From the Beginning: A Mission to Convert All Nations

Pentecost Sunday marked the beginning of Holy Mother Church’s missionary efforts to convert men and nations to the true Faith, the very birthday of Holy Mother Church. The Paraclete or Advocate promised by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ proceeds forth from His Co-Eternal Father and Himself on this day, fifty days after His Resurrection from the dead on Easter Sunday and ten days following his glorious Ascension into Heaven on Ascension Thursday:

But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you. Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, do I give unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be afraid. You have heard that I said to you: I go away, and I come unto you. If you loved me, you would indeed be glad, because I go to the Father: for the Father is greater than I. And now I have told you before it comes to pass: that when it shall come to pass, you may believe. I will not now speak many things with you. For the prince of this world cometh, and in me he hath not any thing. (John 14: 26-30)

The first bishops, headed by the Visible Head of the Church on earth, Saint Peter, became bold proclaimers of the Gospel of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ immediately following the descent of the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, upon them and our dear Blessed Mother in tongues of flame in the same Upper Room in Jerusalem where Our Lord had instituted the priesthood and the Eucharist just fifty-three days before.

The Church’s great zeal to seek with urgency the conversion of all non-Catholics to the true Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order, thus began on Pentecost Sunday and continued unabated until the ethos of the dark clouds of conciliarism, which emanated from spirits that are not so holy, began to hover over the the life of Catholics from the 1960s to the present day. There is no way to reconcile the refusal of the false “popes” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism to seek, no less their prohibition on ordinary Catholics to seek, the conversion of those steeped in the errors of Protestantism and Orthodoxy and Judaism and other false religions with the fidelity the Church exhibited from Pentecost Sunday to the false pontificate of “Saint John XXIII.”

The Apostles sought to effect the conversion of Jews and Gentiles alike to Catholicism. The Acts of the Apostles records this zeal for souls, a zeal that stands in stark contrast to the belief, expressed both in words and actions, of the conciliar “pontiffs” that those in false religions have no need to seek to be Catholic to save their souls.

The late “Saint John Paul the Great” urged the followers of “Brother” Roger Schutz in Taize, France, in 1996 to be “faithful” to their denominational traditions, which begs the following question: If heretics and schismatics must be faithful to their false “traditions,” why can’t Catholics be faithful to theirs?

His Apotateness Emeritus, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, said Schutz, who never converted to the true Faith, had attained “eternal joy” following the latter’s murder by a devoted follower in 2005 (Benedict Mourns Murder of Taizé’s Brother Roger).

The Assisi events of 1986, 2002, 2011 and 2013 would have been condemned by the Apostles as an exercise in idol worship.

So would Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s reception of symbols of false religions at the “Pope” John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington, District of Columbia, on Thursday, April 17, 2008.

So would Ratzinger/Benedict’s praise given to mosques and his belief that false religions can be instruments in the building of the “better world.”

So would Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s act of apostasy in being “blessed” by Protestant “clergymen” when he was the conciliar “archbishop” of Buenos Aires, Argentina, in 2006.

So would Bergoglio’s praise given to adherents of false religions and to their nonexistent ability to “contribute” to a “better world.”

So would Bergoglio’s supposed “prayer for peace” three days ago in the Vatican Gardens.

The Apostles and the many millions of martyrs for the Faith who followed them preferred death than to do anything that even appeared to betray the Faith, no less praise the practitioners of false religions.

Most of the first fifteen or so chapters in The Acts of the Apostles deals directly with the efforts of the Apostles to preach the Gospel so as to win converts for the true Faith. Let the Holy Ghost, under Whose inspiration the Bible was written, speak for Himself in the fifth book of the New Testament, which was written by Saint Luke:

And when the days of the Pentecost were accomplished, they were all together in one place: And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a mighty wind coming, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them parted tongues as it were of fire, and it sat upon every one of them: And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they began to speak with divers tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak. Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

And when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded in mind, because that every man heard them speak in his own tongue. And they were all amazed, and wondered, saying: Behold, are not all these, that speak, Galileans? And how have we heard, every man our own tongue wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea, and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, Egypt, and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews also, and proselytes, Cretes, and Arabians: we have heard them speak in our own tongues the wonderful works of God. And they were all astonished, and wondered, saying one to another: What meaneth this? But others mocking, said: These men are full of new wine. But Peter standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spoke to them: Ye men of Judea, and all you that dwell in Jerusalem, be this known to you, and with your ears receive my words. For these are not drunk, as you suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day:

But this is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel: And it shall come to pass, in the last days, (saith the Lord,) I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams. And upon my servants indeed, and upon my handmaids will I pour out in those days of my spirit, and they shall prophesy. And I will shew wonders in the heaven above, and signs on the earth beneath: blood and fire, and vapour of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and manifest day of the Lord come.

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved. Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him, in the midst of you, as you also know: This same being delivered up, by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you by the hands of wicked men have crucified and slain. Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the sorrows of hell, as it was impossible that he should be holden by it. For David saith concerning him: I foresaw the Lord before my face: because he is at my right hand, that I may not be moved.

For this my heart hath been glad, and any tongue hath rejoiced: moreover my flesh also shall rest in hope. Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, nor suffer thy Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life: thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Ye men, brethren, let me freely speak to you of the patriarch David; that he died, and was buried; and his sepulchre is with us to this present day. Whereas therefore he was a prophet, and knew that God hath sworn to him with an oath, that of the fruit of his loins one should sit upon his throne.

Foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection of Christ. For neither was he left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised again, whereof all we are witnesses. Being exalted therefore by the right hand of God, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath poured forth this which you see and hear. For David ascended not into heaven; but he himself said: The Lord said to my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy enemies thy footstool.

Therefore let all the house of Israel know most certainly, that God hath made both Lord and Christ, this same Jesus, whom you have crucified. Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their heart, and said to Peter, and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren? But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call. And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them, saying: Save yourselves from this perverse generation.

They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls. And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul: many wonders also and signs were done by the apostles in Jerusalem, and there was great fear in all. And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common. Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need.

And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart; Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord increased daily together such as should be saved.  (Acts 2: 1-47)

The first pope, Saint Peter, spoke a little differently than did Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II in 1986 when he visited a synagogue in Rome. He spoke a little differently than did Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI when he spoke in a synagogue in Cologne, Germany, on Friday, August 19, 2005

By saying that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is committed to “tolerance, respect, friendship and peace between all peoples, cultures and religions” the conciliar “popes,” including Jorge Mario Bergoglio, have taught us that all active proselytizing of those outside of her ranks must be avoided. And what is this nonsense about a “theological evaluation of the relationship between Judaism and Christianity”? Our Lord has revealed Himself to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life. End of evaluation. People either accept Him as He has revealed Himself through His true Church or they do not. Period. (See Saint Peter and Anti-Peter.)

Saint Peter did not believe that any “evaluation” had to take place before he preached to the Jews to urge them to convert to Catholicism. Prompted by the immediate indwelling of God the Holy Ghost upon his soul, Saint Peter proclaimed the Gospel out of fidelity to the Divine Master and out of true love for the salvation of the souls of his own Jewish brethren. There was no ambiguous call for “the conversion of Israel.” There was simply a call for individual mean to “do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the Holy Ghost.” There was nothing ambiguous about the Apostles. They were willing to suffer everything, including death itself, to proclaim the Name of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the midst of a hostile world.

Chapter 5 of The Acts of the Apostles records the aftermath of Saint Peter’s curing of a lame man:

And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon’s porch. But of the rest no man durst join himself unto them; but the people magnified them. And the multitude of men and women who believed in the Lord, was more increased: Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that when Peter came, his shadow at the least, might overshadow any of them, and they might be delivered from their infirmities.

And there came also together to Jerusalem a multitude out of the neighboring cities, bringing sick persons, and such as were troubled with unclean spirits; who were all healed. Then the high priest rising up, and all they that were with him, (which is the heresy of the Sadducees,) were filled with envy. And they laid hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison. But an angel of the Lord by night opening the doors of the prison, and leading them out, said: Go, and standing speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life.

Who having heard this, early in the morning, entered into the temple, and taught. And the high priest coming, and they that were with him, called together the council, and all the ancients of the children of Israel; and they sent to the prison to have them brought. But when the ministers came, and opening the prison, found them not there, they returned and told, Saying: The prison indeed we found shut with all diligence, and the keepers standing before the doors; but opening it, we found no man within. Now when the officer of the temple and the chief priests heard these words, they were in doubt concerning them, what would come to pass. But one came and told them: Behold, the men whom you put in prison are in the temple standing, and teaching the people.

Then went the officer with the ministers, and brought them without violence; for they feared the people, lest they should be stoned. And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, Saying: Commanding we commanded you, that you should not teach in this name; and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and you have a mind to bring the blood of this man upon us. But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men. The God of our fathers hath raised up Jesus, whom you put to death, hanging him upon a tree.

Him hath God exalted with his right hand, to be Prince and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins. And we are witnesses of these things and the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to all that obey him. When they had heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they thought to put them to death. But one in the council rising up, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, respected by all the people, commanded the men to be put forth a little while. And he said to them: Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do, as touching these men.

For before these days rose up Theodas, affirming himself to be somebody, to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all that believed him were scattered, and brought to nothing. After this man, rose up Judas of Galilee, in the days of the enrolling, and drew away the people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as consented to him, were dispersed. And now, therefore, I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this council or this work be of men, it will come to nought; But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God. And they consented to him. And calling in the apostles, after they had scourged them, they charged them that they should not speak at all in the name of Jesus; and they dismissed them

.

And they indeed went from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were accounted worthy to suffer reproach for the name of Jesus. And every day they ceased not in the temple, and from house to house, to teach and preach Christ Jesus.  (Acts 5: 12-42)

Yes, the Apostles rejoiced because there were deemed worthy to “suffer reproach for the name of Jesus.”

Which one of the conciliar “bishops” today is willing to suffer reproach for the Holy Name of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?

Which one of the conciliar “bishops” bishops today is willing to preach the Gospel to those who deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and who are in steeped in the darkness of the Talmud? Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis?

Which one of the conciliar “bishops” today exhibits any degree of apostolic zeal for the salvation of the souls of the very people from whom Our Lord took His Sacred Humanity, whose conversion to the Faith Saint Paul tells us in his Epistle to the Romans is an important sign of end times (which means, obviously, that we’re not quite there right now)? Which one of the conciliar “popes” or “bishops” has spoken to the children of Abraham and Moses as Saint Stephen, the Church’s Protomartyr, spoke just before his martyrdom?

And Stephen, full of grace and fortitude, did great wonders and signs among the people. Now there arose some of that which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of them that were of Cilicia and Asia, disputing with Stephen. And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit that spoke.

Then they suborned men to say, they had heard him speak words of blasphemy against Moses and against God. And they stirred up the people, and the ancients, and the scribes; and running together, they took him, and brought him to the council. And they set up false witnesses, who said: This man ceaseth not to speak words against the holy place and the law. For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the traditions which Moses delivered unto us. And all that sat in the council, looking on him, saw his face as if it had been the face of an angel

Then the high priest said: Are these things so? Who said: Ye men, brethren, and fathers, hear. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charan. And said to him: Go forth out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee. Then he went out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Charan. And from thence, after his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein you now dwell. And he gave him no inheritance in it; no, not the pace of a foot: but he promised to give it him in possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child.

And God said to him: That his seed should sojourn in a strange country, and that they should bring them under bondage, and treat them evil four hundred years. And the nation which they shall serve will I judge, said the Lord; and after these things they shall go out, and shall serve me in this place. And he gave him the covenant of circumcision, and so he begot Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac begot Jacob; and Jacob the twelve patriarchs. And the patriarchs, through envy, sold Joseph into Egypt; and God was with him, And delivered him out of all his tribulations: and he gave him favour and wisdom in the sight of Pharao, the king of Egypt; and he appointed him governor over Egypt, and over all his house.

Now there came a famine upon all Egypt and Chanaan, and great tribulation; and our fathers found no food. But when Jacob had heard that there was corn in Egypt, he sent our fathers first: And at the second time, Joseph was known by his brethren, and his kindred was made known to Pharao. And Joseph sending, called thither Jacob, his father, and all his kindred, seventy-five souls. So Jacob went down into Egypt; and he died, and our fathers.

And they were translated into Sichem, and were laid in the sepulchre, that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Hemor, the son of Sichem. And when the time of the promise drew near, which God had promised to Abraham, the people increased, and were multiplied in Egypt, Till another king arose in Egypt, who knew not Joseph. This same dealing craftily with our race, afflicted our fathers, that they should expose their children, to the end they might not be kept alive. At the same time was Moses born, and he was acceptable to God: who was nourished three months in his father’s house.

And when he was exposed, Pharao’s daughter took him up, and nourished him for her own son. And Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians; and he was mighty in his words and in his deeds. And when he was full forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren, the children of Israel. And when he had seen one of them suffer wrong, he defended him; and striking the Egyptian, he avenged him who suffered the injury. And he thought that his brethren understood that God by his hand would save them; but they understood it not.

And the day following, he shewed himself to them when they were at strife; and would have reconciled them in peace, saying: Men, ye are brethren; why hurt you one another? But he that did the injury to his neighbour thrust him away, saying: Who hath appointed thee prince and judge over us? What, wilt thou kill me, as thou didst yesterday kill the Egyptian? And Moses fled upon this word, and was a stranger in the land of Madian, where he begot two sons. And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the desert of mount Sina, an angel in a flame of fire in a bush.

And Moses seeing it, wondered at the sight. And as he drew near to view it, the voice of the Lord came unto him, saying: I am the God of thy fathers; the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses being terrified, durst not behold. And the Lord said to him: Loose the shoes from thy feet, for the place wherein thou standest, is holy ground. Seeing I have seen the affliction of my people which is in Egypt, and I have heard their groaning, and am come down to deliver them. And now come, and I will send thee into Egypt. This Moses, whom they refused, saying: Who hath appointed thee prince and judge? him God sent to be prince and redeemer by the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush.

He brought them out, doing wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red Sea, and in the desert forty years. This is that Moses who said to the children of Israel: A prophet shall God raise up to you of your own brethren, as myself: him shall you hear. This is he that was in the church in the wilderness, with the angel who spoke to him on mount Sina, and with our fathers; who received the words of life to give unto us. Whom our fathers would not obey; but thrust him away, and in their hearts turned back into Egypt, Saying to Aaron: Make us gods to go before us. For as for this Moses, who brought us out of the land of Egypt, we know not what is become of him.

And they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifices to the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands. And God turned, and gave them up to serve the host of heaven, as it is written in the books of the prophets: Did you offer victims and sacrifices to me for forty years, in the desert, O house of Israel? And you took unto you the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Rempham, figures which you made to adore them. And I will carry you away beyond Babylon. The tabernacle of the testimony was with our fathers in the desert, as God ordained for them, speaking to Moses, that he should make it according to the form which he had seen. Which also our fathers receiving, brought in with Jesus, into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drove out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David.

Who found grace before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob. But Solomon built him a house. Yet the most High dwelleth not in houses made by hands, as the prophet saith: Heaven is my throne, and the earth my footstool. What house will you build me? saith the Lord; or what is the place of my resting? Hath not my hand made all these things?

You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do you also. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they have slain them who foretold of the coming of the Just One; of whom you have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it. Now hearing these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed with their teeth at him. But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looking up steadfastly to heaven, saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God. And he said: Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

And they crying out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and with one accord ran violently upon him. And casting him forth without the city, they stoned him; and the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man, whose name was Saul. And they stoned Stephen, invoking, and saying: Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And falling on his knees, he cried with a loud voice, saying: Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep in the Lord. And Saul was consenting to his death. (Acts 6: 8-15; 7: 1-59)

We have not only witnessed a refusal of the conciliar “popes” and “bishops” to speak at Saint Stephen spoke. We have witnessed them consorting with pro-abortion rabbis without once condemning their support of baby-killing, no less seeking their conversion to the true Faith (see Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI with the “papal knight,” Rabbi Arthur Schneier, Friday, April 18, 2008, April 18, 2008 – 5 p.m. – Park East Synagogue Windows media format.) We have witnessed them bestowing papal honors upon pro-abortion rabbis (see Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI “Archbishop” Donald Wuerl and “Bishop” Tod Brown). Let’s put it to you this way: when was the last time you heard a conciliar “pope” or a “cardinal” or a “bishop” refer to the miraculous conversion of Alphonse Ratisbonne from Judaism to Catholicism when Our Lady appeared to him as she appears on the Miraculous Medal that he, Ratisbonne, once mocked?

The story of Alphonse Ratisbonne is remarkable because it was effected by Our Lady herself, who was in the Upper Room in Jerusalem on Pentecost Sunday as the Apostles left to start the missionary work of the infant Church. Ratisbonne, who became a priest, wrote:

“I had come out of a dark pit, out of a tomb…and I was alive, completely alive. I thought of my brother Theodore with inexpressible joy. But how I wept as I thought of my family, of my fiancee, of my poor sisters. I wept indeed, as I thought of them whom I so loved and for whom I said the first of my prayers. Will you not raise your eyes to the Savior shoe blood blots out original sin? Oh! How hideous is the mark of this taint, and how does it alter beyond recognition the creature made in God’s own likeness!”

When priests wanted to delay his Baptism for a time, Alphonse Ratisbonne said:

“The Jews who heard the preaching of the Apostles were baptized immediately, and you want to put me off, after I have ‘heard’ the preaching of the Queen of the Apostles?”

There you have it. Alphonse Ratisbonne knew that Our Lady wanted him to be converted out of Judaism in imitation of what happened on Pentecost Sunday and thereafter by the working of God the Holy Ghost. What’s wrong with the conciliar “popes” and “bishops?” The loss of the Catholic Faith. Isn’t this obvious? God the Holy Ghost does not change His mind. He is God. He does not contradict Himself. The preaching of Saint Peter on Pentecost Sunday cannot be valid then and not valid now. It is valid for all eternity. Only formal apostates reject the timeless nature of the work of the Apostles to convert souls.

The aftermath of Ratisbonne’s conversion to the true Faith is recounted in Mary’s Miraculous Medal:

News of this miraculous event spread quickly all over Europe, especially in diplomatic and financial circles, when Ratisbonne, de Bussieres and de La Ferronays were widely known. The city of Rome itself was in a stir and a special Church commission was established to study the astonishing conversion. Faced with the overpowering evidence, the court fully recognized the signal miracle wrought by God through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the spontaneous conversion of Marie Alphonse Ratisbonne from Judaism to Catholicism. It was a major triumph of the Miraculous Medal.

Alphonse Ratisbonne became a Catholic priest, serving in the Holy Land. “So great was the love he had for his people, that he dedicated the remainder of his life, as did his brother, Father Theodore, to work for the conversion of their immortal souls. Among the converts of these two priest brothers were a total of twenty-eight members of their own family.” Is this work being done in the Holy Land at present by Catholic bishops of the West and of the East? Not that you would notice. How is this not apostasy of the highest order?

Pope Pius XII wrote approvingly of the zeal for the conversion of souls that prompted the missionaries of the First Millennium and thereafter to Christianize Europe by bringing all souls into the Barque of Saint Peter. Writing in Evangeli Praecones, June 2, 1951, Pope Pius noted:

Likewise all know that the Gospel followed the great Roman roads and was spread not only by Bishops and priests but also by public officials, soldiers and private citizens. Thousands of Christian neophytes, whose names are today unknown, were fired with zeal to promote the new religion they had embraced and endeavored to prepare the way for the coming of the Gospel. That explains why after about 100 years Christianity had penetrated into all the chief cities of the Roman Empire.

St. Justinus, Minucius Felix, Aristides, the consul Acilius Glaber, the patrician Flavius Clemens, St. Tarsicius and countless holy martyrs of both sexes, who strengthened and enriched the growth of the Church by their labors and the shedding of their blood, can in a certain sense be called the advance guard and forerunners of Catholic Action. Here We wish to cite the striking observation of the author of the letter to Diognetus,which even today has a message for us: “Christians dwell in their native countries as though aliens; . . . every foreign land is their home and the land of their birth is foreign soil.”

During the barbarian invasions of the Middle Ages, we see men and women of royal rank and even workmen and valiant Christian women of the common people using every endeavor to convert their fellow citizens to the religion of Jesus Christ and to fashion their morals according to its pattern, so as to safeguard both religion and the state from approaching danger. Tradition tells us that when our immortal Predecessor, Leo the Great, courageously opposed Attila, when he invaded Italy, two Roman consuls stood by his side. When formidable hordes of Huns were besieging Paris, the holy virgin Genevieve, who was given to a life of continuous prayer and austere penance, cared for the souls and bodies of her fellow citizens with wondrous charity. Theodolinda, Queen of the Lombards, zealously summoned her people to embrace the Christian religion. King Reccaredus of Spain endeavored to rescue his people from the Arian heresy and to lead them back to the true Faith. In France, there were not only bishops, such as Remigius of Rheims, Caesarius of Arles, Gregory of Tours, Eligius of Noyon and many others, who were eminent for virtue and apostolic zeal, but queens also can be found during that period who taught the truths of Christianity to the untutored masses and who gave food and shelter and renewed strength to the sick, the hungry and the victims of every human misfortune. For example, Clotilda so influenced Clovis in favor of the Catholic religion that she had the great joy of bringing him into the true Church. Radegunda and Bathilda cared for the sick with supreme charity and even restored lepers to health. In England, Queen Bertha welcomed St. Augustine when he came to evangelize that nation and earnestly exhorted her husband Ethelbert to accept the teachings of the Gospel. No sooner had the Anglo-Saxons, of both high and low degree, men and women, young and old, embraced the Christian faith, than they were led as though by divine inspiration to unite themselves to this Apostolic See by the closest bonds of piety, fidelity and devotion.

In Germany, we witness the admirable spectacle of St. Boniface and his companions traversing those regions in their apostolic journeys and making them fruitful by their generous labors. The sons and daughters of that valiant and noble land felt inspired to offer their efficient collaboration to monks, priests and Bishops in order that the light of the Gospel might be daily more widely diffused throughout those vast regions and that Christian doctrine and Christian virtue might ever make greater advances and reap a rich harvest of souls.

Thus in every age, thanks to the tireless labors of the clergy and also to the cooperation of the laity, the Catholic Church has not only advanced its spiritual kingdom, but has also led nations to increased social prosperity. Everybody knows the social reforms of St. Elizabeth in Hungary, of St. Ferdinand in Castile and of St. Louis IX in France. By their holy lives and zealous labors they brought about salutary improvement in the different classes of society by instituting reforms, by spreading the true faith everywhere, by valiantly defending the Church and above all by their personal example. Nor are We unaware of the excellent merits of the guilds during the Middle Ages. In these guilds artisans and skilled workers of both sexes were enrolled, who, notwithstanding the fact that they lived in the world, kept their eyes fixed upon the sublime ideal of evangelical perfection. Not only did they eagerly pursue this ideal, but together with the clergy they exerted every effort to bring all others to do the same. (Pope Pius XII, Evangeli Praecones, June 2, 1951.)

The work of the Apostles is the work of seeking the conversion of all men and of all nations to the true Faith. All men. Everywhere. At all times. Without exception. Protestants must convert. Jews must convert. Mormons must convert. Seventh Day Adventists must convert. Jehovah’s Witnesses must convert. Buddhists must convert. Hindus must convert. Quakers must convert. Mohammedans must convert. Practitioners of Bah’ai must convert. Animists must convert. Atheists must convert. Jainists must convert. All other manner of pagans must convert. And the exponents of conciliarism and its false religion that flies in the face of the missionary work of the Apostles must convert back to the Faith of our fathers, recapturing the zeal of the Apostles for the conversion of souls. Conciliarism seeks to “meet people where they are” to engage them in meaningless “dialogue.” True apostolic zeal for souls seeks to challenge people to convert, lest they die in their false religions.

True love of God and for the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross impels all Catholics, especially popes and bishops and priests, to seek the conversion of all men everywhere to the true Faith. How many diocesan priests in the past sixty years can say that they have done what the late Father Daniel Johnson did during his twenty-five years as the pastor of Saint Mary’s by the Sea in Huntington Beach, California: knock on every door, commercial and residential alike, in his parish’s boundaries three times during the course of twenty-five years, converting 554 people along the way? How many diocesan priests can say that they have ever considered doing such a thing as part of the pastoral work God Himself expects them to complete while pastor of a particular parish? Oh, no, such zeal for souls is not in the “job description” of conciliarism and not useful to one who seeks to climb the clerical ladder rather than imitate the zeal of the Apostles themselves.

Pentecost Sunday, which is extended in its celebration for eight days in the Catholic Church (there is no such Octave–and its accompanying Ember Days this Wednesday, Friday and Saturday–in the “ordinary form” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism), may we renew our fervor for the conversion of our own souls on a daily basis away from sin and sloth in order to let the life of Sanctifying Grace that God the Holy Ghost wants to pour into our souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, the Mediatrix of All Graces, lead us to the heights of personal sanctity. This process of our own daily conversion is completed only at the moment of our deaths, not before, which is why we need to pray to Our Lady, the Spouse of God the Holy Ghost, to help us in our infirmities of body and soul so that we can benefit from the Seven Gifts and Twelve Fruits that that Holy Ghost impressed upon our immortal souls when we were Confirmed so as to grow in the knowledge and the practice of the virtues, each of which is necessary for us to be Christ-like at all times and for all others and to see the image of the Divine Redeemer in all others.

Father Benedict Baur’s reflections for Pentecost Sunday, the birthday of Holy Mother Church, should inspire us to cleave exclusively to those who understand that the mission of the Church is to convert all men and all nations to the Faith of Christ the King:

Seven times seven days, a complete jubilee octave, have passed since Easter. Now the Holy Ghost, the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the eternal expression of the mutual love of the Father and the Son, comes to us. He comes with the sound of a mighty wind, appearing to the apostles in the form of tongues of fire which rest upon each of them. Made bold by this baptism of fire, they go forth into the world and proclaim by word and deed, even by the sacrificing of their lives, that Christ the crucified One is truly risen.

The first Pentecost. The historical event of Pentecost is related in the Epistle. The apostles and Mary, the Mother of Jesus, are gathered together in one place. About the third hour (about nine o’clock) they hear a mighty rush of wind as if a storm were approaching. Then tongues of fire appear above the heads of each of them. They are filled with the Holy Ghost and begin to speak in various tongues, according as the Holy Ghost inspired them. Outside the house a great crowd of people has gathered, who cannot imagine what has happened. Then they hear the disciples and the apostles speaking in various languages, and each one, in the language in which he was born, hears of the wonderful things which God has done. A new Pentecost! In ancient times God confirmed His covenant with Israel to the accompaniment of thunder and lightning. But the law He gave was the law of fear, the law of severity, the law of servitude. This is a new Pentecost, a Pentecost that fills the hearts of men with love, freedom, and holy joy. The Holy Ghost appears with a mighty wind, penetrating and filling the hearts of the disciples. They are freed from their former timidity and hesitancy. The Holy Ghost enlightens men, guides their thoughts, provides for their needs, controls their desires, inspires their affections, adjusts their motives, and elevates them to the kingdom of the spirit. He teaches them a new manner of life. He gives them courage, strength of character, stability, inexhaustible patience, a readiness for sacrifice, a will to suffer for the sake of Christ. They are indeed a new creation.

Our Pentecost. In the mind of the liturgy, Pentecost is not merely the commemoration of a past event; the wonders related in the Epistle are repeated today in us. We also gather in one place in the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and unite in prayer, awaiting the coming of the Holy Ghost. For this reason we pray at the end of the Epistle: “Come, Holy Ghost, fill the hearts of Thy faithful, and kindle in them the fire of Thy love.” When the glorified Savior appears in our midst at the Consecration of the Mass, He will bring the Holy Ghost with Him. In our reception of Holy Communion the events of Pentecost will take visible form. The Holy Ghost comes to each of us and fills us with His fire and His power. He does not come to us in the form of fiery tongues, but in the form of a fragile host which is the glorified body of Christ and contains also the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Ghost. When we receive Holy Communion, we receive again the baptism of the Spirit. Having been filled with the Holy Ghost, having become bearers of the Spirit and apostles of the Lord, we announce the marvelous works of the Lord. During the distribution of Holy Communion, the Church sings: “Suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a mighty wind coming. .  . . and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, speaking the wonderful works of God, alleluia, alleluia.” Pentecost has been repeated in the present.

“If any one love Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, an We will come to him and will make Our abode with him” (Gospel). Thus our Lord describes the love of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the love which binds us all together. God is never very far from us; He is actually within us. This is the joyful message of Pentecost: God is within us! The Father loves us, not only for today or for tomorrow, but for all eternity. God is within us and we are filled with light and warmth. We must let His rays shine into our hearts: we must let Him come and make His abode within us. We are field with His power and fire, which will consume all evil and all sin within us. This fire is our holy zeal to serve God our Savior.

Pentecost is the seal and perfection of the mystery of Easter. If Easter is baptism, Pentecost is confirmation. Easter gives us a new birth; Pentecost brings us to maturity. At Pentecost we reach our full stature, we are brought to maturity. At Pentecost we reach our full stature, we are brought to man’s estate, to perfection by the power of the Holy Ghost. The baptism of the Spirit prepares us for heroic deeds, sanctifies our thoughts, purifies our motives. It makes us perfect Christians. (Father Benedict Baur, O.S.B., The Light of the World, Volume 1, pp. 574-576.)

The Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, means to light a fire of Divine love in our souls. This fire of Divine love is meant to help us to detached more and more from self as the years progress so that we can think first and foremost of the interests of God as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through the Catholic Church that He created upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. This fire of Divine love roots us to the Catholic Church, helping us to realize that God is immutable, and that it is His unchanging will for each man and each nation on the face of this earth to be Catholic and to serve Him most especially by total consecration to Him through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. This fire of Divine love will, therefore, help to burn out the “old man” from us so that we can have some approximation in our souls of the humility and docility of Our Lady herself as she, His daughter, consented to be His own Mother and Spouse without a thought of herself.

What better way, after Holy Mass and Eucharistic piety, to enkindle in us this fire of Divine love than by turning to the Spouse of God the Holy Ghost to beg her through her Most Holy Rosary to help us to be so intent on our own daily growth in the Faith that we will be much better able to cooperate with the graces that flow through her loving hands to plant at least a few seeds for the conversion of men and nations to the Social Kingship of her Divine Son and of her own Queenship, which we honor in a particular way during this month of May.

A blessed Pentecost Octave to you all!

Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Andrew, pray for us.

Saint Matthew, pray for us.

Saint Luke, pray for us.

Saint Mark, pray for us.

Saint James the Greater, pray for us.

Saint James the Lesser, pray for us.

Saint Jude Thaddeus, pray for us.

Saint Matthias, pray for us.

Saint Bartholomew, pray for us.

Saint Thomas the Apostle, pray for us.

Saint Philip, pray for us.

Saint Simon, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

 

SEQUENCE:    VENI SANCTE SPIRITUS

 

Veni, sancte Spíritus,
Et emítte cælitus
Lucis tuæ rádium.


Veni pater páuperum,
Veni dator múnerum,
Veni lumen córdium.


Consolátor óptime,
Dulcis hospes ánimæ,
Dulce refrigérum.


In labóre réquies,
In æstu tempéries,
In fletu solátium.


O Lux beatíssima,
Reple cordis íntima
Tuórum fidélium.


Sine tuo númine,
Nihil est in hómine,
Nihil est innoxium.


Lava quod est sórdidium,
Riga quod est áridum,
Sana quod est sáucium.


Flecte quod est rígidium,
Fove quod est frígidium,
Rege quod est dévium.


Da tuis fidélibus,
In te confidéntibus,
Sacrum septenárium.


Da virtutútis méritum,
Da salútis éxitum,
Da perénne gáudium.


Amen. Allelúja.

 

Come Thou Holy Spirit, come,
And from Thy celestial home
Shed a ray of light divine.


Come, Thou Father of the poor,
Come, Thou source of all our store,
Come, within our bosoms shrine,


Thou of Comforters the best,
Thou the soul’s delightful guest,
Sweet refreshment here below.


In our labor rest most sweet,
Pleasant coolness in the heat,
Solace in the midst of woe.


O most blessed Light divine,
Shine within these hearts of Thine,
And our inmost being fill.


Where Thou art not, man hath nought,
Nothing good in deed or thought,
Nothing free from taint of ill.


Heal our wounds, our strength renew,
On our dryness pour Thy dew,
Wash the stains of guilt away.


Bend the stubborn heart and will,
Melt the frozen, warm the chill,
Guide the steps that go astray.


On Thy faithful who adore,
And confess Thee evermore,
In Thy sevenfold gifts descend.


Give them virtue’s sure reward,
Give them Thy salvation, Lord,
Give them joys that never end.


Amen. Alleluia.

Antichrist Has Shown Us His Calling Card: Do You Care?

Antichrist has shown us his calling card.

Do you care?

Pope Saint Pius X told us what the agents of Antichrist would do to corrupt the Catholic Faith: they would seek to build the One World Ecumenical Church:

And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Almost everything that one can say about the blasphemous outrage against the honor and glory and majesty of the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity, in the Vatican Gardens where prayers were offered to the devils worshiped by adherents of Talmudists and Mohmmedans was said in yesterday’s commentary, Antichrist and His Anti-Pentecost, which was written before the outrage took place.

I, for one, have run out of ways to explain that Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a true son of the conciliar revolution just as much as his predecessor, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, was of its progenitors, apologists and guiding forces, lacks the Catholic Faith.

No believing Catholic can react with passivity while adherents of false religions utter prayers to their devils at the invitation of a putative “pope,” who listens to those prayers with attentiveness and, at times, a bowed head.

No faithful Catholic believes that prayers of false religion addressed to their false gods are pleasing to God, less yet that they can produce “peace” in the world.

Writing in Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937, Pope Pius XI explained that the souls of men must be a peace with God by means of Sanctifying Grace in order for there to be order within nations and peace among them:

Every true and lasting reform has ultimately sprung from the sanctity of men who were driven by the love of God and of men. Generous, ready to stand to attention to any call from God, yet confident in themselves because confident in their vocation, they grew to the size of beacons and reformers.   . No doubt “the Spirit breatheth where he will” (John iii. 8): “of stones He is able to raise men to prepare the way to his designs” (Matt. iii. 9). He chooses the instruments of His will according to His own plans, not those of men. But the Founder of the Church, who breathed her into existence at Pentecost, cannot disown the foundations as He laid them. Whoever is moved by the spirit of God, spontaneously adopts both outwardly and inwardly, the true attitude toward the Church, this sacred fruit from the tree of the cross, this gift from the Spirit of God, bestowed on Pentecost day to an erratic world. (Pope Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937.)

As noted yesterday, Jorge Mario Bergoglio did the work of Antichrist as he engaged in behavior that was Anti-Pentecost. Saint Peter sought to convert the Jews. Countless numbers of Catholic missionaries sought to convert the Mohammedans, never shrinking from the task of having to fight them on the battlefield as they sought to spread their false religion at the point of the sword and the scimitar.

Saint Anthony of Padua left the Canons Regular of Saint Augustine to seek to follow the path of the Protomartyrs of the Order of Friars Minor on January 16, 1220, whose martyrdom is recounted in The Roman Martyrology:

At Morocco, in Africa, the martyrdom of the holy martyrs of the Order of Friars Minor, Berard, Peter, Accursius, Adjutus, and Otto. The Roman Martyrology, January 16.)

Saint Anthony, who had distinguished himself in the Augustinian order, did not realize his desire to die a martyr’s death. A shipwreck in 1221 en route back to Portugal from Morocco, where he had taken seriously ill, placed Saint Anthony on the shores of Sicily.

Saint Francis of Assisi himself, however, was able to preach the  Cross of the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King, to the Mohammedans, something that Mr. Frank Rega recounted in Saint Francis of Assisi and the Conversion of the  Muslims:

An early font presents the following account of the discourse of the Franciscans: “If you do not wish to believe,” said the two friars, “we will commend your soul to God because we declare that if you die while holding to your law, you will be lost; God will not accept your soul. For this reason we have come to you.” They added that they would demonstrate to the Sultan’s wisest counselors the truth of Christianity, before which Mohammed’s law counted for nothing. In answer to this challenge, and in order to confute the teaching of the two missionaries, the Sultan called in the religious advisers, the imams. However, they refused to dispute with the Christians and instead insisted that they be killed, in accordance with Islamic law.

But the Sultan, captivated by the speech of the two Franciscans, and by their sincere concern for his own salvation, ignored the demand of his courtiers. Instead, al-Kamil listened willingly to Francis, permitting him great liberty in his preaching. He told his imams that beheading the friars would be an unjust recompense for their efforts, since they had arrived with the praiseworthy intention of seeking his personal salvation. To Francis he said: “I am going to go counter to what my religious advisers demand and will not cut off your heads . . . you have risked you own lives in order to save my soul.” (Frank M. Rega, St. Francis of Assisi and the Conversion of the Muslims, TAN Books and Publishers, 2007, pp. 60-61.)

Conciliar revolutionaries have attempted to claim that Saint Francis of Assisi was engaged in “ecumenical dialogue.” He was not. He wanted to convert the Sultan and those around him out of their false religion, something that the Sultan al-Kamil appreciated as he knew men of integrity when saw them.

Certainly, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has integrity of faith. Unfortunately for him, however, his faith, conciliarism, is just as false as Talmudism and Mohammedanism. His faith is counter to the true Faith, the Catholic Faith, which is why he must misrepresent the very life’s work and blaspheme the person of the great Saint of Assisi who bore the brand marks of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s stigmata on his holy body for the final year of his life (although he had borne the stigmata in his heart for a long time before).

Unlike “Pope Francis,” who listened attentively to the Talmudic and Mohammedan “prayers” and to the remarks made by Israeli President Shimon Peres and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Saint Francis of Assisi defended with honor and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity with manly courage. He was not the effeminate enabler of falsehoods in the name of a false charity for “fellow believers.”

Pope Pius XI explained the true character of Saint Francis of Assisi in Rite Expiatis, April 13, 1926:

What evil they do and how far from a true appreciation of the Man of Assisi are they who, in order to bolster up their fantastic and erroneous ideas about him, imagine such an incredible thing as that Francis was an opponent of the discipline of the Church, that he did not accept the dogmas of the Faith, that he was the precursor and prophet of that false liberty which began to manifest itself at the beginning of modern times and which has caused so many disturbances both in the Church and in civil society! That he was in a special manner obedient and faithful in all things to the hierarchy of the Church, to this Apostolic See, and to the teachings of Christ, the Herald of the Great King proved both to Catholics and nonCatholics by the admirable example of obedience which he always gave. It is a fact proven by contemporary documents, which are worthy of all credence, “that he held in veneration the clergy, and loved with a great affection all who were in holy orders.” (Thomas of Celano, Legenda, Chap. I, No. 62) “As a man who was truly Catholic and apostolic, he insisted above all things in his sermons that the faith of the Holy Roman Church should always be preserved and inviolably, and that the priests who by their ministry bring into being the sublime Sacrament of the Lord, should therefore be held in the highest reverence. He also taught that the doctors of the law of God and all the orders of clergy should be shown the utmost respect at all times.” (Julian a Spira, Life of St. Francis, No. 28) That which he taught to the people from the pulpit he insisted on much more strongly among his friars. We may read of this in his famous last testament and, again, at the very point of death he admonished them about this with great insistence, namely, that in the exercise of the sacred ministry they should always obey the bishops and the clergy and should live together with them as it behooves children of peace. (Pius XI, Rite expiatis)

Pope Leo XIII had pointed out the same thing forty-three and one-half years before in Auspicato Concessum, September 17, 1882:

Thenceforth, amidst the effeminacy and over-fastidiousness of the time, he is seen to go about careless and roughly clad, begging his food from door to door, not only enduring what is generally deemed most hard to bear, the senseless ridicule of the crowd, but even to welcome it with a wondrous readiness and pleasure. And this because he had embraced the folly of the cross of Jesus Christ, and because he deemed it the highest wisdom. Having penetrated and understood its awful mysteries, he plainly saw that nowhere else could his glory be better placed. (Pope Leo XIII, Auspicato Concessum, September 17, 1882.)

The man who placed a non-denominational “Christian” prayer on an equal footing with prayers from Talmudism and Mohammedanism, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, believes that he did the work of Saint Francis of Assisi by having convened his “prayer meeting” yesterday. He did not. Just as Bergoglio is a figure of Anti-Christ and an Anti-Saint Peter as an Antipope, he is an Anti-Saint Francis of Assisi who, though mentioning Our Lord and His Most Blessed near the end of his own remarks yesterday, never once urge Peres or Abbas to convert to the true Faith nor point out that Christ the King has appointed the path of true peace to run through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary:

I greet you with immense joy and I wish to offer you, and the eminent delegations accompanying you, the same warm welcome which you gave to me during my recent pilgrimage to the Holy Land.

I am profoundly grateful to you for accepting my invitation to come here and to join in imploring from God the gift of peace.  It is my hope that this meeting will mark the beginning of a new journey where we seek the things that unite, so as to overcome the things that divide.

I also thank Your Holiness, my venerable Brother Bartholomaios, for joining me in welcoming these illustrious guests.  Your presence here is a great gift, a much-appreciated sign of support, and a testimony to the pilgrimage which we Christians are making towards full unity.

Your presence, dear Presidents, is a great sign of brotherhood which you offer as children of Abraham.  It is also a concrete expression of trust in God, the Lord of history, who today looks upon all of us as brothers and who desires to guide us in his ways.

This meeting of prayer for peace in the Holy Land, in the Middle East and in the entire world is accompanied by the prayers of countless people of different cultures, nations, languages and religions: they have prayed for this meeting and even now they are united with us in the same supplication.  It is a meeting which responds to the fervent desire of all who long for peace and dream of a world in which men and women can live as brothers and sisters and no longer as adversaries and enemies.

Dear Presidents, our world is a legacy bequeathed to us from past generations, but it is also on loan to us from our children: our children who are weary, worn out by conflicts and yearning for the dawn of peace, our children who plead with us to tear down the walls of enmity and to set out on the path of dialogue and peace, so that love and friendship will prevail.

Many, all too many, of those children have been innocent victims of war and violence, saplings cut down at the height of their promise.  It is our duty to ensure that their sacrifice is not in vain.  The memory of these children instils in us the courage of peace, the strength to persevere undaunted in dialogue, the patience to weave, day by day, an ever more robust fabric of respectful and peaceful coexistence, for the glory of God and the good of all.

Peacemaking calls for courage, much more so than warfare.  It calls for the courage to say yes to encounter and no to conflict: yes to dialogue and no to violence; yes to negotiations and no to hostilities; yes to respect for agreements and no to acts of provocation; yes to sincerity and no to duplicity.  All of this takes courage, it takes strength and tenacity.

History teaches that our strength alone does not suffice.  More than once we have been on the verge of peace, but the evil one, employing a variety of means, has succeeded in blocking it.  That is why we are here, because we know and we believe that we need the help of God.  We do not renounce our responsibilities, but we do call upon God in an act of supreme responsibility before our consciences and before our peoples.  We have heard a summons, and we must respond.  It is the summons to break the spiral of hatred and violence, and to break it by one word alone: the word “brother”.  But to be able to utter this word we have to lift our eyes to heaven and acknowledge one another as children of one Father.

            To him, the Father, in the Spirit of Jesus Christ, I now turn, begging the intercession of the Virgin Mary, a daughter of the Holy Land and our Mother.

            Lord God of peace, hear our prayer!

We have tried so many times and over so many years to resolve our conflicts by our own powers and by the force of our arms.  How many moments of hostility and darkness have we experienced; how much blood has been shed; how many lives have been shattered; how many hopes have been buried…  But our efforts have been in vain.

Now, Lord, come to our aid!  Grant us peace, teach us peace; guide our steps in the way of peace.  Open our eyes and our hearts, and give us the courage to say: “Never again war!”; “With war everything is lost”.  Instil in our hearts the courage to take concrete steps to achieve peace.

Lord, God of Abraham, God of the Prophets, God of Love, you created us and you call us to live as brothers and sisters.  Give us the strength daily to be instruments of peace; enable us to see everyone who crosses our path as our brother or sister.  Make us sensitive to the plea of our citizens who entreat us to turn our weapons of war into implements of peace, our trepidation into confident trust, and our quarreling into forgiveness.

Keep alive within us the flame of hope, so that with patience and perseverance we may opt for dialogue and reconciliation.  In this way may peace triumph at last, and may the words “division”, “hatred” and “war” be banished from the heart of every man and woman.  Lord, defuse the violence of our tongues and our hands.  Renew our hearts and minds, so that the word which always brings us together will be “brother”, and our way of life will always be that of: Shalom, Peace, Salaam!  Amen. (Jorge’s prayer for peace.)

Brief Comment Number One:

Once again, Talmudists and Mohammedans do not pray to the true God of Divine Revelation.

Brief Comment Number Two:

Talmudists and Mohammedans are not the children of Abraham. Catholics alone are the true spiritual descendants of Abraham today.

Brief Comment Number Three:

The souls of Shimon Peres and Mahmoud Abbas are captive to the devil by means of Original Sin. They are thus incapable of serving as instruments of a true peace, that of Christ the King Himself, something that has been pointed out on this site scores upon scores of times by citing the following passage from Pope Pius XI’s Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23 1922:

49. It is, therefore, a fact which cannot be questioned that the true peace of Christ can only exist in the Kingdom of Christ — “the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ.” It is no less unquestionable that, in doing all we can to bring about the re-establishment of Christ’s kingdom, we will be working most effectively toward a lasting world peace. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

Brief Comment Number Four:

Bartholomew, the Greek Orthodox patriarch of Constantinople, may be Jorge’s “brother” in heresy. However, Greek Orthodox bishops have no mandate from God to sanctify and serve souls. They adhere to doctrines that are heretical, including a denial of Papal Primacy and Infallibility. The true patriarchs of Constantinople were obedient of the Successor of Saint Peter in the First Millennium, something that Pope Leo XIII pointed out in Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 29, 1894 (last cited on this website in American Pots and Russian Kettles).

Brief Comment Number Four

Each of the three men who spoke in the Vatican Garden yesterday did so as non-Catholics.

Shimon Peres spoke as a Zionist and a Talmudist.

Mahmound Abbas spoke as a Mohmmedan and Palestinian advocate.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio spoke as a Sillonist, which means he spoke in the language of Judeo-Masonry, yes, even with the gratuitous reference to Our Lord and Our Lady as he focused on purely secular, natural means to obtain “peace” between the Zionists and those whom they displaced with brute force from their homes while despoiling them of their property and confining many of them to “refugee” centers.” The mere mention of Our Lord and Our Lady can never redeem acts with place the Catholic Faith on a level of equality any false religion, especially those false religions that go so far as to deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Brief Comment Number Five:

This is the time for courage.

Antichrist has shown us his calling card.

Do you care?

Personally, I don’t think that I have anything original to say about the state of apostasy and betrayal in which we find ourselves within the Providence of God. It’s all been said  over fifteen hundred times on this site, not including the other thousand times that naturalism has been the focus of commentaries, and there’s really not that much new to say about that, either.

What I would like to do for the moment at a very late/early hour is to ask readers of this site to take the time to pray the following prayer to God the Holy Ghost while meditating on the words very carefully as they call us to courage to resist human respect in order to defend the truths of the Holy Faith without compromise.

Let us pray to Our Lady, especially through her Most Holy Rosary, to take to heart this prayer to her Mystical Spouse, God the Holy Ghost:

O Holy Spirit, who on the solemn day of Pentecost didst suddenly descend upon the Apostles gathered in the Upper Room in parted tongues as it were of fire and didst . so enlighten their minds, inflame their hearts, and strengthen their wills, that henceforth they went through the entire world and courageously and confidently proclaimed everywhere the teaching of Christ and sealed it with the shedding of their blood, renew, we beseech Thee, the wondrous outpouring of Thy grace in our hearts also.

How grievously our minds are afflicted with ignorance concerning the nature and dignity of those divine truths which form the object of faith, without which no man may hope for salvation. How far men go astray from a just estimation of earthly goods, which too often are put before the soul itself. How often our hearts do not beat with love of the Creator as they ought, but rather with an ignoble lust for creatures. How often are we led by a false respect for human judgment, when we ought to profess openly the precepts of Jesus Christ and to reduce them to action with a sincere heart and with, if need be, of our worldly substance. What weakness we manifest in embracing and carrying with a serene and willing heart the crosses of this life, which alone can make the Christian a worthy follower of his divine Master.

O Holy Spirit, enlighten our minds, cleanse our hearts, and give new strength to our wills; to such a degree, at least, that we may clearly recognize the value of our soul, and in a like manner, despise the perishable goods of this world; that we may love God above all things, and, for the love of Him, our neighbor as ourselves; that we may not only be free from fear in professing our faith publicly, but rather may glory in it; finally, that we may accept not only prosperity but also adversity as from the hand of the Lord, with all confidence that He will turn all things into good for those who lovingly tend towards Him. Grant, we beseech Thee, that we, by constantly answering the sweet impulses of Thy grace and doing that which is good with a persevering heart, may deserve one day to receive the rich reward of glory everlasting. Amen. (As found in The Raccolta, 1957 edition, p. 204.)

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.

Saints Primus and Felician, pray for us.

Leading Up To The Decrees of the Third Council of Nicea

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 17th 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.

Led By Thoroughly False Spirits, part two

[CAUTION: THIS COMMENTARY CONTAINS DOCUMENTATION OF TERRIBLE SINS. IT SHOULD NOT BE READ BY THOSE WHO, MOST UNDERSTANDABLY, DO NOT NEED TO HAVE THEIR SOULS AGITATED BY THE DEPTH TO WHICH THE FALSEHOODS OF THE COUNTERFEIT CHURCH OF CONCILIARISM HAS SUNK.]

Only the willfully blind have any excuse at this point for not recognizing that there is no such thing as “partial-credit” Catholicism.

Although the following two passages have been used a lot on this site, I will proceed to use them again in order to demonstrate to those who might be wavering about their position concerning the true state of the Church Militant on earth in this time of apostasy and betrayal that there is no such thing as a “irreducible minima” standard for maintaining oneself as a Catholic in good standing. It is all or nothing, and those who contend otherwise are without a single, solitary shred of Patristic or dogmatic proof to sustain:

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.)

There comes a point, which I have reached, that makes repeating what has been repeated hundreds upon hundreds of times before counterproductive.

So few people, relatively speaking, want to make the sacrifices that are necessary to admit that one who is not a Catholic cannot hold ecclesiastical office legitimately.

So few people, relatively speaking, want to acknowledge that Pope Leo XIII has definitively condemned the “resist while recognize” position that is still being offered as the way to “restore” Holy Mother Church.

Anyone who can read the following passages from Pope Leo XIII’s Epistola Tua, June 17, 1885, Est Sane Molestum, December 13, 1888, and Pope Saint Pius X’s allocution  Vi ringrazio, November 18, 1912, and not even stop for a moment to consider the falsity and the condemned nature of the “resist while recognize” position is not a dispassionate seeker of truth:

To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor. In this subordination and dependence lie the order and life of the Church; in it is to be found the indispensable condition of well-being and good government. On the contrary, if it should happen that those who have no right to do so should attribute authority to themselves, if they presume to become judges and teachers, if inferiors in the government of the universal Church attempt or try to exert an influence different from that of the supreme authority, there follows a reversal of the true order, many minds are thrown into confusion, and souls leave the right path.

And to fail in this most holy duty it is not necessary to perform an action in open opposition whether to the Bishops or to the Head of the Church; it is enough for this opposition to be operating indirectly, all the more dangerous because it is the more hidden. Thus, a soul fails in this sacred duty when, at the same time that a jealous zeal for the power and the prerogatives of the Sovereign Pontiff is displayed, the Bishops united to him are not given their due respect, or sufficient account is not taken of their authority, or their actions and intentions are interpreted in a captious manner, without waiting for the judgment of the Apostolic See.

Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.

On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. He has the charge of the universal welfare of the Church, to which is subordinate any particular need, and all others who are subject to this order must second the action of the supreme director and serve the end which he has in view. Since the Church is one and her head is one, so, too, her government is one, and all must conform to this.

When these principles are forgotten there is noticed among Catholics a diminution of respect, of veneration, and of confidence in the one given them for a guide; then there is a loosening of that bond of love and submission which ought to bind all the faithful to their pastors, the faithful and the pastors to the Supreme Pastor, the bond in which is principally to be found security and common salvation.

In the same way, by forgetting or neglecting these principles, the door is opened wide to divisions and dissensions among Catholics, to the grave detriment of union which is the distinctive mark of the faithful of Christ, and which, in every age, but particularly today by reason of the combined forces of the enemy, should be of supreme and universal interest, in favor of which every feeling of personal preference or individual advantage ought to be laid aside.

That obligation, if it is generally incumbent on all, is, you may indeed say, especially pressing upon journalists. If they have not been imbued with the docile and submissive spirit so necessary to each Catholic, they would assist in spreading more widely those deplorable matters and in making them more burdensome. The task pertaining to them in all the things that concern religion and that are closely connected to the action of the Church in human society is this: to be subject completely in mind and will, just as all the other faithful are, to their own bishops and to the Roman Pontiff; to follow and make known their teachings; to be fully and willingly subservient to their influence; and to reverence their precepts and assure that they are respected. He who would act otherwise in such a way that he would serve the aims and interests of those whose spirit and intentions We have reproved in this letter would fail the noble mission he has undertaken. So doing, in vain would he boast of attending to the good of the Church and helping her cause, no less than someone who would strive to weaken or diminish Catholic truth, or indeed someone who would show himself to be her overly fearful friend. (Pope Leo XIII, Epistola Tua, June 17, 1885.)

No, it cannot be permitted that laymen who profess to be Catholic should go so far as openly to arrogate to themselves in the columns of a newspaper, the right to denounce, and to find fault, with the greatest license and according to their own good pleasure, with every sort of person, not excepting bishops, and think that with the single exception of matters of faith they are allowed to entertain any opinion which may please them and exercise the right to judge everyone after their own fashion.

In the present case, Venerable Brother, there is nothing which could cause you to doubt Our assent and Our approbation. It is Our first duty to take care, uniting Our efforts to yours, that the divine authority of the bishops remain sacred and inviolable. It belongs to Us also to command and to effect that everywhere this authority may remain strong and respected, and that in all things it may receive from Catholics the submission and reverence which are its just due. In fact, the divine edifice which is the Church is supported, as on a foundation visible to all men, first by Peter, then by the Apostles and their successors the Bishops. To hear them or to despise them is to hear or to despise Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself [cf. Luke 10:16]. The Bishops form the most sacred part of the Church, that which instructs and governs men by divine right; and so he who resists them and stubbornly refuses to obey their word places himself outside the Church [cf. Matt. 18:18]. But obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces. For the Christian people, the bishops are not only the teachers of the faith, they are placed at their head to rule and govern them; they are responsible for the salvation of the souls whom God has entrusted to them, and of which they will one day have to render an account. It is for this reason that the Apostle St. Paul addresses this exhortation to Christians: “Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as having to render an account of your souls” [Heb. 13:17].

In fact, it is always true and manifest to all that there are in the Church two grades, very distinct by their nature: the shepherds and the flock, that is to say, the rulers and the people. It is the function of the first order to teach, to govern, to guide men through life, to impose rules; the second has the duty to be submissive to the first, to obey, to carry out orders, to render honor. And if subordinates usurp the place of superiors, this is, on their part, not only to commit an act of harmful boldness, but even to reverse, as far as in them lies, the order so wisely established by the Providence of the Divine Founder of the Church. If by chance there should be in the ranks of the episcopate a bishop not sufficiently mindful of his dignity and apparently unfaithful to one of his sacred obligations, in spite of this he would lose nothing of his power, and, so long as he remained in communion with the Roman Pontiff, it would certainly not be permitted to anyone to relax in any detail the respect and obedience which are due his authority. On the other hand, to scrutinize the actions of a bishop, to criticize them, does not belong to individual Catholics, but concerns only those who, in the sacred hierarchy, have a superior power; above all, it concerns the Supreme Pontiff, for it is to him that Christ confided the care of feeding not only all the lambs, but even the sheep [cf. John 21:17]. At the same time, when the faithful have grave cause for complaint, they are allowed to put the whole matter before the Roman Pontiff, provided always that, safeguarding prudence and the moderation counseled by concern for the common good, they do not give vent to outcries and recriminations which contribute rather to the rise of divisions and ill-feeling, or certainly increase them.

These fundamental principles, which cannot be gainsaid without bringing in their wake confusion and ruin in the government of the Church, We have many, many times been careful to recall and to inculcate. Our letters to Our Nuncio in France [In Mezzo of 1884], which you have cited in this matter, speak clearly; so do those addressed to the Archbishop of Paris [Epistola Tua of 1885], to the Belgian Bishops, to some Italian Bishops, and the two encyclicals to the Bishops of France [Nobilissima Gallorum of 1884], and of Spain [Cum Multa of 1882].

Once again today We recall these documents; once again We inculcate this teaching, with the very great hope that Our admonitions and Our authority will calm the present agitation of minds in your diocese, that all will be strengthened and find rest in faith, in obedience, in the just and legitimate respect towards those invested with a sacred power in the Church.

Not only must those be held to fail in their duty who openly and brazenly repudiate the authority of their leaders, but those, too, who give evidence of a hostile and contrary disposition by their clever tergiversations and their oblique and devious dealings. The true and sincere virtue of obedience is not satisfied with words; it consists above all in submission of mind and heart.

But since We are here dealing with the lapse of a newspaper, it is absolutely necessary for Us once more to enjoin upon the editors of Catholic journals to respect as sacred laws the teaching and the ordinances mentioned above and never to deviate from them. Moreover, let them be well persuaded and let this be engraved in their minds, that if they dare to violate these prescriptions and abandon themselves to their personal appreciations, whether in prejudging questions which the Holy See has not yet pronounced on, or in wounding the authority of the Bishops by arrogating to themselves an authority which can never be theirs, let them be convinced that it is all in vain for them to pretend to keep the honor of the name of Catholic and to serve the interests of the very holy and very noble cause which they  have undertaken to defend and to render glorious.

Now, We, exceedingly desirous that any who have strayed return to soundness of mind and that deference to the sacred Bishops inhere deeply in the hearts of all men, in the Lord We bestow an Apostolic Blessing upon you, Venerable Brother, and to all your clergy and people, as a token of Our fatherly good will and charity. (Pope Leo XIII, Est Sane Molestum, December 17, 1888. The complete text may be found at: Est Sane Molestum, December 17, 1888. See also  Pope Leo XIII Quashes Popular “Resist-And-Recognize Position.)

Distracted with so many occupations, it is easy to forget the things that lead to perfection in priestly life; it is easy [for the priest] to delude himself and to believe that, by busying himself with the salvation of the souls of others, he consequently works for his own sanctification. Alas, let not this delusion lead you to error, because nemo dat quod nemo habet [no one gives what he does not have]; and, in order to sanctify others, it is necessary not to neglect any of the ways proposed for the sanctification of our own selves….

The Pope is the guardian of dogma and of morals; he is the custodian of the principles that make families sound, nations great, souls holy; he is the counsellor of princes and of peoples; he is the head under whom no one feels tyrannized because he represents God Himself; he is the supreme father who unites in himself all that may exist that is loving, tender, divine.

It seems incredible, and is even painful, that there be priests to whom this recommendation must be made, but we are regrettably in our age in this hard, unhappy, situation of having to tell priests: love the Pope!

And how must the Pope be loved? Non verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate. [Not in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth – 1 Jn iii, 18] When one loves a person, one tries to adhere in everything to his thoughts, to fulfill his will, to perform his wishes. And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, “si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit,” [if any one love me, he will keep my word – Jn xiv, 23] therefore, in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey him.

Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.

This is the cry of a heart filled with pain, that with deep sadness I express, not for your sake, dear brothers, but to deplore, with you, the conduct of so many priests, who not only allow themselves to debate and criticize the wishes of the Pope, but are not embarrassed to reach shameless and blatant disobedience, with so much scandal for the good and with so great damage to souls. (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at: RORATE CÆLI: “Love the Pope!” – no ifs, and no buts: For Bishops, priests, and faithful, Saint Pius X explains what loving the Pope really entails.)

Those might protest that they are not bound to accept the binding nature of such apostolic letters or papal allocutions have reckon with the following words of the late Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, who some in the “resist while recognize” camp accept as a stalwart champion of the Catholic Faith:

Despite the fact that there is nothing like an adequate treatment of the papal allocutions in existing theological literature, every priest, and particularly every professor of sacred theology, should know whether and under what circumstances these allocutions addressed by the Sovereign Pontiffs to private groups are to be regarded as authoritative, as actual expressions of the Roman Pontiff’s ordinary magisterium.  And, especially because of the tendency towards an unhealthy minimism current in this country and elsewhere in the world today, they should also know how doctrine is to be set forth in the allocutions and the other vehicles of the Holy Father’s ordinary magisterium if it is to be accepted as authoritative.  The present brief paper will attempt to consider and to answer these questions.

The first question to be considered is this: Can a speech addressed by the Roman Pontiff to a private group, a group which cannot in any sense be taken as representing either the Roman Church or the universal Church, contain doctrinal teaching authoritative for the universal Church?

The clear and unequivocal answer to this question is contained in the Holy Father’s encyclical letter Humani generis, issued Aug. 12, 1950.  According to this document: “if, in their ‘Acta‘ the Supreme Pontiffs take care to render a decision on a point that has hitherto been controverted, it is obvious to all that this point, according to the mind and will of these same Pontiffs, can no longer be regarded as a question theologians may freely debate among themselves.”[6]

Thus, in the teaching of the Humani generis, any doctrinal decision made by the Pope and included in his “Acta” are authoritative.  Now many of the allocutions made by the Sovereign Pontiff to private groups are included in the “Acta” of the Sovereign Pontiff himself, as a section of the Acta apostolicae sedis.  Hence, any doctrinal decision made in one of these allocutions that is published in the Holy Father’s “Acta” is authoritative and binding on all the members of the universal Church.

There is, according to the words of the Humani generis, an authoritative doctrinal decision whenever the Roman Pontiffs, in their “Acta,” “de re hactenus controversa data opera sententiam ferunt.”  When this condition is fulfilled, even in an allocution originally delivered to a private group, but subsequently published as part of the Holy Father’s “Acta,” an authoritative doctrinal judgment has been proposed to the universal Church.  All of those within the Church are obliged, under penalty of serious sin, to accept this decision. . . .

Now the questions may arise: is there any particular form which the Roman Pontiff is obliged to follow in setting forth a doctrinal decision in either the positive or the negative manner? Does the Pope have to state specifically and explicitly that he intends to issue a doctrinal decision on this particular point?  Is it at all necessary that he should refer explicitly to the fact that there has hitherto been a debate among theologians on the question he is going to decide?

There is certainly nothing in the divinely established constitutional law of the Catholic Church which would in any way justify an affirmative response to any of these inquiries.  The Holy Father’s doctrinal authority stems from the tremendous responsibility Our Lord laid upon him in St. Peter, whose successor he is.  Our Lord charged the Prince of the Apostles, and through him, all of his successors until the end of time, with the commission of feeding, of acting as a shepherd for, of taking care of, His lambs and His sheep.[7]  Included in that responsibility was the obligation, and, of course, the power, to confirm the faith of his fellow Christians.

And the Lord said: “Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat.  But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.”[8]

St. Peter had, and has in his successor, the duty and the power to confirm his brethren in their faith, to take care of their doctrinal needs.  Included in his responsibility is an obvious obligation to select and to employ the means he judges most effective and apt for the accomplishment of the end God has commissioned him to attain.  And in this era, when the printed word possesses a manifest primacy in the field of the dissemination of ideas, the Sovereign Pontiffs have chosen to bring their authoritative teaching, the doctrine in which they accomplish the work of instruction God has commanded them to do, to the people of Christ through the medium of the printed word in the published “Acta.”

The Humani generis reminds us that the doctrinal decisions set forth in the Holy Father’s “Acta” manifestly are authoritative “according to the mind and will” of the Pontiffs who have issued these decisions.  Thus, wherever there is a doctrinal judgment expressed in the “Acta” of a Sovereign Pontiff, it is clear that the Pontiff understands that decision to be authoritative and wills that it be so.

Now when the Pope, in his “Acta,” sets forth as a part of Catholic doctrine or as a genuine teaching of the Catholic Church some thesis which has hitherto been opposed, even legitimately, in the schools of sacred theology, he is manifestly making a doctrinal decision.  This certainly holds true even when, in making his statement, the Pope does not explicitly assert that he is issuing a doctrinal judgment and, of course, even when he does not refer to the existence of a controversy or debate on the subject among theologians up until the time of his own pronouncement.  All that is necessary is that this teaching, hitherto opposed in the theological schools, be now set forth as the teaching of the Sovereign Pontiff, or as “doctrina catholica.”

Private theologians have no right whatsoever to establish what they believe to be the conditions under which the teaching presented in the “Acta” of the Roman Pontiff may be accepted as authoritative.  This is, on the contrary, the duty and the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff himself.  The present Holy Father has exercised that right and has done his duty in stating clearly that any doctrinal decision which the Bishop of Rome has taken the trouble to make and insert into his “Acta” is to be received as genuinely authoritative.

In line with the teaching of the Humani generis, then, it seems unquestionably clear that any doctrinal decision expressed by the Sovereign Pontiff in the course of an allocution delivered to a private group is to be accepted as authoritative when and if that allocution is published by the Sovereign Pontiff as a part of his own “Acta.”  Now we must consider this final question: What obligation is incumbent upon a Catholic by reason of an authoritative doctrinal decision made by the Sovereign Pontiff and communicated to the universal Church in this manner?

The text of the Humani generis itself supplies us with a minimum answer.  This is found in the sentence we have already quoted: “And if, in their ‘Acta,’ the Supreme Pontiffs take care to render a decision on a point that has hitherto been controverted, it is obvious to all that this point, according to the mind and will of these same Pontiffs, can no longer be regarded as a question theologians may freely debate among themselves.”

Theologians legitimately discuss and dispute among themselves doctrinal questions which the authoritative magisterium of the Catholic Church has not as yet resolved.  Once that magisterium has expressed a decision and communicated that decision to the Church universal, the first and the most obvious result of its declaration must be the cessation of debate on the point it has decided.  A man definitely is not acting and could not act as a theologian, as a teacher of Catholic truth, by disputing against a decision made by the competent doctrinal authority of the Mystical Body of Christ on earth.

In line with the teaching of the Humani generis, then, it seems unquestionably clear that any doctrinal decision expressed by the Sovereign Pontiff in the course of an allocution delivered to a private group is to be accepted as authoritative when and if that allocution is published by the Sovereign Pontiff as a part of his own “Acta.”  Now we must consider this final question: What obligation is incumbent upon a Catholic by reason of an authoritative doctrinal decision made by the Sovereign Pontiff and communicated to the universal Church in this manner? (The doctrinal Authority of Papal allocutions.)

What more doctrinal proof can be given to make it clear that those who recognize a man as a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter have no right from God to withdraw their obedience to him in matters of Faith, Worship and Morals, no less to criticize him publicly, admitting that some of those who did some during the 9,666 day tenure of “Saint John Paul II” went to sleep, at least for the most part, during the 2,873 day tenure of the now-retired Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI (the future “Saint Benedict of Continuity”), and now, of course, however selectively, during the tenure of Jorge the Decadent?

The situation has decayed in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, which has been led by false spirits from the very moment that the old, Judaizing syncretist who supported The Sillon long after its tenets had been condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, “Saint John XXIII,” was “elected” under mysterious circumstances on October 28, 1958, that open licentiousness is now displayed in conciliar churches and cathedrals with absolutely no fear of any “papal” rebuke whatsoever. I will not even begin to describe the sort of decadence that took place recently in the Cathedral of St. Peter in Osnabruck, Germany, noting only that what has been pretty commonplace at “papal” audiences (as mostly disrobed “gymnasts” performed acrobatic feats to the delight of an ogling Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI) and at “papal” extravaganza liturgies (particularly those staged by “Saint” John Paul II that featured native peoples dressed down, shall we say for the occasion) is now considered to be perfectly acceptable at the “retail” level in diocesan cathedrals and in churches. The “bishop” who sanctioned this profantion, is named Fran-Josef Hermann Bode, who was named as an auxiliary “bishop” in his home diocese of Paderborn, Germany, in 1991, by “Saint John Paul II.” (If you really need to see the details, you may find them at (Novus Ordo Watch Wire, which has posted a cautionary note about a video link to the scandalous display. No, I did not view the video, and I do not recommend that any reader from this site do so. The story speaks for itself.)

As horrific as such a profanation of a formerly Catholic cathedral is, however, it must be remembered that it is only the rotten issue of a decadent theology, decadent and sacramentally invalid liturgical rites and an entire regime of decadent pastoral praxis. Such a profanation is the result a false church’s systematic recruitment, retention, promotion and protection of those inclined to the commission of perverse sins against nature. The entire ethos of the counterfeit church of conciliarism has been designed from its very inception to appeal to what is now called the “rainbow” agenda, which is why effeminate men have been screened into the conciliar presbyterate in many archdioceses, dioceses and religious communities and why those who show true masculinity and firmness of resolve against error, falsehood, profanation and sacrilege have been shown the door in their seminary days or sent for psychiatric reprogramming following their presbyteral installation.

The situation is so very decadent in the counterfeit church of conciliarism that words and actions that were considered to be signs of rebellion against “Saint John Paul II” are now considered to be part of the current “pope’s” agenda.

Consider the case of one “Father” Fred Daley, who uttered the following words at a Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service on Sunday, September 15, 2002, at Saint Francis de Sales Church in Utica, New York (the home of Mohawk Valley Community College, at which I taught from 1976 to 1977), to celebrate “diversity”:

“More than 400 people, including a handful of local leaders and clergy, gathered to attend the area’s first Mass for gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgendered people led by the Rev. Fred Daley. The main message at the Mass revolved around acceptance, love, forgiveness, peace and unity. ‘I just want you to know you’re very welcome here today,’ Daley told the congregation as he started the service. He wore a rainbow stole over his white robes. . . . ‘I think the last several days have been the greatest teaching moments on homophobia the Mohawk Valley has ever seen,’ he said. ‘I challenge all of us to use this moment as a time to move our community out of ignorance, hatred, fear and violence.’ The key to breaking that cycle is education, he said, which will defeat the myths and stereotypes about gay people that come from as far back as the Middle Ages. Two fundamentals of that education are first, that no one can choose his or her sexual orientation and second, that the Bible cannot be used to evaluate one’s sexuality, Daley said. ‘We can’t use the Bible to hit people over the head with,’ he said, noting that he doesn’t think modern theologians are able to use the Bible to prove homosexuality a sin. The Catholic church and others should not be so obsessed with what people do in private, he said. ‘I didn’t tell anyone at the 8 a.m. Mass or the 11 a.m. Mass (what to do in their bedrooms), so I’m certainly not going to tell anyone here at the 3 p.m. Mass,’ he said, receiving more cheers and applause. ‘Certainly no one is going to push me to stand at the pulpit and explain what is intimate.’ At the end of the service, Beverly Bartlett, coordinator of the Mohawk Valley Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender organization, presented Daley with a clock commending him for his courage. Bartlett said sometime soon the organization would like to work with St. Francis DeSales to establish a monthly Mass for gay and lesbian people. ‘We can walk out of this building and commit ourselves to speak the truth,’ Daley said. ‘If we do that there will be someday that our public officials will maybe even hang the rainbow flag.’ After the service, people stayed for refreshments, to visit and to sign a card to Bishop James Moynihan, thanking him for allowing the Mass. Daley said he spoke to Bishop James Moynihan and Roman Catholic Diocese of Syracuse officials last week to clarify the service and he expected no opposition for Sunday’s Mass. Syracuse and Binghamton area churches have had similar services, he said.'” (The actual source was the Utica Observer-Dispatcher, which no longer has the story online. I quoted it contemporaneously in the printed pages of Christ or Chaos in an article that was later republished on Mr. Michael Cain’s Daily Catholic website. See Blaming the Messenger, which was, of course, written during my indulterer/resist while recognize years.)

Nothing happened to “Father Fred.”

The then conciliar “bishop” of Syracuse, James Moynihan, a product of the revolutionary (and now retired) “Bishop” Matthew Clark’s Diocese of Rochester, New York, kept him where he was.

Nothing happened to “Bishop” Moynihan, who retired in “good standing” in the conciliar structures in 2009 at the age of seventy-seven.

Emboldened by all of the warm and fuzzies he received after his “bold” “homily” of September 15, 2002, “Father” Fred Daley came out the closet two yeas later, five years before one of the architects of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service on Annibale Bugnini’s Consilium, Rembert Geoge Weakland, O.S.B., the doctrinally, morally corrupt conciliar “archbishop” of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, from 1977 to 2002, did so. “Father” Fred’s “coming out” party made big news in Utica at the time:

The Rev. Fred Daley, longtime pastor at St. Francis DeSales Church on Eagle Street, trusts the community will continue to accept him after his acknowledgment that he is gay.

He made the disclosure during an interview with the Observer-Dispatch Thursday. The interview was in advance of Daley’s “Real Hero” award, which he accepted from the United Way of the Greater Utica Area Thursday evening. The award was in recognition of his social ministry on Hospitality Row, where many of Utica’s poor are served.

“I’m the same person today as I was yesterday,” he said. “My expectation and prayer is that people will continue to love and respect me.”

Daley said he shared this information with the bishops of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Syracuse as well as a few close friends and family members.

Celibacy is a “charism,” or a gift for some people, he said.

“I myself am gay, and I am committed to living a celibate life,” he said.

Despite a tremendous amount of fear and anxiety about coming out publicly, Daley said he feels called by God to do so and is ready to accept whatever “rejection or misunderstanding surrounding this.”

Daley’s decision to come out occurs at a time when both the Catholic Church and the nation are grappling with changes in society that have led gays to seek greater acceptance.

As recently as 2002, Vatican officials considered barring men with “homosexual tendencies” from seminaries, The Associated Press reported.

In September of that year, the Rev. Andrew Baker, an American staff member of the Congregation for Bishops, wrote an article for Jesuit magazine that said gay men “should not be admitted to holy orders, and (their) presence in the seminary would not only give him false hope but it may, in fact, hinder” the therapy he needs, the AP reported.

Danielle Cummings, spokeswoman for the Syracuse Diocese, said priests have an obligation to celibacy, whatever their sexual orientation. A priest’s homosexuality does not result in dismissal from the priesthood.

Cummings said Thursday evening she was not aware of contact about this issue between Daley and the bishops.

Other diocesan leaders were unavailable for comment Thursday night.

St. Francis DeSales is one of three Utica Catholic churches working on a plan to integrate and become one parish under one priest, with three campuses, by July 2006. Daley is nearing the end of a second, six-year term as pastor of St. Francis, and he hopes to stay in Utica even after completion of that obligation.

“I respect the bishops of our diocese, and I know they respect me and my ministry,” Daley said.

Daley said his decision to come out stems from what he views as the scapegoating of gay clergy over the sexual abuse crisis within the Catholic Church.

“There are many gay priests committed to celibacy, living a celibate life, and doing a beautiful ministry for the church,” Daley said.

Daley was at the center of controversy two years ago, when he was asked to step aside as main speaker at a 9/11 memorial event because there were plans for St. Francis DeSales to host a gay and lesbian Mass. Local firefighters, who were deeply involved in the execution of the event, insisted that Daley be removed.

“All these other issues and crusades should not cloud what this one day is all about,” Assistant Fire Chief Russell Brooks said at the time. “Sept. 11 is supposed to be a day of uniting and healing. I think it’s very inappropriate for (Daley) to bring this to light on that day.”

Utica Mayor Tim Julian said the main speaker should not be someone who speaks out on controversial issues.

“If it was Gay Pride Day, then Father Daley would be very fitting,” Julian said.

Utica Common Councilman Bill Phillips attended the Mass in support of Daley. He said he would do the same thing again now.

“Whatever his sexual preference is, it really doesn’t concern me,” Phillips said Thursday night. “I will say he is one of the greatest humanitarians that I have ever met.”

The controversy spurred a community debate that led to the publication of more than 100 letters to the editor in the O-D.

Friends of Daley believe he may face negative reactions, but that those who truly know him will be supportive.

“Like the New Testament says, you judge a person by the fruits of their labor,” said Michael Crinnin, a longtime friend of Daley’s and executive director of AIDS Community Resources. “He has nothing to show for himself but an incredible number of good works.”

Sister Betty Giarrusso, C.S.J., has worked with Daley for the past 10 years at St. Francis DeSales. She said the “Real Hero” award has always been appropriate for Daley, but particularly now that he has opened up publicly about his sexual orientation.

“I think any time we live from our truth, we don’t know what those consequences will be,” Giarrusso said. “If others have a difficulty accepting who we are or how we’re trying to live, there’s a sadness to that. But to betray oneself is the greatest sadness of all.”

Daley hopes his public acknowledgment will ultimately educate people about homosexuality, and help others who are struggling to come out.

“I know that some people will not understand and it may add to confusion on the part of many, but in prayer I felt that in the long run, the truth — this truth — will help many,” he said, adding that homophobia is the result of ignorance. “I’m being faithful to myself and the Gospel of Jesus.” (As found at: Fred Daley Celebrates Sinful Attractions.)

What happened to “Father” Fred Daley after he celebrated being attracted in a perversely sinful manner to other men?

Nothing. Nothing at all.

Indeed, the tenor of what “Father” Fred Daley said ten years ago represents the sort of “compassion” shown by many of those who have Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s personal favor, including the hand of the aged priest he held hands with of a homosexual activist named “Father” Luigi Ciotti as they walked up the steps of a Roman church on April 2, 2014:

(See the story at the Call Me Jorge website)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio also kissed the hand of a ninety-three year-old homosexual activist named Don Michele De Paolis when he met with him at the Casa Santa Marta on May 7, 2014 (See Jorge the Kissing Fool.)

Bergoglio has no problem with those who live in lives of unrepentant sins of perversion, and he has no problem with those who promote it, which is why “Father” Fred Daley, who is still a pastor in the Diocese of Syracuse, albeit at a different church now, felt that it was time to do what was up until then considered to a “crossing the Rubicon” moment in most dioceses: an open celebration of “Gay Pride” during the month of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, the month of June:

SYRACUSE — For the first time in the history of the Catholic Church in Syracuse, a member parish has hosted a Gay Pride prayer service. Tuesday evening, dozens of people of all different faiths gathered at All Saints Church on Lancaster Place on the city’s east side. The prayer service was billed as a celebration of gay people and a recognition of the ongoing struggle for equality. All Saints Pastor Father Fred Daley said, “Our mission is to be open and welcoming to all people. I think that often religion of all types lose focus on that and can instead become instruments of isolation and segregation. We are trying to be sure to do our best to stop that at All Saints.”

In 2004, Father Daley made headlines, especially among religious publications, when he came out to his congregation  in Utica. The Roman Catholic Church’s position on gays remains unchanged. Church doctrine considers them “intrinsically disordered” and prone to “evil tendencies.” At the Pride prayer service, Fr. Daley said, “This is about God’s love – God made all of us, and we teach that God is good. This event tonight is about inclusion and where there is inclusion there is light.” (The Jorge Effect in Syracuse.)

Wanna write a letter to Jorge about this?

Fuhhgettaboutit!

All efforts, weak as they may have been, on the part of “conservative” “bishops” in the counterfeit church of conciliarism to prevent parishes from sponsoring “gay pride” groups from marching in the annual displays of vulgarity that might have made the inhabitants of Sodom and Gommorha blush with shame have been undercut. What was once forbidden in the conciliar structures is now part of Jorge’s agenda of “charity” and “mercy.”

As has been noted on this site endless, the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism has created, sustained and celebrated an environment that breeds and promotes sodomites in the presbyterate as they  have helped to “mainstream” popular Catholic  acceptance of objectively perverse sinful behavior as a normal part of a person’s identity. And while it is one thing for one to sin or even be tempted to do so, it is quite another to celebrate sin, no less that of the sin of Sodom, one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, and to promote it with ready abandon.

Human identity is not based on upon one’s inclination to the commission of any particular sin, no less those against nature. It is indecent, gross and profanely blasphemous for anyone to contend that God has “made” anyone with a predilection to commit sins against nature. Such sins are a matter of choice, usually preceded by social conditioning, the likes of which in today’s world really has no parallel in history. Not even ancient Rome with all of its decadence can compare to the social conditioning in favor of perversity that exists in the world today, a social conditioning that many of the lords of conciiarism have attempted to “baptize” as part of Catholic “charity.” Those who have done so now have the full blessing and support of none other than the world’s foremost enabler of the “gay agenda,” Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who last year became the first concliar “pope” to use what Mrs. Randy Engel terms as “gayspeak.”

Jorge Mario Bergoglio has even empowered the octogenarian Walter Kasper with a fresh lease on his work of apostasy (see Forever Prowling the World Seeking the Ruin of Souls, part 1 and Forever Prowling the World Seeking The Ruin of Souls, part 2) to prowl all over the world to promote what Kasper himself says is Jorge’s “radical” agenda of going “back to the Bible,” which means throwing out every single doctrinal pronouncement made under the infallible guidance of God the Holy Ghost at Holy Mother Church’s twenty general councils as irrelevant to “these times of mercy.”

Kasper recently appeared at that notorious den of homosexual activism, 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, which is run by Americanism’s own Father Isaac Thomas Hecker’s Society of Saint Paul, to “evangelize” in behalf of Jorge’s false gospel of false charity:

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.'”

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 exist in the synthetic “faith” of conciliarism.

Is it any wonder that the morally corrupt, financially profligate abuser of boys and young men, Father Carlos Urrutigoity (see Leaving Predators Free To Prey Over And Over Again and Adding Shame On Top Of Shame), has risen to the position of “vicar general” under Opus Dei’s Rogelio Livieres Plano? The environment fostered by the likes of Urrutigoity’s fellow Argentinian, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, and his fellow Latin American, Oscar Andres 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), and Walter Kasper makes it eminently possible for the next conciliar “bishop” of Ciudad del Este, Paraguay, to be none other than Father Carlos Urrutigoity upon the retirement of Livieres Plano on August 30, 2020.

Here is the story of this latest development in the story of Urrutigoity, who says that those who accuse him of wrongdoing or criticize him in the slightest are doing the “work of the devil,” something that I know about first-hand as he wrote to me directly after I had submitted a special report to the Diocese of Scranton in Fall of 2000 about his misuse of funds and his failure to disclose his true intentions concerning the sacred liturgy when soliciting money from his donors:

CIUDAD DEL ESTE, Paraguay — A hush falls across the church, broken only by the rhythmic swish of the censer as it bestows acrid incense across the faces of the congregation.

A gaggle of monks in brown habits, their heads tonsured in repentant horseshoes, rises and begins to chant. They are joined by seminarians — priests in training — in floor-length, black soutanes, and Latin liturgy pulses over the pews. The words rise to a massive floor-to-ceiling mural that casts dozens of saintly eyes across the room.

A noise behind the congregation. A door opening. He is here.

Father Carlos Urrutigoity glides into the sanctuary, his ivory and scarlet robes swishing between the pews. Revered by his flock in the unruly diocese of eastern Paraguay’s Ciudad del Este, the priest will deliver his sermon to hundreds of worshippers. They will later clamor outside the church to meet the man, to receive his benediction.

This is a man who’s been described by bishops from Switzerland to Pennsylvania as “dangerous,” “abnormal,” and “a serious threat to young people.”

He has spent two decades flitting from diocese to diocese, always one step ahead of church and legal authorities, before landing in this lawless, remote corner of South America. Here, in the pirate-laden jungle near the Iguacu falls, he has risen to a position of power.

Today, despite warnings from the bishop of Scranton, Pennsylvania, where in 2002 Urrutigoity was accused of molesting a teenage boy and sleeping with and touching other young men, this priest leads a starry-eyed cadre of young male seminarians. Despite once being accused of running what a fellow priest called a “homosexual cult” in the hills of Pennsylvania, Urrutigoity now graces the diocese website here, advertising seminars for budding young Catholics.

Urrutigoity’s voyage from his native Argentina to Pennsylvania and back to South America represents a new chapter in the shocking story of abuse in the Catholic Church.

It illustrates the church’s seeming inability to prevent a priest accused of illegal acts in the United States from fleeing to a remote developing country — even one on the doorstep of Pope Francis’ homeland — and remaking himself into a powerful religious leader.

Urrutigoity, who denies ever molesting anyone, says he’s been the victim of a smear campaign. But to those devoted to uncovering church misdeeds, the Argentine’s sustained protection by the Catholic establishment is emblematic of an ethos of cover-ups and gross negligence that continues to place young people at risk.

“Five, 10, 15 years ago, they would move these guys from the southwest corner of the diocese to the northeast corner of the diocese,” said David Clohessy, director of the St. Louis-based Survivor’s Network of those Abused by Priests or SNAP. “Nowadays, with victims being more organized and the internet, those kinds of moves are more and more risky, so sending someone abroad is a much safer way to keep them on the job.”

Trouble will find me

Trouble has followed Urrutigoity across the globe.

The first notable account of his alleged transgressions is a 1999 letter from Bernard Fellay, spiritual leader of the traditionalist Catholic society of Saint Pius X, based in Switzerland.

Urrutigoity first served at that organization’s seminary in La Reja, Argentina, where Urrugoity was studying. In a letter to then-Bishop of Scranton William Timlin, Fellay warned about what he described as the Argentine priest’s “homosexual behavior,” stating that Urrugoity was asked to leave La Reja and was given a “second chance” at the society’s seminary in Winona, Minnesota.

While in Minnesota, Urrutigoity was accused of approaching a young seminarian’s bed “for obvious dishonest acts,” the letter states. While the seminarian pretended to be sleeping, according to the letter, Urrutigoity touched him sexually.

“Our conclusion is that there is a dangerous pattern in Fr. Urrutigoity and we feel obliged to reveal this to you,” the letter states.

Despite the clear warning, Urrutigoity was allowed to continue living and working in the Diocese of Scranton. Two years later, he was being accused of sexual misconduct again, this time in court.

Cigars, wine and shared sleeping bags

In Pennsylvania, the accusations against Urrutigoity grew more extreme.

He had teamed up with another charismatic Catholic priest, Eric Ensey. With other like-minded leaders, they founded an ultraconservative religious group called the Society of St. John.

In the late 1990s, the Society of St. John found a home in an unused wing of a Catholic boy’s school, St. Gregory’s Academy. That’s when the trouble really started.

In a 2002 lawsuit against Urrutigoity, Ensey and the Diocese of Scranton, the two priests were accused of a pattern of sexual misconduct.

Urrutigoity was accused of giving alcohol and cigars to teenagers, sharing beds and sleeping bags with seminarians and inappropriately touching at least two young men.

The alleged acts were cloaked in a bizarre dogma upon which Urrutigoity and Ensey had founded their society.

Young men were encouraged to form devoted relationships with their spiritual advisers, court records show. Documents from the lawsuit, brought by a victim identified only as “John Doe,” show the seminarians revered Urrutigoity, who became a father figure, guide and close friend.

But that friendship had a dark side, the documents show.

One former member of the Society of St. John said in a deposition that he slept in the same bed as Urrutigoity after the priest said it would help him overcome his “puritanical attitude.” After a few months of their sharing a bed, the seminarian woke one night to find the priest’s hand first on his abdomen, then on [a personal area].

The case stirred up further accusations from Urrutigoity’s time in Winona, as well.

In a deposition for the lawsuit, a former seminarian in Minnesota said Urrutigoity asked him to insert anal suppositories in front of him. When he refused, the young man said in a deposition, Urrutigoity was furious, calling the act a betrayal.

Urrutigoity at least twice invited him to sleep in the same bed, the man said in the deposition. One night, he woke up to find Urrutigoity was molesting him, the seminarian said.

His first instinct was to “rip his head off.”

“I thought about it, and I might have been OK to do it, but my dad told me once a guy hit a priest and his arm was frozen forever,” the former seminarian said in the deposition.

The young man instead settled for breaking ties completely with the man he’d once considered a hero. He left the seminary soon afterward.

The Diocese of Scranton settled the lawsuit in 2004 for more than $400,000. It also sent Urrutigoity and Ensey to The Southdown Institute, an organization in Canada, for a detailed psychological evaluation.

Following that evaluation, the Diocese of Scranton’s Independent Review Board made its recommendation, which was noted in the confidential minutes of the board meeting:

“In view of the credible allegation from the seminarian, his admitted practice of sleeping with boys and young men, and the troubling evaluation by the Southdown Institute, Father Carlos Urrutigoity should be removed from active ministry; his faculties should be revoked; he should be asked to live privately.”

Disappearing and reappearing

The 2002 lawsuit caused uproar in Pennsylvania.

A former member of the Society of St. John took to the internet, campaigning virulently against the conservative sect and calling Urrutigoity “Rasputin in a Roman collar.” Bishop Timlin came under increasing pressure as media attention grew.

Timlin told a deposition that he had done all he could to investigate the claims against Urrutigoity, even sending a diocese lawyer to interview the priest. After the lawsuit was filed, Timlin suspended Urrutigoity and Ensey, barring them from practicing or having contact with children.

A criminal investigation launched by the Lackawanna County district attorney was stymied by a lack of cooperation from St. Gregory’s and Pennsylvania’s short statute of limitations on sex crimes, said Tom Dubas, the lead investigator on the case. Dubas wanted to launch a grand jury investigation, but never had the chance.

As soon as it got out that I was interested in a grand jury, both priests just disappeared,” Dubas said. “We never did convene one.”

Then, in 2008, Urrutigoity began making headlines again, this time in far eastern Paraguay in the den of iniquity known as the Tri-Border Area.

‘A refuge for delinquents’

The Tri-Border Area, at the junction of the borders of Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina, is a hub for everything from drug smuggling to arms dealing to human trafficking.

The city of Ciudad del Este is the region’s ramshackle capital — a maze of crumbling shopping malls and covered markets, bustling with Brazilians hauling duffel bags full of phony goods across the border.

But for some residents of this chaotic city, things went too far when trouble entered the hallowed grounds of Ciudad del Este’s Catholic churches.

In 2008, Javier Miranda, a Ciudad del Este resident who was once an active volunteer at local churches, learned of a recent influx of international priests. He decided to research the newcomers.

It didn’t take Miranda long to unearth the scandals that had followed Urrutigoity. Immediately, he protested against the priest’s presence in the diocese, and was soon joined by dozens more local volunteers and even a group of 12 local priests, who in 2009 signed a letter denouncing Urrutigoity as a divisive figure.

The bishop of Ciudad del Este, Rogelio Ricardo Livieres Plano, responded with a spirited defense of Urrutigoity. The priest had been slandered and persecuted, Livieres said. Miranda and other critics should join with the church in praying for a peaceful end to the controversy, he wrote on the diocese’s website.

Miranda says that far from being welcomed, he and the other vocal critics were ostracized by the church. He also accused Livieres of harboring several other troubled priests.

“For us, the Diocese of Ciudad del Este has become a refuge of delinquents,” Miranda said.

Undeterred, Livieres continued to support Urrutigoity. Last year, he promoted the Argentine to second in command.

That really upset the folks back in Scranton.

‘A serious threat to young people’

In March, the nonprofit group BishopAccountability.org, which specializes in tracking problem priests, announced on its website that not only was Urrutigoity active in the Catholic church in Paraguay, but he had been promoted to the position of vicar general, essentially the second most powerful post in the diocese of Ciudad del Este.

The new bishop of Scranton rushed to defend his diocese and distance it from Urrutigoity.

In a March 15 statement on the diocese website, Bishop Joseph C. Bambera wrote that the diocese had previously “reported its serious concerns about this cleric to appropriate church officials.”

“In every instance, Bishop Martino clearly expressed his reservations concerning Father Urrutigoity, who was identified as posing a serious threat to young people,” Bambera wrote.

Shortly afterward, Bambera announced he was taking his concerns to the Vatican. A diocese spokesman confirmed the bishop has contacted the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a sort of internal affairs for the Catholic Church, about Urrutigoity.

GlobalPost’s email to the Vatican press office requesting comment has not received a response.

Last week, Pope Francis announced he will meet with eight sexual abuse victims, several from Europe, at the Vatican as part of the church’s “zero tolerance” policy. Sexual abuse scandals around the world have dogged the church in the past two decades.

Clohessy, the director of SNAP, said a lack of action on Urrutigoity at this point would be reprehensible.

“The real issue is the continuing refusal — not failure, refusal — of the church hierarchy to take even the most minimal steps to safeguard kids,” Clohessy said.

Outside the church in Ciudad del Este, the normally balmy tropical air has taken on a slight chill. A mist has risen off the nearby river and envelops the faithful as they form a ring around Urrutigoity, waiting to receive his benediction.

Last in line is this GlobalPost reporter. Hearing a question in English, Urrutigoity blinks, then quickly regains his composure. He has an urgent meeting with another priest, he says, but he can answer a couple of questions.

The Argentine priest says he has been the victim of a decades-long smear campaign. Look closely at the people accusing him, he says, and you’ll see the real motives behind the attempts to limit his influence.

“There’s a whole hysteria,” he says. “I think [Bishop Bambera in Scranton] is covering, legally, the bases, so nobody can accuse them and then sue them for millions of dollars.”

In his work, is he in contact with young people? With children? Does he teach? Urrutigoity is asked.

“No, no! Mostly it’s desk work,” the priest insists.

But Urrutigoity’s daily work involves a lot more than sitting in an office.

A January announcement on the diocese’s website named Urrutigoity as one of the key teachers for a course for young people on Catholic culture.

An interview with one of the seminarians at the church where Urrutigoity spoke earlier this month revealed the priest is certainly in the minds and hearts of the more than 40 young men who live in dormitories there.

“Father Urrutigoity is a true superior for us. We view him as a father,” said 20-year-old Mariano Juarez, who spoke in glowing terms about his appointed leader. “In spiritual guidance, which is the most important, in spiritual direction, counseling in difficult times, he helps us with everything.” (Carlos back in business again. See also Mr. James Bendell’s Pray for the Children and Mrs. Randy Engel’s Exploiting Traditionalist Orders: The Society of St. John.)

Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, did his due diligence when warning “Bishop” James Clifford Timlin of the Diocese of Scranton. Timlin simply ignored the warning that was given to him.

One who is blessed with even a modicum of the sensus Catholicus does not dismiss behavior that is clearly immoral as “imprudent,” something that Timlin did in his sworn testimony in one of the cases adjudicated in Lackawana County, Pennsylvania. One recognizes predatory homosexual behavior and grooming for what it is, and recoils in horror against it as he discharges his duty to admonish the sinner to reform his life.

“Bishop” Rogelio Livieres Plano, like so many in the United States of America and elsewhere in the world, refused to believe the testimony of witnesses. He has refused to reach the proper conclusions. He is thus culpable before God, which he will find out at the moment of the Particular Judgment. Indeed, every enabler of clerics and others have engaged in inappropriate and/or overtly immoral behavior with members of the same gender will out at their Particular Judgment that they can be no excusing, no minimizing no seeking to blame the victims, no seeking to blame the messenger that is acceptable to Christ the Divine King and Judge.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Oscar Andres Maradiaga and Walter Kasper, et al., have helped to empower the likes of “Monsignor” Batista Ricca and Fred Daley and Carlos Urruitogity and Don Ciotti and Don Michele De Paolis, who are just a few among so many others in the conciliar structures.

Can anyone imagine Pope Saint Pius X or Padre Pio or Saint John Mary Vianney or Saint Alphonsus de Liguori or Saint Mary Anthony Claret or Saint Peter Damian speaking the words that have issued forth from the mouths of Bergoglio and friends?

If you can’t, then I urge you to review the material found at the beginning of what has become a very long article.

Believe me, I do not like writing long articles, especially when I am completely physically exhausted.

However, I am writing for posterity, not for the glib sound bite. This site exists to serve as a resource long after I am dead if it is God’s Holy Will for the work to remain visible to readers.

It must be stated furthermore that there is nothing to gain by coming to recognize the true state of the Church Militant in this time of apostasy and betrayal.

It is not nice to be estranged from relatives, former friends and acquaintances, most of whom think one to be “schismatic,” “disloyal” and non-Catholic.

However, truth demands our fidelity, not human respect.

The easiest path to acceptance in what passes for “traditionalism” within the “approved” confines of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

To wit, I had an occasion two days ago to review some old financial records and was shocked to discover the numbers of those who were donating to us in 2004, 2005 and early 2006. Some of the donations were substantial. “I can’t believe this,” I said to Sharon. “People actually gave to us.”

It would have been easy to keep my mouth shut eight years ago last month when I became convinced that the See of Peter was vacant. Truth, though, must take us where it will no matter the consequences.

As has been noted before on this site, to embrace the truth and to make whatever sacrifices one must make to persevere in it does not make one one bit better than anyone else, and it does not mean, of course, that one is on the sure path to salvation. Of course not.

What it does mean, however, is that those who seek to disparage those who reject apostates as legitimate Successors of Saint Peter cannot be criticized for “being in it for the money” or for “popularity” as the surest way for a Catholic to lose support and to lose friends and to be thought ill of by relatives is to state clearly that a true pope is beyond criticism, meaning that the men who have posed as “popes” since October 28, 1958, have been imposters given the fact that they had defected from the Faith long before their apparent “elections.”

Look, does anyone really think that Jorge Mario Bergoglio and friends takes the following admonition to those who practice the sin of Sodom made by Saint Paul the Apostle seriously

Writing under the Divine inspiration of God the Holy Ghost, Saint Paul the Apostle wrote as follows

Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use against which is their nature.

And in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.

And as they liked not to  have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.

Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.  (Romans 1: 24-32)

The evidence is clear. Those who do not want to see the evidence and accept what it represents probably will not be convinced of their error save for prayer and fasting on the part of those who do see the truth of our ecclesiastical situation. Evidence and arguments alone have proved insufficient for so many Catholics.

Keep close to Our Lady, especially through her Most Holy Rosary, remembering that that which is false of its nature can never produce good fruit.

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.

Saints Marcellianus, Peter and Erasmus, pray for us.

Saint Francis Caracciolo, pray for us.

Led By Thoroughly False Spirits, part one

The counterfeit church of conciliarism is falling victim to its own falsehoods as the Catholics who are as of yet attached to its structures in the belief that they are “fighting from within” the Catholic Church try to save that which is false from collapsing.

All of the efforts, no matter how noble and well-intentioned, to save various historic churches where God is offended by the staging of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service are doomed to failure. Even temporary reprieves, which are issued by conciliar authorities from time to time, do not last long. Moreover, to what avail is it to save historic church buildings when the true Catholic Faith is not to be found there and when the conciliar authorities are not interested in saving the parishes in whose boundaries they exist by seeking converts from the ranks of the non-Catholics who have displaced Catholics as the predominant part of these parishes’ population?

Well-meaning efforts to “save” the counterfeit church of conciliarism from the natural process of decadence that must occur within any false religion are very misguided as there is no such thing as “partial-credit” Catholicism.

The counterfeit church of conciliarism teaches that the meaning of dogmatic truth can change from time to time as it is said to be impossible for human language to convey with precision and stability the many-varied aspects of it. The Catholic Church has solemnly anathematized such a concept.

The counterfeit church of conciliarism teaches that the “Church of Christ” subsists in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church teaches that she is the only and only Church of Christ.

The counterfeit church of conciliarism teaches that “inter-religious prayer” is the path to “peace” between men and among nations. The Catholic Church forbids such prayer as offensive to God, Who has appointed her as the sole means for promoting His greater honor and glory and of the sanctification of the faithful.

The counterfeit church of conciliarism teaches that the Old Covenant has never been revoked. The Catholic Church teaches that it has.

The counterfeit church of conciliarism teaches that adherents of false religions have a “right” from God Himself to propagate their false beliefs in society. The Catholic Church has condemned “religious liberty” as a “monstrous right” (Pope Pius VI, (Pope Pius VI, Brief Quod aliquantum, March 10, 1791; Religious Liberty, a “Monstrous Right) and as a heresy (Pope Pius VII, Post Tam Diurturnas, April 29, 1714) and as “insanity” (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832) and as “injurious babbling” that would result in the pursuit of material pleasures as the chief purpose of human existence (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)

The counterfeit church of conciliarism teaches that “separation of church and state” is beneficial to men and their nations. The Catholic Church has condemned such an arrangement. Pope Saint Pius X said that the thesis of “separation of Church and State is a thesis absolutely false, reminding us that the Sovereign Pontiffs had never ceased to condemn it as circumstances required them to do so (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)

Well-meaning efforts to “save” the counterfeit church of conciliarism must always result in failure as this false church is only suffering from continuing to suffer the fate of its sister false church, the Anglican sect, from a fate of declining church attendance, loss of belief in the tenets of the Apostles Creed, agnosticism, popular support for every moral evil imaginable in the name of “compassion” and “mercy” and “tolerance” and “diversity.” That which it is false of its nature can never be “willed” into being good and pleasing to God. 

Holy Mother Church is in the catacombs again during this time of her Mystical Burial just as she was before the Edict of Milan in 313 A.D. Most of her great churches and cathedrals were built after that edict, symbolizing Holy Mother Church’s ascent from the underground into the open. The situation is reversed today as the remnant Catholic Church has gone underground today while her structures are in the hands of apostates whose false beliefs have expelled them from her maternal bosom. And it may very well be the case that most of our formerly Catholic church buildings that do not get auctioned off or sold or torn down by the conciliar revolutionaries will be torn down by the caesars themselves. Anyone who does not realize that era of real, bloody persecutions sponsored by the state authorities in supposedly “civilized nations” is right around the corner is not thinking too clearly.

As has been noted on this site in the past,  that “progress” can be made to “save” the counterfeit church of concilairism from the natural fruit of its own decadence will be condemned to the fate of the mythical Sisyphus, who had to spend eternity perpetually trying to roll a huge boulder up a hill, only to have it roll down on him time and time again. Each new crisis engendered by the words and actions of the conciliar revolutionaries brings its own “burst of energy” from well-meaning Catholics, who believe that “Rome” is going to “listen” to the “people” sooner or later. The reality, however, is this: (a) most Catholics in the world support the conciliar revolution completely; and (b) “Rome” is the seat of apostasy at this time.

Remember, there were several celebrated cases of Japanese Imperial Army holdouts in The Philippines who holed up, principally on the Island of Mindanao, for over thirty yeas following the Japanese Empire’s surrender August 15, 1945 (the formal surrender was signed on September 2, 1945).

This is quite pertinent as one considers the efforts Catholics yet attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism to “hold out” themselves in various outposts in order to do “battle” for the Faith against some conciliar revolutionary “priest” who has been installed as a pastor by a conciliar “bishop” to undo the work of a validly ordained priest who tried to hold back the floodgates of the revolution as best he could with the equipment that had been given to him. As a now retired–and battle scarred–combatant in these battles, both as an activist and as one engaged in advocacy journalism, I can report that these battles, although stemming from the highest of motives to help Holy Mother Church, are indeed the equivalent of taking pot shots at “enemy targets” from a jungle tree on Mindanao. The “enemy” has won. The war is over. The battles are useless.

To be sure, the process of decadence has accelerated in the past four hundred forty-six days since the “election” of layman Jorge Mario Bergoglio to be the head of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Bergoglio, however, is merely scraping away whatever remaining trappings of recognizable Catholicism remains in his false church, eagerly embracing almost everything that “conservative” and “traditionally-minded” Catholics in the conciliar structures have fought against or mocked time and time again.

Case-in-point: Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s consistent embrace of the so-called “Catholic Charismatic Movement,” capped by his appearance yesterday, Sunday, June 1, 2014, Sunday within the Octave of the Ascension and the Commemoration of Saint Angela Merici, at the public display of emotionalism and irrationality that passes for a gathering of such “spirit-filled” people at Rome’s Olympic Stadium.

Although a transcript of the false “pontiff’s” remarks is not available now, there is a report on the Vatican Insider website from which a few comments can be offered:

“At first I thought Renewal was a samba school,” the Pope joked and the whole stadium roared with laughter. Then he warned: “When someone thinks they are important, that’s when the plague hits.” Finally, he kneeled down as faithful prayed at the end of his speech, asking the Lord to bless him, just as Francis had asked of them to do straight after his election on 13 March 2013, from the central Loggia of St. Peter’s Basilica.

“Someone is missing here, possibly the most important people: grandparents. They are the guarantors of our faith.” Francis’ words totally threw the organisers of the Charismatic Renewal Convocation (Renewal in the Spirit – RNS), who only expected four people to speak at today’s meeting at the Olympic stadium: a priest, a young boy, a married couple and a disabled person.

“Like good wine, the elderly have freedom given to them by the Holy Spirit,” the Pope said, recalling the presentation of Jesus in the Temple, where he met two elderly people, Simeon and the prophetess Anna. “The elderly are the Church’s wisdom and yet we cast them aside,” the Pope said. That elderly lady, Anna, canonized “gossip” because instead of gossiping, she went around saying that the Saviour had come. Grandmothers and grandfathers are our wisdom and strength.” “May the Lord always give us elderly people who pass onto us the memory and wisdom of the Church and the sense of joy with which Simeon and Anna greeted promises from afar,” Francis said.

He asked the thousands of priests gathered to “be close to the people and to God.” “Lord, look at your people who await the Holy Spirit; look at the young; look at the families; look at children; look at the sick; look at priests; at the consecrated men and women; look at us bishops. Look at everyone and grant us that holy inebriation, the inebriation of the Spirit, which allows us to speak in all languages, the languages of charity, always standing by the side of those brothers and sisters who need us. Teach us not to fight over power, teach us to be humble, to love the Church more than our party, to receive the Spirit, Lord send your Spirit upon us.

After recalling the masses he celebrated in Buenos Aires with RNS, the Pope said: “Thank you. I feel at home with you.” “Married couples are sinners just like everyone else, but they want to continue with love, in all its fecundity. They continue in the faith, bearing children.” This was Francis’ response to the words pronounced by a young bride who greeted Francis on behalf of all families. “Let us pray to the Lord and ask him to protect the family in the crisis with which the devil wants to destroy it,” the Pope said. “Families are the domestic church where Jesus grows in the love of a married couple, in the lives of their children. This is why the devil attacks the family so much,” Francis explained. The devil doesn’t want it and tries to destroy it. The devil tries to make love disappear from there.”

Francis crossed a section of the stadium pitch on foot to get to the stage. He was accompanied by the president of RNS, Salvatore Martinez and the Regent of the Papal Household, Fr. Leonardo Sapienza. Some of the delegates who stood along the course which had been marked out for the Pope, shook his hand. In the meantime, the crowds cheered, sang and called out Francis’ name. In his brief greeting to the Pope, Martinez reminded faithful that Francis wanted them to call out Jesus’ name, not his.

Martinez started singing “Jesus is Lord” in Spanish and Francis joined in. “Holy Father,” RNS’ president continued, “clearly there are no football teams here today, no Roma, no Lazio; our coach is the Holy Spirit and you are our captain, you are the one proposing the team strategy: if we send Jesus onto the pitch, we’ll win. Everyone will win, above all the sick.” “You kept your word when we said that after thirty six years we wanted to move our Convocation from Rimini to Rome and you said to us: “I’ll come”,” Martinez said to Francis. But keeping our word meant asking for a miracle of love: 1300 volunteers worked to get the stadium ready last night.” The crowds exploded into joyful cheering at these words and Martinez continued: “The great gift is the unity which will be the sign of our credibility. We were born with Paul VI, we grew up and matured with John Paul II and now here we are with you. Pentecost is not some red number in the calendar. This is an open-air cenacle. Pray for us and over us.” (Babbling Jorge Appears With Those Who Babble.)

What does Jorge Mario Bergoglio mean by “love” in families?

He means “acceptance” of the “diversity” that exists within families today without any kind of judgmental attitudes.

Isn’t it great that Jorge says the devil is trying to destroy families?

The adversary is clever. He will use his own minions, of which Jorge, who hid his pectoral cross as week ago today when paying a “courtesy” call upon two Talmudic rabbis who hate the Cross of the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King (see On the Road to Gehenna with Jorge, Abe and Omar, part three), is one of the most useful, to denounce him even though they do his bidding for him constantly.

To wit, the conciliar authorities have helped to destroy the integrity of the family by their endorsement of “natural family planning” (see Forty-Three Years After Humanae Vitae, Always Trying To Find A Way and Planting Seeds of Revolutionary Change), “Saint John Paul II’s” “theology of the body,” explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, de facto endorsement of contraception by many conciliar priests and presbyters in the confessional and from the pulpit and in their writings and the upcoming de facto endorsement of the “internal forum” solution to dispense even with formalities of the conciliar nullity process to permit Catholics who are divorced and civilly remarried without a conciliar decree of marital nullity receive what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service (see Jorge Cooks the Books).

Many of the lords of conciliarism, at least on the local levels without interference from “Rome,” have promoted the agenda of the Homosexual Collective up to and including baptizing the children of lesbian “couples,” promoting perverted works of art, reaffirming those steeped in lives of unrepentant sins against nature by means of “support” groups, using “gay speak” and designing churches to make those inclined to such sins feel “at home,” and corrupting the young with “educational” programs that have been designed to catechize them about the necessity of “diversity” and “tolerance.”

Yes, the devil is very much at work against the family, and he has had willing partners among the lords of conciliarism.

Then again, Pentecostalism is evil as the gift of tongues has nothing to do with uttering unintelligible sounds and waving one’s harms or falling prone on the ground. The gift of tongues is what Saint Peter exercised on the first Pentecost Sunday as he spoke in Aramaic but was able to be understand by his audience in each of their own native languages. That’s the gift of tongues, not the “Heebie-geebies, the spirits are about to speak” emotionalism of the so-called “Catholic Charismatic Renewal.”

Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s actual address, which become available today, Monday, June 2, 2014 (Monday within the Octave of the Ascension and the Commemoration of Saints Marcellianus, Peter and Erasmus), demonstrates his complete endorsement of a “spirit” who leads people as he wills without regard to the truths of the Catholic Faith, of which God the Holy Ghost in the infallible guarantor:

Vatican City, 2 June 2014 (VIS) – Yesterday afternoon fifty-two thousand people gathered for the National Convocation of “Renewal in the Spirit”, from 55 countries, applauded Pope Francis’ entry into the Olympic Stadium in Rome where he joined in with the chorus in Spanish of “Vive Jesus, el Senor”, a hymn that the bishop of Rome said he enjoyed greatly when he celebrated Mass in the cathedral of Buenos Aires with members of this movement. Two bodies for the coordination of Catholic Charismatic Renewal throughout the world: ICCRS (International Catholic Charismatic Renewal Services) and CFCCCF (Catholic Fraternity of Charismatic Covenant Communities and Fellowships).

The Pope answered the questions posed to him by priests, young people, families, the sick and the elderly, asking the first among them to remain close to Christ and to his faithful, and warning the second not to keep their youth “locked away in a safe” but rather to “bet on great things”. He reminded families of their roles as a domestic church, and commented that the sick imitate Jesus in the difficult moments of life, and that the elderly are the wisdom and memory of the Church. Finally, he prayed that God might grant to all the “holy intoxication of the Spirit, that enables us to speak many languages, the languages of charity, always close to those brothers and sisters who need us. Teach us not to fight between ourselves over a little more power, … teach us to increasingly love the Church that is our ‘team’, and to keep our hearts open to receive the Holy Spirit”.  

In his address, he affirmed that Renewal in the Spirit is “a great force in the service of the proclamation of the Gospel in the joy of the Holy Spirit. … In the early times, it was said that you always carried a Bible with you, a New Testament. … If not, return to this first love, always carry the Word of God with you, in your pocket, in your bag!” 

He urged them never to lose the freedom that the Holy Spirit gives us, warning them of the danger of “excessive organisation”. “Yes, you need organisation, but do not lose the grace of letting God be God!”. He also warned them of the danger of becoming “controllers” of God’s grace, administrators of race who decide who may receive the prayer of effusion or baptism in the Spirit, and who instead may not. “If any of you do this, I beg you, do not do this any more. You are dispensers of God’s grace, not controllers!”, he underlined. 

Evangelisation, spiritual ecumenism, attention to the poor and needy and welcome to the marginalised, and all on the basis of adoration; the foundation for renewal is adoring God”: thus Pope Francis defined the path of Renewal in the Spirit, to explain the future direction he hoped they would take

“First of all”, he said, “conversion to the love of Jesus, that changes life and makes a Christian a witness to God’s love. I hope that you will share with all in the Church the grace of Baptism in the Holy Spirit. I expect from you an evangelisation with the Word of God that proclaims that Jesus lives and loves all humankind. May you give witness of spiritual ecumenism with all those brothers and sisters of other Churches and Christian communities who believe in Jesus as the Lord and Saviour. May you remain united in the love that the Lord Jesus asks of all for all mankind, and in prayer to the Holy Spirit to reach this unity, necessary for evangelisation in the name of Jesus. Be close to the poor and needy to touch in their flesh the wounded flesh of Jesus. Seek unity in Renewal because unity comes from the Holy Spirit and is born of the unity of the Trinity. Where does division come from? The devil! Division comes from the devil. Flee from internal struggles, please!”.  

In conclusion, Francis called upon them to “Go forth onto the streets and evangelise, proclaim the Gospel. Remember that the Church was born to go forth, that morning of Pentecost. … Let yourselves be guided by the Holy Spirit, with that same freedom. And please, do not cage the Holy Spirit! With freedom!”. (Jorge: Do Not “Cage” My False Spirit.)

Blasphemous apostasy.

“Cage the ‘Holy Spirit'”?

Once again, nothing is new under Jorge’s sun, such as it is.

Here is what he said on June 13, 2013, the Feast of Saint Anthony of Padua:

Pope Francis addressed the two extremes that threaten the progress of the Church at mass Wednesday morning: Fear of any change to the status quo which stops the Church moving forward and a tendency to follow every change dictated by today’s culture, which he described as an ‘adolescent progressivism’ that risks ‘de-railing’ believers.

Instead, the way forward for the Church, as indicated by the Holy Spirit, is that of “freedom,” in continuously discerning God’s will and, he added, rules which kill charisms should not be imposed. The problem and temptation, said Pope Francis, is that we cannot control the Holy Spirit.. Emer McCarthy reports: RealAudioMP3

The Pope’s homily centered around Jesus’ words in the Gospel of the day, (MT 5:17) ” Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.” He said this Gospel passage which follows the Beatitudes is “an expression of the new law” which is more demanding than that of Moses. This law, the Pope added, is “the fruit of the Covenant” and cannot be understood without it. “This Alliance, this law is sacred because it brought the people to God.” Pope Francis likened the “maturity of this law” to a ” bursting bud that reveals a flower.” Jesus “is the expression of the maturity of the law”. The Pope noted that Paul speaks of two times “without breaking continuity” between the law of history and the law of the Spirit:

“The hour of the law’s fulfillment, is when the law reaches its maturity when it becomes the law of the Spirit. Moving forward on this road is somewhat risky, but it is the only road to maturity, to leave behind the times in which we are not mature. Part of the law’s journey to maturity, which comes with preaching Jesus, always involves fear; fear of the freedom that the Spirit gives us. The law of the Spirit makes us free! This freedom frightens us a little, because we are afraid we will confuse the freedom of the Spirit with human freedom. “

Pope Francis continued, the law of the Spirit, “takes us on a path of continuous discernment to do the will of God” and this can frighten us. The Pope warned that this fear “brings two temptations with it.” The first, is to “go backwards” to say that “it’s possible up to this point, but impossible beyond this point” which ends up becoming “let’s stay here”. This, he warned, “is the temptation of fear of freedom, fear of the Holy Spirit.” A fear that “it is better to play it safe.” Pope Francis then told a story about a superior general who, in the 1930’s, went around compiling a list of regulations for his religious, “a work that took years.” Then he travelled to Rome to meet a Benedictine abbot, who, upon hearing all he had done, replied that in doing so he “had killed his Congregation’s charism”, “he had killed its freedom” since “this charism bears fruit in freedom and he had stopped the charism”.

This is the temptation to go backwards, because we are ‘safer’ going back: but total security is in the Holy Spirit that brings you forward, which gives us this trust – as Paul says – which is more demanding because Jesus tells us: “Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law”. It is more demanding! But it does not give us that human security. We cannot control the Holy Spirit: that is the problem! This is a temptation.”

Pope Francis noted that there is another temptation: that of “adolescent progressivism”, that de-rails us. This temptation lies in seeing a culture and “not detaching ourselves from it”.

“We take the values of this culture a little bit from here, a little bit from there , … They want to make this law? Alright let’s go ahead and make this law. Let’s broaden the boundaries here a little. In the end, let me tell you, this is not true progress. It is adolescent progressivism: just like teenagers who in their enthusiasm want to have everything and in the end? You slip up … It’s like when the road is covered in ice and the car slips and go off track… This is the other temptation at the moment! We, at this moment in the history of the Church, we cannot go backwards or go off the track! “

Pope Francis concluded : the track “is that of freedom in the Holy Spirit that makes us free, in continuous discernment of God’s will to move forward on this path, without going back and without going off-track”. Let us ask the Lord for “the grace that the Holy Spirit gives us to go forward.”

Mass was concelebrated by Cardinal João Braz de Aviz, accompanied by priests, religious and lay staff of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life. (Universal Public Face of Apostasy At Abominable Liturgical Service That Pleases Only The Devil: True progress is in trusting the Spirit.)

It is not to “cage” God the Holy Ghost to remain faithful to everything that Our Lord has revealed to us exclusively through His Catholic Church “according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation(cf. Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907).

Bergoglio’s “freedom” is Protestant Pentecostalism. It is from the devil. It leads to Hell.

Thus it is that the entire so-called “Catholic Charismatic Renewal” is simply a manifestation of the diabolical phenomenon known as Protestant Pentecostalism, which is practiced with great fervor by the rabidly anti-Catholic Assemblies of God of which the disgraced “televangelist” Jimmy Swaggart was a “minister,” that does away with the Sacred Deposit of Faith and thus the very Divine Constitution of the Church that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope, to substituted alleged individual and collective “inspirations” from the “spirit” for the immutable truths contained in the Sacred Scripture and Sacred (Apostolic) Tradition.

Pentecostalism has, of course, influenced the counterfeit church of conciliarism very directly through its allegedly Catholic variation, the so-called “Catholic Charismatic Renewal,” sometimes referred to as the “Charismatic Movement,” stressing the relationship of the “individual” to the “Holy Spirit,” Who could guide believers in individual, personal ways by direct inspiration rather than through the direction of a bishop or a priest, no less by the Magisterium of the true Church that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope, the Catholic Church. Individuals can be “sanctified” directly by the “Holy Spirit” absent any reliance upon the Sacraments that Our Lord Himself instituted and entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church for their valid administration according to her approved rites.

Pentecostalism is thus a false spirituality founded in emotionalism and religious indifferentism. It has been so from its inception. It remains so today, making of religious faith and practice a purely experiential reality that can never be understood or expressed intelligibly.

Pope Leo XIII was quite aware that this spirit of American “individualism” was infecting how Catholics in this country viewed Holy Mother Church, understanding quite correctly how this infection would spread over the course of time if the American bishops did nothing to check it by condemning it in no uncertain terms. This is one of the reasons that Pope Leo wrote his Apostolical Letter, Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, January 22, 1899, to James Cardinal Gibbons, the Americanist Archbishop of Baltimore, Maryland, from October 3, 1877, to March 24, 1921. Pope Leo condemned the false spirit of Pentecostalism that he knew would undermine the integrity of the Catholic Faith over time:

Coming now to speak of the conclusions which have been deduced from the above opinions, and for them, we readily believe there was no thought of wrong or guile, yet the things themselves certainly merit some degree of suspicion. First, all external guidance is set aside for those souls who are striving after Christian perfection as being superfluous or indeed, not useful in any sense -the contention being that the Holy Spirit pours richer and more abundant graces than formerly upon the souls of the faithful, so that without human intervention He teaches and guides them by some hidden instinct of His own. Yet it is the sign of no small over-confidence to desire to measure and determine the mode of the Divine communication to mankind, since it wholly depends upon His own good pleasure, and He is a most generous dispenser ‘of his own gifts. “The Spirit breatheth whereso He listeth.” — John iii, 8.

“And to each one of us grace is given according to the measure of the giving of Christ.” — Eph. iv, 7.

And shall any one who recalls the history of the apostles, the faith of the nascent church, the trials and deaths of the martyrs and, above all, those olden times, so fruitful in saints-dare to measure our age with these, or affirm that they received less of the divine outpouring from the Spirit of Holiness? Not to dwell upon this point, there is no one who calls in question the truth that the Holy Spirit does work by a secret descent into the souls of the just and that He stirs them alike by warnings and impulses, since unless this were the case all outward defense and authority would be unavailing. “For if any persuades himself that he can give assent to saving, that is, to gospel truth when proclaimed, without any illumination of the Holy Spirit, who gives unto all sweetness both to assent and to hold, such an one is deceived by a heretical spirit.”-From the Second Council of Orange, Canon 7.

Moreover, as experience shows, these monitions and impulses of the Holy Spirit are for the most part felt through the medium of the aid and light of an external teaching authority. To quote St. Augustine. “He (the Holy Spirit) co-operates to the fruit gathered from the good trees, since He externally waters and cultivates them by the outward ministry of men, and yet of Himself bestows the inward increase.”-De Gratia Christi, Chapter xix. This, indeed, belongs to the ordinary law of God’s loving providence that as He has decreed that men for the most part shall be saved by the ministry also of men, so has He wished that those whom He calls to the higher planes of holiness should be led thereto by men; hence St. Chrysostom declares we are taught of God through the instrumentality of men.-Homily I in Inscrib. Altar. Of this a striking example is given us in the very first days of the Church.

For though Saul, intent upon blood and slaughter, had heard the voice of our Lord Himself and had asked, “What dost Thou wish me to do?” yet he was bidden to enter Damascus and search for Ananias. Acts ix: “Enter the city and it shall be there told to thee what thou must do.”

Nor can we leave out of consideration the truth that those who are striving after perfection, since by that fact they walk in no beaten or well-known path, are the most liable to stray, and hence have greater need than others of a teacher and guide. Such guidance has ever obtained in the Church; it has been the universal teaching of those who throughout the ages have been eminent for wisdom and sanctity-and hence to reject it would be to commit one’s self to a belief at once rash and dangerous.

A thorough consideration of this point, in the supposition that no exterior guide is granted such souls, will make us see the difficulty of locating or determining the direction and application of that more abundant influx of the Holy Spirit so greatly extolled by innovators. To practice virtue there is absolute need of the assistance of the Holy Spirit, yet we find those who are fond of novelty giving an unwarranted importance to the natural virtues, as though they better responded to the customs and necessities of the times and that having these as his outfit man becomes more ready to act and more strenuous in action. It is not easy to understand how persons possessed of Christian wisdom can either prefer natural to supernatural virtues or attribute to them a greater efficacy and fruitfulness. Can it be that nature conjoined with grace is weaker than when left to herself?

Can it be that those men illustrious for sanctity, whom the Church distinguishes and openly pays homage to, were deficient, came short in the order of nature and its endowments, because they excelled in Christian strength? And although it be allowed at times to wonder at acts worthy of admiration which are the outcome of natural virtue-is there anyone at all endowed simply with an outfit of natural virtue? Is there any one not tried by mental anxiety, and this in no light degree? Yet ever to master such, as also to preserve in its entirety the law of the natural order, requires an assistance from on high. These single notable acts to which we have alluded will frequently upon a closer investigation be found to exhibit the appearance rather than the reality of virtue. Grant that it is virtue, unless we would “run in vain” and be unmindful of that eternal bliss which a good God in his mercy has destined for us, of what avail are natural virtues unless seconded by the gift of divine grace? Hence St. Augustine well says: “Wonderful is the strength, and swift the course, but outside the true path.” For as the nature of man, owing to the primal fault, is inclined to evil and dishonor, yet by the help of grace is raised up, is borne along with a new greatness and strength, so, too, virtue, which is not the product of nature alone, but of grace also, is made fruitful unto everlasting life and takes on a more strong and abiding character. (Pope Leo XIII, Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, January 22, 1899.) 

In other words, Pentecostalists  contend that one must open oneself up to the belief that there should be “liberty” within the Church to discuss “new” things in imitation of the falsehoods of the American founding itself. It is also to open oneself up to reject the hierarchical nature of the Church herself.

That is, a belief in American individualism and egalitarianism, each of which are false naturalistic principles having nothing to do with the Faith (the first individualist and egalitarian was Lucifer, after all), leads one down the path of the layman seeking equality in the sanctuary with the ordained priest, of the abolition of Communion rails, of standing for the reception of what purports to be Holy Communion, of the use of vulgar tongues, subject to all manner of change and misinterpretation and deconstruction and positivism, in the Sacred Liturgy, of the rejection of the magisterial authority of the Catholic Church as binding upon one’s conscience at all times and in all things. And the rejection of the magisterial authority of the Catholic Church leads one open to adopting Protestant Pentecostalism as the means by which one “knows” about God, deluding himself into thinking that God the Holy Ghost is leading him individually on a new path that deviates from the one prescribed by the Catholic Church. There is thus a direct path from Americanism to the “Catholic Charismatic Renewal” of conciliarism–in all of the other “movements” that have sprung up like weeds in the past forty-nine years since the close of the “Second” Vatican Council.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio has made it clear that the “spirit” does not want to return to the “formality” of the “past.”

Jorge Mario Bergoglio has made it clear that the “spirit” likes his clown liturgies.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio has made it clear that the “spirit” likes liturgies staged facing the people.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio has made it clear that the “spirit” just loves religious liberty and separation of Church and State even though both are responsible, proximately speaking, for the rise of so many socially accepted and institutionalized evils, including child euthanasia laws in Belgium (see Hitler Prevails After All).

Jorge Mario Bergoglio has made it clear that the “spirit” has led him to seek the blessings of Protestant Penecostalists and to coauthor a book with  a pro-abortion, pro-perversity Talmudic rabbi.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio just loves to “move with the spirit,” who just kind of “blows with the times.”

Unfortunately for Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the “spirit by which he “moves” is diabolical, and it is thus a diabolical spirit that drives him to be obsessed about those who want to go back to a “past” where Catholics understood that God and His Holy Truths are immutable, an immutability that was reflected in the transcendent glory, permanence, beauty and universality of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ taught to the Apostles in all of its essential elements between his Resurrection on Easter Sunday and His Ascension to His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal Father’s right hand on Ascension Thursday.

Here is news for Jorge Mario Bergoglio: Only an evil spirit can inspire him to hide his pectoral cross in the presence of two Talmudic rabbis who hate the very instrument upon which the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, offered Himself up to His Co-Eternal and Co-Equal God the Father in atonement for our sins.

Part two of this commentary will take a look at some of the future plans that Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s false “spirit” might have in store for a false church, the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

We must have recourse in this month of June to  the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus as His consecrated slaves through His Blessed Mother’s Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. One of the ways that we can do do this by reciting the Litany of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus every day in reparation for the blasphemies, outrages, sacrileges, apostasies and heresies of the conciliar revolutionaries.

The Most Sacred Heart of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is consoled each time we pray His Most Blessed Mother’s Most Holy Rosary with care and fervor.

Entrust yourselves, therefore, to Our Lord’s Most Sacred Heart through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. 

Remember that Our Lord won the graces for us to carry the crosses of the present moment with joy and gratitude, wanting us to beg Him for those graces as we intercede with the Mediatrix of All Graces, His own Most Blessed Mother.

What are we waiting for?

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.

Saints Marcellianus, Peter and Erasmus, pray for us.

 

On the Road to Gehenna With Jorge, Abe and Omar, part four

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?

God will not be mocked, and this is only a mild down payment on future chastisements for the sins of the conciliar revolutionaries, who are themselves chastisements send to us by God in punishment for our own sins and those of the whole world.
A “New Way” of Exercising the “Petrine Ministry”

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 [49], 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 [50].

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.” [51]

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 [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. 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 [54]. 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?

Not much.

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.

Appendix

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:

  1. 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;
  2. 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.”

On The Road To Gehenna With Jorge, Abe and Omar, part three

Given the time difference between the United States and the Holy Land, I did not watch the http://meetingthemets.com/wp-admin/post-new.phpevents of the now-concluded “papal” pilgrimage live. Indeed, as there are only twenty-four hours in a day, the little time that I did spend watching the “video-on-demand” on the conciliar Vatican’s website of various events (the beginning of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo litrurgical service in Manger Square in Bethlehem, the entirety of the welcoming ceremony at the Ben Gurion International Airport and the laying of the wreath in front of the tomb of the founder of International Zionism, Theodore Herzl) delayed writing about those events until very late at night. None of the past three articles, On the Road to Gehenna With Jorge, Abe and Omar, part one, Inspired by the Same Scriptwriter and On the Road to Gehenna with Jorge, Abe and Omar, part two, could have been written if I had watched everything via video-on-demand. Relying almost exclusively on the written texts and news coverage, however, does have its drawbacks as one might miss important visual images that the mainslime media might not deem important to include in news stories.

Thou Shalt Not Preach Christ and Him Crucified to the Jews

Such was the case with respect to Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s hiding his pectoral cross (which is not his to wear as he is not a true bishop) beneath his fascia (the white sash) when addressing the two chief rabbis of Jerusalem as follows yesterday, Monday, May 26, 2014, the Feast of Saint Phlip Neri and the Commemoration of Pope Saint Eleutherius:

I am particularly pleased to be here with you today. I am grateful for your warm reception and your kind words of welcome.

As you know, from the time I was Archbishop of Buenos Aires, I have counted many Jews among my friends. Today two friends who are rabbis are here with us. Together we organized rewarding occasions of encounter and dialogue; with them I also experienced significant moments of sharing on a spiritual level. In the first months of my pontificate, I was able to receive various organizations and representatives from the Jewish community worldwide. As was the case with my predecessors, there have been many requests for such meetings. Together with the numerous initiatives taking place on national and local levels, these testify to our mutual desire to know one another better, to listen to each other and to build bonds of true fraternity.

This journey of friendship represents one of the fruits of the Second Vatican Council, and particularly of the Declaration Nostra Aetate, which proved so influential and whose fiftieth anniversary we will celebrate next year. I am convinced that the progress which has been made in recent decades in the relationship between Jews and Catholics has been a genuine gift of God, one of those great works for which we are called to bless his holy name: “Give thanks to the Lord of lords, for his love endures forever; who alone has wrought marvellous works, for his love endures forever” (Ps 135/136:3-4). 

A gift of God, yes, but one which would not have come about without the efforts of so many courageous and generous people, Jews and Christians alike. Here I would like to mention in particular the growing importance of the dialogue between the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews. Inspired by the visit of Pope John Paul II to the Holy Land, this dialogue was inaugurated in 2002 and is already in its twelfth year. I would like to think that, in terms of the Jewish tradition of the Bar Mitzvah, it is just coming of age. I am confident that it will continue and have a bright future in years to come. 

We need to do more than simply establish reciprocal and respectful relations on a human level: we are also called, as Christians and Jews, to reflect deeply on the spiritual significance of the bond existing between us. It is a bond whose origins are from on high, one which transcends our own plans and projects, and one which remains intact despite all the difficulties which, sadly, have marked our relationship in the past. 

On the part of Catholics, there is a clear intention to reflect deeply on the significance of the Jewish roots of our own faith. I trust that, with your help, on the part of Jews too, there will be a continued and even growing interest in knowledge of Christianity, also in this holy land to which Christians trace their origins. This is especially to be hoped for among young people.

Mutual understanding of our spiritual heritage, appreciation for what we have in common and respect in matters on which we disagree: all these can help to guide us to a closer relationship, an intention which we put in God’s hands. Together, we can make a great contribution to the cause of peace; together, we can bear witness, in this rapidly changing world, to the perennial importance of the divine plan of creation; together, we can firmly oppose every form of anti-Semitism and all other forms of discrimination. May the Lord help us to walk with confidence and strength in his ways. Shalom! (Courtesy Visit to Caiphas and Annas at Heichal Shlomo Center in Jerusalem.)

Although there are some rumblings to be found among a few professional Talmuic victimologists about the symbolism of Bergoglio’s touching his head against the Israeli version of the Berlin Wall while he was in the Palestinian Authority on Sunday, May 25, 2014, the Fifth Sunday after Easter and the Commemoration of Popes Saint Gregory VII and Saint Urban I (see A slap in the face), Jorge Mario Bergoglio made all manner of symbolic gestures to show his love and appreciation for “the people of the Covenant,” including, as noted just above, removing his pectoral cross:

francis-hidden-crucifix3.jpg
francis-hidden-crucifix1.jpg
francis-hidden-crucifix2.jpg
(As found at Novus Ordo Watch Wire. There is also excellent information and commentary at Call Me Jorge)
Gestures such as these are not lost on the rabbis, who will let the politicians vent their spleens over the “incident” at the Israeli version of the Berlin Wall. The rabbis are very pleased to see a putative Catholic “pope” hide the very instrument of human salvation that they hate with an indescribable ferocity of passion. This is why some Talmudic rabbis recognize that they have never had a better friend than Jorge Mario Bergoglio (see Jorge most open Modernist to Jews in history, rabbi says), who has lit menorahs in Argentina, “prayed” from the blasphemous Talmud and has hidden his pectoral cross before, doing so just four months ago as he hosted some Talmudic pals from Argentina for a “Kosher” lunch at the Casa Santa Marta whose “purity” was supervised by a local rabbi in Rome.
Moreover, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not the first of the conciliar “pontiffs” to hide his pectoral cross when in the presence of Talmudists. Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, excuse me, “Saint John Paul II,” did this several times.

Yes, “Saint John Paul II,” who ran afoul of the Talmdists several times, including when he received then Austrian President Kurt Waldheim in the Apostolic Palace on June 26, 1987 (see JOHN PAUL HOLDS WALDHEIM MEETING), was as a great appeaser of the contemporary enemies of the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His Social Kingship over men and their nations in his own right.

Wojtyla/John Paul II went so far as to remove the very Sign of our salvation, the Sign of the Cross, at various times and in various places where adherents of the Talmud might have or were in fact offended.

The false “pontiff” removed his pectoral cross (remember, he was a true bishop appointed by our last true pope thus far, Pope Pius XII on July 4, 1958, and consecrated on the Feast of Saint Wenceslaus, September 28, 1958, just eleven days before Pope Pius XII’s death) on April 7, 1994, at the Paul VI Audience Hall as he hosted a concert in honor of the Talmudic victims of the Nazi regime.

He did more than that, however: he removed a crucifix from the Paul VI Audience Hall. This has nothing to do with fidelity to the Christ King, who won our salvation for us on the wood of the Holy Cross. That concert was “the first time the Chief Rabbi of Rome was invited to co-officiate at a public function in the Vatican, the first time a Jewish cantor sang at the Vatican, and the first time the Vatican choir sang a Hebrew text in performance” (The Vatican, the Holocaust, and the Jews: 1945-2000, a Talmudic source for this; see also: CHRONICLE – The New York Times and YOM HASHOAH, another Talmudic source for the “concert”).

Wojtyla/John Paul II also intervened personally in 1998 when Talmudists expressed their opposition to a large cross that had been erected by Carmelite sisters in Poland near the Auschwitz concentration camp and death center where Father Maximilian Kolbe, the great apostle of the City of Mary Immaculate, was put to death. The Polish “pope” requested that the Carmelite nuns remove the large cross because the Talmudists were “offended” by it. So what? Catholics are never afraid to lift high the standard of the Holy Cross. Then again, the conciliar “popes” had expelled themselves from the Catholic Faith long before their apparent “elections.”

Not to be outdone by the man he called his “boss,” the late John “Cardinal” O’Connor, the conciliar “archbishop” of New York from March 19, 1984, to May 3, 2000, never offended the Talmudists. Not once, Ever.

O’Connor even spoke approvingly of the decision of a Catholic man, Stephen Dubner, to convert to Talmudism: 

But like many a Jewish son before him, he couldn’t separate from his mother. He wanted her approval. He presented his problem to Cardinal O’Connor, who artfully contrived a theological olive branch: ”Tell your mother that you have tried to study this, that you have prayed about it, this is not just a revolt or a rejection, this is not a dismissal of what you don’t understand — that this is where you think God wants you to be, an informed Jew.” (BOOKS OF THE TIMES; Words Upon the Heart, Heard at Last)

“Cardinal” O’Connor told an interviewer for the American Broadcasting Company’s Nightline television program that “God is smiling on all of this” when recalling his conversation with Stephen Dubner. Oh, by the way, the wonderful people at the Nightline televised the interview on the evening of December 25, 1997.

O’Connor also told a B’Nai Brith meeting in early-1998 that Judaism and Catholicism were meant to “coexist side by side” until the end of time. “This is what my boss (John Paul II) teaches, and I work for my boss.” The original citation for this came from a newspaper article that I cited in the printed pages of Christ or Chaos. There is also an allusion to this address in a reminiscence of O’Connor provided by the late pro-abortion “papal” “knight,” Rabbi Leon Klenicki, in Full of Grace: An Oral Biography of John Cardinal O’Connor, edited by Terry Golway:

Once we invited him to talk at one of the Anti-Defamation League dinners. He was there to help present a booklet we had put out. During his speech, he told a story about how he once went to a Reform synagogue and he was the only one there with a yarmulke. Several Reform rabbis who were there looked at each others–I think they couldn’t believe it–but everybody was laughing. The Cardinal had a serious point, too. Later that night, he said that he was in pain because there are Jews who do not want to exercise their Judaism because of assimilation or other reasons. It is their duty to practice their faith, he said, to prove that God exists and to refute the Holocaust. He sounded very much like a rabbi when he spoke. The crowd was all around him afterwards, shaking his hand and embracing him. I told him if he ever needed a job I knew a congregation that could use him. (Page 148 of Full of Grace: An Oral Biography of John Cardinal O’Connor.)

In our own time, of course, even Jorge Mario Bergoglio has been outdone by the man whose star has faded in conciliar circles in the last fourteen months (see Dolan Faces New Reality in the Era of Jorge), Timothy Michael Dolan, the former “cheesehead” conciliar “archbishop” of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, who has been the conciliar “archbishop” of New York since April 15, 2009. Dolan said the following on February 23, 2013, when addressing the pro-abortion, pro-perversity Lincoln Square Synagogue in the Borough of Manhattan of the City of New York, New York, that played an instrumental role in the “formation” of a certain Elena Kagan, who has been an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America since August 7, 2010:

Shabbat Shalom!

Thank you so much for your generous invitation and warm welcome. What an honor and a joy to be with you here at the historic and renowned Lincoln Square Synagogue.

Long have I been aware of the prominence of this community, as, during my graduate studies at the Catholic University of America, our course in American Religious History featured attention to Modern Orthodox Judaism, its flagship synagogue here, and the foundational efforts of Rabbi Shlomo Riskin.

Now what a privilege it is to be a part of the celebration of welcome as we thank God for this splendid new sanctuary! As your psalms pray, “Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who toil!” So, praise God:

I’d say “Alleluia” but I can’t because for us Catholics it’s our penitential season of Lent, and we can’t say that “A-word” until Easter!

Can I get a little personal here? Today is the fourth anniversary of my appointment by Pope Benedict XVI as archbishop of New York.

Four happy years…and the Jewish community of New York is one of the big reasons why. From the start you have welcomed and embraced me. I love you; I respect you; I need you; I thank you.

Tomorrow, the second Sunday of Lent, we always have the Gospel account of what we call the Transfiguration of Jesus on Mount Tabor. There, the Jewish fisherman, the Jewish first pope, St. Peter, said to Jesus, “It is good for us to be here.”

Those words I make my own this morning.

I also appreciate the encouragement this visit gives me in my efforts to repair and restore another historic house of prayer and worship, Saint Patrick’s Cathedral. Don’t worry: I’m not going to ask for money—while recognizing what a tradition that is in both of our religions—although I do happen to have some pledge cards on me!

This beautiful occasion this morning might be a providential occasion to celebrate as well the common values we as Jews and Catholics deeply cherish. Can I mention just two?

One would be the high importance of the Sabbath: you begin with sundown on Friday and go through Saturday; we start with sundown on Saturday and go through Sunday.

We both do it with humble obedience to the Lord’s command, following His own example of rest after the labor of creation, don’t we?

I propose that our fidelity to the Sabbath is good for us, and good for the world.

It’s good for us as we individually, and as a religious community, need worship, prayer, and fellowship to keep our spirits focused and our faith fervent.

A wise mentor once told me, “Science teaches us that the earth is not the center of the universe. Faith teaches me that neither am I.”

God and others come first. The weekly reminder of the Sabbath.

I suppose that’s the message to be found in the startling decision of Pope Benedict XVI to leave the Chair of St. Peter. It’s not about an office, the pomp, the prominence, the prestige, the Holy Father hints, but about Jesus and His Church. It’s really all about God.

That’s what you and I profess every Sabbath! That’s good for us; that’s good for our culture.

Two, we both value love and service. Just ten days ago, on Ash Wednesday, as we began our forty days of fervent prayer, penance, and acts of charity in preparation for our high holy days, the fifty thousand folks who came through Saint Patrick’s Cathedral, heard the words of your prophet, Isaiah.

“This is the worship and fasting that I wish: releasing those bound unjustly, untying the thongs of the yoke; setting free the oppressed, breaking every yoke; sharing your bread with the hungry, sheltering the oppressed and the homeless; clothing the naked when you see them, and not turning your back on your own.”

Jesus won’t let me brag about such work that we as Catholics do, since, on that same day, Ash Wednesday, He told us in the Gospel that our good works should be done in secret.

But, I sure can congratulate you for the radiant love, service, and works of charity and justice you do! We’re all impressed by your effective food and clothing drives, your Red Cross blood drives, your community outreach and weekly bags of bread to the West Side Campaign Against Hunger. And we sure appreciated the partnership of the UJA with Catholic Charities in the Feeding Our Neighbors Campaign three weeks ago.

Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta observed, “There’s a word for faith without love, and that word is a sham.”

And Bl. John Paul II, who so loved you, remarked, “Men and women today learn much more from witness than from words.”

God bless you, Lincoln Square Synagogue, for the radiant witness of your love which make genuine the words of praise we express on the sabbath! (The Gospel in the Digital Age. For the dissection of this, see You’re Not Supposed To Do This”).

What Jorge did in Jerusalem in front of Caiphas and Annas two days ago now is just standard issue conciliarism: never preach Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and Him Crucified to the Jews. Never.

To use a term coined by none other than Vladimir I. Lenin, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a “useful idiot” to the Talmudists and Zionists as they know that they can count on him to denounce any Catholic who dares to speak in traditionally Catholic terms about their false religion. And it is indeed a telling commentary on the state of apostasy and betrayal in which we find ourselves at this time that the Talmudists know orthodox Catholic doctrine better than perhaps ninety-five cent of Catholics alive today, and they want to make sure that it stays that way. Jorge has done them great favors by bashing fully believing Catholics time and time again at the Casa Santa Marta.

Jorge and the Mohammedans

Although less heralded than his groveling before the Talmudists in Jerusalem, Jorge Mario Bergoglio did make a stop on Monday, May 26, 2014, to the “grand mufti” of the false religion known as Mohammedanism, where, of course, he did not preach Our Lord and Him Crucified to these merchants of lies:

I am grateful for the opportunity to meet with you in this sacred place. I thank you for the courteous invitation you have extended to me and, in particular, I wish to thank the Grand Mufti and the President of the Supreme Muslim Council.

Following in the footsteps of my predecessors, and in particular the historic visit of Pope Paul VI fifty years ago, the first visit of a Pope to the Holy Land, I have greatly desired to come as a pilgrim to the places which witnessed the earthly presence of Jesus Christ. But my pilgrimage would not be complete if it did not also include a meeting with the people and the communities who live in this Land. I am particularly happy, therefore, to be with you, dear Muslim faithful, brothers.

At this moment I think of Abraham, who lived as a pilgrim in these lands. Muslims, Christians and Jews see in him, albeit in different ways, a father in faith and a great example to be imitated. He became a pilgrim, leaving his own people and his own house in order to embark on that spiritual adventure to which God called him.

A pilgrim is a person who makes himself poor and sets forth on a journey. Pilgrims set out intently toward a great and longed-for destination, and they live in the hope of a promise received (cf. Heb 11:8-19). This was how Abraham lived, and this should be our spiritual attitude. We can never think ourselves self-sufficient, masters of our own lives. We cannot be content with remaining withdrawn, secure in our convictions. Before the mystery of God we are all poor. We realize that we must constantly be prepared to go out from ourselves, docile to God’s call and open to the future that he wishes to create for us.

In our earthly pilgrimage we are not alone. We cross paths with other faithful; at times we share with them a stretch of the road and at other times we experience with them a moment of rest which refreshes us. Such is our meeting today, for which I am particularly grateful. It is a welcome and shared moment of rest, made possible by your hospitality, on the pilgrimage of our life and that of our communities. We are experiencing a fraternal dialogue and exchange which are able to restore us and offer us new strength to confront the common challenges before us.

Nor can we forget that the pilgrimage of Abraham was also a summons to righteousness: God wanted him to witness his way of acting and to imitate him. We too wish to witness to God’s working in the world, and so, precisely in this meeting, we hear deep within us his summons to work for peace and justice, to implore these gifts in prayer and to learn from on high mercy, magnanimity and compassion.

Dear brothers, dear friends, from this holy place I make a heartfelt plea to all people and to all communities who look to Abraham: may we respect and love one another as brothers and sisters! May we learn to understand the sufferings of others!  May no one abuse the name of God through violence! May we work together for justice and peace! Salaam! (Visit to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in the building of the Great Council on the Esplanade of the Mosques, Jerusalem, 26 May 2014.)

Sacred place?

A den where the devil is worshiped is “sacred”?

Not to the true God of Divine Revelation Whom the Mohammedans revile, the Most Holy Trinity.

Then again, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI actually did Jorge one better five years ago, that is, on Wednesday, May 12, 2009, the Feast of Saints Nereus, Achilleus, Pancras and Domitilla, as he entered into the Dome of the Rock itself and took off his shoes as he had done at the Blue Mosque in Istanbul, Turkey, on November 30, 2005, starting his address in exactly the same manner as his successor did two days ago:

I cordially thank the Grand Mufti, Muhammad Ahmad Hussein, together with the Director of the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf, Sheikh Mohammed Azzam al-Khatib al-Tamimi, and the Head of the Awquaf Council, Sheikh Abdel Azim Salhab, for the welcome they have extended to me on your behalf. I am deeply grateful for the invitation to visit this sacred place, and I willingly pay my respects to you and the leaders of the Islamic community in Jerusalem. (Courtesy visit to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem at the Mount of the Temple,)

As I keep trying to explain to the readership of this site, the conciliar apostates hath not the Catholic Faith. They are apostates, and apostates do apostate things, which means that they spread heresies, commit sacrileges, utter blasphemies and fail to preach Our Lord and Him Crucified to those who deny His Sacred Divinity.

Jorge has gone to great lengths to show his respect for the blasphemous Mohammedan religion, going so far as to issue the “end of Ramadan” greetings himself last year rather than let the conciliar Vatican’s full-time syncretist, Jean-Louis “Cardinal” Tauran, do so:

To Muslims throughout the World

It gives me great pleasure to greet you as you celebrate ‘Id al-Fitr, so concluding the month of Ramadan, dedicated mainly to fasting, prayer and almsgiving.

It is a tradition by now that, on this occasion, the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue sends you a message of good wishes, together with a proposed theme for common reflection. This year, the first of my Pontificate, I have decided to sign this traditional message myself and to send it to you, dear friends, as an expression of esteem and friendship for all Muslims, especially those who are religious leaders.

As you all know, when the Cardinals elected me as Bishop of Rome and Universal Pastor of the Catholic Church, I chose the name of “Francis”, a very famous saint who loved God and every human being deeply, to the point of being called “universal brother”. He loved, helped and served the needy, the sick and the poor; he also cared greatly for creation.

I am aware that family and social dimensions enjoy a particular prominence for Muslims during this period, and it is worth noting that there are certain parallels in each of these areas with Christian faith and practice.

This year, the theme on which I would like to reflect with you and with all who will read this message is one that concerns both Muslims and Christians: Promoting Mutual Respect through Education.

This year’s theme is intended to underline the importance of education in the way we understand each other, built upon the foundation of mutual respect. “Respect” means an attitude of kindness towards people for whom we have consideration and esteem. “Mutual” means that this is not a one-way process, but something shared by both sides.

What we are called to respect in each person is first of all his life, his physical integrity, his dignity and the rights deriving from that dignity, his reputation, his property, his ethnic and cultural identity, his ideas and his political choices. We are therefore called to think, speak and write respectfully of the other, not only in his presence, but always and everywhere, avoiding unfair criticism or defamation. Families, schools, religious teaching and all forms of media have a role to play in achieving this goal.

Turning to mutual respect in interreligious relations, especially between Christians and Muslims, we are called to respect the religion of the other, its teachings, its symbols, its values. Particular respect is due to religious leaders and to places of worship. How painful are attacks on one or other of these!

It is clear that, when we show respect for the religion of our neighbours or when we offer them our good wishes on the occasion of a religious celebration, we simply seek to share their joy, without making reference to the content of their religious convictions.

Regarding the education of Muslim and Christian youth, we have to bring up our young people to think and speak respectfully of other religions and their followers, and to avoid ridiculing or denigrating their convictions and practices.

We all know that mutual respect is fundamental in any human relationship, especially among people who profess religious belief. In this way, sincere and lasting friendship can grow.

When I received the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See on 22 March 2013, I said: “It is not possible to establish true links with God, while ignoring other people. Hence it is important to intensify dialogue among the various religions, and I am thinking particularly of dialogue with Islam. At the Mass marking the beginning of my ministry, I greatly appreciated the presence of so many civil and religious leaders from the Islamic world.” With these words, I wished to emphasize once more the great importance of dialogue and cooperation among believers, in particular Christians and Muslims, and the need for it to be enhanced.

With these sentiments, I reiterate my hope that all Christians and Muslims may be true promoters of mutual respect and friendship, in particular through education.

Finally, I send you my prayerful good wishes, that your lives may glorify the Almighty and give joy to those around you. Happy Feast to you all! (Jorge Blows Hugs and Kisses to Muslims for end of Ramadan: Promoting Mutual Respect through Education.)

So much for the First Commandment.

“We are called to respect the religion of the other, its teachings, its symbols, its values. Particular respect is due to religious leaders and to places of worship. How painful are attacks on one or other of these!”

Blasphemy.

Utter and complete blasphemy.

Catholic writer Raymond Taouck’s excellent treatise explaining that Catholics and Mohammedans do not worship the same God are not “brothers” in faith contains some important quotations that show forth the manifest apostasy of the conciliar revolutionaries, including Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself:

Catholics often forget that those faithful living on earth come under the title of “Church Militant”. What is a Catholic who does not confess his faith or worse yet a Catholic who does not believe his faith?

St. Peter Canisius puts it this way: “Who is to be called a Christian? He who confesses the doctrine of Christ and His Church. Hence, he is truly a Christian thoroughly condemns and detests, the Jewish, Mohammedan, and the heretical cults and sects.” [20]

What did St. Peter Mavimenus tell the Mohammedans? Did he say, “We worship the same God, all is well” No! He told them the truth, he put it this way to them “Whoever does not embrace the Catholic Christian religion will be damned, as was your false prophet Mohammed.” [21]

Again we read that Blessed Nicholas Tavilich was just as stern as he openly states, “You Mohammedans are in a state of everlasting damnation. Your Koran is not God’s law nor is it revealed by Him. Far from being a good thing, your law is utterly evil. It is founded neither in the Old Testament nor in the New. In it are lies, foolish things, buffooneries, contradictions, and much that leads not to virtue and goodness but to evil and to all manner of vice.” [22]

St. Alphonsus attests to the fact how the Holy Monk St. Goerge of San Saba openly confessed to the Mohammedans: “But the holy monk (St. George of San Saba) having declared that Mahomet was a disciple of the devil, and that his followers were in a state of perdition, he also was condemned (to martyrdom) with his companions.” [23]

The same we read in the testimony of the five disciples of St. Francis of Assisi, who when reproached by the followers of Koran for preaching against Mohammed, simply responded by saying “We have come to preach faith in Jesus Christ to you, that you will renounce Mohammad, that wicked slave of the devil, and obtain everlasting life like us” [23a]

Further we read in the life of St. John Vianney how he stated openly to a Protestant who believed that his worship rendered to God should do him just as well in his Protestant Sect as it would have in the Catholic faith, The Saint responded to him with the contrary advice saying “My friend, there are not two ways of serving Our Lord; there is only one good way, and it is to serve Him as He wishes to be served”.[24]

This is the truth we must speak in charity and honesty to these lost souls who without the grace and redemption of Christ can’t be saved for By nature, men are “children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3); by Him, we have been reconciled with the Father (Col. 1:20), and it is only by faith in Him that we can have the boldness to approach God with entire confidence (Eph. 3:12). To Him was given all power in heaven and on earth (Mt. 28:18), and at His name every knee must bend, in heaven, on earth, and under the earth (Phil. 2:10,11). No one goes to the Father save by Him (Jn. 14:6), and there is no other name under heaven given to man by which he must be saved (Acts 4:12). He is the Light that enlightens every man who comes into the world (Jn.1:9), and whoever does not follow Him wanders in darkness (Jn. 8:12). Who is not with Him is against Him (Mt. 13:30), and who does not honor Him also dishonors His Father who sent Him (as the Jews do) (Jn. 5:23).

Christ says, ” Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No I tell you but division?” With the truth, division must come. This should not dishearten the man of God for “If God is for us, who is against us” – Rom 8:31 (Do Catholics and Muslims worship the same God, by Raymond Taouck.)

Remember this and remember it well: Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not hold to the Catholic Faith. Neither have his predecessors in his false church. Each rejected the following words, whose formulation was guided by the infallible assistance of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, at the Council of Florence on February 4, 1442:

It [the Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. Therefore, it commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation. Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people, but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently, but so ,that, when danger of death is imminent, they be baptized in the form of the Church, early without delay, even by a layman or woman, if a priest should be lacking, just as is contained more fully in the decree of the Armenians. . . .

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, February 4, 1442.)

Today is the Feast of Saint Augustine of Canterbury, who was sent to bring England into the Faith once and for all by Pope Saint Gregory the Great, his fellow Benedictine. Jorge would have told Saint Augustine of Canterbury to “dialogue” with the pagans in England, not seek their conversion to the true Faith.

The brief account of the life of Saint Augustine of Canterbury found in Matins in today’s Divine Office demonstrates a vast contrast between his work of converting souls to the true Faith and the false ecumenism practiced by Jorge in the Holy Land between Saturday, May 24, 2014, and Monday, May 26, 2014:

Augustine, the first Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Apostle of the English, was sent into England by blessed Gregory, and came thither in the year 597. At that time there was in Kent a most mighty king named Ethelbert, whose power reached even to the Humber. When this King had heard wherefore the holy man was come, he received him kindly, and bade him and his companions, who were all monks, to come to his own capital city of Canterbury being struck with astonishment at the perfect blamelessness of their lives, and the power of the heavenly doctrine which they preached, and which God confirmed with signs following.

They drew nigh to the city in solemn procession, singing the Litany, and bearing before them for their standard a silver cross and a picture of the Lord our Saviour painted on a panel. Hard by the city, upon the east side, there was a Church builded of old time in honour of St Martin, and wherein the Queen, who was a Christian, was used to pray. There they first began to meet together, to sing, to pray, to celebrate Masses, to preach, and to baptize, until the King was turned to the faith, and the most part of his people were led by his example, (but not his authority,) to take the name of Christian, for he had learnt from his teachers and his own soul’s physicians, that men are to be drawn, and not driven to heaven. And now Augustine, being ordained Archbishop of the English and of Britain, lest he should leave untravailed any part of the Lord’s vineyard, asked from the Apostolic See a new band of labourers, Mellitus,” Justus, Paulinus, and Rufinian.

Having arranged the affairs of his church, Augustine held a synod with the bishops and doctors of the ancient Britons, who had long been at variance with the Roman Church in the celebration of Easter and other rites. But since he could not move them, either by the authority of the apostolic see or by miracles, to put an end to these variations, in a prophetic spirit he foretold their ruin. At length, after having endured many difficulties for Christ, and having become noted for miracles, when he had placed Mellitus in charge of the church of London, Justus of that of Rochester, and Laurence in charge of his own church, he passed to heaven on the 26th day of May, in the reign of Ethelbert, and was buried in the monastery of St. Peter, which thereafter became the burying-place of the bishops of Canterbury and of some kings. The English people honoured his memory with fervent zeal; and the Supreme Pontiff Leo XIII extended his Office and Mass to the universal Church. (Matins, The Divine Office, May 28, the Feast of Saint Augustine of Canterbury.)

Dom Prosper Gueranger’s prayer to Saint Augustine of Canterbury shows us how far the lords of conciliarism are from the spirit of Catholicism, which seeks with urgency the conversion of all non-Catholics to the maternal bosom of Holy Mother Church:

Throned on the apostolic See, our saint proved himself to be a rightful heir of the apostles, not only as the representative and depositary of their authority, but as a follow-sharer in their missio of calling nations to th true faith. To whom does England owe her having been, for so many ages, the ‘island of saints’? To Gregory, who, touched with compassion for those Angli, of whom, as he playfully said, he would fain Angeli,sent to their island the monk Augustine with forty companions, all of them, as was Gregory himself, children of St. Benedict. The faith had been sown in this land as early as the second century, but it had been trodden down by the invasion of an infidel race. This time the seed fructified, and so rapidly that Gregory lived to see a plentiful harvest. It is beautiful to hear the aged Pontiff speaking with enthusiasm about the results of his English mission. He thus speaks in the twenty-seventh Book of his Morals: ‘Lo! the language of Britain, which could once mutter naught save barbarous sounds, has long since begun to sing, in the divine praises, the Hebrew Alleluia! Lo! that swelling sea is now calm, and saints walk on its waves. The tide of barbarians, which the sword of earthly princes could not keep back, is now hemmed in at the simple bidding of God’s priests.‘ (Dom Prosper Gueranger, The Liturgical Year.)

With very few true priests in the world, the tide of barbarism has swept over the world.

God is blasphemed every day, both in the counterfeit church conciliarism and in the world.

Human beings, rootless because they do not know anything about the true Faith, waste their time on trivial pursuits as so many men today resort to barbarous acts, such as happened in Isla Vista, California, four days ago now, to “settle scores” and to make their “mark” in the world before they take their own lives in an ultimate act of self-hatred and rebellion against the God Who had made them to know, love and serve Him as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His Catholic Church.

What does Jorge Mario Bergoglio do?

Smile, smile, smile at every false religion under the sun.

These are days of reparation.

May we turn to Our Lady, the Queen of Apostles, as we approach the celebration of Pentecost Sunday in eleven days, begging her through her Most Holy Rosary to help us to ascend in our thoughts to Heaven every day so that our lives on earth, lived as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son, Christ the King, through her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, will brings to Heaven after death.

Part four tomorrow.

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 Augustine of Canterbury, pray for us.

 

 

,

On the Road to Gehenna with Jorge, Abe and Omar, part two

So much apostasy. So much indifferentism. So many words and deeds offensive to the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity. So much harm done to souls in the name of “peace” and “understanding” and “religious freedom.” So much repetition of all that has been done before by the conciliar “popes.” So little time to deal with this all adequately.

An article reviewing the three days that Jorge Mario Bergoglio spent in Jordan and Israel between Saturday, May 24, 2014, the Feast of Our Lady Help of Christians, and yesterday, Monday, May 26, 2014, the Feast of Saint Philip Neri and the Commemoration of Pope Saint Eleutherius (and a Rogation Day prior to the Feast of the Ascension of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ), could consist only of the following words: “In perfect consistency with the precedents set by the soon-to-be “Blessed” Paul the Sick during the latter’s journey to Jordan and Israel (which was not a state visit to either country)  from January 3, 1964, to January 6, 1964, the Feast of the Epiphany of Our Lord, Jorge Mario Bergoglio did not seek the urgency the unconditional conversion of the Mohammedans and Jews that that he addressed in Jordan and Israel.

Here is the precedent set in this regard by Giovanni Eugenio Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI on January 4, 1964, when he addressed King Hussein of Jordan:

Majesty!

We are most appreciative of your kindness in coming to welcome Us personally on Our arrival in your Kingdom. 

Our visit is a spiritual one, a humble pilgrimage to the sacred places made holy by the Birth, the Life, the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ, and by His glorious Resurrection and Ascension. At each of these venerable shrines, We shall pray for that peace which Jesus left to His disciples, that peace which the world cannot give, but which comes from the fulfilment of His commandment: to love one another as He loved us (cfr. Io. 14, 27; 15, 12). 

Your Majesty, We know, ardently desires peace and prosperity for your people, and for all the nations of the world; and We, Peter’s Successor, remember his reference to the Psalms in his first Epistle: «He who would love life, and see good days,… let him turn away from evil and do good, let him seek after peace and pursue it )» (Ps. 23, 13-15). Saint Peter also wrote: “(Honour all men; love the brotherhood; fear God; honour the king” (1 Petr. 11, 17). 

May God grant Our prayer, and that of all men of good will, that, living together in harmony and accord, they may help one another in love and justice, and attain to universal peace in true brotherhood. (Address to the King of Jordan, January 4, 1964.)

The second of the conciliar “popes” established the precedent for his successors when visiting the Holy Land: never seek the conversion of any non-Catholic to the Catholic Faith. Always speak in Judeo-Masonic terms. The conciliar motto can be summarized s follows: “Thou shalt never offend a non-Catholic.”

Another way of phrasing this is as follows: “Thou shalt obey the commands of the Sanhedrin that the Apostles dared to defy:

Saying: What shall we do to these men? for indeed a known miracle hath been done by them, to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: it is manifest, and we cannot deny it. But that it may be no farther spread among the people, let us threaten them that they speak no more in this name to any man. And calling them, they charged them not to speak at all, nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answering, said to them: If it be just in the sight of God, to hear you rather than God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. (Acts 4: 16-20.)

When one speaks and acts in Judeo-Masonic terms, however, especially in the Holy Land, which is in a state of conflict because of the unbelief of Talmudists and the Mohammedans, whom the conciliar “popes” have reaffirmed in their false religions time and time and time again, one winds up pleasing no one, most especially Christ the King Himself.

It’s All or Nothing for the Zionists 

Indeed, although Jorge Mario Bergoglio did indeed say a prayer as a wreath was laid by two Israeli children at the tomb of the founder of International Zionism, Theodore Herzl, atop Mount Hezl as a symbolic gesture to “undo” the “injustice” of Pope Saint Pius X’s rejecting Zionism when Herzl asked him to do so in a private audience on January 25, 1904, the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul the Apostle, before proceeding to the Yad Vashem memorial to those Jews killed by the regime of Adolf Hitler, where Bergoglio quoted the book of the Prophet Baruch to refer a crime “such as never happened under the heavens” (see Visit to the Yad Vashem Memorial, May 2014), Israeli authorities were livid with the Argentine Apostate for having touched his head against their Berlin Wall that prohibits free access for the people living within the Palestinian Authority into Jerusalem and for his support for the two-state solution that is anathema to the Israelis.

Indeed, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanayhu went to great lengths yesterday to speak of the Zionists’ official displeasure with these gestures, which they sought to counteract by more or less forcing Jorge to stop at a monument to Israeli victims of terrorist attacks perpetrated by Mohammedan Palestinians that was not on the planned “papal” itinerary:

JERUSALEM — A conflict largely defined by dueling narratives became a battle of competing imagery during Pope Francis’ sojourn through the Holy Land, with Palestinians and Israelis both seizing on the pontiff’s strong symbolic gestures to promote their perspectives.

That was just one of the poignant photo opportunities of the pope at some of Judaism’s most sacred sites. He placed a note with the “Our Father” prayer handwritten in Spanish between the ancient stones of the Western Wall. He kissed the hands of six survivors — one saved as a baby by a Catholic family — at the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial. He became the first Vatican leader to lay a wreath of signature yellow and white flowers on the tomb of Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism.

This montage was, according to the chief Vatican spokesman, intended to provide counterbalance to Sunday’s silent prayer at the barrier, which had incensed some Israelis, particularly because it was at a section where the spray-painted slogans included “apartheid wall” and “Bethlehem is like the Warsaw Ghetto.”

But it may yet be upstaged: A Catholic cardinal who was in Jerusalem during the visit told The Boston Globe that the Palestinian president had informed Francis he planned to make a postage stamp out of the image — as Israel did after John Paul II became the first pontiff to place a note in the Western Wall in 2000.

Diana Buttu, a Palestinian analyst, pointed out that the Israeli sites visited by Francis on Monday were monuments to the past that heads of state routinely visit per protocol, while the barrier “is ongoing, something that Palestinians live with every day.” It remains unclear whether the Palestinians had planned the stop or even pressured the pope to make it, as one Catholic leader told an Israeli news outlet, but Ms. Buttu said the seeming spontaneity lent it strength.

“There isn’t a single leader who comes to the country who doesn’t have to see Yad Vashem or Herzl or both — this was powerful because it wasn’t forced, you could see that he was genuinely shocked by it,” Ms. Buttu said. “I think he really displayed compassion in visiting the wall and really understanding what people are living under.”

I explained to the pope that building the security fence prevented many more victims that Palestinian terror — which continues today — planned to harm,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel said afterward. Later, he added, “I long for the day in which Pope Francis’ call to recognize the state of Israel, the right of Jews to a state of their own, to live in security and peace, will be accepted by our neighbors.”

(There was, however, some Israeli griping that Francis did not say those things at Yad Vashem — his spokesman said that was because he thought a “meditation” was more appropriate for the memorial — and did not use the word “Nazi.”)

The pope also laid the groundwork during his visit for another enduring image intended to change perceptions of the conflict, inviting Presidents Shimon Peres of Israel and Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority to his apartment in the Vatican to pray together for peace. Both men accepted: The meeting is expected within the next two weeks, though the pope’s spokesman said a date had not yet been set.

Asked why Francis had chosen Mr. Peres — who leaves his largely ceremonial post in July — rather than Mr. Netanyahu, who is Mr. Abbas’s counterpart in peace negotiations, the spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said the pope and the Israeli president shared a warm relationship of “great esteem.”

“This is not an exclusion of the other,” Father Lombardi said Sunday. “The pope has with President Peres a good feeling, this is clear.”

At Mr. Peres’s official residence on Monday, Francis wrote in the guest book, “It is always the grace of God to come in the house of a man who is wise and good.” Then the two leaders had what Father Lombardi described as a “very, very lengthy” one-on-one.

“The president said many things about the peace process, the problem of building peace, the collaboration of the religious leaders and the pope in building peace,” he said. “It was said in a very sincere, very friendly and profound way.”

From there Francis received Mr. Netanyahu at the Vatican-owned Notre Dame center. (Visits Tomb of Zionism’s Founder.)

In other words, the bloodstained murderer named Benjamin Netanayhu lectured the genocidal butcher of souls, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, but good as any self-respecting Zionist believes is his responsibility to do when anyone, including a putative Successor of Saint Peter, dares to mention what is unmentionable in Israel: the injustices that the Palestinians have suffered for so long at the hands of their occupiers and jailers, the Israelis. Jorge smiled and nodded his head as he engaged his lecturer in the Zionist version of “dialogue”: “Agree with us you cannot not be considered our ‘friend’ no matter how many times you say nice things or make friendly gestures to us.”

Remember, the conciliar “popes” have enabled Talmudists by giving them access to them whenever they have felt aggrieved. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI did so in 2007 when Talmudic representatives complained about the presence of the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews in the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition after the retired universal public face of apostasy had issued Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, and they complained loud and long in early-2008 after Ratzinger’s own revision had been issued, whereupon a host of conciliar characters, starting with the notorious Walter Kasper himself, twisted themselves into pretzels to claim that what thy think is the Catholic Church has no “organized mission to convert the Jews.” No, she only has the Divine mandate from Our Lord Himself to convert everyone in the world. See any of that going on the past three days in Jordan and Israel?

Talmudic rabbis complained later in 2008 when it appeared as though the cause of Pope Pius XII was going to reach the point of a conciliar “beatification”:

Image: Pope with Jewish leaders

VATICAN CITY – Pope Benedict on Thursday told Jewish leaders he was seriously considering freezing the sainthood process of his Nazi-era predecessor Pius XII until historical archives can be opened, a Jewish leader said.

Some Jews have accused Pius, who reigned from 1939 to 1958, of turning a blind eye to the Holocaust. The Vatican says he worked behind the scenes and helped save many Jews from certain death during World War Two.

Rabbi David Rosen, a leader of a Jewish delegation that met the pope on Thursday, said the subject came up in conversations after formal speeches were delivered.

One member of our delegation told the pope ‘please do not move ahead with beatification of Pius XII before the Vatican archives can be made accessible for objective historical analysis’ and the pope said ‘I am looking into it, I am considering it seriously’,” Rosen told reporters.

Beatification is the last step before sainthood in the Roman Catholic Church. Some Jews have asked the pope to hold off on beatifying Pius until more information on his papacy can be studied.

Pius did not come up in the formal speeches between the pope and Rosen, but the Jewish leader did repeat a request for the Vatican archives to be open for study.

“We reiterate our respectful call for full and transparent access of scholars to all archival material from the period, so that assessments regarding actions and policies during this tragic period may have the credibility they deserve both within our respective communities and beyond,” Rosen told the pope.

Six to seven years


A Vatican statement said another six or seven years of preparatory work would be needed before the archives on Pius’ period could be opened to scholars and the pope would have the final decision.

At issue is whether Benedict should let Pius proceed on the road to sainthood — which Catholic supporters want — by signing a decree recognizing his “heroic virtues.” This would clear the way for beatification, the last step before sainthood.

Benedict has so far not signed the decree — approved last year by the Vatican’s saint-making department, opting instead for what the Vatican has called a period of reflection.

The Vatican says while Pius did not speak out against the Holocaust, he worked behind the scenes to help Jews because direct intervention would have worsened the situation by prompting retaliations by Hitler.

Benedict has repeatedly defended Pius, saying he worked “secretly and silently” during World War Two to “avoid the worst and save the greatest number of Jews possible.”

The Vatican says he saved several hundred thousand Jewish lives by ordering churches and convents throughout Italy to hide Jews and instructing Vatican diplomats in Europe to give many Jews false passports.

This month, Amos Luzzatto, president emeritus of Italy’s Jewish communities, said making Pius XII a saint could open a “wound difficult to heal” between Jews and Catholics.

“I ask myself why Pius didn’t do the same thing to call European Catholics to action. These are questions that haunt us Jews,” he said. (NewsDaily: Ratzinger may freeze Pius XII sainthood process: rabbi.)

VATICAN CITYPope Benedict XVI told Jewish leaders on Thursday that he was “seriously considering” delaying the beatification of Pius XII, the pope during World War II, until the archives of his papacy had been opened, a participant at the meeting said.

But the pope’s spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said Benedict’s response was not a “public commitment,” according to The Associated Press.

“You shouldn’t read this response for beyond what it is,” Father Lombardi said. “It is a polite, serious response. He always takes seriously what he is told.”

The meeting followed weeks of controversy over efforts to beatify Pius, who was pope from 1939 to 1958. Jewish leaders have said Pius did not do enough to stop the deportation of Jews during the Holocaust, and have asked the Vatican to open the sealed archives of Pius’s papacy to scholars.

Although a Vatican committee passed a decree last year recognizing Pius’s “heroic virtues,” an important step toward sainthood, Benedict has not yet approved it. The Vatican has said the pope needs time to reflect. Benedict has said Pius worked “secretly and silently” to save Jews.

Rabbi David Rosen, the president of the organization at the meeting, an umbrella group called the International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Consultations, told reporters that when asked by an American member, Seymour Reich, to delay the beatification until the archives had been examined, the pope said he was “seriously considering it.”

“He didn’t clarify what matter he was giving serious consideration and what that means,” Rabbi Rosen said in a later telephone conversation. Other leaders at the meeting confirmed Rabbi Rosen’s account.

In their papal meeting, Jewish leaders called on the Vatican to open the archives so scholars could create historic assessments “with the credibility they deserve, both within our respective communities and beyond.”

Rabbi Rosen said a Vatican official had explained that “technical challenges” would prevent the cataloging of materials from Pius’s papacy “for at least another five years.”

Many consider Benedict’s delay in signing the decree indicative of internal and external diplomatic considerations.

This month, a leading proponent of sainthood said the pope had halted the beatification process to avoid repercussions from Jewish groups.

Father Lombardi later denied that assertion and made a rare, forceful statement saying it was not right to submit the pope “to pressures” for or against beatification. (Group Says Pope Will Weigh Delay of Pius’s Beatification.)

Golly gee willickers, Mister Peabody, where did the Talmudic rabbis get the idea that they could lobby a putative Successor of Saint Peter? From no one else other than Ratzinger/Benedict himself.

Indeed, Jorge Mario Bergoglio made it eminently clear in Interview Number I’ve Lost Count Now on the flight back from Tel Aviv to Rome that he is not even thinking about “beatifying” Pope Pius XII:

“The cause is open, I looked into it and no miracle has been found yet. So the process has stalled. We have to respect the reality of this cause. But there’s no miracle and at least one is required for beatification. I can’t think of whether I will beatify him or not.” (Interview Number I’ve Lost Count)

What, Jorge?

You can’t invent a miracle for Papa Pacelli the way that “miracles” have been invented for “Saint John XXIII” for his “beatification” on September 3, 2000, before you waived the required for a second invented miracle, or the way that “miracles” have been invented for “Saint John Paul” and the soon-to-be “Blessed” Paul VI?

Wait!

There is a report of a miracle attributed to Pope Pius XII. Well, this one comes with a bit of a catch as it includes Karol Wojtyla telling a man on a dream that he could not help him as he urged to “pray to this other priest:”

Rome, Italy, Jan 19, 2010 / 12:21 pm (CNA).- Some details of the case under investigation regarding a possible miracle attributed to Venerable Pope Pius XII have been made public.  The story features not just one former Pontiff, but two.

On Tuesday morning, Vatican journalist Andrea Tornielli published an article in Il Giornale describing at length the situation which “mysteriously involves” John Paul II.

Tornielli reported that this case was brought to the attention of Benedict XVI shortly before he approved a measure on Dec. 19, 2009 venerating Pope Pius XII’s life of “heroic virtue,” whose cause had been on-hold for the previous two years.

In 2005, a teacher of 31 years of age was expecting her third child in the city of Castellammare di Stabia.  She began to have strong pains, which after many tests and a biopsy, signaled the presence of Burkitt’s lymphoma.  The condition is typified by swollen lymph nodes, often starting in the abdominal region, and the cancer can spread to bone marrow and spinal fluid.  Not only was her health in danger, but that of her unborn child was also threatened.

The woman’s husband first prayed for the intercession Pope John Paul II, who was then only recently buried in the crypt of St. Peter’s.  It wasn’t long before the Holy Father appeared to the woman’s husband in a dream.  The spouse described to Tornielli what he saw that night, “He had a serious face.  He said to me, ‘I can’t do anything, you must pray to this other priest…’  He showed me the image of a thin, tall, lean priest.  I didn’t recognize him; I didn’t know who he might be.”

Several days passed before he, “by chance,” came across a picture of Pope Pius XII in a magazine and recognized him as the man John Paul II had shown him in the dream.

The man wasted no time in bombarding Pius XII with prayers for his wife’s healing and following her very first treatments she was declared free of the cancer, the tumor had disappeared.  In fact, she was cured so quickly that her doctors pondered the notion that they may have originally misdiagnosed the pathology.

The tests and charts were reconsulted and the initial diagnosis was confirmed.

In the absence of the tumor, she had her baby and returned to work.  After some time had gone by, she decided to contact the Vatican regarding her experience.

A local news source, the Sorrento & Dintorni, ran an article on Sunday offering a basic story of the possible miracle and the diocesan response to it.  According to their report, a Tribunal has been organized by Archbishop Felice Cece of Sorrento-Castellammare to determine the nature of the occurrence and whether it will move on to the Vatican.

According to Tornielli, if they decide positively, the case will be sent on to Congregation for the Causes of Saints for investigation by a team of doctors to declare whether the event was explicable by natural means.  If there is no explanation found for the healing, theologians from the Congregation will debate the issue.  Only with their “go-ahead” can a dossier subsequently reach the hands of Pope Benedict XVI for official recognition.

Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins, Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, told CNA on Monday that there is no telling how much time the entire process might take.

He also mentioned that if a case arrives to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints it is examined in chronological order based on the date of arrival and there are thousands of cases pending review.

However, he added, “exceptions might be made for Popes, etc.”

There was no mention in Tornielli’s report of where the lymphoma had manifested itself in the woman’s body.  According to the National Institute of Health, Burkitt’s lymphoma is treatable and more than half of those diagnosed with the cancer are cured with intensive chemotherapy. (Details of possible Pius XII miracle emerge)

Maybe this wasn’t a miracle. However, the conciliar authorities would have made it into one if they had wanted to do so, which they do not. This is not only for For Fear of the Jews, but because the narrative in this story contained the embarrassing detail that “Saint John Paul II” was incapable of helping the man:

The woman’s husband first prayed for the intercession Pope John Paul II, who was then only recently buried in the crypt of St. Peter’s.  It wasn’t long before the Holy Father appeared to the woman’s husband in a dream.  The spouse described to Tornielli what he saw that night, “He had a serious face.  He said to me, ‘I can’t do anything, you must pray to this other priest…’  He showed me the image of a thin, tall, lean priest.  I didn’t recognize him; I didn’t know who he might be.”

Several days passed before he, “by chance,” came across a picture of Pope Pius XII in a magazine and recognized him as the man John Paul II had shown him in the dream.

The man wasted no time in bombarding Pius XII with prayers for his wife’s healing and following her very first treatments she was declared free of the cancer, the tumor had disappeared.  In fact, she was cured so quickly that her doctors pondered the notion that they may have originally misdiagnosed the pathology. (Details of possible Pius XII miracle emerge)

Not a very good narrative for the conciliarists to have to admit as being true.

Ratzinger/Benedict also gave the Talmudists an audience when they wanted to protest the lifting of the excommunications imposed by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II on the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on June 30, 1988, as one of those four was the notorious “Holocaust denier,” Bishop Richard Williamson.

Although the concilairists believe that almost everything about the Holy Faith is negotiable, there is one thing that is non-negotiable: Acceptance of the “six million” Jews who are said to have been killed by the Nazis in what Bergoglio said yesterday was a crime “such as never happened under the heavens” and what Ratzinger/Benedict said in his infamous Christmas address to the conciliar curia on December 22, 2005, required a new way of thinking about the “Church’s relationship to the faith of Israel.” 

By the way, Jorge, the greatest crime in human history was Deicide, and in terms of numbers, fella, over eleven million Catholics were killed by the authorities of ancient Rome between 67 A.D. and the Edict of Milan in 313 A.D. This is to say nothing about the worldwide genocide of the preborn in the past five decades that Jorge never calls by its proper name as any comparison between this slaughter, both by chemical and surgical means, and the “greatest crime in humanity,” is considered to be “pornographic” by those who have sought to use crimes, no matter their number or extent, for which Adolf Hitler and those who carried out his orders alone bear guilt, not the Catholic Church (see Meet Some Catholics Truly Worth Admiring, part one and Meet Some Catholics Truly Worth Admiring, part two), to silence anyone, most especially Catholics, who seeks to discuss, no less oppose, Judeo-Masonic plans in the world, including the support of “liberal” and “reform” Talmudists for every moral evil that now has the sanction of the civil law thanks to their gargantuan efforts.

Yet it that despite all of his words and gestures over the course of the last two days in Israel including kissing the backs of the hands of survivors of Nazi concentration camps as though they were bishops or priests, Jorge Mario Bergolio had the audacity to mention the two-state solution upon his arrival in Tel Aviv, Israel, on Sunday, May 25, 2014, the Fifth Sunday after Easter and the Commemorations of Pope Saint Gregory VII and Pope Saint Urban I, and also mentioned the suffering of the Palestinians while in Bethlehem earlier that same time. Israeli Prime Minister Benjanim Netanahyu echoed the view of many Israelis yesterday when he inferred that the suffering of the Palestinians was the result of the terrorist attacks launched upon some of them and thus has nothing to do with how the likes of the late Ariel Sharon treated the Palestinians as he thought them to be: sub-humans. No, the suffering is always just “one way” for Zionists, and if you don’t agree with them, obviously, theny you are anti-Semitic and “insensitive” to the only suffering that matters, theirs.

Lest we forget, what did those peace-loving promoters of “religious freedom” do to the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, Palestinian Authority, twelve years ago now when some Mohammedan Palestinian gunmen took refuge there an desecrated this holy shrine before the Israelis laid siege to it?

Western indifference to Christian suffering, documented by Antonio Socci, is well illustrated by the recent standoff at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, one of the holiest Christian sites in the Holy Land, which was re-consecrated last month after being occupied by Arab gunmen and besieged by the Israeli army for 38 days. While extensively covered because of its photogenic value and its potential for further bloodshed, the stand-off has caused hardly a ripple in the Western world on what should be the obvious grounds for media scrutiny and public concern: the misuse and abuse of a Christian shrine by warring non-Christians in pursuit of their political objectives. The Bethlehem episode is thus illustrative of two parallel processes overlooked in the current Middle Eastern crisis: the apparently terminal decline of the Christian remnant in the Middle East after two millennia of precarious and mostly painful existence, and the remarkable indifference of the post-Christian Western world to its impending demise.

Already by their choice of the stage for what soon became a propaganda exercise the Muslim gunmen who occupied the church desecrated the basilica built on the site of the grotto where Jesus Christ is believed to have been born. They ate the food they found on the premises until it ran out, while more than 150 civilians went hungry. They consumed alcoholic drinks that they found in priests’ quarters, undeterred by the Islamic ban on drinking alcohol. They tore up Bibles up for toilet paper. They turned one corner of the ancient church into an impromptu mosque. They even attempted to bury seven of their comrades, who were subsequently killed by Israeli snipers, inside the church or on its grounds — obviously intending to turn one of the holiest Christian shrines into a place of Islamic pilgrimage to the fallen “martyrs.”

Two weeks before the siege of the Church of the Nativity, as Israeli forces stormed into Bethlehem, an Israeli tank shell hit the facade of the nearby Holy Family Church, in a complex with an orphanage, hospital and hostel. The soldiers then fired, from fifty yards’ distance, at the statue of the Virgin atop the Holy Family Church. The statue lost its left arm and its face was disfigured. The Israeli army expressed regret and promised investigation, but this did not look like an accidental shot: no terrorist could possibly hide behind the figure on the pinnacle of the hospital church. The story was reported by Reuters, and a picture taken by an AP photographer. It was available to the world media but ignored. These two incidents illustrate the predicament of the dwindling Christian remnant in the Middle East. Once thriving Christian communities are now minorities squeezed between the warring Jews and Muslims who may hate each other but all too often share their aversion to Christianity. Institutionalized or covert discrimination to which Christians are subjected in Syria, Israel, Egypt, and Lebanon, accompanied by occasional eruptions of anti-Christian violence by the Muslim majority in the last two countries, have contributed to an exodus that threatens to eradicate the believers in Christ in the lands of his birth and life. (Excerpted from Chronicles Magazine. As found at (Islamic Persecution of Christians.)

Even Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II felt it necessary to condemn the Israeli siege of the Church of the Nativity, something that must have been overlooked by the “cardinals” on the conciliar Congregation of the Saints in favor the fact that he had said twenty-two years before in  Mainz, Germany, that the Old Covenant had never been revoked:

The Pope has been outspoken in his criticism of the Israeli siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem – one of Christianity’s most hallowed shrines.

He has made clear his distaste for the violence perpetrated by Palestinian militants but has also issued a stern warning to Israel that its “respect for the status quo of the Holy Places”, agreed in a 1993 accord, was an “absolute priority”. (Survivorr’s tale of the siege of Bethlehem.)

It’s always a one-way street with the Zionists, and those who don’t accept it are the problem, not them.

Who cares for their immortal souls, which are headed to eternal perdition if they do not convert to the true Faith before they die.

Not Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who spoke as a complete member of the Judeo-Masonic fraternity when he spoke yesterday at the Yad Vashem Memorial and when addressing the two chief rabbis of Israel at Heichal Shlomo Center in Jerusalem and when paying a courtesy call to the ninety-year old Shimon Peres, who is the  symbolic President of the State of Israel at his Presidential Residence.

Indeed, a subject for part three of this series tomorrow, Jorge Mario Bergolio did not care for the immortal souls of the Mohammedan “grand mufti” when he addressed him yesterday in the building of the Great Council on the Esplanade of the Mosques.

Everyone just kind of gets saved, everyone except traditional Catholics, that is.

How About the One-State Solution?

Despite the fact that he admitted during Interview Number I’ve Count of the Number that what appeared to many observers to be an “unplanned” invitation to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli President Shimon Peres to join him in a day of prayer at “my house,” the Casa Santa Marta inside the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River, it was evident to anyone reading his prepared text that the invitation had been planned all along. Bergoglio loves to spring surprises. And this one is merely for show as this travesty of “prayer” with a Mohammedan, an apostate lay Catholic and a Zionist first-generation Israeli revolutionary will do nothing to ease tensions in the Holy Land caused by the infidelity of the both the Mohammedans and the Jews. Indeed, Peres leaves office in a few weeks, and Benjamin Netanayhu has no intention letting such a stunt interfere with his insistence that “peace” with the Palestinians must be done the Israeli way, no other.

Actually, of course, there can be no peace absent a recognition of Christ the King as He is taught by His true Church, the Catholic Church, which is not the counterfeit church of conciliarism. True peace, that of the Divine Redeemer, in the Holy Land will be the fruit of a true pope’s consecrating Russia to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary with all of the world’s bishops.

Not believing this, the conciliar “popes” have attempted uphold the rights of Palestinians in the belief that Israeli leaders would agree to an independent Palestinian state that is not subject to Isaeli security supervision and control whenever it is they feel like exercise it.

Although Bergoglio referred to the State of Palestine as an accomplished fact when addressing Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas two days ago before referring to the two-state solution at Ben Gurion International Airport in Tel Aviv, Israel, several hours later, this, contrary to what an writer in the United Kingdom, Damian Thompson (see Please don’t turn into the Dalai Lama), is really nothing substantively new at all as both Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict had done so in tantamount terms fourteen years ago and five years ago, respectively.Here is what Bergoglio said on Sunday, May 25, 2014, when meeting with Mahmound Abbas, followed by Wojtyla’s address in 2000 and Ratzinger’s in 2009:

I thank President Mahmoud Abbas for his kind welcome and I offer cordial greetings to the representatives of the government and the entire Palestinian people. I thank the Lord for the opportunity to be here with you today in the birthplace of Jesus, the Prince of Peace. I thank all of you for your warm reception.

For decades the Middle East has known the tragic consequences of a protracted conflict which has inflicted many wounds so difficult to heal. Even in the absence of violence, the climate of instability and a lack of mutual understanding have produced insecurity, the violation of rights, isolation and the flight of entire communities, conflicts, shortages and sufferings of every sort.

In expressing my closeness to those who suffer most from this conflict, I wish to state my heartfelt conviction that the time has come to put an end to this situation which has become increasingly unacceptable. For the good of all, there is a need to intensify efforts and initiatives aimed at creating the conditions for a stable peace based on justice, on the recognition of the rights of every individual, and on mutual security. The time has come for everyone to find the courage to be generous and creative in the service of the common good, the courage to forge a peace which rests on the acknowledgment by all of the right of two States to exist and to live in peace and security within internationally recognized borders.

To this end, I can only express my profound hope that all will refrain from initiatives and actions which contradict the stated desire to reach a true agreement, and that peace will be pursued with tireless determination and tenacity. Peace will bring countless benefits for the peoples of this region and for the world as a whole. And so it must resolutely be pursued, even if each side has to make certain sacrifices.

I pray that the Palestinian and Israeli peoples and their respective leaders will undertake this promising journey of peace with the same courage and steadfastness needed for every journey. Peace in security and mutual trust will become the stable frame of reference for confronting and resolving every other problem, and thus provide an opportunity for a balanced development, one which can serve as a model for other crisis areas.

Here I would like to say a word about the active Christian community which contributes significantly to the common good of society, sharing in the joys and sufferings of the whole people. Christians desire to continue in this role as full citizens, along with their fellow citizens, whom they regard as their brothers and sisters.

Mr President, you are known as a man of peace and a peacemaker. Our recent meeting in the Vatican and my presence today in Palestine attest to the good relations existing between the Holy See and the State of Palestine. I trust that these relations can further develop for the good of all. In this regard, I express my appreciation for the efforts being made to draft an agreement between the parties regarding various aspects of the life of the Catholic community in this country, with particular attention to religious freedom. Respect for this fundamental human right is, in fact, one of the essential conditions for peace, fraternity and harmony. It tells the world that it is possible and necessary to build harmony and understanding between different cultures and religions. It also testifies to the fact that, since the important things we share are so many, it is possible to find a means of serene, ordered and peaceful coexistence, accepting our differences and rejoicing that, as children of the one God, we are all brothers and sisters.

Mr President, dear brothers and sisters gathered here in Bethlehem: may Almighty God bless you, protect you and grant you the wisdom and strength needed to continue courageously along the path to peace, so that swords will be turned into ploughshares and this land will once more flourish in prosperity and concord. Salaam! (Meeting with Palestinian Authorities, Bethlehem, 25 May 2014.)

1. “Here Christ was born of the Virgin Mary”: these words, inscribed over the place where, according to tradition, Jesus was born, are the reason for the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000. They are the reason for my coming to Bethlehem today. They are the source of the joy, the hope, the goodwill, which, for two millennia, have filled countless human hearts at the very sound of the name “Bethlehem”.

People everywhere turn to this unique corner of the earth with a hope that transcends all conflicts and difficulties. Bethlehem – where the choir of Angels sang: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men” (Lk 2:14) – stands out, in every place and in every age, as the promise of God’s gift of peace. The message of Bethlehem is the Good News of reconciliation among men, of peace at every level of relations between individuals and nations. Bethlehem is a universal crossroads where all peoples can meet to build together a world worthy of our human dignity and destiny. The recently inaugurated Museum of the Nativity shows how the celebration of Christ’s Birth has become a part of the culture and art of peoples in all parts of the world.

2. Mr Arafat, as I thank you for the warm welcome you have given me in the name of the Palestinian Authority and People, I express all my happiness at being here today. How can I fail to pray that the divine gift of peace will become more and more a reality for all who live in this land, uniquely marked by God’s interventions? Peace for the Palestinian people! Peace for all the peoples of the region! No one can ignore how much the Palestinian people have had to suffer in recent decades. Your torment is before the eyes of the world. And it has gone on too long.

The Holy See has always recognized that the Palestinian people have the natural right to a homeland, and the right to be able to live in peace and tranquillity with the other peoples of this area (cf. Apostolic Letter Redemptionis Anno, 20 April 1984). In the international forum, my predecessors and I have repeatedly proclaimed that there would be no end to the sad conflict in the Holy Land without stable guarantees for the rights of all the peoples involved, on the basis of international law and the relevant United Nations resolutions and declarations.

We must all continue to work and pray for the success of every genuine effort to bring peace to this Land. Only with a just and lasting peace – not imposed but secured through negotiation – will legitimate Palestinian aspirations be fulfilled. Only then will the Holy Land see the possibility of a bright new future, no longer dissipated by rivalry and conflict, but firmly based on understanding and cooperation for the good of all. The outcome depends greatly on the courageous readiness of those responsible for the destiny of this part of the world to move to new attitudes of compromise and compliance with the demands of justice.

3. Dear Friends, I am fully aware of the great challenges facing the Palestinian Authority and People in every field of economic and cultural development. In a particular way my prayers are with those Palestinians – Muslim and Christian – who are still without a home of their own, their proper place in society and the possibility of a normal working life. My hope is that my visit today to the Dheisheh Refugee Camp will serve to remind the international community that decisive action is needed to improve the situation of the Palestinian people. I was particularly pleased at the unanimous acceptance by the United Nations of the Resolution on Bethlehem 2000, which commits the international community to help in developing this area and in improving conditions of peace and reconciliation in one of the most cherished and significant places on earth.

The promise of peace made at Bethlehem will become a reality for the world only when the dignity and rights of all human beings made in the image of God (cf. Gen 1:26) are acknowledged and respected.

Today and always the Palestinian people are in my prayers to the One who holds the destiny of the world in his hands. May the Most High God enlighten, sustain and guide in the path of peace the whole Palestinian people! (Welcome Ceremony in the Palestinian Autonomous Territories, Bethlehem Airport (March 22, 2000.)

I greet each of you from my heart, and I warmly thank the President, Mr Mahmoud Abbas, for his words of welcome. My pilgrimage to the lands of the Bible would not be complete without a visit to Bethlehem, the City of David and the birthplace of Jesus Christ. Nor could I come to the Holy Land without accepting the kind invitation of President Abbas to visit these Territories and to greet the Palestinian people. I know how much you have suffered and continue to suffer as a result of the turmoil that has afflicted this land for decades. My heart goes out to all the families who have been left homeless. This afternoon I will pay a visit to the Aida Refugee Camp, in order to express my solidarity with the people who have lost so much. To those among you who mourn the loss of family members and loved ones in the hostilities, particularly the recent conflict in Gaza, I offer an assurance of deep compassion and frequent remembrance in prayer. Indeed, I keep all of you in my daily prayers, and I earnestly beg the Almighty for peace, a just and lasting peace, in the Palestinian Territories and throughout the region.

Mr President, the Holy See supports the right of your people to a sovereign Palestinian homeland in the land of your forefathers, secure and at peace with its neighbors, within internationally recognized borders. Even if at present that goal seems far from being realized, I urge you and all your people to keep alive the flame of hope, hope that a way can be found of meeting the legitimate aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians for peace and stability. In the words of the late Pope John Paul II, there can be “no peace without justice, no justice without forgiveness” (Message for the 2002 World Day of Peace). I plead with all the parties to this long-standing conflict to put aside whatever grievances and divisions still stand in the way of reconciliation, and to reach out with generosity and compassion to all alike, without discrimination. Just and peaceful coexistence among the peoples of the Middle East can only be achieved through a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect, in which the rights and dignity of all are acknowledged and upheld. I ask all of you, I ask your leaders, to make a renewed commitment to work towards these goals. In particular I call on the international community to bring its influence to bear in favor of a solution. Believe and trust that through honest and persevering dialogue, with full respect for the demands of justice, lasting peace really can be attained in these lands.

It is my earnest hope that the serious concerns involving security in Israel and the Palestinian Territories will soon be allayed sufficiently to allow greater freedom of movement, especially with regard to contact between family members and access to the holy places. Palestinians, like any other people, have a natural right to marry, to raise families, and to have access to work, education and health care. I pray too that, with the assistance of the international community, reconstruction work can proceed swiftly wherever homes, schools or hospitals have been damaged or destroyed, especially during the recent fighting in Gaza. This is essential if the people of this land are to live in conditions conducive to lasting peace and prosperity. A stable infrastructure will provide your young people with better opportunities to acquire valuable skills and to seek gainful employment, enabling them to play their part in building up the life of your communities. I make this appeal to the many young people throughout the Palestinian Territories today: do not allow the loss of life and the destruction that you have witnessed to arouse bitterness or resentment in your hearts. Have the courage to resist any temptation you may feel to resort to acts of violence or terrorism. Instead, let what you have experienced renew your determination to build peace. Let it fill you with a deep desire to make a lasting contribution to the future of Palestine, so that it can take its rightful place on the world stage. Let it inspire in you sentiments of compassion for all who suffer, zeal for reconciliation, and a firm belief in the possibility of a brighter future.

Mr President, dear friends gathered here in Bethlehem, I invoke upon all the Palestinian people the blessings and the protection of our heavenly Father, and I pray fervently that the song which the angels sang here in this place will be fulfilled: peace on earth, good will among men. Thank you. And may God be with you. (Welcoming ceremony in the square in front of the presidential palace, in Bethlehem, May 13, 2009.)

There is really nothing ever that is truly substantively new under the conciliar sun.

By the way, what has come from those words which, although they noted with firmness the suffering that the Palestinians have suffered at the hands of the Israelis, something that is understood without having to be stated explicitly (consider the fact that Netanayhu was outrage at Bergoglio’s talk of Palestinian suffering as everyone knows that the Israelis are the source of it)?

Nothing.

This is the because the conciliar “popes” have not exhorted the Mohammedans, who have become the predominant majority of the population in Bethlehem and its surrounding areas in recent decades, or the Talmudists, to convert to the true Faith. Then again, this would have required them, the conciliar “popes,” to convert.

You see, there needs to be a “one state” solution in the Holy Land, the Kingdom of the Prince of Peace Himself.

No amount of religious indifferentism and carefully orchestrated displays of symbolic gestures can make pleasing to God sins of omission that reaffirm people in their false beliefs and sins of commission that actually praise the inherent “goodness” of false religions as instruments in the “path to peace.”

The Apostles were willing to suffer everything for the sake of the Holy Name of Jesus, and they did not speak as His followers only before Catholics. They gave witness to the Jews and the Gentiles alike, willing to pay with their very lives for doing so.

The conciliar “popes” have been unwilling to speak to the Jews in the manner that the Apostles spoke to the Sanhedrin:

We ought to obey God, rather than men. The God of our fathers hath raised up Jesus, whom you put to death, hanging him upon a tree.

Him hath God exalted with his right hand, to be Prince and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins. And we are witnesses of these things and the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to all that obey him. (Acts 5: 29-32.)

Continue keeping close to Our Lady during this month of May, especially through her Most Holy Rosary, which was not mentioned once by Bergoglio in any of his five addresses to Catholic groups. Not once.

Say goodnight, Jorge.

Diga buenas noches, doctor Droleskey.

Part three tomorrow. It will focus on the meeting between Bergoglio and the Greek Orthodox patriarch Bartholomew I as “brothers” and upon Bergoglio’s brief address to the Mohammedans.

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 Bede the Venerable, pray for us.

Pope Saint John I, pray for us.

Inspired by the Same Scriptwriter

Although part two of “The Road to Gehenna With Jorge, Abe and Omar” series should be poster later today or tomorrow, work on it is being interrupted as much more time and care is needed to comment coherently on all that transpired yesterday. Let me offer some provisional remarks in the meantime.

As was the case on Saturday, May 24, 2014, the Feast of Our Lady of Perpetual Help, yesterday’s events in Jordan, the Palestinian Authority and Israel contained “papal” remarks almost identical to those delivered in 2000 by “Saint John Paul II” and in 2009 by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. After all, the script writer of the conciliar “popes” lacks any originality at all. He has nothing really new to say since he deceived Eve into disobeying God by eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and having her convince Adam to do the same.

Let me, however, for the sake of simplification explain that all of the “papal” verbiage this time, as was the case in 2000 and in 2009, is proof of their apostasy.

Although I was an indulterer in 2000, which meant that I accepted the absurdity that a true Successor of Saint Peter could be confused or misled on matters of the Holy Faith, I wrote the following for the printed pages of Christ or Chaos after Wojtyla/John Paul II’s pilgrimage to the Holy Land in 2000. The text is unedited, thus reflecting my “resist while recognize and go to the ‘indult'” mentality at the time:

The sight of the Vicar of Christ sitting with the Grand Rabbi of Jerusalem and a Moslem sheik implied that Judaism and Mohammedism were true religions in which human beings can attain eternal life. Nothing to the contrary was said, was it? Indeed, the Holy Father went to great lengths to speak about the sense of “brotherhood” that had to exist among the three religions, implying that it would be opposed to the spirit of that brotherhood for Catholics to seek converts to the true faith from the ranks of practicing Jews and Mohammedans. He offered a prayer at the Wailing Wall, again implying that a dead religion which was superseded by the New and Eternal Covenant instituted by Our Lord at the Last Supper on Good Friday is still a valid way for people to serve God. The Holy Father even visited the Dome of the Rock, where Mohammedans believe that their charlatan tent maker of a founder, who was committed to the destruction of Christianity by the slaughtering of Christians, ascended into Heaven. Whatever the Holy Father intends to communicate with these gestures, the average person comes away reaffirmed in his spirit of indifferentism, the belief that it does not make any difference what religion one professes as long as one is a “good” person.

Contrast the Holy Father’s refusal to preach the Gospel of Christ to unbelievers with the words of the first Pope, Saint Peter, uttered during what we can call the first Urbi et Orbi address, delivered on Pentecost Sunday in Jerusalem shortly after the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles and our Blessed Mother in the same Upper Room in Jerusalem where Our Lord had instituted the priesthood and Eucharist prior to undergoing his fearful agony in the Garden of Gethsemane:

“In those days, Peter opening his mouth, said, ‘Ye men of Israel, and ye that fear God, hear. The God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers hath glorified His Son Jesus, Whom you indeed delivered up and denied before the face of Pilate, when he judged he should be released. But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you. But the Author of life you killed, Whom God hath raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses. And now, brethren, I know that you did it through ignorance, as did also your rulers. But those things which God before had showed by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ should suffer, He hath so fulfilled. Repent therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out'” (Acts 3: 13-15, 17-19).

Not convinced? Consider the case of a Pharisee who converted from Judaism to the true faith whilst on the road to Damascus to preside over the persecution of more Christians, something that he–as well as other believing Jews of his day–believed was his obligation before God. The Jews of the Apostolic era knew that Our Lord was either Who He said He was, the God-Man, or He was a liar and a blasphemer. They believed the latter, as do believing Jews to this day. Indeed, some orthodox Jews in Israel were so opposed to the Pope’s visit that they sought to strike out at any Crucifix they could find. (The Pope himself removed the Crucifix from the Pope Paul VI Audience Hall in 1994 so as not to offend the Chief Rabbi of Rome when he attended a concert to remember the victims of the Holocaust.) Saint Paul shocked his Jewish hearers when he said:

” ‘Men, brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you fear God, to you the word of this salvation is sent. For they that inhabited Jerusalem, and the rulers thereof, not knowing Him, nor the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath, judging Him have fulfilled them; and finding no cause of death in Him, they desired of Pilate that they might kill Him. And when they had fulfilled all things that were written of Him, taking Him down from the tree, they laid Him in a sepulcher. But God raised Him up from the dead on the third day: Who was seen for many days by them who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who to this present time are His witnesses to the people. And we declare unto you that the promise which was made to our fathers, the same God hath fulfilled to our children, raising up Our Lord Jesus Christ'” (Acts 13: 16, 26-33).

The Apostles did not shrink from preaching the Holy Name of Our Lord as the only Name under Heaven and on earth by which men could be saved. They risked everything in order to remain faithful to the Gospel of the Crucified and Resurrected Savior. Indeed, they rejoiced because they were deemed worthy of ill treatment for the sake of the Name. All of them save for Saint John the Evangelist died a martyr’s death. They took seriously the Great Commissioning of Our Lord: AGo, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world” (Mt. 28: 18-20). The Great Commissioning is not a suggestion offered by Our Lord. It is an imperative uttered from the Holy Lips of the One Who said that “No one can go to the Father except through Me,” the One Who said, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you shall have no life in you.” (Jn. 6:54). Every baptized member of the true Church has the obligation to bring souls into the true Church, no matter what loss (human respect, property, career security, life itself) might be entailed in the process.

Sure, there are different methods by which people are invited into the true Church. Conversion may take time. Look, our own daily conversion has plenty of ups and downs, doesn’t it? We can fall into sin so easily. Our growth in personal sanctity is never a “once and for all” proposition. Our conversion is a continuous process. But we know we must work hard to cooperate with the graces won for us on Calvary to achieve that conversion of heart and soul, mind and body. We know we have to spend plenty of time on our knees to make reparation for our sins, and to offer the same forgiveness to others that Our Lord extends to us so freely in the Sacrament of Penance, the hospital of Divine Mercy. Despite our sins and our failings, however, we know that we have to be about the business of metanoia, of dying to self and living more fully for Our Lord through His true Church. True charity for souls must impel us, imperfect vessels though we are, to help others on the road to sanctity, which begins with inviting them into the true Church. The Apostles did not do any “pre-evangelization” before they went out on Pentecost Sunday. They simply preached the Word made Flesh, trusting that the Holy Spirit would enlighten the minds and open the hearts of their hearers. Thousands were converted when Saint Peter delivered his sermon in Jerusalem on Pentecost Sunday. Why do we shrink from imitating the first Pope today? Why do we think that we are going to have “credibility” with unbelievers by not exhorting them to at least consider the fact that Our Lord is exactly what He proclaimed Himself to be, namely, the Way, the Truth, and the Life?

Yes, I understand that it is possibly the Holy Father’s intention to soften the hearts of Jews and Mohammedans by offering them his respect and his solicitude. But the Mohammedans, to their credit, will have none of it. They believe in Mohammed, not Christ. They are not religious indifferentists. The Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem also took issue with the Holy Father’s approach, warning him publicly that he was shirking his responsibility to bear witness to Christ to the people from whose stock Our Lord took His Sacred Humanity. While individual Catholics have indeed been hostile to Jews on occasion through the centuries (not offering them the same forgiveness that Our Lord extended to us, His executioners, from the Cross on Good Friday), the schi and schismatic and heretical Orthodox leader had a better grasp of the truth than did the pope.

The Acts of the Apostles, which we believe to have been written by Saint Luke under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, recounts the many ways Jewish authorities sought to crush the infant Church. While it is all well and good to express sorrow for the actions and attitudes of some Catholics over the centuries, who is going to offer an apology for the hatred many believing Jews have for Christ and His Church? Who is going to say that there are ongoing efforts on the part of Jews in Israel and the United States to eradicate all mention of the Holy Name and all symbols of Christianity from public view?

Indeed, as I pointed out in an article in The Wanderer six years ago, it was precisely the de-Catholicization of Europe–which was advanced by Freemasonry and Zionists, as Father Maximilian Kolbe discussed with such courage in his writings–that produced the atmosphere in which Adolf Hitler rose to prominence. Hitler’s brand of racialism was the antithesis of Christianity, which teaches that all human beings have immortal souls, made in the image and likeness of the Triune God, and they are not defined by skin color or ethnicity. The Jewish people rounded up during Hitler’s Third Reich were the victims of a political ideology which saw itself as the means of saving the German people. For if Our Lord is not seen as the Redeemer of Man, men will invent their savior. They will invent their own “churches,” namely, political parties and/or statist, fascistic regimes dedicated to the proposition that evil in the world must be blamed on groups of people, who then become the legitimate objects for persecution and destruction. This is happening in our own nation today. The descent into barbarism which is all around us is the direct result of efforts on the part of many, including Freemasons and Jews, to make war against Christ and His true Church in politics, in government, in education, in law, in medicine, and in all aspects of popular culture, including motion pictures and television.

Some might protest that it is not “ecumenical” to point any of this out, that these things are better left unsaid. One must, however, speak the truth about those those who are responsible for making war against Christ and His Mystical Bride, the Church, to seek their unconditional conversion to the true Church. True love wills the good of others. We love no one authentically if we do not wish them to become incorporated as members of the Mystical Body of Christ in the baptismal font, and then to try to cooperate with the graces won for us on Calvary to walk along the rocky road that leads to the narrow gate of Life Himself. The Truth is Who He is, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. There can be no true peace in this world without Him. And the more that we permit His sworn enemies to silence us into submission for whatever reason (human respect, good press, sentimentality), the more we doom the world in which we live into a even greater degree of darkness than exists at present.

With all due respect to our Holy Father, this is what I would have said to the Jews and Mohammedans if I had been in the Shoes of the Fisherman recently in the Holy Land:

“My dear friends:

“I come to you as the Vicar of Christ, the visible head of the Church established by the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. I am the Successor of Saint Peter, who stood right here in Jerusalem on Pentecost Sunday to exhort the inhabitants of this holy city to see in Jesus of Nazareth the long promised Messiah Who had paid back in His own Sacred Humanity the blood debt owed by Adam’s sin of disobedience to God in the Garden of Eden. I cannot speak to you in any other terms than a disciple of Christ. He professed Himself to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He told the crowd in the synagogue at Capernaum, that they would have no life within them unless they ate of His flesh and drank of His blood. He spoke in clear terms, making simple declarative statements which are either true or false. I know them to be true because He is the Truth. As His vicar on earth, I have the obligation to do here in this holy city what the first Pope did: to invite you into the true Church, to see in Jesus Christ your only hope, your only path to true peace and liberation from that which causes all of the problems of the world, the horror that goes by the name of sin.

“This land has been wracked by war and violence ever since Our Lord was crucified here nearly two millennia ago. While it is true that the sins of all people from all epochs of history motivated the crowd on Good Friday to cry out for the Crucifixion of the God-Man, it is nevertheless true that there are consequences for the choices we make. This land will never know peace unless those who belong to the religion which was superseded by the New and Eternal Covenant instituted by Our Lord in the Upper Room right in this very city on Holy Thursday convert their hearts to the Word who was made Flesh and dwelt amongst us. This land will never know peace unless those who belong to a false religion, Mohammedism, come to recognize that the one they honor as a prophet sent by God, Mohammed, was a liar and a deceiver who did the work of the Devil in seeking to destroy by force the Christian face of the Middle East and North Africa, and whose disciples tried to take Europe by that same show of force. There can be no peace without Jesus Christ.

“The peace of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with sentimentality. The peace of Jesus Christ is not merely an absence of armed conflict. The peace of Jesus Christ is not a sense of universal brotherhood, wherein we all agree to disagree in order to avoid conflict. No. The peace offered by Jesus Christ is the peace which accrues in the souls of those who are in states of sanctifying grace, souls who have the very inner life of the Blessed Trinity living and pulsating within them. This peace is never achieved once and for all. Human beings can lose the peace of Christ by committing a mortal sin, thereby expelling God from within them. Serious sin and the life of grace cannot coexist in the same soul. No, the peace of Christ must be treasured with every beat of a human heart, consecrated as that heart must be to His own Sacred Heart and to the Immaculate Heart of His Most Blessed Mother, Mary of Nazareth.

“The state of societies and the world depends upon the state of individual souls. Even many of the pagan philosophers of antiquity–such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero–understood that those who defy the natural law (which was referred to by Moses when he told the people of the Old Covenant that the commandments inscribed by the very finger of God on the stone tablets on Mount Sinai had been written first by Him on the flesh of human hearts) introduce disorder into their own souls, and hence the world. They did not know why human beings had the propensity to transgress the natural law. But they saw the results of what happened when people did so. The Old Testament presents us with vivid descriptions of what happened to the Chosen People whenever they and/or their leaders defied God, choosing to relish in their own political power and material wealth. They were chastised by God severely for their infidelity.

“Sin is not only a rebellion against God. It is also a rebellion against our own human nature, which is made to know, to love, and to serve God. That is why so many people today are so hostile and angry. Although they do not realize it, they are at war with themselves because they are at war with God. Thus, they seek “salvation” in all of the wrong places, plunging themselves–and the world in which they live–more and more into the darkness. This need not be the case, my friends. This need not be the case.

“The events which took place in this Holy Land two thousand years ago were meant to transform the lives of every human being who would live from that point until the end of time. By His Incarnation as a helpless embryo in His Blessed Mother’s virginal and immaculate womb, by His Nativity in poverty in Bethlehem, by his flight from the jealous Herod the Great into Egypt, by His Hidden Years in Nazareth working at hard manual labor, by His forty days’ fast in the desert, by His Public Ministry, Passion, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension to the Father’s right hand, Jesus Christ showed Himself to be the Suffering Servant prophesied by Isaiah. He is the only path to peace for individual souls, and hence the world.

“The peace produced in souls by the shedding of Our Lord’s Most Precious Blood is meant to soothe the savage within us, to place us in a state of friendship with God. It is meant to help us see the world through the eyes of the true faith, and to see in each human soul the Divine impress. The peace produced in souls by the graces won for us on the Holy Cross in this holy city is meant to help us realize that there is nothing we can endure in this life (no pain, no rejection, no misunderstanding, no injustice, no act of violence, no calumny or slander) which is the equal of what one of our venial sins did to the God-Man on Golgotha? Who are we then to hold grudges against others when we, the executioners of Christ, have been forgiven by Him so freely? We must offer forgiveness to all others in the same manner that Christ, Whose blessed hands and feet were nailed to the Cross by us by means of our sins, forgave (and forgives) us.

“Thus, my friends, the path to peace in the Middle East is the same path to peace everywhere else in the world: the daily path of taking up our crosses and following Christ unreservedly. To my Jewish hosts, I say to you: Be converted to Christ through His true Church. Be fed by the Eucharist, the true Manna which has come down from Heaven. Be liberated by the New Passover instituted to liberate you from sins. Make the New and Eternal Covenant instituted by Jesus Christ as your own. See in your Arab neighbors, whose land you took so unjustly in 1948, your brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ. Treat them as you would Jesus Christ. Forgive them for the acts of violence which have taken innocent lives. Make restitution to them for the land you took, as simple justice requires.

“To my Christian Arab hosts, I say: Forgive the Israelis their crimes against you. Forgive as you know Christ has forgiven you. Work to build a land based on true unity, which comes only from Our Lord through the Church He created upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. Be ceaseless in your efforts to convert your Mohammedan Arabs to the Cross of Christ.

“To my Mohammedan hosts, I say: Renounce a false religion. It was the swath of destruction inspired by Mohammed which led Catholic Europe to try to re-conquer this Holy Land, taken as it was by the force of the sword. You venerate Our Lady. But you must understand that Mary of Nazareth was responsible through he Most Holy Rosary for the victory of the Christian forces over the Turks in the Battle of Lepanto. It was her Most Holy Rosary that helped to turn back Mohammedan forces during the Battle of Vienna in 1683. Let her, Our Lady of Victory, lead you to the One she enfleshed in her virginal and immaculate womb for your salvation. Believe in His victory over sin and death on the Holy Cross. Put down the sword. Put away your hatred. Be reconciled in Christ, and see in your Jewish adversaries your brothers and sisters in the Lord.

“Yes, my friends, there will never be any peace in this blessed region unless each of you, including the Orthodox here present, embraces the Faith of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Catholicism, and begin to build a society wherein the instrument of your salvation, the Holy Cross, is displayed everywhere. For the Cross is our hope. The Cross is the means by which we can hope to pass from this vale of tears to know an unending Easter Sunday of glory in the New and Eternal Jerusalem, Heaven itself.

“I make my own the words of the first Pope, spoken to the Sanhedrin nearly two thousand years ago: ‘Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that He may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, Whom heaven must receive until the time for establishing all that God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from of old. . . . Be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Whom you crucified, Whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man is standing before you well. This is the stone which was rejected by you builders, but which has become the head of the corner. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other Name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved'” (Acts 3: 19-21; 4: 8-12).

Such words are decidedly opposed to the spirit of sappy sentimentality and false ecumenism. However, when spoken in love and watered by fervent prayer before the Blessed Sacrament and to the Mother of God, such words might be the means of doing in this, the Third Millennium, what the Apostles did at the beginning of the First Millennium: to seek to bring all people into the One Sheepfold of Christ, the true Church founded by Our Lord upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope.

Although it took me another six years to come to accept what I had thought for several years beforehand might be the case, namely, the conciliar “popes” were imposters who did not hold their offices legitimately and whose entire religion was itself but a counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church, I knew that the message conveyed by “Pope John Paul II’ in 2000 was not reconcilable to the teaching of the Catholic Church or to the courageous witness of the martyrs themselves, starting with Saint Stephen the Promotmartyr

Indeed, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanayhu made a specific point yesterday in his welcoming address upon Jorge’s arrival in Tel Aviv to than him for laying a wreath at the tomb of Theodore Herzl, the founder of International Zionism. Everyone at the David Ben Gurion International Airport, including Bergoglio himself, knew that Netanyahu was pointing out that the Argentine Apostate today, Monday, May 26, 2014, is going to symbolically undo and making “reparation” for the following words spoken to Herzl by Pope Saint Pius X on January 25, 1904, the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul the Apostle:

POPE: We are unable to favor this movement [of Zionism]. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem—but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people.

HERZL: [The conflict between Rome and Jerusalem, represented by the one and the other of us, was once again under way. At the outset I tried to be conciliatory. I said my little piece. . . . It didn’t greatly impress him. Jerusalem was not to be placed in Jewish hands.] And its present status, Holy Father?

POPE: I know, it is disagreeable to see the Turks in possession of our Holy Places. We simply have to put up with it. But to sanction the Jewish wish to occupy these sites, that we cannot do.

HERZL: [I said that we based our movement solely on the sufferings of the Jews, and wished to put aside all religious issues].

POPE: Yes, but we, but I as the head of the Catholic Church, cannot do this. One of two things will likely happen. Either the Jews will retain their ancient faith and continue to await the Messiah whom we believe has already appeared—in which case they are denying the divinity of Jesus and we cannot assist them. Or else they will go there with no religion whatever, and then we can have nothing at all to do with them. The Jewish faith was the foundation of our own, but it has been superceded by the teachings of Christ, and we cannot admit that it still enjoys any validity. The Jews who should have been the first to acknowledge Jesus Christ have not done so to this day.

HERZL: [It was on the tip of my tongue to remark, “It happens in every family: no one believes in his own relative.” But, instead, I said:] Terror and persecution were not precisely the best means for converting the Jews. [His reply had an element of grandeur in its simplicity:]

POPE: Our Lord came without power. He came in peace. He persecuted no one. He was abandoned even by his apostles. It was only later that he attained stature. It took three centuries for the Church to evolve. The Jews therefore had plenty of time in which to accept his divinity without duress or pressure. But they chose not to do so, and they have not done it yet.

HERZL: But, Holy Father, the Jews are in a terrible plight. I do not know if Your Holiness is aware of the full extent of their tragedy. We need a land for these harried people.

POPE: Must it be Jerusalem?

HERZL: We are not asking for Jerusalem, but for Palestine—for only the secular land.

POPE: We cannot be in favor of it.

[Editor Lowenthal interjects here] Here unrelenting replacement theology is plainly upheld as the norm of the Roman Catholic Church. Further, this confession, along with the whole tone of the Pope in his meeting with Herzl, indicates the perpetuation of a doctrinal emphasis that has resulted in centuries of degrading behavior toward the Jews. However, this response has the “grandeur” of total avoidance of that which Herzl had intimated, namely that the abusive reputation of Roman Catholicism toward the Jews was unlikely to foster conversion. Further, if, “It took three centuries for the Church to evolve,” it was that very same period of time that it took for the Church to consolidate and launch its thrust of anti-Semitism through the following centuries.

HERZL: Does Your Holiness know the situation of the Jews?

POPE: Yes, from my days in Mantua, where there are Jews. I have always been in friendly relations with Jews. Only the other evening two Jews were here to see me. There are other bonds than those of religion: social intercourse, for example, and philanthropy. Such bonds we do not refuse to maintain with the Jews. Indeed we also pray for them, that their spirit see the light. This very day the Church is celebrating the feast of an unbeliever who became converted in a miraculous manner—on the road to Damascus. And so if you come to Palestine and settle your people there, we will be ready with churches and priests to baptize all of you. (Marvin Lowenthal, The Diaries of Theodore Herzl.)

The Zionists know what Bergoglio will be doing later today, and he is doing it all at the behest of his scriptwriter to mock the Holy Faith and the very person of one of Its most shining defenders, Pope Saint Pius X.

With a little editing, you see those remarks from fourteen years ago are as relevant now during the visit of “Pope” Francis as they were then. The script is always the same because the inspiration for its text is preternautral.

Continue to pray your Rosaries of reparation. Antichrist cannot be far behind.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady, Help of Christians, 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.

Saint Philip Neri, pray for us.

Pope Saint Eleutherius, pray for us.

On The Road to Gehenna With Jorge, Abe and Omar, part one

Hey, did you hear the news?

Sure you did. You must have by now.

Right?

You got it.

The “pope” arrived in Amman, Jordan, and this what he said:

1. In a spirit of profound respect and friendship, I offer greetings to all who live in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan: the members of the Catholic Church and the other Christian Churches, the Muslim people whom we followers of Jesus Christ hold in high esteem, and all men and women of good will.

My visit to your country and the entire journey which I am beginning today is part of the religious Jubilee Pilgrimage which I am making to commemorate the Two Thousandth Anniversary of the Birth of Jesus Christ. From the beginning of my ministry as Bishop of Rome, I have had a great desire to mark this event by praying in some of the places linked to salvation history – places that speak to us of that moment’s long preparation through biblical times, places where our Lord Jesus Christ actually lived, or which are connected with his work of redemption. I have already been to Egypt and Mount Sinai, where God revealed his name to Moses and entrusted to him the tablets of the Law of the Covenant.

2. Today I am in Jordan, a land familiar to me from the Holy Scriptures: a land sanctified by the presence of Jesus himself, by the presence of Moses, Elijah and John the Baptist, and of saints and martyrs of the early Church. Yours is a land noted for its hospitality and openness to all. These are qualities of the Jordanian people which I have experienced many times in conversations with the late King Hussein, and which were confirmed anew in my meeting with Your Majesty at the Vatican in September last year.

Your Majesty, I know how deeply concerned you are for peace in your own land and in the entire region, and how important it is to you that all Jordanians – Muslims and Christians – should consider themselves as one people and one family. In this area of the world there are grave and urgent issues of justice, of the rights of peoples and nations, which have to be resolved for the good of all concerned and as a condition for lasting peace. No matter how difficult, no matter how long, the process of seeking peace must continue. Without peace, there can be no authentic development for this region, no better life for its peoples, no brighter future for its children. That is why Jordan’s proven commitment to securing the conditions necessary for peace is so important and praiseworthy.

Building a future of peace requires an ever more mature understanding and ever more practical cooperation among the peoples who acknowledge the one true, indivisible God, the Creator of all that exists. The three historical monotheistic religions count peace, goodness and respect for the human person among their highest values. I earnestly hope that my visit will strengthen the already fruitful Christian-Muslim dialogue which is being conducted in Jordan, particularly through the Royal Interfaith Institute.

3. The Catholic Church, without forgetting that her primary mission is a spiritual one, is always eager to cooperate with individual nations and people of goodwill in promoting and advancing the dignity of the human person. She does this particularly in her schools and education programmes, and through her charitable and social institutions. Your noble tradition of respect for all religions guarantees the religious freedom which makes this possible, and which is in fact a fundamental human right. When this is so, all citizens feel themselves equal, and each one, inspired by his own spiritual convictions, can contribute to the building up of society as the shared home of all.

4. The warm invitation which Your Majesties, the Government and the people of Jordan have extended to me is an expression of our common hope for a new era of peace and development in this region. I am truly grateful, and with deep appreciation of your kindness I assure you of my prayers for you, for all the Jordanian people, for the displaced people in your midst, and for the young people who make up such a large part of the population.

May Almighty God grant Your Majesties happiness and long life!

May he bless Jordan with prosperity and peace! (Welcome Ceremony in Jordan.)

What was that I wrote about on Thursday and Friday in To Blot Out the Holy Name Forever, part one, and To Blot Out the Holy Name Forever, part two?

The text above, delivered by a man considered by most people in the world as a true “pope,” reeks of Judeo-Masonry, including, of course, the elegy of praise in behalf of  the heresy of “religious freedom.”

Oh, wait a minute. I think I made a mistake here, although one more grievous substantively than the incomplete sentence contained in the first paragraph of the original posting of part two of To Blot Out the Holy Name Forever on Friday.

Although the remarks contained above were made a man believed by most people in the world to be the “pope,” they were made by a man who is thought by most people in the world to be a “saint,” Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, who uttered those words on March 20, 2000, upon his arrival at Queen Alia International Airport in Amman, Jordan.

My mistake.

A thousand pardons

Let me try it again.

All right?

Here is what the “pope” said yesterday upon his arrival in Amman, Jordan:

It is with joy that I greet all of you here present, as I begin my first visit to the Middle East since my election to the Apostolic See, and I am pleased to set foot upon the soil of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, a land so rich in history, home to so many ancient civilizations, and deeply imbued with religious significance for Jews, Christians and Muslims. I thank His Majesty King Abdullah II for his kind words of welcome, and I offer my particular congratulations in this year that marks the tenth anniversary of his accession to the throne. In greeting His Majesty, I extend heartfelt good wishes to all members of the Royal Family and the Government, and to all the people of the Kingdom. I greet His Beatitude Fouad Twal and His Beatitude Theophilus III and also other Patriarchs and Bishops here present, especially those with pastoral responsibilities in Jordan. I look forward to celebrating the liturgy at Saint George’s Cathedral tomorrow evening and at the International Stadium on Sunday together with you, dear Bishops, and so many of the faithful entrusted to your care.

I come to Jordan as a pilgrim, to venerate holy places that have played such an important part in some of the key events of Biblical history. At Mount Nebo, Moses led his people to within sight of the land that would become their home, and here he died and was laid to rest. At Bethany beyond the Jordan, John the Baptist preached and bore witness to Jesus, whom he baptized in the waters of the river that gives this land its name. In the coming days I shall visit both these holy places, and I shall have the joy of blessing the foundation stones of churches that are to be built at the traditional site of the Lord’s Baptism. The opportunity that Jordan’s Catholic community enjoys to build public places of worship is a sign of this country’s respect for religion, and on their behalf I want to say how much this openness is appreciated. Religious freedom is, of course, a fundamental human right, and it is my fervent hope and prayer that respect for all the inalienable rights and the dignity of every man and woman will come to be increasingly affirmed and defended, not only throughout the Middle East, but in every part of the world.

My visit to Jordan gives me a welcome opportunity to speak of my deep respect for the Muslim community, and to pay tribute to the leadership shown by His Majesty the King in promoting a better understanding of the virtues proclaimed by Islam. Now that some years have passed since the publication of the Amman Message and the Amman Interfaith Message, we can say that these worthy initiatives have achieved much good in furthering an alliance of civilizations between the West and the Muslim world, confounding the predictions of those who consider violence and conflict inevitable. Indeed the Kingdom of Jordan has long been at the forefront of initiatives to promote peace in the Middle East and throughout the world, encouraging inter-religious dialogue, supporting efforts to find a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, welcoming refugees from neighboring Iraq, and seeking to curb extremism. I cannot let this opportunity pass without calling to mind the pioneering efforts for peace in the region made by the late King Hussein. How fitting that my meeting tomorrow with Muslim religious leaders, the diplomatic corps and University rectors should take place in the mosque that bears his name. May his commitment to the resolution of the region’s conflicts continue to bear fruit in efforts to promote lasting peace and true justice for all who live in the Middle East.

Dear Friends, at the Seminar held in Rome last autumn by the Catholic-Muslim Forum, the participants examined the central role played in our respective religious traditions by the commandment of love. I hope very much that this visit, and indeed all the initiatives designed to foster good relations between Christians and Muslims, will help us to grow in love for the Almighty and Merciful God, and in fraternal love for one another. Thank you for your welcome. Thank you for your attention. May God grant Your Majesties happiness and long life! May he bless Jordan with prosperity and peace! (Welcoming ceremony at Amman, Jordan.)

Look at this, will you?

Just look at this.

“Virtues of Islam”?

Religious freedom is, of course, a fundamental human right, and it is my fervent hope and prayer that respect for all the inalienable rights and the dignity of every man and woman will come to be increasingly affirmed and defended, not only throughout the Middle East, but in every part of the world“?

It’s broken record with these guys as they propagate that which is repugnant to the true God of Divine Revelation, namely, the belief that adherents of false religions have a “human right” to publicly propagate their false beliefs. Our true popes have taught us that no such “right” exists.

Here is what Pope Saint Pius X wrote in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, about the religious indifferentism of the Modernists:

How far this position is removed from that of Catholic teaching! We have already seen how its fallacies have been condemned by the Vatican Council. Later on, we shall see how these errors, combined with those which we have already mentioned, open wide the way to Atheism. Here it is well to note at once that, given this doctrine of experience united with that of symbolism, every religion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true. What is to prevent such experiences from being found in any religion? In fact, that they are so is maintained by not a few. On what grounds can Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? Will they claim a monopoly of true experiences for Catholics alone? Indeed, Modernists do not deny, but actually maintain, some confusedly, others frankly, that all religions are true. That they cannot feel otherwise is obvious. For on what ground, according to their theories, could falsity be predicated of any religion whatsoever? Certainly it would be either on account of the falsity of the religious .sense or on account of the falsity of the formula pronounced by the mind. Now the religious sense, although it maybe more perfect or less perfect, is always one and the same; and the intellectual formula, in order to be true, has but to respond to the religious sense and to the believer, whatever be the intellectual capacity of the latter. In the conflict between different religions, the most that Modernists can maintain is that the Catholic has more truth because it is more vivid, and that it deserves with more reason the name of Christian because it corresponds more fully with the origins of Christianity. No one will find it unreasonable that these consequences flow from the premises. But what is most amazing is that there are Catholics and priests, who, We would fain believe, abhor such enormities, and yet act as if they fully approved of them. For they lavish such praise and bestow such public honor on the teachers of these errors as to convey the belief that their admiration is not meant merely for the persons, who are perhaps not devoid of a certain merit, but rather for the sake of the errors which these persons openly profess and which they do all in their power to propagate. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Any “pope” who praises the “values of Islam” and speaks of “religious freedom” as a “human right” is no true pope at all.

Wait!

Not again!

Would you believe it?

Yes, although you probably have seen my intent in this commentary by now, I did it again.

The second “papal” text above was read by His Apostasteness, the now retired “Benedict XVI,” upon his arrival in Amman, Jordan, on May 8, 2009.

Terribly, terribly sorry about that, old chaps.

Terribly sorry.

All right, the gig is up.

You can see right through what I am leading to here, and that is that Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s remarks in Amman, Jordan, yesterday, May 24, 2014, were practically identical to those delivered by “Saint John Paul II” on March 20, 2000, and by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI on May 8, 2009.

As the mask has been taken off of my not-so-clever effort to make a point about the lack of originality of the conciliar “popes,” here is what Jorge said yesterday at the beginning of his “Road to Gehenna Road Show” with Abraham Skorka and Omar Abboud yesterday, May 24, 2014, the Feast of Our Lady of Perpetual Help:

I thank God for granting me this opportunity to visit the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in the footsteps of my predecessors Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. I am grateful to His Majesty King Abdullah II for his warm words of welcome, as I recall with pleasure our recent meeting in the Vatican. I also greet the members of the Royal Family, the government and the people of Jordan, this land so rich in history and with such great religious significance for Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Jordan has offered a generous welcome to great numbers of Palestinian and Iraqi refugees, as well as to other refugees from troubled areas, particularly neighboring Syria, ravaged by a conflict which has lasted all too long. Such generosity merits, Your Majesty, the appreciation and support of the international community. The Catholic Church, to the extent of its abilities, has sought to provide assistance to refugees and those in need, especially through Caritas Jordan.

While acknowledging with deep regret the continuing grave tensions in the Middle East, I thank the authorities of the Kingdom for all that they are doing and I encourage them to persevere in their efforts to seek lasting peace for the entire region. This great goal urgently requires that a peaceful solution be found to the crisis in Syria, as well as a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I take this opportunity to reiterate my profound respect and esteem for the Muslim community and my appreciation for the leadership of His Majesty the King in promoting a better understanding of the virtues taught by Islam and a climate of serene coexistence between the faithful of the different religions. You are known as a man of peace and a peacemaker: thank you! I am grateful that Jordan has supported a number of important initiatives aimed at advancing interreligious dialogue and understanding between Jews, Christians and Muslims. I think in particular of the Amman Message and the support given within the United Nations Organization to the annual celebration of World Interfaith Harmony Week.

I would also like to offer an affectionate greeting to the Christian communities welcomed by this Kingdom, communities present in this country since apostolic times, contributing to the common good of the society of which they are fully a part. Although Christians today are numerically a minority, theirs is a significant and valued presence in the fields of education and health care, thanks to their schools and hospitals. They are able to profess their faith peaceably, in a climate of respect for religious freedom. Religious freedom is in fact a fundamental human right and I cannot fail to express my hope that it will be upheld throughout the Middle East and the entire world. The right to religious freedom “includes on the individual and collective levels the freedom to follow one’s conscience in religious matters and, at the same time, freedom of worship… [it also includes] the freedom to choose the religion which one judges to be true and to manifest one’s beliefs in public” (Ecclesia in Medio Oriente, 26). Christians consider themselves, and indeed are, full citizens, and as such they seek, together with their Muslim fellow citizens, to make their own particular contribution to the society in which they live.

Finally, I cordially invoke peace and prosperity upon the Kingdom of Jordan and its people. I pray that my visit will help to advance and strengthen good and cordial relations between Christians and Muslims. And may the Lord God preserve us from the fear of change which Your Majesty referred to.

I thank you for your courteous and warm welcome. May the Almighty and Merciful God grant happiness and long life to Your Majesties, and may he bless Jordan abundantly. Salaam! (Meeting with the Authorities of the Kingdom of Jordan (Amman, 24 May 2014.)

I had to double-check this text to make sure that I had not pasted Wojtyla’s or Ratzinger’s remarks again by accident.

No repeat pasting was made.

The text above was delivered yesterday by the Argentine Apostate, although the point of this up until now has been to demonstrate how there is a perfect “unity of voice,” if you will, found among the conciliar “revolutionaries in the propagation of the tenets of their false religion, conciliarism, which is nothing other than the counterfeit ape of Catholicism.

It’s the same old, same old, replete with an elegy of praise for the “virtues of Islam” and yet another effort to claim that “religious freedom” is the foundation of peace.

There was even yet another reference to “the Almighty and Merciful God,” which was designed to refer to God in a way pleasing to the ears of Mohammedans, who associate it with their own false god, Allah.

Well, our true popes also taught with in a unity of voice as they condemned “religious liberty” as nothing other than a heresy that is offensive to God and injurious to the good of men and their nations.

Here is a reminder of this unity of voice, which was the result of their believing the Catholic Faith in Its Holy Integrity:

“Man should use his reason first of all to recognize his Sovereign Maker, honoring Him and admiring Him, and submitting his entire person to Him. For, from his childhood, he should be submissive to those who are superior to him in age; he should be governed and instructed by their lessons, order his life according to their laws of reason, society and religion. This inflated equality and liberty, therefore, are for him, from the moment he is born, no more than imaginary dreams and senseless words.” (Pope Pius VI, Brief Quod aliquantum, March 10, 1791; Religious Liberty, a “Monstrous Right).

The Catholic Church: For how can We tolerate with equanimity that the Catholic religion, which France received in the first ages of the Church, which was confirmed in that very kingdom by the blood of so many most valiant martyrs, which by far the greatest part of the French race professes, and indeed bravely and constantly defended even among the most grave adversities and persecutions and dangers of recent years, and which, finally, that very dynasty to which the designated king belongs both professes and has defended with much zeal – that this Catholic, this most holy religion, We say, should not only not be declared to be the only one in the whole of France supported by the bulwark of the laws and by the authority of the Government, but should even, in the very restoration of the monarchy, be entirely passed over? But a much more grave, and indeed very bitter, sorrow increased in Our heart – a sorrow by which We confess that We were crushed, overwhelmed and torn in two – from the twenty-second article of the constitution in which We saw, not only that “liberty of religion and of conscience” (to use the same words found in the article) were permitted by the force of the constitution, but also that assistance and patronage were promised both to this liberty and also to the ministers of these different forms of “religion”. There is certainly no need of many words, in addressing you, to make you fully recognize by how lethal a wound the Catholic religion in France is struck by this article. For when the liberty of all “religions” is indiscriminately asserted, by this very fact truth is confounded with error and the holy and immaculate Spouse of Christ, the Church, outside of which there can be no salvation, is set on a par with the sects of heretics and with Judaic perfidy itself. For when favour and patronage is promised even to the sects of heretics and their ministers, not only their persons, but also their very errors, are tolerated and fostered: a system of errors in which is contained that fatal and never sufficiently to be deplored HERESY which, as St. Augustine says (de Haeresibus, no.72), “asserts that all heretics proceed correctly and tell the truth: which is so absurd that it seems incredible to me.” (Pope Pius VII, Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814, POST TAM DIUTURNAS)

“This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly “the bottomless pit” is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws — in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again? (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of “naturalism,” as they call it, dare to teach that “the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.” And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that “that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.” From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an “insanity,” viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching “liberty of perdition;” and that “if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling.” (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)

Our true popes have been faithful Vicars of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The conciliar “popes” have been and continue to be faithful mouthpieces of Antichrist.

This should be rather simple to see and to accept at this late date.

Moreover, Bergoglio’s “homily” yesterday afternoon at the International Stadium in Amman, Jordan, included an exhortation for those assembled to overcome all “obstacles” to peace, including “differences” over such things as “religion:”

The world needs this. The world asks us to bring peace and to be a sign of peace!

Peace is not something which can be bought or sold; peace is a gift to be sought patiently and to be “crafted” through the actions, great and small, of our everyday lives. The way of peace is strengthened if we realize that we are all of the same stock and members of the one human family; if we never forget that we have the same Father in heaven and that we are all his children, made in his image and likeness.

It is in this spirit that I embrace all of you: the Patriarch, my brother bishops and priests, the consecrated men and women, the lay faithful, and the many children who today make their First Holy Communion, together with their families. I also embrace with affection the many Christian refugees; let us all earnestly turn our attention to them, to the many Christian refugees from Palestine, Syria and Iraq: please bring my greeting to your families and communities, and assure them of my closeness.

Dear friends! Dear brothers and sisters! The Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus in the Jordan and thus inaugurated his work of redemption to free the world from sin and death. Let us ask the Spirit to prepare our hearts to encounter our brothers and sisters, so that we may overcome our differences rooted in political thinking, language, culture and religion. Let us ask him to anoint our whole being with the oil of his mercy, which heals the injuries caused by mistakes, misunderstandings and disputes. And let us ask him for the grace to send us forth, in humility and meekness, along the demanding but enriching path of seeking peace. (Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo Liturgical Service, Amman International Stadium, 24 May 2014.)

This calls to mind something I used last in 2007 when commenting upon Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s praise of the “sacred” Mount Hiei in Japan (see Enemies of Souls Universally):

I’d like to build the world a home And furnish it with love Grow apple trees and honey bees And snow white turtle doves I’d like to teach the world to sing In perfect harmony I’d like to hold it in my arms And keep it company.

I’d like to see the world for once All standing hand in hand And hear them echo through the hills For peace throughout the land (I’d like to teach the world to sing) Like the world to sing today (In perfect harmony) A song of peace that echoes on And never goes away. I’d Like To Teach The World To Sing  (For the Coca-Cola lyrics, see Coca-Cola Television Advertisements: Hilltop)

For an antidote to this madness of yet another figure of Antichrist posing as a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, let us turn to Pope Leo XIII’s Custodi di Quella Fede once again:

Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)

Pay attention to that man all dressed up in white who travels from Jordan to Bethlehem in the Palestinian Authority today. He is an apostate. He is a figure of Antichrist. He is merely repeating what his predecessors have said before him, including what the soon-to-be “Blessed” Paul the Sick said on January 4, 1964, when he arrived n Amman, Jordan:

May God grant Our prayer, and that of all men of good will, that, living together in harmony and accord, they may help one another in love and justice, and attain to universal peace in true brotherhood. (Giovanni Montini/Paul VI, Address to the King of Jordan, January 4, 1964.)

The path to true peace runs through Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary and that of her  Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.

The path to true peace is Heaven’s Peace Plan, Our Lady’s Fatima Message.

Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order, and Our Lady has appeared to souls from time to time to effect their conversion to the true Church, outside of which there is no salvation without which there can be no true order within nations or peace among them.

Pray Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady, Help of Christians, 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.

Pope Saint Gregory VII, pray for us.

Pope Saint Urban I, pray for us.