validity of past peace agreements such as the Oslo accords.  Resumption of peace talks also hinges on a change of heart by Hamas on these vital points, in line with commitments made by President Abbas.

The prayer, to be held in the Vatican gardens, is a totally unprecedented event.  It will begin around 7 P.M. (19.00) Sunday. The late hour was chosen in order to give President Abbas time enough to attend the inauguration ceremony for Egypt’s President Sisi Sunday morning in Cairo. Before prayers, Pope Francis will receive each national leader separately for private talks.

Another extraordinary aspect of this event is that both the Israeli and the Palestinian delegations will be multi-religious and will mingle their nationalities during the prayer services. Christians, Muslims and Jews from the separate delegations will leave their national groups and intermingle according to the three faiths. Thus Palestinian and Israeli Christians will pray together as will Palestinian and Israeli Muslims, in three separate locations!

The delegation from President Peres’ office will include two Israeli Druze, two Israeli Muslims and two Israeli Christians.  The Palestinian delegation also includes both Muslims and Christians.         

The prayers are divided into three sections: 1) an invocation for thanksgiving, 2) a quest for forgiveness, and 3) prayers for peace in Jerusalem. Jews will offer psalms, along with other texts.

The Israeli delegation  – around 15 – 18 people — will include three rabbis: Ratzon Arousi,(the most important Yemenite rabbi and Chief of the Rabbinical Council, Daniel Sperber (highly respected Professor of Talmud and recipient of the prestigious Israel Prize) and David Rosen (Honorary Advisor to Israel’s Grand Rabbinate and International Director for Interreligious Affairs of AJC – American Jewish Committee).  The Grand Rabbinate’s director, Oded Wiener, will also participate. Italian Jewry will be represented by Josef Levi, Chief Rabbi of Florence. The Pope’s Argentinian friend, Rabbi Abraham Skorka will be present as well.

The Palestinian delegation of Muslim and Catholic religious and diplomatic representatives will be of equal size.  Among others it will include Mahmoud Al Habbash, former Minister of Religious Affairs; Sheikh Jamal Abu Alhanoud of the Palestinian Sharia Courts; Ziad Al-Bandak, Minister for Christian Relations; Saib Arekat, head of the peace negotiations team, and the former Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Michel Sabbah.

The Orthodox Church’s Patriarch Bartholomew will be a guest of honor. His commitment to working for peace in the Middle East, to ecumenism and to interreligious dialogue is well known.  In the context of his recent meeting in Jerusalem with Pope Francis to mark the 50th anniversary of Paul VI’s reconciliation encounter with Patriarch Athenagoras, Bartholomew attended a lunch given in his honor by AJC’s Jerusalem office.

Rabbi David Rosen expressed to “Vatican Insider” his hopes that the event will be “the beginning of something even better”.  He envisions possible future developments such as “a permanent council of local religious authorities (with international support) that could prepare a charter for interreligious coexistence in the Holy Land; a joint statement on Jerusalem; and religious institutions perhaps serving as support for political peace making.”   In view of the thorny issue of the Palestinian Authority-Hamas unity government however, he foresees Israeli opinion will be only “skeptically positive” regarding political consequences, “though with great appreciation of Pope Francis’ goodwill. (Peace prayer by Palestinians and Israelians in Vatican Gardens Sunday.)

There is only one inconvenient little fact about this so-called “prayer meeting”: peace can never be established on the foundation of false beliefs about God. Never. Not for one moment. Christ the King as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His Catholic Church is the only means to peace, and He has entrusted the cause of this peace to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of His Most Blessed Mother.

Moreover, the fact that the Mohammedan Abbas and the Talmudist Peres will pray their false prayers to their false gods separately does not redeem the offense given to God by a putative “pope,” who is thus communicating to everyone in the whole world that any kind of prayer of every religion is pleasing in the sight of the true God of Divine Revelation. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is heaping more and more hot coals upon his head as he continues to tickle the itching ears of “the people” and delights the world with his spectacles that are helping to complete the finishing touches on the One World Ecumenical Church.

Thus it is that the “rigid” “uniformists” among us need to point out yet again that all such “prayer meetings” are forbidden by the authority of the Catholic Church:

Here, then, it is manifest, that all fellowship with those who have not the doctrine of Jesus Christ, which is “a communication in their evil works” — that is, in their false tenets, or worship, or in any act of religion — is strictly forbidden, under pain of losing the “things we have wrought, the reward of our labors, the salvation of our souls“. And if this holy apostle declares that the very saying God speed to such people is a communication with their wicked works, what would he have said of going to their places of worship, of hearing their sermons, joining in their prayers, or the like?

From this passage the learned translators of the Rheims New Testament, in their note, justly observe, “That, in matters of religion, in praying, hearing their sermons, presence at their service, partaking of their sacraments, and all other communicating with them in spiritual things, it is a great and damnable sin to deal with them.” And if this be the case with all in general, how much more with those who are well instructed and better versed in their religion than others? For their doing any of these things must be a much greater crime than in ignorant people, because they know their duty better. (Bishop George Hay, The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)

The spirit of Christ, which dictated the Holy Scriptures, and the spirit which animates and guides the Church of Christ, and teaches her all truth, is the same; and therefore in all ages her conduct on this point has been uniformly the same as what the Holy Scripture teaches. She has constantly forbidden her children to hold any communication, in religious matters, with those who are separated from her communion; and this she has sometimes done under the most severe penalties. In the apostolical canons, which are of very ancient standing, and for the most part handed down from the apostolical age, it is thus decreed: “If any bishop, or priest, or deacon, shall join in prayers with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion“. (Can. 44)

Also, “If any clergyman or laic shall go into the synagogue of the Jews, or the meetings of heretics, to join in prayer with them, let him be deposed, and deprived of communion“. (Can. 63) (Bishop George Hay, (The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)

So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: “The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.”The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that “this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills.” For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

This is all leading to a gathering in eleven years to celebrate the seventeen hundredth anniversary of the First Council of Nicea, which declared the Son of God to be Divine. This gathering, some are speculating, might turn into something more than that, namely, a general ecumenical council featuring the apostate “bishops” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism and the schismatic and heretical bishops of the Orthodox Churches.

If this speculation is correct, which it may not be as Jorge Mario Bergoglio would be eighty-nine years of age on December 17, 2025, two years older than Ratzinger/Benedict is now, and as God, we hope and pray, might have intervened directly to put and end to this madness by restoring Holy Mother Church as the fruit of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, then such a council might wind up issuing a set of decrees to “settle” differences once and for all.

“The people’s expectations” for such a meeting would be very high on the Kasperometer. Is it not reasonable to believe that the something similar to the following “decrees” might be issued at a “Third Council of Nicea”?

Article I: The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches are sister churches.

Article II: The Bishop of Rome is the Successor of Saint Peter and the Patriarch of Constantinople is the Successor of Saint Andrew.

Article III: As the two lungs, West and East, of the universal Church of Christ, breathe together with one lung yet again, the Catholic Church agrees to abrogate the decisions of the following ecumenical councils:

(1) The Second Council of Lyons

(2) The Council of Florence

(3) The Council of Trent

(4) The First Vatican Council

Article IV: The Bishop of Rome is a position of primes inter pares, first among equals. The Bishop of Rome acts collegially with the other patriarchs of the Church of Christ.

Article V: The Catholic Church agrees that its doctrines on Original Sin, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Purgatory are not binding upon the Orthodox churches whose representatives had no say in the formulation of these doctrines.

Article VI: The Catholic Church hereby relinquishes its doctrines of Papal Primacy and Papal Infallibility as these do not conform to the practices of the First Millennium when the Church of Christ was united, East and West.

Article VII: The Bishop of Rome agrees to meet collegially with the Patriarchs and with the Archbishop of Canterbury on an annual basis for purposes of further the bonds of unity and love that have been fostered at his sacred council.

Article VII: The Catholic Church hereby agrees that the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity proceeds only from God the Father, not from God the Father and God the Son, agreeing further to remove the Filioque from its corrupted version of the Nicene Creed.

Article VIII: Insofar as the person of Arius is concerned, this sacred council states that the truth about Arius and his intentions have been lost in the fog of history. Although the Fathers of the First Council of Nicea were correct to have reaffirmed the Sacred Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, they were too hasty to infer that Arius truly denied this truth. Recent scholarship has determined that Arius only meant to emphasize the human nature of Christ, which is what the learned Fathers of the Second Vatican Council, assisted so ably by periti such as the late and beloved Saint Benedict XVI and Saints Karl Rahner, Hans Kung, Yves Congar and Henri de Lubac, sought to emphasize in their own solemn way. Each of the Bishops of Rome of this era of dialogue between religions and with the world, Saint John XXIII, Saint Paul VI, Saint John Paul I, Saint John Paul II, the aforementioned Saint Benedict XVI and Saint Francis the Merciful, Kind, Humble and Non-Judgmental, who is the first Bishop of Rome ever to have declared himself a saint while living, also sought to emphasize what Arius himself truly meant to do, that is, to stress the importance of Man and his needs in this world.

Article IX: If, however, it was the intention of Arius to deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Lord, something about which we cannot be sure any longer, he remains for us a figure of supreme importance and veneration. None other than Saint Benedict XVI wrote in the following terms about Protestant theologians who were clear in their denial of Our Lord’s Divine nature:

In conclusion, as we contemplate our present-day religious situation, of which I have tried to throw some light on some of its elements, we may well marvel at the fact that, after all, people still continue believing in a Christian manner, not only according to Hick’s, Knitter’s as well as others’ substitute ways or forms, but also according to that full and joyous Faith found in the New Testament of the Church of all time.

We can conclude with Saint Benedict XVI that those such as Arius, who some still believe at this late date did in fact deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who deny the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, nonetheless continue “despite everything believing in a Christian manner” even though they do so using substitute forms of belief.” The Fathers of this Sacred Council find in this a most satisfying solution to the problem represented by the figure of Arius, who was so misunderstood in his time and misrepresented by the Scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Finally, let it be said that Arius suffered only from “diabolical disorientation” as he did not intend to make any heretical pronouncements. He always intended to be a Catholic.

X. The Fathers of this Sacred Council beseech our absent Christian brethren of the ecclesiasical communities whose origins trace back to the renewal in theology and liturgy begun by Saint Martin Luther in the Sixteenth Century to join us at the Council of Geneva where it is our intention to pay special homage to the saints of this renewal, especially Saint Martin Luther and Saint John Calvin.

XI. Further questions concerning the effected a true union with fellow believers from Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Animism, Theosophany and Freemasonry remain to be addressed at the forthcoming Second Council of Jerusalem.

Far-fetched?

Time will tell.

Oh, I may not be alive to see what happens. However, perhaps some of you will print up this article and then see if these predictions do not prove be deadly (as in eternally deadly) accurate.

If a Third Council Nicea is held and decrees with language such as that above are issued, I can imagine the headlines from the “resist while recognize crowd.”

Sedevacantism remains the easy answer!

Francis is still the pope!

Another cause of diabolical disorientation!

Pray for the conversion of Pope Francis!

(There’s nothing “easy” about being hated by one’s relatives and former friends and losing financial support.)

The Apostle to Germany, Saint Boniface, whose feast was commemorated yesterday, June 5, 2014, quite in contrast to the putative “popes” of conciliarisim, gave no quarter to the pagan religions of the land to which he had been sent to Catholicize, the land which the Roman Empire was never able to conquer.

Pope Pius XII, writing in Ecclesiae Fastos sixty years ago yesterday, June 5, 1954, described the zeal of Saint Boniface for destroying the temples of the false idols of the Germans:

When by the grace and favor of God this very important task was done, Boniface did not allow himself his well-earned rest. In spite of the fact that he was already burdened by so many cares, and was feeling now his advanced age and realizing that his health was almost broken by so many labors, he prepared himself eagerly for a new and no less difficult enterprise. He turned his attention again to Friesland, that Friesland which had been the first goal of his apostolic travels, where he had later on labored so much. Especially in the northern regions this land was still enveloped in the darkness of pagan error. Zeal that was still youthful led him there to bring forth new sons to Jesus Christ and to bring Christian civilization to new peoples. For he earnestly desired “that in leaving this world he might receive his reward there where he had first begun his preaching and entered upon his meritorious career.” Feeling that his mortal life was drawing to a close, he confided his presentiment to his dear disciple, Bishop Lullus, and asserted that he did not want to await death in idleness. “I yearn to finish the road before me; I cannot call myself back from the path I have chosen. Now the day and hour of my death is at hand. For now I leave the prison of the body and go to my eternal reward. My dear son, . . . insist in turning the people from the paths of error, finish the construction of the basilica already begun at Fulda and there bring my body which has aged with the passage of many years.

When he and his little band had taken departure from the others, “he traveled through all Friesland, ceaselessly preaching the word of God, banishing pagan rites and extirpating immoral heathen customs. With tremendous energy he built churches and overthrew the idols of the temples. He baptized thousands of men, women and children.” After he had arrived in the northern regions of Friesland and was about to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation to a large number of newly baptized converts, a furious mob of pagans suddenly attacked and threatened to kill them with deadly spears and swords. Then the holy prelate serenely advanced and “forbade his followers to resist, saying, ‘Cease fighting, my children, for we are truly taught by Scripture not to return evil for evil, but rather good. The day we have long desired is now at hand; the hour of our death has come of its own accord. Take strength in the Lord, . . . be courageous and do not be afraid of those who kill the body, for they cannot slay an immortal soul. Rejoice in the Lord, fix the anchor of hope in God, Who will immediately give you an eternal reward and a place in the heavenly court with the angelic choirs’.” All were encouraged by these words to embrace martyrdom. They prayed and turned their eyes and hearts to heaven where they hoped to receive soon an eternal reward, and then fell beneath the onslaught of their enemies, who stained with blood the bodies of those who fell in the happy combat of the saints.” At the moment of this martyrdom, Boniface, who was to be beheaded by the sword, “placed the sacred book of the Gospels upon his head as the sword threatened, that he might receive the deadly stroke under it and claim its protection in death, whose reading he loved in life. (Pope Pius XII, Ecclesiae Fastos, June 5, 1954.)

An apostate son of Germany, one who is the very antithesis of the spirit of Saint Boniface, wrote the following about those who destroyed pagan temples:

In the relationship with paganism quite different and varied developments took place. The mission as a whole was not consistent. There were in fact Christian hotheads and fanatics who destroyed temples, who were unable to see paganism as anything other than idolatry that had to be radically eliminated. People saw points in common with philosophy, but not in pagan religion, which was seen as corrupt. (Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, p. 373.)

Was Saint Boniface guilty of being one of these “Christian hotheads and fanatics who destroyed temples,” men “who were unable to see paganism as anything other than idolatry that had to be radically eliminated”? Ratzinger/Benedict not only blasphemes God as he denies the nature of dogmatic truth and esteems the symbols and the “values” of false religions. He blasphemes the work and the memory of the very saint who evangelized his own German ancestors, the man who is the very patron saint of Germany, his homeland.

Catholicism or conciliarism. It’s one or the other. There is no middle ground. The Catholic Church cannot produce men in her official capacities who speak these things so promiscuously and without any word of correction for the sake of the honor and glory and majesty of God and for the good of the souls for whom Our Lord shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross.

Catholicism or conciliarism. It’s one or the other. There is no middle ground.

Saint Boniface knew that there was no middle ground between Catholicism and any false religion. He knew that he had to evangelize the non-Catholics to whom he had been sent without engaging in what Pope Pius XI referred to in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928, as obstinate wranglings with unbelievers.

Pope Pius XII described the great missionary zeal of Saint Boniface in the aforementioned Ecclesiae Fastos:

Winfred, afterwards named Boniface by Pope St. Gregory II, was undoubtedly outstanding among the missionaries for his apostolic zeal and fortitude of soul, combined with gentleness of manner. Together with a small but courageous band of companions, he began that work of evangelization to which he had so long looked forward, setting sail from Britain and landing in Friesland. However, the tyrant who ruled that country vehemently opposed the Christian religion, so that the attempt of Boniface and his companions failed, and after fruitless labors and vain efforts they were obliged to return home.

Nevertheless he was not discouraged. He determined, after a short while, to go to Rome and visit the Apostolic See. There he would humbly ask the Vicar of Jesus Christ himself for a sacred mandate. Fortified with this and by the grace of God he would more readily attain the difficult goal of his most ardent desires. “He came, therefore, without mishap to the home of the Blessed Apostle Peter,” and having venerated with great piety the tomb of the Prince of the Apostles, begged for an audience with Our predecessor of holy memory, Gregory II.

He was willingly received by the Pontiff, to whom “he related in detail the occasion of his journey and visit, and manifested the desire which for long had been consuming him. The Holy Pope immediately smiled benignly on him,“encouraged him to confidence in this praiseworthy enterprise, and armed him with apostolic letters and authority.

The receiving of a mandate from the Vicar of Jesus Christ was to Boniface a mark of the divine assistance. Relying on this he feared no difficulties from men or circumstances; and now with the prospect of happier results he hoped to carry out his long cherished design. He traversed various parts of Germany and Friesland. Wherever there were no traces of Christianity, but all was wild and savage, he generously scattered the Gospel seed, and labored and toiled that it might fructify wherever he found Christian communities utterly abandoned for want of a lawful pastor, or being driven by corrupt and ignorant churchmen far from the path of genuine faith and good life, he became the reformer of public and private morality, prudent and keen, skilful and tireless, stirring up and inciting all to virtue.

The success of the apostle was reported to Our predecessor already mentioned, who called him to Rome, and despite the protest of his modesty, “intimated his desire to raise him to the Episcopate, in order that he could with greater firmness correct the erring and bring them back to the way of truth, the greater the authority of his apostolic rank; and would be more acceptable to all in his office of preaching, the more evident it should be that he had been ordained to it by his apostolic superior.”

Therefore he was consecrated “regional bishop” by the Sovereign Pontiff himself, and having returned to the vast territories of his jurisdiction, with the authority which his new office conferred on him, devoted himself with increased earnestness to his apostolic labor.

Just as Boniface was dear to St. Gregory II for the eminence of his virtue and his burning zeal for the spread of Christ’s kingdom, he was likewise to his successors: namely, to Pope St. Gregory III, who, for his conspicuous merits, named him archbishop and honored him with the sacred pallium, giving him the power to establish lawfully or reform the ecclesiastical hierarchy in this territory, and to consecrate new bishops “in order to bring the light of Faith to Germany;” to Pope St. Zachary also, who in an affectionate letter confirmed his office and warmly praised him; finally, to Pope Stephen II, to which Pontiff shortly after his election, when already coming to the end of his life’s span, he wrote a letter full of reverence.

Backed by the authority and support of these Pontiffs, throughout the period of his apostolate Boniface traversed immense regions with ever-growing zeal, shedding the Gospel’s light on lands until then steeped in darkness and error; with untiring effort he brought a new era of Christian civilization to Friesland, Saxony, Austrasia, Thuringia, Franconia, Hesse, Bavaria. All these lands, he tirelessly cultivated and brought forth to that new life which comes from Christ and is fed by His grace. He was also eager to reach “old Saxony,” which he looked on as the birthplace of his ancestors; however, this hope he was unable to realize.

To begin and carry out successfully this tremendous undertaking, he earnestly called for companions from the Benedictine monasteries in his own land, then flourishing in learning, faith and charity, — for monks and nuns too, among whom Lioba was an outstanding example of evangelical perfection. They readily answered his call, and gave him precious help in his mission. And in those same lands there were not wanting those who, once the light of the Gospel had reached them, eagerly embraced the faith, and then strove mightily to bring it to all whom they could reach. Thus were those regions gradually transformed after Boniface, supported, as we have said, by the authority of the Roman Pontiffs, undertook the task; “like a new archimandrite he began everywhere to plant the divine seed and root Out the cockle, to build monasteries and churches, and to put worthy shepherds in charge of them.” Men and women flocked to hear him preach, and hearing him were touched by grace; they abandoned their ancient superstitions, and were set afire with love for the Redeemer; by contact with his teaching their rude and corrupt manners were changed; cleansed by the waters of baptism, they entered an entirely new way of life. Here were erected monasteries for monks and nuns, which were centers not only of religion, but also of Christian civilization, of literature, of liberal arts; there dark and unknown and impenetrable forests were cleared, or completely cut down, and new lands put to cultivation for the benefit of all; in various places dwellings were built, which in the course of centuries would grow to be populous cities.

Thus the untamed Germanic tribes, so jealous of their freedom that they would submit to no one, undismayed even by the mighty weight of Roman arms, and never remaining for long under their sway, once they were visited by the unarmed heralds of the Gospel, docilely yielded to them; they were drawn, stirred and finally penetrated by the beauty and truth of the new doctrine, and at last, embracing the sweet yoke of Jesus Christ, willingly surrendered to Him.

Through the activity of St. Boniface, what was certainly a new era dawned for the German people; new not only for the Christian religion, but also for Christian civilization. Consequently this nation should rightly consider and regard him as their father, to whom they should be ever grateful and whose outstanding virtues they should zealously imitate. “For it is not only almighty God Who is called Father in the spiritual order, but also all those whose teaching and example lead us to the truth and encourage us to be strong in our religion. . . Thus the holy bishop Boniface can be called the father of all Germans, since he was the first to bring them forth in Christ by his holy preaching and to strengthen them by the example of his virtue, then finally to lay down his life for them, greater love than which no man can show.“

Among the various monasteries (and he had many built in those regions) the monastery of Fulda certainly holds first place; to the people it was as a beacon which with its beaming light shows ships the way through the waves of the sea. Here was founded as it were a new city of God, in which, generation after generation, innumerable monks were carefully and diligently instructed in human and divine learning, prepared by prayer and contemplation for their future peaceful battles, and finally sent forth like swarms of bees after they had drawn the honey of wisdom from their sacred and profane books, to impart generously that sweetness far and wide to others. Here none of the sciences of liberal arts were unknown. Ancient manuscripts were eagerly collected, carefully copied, brilliantly illuminated in color, and explained with careful commentaries. Thus it can justly be maintained that the sacred and profane studies Germany so excels in today had their venerable origins here.

What is more, innumerable Benedictines went forth from these monastic walls and with cross and plow, by prayer, that is, and labor, brought the light of Christian civilization to those lands as yet wrapped in darkness. By their long untiring labors, the forests, once the vast domain of wild beasts, almost inaccessible to man, were turned into fruitful land and cultivated fields; and what had been up to that time separate, scattered tribes of rough barbarous customs became in the course of time a nation, tamed by the gentle power of the Gospel and outstanding for its Christianity and civilization. (Pope Pius XII, Ecclesiae Fastos, June 5, 1954.)

Saint Boniface is indeed the father of the German people.One of his spiritual sons, the now-retired Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, however, is the very antithesis of the zeal that he exhibited for the unconditional conversion of pagans and barbarians to the true Faith as he, Saint Boniface, destroyed the idols and the temples of the false gods. It cannot be the case that the father of the German people, Saint Boniface, and a wayward son, Ratzinger/Benedict, are both correct.

There’s no need for needless strife in the Society of Saint Pius X to figure out what to do. Conciliarism is not Catholicism. It’s that simple.

Saint Boniface observed the First Commandment and sought to convert others so that they could do so themselves as they learned how to love and serve God as He has revealed Himself to men exclusively through the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his conciliar minions violate the First Commandment as they esteem the symbols of false religions and praise their “values” as being able to help “build” the “better world.”

Catholicism or conciliarism?

It cannot be both.

Saint Boniface was faithful to the mission of the Church that was begun on the first Pentecost Sunday when the first pope, Saint Peter, preached to convert the Jews gathered in Jerusalem. The two-headed “pope monster,” Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict,  is unfaithful to that mission.

It’s one or the other. Catholicism or conciliarism.

It cannot be both.

It was a conciliar official, now deceased, who recognized that the See of Peter would be vacant in the case of heresy even though he, the late Mario Pompedda “Cardinal” Francesco, did not believe that the situation obtained at the time that he spoke (in February of 2005 as Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II was dying of Stage III Parkinson’s Disease). Yes, sedevacantism is a canonical doctrine of the Catholic Church, Bishop Fellay:

It is true that the canonical doctrine states that the see would be vacant in the case of heresy. … But in regard to all else, I think what is applicable is what judgment regulates human acts. And the act of will, namely a resignation or capacity to govern or not govern, is a human act. (Cardinal Says Pope Could Govern Even If Unable to Speak, Zenit, February 8, 2005; see also see also Gregorius’s The Chair is Still Empty.)

Gee, nothing about “diabolical disorientation” here.

Unlike what many traditionally-minded Catholics have heard from the theologians of the Society of Saint Pius X, however, Pompedda was intellectually honest enough to admit that sedevacantism is indeed a part of the canonical doctrine of the Catholic Church. Only a handful of Catholics, priests and laity alike, accepted this doctrine and recognized that it applied in our circumstances in the immediate aftermath of the “Second” Vatican Council. I was not one of them.

We separate ourselves from the conciliarists because they offend God by defecting from the Faith, starting with their rejection of the nature of dogmatic truth and their making complex what it is: the knowledge of Him that He has deposited in Holy Mother Church. We must understand, however, that offenses against the moral order are no less of a concern to God than offenses against doctrine. Offenses against the moral order, many of which have been committed by the conciliar “bishops” and their chancery factotums and their insurance companies are not “little things,” unless, as I have noted in other commentaries in recent weeks, that the loss of the Faith in a single soul is a “little thing” and that the clergy responsible for indemnifying the loss of just one soul do not show themselves to be enemies of the Cross of the Divine Redeemer as a result.

Although there are those who tell us that we should “stay and fight” in once Catholic parishes that now in the hands of apostates (or their enablers who refuse to speak out against them), we must recognize that offenses against the doctrines of the Faith and offenses against the moral order are never the foundations upon which God will choose to restore His Holy Church. Truth in the moral order is as black and white as truth in the doctrinal realm. Conciliarism consists of its very nature in a rejection of various parts of the Catholic Faith, and it is this rejection that leads in turn to the same sort of despair and hopelessness in the souls of so many men now as existed at the time before the First Coming of Our Lord at His Incarnation and, nine months later, His Nativity.

We do not need to conduct a “search” for the “true meaning” of the doctrines contained the Sacred Deposit of Faith. We accept what has been handed down to us as docile children of Holy Mother Church.

We must remember at all times because the crosses of the present moment, no matter their source, are fashioned to us from the very hand of God Himself to be the means of our participating in Our Lord’s Easter victory over the power of sin and eternal death. It matters not what anyone thinks of us for refusing to accept the conciliarists as representatives of the Catholic Church or for refusing to associate with those who believe act in a de facto manner as the authority of the Church while looking the other way at grave abuses of the moral order and indemnifying wrong-doers time and time again. All that matters is that we carry our cross as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, looking for no other consolation than that which is given to the souls of the elect upon the Particular Judgment and that is ratified for all to see at General Judgment of the Living and the Dead:

Well done, good and faithful servant, because thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will place thee over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. (Matthew 25: 21.)

We never have to “understand” apostasy. We just have to recognize it and then flee from it.

Entrusting ourselves unto the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary in this month of June, the month of the Sacred Heart of Jesus,  we pray for the conversion of the likes of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Joseph Alois Ratzinger and Walter Kasper and Oscar Andres Maradiaga Rodriguez and the other conciliar minions to the true Faith before they day, asking Saint Boniface as well to help us to make reparation for our own many sins by giving everything do and everything we suffer to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. May every Rosary we pray help to plant a few seeds for the conversion of the apostates as we beg Our Lady for the graces to save our own poor souls.

May Saint Boniface and Saint Norbert help us to remain faithful to the Catholic Church without once making any further concessions to conciliarism or its false shepherds who violate the First commandments so regularly, so openly and so egregiously.

Cor Jesu Sacratissimum, miserere nobis.

Cor Jesus Sacratissimum, miserere nobis.

Cor Jesus Sacratissimum, miserere nobis.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

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 Norbert, pray for us.

Saint Boniface, pray for us.