Jorge Flexes His Antipapal Muscles

Admitting one’s mistakes is a matter of intellectual honesty, and I must admit that I made a major mistake on Tuesday, February 2, 2021, the Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary: I made the mistake of going to the Vatican website.

Why was this a mistake.

Well, my time is valuable. I had allotted whatever free time available to me this week to complete part ten of “Sin: More Deadly Than the Coronavirus.” Unfortunately, though, I made a mistake, one that requires me to deal with the pestilential Jacobin/Bolshevik revolutionary from Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Sure, I had to deal with the man masquerading as “Pope Francis” in Jorge and Joe: A Jacobin/Bolshevik Love Story a week ago. However, the mistake I made on Tuesday, February 2, 2021, requires me to devote an entire commentary to a full-time advocate of the One World Ecumenical Religion that is but an obsequious client of One World Governmental agencies. Penance is better than ever in 2021.

Ready or not, here we go.

Broken Clocks Continue to be Correct Twice a Day

Although broken clocks are correct much more often than is Jorge Mario Bergoglio, aka The Argentine Apostate, there are times when Senor Jorge does state Catholic principles correctly while misapplying them to his own person and the false religious sect he has headed since Wednesday, March 13, 2013. One of those times occurred three days ago, Monday, February 1, 2021, the Feast of Saint Ignatius of Antioch, when he spoke about the necessity of obeying the magisterium of the Catholic Church, an obedience that Bergoglio said was not “optional.” This is quite true, although nothing that has been decreed by the counterfeit church of conciliarism has anything to do with the Catholic Church and, as well, noting that the teaching of the Catholic Church has to do with Divine Revelation and not with “man” as he is today.

It is while reaffirming the fact that conciliarism is not now nor can ever be Catholicism, I believe that it is worth considering a report on the Vatican News propaganda site to emphasize a few points that have been made repeatedly on this website in the past nearly fifteen years since I formally abandoned the “resist while recognize” recrudescence of Gallicanism:

The Pope’s second point had to do with catechesis and the future. In 2020, the church in Italy marked the 50th anniversary of the “renewal of catechesis” following the Second Vatican Council. “The catechesis inspired by the Council,” said Pope Francis, “is continually listening to the heart of the man, always with an attentive ear, always seeking to renew itself.”

Pope Francis insisted: “This is the Magisterium. The Council is the Magisterium of the Church. Either you are with the Church and therefore you follow the Council, and if you don't follow the Council or you interpret it in your own away, as you desire, you do not stand with the Church.” He asked that there be "no concessions to those who seek to present a catechesis that does not agree with the Magisterium of the Church.”

As in the post-conciliar period, so also today the Church is called to read “the signs of the times," “to offer a renewed catechesis that inspires every sphere of pastoral care.” Catechesis “is thus an extraordinary adventure,” the “vanguard of the Church,” which calls for “intelligence and courage to develop up-to-date tools that can transmit the richness and joy of the kerygma to people today.”.)

The little grain of wheat is easily separated from the mountain of chaff contained in the report above.

Yes, all Catholics must submit themselves wholly and entirely to the decrees of a true general council of Holy Mother Church and they must submit themselves to whatever a true and legitimate pope causes to be inserted into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

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.

Monsignor Fenton answered the question he posted with a ringing condemnation of the false proposition that one can "ignore," no less seek to "refute," anything contained in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis:

Theologians legitimately discuss and dispute among themselves doctrinal questions which the authoritative magisterium of the Catholic Church has not as yet resolved. Once that 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.

Thus, according to the clear teaching of the Humani generis, it is morally wrong for any individual subject to the Roman Pontiff to defend a thesis contradicting a teaching which the Pope, in his "Acta," has set forth as a part of Catholic doctrine. It is, in other words, wrong to attack a teaching which, in a genuine doctrinal decision, the Sovereign Pontiff has taught officially as the visible head of the universal Church. This holds true always an everywhere, even in those cases in which the Pope, in making his decision, did not exercise the plenitude of his apostolic teaching power by making an infallible doctrinal definition.

The Humani generis must not be taken to imply that a Catholic theologian has completed his obligation with respect to an authoritative doctrinal decision made by the Holy Father and presented in his published "Acta" when he has merely refrained from arguing or debating against it. The Humani generis reminded its readers that "this sacred magisterium ought to be the immediate and universal norm of truth for any theologian in matters of faith and morals."[9] Furthermore, it insisted that the faithful are obligated to shun errors which more or less approach heresy, and "to follow the constitutions and decrees by which evil opinions of this sort have been proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See."[10] In other words, the Humani generis claimed the same internal assent for declarations of the magisterium on matters of faith and morals which previous documents of the Holy See had stressed.

We may well ask why the Humani generis went to the trouble of mentioning something as fundamental and rudimentary as the duty of abstaining from further debate on a point where the Roman Pontiff has already issued a doctrinal decision, and has communicated that decision to the Church universal by publishing it in his "Acta." The reason is to be found in the context of the encyclical itself. The Holy Father has told us something of the existing situation which called for the issuance of the "Humani generis." This information is contained in the text of that document. The following two sentences show us the sort of condition the Humani generis was written to meet and to remedy:

"And although this sacred magisterium ought to be the immediate and universal norm of truth on matters of faith and morals for any theologian, as the agency to which Christ the Lord has entrusted the entire deposit of faith - that is, the Sacred Scriptures and divine Tradition - to be guarded and defended and explained, still, the duty by which the faithful are obligated also to shun those errors which approach more or less to heresy, and therefore 'to follow the constitutions and decrees by which evil opinions of this sort have been proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See,' is sometimes ignored as if it did not exist. What is said in encyclical letters of the Roman Pontiffs about the nature and constitution of the Church is habitually and deliberately neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they claim to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks."[11]

Six years ago, then, Pope Pius XII was faced with a situation in which some of the men who were privileged and obligated to teach the truths of sacred theology had perverted their position and their influence and had deliberately flouted the teachings of the Holy See about the nature and the constitution of the Catholic Church. And, when he declared that it is wrong to debate a point already decided by the Holy Father after that decision has been published in his "Acta," he was taking cognizance of and condemning an existent practice. There actually were individuals who were contradicting papal teachings. They were so numerous and influential that they rendered the composition of the Humani generis necessary to counteract their activities. These individuals were continuing to propose teachings repudiated by the Sovereign Pontiff in previous pronouncements. The Holy Father, then, was compelled by these circumstances to call for the cessation of debate among theologians on subjects which had already been decided by pontifical decisions published in the "Acta."

The kind of theological teaching and writing against which the encyclical Humani generis was directed was definitely not remarkable for its scientific excellence. It was, as a matter of fact, exceptionally poor from the scientific point of view. The men who were responsible for it showed very clearly that they did not understand the basic nature and purpose of sacred theology. For the true theologian the magisterium of the Church remains, as the Humani generis says, the immediate and universal norm of truth. And the teaching set forth by Pope Pius IX in his Tuas libenter is as true today as it always has been.

But when we treat of that subjection by which all Catholic students of speculative sciences are obligated in conscience so that they bring new aids to the Church by their writings, the men of this assembly ought to realize that it is not enough for Catholic scholars to receive and venerate the above-mentioned dogmas of the Church, but [they ought also to realize] that they must submit to the doctrinal decisions issued by the Pontifical Congregations and also to those points of doctrine which are held by the common and constant agreement of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions which are so certain that, even though the opinions opposed to them cannot be called heretical, they still deserve some other theological censure.[12]

It is definitely the business of the writer in the field of sacred theology to benefit the Church by what he writes. It is likewise the duty of the teacher of this science to help the Church by his teaching. The man who uses the shoddy tricks of minimism to oppose or to ignore the doctrinal decisions made by the Sovereign Pontiff and set down in his "Acta" is, in the last analysis, stultifying his position as a theologian. (The doctrinal Authority of Papal allocutions.)

Are there any further questions about the binding nature of what a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter places in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis?

Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton denounced "the shoddy tricks of minimism to ignore the doctrinal decisions made by the Sovereign Pontiff and set down his his 'Acta'."

The same shoddy tricks of minimism that were being used by the likes of Father John Courtney Murray, S.J., and the "new theologians," including Father Joseph Ratzinger, in the 1950s that prompted Pope Pius XII to issue Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, have been employed for the past forty years or more by those seeking to claim the absolutely nonexistent ability to ignore and/or refute the teaching of men they have recognized to be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter. I know. I contributed to that literature for a while. I was wrong. So are those who persist in their willful, stubborn rejection of the binding nature of all that is contained in the Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church even though if not declared infallible in a solemn manner.

Writing in 1949, a year before Pope Pius XII issued Humani Generis and seven years before his commentary on the binding authority of papal allocutions, Monsignor Fenton explained that what is contained in the Universal Ordinal Magisterium of Holy Mother Church is to be believed with religious assent, which means that no one has the authority to dissent therefrom:

[Theologians] Vacant and Scheeben make it clear that in speaking of the Decreta (as distinct from the Constitutiones), the Vatican Council definitely included the pronouncements of the various Roman Congregations among those teachings which Catholics are bound in conscience to accept perseveringly. [62] These pronouncements are unquestionably non-infallible statements. They have obviously less authority than those documents which emanate directly from the Holy Father, even when the Vicar of Christ does not intend to use the fullness of his apostolic teaching power. If these decrees of the Roman Congregations are mentioned as doctrinal pronouncements “to be observed” by all of the faithful, then it is perfectly clear that the Vatican Council, speaking as the voice of the entire ecclesia docens, insists that the teachings set forth in papal encyclicals must be accepted sincerely.

The Vatican Council’s exhortation has reference, immediately and directly, to those Constitutiones et Decreta which appeared prior to the promulgation of the Dei Filius and which dealt with doctrine closely connected with the teachings set forth in the Dei Filius. Indirectly however, by reason of the Council’s mode of procedure, it most certainly affirmed the obligation incumbent upon all Catholics of accepting and assenting to the teachings presented to the City of God on earth, even in a non-infallible manner, by the Roman Pontiff. It must be remembered that the Council did not intend to oblige the faithful to accept these pontifical statements by reason of any command contained in the Dei Filius. It simply warned them to be faithful to the obligation already incumbent upon them by reason of the pontifical authority itself. The encyclicals which have appeared since the year 1870 have manifestly just as much claim to be accepted and believed by all the faithful as had the pontifical documents issued prior to that date.

The internal acceptance which Catholics are bound to give to that portion of the Church’s teaching not presented absolutely as infallible is described as a “religious assent.” It is truly religious by reason of its object and of its motives. The Vatican Councl’s conclusion to its Constitution Dei Filius stresses the religious object of this assent. The faithful are reminded of their obligation to believe the doctrinal pronouncements of the Roman Congregations because these statements denounce and forbid definite errors which are closely connected with “heretical wickedness” and which thus are opposed to the purity of the faith. Teachings that contradict errors of this sort are obviously religious in character since they deal more or less directly with the content of divine revelation, the body of truth which guides and directs the Church of God in its worship.

The letter Tuas libentur, sent on Dec. 21, 1863 by Pope Pius IX to the Archbishop of Munich, stresses in a singularly effective way the religious motivation of the assent Catholics are bound to give to those teachings presented in a non-infallible manner in the Church’s ordinary magisterium. After reminding his readers that the dogma itself can be set forth by the Church’s ordinary magisterium as well as in its solemn judgments, the great Pontiff made the following statement.

Sed cum agatur de illa subiectione, qua ex conscientia ii omnes catholici obstringuntur, qui in contemplatrices scientias incumbunt, ut novas suis scriptis Ecclesiae afferant utilitates, idcirco eiusdem conventus viri recognoscere debent, sapientibus catholicis haud satis esse, ut praefata Ecclesiae dogmata recipiant ac venerentur, verum etiam opus esse, ut se subiciant decisionibus, quae ad doctrinam pertinentes a Pontificiis Congregationibus proferuntur, tum iis doctrinae capitibus, quae communi et constanti Catholicorum consensu retinentur ut theologicae veritates et conclusiones ita certae, ut opiniones eisdem doctrinae capitibus adversae quamquam haereticae dici nequant, tamen aliam theologicam mereantur censuram. [63] (Authority of Papal Encyclicals.)

The passage from Pope Pius IX's Tuas Liberantur that was cited by Monsignor Fenton in 1949, a year before the issuance of Humani Generis by Pope Pius XII that prompted him, Monsignor Fenton, to explicate once again on the matter as he, as noed above, applied the teaching of Human Generis to papal allocutions and all other pronouncements recorded in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, was preceded by another paragraph that is just as important to demonstrate the fallacy of "rejecting" the teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium while claiming to "recognize" a man to be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter:

While, in truth, We laud these men with due praise because they professed the truth, which necessarily aries from their obligation to the Catholic faith. We wish to persuade Ourselves that they did not wish to confine the obligation, by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound, only to those decrees which are set forth by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith, to be believed by all. And We persuade Ourselves, also, that they did not wich toe declare that that perfect adhesion to revealed truths, which they recognized as absolutely necessary to attain true progress in the sciences and to refute errors, could be obtained if faith and obedience were only given to the dogmas expessly defined by the Church. For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.

But since it is a matter of subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantages to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of the same convention should recognize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure. (Pope Pius IX, "The Conventions of the Theologians of Germany," from the letter Tuas Libenter, to the Archbishop of Munich-Freising, December 21, 1863. As found in Henry Denzinger, Enchirdion Symbolorum, thirteenth edition, translated into English by Roy Deferrari and published in 1955 as The Sources of Catholic Dogma—referred to as "Denziger," by B. Herder Book Company of St. Louis, Missouri, and London, England, Nos. 1683-1684, pp. 427-428.)

Unfortunately for those who believe in the resist while recognize position that is just a recrudescence of the Gallican heresy, the One responsible for the formulation of dogma is the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, under Whose infallible protection popes teach the truths of the Catholic at all times, yes, even when not proclaiming something solemnly ex cathedra. Catholics are bound to obey everything proposed by a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter without any degree of dissent, reservation or qualification. Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton proved that this is so in his scholary treatises cited above.

In other words, it it’s in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, it is official. No Catholic may take it unto himself to decide what is or is not binding upon himself or other Catholics. Those Catholics who keep insisting that they have the “right” to “sift” through official papal teaching have been condemned throughout the course of Holy Mother Church’s history.

Indeed, all that the late Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton did when explicating the meaning of total adherence to papal encyclical letters and allocutions and other matters that he chooses to insert into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis was to reaffirm what Pope Pius VI taught in Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794, as he condemned the "pope sifting" principles of Gallicanism, principles that were mocked by Bishop Emile Bougaud about eighty-five years later:

6. The doctrine of the synod by which it professes that "it is convinced that a bishop has received from Christ all necessary rights for the good government of his diocese," just as if for the good government of each diocese higher ordinances dealing either with faith and morals, or with general discipline, are not necessary, the right of which belongs to the supreme Pontiffs and the General Councils for the universal Church,—schismatic, at least erroneous.

7. Likewise, in this, that it encourages a bishop "to pursue zealously a more perfect constitution of ecclesiastical discipline," and this "against all contrary customs, exemptions, reservations which are opposed to the good order of the diocese, for the greater glory of God and for the greater edification of the faithful"; in that it supposes that a bishop has the right by his own judgment and will to decree and decide contrary to customs, exemptions, reservations, whether they prevail in the universal Church or even in each province, without the consent or the intervention of a higher hierarchic power, by which these customs, etc., have been introduced or approved and have the force of law,—leading to schism and subversion of hierarchic rule, erroneous.

8. Likewise, in that it says it is convinced that "the rights of a bishop received from Jesus Christ for the government of the Church cannot be altered nor hindered, and, when it has happened that the exercise of these rights has been interrupted for any reason whatsoever, a bishop can always and should return to his original rights, as often as the greater good of his church demands it"; in the fact that it intimates that the exercise of episcopal rights can be hindered and coerced by no higher power, whenever a bishop shall judge that it does not further the greater good of his church,—leading to schism, and to subversion of hierarchic government, erroneous. (Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794.)

Bishop Emile Bougaud, who served as the ordinary of Laval, France, from November 16, 1887, to his death on November 7, 1888, mocked those possessed of the Gallican mentality that teaches the falsehood that bishops and others can "sift" the words of a true pope:

The violent attacks of Protestantism against the Papacy, its calumnies and so manifest, the odious caricatures it scattered abroad, had undoubtedly inspired France with horror; nevertheless the sad impressions remained. In such accusations all, perhaps, was not false. Mistrust was excited., and instead of drawing closer to the insulted and outraged Papacy, France stood on her guard against it. In vain did Fenelon, who felt the danger, write in his treatise on the "Power of the Pope," and, to remind France of her sublime mission and true role in the world, compose his "History of Charlemagne." In vain did Bossuet majestically rise in the midst of that agitated assembly of 1682, convened to dictate laws to the Holy See, and there, in most touching accents, give vent to professions of fidelity and devotedness toward the Chair of St. Peter. We already notice in his discourse mention no longer made of the "Sovereign Pontiff." The "Holy See," the "Chair of St. Peter," the "Roman Church," were alone alluded to. First and alas! too manifest signs of coldness in the eyes of him who knew the nature and character of France! Others might obey through duty, might allow themselves to be governed by principle--France, never! She must be ruled by an individual, she must love him that governs her, else she can never obey.

These weaknesses should at least have been hidden in the shadow of the sanctuary, to await the time in which some sincere and honest solution of the misunderstanding could be given. But no! parliaments took hold of it, national vanity was identified with it. A strange spectacle was now seen. A people the most Catholic in the world; kings who called themselves the Eldest Sons of the Church and who were really such at heart; grave and profoundly Christian magistrates, bishops, and priests, though in the depths of their heart attached to Catholic unity,--all barricading themselves against the head of the Church; all digging trenches and building ramparts, that his words might not reach the Faithful before being handled and examined, and the laics convinced that they contained nothing false, hostile or dangerous. (Right Reverend Emile Bougaud, The Life of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque. Published in 1890 by Benziger Brothers. Re-printed by TAN Books and Publishers, 1990, pp. 24-29.)

Thus, the man believed by those in the “resist while recognize” movement to be “Pope Francis” is entirely correct to state that Catholics who believe him to be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter must follow the teaching of the “Second” Vatican Council and the magisterium of the postconciliar “popes” faithfully and unquestioningly. As Bergoglio said, there is no room for concessions on Catholic teaching even though the conciliar “popes” have not been true popes and the “Second” Vatican Council was convened by a Sillonist who was sympathetic to Marxism and the cause of One World Governance, Angelo Roncall/John XXIII and whose second and third sessions were presided over by an actual Marxist and anthropocentric dogmatic evolutionist named Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Montini/Paul VI.

The Chaff Proves Jorge is Not the Pope and His Religious Sect is Not the Catholic Church

Alas, it was the dogmatically, liturgically and morally corrupt Montini who closed the “Second” Vatican Council on December 8, 1965, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, by issuing a decree that the decisions of that council had to be “religiously observed,” meaning that what Bergoglio, a true and most worthy inheritor of the Montinian revolution, said on February 1, 2021, was in perfect conformity with the second in the current line of antipopes said fifty-five years ago:

APOSTOLIC BRIEF "IN SPIRITU SANCTO' FOR THE CLOSING OF THE COUNCIL - DECEMBER 8, 1965, read at the closing ceremonies of Dec. 8 by Archbishop Pericle Felici, general secretary of the council.

The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, assembled in the Holy Spirit and under the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom we have declared Mother of the Church, and of St. Joseph, her glorious spouse, and of the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul, must be numbered without doubt among the greatest events of the Church. In fact it was the largest in the number of Fathers who came to the seat of Peter from every part of the world, even from those places where the hierarchy has been very recently established. It was the richest because of the questions which for four sessions have been discussed carefully and profoundly. And last of all it was the most opportune, because, bearing in mind the necessities of the present day, above all it sought to meet the pastoral needs and, nourishing the flame of charity, it has made a great effort to reach not only the Christians still separated from communion with the Holy See, but also the whole human family.

At last all which regards the holy ecumenical council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and all the constitutions, decrees, declarations and votes have been approved by the deliberation of the synod and promulgated by us. Therefore we decided to close for all intents and purposes, with our apostolic authority, this same ecumenical council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death.

We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on.

Given in Rome at St. Peter's, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate. (APOSTOLIC BRIEF - IN SPIRITU SANCTO.)

There has to be complete adherence to the decrees of a true general council of the Catholic Church.

Unfortunately for everyone who believes that the counterfeit church of the Catholic Church and that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is actually “Pope Francis,” their “pope’s” own words of three days ago prove that neither the “Second” Vatican Council nor the “magisterium” of the postconciliar “popes” has anything whatsoever to do with Holy Mother Church.

Bergoglio said that catechesis must use “up to date” tools so that the “kerygma” can proclaimed to the “people today,” meaning that what he thinks is the Catholic Church must listen to the “people” and then to “smell the scent of sheep” to determine how what is purported to be Catholic teaching can be made consonant with the “signs of the times.” In other words, conciliarism is all about “man as he is today,” not about Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His immutable Sacred Deposit of Faith.

Unfair?

Hah!

Consider the testimony provided by Judas Montini’s own words in his closing address at the “Second” Vatican Council” on December 7, 1965, the Feast of Saint Ambrose:

But we cannot pass over one important consideration in our analysis of the religious meaning of the council: it has been deeply committed to the study of the modern world. Never before perhaps, so much as on this occasion, has the Church felt the need to know, to draw near to, to understand, to penetrate, serve and evangelize the society in which she lives; and to get to grips with it, almost to run after it, in its rapid and continuous change. This attitude, a response to the distances and divisions we have witnessed over recent centuries, in the last century and in our own especially, between the Church and secular society -- this attitude has been strongly and unceasingly at work in the council; so much so that some have been inclined to suspect that an easy-going and excessive responsiveness to the outside world, to passing events, cultural fashions, temporary needs, an alien way of thinking . . ., may have swayed persons and acts of the ecumenical synod, at the expense of the fidelity which is due to tradition, and this to the detriment of the religious orientation of the council itself. We do not believe that this shortcoming should be imputed to it, to its real and deep intentions, to its authentic manifestations. (Address During The Last General Meeting Of the "Second Vatican Council.)

Yes, Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul the Sick was the delusional one, not his contemporaries who saw what they believed to be the Catholic Church making terms with error and heresy. Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!

Montini praised the fact that the fathers of the “Second” Vatican Council sought to take an “optimistic” view of man and of the modern world while issuing “messages of trust” to “the present-day world”:

And what aspect of humanity has this august senate studied? What goal under divine inspiration did it set for itself? It also dwelt upon humanity's ever twofold facet, namely, man's wretchedness and his greatness, his profound weakness -- which is undeniable and cannot be cured by himself -- and the good that survives in him which is ever marked by a hidden beauty and an invincible serenity. But one must realize that this council, which exposed itself to human judgment, insisted very much more upon this pleasant side of man, rather than on his unpleasant one. Its attitude was very much and deliberately optimistic. A wave of affection and admiration flowed from the council over the modem world of humanity. Errors were condemned, indeed, because charity demanded this no less than did truth, but for the persons themselves there was only warming, respect and love. Instead of depressing diagnoses, encouraging remedies; instead of direful prognostics, messages of trust issued from the council to the present-day world. The modern world's values were not only respected but honored, its efforts approved, its aspirations purified and blessed. (Address During The Last General Meeting Of the "Second Vatican Council.)

Yes, the “pleasant side of man” has certainly manifested itself over the past fifty years.

A worldwide genocide, waged by chemical and surgical means, of innocent preborn children.

The worldwide vivisection of living human beings for their vital bodily organs in order to transplant them into those on the point of their natural deaths.

The worldwide starvation and dehydration of disabled human beings.

The worldwide use of “hospice” as a means to expedite the deaths of chronically or terminally ill patients in the name of “compassion.”

Big Pharma’s worldwide control of how human beings are to be overmedicated and used as guinea pigs to refine various formulae for “curing” problems created by Big Ag’s genetic manipulation of our food sources.

The worldwide campaign to institutionalize euthanasia for the sick and suffering and to oppose the imposition of the death penalty upon those adjudged guilty of heinous crimes after the administration of the due process of law.

The worldwide campaign to advance the sin of Sodom and its related vices as “human rights.”

The worldwide campaign to use junk science to promote the ideology of evolutionism and to promote a pantheistic protection of the environment and draconian measures to retard “global warming.”

The worldwide use of telecommunications as a means to attack and undermine the innocence of the young and to promote all manner of sins, both natural and unnatural, against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments by human beings of all ages.

The worldwide control of what is said to be “news” by master illusionists who want to condition, control, manipulate and agitate the masses into accepting uncritically whatever is said to be “reality” because it has been “reported” as such.

The worldwide campaign by national and supranational governmental agencies to institutionalize statism by the issuance of hundreds of thousands of regulations and the imposition of countless taxes, fees and fines to limit the use of private property and to seek to criminalize speech deemed “hateful” by our caesars.

The worldwide creation and nurturing of a caste of citizens who are dependent upon the state for their very daily needs, thus accustoming entire generations of human beings to become wards of the civil state.

The worldwide use of social engineering to change the demographic composition of neighborhoods and communities.

The dominance of multinational banks and corporations whose only loyalty is to the bottom line and to the promotion of a social agenda that is anti-family and anti-life as they practice usury to enslave those with average or below average incomes in exchange for their being able to finance the purchases of their homes, vehicles, clothing and major appliances.

The systematic warfare against the expression of Christianity in public as a means of protecting “diversity” and of promotion “toleration,” especially for Mohammedans, whose swollen ranks in the once Catholic states of Europe have resulted in one of Talmudism’s long-sought goals: the elimination of the Holy Name of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, from public view.

An endless procession of wars, many of them waged simultaneously, that have killed and wounded millions upon millions of people, and have laid waste entire lands and made refugees of untold millions of people.

Yes, yes, yes.

The “pleasant side of man.”

Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI was steeped in delusions, which have been fostered by the illusion that the work of the “Second” Vatican Council has been that of the Catholic Church and that the “liturgical reform” has enabled men to communicate with God more fully:

You see, for example, how the countless different languages of peoples existing today were admitted for the liturgical expression of men's communication with God and God's communication with men: to man as such was recognized his fundamental claim to enjoy full possession of his rights and to his transcendental destiny. His supreme aspirations to life, to personal dignity, to his just liberty, to culture, to the renewal of the social order, to justice and peace were purified and promoted; and to all men was addressed the pastoral and missionary invitation to the light of the Gospel.

We can now speak only too briefly on the very many and vast questions, relative to human welfare, with which the council dealt. It did not attempt to resolve all the urgent problems of modem life; some of these have been reserved for a further study which the Church intends to make of them, many of them were presented in very restricted and general terms, and for that reason are open to further investigation and various applications.

But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man's conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force; it has spoken with the accommodating friendly voice of pastoral charity; its desire has been to be heard and understood by everyone; it has not merely concentrated on intellectual understanding but has also sought to express itself in simple, up-to-date, conversational style, derived from actual experience and a cordial approach which make it more vital, attractive and persuasive; it has spoken to modern man as he is.

Another point we must stress is this: all this rich teaching is channeled in one direction, the service of mankind, of every condition, in every weakness and need. The Church has, so to say, declared herself the servant of humanity, at the very time when her teaching role and her pastoral government have, by reason of the council's solemnity, assumed greater splendor and vigor: the idea of service has been central. (Address During The Last General Meeting Of the "Second Vatican Council.)

The servant of humanity, not the Mystical Spouse of Christ the King to advance the work of the sanctification and salvation of souls.

Modern man as he is?”

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is continuing Montini’s work of bringing the One World Ecumenical Religion into being, which is why he is celebrating the first International Day of Human Fraternity today, February 4, 2021, the Feast of Saint Andrew Corsini:

Pope Francis will celebrate the International Day of Human Fraternity on Thursday, 4 February, in a virtual event hosted by Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed in Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates, with the participation of the Grand Imam of Al Azhar, Ahmad Al-Tayyeb; Secretary General António Guterres of the United Nations; and other personalities.

On the same occasion, the Zayed Award for Human Fraternity, which is inspired by the Human Fraternity Document, will be awarded. The meeting and the award ceremony will be streamed in several languages starting at 14:30 (Rome time) - 13.30 (GMT time) - by Vatican News, the multimedia information portal of the Holy See, and broadcast by Vatican Media.

"This celebration responds to a clear call that Pope Francis has been making to all humanity to build a present of peace in the encounter with the other," stressed Cardinal Miguel Ángel Ayuso Guixot MCCJ, President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue. "In October 2020, that invitation became even more vivid with the Encyclical Fratelli tutti. These meetings are a way to achieve true social friendship, as the Holy Father asks of us," he added.

The date is no coincidence. On 4 February 2019, during an Apostolic Journey the Pope made to the United Arab Emirates, together with the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar (Cairo), Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, they signed the Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together. The Pope and the Grand Imam spent almost half a year drafting this Document before announcing it together during such a historic visit.

A few months later, the Higher Committee of Human Fraternity was established to translate the aspirations of the Human Fraternity Document into sustained engagements and concrete actions to foster fraternity, solidarity, respect and mutual understanding. The Higher Committee is planning an Abrahamic Family House, with a synagogue, a church and a mosque, on Saadiyat Island, Abu Dhabi. It established an independent jury to receive nominations for the Zayed Award for Human Fraternity and choose winners whose work demonstrates a lifelong commitment to human fraternity. The 2021 prize will be awarded on 4 February.

On 21 December 2020, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously declared 4 February as International Day of Human Fraternity. "In this decisive phase of human history, we are at a crossroads: on the one hand, universal fraternity in which humanity rejoices, and on the other, an acute misery that will increase the suffering and deprivation of people," Judge Mohamed Mahmoud Abdel Salam, secretary general of the High Committee of Human Fraternity, underlined during his presentation of the encyclical Fratelli tutti on 4 October 2020.

Pope Francis has encouraged the Holy See to join in the celebration of International Human Fraternity Day under the leadership of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue. In the January edition of the Pope's Video, “At the service of human fraternity,” the Holy Father highlights the importance of focusing on what is essential to the faith of all faiths: worship of God and love of neighbour. "Fraternity leads us to open ourselves to the Father of all and to see in the other a brother, a sister, to share life, or to support one another, to love, to know," Pope Francis emphasises in the video.

About the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue

The Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue was instituted in 1964 by Pope Paul VI with the aim of working on relations and dialogue between the Catholic Church and the faithful of other religions. It is currently chaired by Cardinal Miguel Ángel Ayuso Guixot.

Among its main activities, it collaborates with bishops and Episcopal Conferences on matters related to interreligious dialogue; it holds meetings, visits and conferences with leaders of other religions; and it publishes various materials to promote dialogue between different faiths.

About the Higher Committee of Human Fraternity

The Higher Committee of Human Fraternity is made up of different international religious leaders, scholars and cultural leaders who were inspired by the Document on Human Fraternity and are dedicated to sharing its message of mutual understanding and peace.

Their main work is to act concretely according to the aspirations of the Document on Human Fraternity and to spread the values of mutual respect and peaceful coexistence. The Secretary General of the Higher Committee of Human Fraternity is Judge Mohamed Mahmoud Abdel Salam. (Apostate to Join First World Day of Human Fraternity.)

Do you want a short and very precise summary of what you have read just above?

Sure, I know you do.

So, here it is:

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.)

Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? [15] And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?

[16] And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God; as God saith: I will dwell in them, and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. [17] Wherefore, Go out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing: [18] And I will receive you; and I will be a Father to you; and you shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Corinthians 6: 16-18.)

The beloved Apostle, Saint John the Evangelist, explained that we must have nothing to do with those who “revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ” and that such people “hath not God”:

[7] For many seducers are gone out into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh: this is a seducer and an antichrist. [8] Look to yourselves, that you lose not the things which you have wrought: but that you may receive a full reward. [9] Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. [10] If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you.

[11] For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works. (2 John 1: 7-11.)

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.)

Every religion other than Catholicism is false:

For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils: but the Lord made the heavens. (Psalm 95: 5)

Bergoglio’s incessant desire to please everyone except God as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His Catholic Church demonstrates all one needs to know about the fact that it is offensive to God to consider an apostate to be a Catholic, no less to think that an apostate can be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter and give speeches, issue documents and participate in events of religious syncretism and indifferentism that it is impossible for the Catholic Church to do anything but condemn.

The whole gestalt, if you will, of the counterfeit church of conciliarism today was summarized by Pope Pius XII twelve months, twenty-five days before his death on October 9, 1958, and contained within an essay written by the late Monsignor George A. Kelly:

The more serious cause, however, was the movement in high Jesuit circles to modernize the understanding of the magisterium by enlarging the freedom of Catholics, especially scholars, to dispute its claims and assertions. Jesuit scholars had already made up their minds that the Catholic creeds and moral norms needed nuance and correction. It was for this incipient dissent that the late Pius XII chastised the Jesuits’ 30th General Congregation one year before he died (1957). What concerned Pius XII most in that admonition was the doctrinal orthodoxy of Jesuits. Information had reached him that the Society’s academics (in France and Germany) were bootlegging heterodox ideas. He had long been aware of contemporary theologians who tried “to withdraw themselves from the Sacred Teaching authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them in error” (Humani generis).

In view of what has gone on recently in Catholic higher education, Pius XII’s warnings to Jesuits have a prophetic ring to them. He spoke then of a “proud spirit of free inquiry more proper to a heterodox mentality than to a Catholic one”; he demanded that Jesuits not “tolerate complicity with people who would draw norms for action for eternal salvation from what is actually done, rather than from what should be done.” He continued, “It should be necessary to cut off as soon as possible from the body of your Society” such “unworthy and unfaithful sons.” Pius obviously was alarmed at the rise of heterodox thinking, worldly living, and just plain disobedience in Jesuit ranks, especially at attempts to place Jesuits on a par with their Superiors in those matters which pertained to Faith or Church order (The Pope Speaks, Spring 1958, pp. 447-453). (Monsignor George A. Kelly, Ph.D.,The Catholic College: Death, Judgment, Resurrection. See also the full Latin text of Pope Pius XII's address to the thirtieth general congregation of the Society of Jesus at page 806 of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis for 1957: AAS 49 [1957]. One will have to scroll down to page 806.)

Perhaps readers would be well to recall that Jorge Mario Bergoglio was trained by the very sort of Jesuits whose false theology Pope Pius XII condemned on September 14, 1957, the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross as he, Bergoglio, is the very poster boy for those who ascribe to condemned propositions by making the Holy Faith a plaything into which they can project whatever it is they want given the alleged “needs” of “modern man” at any given time.

What men need in all ages, however, is the truth of the Catholic Faith as human nature is unchanging and thus remains fallen no matter the exact nature of the historical circumstances in which they may live. Human nature is fallen. Men are inclined to sin. It is not possible to virtuous over the long term by one’s unaided powers, and it is sheer folly to believe that naturalism and/or a de facto religious indifferentism/syncretism can produce a brotherhood that exists only in the bond unity formed by the Catholic Faith.

Men need the benefits of Sanctifying and Actual Graces at every moment of their lives and in every epoch of Holy Mother Church.

The belief that God is indifferent to truth in the name of a false “charity” and in the spirit of a false “mercy” is apostasy.

Yet it is, of course, that not the lords of conciliarism, who are, to use an Italian word, stunarde—(thick)—slow to learn from their mistakes as they are steeped in the darkness of the sins of heresy, blasphemy, sacrilege, and apostasy), continue to “progress” along the path of Antichrist’s One World Ecumenical Religion with those who deny the doctrine of the Most Blessed Trinity and to make a mockery of the unicity of Holy Mother Church by praising such “Christian” ecumaniacal” movements as the Taize community.

Pietro The Red Parolin issued a statement to the Taize community on December 27, 2020, the Feast of Saint John the Evangelist and the third day in the Octave of Christmas, that, although boilerplate conciliarism, should remind anyone who understands the necessity of obedience to a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter that the lords of conciliarism are not Catholic and the “church” to which they belong is nothing other than the counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church:

To the participants in the 43^rd European Meeting animated by the Community of Taize,

Dear Young People,

For over forty years, the Community of Taize has prepared a European Meeting every year in a big city of the Continent, and several generations of young people have taken part in it. Pope Francis is happy to join you, again this year, in thought and prayer. The health situation this time, not permitting such a gathering, you have given proof of creativity and imagination: although dispersed, you are linked in an unprecedented way thanks to the new means of communication. And, at the same time, you extend this meeting to young people of all the Continents. May these days, during which you pray together and support one another in faith and confidence, help you to hope “in season and out of season,” , as the theme of the message stresses, which will accompany you throughout the year 2021.

The very fact that you “meet,” even though you do so, exceptionally, in a virtual way, already puts you on the path of hope As the Holy Father said in his Encyclical Fratelli Tutti, “no one can face life in an isolated way. We have need of a community that supports us, which helps us and in which we help one another mutually to look ahead” (n. 8). Don’t be one of those that sow despair and arouse constant mistrust, this would be to neutralize the strength of the hope that the Spirit of the Risen Christ offers us. On the contrary, let yourselves be inhabited by this hope, it will give you the courage to follow Christ and to work together with and for the most destitute, in particular those that find it hard to face the difficulties of the present time. “Hope is audacious, it is able to look beyond personal comfort, little securities and compensations that shrink the horizon, to open oneself to great ideals that make life more beautiful and more dignified. Let us walk in hope!” (Fratelli Tutti, n. 55). Throughout this year, may you be able to continue to develop a culture of encounter and of fraternity, and to walk together towards this horizon of hope revealed by Christ’s Resurrection.

The Holy Father blesses each one of you, dear young people; he also blesses the Brothers of the Community of Taize, as well as your families and all those around the world taking part with you in this international meeting.

Cardinal Pietro Parolin (Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s Message to the Taize Community.)

Gee, where have we heard that “hope is audacious”?

Yes, you are correct. None other than Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, whose supposed “autobiography” was entitled The Audacity of Hope.” These revolutionaries are not in the least bit original, are they?

The Taize community was founded by the late Roger Schutz, who was influenced by the “spiritual ecumenism” of the Abbe Paul Courtuier, a direct disciple of the biological, cosmic and theological evolutionist named Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J.

Chardin desired for some kind of "spiritual ecumenism" while minimizing, if not ignoring, doctrinal issues. Chardin thus continued even after his death to exercise an almost controlling influence on the Society of Jesus in conciliar captivity and upon the counterfeit church of conciliarism in general. As I understand now, it was with good cause that Governor of the State of New York, the pro-abortion Mario Matthew Cuomo, could claim in an address at the Protestant Cathedral of Saint John the Divine in the Borough of Manhattan in the City of New York, New York, in November of 1983 that de Chardin was a major influence on the "Second" Vatican Council. Cuomo had it right. The theological and biological evolutionist Teilhard de Chardin's influence was very much felt at the "Second" Vatican Council and during the "magisterium" of the postconciliar "popes."

The theological foundation of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's adoption of spiritual ecumenism was laid by the aforementioned Paul Couturier, whom “Saint John Paul II” cited in footnote fifty of Ut Unum Sint, May 25, 1995, an encyclical letter that was the exact opposite of Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928. Walter Kasper praised the "spiritual ecumenism" of Abbe Paul Couturier in a "reflection" published at the beginning of the conciliar church's 2008 "Week of Prayer for Christian Unity" that replaced the Catholic Church's Chair of Unity Octave that runs from the Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter in Rome on January 18 to January 25:

In taking a fresh look at Paul Wattson's original intention, we note an important development in the understanding of the Week of Prayer. While Wattson maintained that the goal of unity was the return to the Catholic Church, Abbé Paul Couturier of Lyons (1881-1953) gave a new impetus to this Week in the 1930s, ecumenical in the true sense of the word. He changed the name "Church Unity Octave" to "Universal Week of Prayer for Christian Unity", thus furthering a unity of the Church that "Christ wills by the means he wills".

Paul Couturier's 1944 spiritual testament is very important, profound and moving; it is one of the most inspired ecumenical texts, still worth reading and meditating on today. The author speaks of an "invisible monastery", "built of all those souls whom, because of their sincere efforts to open themselves to his fire and his light, the Holy Spirit has enabled to have a deep understanding of the painful division among Christians; an awareness of this in these souls has given rise to continuous suffering and as a result, regular recourse to prayer and penance".

Paul Couturier can be considered the father of spiritual ecumenism. His influence was felt by the Dombes Group and by Roger Schutz and the Taizé Community. Sr Maria Gabriella also drew great inspiration from him. Today, his invisible monastery is at last taking shape through the growing number of prayer networks between Catholic monasteries and non-Catholics, spiritual movements and communities, centres of male and female religious, Bishops, priests and lay people. (Charting the road of the ecumenical movement.)

Paul Couturier's credentials as a disciple of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is heralded on a website devoted to the promotion of his work, which was rejected in his own lifetime by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928:

A third influence on Couturier was Teilhard de Chardin. Both men were scientists, and Teilhard's vision of the unity of creation and humanity expressed in the unity of Christ and the life of the Church appealed both scientifically and spiritually to Couturier. A reasoned consequence for him was that the unity of Christians was the sign for the unity of humanity, and that praying for the sanctification of Jews, Muslims and Hindus, among many others, could not fail but to lead to a new spiritual understanding of God where Christ could at last be recognised and understood. Couturier felt this keenly as he was partly Jewish and had been raised among Muslims in North Africa. It is worth noting that among Couturier's voluminous correspondents were Jews, Muslims, and Hindus, as well as every kind of Christian, all caught up in the Abbé's spirit of prayer, realising the significance and dimensions of prayer for the unity of Christians. Coincidentally, years later Mother Theresa spoke of the considerable number of Muslims who volunteered and worked at her house in Calcutta: 'If you are a Christian, I want to make you a better Christian - if you are a Muslim, I want to make you a better Muslim'. It cannot be denied that what those Muslims were seeing in Mother Theresa was Jesus Christ himself, just as the Abbe attracted so many to prayer across previously unbridgeable divides by his humility, penitence, and joyful charity in the peace of Christ.

2003-2004 also marks the 50th Anniversary of the launch of the Week of Prayer in Morocco as an act of charity and prayer among the people of Islam, a significant milestone in the experiences of today as much as then. (The Abbé Paul Couturier and Spiritual Ecumenism)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio, therefore, is simply carrying on the principles and the practices of his predecessors in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Alas, the work of the “magisterium” of the postconciliar “popes” is anathema to the Holy Faith and thus to the temporal and eternal good of souls, meaning that that nothing produced by the conciliar church is of God, including “false ecumenism,” which was condemned as follows by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928:

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.)

The Catholic Church teaches that "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."

None of the conciliar "popes," including Angelo Roncalli/"Saint John XXIII," has believed this to be true, and even though Roncalli/John XXIII did not live long enough to inaugurate the very kind of "inter-religious" prayer services had Pope Pius XI had condemned just a little less than thirty-one years before his "election" on October 28, 1958, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude, he did start the process that led directly to the meeting between Montini/Paul the Sick and Athenagoras on January 5 and 6, 1964, in Jerusalem:

Prior to this groundbreaking meeting [Montini/Paul VI and Athenagoras] of the two prelates fifty years ago, for many centuries the Eastern and Western Churches were not in formal contact and shared very little official communication, especially after what became known as the Great Schism of 1054. There were two brief occasions of encounter and dialogue regarding reunification during the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries, but these left behind feelings of bitterness rather than hopefulness, at least for the Orthodox Christians of the East. The estrangement was of course markedly accentuated and apparent after the tragic events of the Crusades in the late twelfth-early thirteenth century.

Mindful of this extraordinary and even bitter history, Patriarch Athenagoras commissioned the newly-elected Archbishop Iakovos of North and South America in 1959 to travel to Rome in order to meet with the "charismatic" and "angelic" – as he was widely known[3] – Pope John XXIII, who had just months earlier announced the convocation of the Second Vatican Council that later began in 1962. When Iakovos visited the Pope on March 17, 1959, it was the first encounter between a representative of the Patriarch and the Pope of Rome since May, 1547; only one month later, a representative from the Vatican would visit the Phanar to meet with Patriarch Athenagoras.[4]

Then, in the middle of the twentieth century, Athenagoras – formerly Archbishop of North and South America and then Ecumenical Patriarch, a man committed to the fullness of truth and convinced of the ecumenical mandate of the Orthodox Church – undertook the inspiring, albeit daring initiative of writing a personal letter to Pope John XXIII on May 30, 1963,[5] wishing him a speedy recovery from illness, a simple gesture of concern between two individuals. It was the first time in some 400 years that either a Pope or a Patriarch communicated directly with his counterpart. In personal conversations, Patriarch Athenagoras often spoke of the same Pope adapting the opening words of the Gospel of John: "There was a man sent from God whose name was John." (John 1.6) In a letter addressed to Patriarch Athenagoras on December 30, 1963, as well as in his response to the Ecumenical Patriarch on the Mount of Olives on January 6, 1964, Pope Paul VI recalled the Patriarch's application of these words to John XXIII and referred to it as "a flash of intuition." (The Meeting Between Two Heretics.)

Let no one attempt to absolve Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII from any responsibility for what happened after his death, it must remembered that he was a heretic who believed in the principles of The Sillon even after they had been condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.

Pius XII was succeeded by John XXIII, Angelo Roncalli. Throughout his ecclesiastical career, Roncalli was involved in affairs that place his orthodoxy under a cloud. Here are a few facts:

As professor at the seminary of Bergamo, Roncalli was investigated for following the theories of Msgr. Duchesne, which were forbidden under Saint Pius X in all Italian seminaries. Msgr. Duchesne's work, Histoire Ancienne de l'Eglise, ended up on the Index.

While papal nuncio to Paris, Roncalli revealed his adhesion to the teachings of Sillon, a movement condemned by St. Pius X. In a letter to the widow of Marc Sagnier, the founder of the condemned movement, he wrote: The powerful fascination of his [Sagnier's] words, his spirit, had enchanted me; and from my early years as a priest, I maintained a vivid memory of his personality, his political and social activity."

Named as Patriarch of Venice, Msgr. Roncalli gave a public blessing to the socialists meeting there for their party convention. As John XXIII, he made Msgr. Montini a cardinal and called the Second Vatican Council. He also wrote the Encyclical Pacem in Terris. The Encyclical uses a deliberately ambiguous phrase, which foreshadows the same false religious liberty the Council would later proclaim.

John XXIII's attitude in matters liturgical, then, comes as no surprise. Dom Lambert Beauduin, quasi-founder of the modernist Liturgical Movement, was a friend of Roncalli from 1924 onwards. At the death of Pius XII, Beauduin remarked: "If they elect Roncalli, everything will be saved; he would be capable of calling a council and consecrating ecumenism..."' (Liturgical Revolution.)

The inter-denominationlism of The Sillon in political and social matters, a sort of "political ecumenism," if you will, would lead all too logically to the sort of theological "ecumenism" that was condenmned by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos. As noted in the late Father Didier Bonneterre's The Liturgical Movement: Roots, Radicals, Results, the corpulent Rosicrucian Mason Roncalli was a firm supporter of the false ecumenism being practiced by the "Taize Ecumenical Community" in France that was near and dear to hearts of his successors, particularly Montini/Paul VI, Wojtyla/John Paul II, Joseph Aloi Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, and, of course, Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself:

After the death of John XXIII, his brother, Giuseppe Roncalli, visit Taize. During his visit, Roncalli remarked to his grandson, "It was my brother the Pope who began what will come out of Taize." (Father Didier Bonneterre, The Liturgical Movement: Roots, Radicals, Results. Kansas City, Missouri: Angelus Press, 2002. p 101.)

More to the point, however, was that Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII was a firm believer in the "new ecclesiology," that heresy that considers Protestant sects as part of the "Church of Christ," a view he outlined to Schutz himself shortly before he, Roncalli/John XXIII, had to answer to God for his multiple apostasies at the moment of his Particular Judgment on June 3, 1963:

Q. Did Brother Roger himself testify explicitly to that development?

A. Father Alois (Roger Schutz's successor of Taize): "He understood very early in his life that in order to pass on the Gospel to young people a reconciliation of Christians was necessary. After John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council, he considered that the time for reconciliation had come. He often told how, during his last meeting with John XXIII, in 1963, he was eager to hear a spiritual testament from the pope and he asked him about the place of Taizé in the Church. John XXIII replied, making circular gestures with his hands, 'The Catholic Church is made of concentric circles that are always bigger and bigger.' The pope did not specify in which circle he saw Taizé but Brother Roger understood that the pope wanted to say to him: you are already within, continue simply on this path. And that is what he did. (RORATE CÆLI)

Here are a few reminders of how this idiocy stood condemned long before Angelo Roncalli steeped out on the balcony of the Basilica of Saint Peter on the evening October 28, 1958, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude, to initiate the current line of antipopes:

7. It is with no less deceit, venerable brothers, that other enemies of divine revelation, with reckless and sacrilegious effrontery, want to import the doctrine of human progress into the Catholic religion. They extol it with the highest praise, as if religion itself were not of God but the work of men, or a philosophical discovery which can be perfected by human means. The charge which Tertullian justly made against the philosophers of his own time "who brought forward a Stoic and a Platonic and a Dialectical Christianity" can very aptly apply to those men who rave so pitiably. Our holy religion was not invented by human reason, but was most mercifully revealed by God; therefore, one can quite easily understand that religion itself acquires all its power from the authority of God who made the revelation, and that it can never be arrived at or perfected by human reason. In order not to be deceived and go astray in a matter of such great importance, human reason should indeed carefully investigate the fact of divine revelation. Having done this, one would be definitely convinced that God has spoken and therefore would show Him rational obedience, as the Apostle very wisely teaches. For who can possibly not know that all faith should be given to the words of God and that it is in the fullest agreement with reason itself to accept and strongly support doctrines which it has determined to have been revealed by God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived? (Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus, November 9, 1846.)

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.)

In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies Itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, It makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)

There are some, indeed, who recognize and affirm that Protestantism, as they call it, has rejected, with a great lack of consideration, certain articles of faith and some external ceremonies, which are, in fact, pleasing and useful, and which the Roman Church still retains. They soon, however, go on to say that that Church also has erred, and corrupted the original religion by adding and proposing for belief certain doctrines which are not only alien to the Gospel, but even repugnant to it. Among the chief of these they number that which concerns the primacy of jurisdiction, which was granted to Peter and to his successors in the See of Rome. Among them there indeed are some, though few, who grant to the Roman Pontiff a primacy of honor or even a certain jurisdiction or power, but this, however, they consider not to arise from the divine law but from the consent of the faithful. Others again, even go so far as to wish the Pontiff Himself to preside over their motley, so to say, assemblies. But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act. it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

There can be no doubt in anything pertaining to the Catholic Faith as Pope Pius XI has assured us that the teaching authority of Holy Mother Church 'was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men."

Indeed, Pope Pius XI also reminded us that the Catholic Church enjoys a perpetual immunity from error and heresy:

Not least among the blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy. (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925.)

Obey Jorge Mario Bergoglio and you obey a man who, whether or not he realizes it, is an agent of Antichrist’s One World Ecumenical Church.

It is impossible to believe in the one God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity, while reaffirming those who believe and worship false gods.

Saint Peter Martyr wrote the words "Credo in unum Deum" in his own very blood.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio spits on those words as he reduces religious faith to a matter of "thinking" or "feeling" "differently, rejecting the simple belief that the Catholic Faith alone is based on Divine Revelation and that unbelief in the truths of the Catholic Faith is a sin.

Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B.’s inspiring account of the life and martyrdom of Saint Peter Martyr, whose feast is celebrated annually on April 29, teaches us this truth in several ways:

The hero deputed this day by the Church to greet our Risen Lord was so valiant in the good fight that martyrdom is part of his name. He is known as Peter the Martyr; to that we cannot speak of him without raising the echo of victory. He was put to death by heretics, and is the grand tribute paid to our Redeemer by the thirteenth century. Never was there a triumph hailed with greater enthusiasm than this. The martyrdom of St. Thomas of Canterbury excited the admiration of the faithful of the preceding century, for nothing was so dear to our forefathers as the liberty of the Church; the martyrdom of St. Peter was celebrated with a like intensity of praise and joy. Let us hearken to the fervid eloquence of the great Pontiff, Innocent IV, who thus begins the Bull of the martyr’s canonization: ‘The truth of the Christian faith, manifested, as it has been, by great and frequent miracles, is not beautified by the new merit of a new Saint. Lo! a combatant of these our times comes, bringing us new and great triumphant signs. The voice of his blood shed (for Christ) is heard, and the fame of his martyrdom is trumpeted, through the world. The land is not silent that sweateth with blood; the country that produced so noble a warrior resounds with his praise; yea, the very sword that did the deed of parricide proclaims his glory. . . . Mother Church has great reason to rejoice, and abundant matter for gladness; she has cause to sing a new canticle to the Lord, and a hymn of fervent praise to her God: . . . the Christian people has cause to give forth devout songs to its Creator. A sweet fruit, gathered in the garden of faith, has been set upon the table of the eternal King: a grape-bunch taken from the vineyard of the Church has filled the royal cup with new wine. . . . The flourishing of the Order of Preachers has produced a red rose, whose sweetness is most grateful to the King; and from the Church here on earth there has been taken a stone, which, after being cut and polished, has deserved a place of honour in the temple of heaven.

Such was the language wherewith the supreme Pontiff spoke of the new martyr, and the people responded by celebrating his feast with extraordinary devotion. It was kept as were the ancient festivals, that is, all servile work was forbidden upon it. The churches served by the Fathers of the Dominican Order were crowded on his feast; and the faithful took little branches with them, that they might be blessed in memory of the triumph of Peter the Martyr. The custom is still observed; and the branches blessed by the Dominicans on this day are venerated as being a protection to the houses where they are kept.

How are we to account for all this fervent devotion of the people towards St. Peter? It was because he died in defense of the faith; and nothing was so dear to the Christians of those days as faith. Peter had received the charge to seize all the heretics who at that time were causing great disturbance and scandal in the country round about Milan. They were called Cathari, but in reality were Manicheans; their teachings were detestable, and their lives most immoral. Peter fulfilled his duty with a firmness and equity which soon secured him the hatred of the heretics; and when he fell a victim to his holy courage, a cry of admiration and gratitude was heard throughout Christendom. Nothing could be more devoid of truth than the accusations brought by the enemies of the Church and their indiscreet abettors against the measures formerly decreed by the public law of Catholic nations, in order to foil the efforts made by evil-minded men to injure the true faith. In those times, no tribunal was more popular as that whose office was to protect the faith, and to put down all them that attacked it. It was to the Order of St. Dominic that this office was mainly entrusted; and well may they be proud of the honour of having so long held one so beneficial to the salvation of mankind. How many of its members have met with a glorious death in the exercise of their stern duty! St. Peter is the first of the martyrs given by the Order for this holy cause: his name, however, head a long list of others who were his brethren in religion, his successors in the defence of the faith, and his followers to martyrdom. The coercive measures that were once, and successfully, long since ceased to be used: but for us Catholics, our judgement of them must surely be that of the Church. She bids us to-day honour as a martyr one of her Saints, who was put to death whilst resisting the wolves that threatened the sheep of Christ’s fold; should we not be guilty of disrespect to our Mother if we dared to condemn what she so highly approves? Far, then, be from us that cowardly truckling to the spirit of the age, which would make us ashamed of the courageous efforts made by our forefathers for the preservation of the faith! Far from us that childish readiness to believe the calumnies of Protestants against an institution which they naturally detest! Far from us that deplorable confusion of ideas which puts truth and error on an equality, and from the fact that error can have no rights, concludes that truth can claim none! (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year: Paschal Time, Book II, pp. 374-376.)

Who puts truth and error on an equality?

I think you know the answer to that question. If not, just look for the man dressed in white in a dark room illumined by but a single light, something approaching the very atmosphere in which open devil-worshipers ply their trade, including the Illuninati.

Let us turn now to Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B.’s prayer to Saint Peter Martyr:

The victory was thine, O Peter! and thy zeal for the defence of the holy faith was rewarded. Thou didst ardently desire to shed thy blood for the holiest of causes, and by such a sacrifice to confirm the faithful of Christ in their religion. Our Lord satisfied thy desire; he would even have thy martyrdom be in the festive season of the Resurrection of our divine Lamb, that his glory might add lustre to the beauty of thy holocaust. When the death-blow fell upon thy venerable head, and they generous blood was flowing from the wounds, thou didst write on the ground the first words of the creed, for whose holy truth thou was giving thy life.

Protector of the Christian people! what other motive hadst thou, in all thy labours, but charity? What else but a desire to defend the weak from danger induced thee not only to preach against error, but to drive its teachers from the flock? How many simple souls, who were receiving divine truth from the teaching of the Church, have been deceived by the lying sophistry of heretical doctrine, and have lost the faith? Surely the Church would do all she could to ward off such dangers from her children; she would do all she could to defend them from enemies, who were bent on destroying the glorious inheritance which had been handed down to them by millions of martyrs! She knew the strange tendency that often exists in the heart of fallen man to love error; whereas truth, though of itself unchanging, is not sure of its remaining firmly in the mind, unless it be defended by learning or by faith, as to learning, there are but few who possess it; and as to faith, error is ever conspiring against it, and, of course, with the appearance of truth. In the Christian ages it would have been deemed not only criminal, but absurd, to grant to error the liberty which is due only to truth; and they that were in authority considered it a duty to keep the weak from danger, by removing from them all occasions of a fall; just as the father of a family keeps his children from coming in contact with wicked companions who could easily impose on their inexperience, and lead them to evil under the name of good.

Obtain for us, O holy martyr, a keen appreciation of the precious gift of faith–that element which keeps us on the way to salvation. May we zealously do everything that lies in our power to preserve it, both in our ourselves and in them that are under our care. The love of this holy faith has grown cold in so many hearts; and frequent intercourse with free-thinkers has made them think and speak of matters of faith in a very loose way. Pray for them, O Peter, that they may recover that fearless love of the truths of religion which should be one of the chief traits of the Christian character. If they be living in a country where the modern system is introduced of training all religions alike–that is, of giving equal rights to error and to truth–let them be all the more courageous in professing the truth, and detesting the errors opposed to the truth. Pray for us, O holy martyr, that they may be enkindled within us an ardent love of that faith without which it is impossible to please God. Pray that we may become all earnestness in this duty, which is of vital importance to salvation; that thus our faith may daily gain strength within us, till at length we shall merit to see in heaven what we have believed unhesitatingly on earth. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year: Paschal Time, Book II, pp. 378-380.)

Yes, how many simple souls, many of whom today have never received the true teaching of the Church, have been deceived by the lying sophistry of the conciliar revolutionaries, and have lost the Faith as a result?

Saint Peter Martyr was willing to lay down his life in defense of the Holy Faith.

So what if our family members and friends revile us and castigate us?

So what if complete strangers start to denounce us for our rejection of conciliarism?

So what if we are humiliated and brought low, brought to nothingness, in the sight of men?

So what?

Is not Heaven worth dying to self and to disordered self-love?

Saint Peter Martyr thought so.

What is wrong with us?

The path to Heaven can be trod only by those who are willing to bear the Cross and to lift it high in their daily lives seeking only to live in such a way that we will be ready at all times to die in a state of Sanctifying Grace as a member of the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order, as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our state in life permits.

It is the Faith that matters, the entire Faith without any compromises, now and for all eternity.

Aren’t we willing to suffer some more for the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Immaculate Heart of Mary?

Pay no attention to the fat man dressed up in papal robes. He is not the pope and the church he heads is not the Catholic Church.

We should be willing to suffer all that is necessary to defend this truth no matter what it may cost us in human terms.

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 Andrew Corsini, pray for us.

You are here

Jorge Flexes His Antipapal Muscles

Support Christ or Chaos