Jorge's Entirely Unoriginal Synod on Synodality

One of the reasons that I published Bergoglio At War--With the Catholic Faith earlier this year was to provide those who were interested, a number that I realize is not very vast, a bit of perspective about the simple fact that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a very unoriginal Modernist who has not said anything different about his ultra-Modernist Jacobin/Bolshevik agenda at any point since his first year. His entire agenda was spelled out within the first year of his presidency as the sixth in the current line of antipopes that dates to the “election” of the Rosicrucian Mason, Angelo Roncalli, who called for and then destroyed the files that the Holy Office had been keeping on him since he was a young priest, on October 28, 1958, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude.

For example, Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s opening address to the current exercise in supplanting the remnants of Catholicism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism that is called a “synod” on Saturday, October 9, 2021, contained absolutely nothing other than what he has said on numerous other occasions, including in his address to the so-called Coordinating Committee for the Conference of Latin American “Bishops” (CELAM) in Rio di Janeiro, Brazil, on Sunday, July 28, 2013. Bergoglio’s October 9, 2021, Ding Dong School-style condescension was also redolent o the address that the discarded, corrupt, venal Oscar Andres Maradiaga Rodriguez gave in Irving, Texas, and Miami, Florida, eight years ago this month.

The Same Old Modernist Tirade in 2013 as in 2021

For present purposes, therefore, I will present Bergoglio’s address to CELAM ninety-nine months ago and then, after a few brief comments, deal with his opening address to the ongoing synod on October 9, 2021, the Feast of Saint John Leonard and the Commemoration of Saints Dionysisus, Rusticus, and Eleutherius:

This is all very similar, if not identical in substance, to what “Pope Francis” said in Rio di Janeiro on Sunday, July 28, 2013:

The Continental Mission is planned along two lines: the programmatic and the paradigmatic. The programmatic mission, as its name indicates, consists in a series of missionary activities. The paradigmatic mission, on the other hand, involves setting in a missionary key all the day-to-day activities of the Particular Churches. Clearly this entails a whole process of reforming ecclesial structures. The “change of structures” (from obsolete ones to new ones) will not be the result of reviewing an organizational flow chart, which would lead to a static reorganization; rather it will result from the very dynamics of mission. What makes obsolete structures pass away, what leads to a change of heart in Christians, is precisely missionary spirit. Hence the importance of the paradigmatic mission.

The Continental Mission, both programmatic and paradigmatic, calls for creating a sense of a Church which is organized to serve all the baptized, and men and women of goodwill. Christ’s followers are not individuals caught up in a privatized spirituality, but persons in community, devoting themselves to others. The Continental Mission thus implies membership in the Church.

An approach like this, which begins with missionary discipleship and involves understanding Christian identity as membership in the Church, demands that we clearly articulate the real challenges facing missionary discipleship. Here I will mention only two: the Church’s inner renewal and dialogue with the world around us. (Meeting with the Coordinating Committee of CELAM at the Sumaré Study Center, Rio de Janeiro, 28 July 2013.)

Brief Comment Number Two:

A “missionary church” for the conciliar revolutionaries is one that responds to the “people” and not to God and His Sacred Deposit of Faith.

Making the Gospel message an ideology. This is a temptation which has been present in the Church from the beginning: the attempt to interpret the Gospel apart from the Gospel itself and apart from the Church. An example: Aparecida, at one particular moment, felt this temptation. It employed, and rightly so, the method of “see, judge and act” (cf. No. 19). The temptation, though, was to opt for a way of “seeing” which was completely “antiseptic”, detached and unengaged, which is impossible. The way we “see” is always affected by the way we direct our gaze. There is no such thing as an “antiseptic” hermeneutics. The question was, rather: How are we going to look at reality in order to see it? Aparecida replied: With the eyes of discipleship. This is the way Nos. 20-32 are to be understood. There are other ways of making the message an ideology, and at present proposals of this sort are appearing in Latin America and the Caribbean. I mention only a few:  (Meeting with the Coordinating Committee of CELAM at the Sumaré Study Center, Rio de Janeiro, 28 July 2013.)

Brief Comment Number Three:

The Holy Faith as taught before the “Second” Vatican Council is an ideology, part of a museum that is best forgotten.

Back to the 2013 address:

a) Sociological reductionism. This is the most readily available means of making the message an ideology. At certain times it has proved extremely influential. It involves an interpretative claim based on a hermeneutics drawn from the social sciences. It extends to the most varied fields, from market liberalism to Marxist categorization. Meeting with the Coordinating Committee of CELAM at the Sumaré Study Center (Rio de Janeiro, 28 July 2013)

 Brief Comment Number Four:

This is laughable coming from one who is an important asset in the globalists’ desire to effect the One World Governance of which the One World Religion is and will continue be an important constituent element to keep “believers” in line so that will subservient to their elitist masters.

Although he rejects this, it is clear that he accepts sociological reductionism by appointing

b) Psychologizing. Here we have to do with an elitist hermeneutics which ultimately reduces the “encounter with Jesus Christ” and its development to a process of growing self-awareness. It is ordinarily to be found in spirituality courses, spiritual retreats, etc. It ends up being an immanent, self-centred approach. It has nothing to do with transcendence and consequently, with missionary spirit. (Meeting with the Coordinating Committee of CELAM at the Sumaré Study Center, Rio de Janeiro, 28 July 2013.)

Brief Comment Number Five:

This is what Jorge does every day, and his concept of “encounter” is indeed part of immanentism and was condemned by Pope Saint Pius X as follows in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907:

It is thus that the religious sense, which through the agency of vital immanence emerges from the lurking-places of the subconsciousness, is the germ of all religion, and the explanation of everything that has been or ever will be in any religion. This sense, which was at first only rudimentary and almost formless, under the influence of that mysterious principle from which it originated, gradually matured with the progress of human life, of which, as has been said, it is a certain form. This, then, is the origin of all. even of supernatural religion. For religions are mere developments of this religious sense. Nor is the Catholic religion an exception; it is quite on a level with the rest; for it was engendered, by the process of vital immanence, and by no other way, in the consciousness of Christ, who was a man of the choicest nature, whose like has never been, nor will be. In hearing these things we shudder indeed at so great an audacity of assertion and so great a sacrilege. And yet, Venerable Brethren, these are not merely the foolish babblings of unbelievers. There are Catholics, yea, and priests too, who say these things openly; and they boast that they are going to reform the Church by these ravings! The question is no longer one of the old error which claimed for human nature a sort of right to the supernatural. It has gone far beyond that, and has reached the point when it is affirmed that our most holy religion, in the man Christ as in us, emanated from nature spontaneously and of itself. Nothing assuredly could be more utterly destructive of the whole supernatural order. For this reason the Vatican Council most justly decreed: “If anyone says that man cannot be raised by God to a knowledge and perfection which surpasses nature, but that he can and should, by his own efforts and by a constant development, attain finally to the possession of all truth and good, let him be anathema.”⁷

11. So far, Venerable Brethren, there has been no mention of the intellect. It also, according to the teaching of the Modernists, has its part in the act of faith. And it is of importance to see how. In that sense of which We have frequently spoken, since sense is not knowledge, they say God, indeed, presents Himself to man, but in a manner so confused and indistinct that He can hardly be perceived by the believer. It is therefore necessary that a certain light should be cast upon this sense so that God may clearly stand out in relief and be set apart from it. This is the task of the intellect, whose office it is to reflect and to analyze; and by means of it, man first transforms into mental pictures the vital phenomena which arise within him, and then expresses them in words. Hence the common saying of Modernists: that the religious man must think his faith. The mind then, encountering this sense, throws itself upon it, and works in it after the manner of a painter who restores to greater clearness the lines of a picture that have been dimmed with age. The simile is that of one of the leaders of Modernism. The operation of the mind in this work is a double one: first, by a natural and spontaneous act it expresses its concept in a simple, popular statement; then, on reflection and deeper consideration, or, as they say, by elaborating its thought, it expresses the idea in secondary propositions, which are derived from the first, but are more precise and distinct. These secondary propositions, if they finally receive the approval of the supreme magisterium of the Church, constitute dogma. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

This describes the modus operandi of the perverted minds of men such as Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

We return now to the CELAM address of July 28, 2013:

c) The Gnostic solution. Closely linked to the previous temptation, it is ordinarily found in elite groups offering a higher spirituality, generally disembodied, which ends up in a preoccupation with certain pastoral “quaestiones disputatae”. It was the first deviation in the early community and it reappears throughout the Church’s history in ever new and revised versions. Generally its adherents are known as “enlightened Catholics” (since they are in fact rooted in the culture of the Enlightenment). (Meeting with the Coordinating Committee of CELAM at the Sumaré Study Center, Rio de Janeiro, 28 July 2013.)

Brief Comment Number Six:

This was an attack upon what the Modernists of Pope Saint Pius X’s time and their descendants who brought Modernism out from its hiding places at the “Second” Vatican Council have long decried as individual acts of piety and mortification as being incompatible with a “communitarian” religion of “communion.”

Without any further ado, I will present the final part of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s July 28, 2013, in Rio di Janeiro before turning my attention to the one he gave on Saturday, October 9, 2016:

d) The Pelagian solution. This basically appears as a form of restorationism. In dealing with the Church’s problems, a purely disciplinary solution is sought, through the restoration of outdated manners and forms which, even on the cultural level, are no longer meaningful. In Latin America it is usually to be found in small groups, in some new religious congregations, in exaggerated tendencies toward doctrinal or disciplinary “safety”. Basically it is static, although it is capable of inversion, in a process of regression. It seeks to “recover” the lost past. (Meeting with the Coordinating Committee of CELAM at the Sumaré Study Center (Rio de Janeiro, 28 July 2013)

The “past,” Jorge, has not been lost. It has been overthrown by those who trained you. You hate this “past” and are endeavouring to make sure that it never comes back, which is why you make what seems to be daily warfare against it.

Eight Years Later--Just Another Bergoglian Screed for a "Different Church"

Now, although suffering from a burned face, especially around the eyes, from an MRI (a phenomenon that is real no matter its being denied by radiologists, dermatologists, and even lawyers—see Had an MRI Burn? This website is about MRI burns, MRI Injury, MRI safety; this is something that just has to be suffered even though dealing with Bergoglio is suffering of an exceptional order in and of itself), I must turn to the spiritually hurtful task of the Argentine Apostate’s October 9, 2021, address:

Thank you for being here for the opening of the Synod.  You have come by many different roads and from different Churches, each bearing your own questions and hopes.  I am certain the Spirit will guide us and give us the grace to move forward together, to listen to one another and to embark on a discernment of the times in which we are living, in solidarity with the struggles and aspirations of all humanity.  I want to say again that the Synod is not a parliament or an opinion poll; the Synod is an ecclesial event and its protagonist is the Holy Spirit.  If the Spirit is not present, there will be no Synod. (Moment of reflection for the beginning of the synodal journey, 9 October 2021.)

Brief Comment Number One:

First, I can assure Jorge Mario Bergoglio that God the Holy Ghost, one of Whose attributes is immutability, has not been present at any time in the meetings and daily work of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. There are all kinds of “spirits,” and the ones guiding the Modernist revolutionaries in the conciliar church come from Sheol and have striven mightily to deceive, if possible, even the elect into believing that the counterfeit church of conciliarism, its “popes,” “bishops,” and presbyters are doing the work of the Catholic Church. They are not. They are doing the works of darkness that use the phrase “Catholic Church” to apply to each of the precepts condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794, by Pope Pius IX in The Syllabus of Errors and Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864, and by His Holiness and the Fathers gathered at the [First] Vatican Council and by Pope Saint Pius X in Lamentabili Sane, July 1, 1907, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, Praestantia Scripturae, November 18, 1907, and The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910.

Second, true Catholic popes and bishops do not listen to anyone other than God. The work of the Catholic Church has nothing to do with the “aspirations of humanity” but only transmitting faithfully the immutable truths contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith, which permit of no adaptation to suit “the needs of times” or is in any way influenced by the desires of hardened sinners and delusional ideologues for “changes” that are meant to serve as the final elements of eliminating the final vestiges of Catholicism from the minds and hearts of those within the conciliar structures who have never had any experience of Holy Mother Church as she has existed from time immemorial and thus are completely ignorant and/or contemptuous of all to do with what they have been told is the “past.”

It is time to proceed to the next part of Bergoglio’s ideological call to arms at the opening of his false synod on October 9, 2021, the Feast of Saint John Leonard and the Commemoration of Saints Dionysius, Rusticus, and Eleutherius:

May we experience this Synod in the spirit of Jesus’ fervent prayer to the Father on behalf of his disciples: “that they may all be one” (Jn 17:21).  This is what we are called to: unity, communion, the fraternity born of the realization that all of us are embraced by the one love of God.  All of us, without distinction, and in particular those of us who are bishops.  As Saint Cyprian wrote: “We must maintain and firmly uphold this unity, above all ourselves, the bishops who preside in the Church, in order to demonstrate that the episcopate is itself one and undivided” (De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate, 5).  In the one People of God, therefore, let us journey together, in order to experience a Church that receives and lives this gift of unity, and is open to the voice of the Spirit.

The Synod has three key words: communion, participation and mission.  Communion and mission are theological terms describing the mystery of the Church, which we do well to keep in mind. The Second Vatican Council clearly taught that communion expresses the very nature of the Church, while pointing out that the Church has received “the mission of proclaiming and establishing among all peoples the kingdom of Christ and of God, and is, on earth, the seed and beginning of that kingdom” (Lumen Gentium, 5).  With those two words, the Church contemplates and imitates the life of the Blessed Trinity, a mystery of communion ad intra and the source of mission ad extra.  In the wake of the doctrinal, theological and pastoral reflections that were part of the reception of Vatican II, Saint Paul VI sought to distil in those two words – communion and mission – “the main lines enunciated by the Council”.  Commemorating the opening of the Council, he stated that its main lines were in fact “communion, that is, cohesion and interior fullness, in grace, truth and collaboration… and mission, that is, apostolic commitment to the world of today” (Angelus of 11 October 1970), which is not the same as proselytism.

In 1985, at the conclusion of the Synod marking the twentieth anniversary of the close of the Council, Saint John Paul II also reiterated that the Church’s nature is koinonia, which gives rise to her mission of serving as a sign of the human family’s intimate union with God.  He went on to say: “It is most useful that the Church celebrate ordinary, and on occasion, also extraordinary synods”.  These, if they are to be fruitful, must be well prepared: “it is necessary that the local Churches work at their preparation with the participation of all” (Address at the Conclusion of the II Extraordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, 7 December 1985).  And this brings us to our third word: participation.  The words “communion” and “mission” can risk remaining somewhat abstract, unless we cultivate an ecclesial praxis that expresses the concreteness of synodality at every step of our journey and activity, encouraging real involvement on the part of each and all.  I would say that celebrating a Synod is always a good and important thing, but it proves truly beneficial if it becomes a living expression of “being Church”, of a way of acting marked by true participation. (Moment of reflection for the beginning of the synodal journey, 9 October 2021.)

Brief Comment Number Two:

Jorge Mario Bergoglio completed his seminary years while the “Second” Vatican Council was in session and was installed as a Novus Ordo presbyter on December 13, 1969, and thus learned the cliches of the 1960s and 1970s very well. One of those cliches is “being Church,” which was an avant-garde maxim of that early phase of the conciliar revolution that the soon-to-be eighty-five year-old lay Jesuit revolutionary from Argentina cannot divest himself of as all he knows how to do is to recite revolutionary slogans in the name of trying to “include” the “people.”

We know full well, of course, that not everyone is welcomed to participate in the exercise of “being church as communion,” especially if they are denounced as “restorationists,” “Pelagians,” “Pharisees,” “Gnostics,” or “traditionalists.”

Oscar Andres Maradiaga Rodriguez explained the “church as communion,” which is not the same thing as the Communion of the Saints (Church Triumphant, Church Militant, Church Suffering), ideology during the address he gave in two different American cities—Irving, Texas, and Miami, Florida, eight years ago this month:

3. The challenges that this situation presents to us as Christians

The new thought of the Vatican II Council had been slowly brewing in the Christian conscience, and the time had come to articulate it clearly before the universal Church. The socio-ecclesial reality posited problems and questions, serious challenges to which the Council wanted to respond. I would like to point out the following ones:

3. 1.- Returning to Christ, the founding and fundamental rule of the Church

There is no possible reform of the Church without a return to Jesus. The Church only has a future and can only consider herself great by humbly trying to follow Jesus. To discern what constitutes abuse or infidelity within the Church we have no other measure but the Gospel. Many of the traditions established in the Church could lead her to a veritable self-imprisonment. The truth will set us free, humility will give us wings and will open new horizons for us.

If the Church seeks to follow Jesus, all she has to do is to continue telling the world what happened to Jesus, proclaiming His teachings and His life. Jesus was not a sovereign of this world, He was not rich, but instead He lived as a poor villager, He proclaimed his program –the Kingdom of God—and the great of this world (Roman Empire and Synagogue together) persecuted and eliminated Him. His sentence to die on the cross, outside the city, is the clearest evidence yet that He did not want to ingratiate himself with the powers of this world. Shattered by their power, He is the Suffering Servant, an image of innumerable other servants, defeated by the ones who rule and call themselves “lords;” but it was He, poor, silenced, and humiliated, who was designated by his Father as His Beloved Child and whom God Himself resurrected on the third day. (The Council's "Unfinished Business," The Church's "Return to Jesus"... and Dreams of "The Next Pope" – A Southern Weekend with Francis' "Discovery Channel".)

This was Apostasy for Dummies.  

Both Oscar Andres Maradiaga Rodrigues and Jorge Mario Bergoglio believe that the Catholic Church had abandoned her Divine Founder, Invisible Head, and Mystical Spouse, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ from some ill-defined time, probably the Apostolic Era, to the time of the “Second” Vatican Council. This is but a variation of a foundational falsehood of Protestantism that contends the “true Church” disappeared after the first few centuries only to be rediscovered by Martin Luther. This is unspeakable blasphemy and, for all of Bergoglio’s dismissal of creating a “different church” rather than a “new church,” it is perhaps useful to recall that one of his revolutionary comrades, Vincenzo Paglia, frankly referred to the “church that flowed from the Second Vatican Council” when speaking of the assassination of the Marxist dupe named Oscar Romero, the conciliar “archbishop” of San Salvador, El Salvador, on March 25, 1980:

“He was killed at the altar,” Archbishop Paglia said, instead of when he was an easier target at home or on the street. “Through him, they wanted to strike the Church that flowed from the Second Vatican Council." (Romero To Be "Beatified" Soon.)

Whether or not he realized it at the time, “Archbishop” Vincenzo Paglia made quote a statement by stating that his church is one that flowed from the “Second” Vatican Council and not the Wounded Side of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as Blood and Water flowed forth out from the cardiac sac surrounding His Most Sacred Heart. As a conciliar presbyter noted to me in an e-mail in 2004, the “Second” Vatican Council represented what he termed was an “ecclesiogensis,” that is, the springing forth of a new church that had little to do with the one that preceded it.

This is indeed quite correct. What has flowed forth from the “Second” Vatican Council and the “magisterium” of the conciliar “popes” has been nothing other than a polluted stream of apostasy that originated from the poisoned wells of Modernity and Modernism. Countless hundreds of millions of people have been poisoned by it enough to have had their minds poisoned against any mention of the “old faith,” especially as expressed and protected in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition.

“The new thought of the Vatican II Council had been slowly brewing in the Christian conscience”?

The “new thought” of which Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga spoke on Friday, October 25, 2013, the Feast of Saints Chrysanthus and Daria, in Irving, Texas, and on Monday, October 28, 2013, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude, in Miami, Florida, is called Modernism, which was condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.

Pope Saint Pius X specifically condemned the Modernist proposition that the Faith springs from the "consciousness," which is precisely what Rodriguez Maradiaga and Bergoglio believe. Bergoglio has done so throughout the course of the past one hundred three months, and all he did on October 9, 2021, was to repeat himself as he has not an original thought in his Modernist skull.

Indeed, Rodriguez Maradiaga laid it all out for public view in Irving, Texas, and Miami, Florida, even though they stand condemned by the following words of Pope Saint Pius X:

37. But it is not solely by objective arguments that the non-believer may be disposed to faith. There are also those that are subjective, and for this purpose the modernist apologists return to the doctrine of immanence. They endeavor, in fact, to persuade their non-believer that down in the very depths of his nature and his life lie hidden the need and the desire for some religion, and this not a religion of any kind, but the specific religion known as Catholicism, which, they say, is absolutely postulated by the perfect development of life. And here again We have grave reason to complain that there are Catholics who, while rejecting immanence as a doctrine, employ it as a method of apologetics, and who do this so imprudently that they seem to admit, not merely a capacity and a suitability for the supernatural, such as has at all times been emphasized, within due limits, by Catholic apologists, but that there is in human nature a true and rigorous need for the supernatural order. Truth to tell, it is only the moderate Modernists who make this appeal to an exigency for the Catholic religion. As for the others, who might he called integralists, they would show to the non-believer, as hidden in his being, the very germ which Christ Himself had in His consciousness, and which He transmitted to mankind. Such, Venerable Brethren, is a summary description of the apologetic method of the Modernists, in perfect harmony with their doctrines -- methods and doctrines replete with errors, made not for edification but for destruction, not for the making of Catholics but for the seduction of those who are Catholics into heresy; and tending to the utter subversion of all religion. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

There is no “wiggle room” here for Rodriguez Maradiaga and Bergoglio.

Perhaps Maradiaga Rodriguez's most openly frank admission consisted in two sentences found in the passage of his text cited just above: “To discern what constitutes abuse or infidelity within the Church we have no other measure but the Gospel. Many of the traditions established in the Church could lead her to a veritable self-imprisonment. The truth will set us free, humility will give us wings and will open new horizons for us.”

In other words, good readers, Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga was telling us eight years ago that his friend, mentor and nominal superior, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, was proceeding with the “reform” of what they think is the Catholic Church without any regard for any of the Church's general councils, including those, such as the Third Council of Constantinople, the Council of Florence, the Council of Constance, especially the Council of Trent and the [First] Vatican Council, and anything taught at any time by our true popes prior to the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958. No fuss, no muss, no need for Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned “hermeneutic of continuity” to seek to reconcile the irreconcilable. No need for that now.

Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga told us very boldly eight years ago that the “past” just does not matter. It is time for a “new beginning.” What is in the “past” can lead to a “veritable self-imprisonment,” which Bergoglio has said himself repeatedly and to the point of utter exhaustion, thus making it time to be “free” and “humble” to set out for the “new horizons” of apostasy.

It is by means of this "freedom" that Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his fellow revolutionaries, including his pal from Honduras, Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga, seek to put the final capstone on the One World Ecumenical Church by means of "chucking" doctrine and papal condemnations of false ecumenism, to simply share “brotherhood” in a “church of communion,” something that the false “pontiff” made clear for the umpteenth gazillion time nine days ago:

This is not a matter of form, but of faith. Participation is a requirement of the faith received in baptism.  As the Apostle Paul says, “in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body” (1 Cor 12:13).  In the Church, everything starts with baptism.  Baptism, the source of our life, gives rise to the equal dignity of the children of God, albeit in the diversity of ministries and charisms.  Consequently, all the baptized are called to take part in the Church’s life and mission.  Without real participation by the People of God, talk about communion risks remaining a devout wish.  In this regard, we have taken some steps forward, but a certain difficulty remains and we must acknowledge the frustration and impatience felt by many pastoral workers, members of diocesan and parish consultative bodies and women, who frequently remain on the fringes.  Enabling everyone to participate is an essential ecclesial duty!  All the baptized, for baptism is our identity card.

The Synod, while offering a great opportunity for a pastoral conversion in terms of mission and ecumenism, is not exempt from certain risks. I will mention three of these.  The first is formalism. The Synod could be reduced to an extraordinary event, but only externally; that would be like admiring the magnificent facade of a church without ever actually stepping inside.  The Synod, on the other hand, is a process of authentic spiritual discernment that we undertake, not to project a good image of ourselves, but to cooperate more effectively with the work of God in history.  If we want to speak of a synodal Church, we cannot remain satisfied with appearances alone; we need content, means and structures that can facilitate dialogue and interaction within the People of God, especially between priests and laity.  Why do I insist on this?  Because sometimes there can be a certain elitism in the presbyteral order that detaches it from the laity; the priest ultimately becomes more a “landlord” than a pastor of a whole community as it moves forward.  This will require changing certain overly vertical, distorted and partial visions of the Church, the priestly ministry, the role of the laity, ecclesial responsibilities, roles of governance and so forth. (Moment of reflection for the beginning of the synodal journey, 9 October 2021.)

Brief Comment Number Three:

In other words, goodbye to hierarchy, hello to egalitarianism. In reality, of course, this is simply Bergoglio’s way of transforming what is thought to be the Catholic Church into an ape of the shapeless masses of apostasy that constitute the thousands upon thousands of different Protestant sects worldwide, but most especially those so-called “mainstream” Protestant sects that are as irrelevant to most Protestants as is almost anything Jorge Mario Bergoglio says or does is to even those believing Catholics who still believe that the counterfeit church is the Catholic Church.

We return now to the apostate who lives in the Casa Santa Marta:

A second risk is intellectualism.  Reality turns into abstraction and we, with our reflections, end up going in the opposite direction.  This would turn the Synod into a kind of study group, offering learned but abstract approaches to the problems of the Church and the evils in our world.  The usual people saying the usual things, without great depth or spiritual insight, and ending up along familiar and unfruitful ideological and partisan divides, far removed from the reality of the holy People of God and the concrete life of communities around the world. (Moment of reflection for the beginning of the synodal journey, 9 October 2021.)

Comment Number Four:

This is an attack against dogmatic proclamations of any kind even though they had been made under the infallible guidance and protection of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost. Bergoglio considers dogma to be “ideological” and he considers his Modernist ideology to be “faith.” He believes that there is a dichotomy between doctrine and charity (viz., the “needs” of the “people”), something that he made clear in Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013:

61. It would not be right to see this call to growth exclusively or primarily in terms of doctrinal formation. It has to do with “observing” all that the Lord has shown us as the way of responding to his love. Along with the virtues, this means above all the new commandment, the first and the greatest of the commandments, and the one that best identifies us as Christ’s disciples: “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you” (Jn 15:12). Clearly, whenever the New Testament authors want to present the heart of the Christian moral message, they present the essential requirement of love for one’s neighbour: “The one who loves his neighbour has fulfilled the whole law… therefore love of neighbour is the fulfilling of the law” (Rom 13:8, 10). These are the words of Saint Paul, for whom the commandment of love not only sums up the law but constitutes its very heart and purpose: “For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, ‘you shall love your neighbour as yourself’” (Gal 5:14). To his communities Paul presents the Christian life as a journey of growth in love: “May the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all” (1 Th 3:12). Saint James likewise exhorts Christians to fulfil “the royal law according to the Scripture: You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (2:8), in order not to fall short of any commandment. . . .

194. This message is so clear and direct, so simple and eloquent, that no ecclesial interpretation has the right to relativize it. The Church’s reflection on these texts ought not to obscure or weaken their force, but urge us to accept their exhortations with courage and zeal. Why complicate something so simple? Conceptual tools exist to heighten contact with the realities they seek to explain, not to distance us from them. This is especially the case with those biblical exhortations which summon us so forcefully to brotherly love, to humble and generous service, to justice and mercy towards the poor. Jesus taught us this way of looking at others by his words and his actions. So why cloud something so clear? We should not be concerned simply about falling into doctrinal error, but about remaining faithful to this light-filled path of life and wisdom. For “defenders of orthodoxy are sometimes accused of passivity, indulgence, or culpable complicity regarding the intolerable situations of injustice and the political regimes which prolong them”. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is forever attempting to posit a false dichotomy between doctrinal fidelity and charity. This effort is unspeakably insidious as true charity starts with love of God, and one cannot truly love God unless one adheres to everything that He has taught to us. To disparage the importance of doctrinal formation in order to seek to replace it with a nebulous kind of social work that is performed to "prove" how "good" and "kind" Christians can be is nothing other than to place a complete seal of approval upon the false principles of The Sillon that were condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910. It is also to make a mockery of the very words of Our Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the entire patrimony of the Catholic Church:

[11] The Jews therefore sought him on the festival day, and said: Where is he? [12] And there was much murmuring among the multitude concerning him. For some said: He is a good man. And others said: No, but he seduceth the people. [13] Yet no man spoke openly of him, for fear of the Jews. [14] Now about the midst of the feast, Jesus went up into the temple, and taught. [15] And the Jews wondered, saying: How doth this man know letters, having never learned?

[16] Jesus answered them, and said: My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. [17] If any man do the will of him; he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. [18] He that speaketh of himself, seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh the glory of him that sent him, he is true, and there is no injustice in him. [19] Did Moses not give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? [20] Why seek you to kill me? The multitude answered, and said: Thou hast a devil; who seeketh to kill thee?  (John 7: 11-20.)

There is no dichotomy between love of doctrinal truth and the provision of the Spiritual and Corporal Works of Mercy as to contend this is to blaspheme the infallible guidance of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, Who inspired the Fathers of Holy Mother Church's true general councils to care for nothing so much as to So the truths of the Holy Faith, condemning doctrinal errors as circumstances required them to do so.

It is very interesting that Bergoglio's quote at the end of Paragraph 194 of Evangelii Gaudium cited above ("“defenders of orthodoxy are sometimes accused of passivity, indulgence, or culpable complicity regarding the intolerable situations of injustice and the political regimes which prolong them”) came from a conciliar document, Libertatis Nuntius, that was issued on August 6, 1984, by the so-called Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith and was signed by none other than, yes, Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger. Here is the full text of the paragraph from which Bergoglio quoted:

18. The defenders of orthodoxy are sometimes accused of passivity, indulgence, or culpable complicity regarding the intolerable situations of injustice and the political regimes which prolong them. Spiritual conversion, the intensity of the love of God and neighbor, zeal for justice and peace, the Gospel meaning of the poor and of poverty, are required of everyone, and especially of pastors and those in positions of responsibility. The concern for the purity of the faith demands giving the answer of effective witness in the service of one's neighbor, the poor and the oppressed in particular, in an integral theological fashion. By the witness of their dynamic and constructive power to love, Christians will thus lay the foundations of this "civilization of love" of which the Conference of Puebla spoke, following Paul VI. [34] Moreover there are already many priests, religious, and lay people who are consecrated in a truly evangelical way for the creation of a just society. (Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, Libertatis Nuntius, August 6, 1984.)

As noted in  No Space Between Ratzinger and Bergoglio: So Close in Apostasy, So Far From Catholic Truth, there is little “daylight” between the nonagenarian Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and the octogenarian Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis. 

Pope Pius VI explained the methods of innovators such as the conciliar "pontiffs" to promote error in the name of the Catholic Church:

[The Ancient Doctors] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith which is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.

"Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.

"It is as if the innovators pretended that they always intended to present the alternative passages, especially to those of simple faith who eventually come to know only some part of the conclusions of such discussions which are published in the common language for everyone's use. Or again, as if the same faithful had the ability on examining such documents to judge such matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of error. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor Saint Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.

"In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements which disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged." (Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794.)

To denounce error is not to “pile on” those who propagate it.

No, to denounce error is acquit our duties before God without being respecters of persons, and those who are concerned about “piling on” Jorge Mario Bergoglio ought to be reminded that Successors of Saint Peter can never teach error, which is why it is important to reprise this brief section from Qui Pluribus, November 9, 1846:

10. This consideration too clarifies the great error of those others as well who boldly venture to explain and interpret the words of God by their own judgment, misusing their reason and holding the opinion that these words are like a human work. God Himself has set up a living authority to establish and teach the true and legitimate meaning of His heavenly revelation. This authority judges infallibly all disputes which concern matters of faith and morals, lest the faithful be swirled around by every wind of doctrine which springs from the evilness of men in encompassing error. And this living infallible authority is active only in that Church which was built by Christ the Lord upon Peter, the head of the entire Church, leader and shepherd, whose faith He promised would never fail. This Church has had an unbroken line of succession from Peter himself; these legitimate pontiffs are the heirs and defenders of the same teaching, rank, office and power. And the Church is where Peter is,[5] and Peter speaks in the Roman Pontiff,[6] living at all times in his successors and making judgment,[7] providing the truth of the faith to those who seek it.[8] The divine words therefore mean what this Roman See of the most blessed Peter holds and has held.

11. For this mother and teacher[9] of all the churches has always preserved entire and unharmed the faith entrusted to it by Christ the Lord. Furthermore, it has taught it to the faithful, showing all men truth and the path of salvation. Since all priesthood originates in this church,[10] the entire substance of the Christian religion resides there also.[11] The leadership of the Apostolic See has always been active,[12] and therefore because of its preeminent authority, the whole Church must agree with it. The faithful who live in every place constitute the whole Church.[13] Whoever does not gather with this Church scatters.[14] (Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus, November 9, 1846.)

Each of our true popes and Holy Mother Church's true general councils had to be wrong to denounce error and to insist on doctrinal formation in catechesis and missionary work for Jorge Mario Bergoglio to be correct. This simply cannot be so.

To defend doctrinal truth and to uproot error from the mind is a duty we owe to God and to each other:

These firings, therefore, with all diligence and care having been formulated by us, we define that it be permitted to no one to bring forward, or to write, or to compose, or to think, or to teach a different faith. Whosoever shall presume to compose a different faith, or to propose, or teach, or hand to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles or Jews, or from any heresy, any different Creed; or to introduce a new voice or invention of speech to subvert these things which now have been determined by us, all these, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laymen: let them be anathematized. (Constantinople III).

These and many other serious things, which at present would take too long to list, but which you know well, cause Our intense grief. It is not enough for Us to deplore these innumerable evils unless We strive to uproot them. We take refuge in your faith and call upon your concern for the salvation of the Catholic flock. Your singular prudence and diligent spirit give Us courage and console Us, afflicted as We are with so many trials. We must raise Our voice and attempt all things lest a wild boar from the woods should destroy the vineyard or wolves kill the flock. It is Our duty to lead the flock only to the food which is healthful. In these evil and dangerous times, the shepherds must never neglect their duty; they must never be so overcome by fear that they abandon the sheep. Let them never neglect the flock and become sluggish from idleness and apathy. Therefore, united in spirit, let us promote our common cause, or more truly the cause of God; let our vigilance be one and our effort united against the common enemies.

Indeed you will accomplish this perfectly if, as the duty of your office demands, you attend to yourselves and to doctrine and meditate on these words: "the universal Church is affected by any and every novelty" and the admonition of Pope Agatho: "nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning." Therefore may the unity which is built upon the See of Peter as on a sure foundation stand firm. May it be for all a wall and a security, a safe port, and a treasury of countless blessings. To check the audacity of those who attempt to infringe upon the rights of this Holy See or to sever the union of the churches with the See of Peter, instill in your people a zealous confidence in the papacy and sincere veneration for it. As St. Cyprian wrote: "He who abandons the See of Peter on which the Church was founded, falsely believes himself to be a part of the Church . . . .

But for the other painful causes We are concerned about, you should recall that certain societies and assemblages seem to draw up a battle line together with the followers of every false religion and cult. They feign piety for religion; but they are driven by a passion for promoting novelties and sedition everywhere. They preach liberty of every sort; they stir up disturbances in sacred and civil affairs, and pluck authority to pieces.(Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

Would that they had but displayed less zeal and energy in propagating it! But such is their activity and such their unwearying labor on behalf of their cause, that one cannot but be pained to see them waste such energy in endeavoring to ruin the Church when they might have been of such service to her had their efforts been better directed. Their artifices to delude men's minds are of two kinds, the first to remove obstacles from their path, the second to devise and apply actively and patiently every resource that can serve their purpose. They recognize that the three chief difficulties which stand in their way are the scholastic method of philosophy, the authority and tradition of the Fathers, and the magisterium of the Church, and on these they wage unrelenting war. Against scholastic philosophy and theology they use the weapons of ridicule and contempt. Whether it is ignorance or fear, or both, that inspires this conduct in them, certain it is that the passion for novelty is always united in them with hatred of scholasticism, and there is no surer sign that a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the scholastic method. Let the Modernists and their admirers remember the proposition condemned by Pius IX: "The method and principles which have served the ancient doctors of scholasticism when treating of theology no longer correspond with the exigencies of our time or the progress of science." They exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those "who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind...or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church"; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: "We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by everyone of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church." Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: "I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.'' (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Also, of course, much like his immediate predecessor, Joseph Alois Ratzigner/Benedict XVI, Bergoglio’s attack on “intellectualism” is a thinly-disguised rejection of Scholasticism, about which more will be said later in this commentary.

With weary eyes, I return now to the final part of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s ideological screed of Saturday, October 9, 2021:

Finally, the temptation of complacency, the attitude that says: “We have always done it this way” (Evangelii Gaudium, 33) and it is better not to change.  That expression – “We have always done it that way” – is poison for the life of the Church.  Those who think this way, perhaps without even realizing it, make the mistake of not taking seriously the times in which we are living.  The danger, in the end, is to apply old solutions to new problems.  A patch of rough cloth that ends up creating a worse tear (cf. Mt 9:16).  It is important that the synodal process be exactly this: a process of becoming, a process that involves the local Churches, in different phases and from the bottom up, in an exciting and engaging effort that can forge a style of communion and participation directed to mission.                     

And so, brothers and sisters, let us experience this moment of encounter, listening and reflection as a season of grace that, in the joy of the Gospel, allows us to recognize at least three opportunities.  First, that of moving not occasionally but structurally towards a synodal Church, an open square where all can feel at home and participate.  The Synod then offers us the opportunity to become a listening Church, to break out of our routine and pause from our pastoral concerns in order to stop and listen.  To listen to the Spirit in adoration and prayer.  Today how much we miss the prayer of adoration; so many people have lost not only the habit but also the very notion of what it means to worship God!  To listen to our brothers and sisters speak of their hopes and of the crises of faith present in different parts of the world, of the need for a renewed pastoral life and of the signals we are receiving from those on the ground.  Finally, it offers us the opportunity to become a Church of closeness.  Let us keep going back to God’s own “style”, which is closeness, compassion and tender love.  God has always operated that way.  If we do not become this Church of closeness with attitudes of compassion and tender love, we will not be the Lord’s Church.  Not only with words, but by a presence that can weave greater bonds of friendship with society and the world.  A Church that does not stand aloof from life, but immerses herself in today’s problems and needs, bandaging wounds and healing broken hearts with the balm of God.  Let us not forget God’s style, which must help us: closeness, compassion and tender love.

Dear brothers and sisters, may this Synod be a true season of the Spirit!  For we need the Spirit, the ever new breath of God, who sets us free from every form of self-absorption, revives what is moribund, loosens shackles and spreads joy.  The Holy Spirit guides us where God wants us to be, not to where our own ideas and personal tastes would lead us.  Father Congar, of blessed memory, once said: “There is no need to create another Church, but to create a different Church” (True and False Reform in the Church).  That is the challenge.  For a “different Church”, a Church open to the newness that God wants to suggest, let us with greater fervour and frequency invoke the Holy Spirit and humbly listen to him, journeying together as he, the source of communion and mission, desires: with docility and courage.

Come, Holy Spirit!  You inspire new tongues and place words of life on our lips: keep us from becoming a “museum Church”, beautiful but mute, with much past and little future.  Come among us, so that in this synodal experience we will not lose our enthusiasm, dilute the power of prophecy, or descend into useless and unproductive discussions.  Come, Spirit of love, open our hearts to hear your voice!  Come, Holy Spirit of holiness, renew the holy and faithful People of God!  Come, Creator Spirit, renew the face of the earth!  Amen. (Moment of reflection for the beginning of the synodal journey, 9 October 2021.)

Comment Number Five:

As noted above, there is no such thing as “being Church.”

A “different church”?

Let me turn your attention to Pope Pius XI’s 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 can never be any different than that which Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ instituted: a hierarchical body in which He has deposited His Holy Truth for all safekeeping. The vocation of the lay faithful is to obey His teaching by relying upon the graces He won for them on the wood of the Holy Cross and that His Holy Church administers as the dispensary of those graces. The job of every Catholic is to be attempt to sanctify every moment of our lives by offering up everything that happens to us, whether good or bad, as coming from the hand of God and within His Divine Providence, and to offer up whatever it is we are asked to suffer in reparation for

Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s desire for “synodality” is simply an excuse to turn what he believes to be the Catholic Church into a purely naturalistic social organization that responds to the demands of the people rather than elevating the people to God by sanctifying them and teaching them to love Him by obeying His Commandments.

Saint John the Evangelist put the matter this way:

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God. And every one that loveth him who begot, loveth him also who is born of him. In this we know that we love the children of God: when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the charity of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not heavy. (1 John 5: 1-3)

Bergoglio hates the Ten Commandments,  disparages even the existence of the Natural Law and, along with his immediate and still living predecessor, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, hates Scholasticism and believes that Sacred Scripture is like so much silly putty to shaped into whatever it is believed the “needs” of “modern man” are at a particular time.

To put it bluntly and as simply as possible without being simplistic, the conciliar revolutionaries are evolutionists. They believe in biological evolutionism.

They believe in social evolutionism, which is why they are active participants in the “global reset of humanity” and are completely supportive of the plandemic conspiracy against the God and the zenith of His creative handiwork, man in the name of “protecting the environment.”

The conciliar revolutionaries believe in ecclesiological evolutionism, ecclesiastical evolutionism, canonical evolutionism, moral evolutionism, liturgical evolutionism, pastoral evolutionism, and Scriptural evolutionism. They are the very embodiments of these oft-quoted descriptions and condemnations issued by our true popes, either individually or, in the case of the [First] Vatican Council, together with the world’s bishops gathered solemnly in an ecumenical council.

No matter what euphemism has been used in the past to disguise what Jorge and his fiends, including Christoph Schonborn, now admit openly (i.e. dogmatic evolutionism), the Catholic Church has condemned dogmatic evolutionism in no uncertain terms. Although the appendix below provides a review of some of these condemnations, here is an excerpt from Pope Saint Pius X's Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:

Hence it is quite impossible [the Modernists assert] to maintain that they [dogmatic statements] absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion.

It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: 'These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts.' On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ''Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason'; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ''The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.' Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: 'Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries -- but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.' (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

The whole basis of the counterfeit church of conciliarism is based upon a warfare against the nature of dogmatic truth, which is an attack upon the immutability of God and His Divine Revelation. Although the counterfeit church of conciliarism “exists” and appears to be the Catholic Church in the eyes of most people, the spotless, virginal mystical bride of Christ the King, her Divine Founder and Invisible Head, can never be headed by men who propagate anathematized propositions that put into question almost every point of Faith and Morals (inverting the ends proper to Holy Matrimony, “natural family planning,” Amoris Laetitia, etc.) and presided over the construction and implementation of false, sacramentally invalid liturgical rites that are designed to reflect beliefs at odds with the Catholic Faith.

One of Jorge’s chief confederates, the aforementioned Christoph Schonborn, the conciliar “archbishop” of Vienna, Austria, and a direct acolyte of Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who has in the past directly and frankly endorsed “dogmatic evolutionism,” amplified Bergoglio’s opening address to the synod on “synodality” in one of his own many interviews:

One of the most frequently asked questions in the run-up to the 2023 Synod on synodality is “what does synodality mean?” According to Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna, it is actually “very simple”: Synodality means to walk together. And in order to walk together, he continued, we must be settled. "Thank God" Cardinal Schönborn added, "we are," noting that “many in this world are not settled,” refugees for example, “but we are.”

The second element of synodality is that we can never do this 'walking together' on our own. “This basic reality applies to the Church”, he explained, recalling the time “when it was quasi daily use” to refer to a “teaching Church” and to a “learning Church”.  In this case, the Cardinal said, the “teaching Church is the clergy and the learning Church is the laity”.

We are all people of God

Remarking on the fact that Vatican II has reminded us that we all belong to the people of God, Cardinal Schönborn asked: “So what does the Holy Father intend with this synod on synodality?” "Nothing else," he replied, "other than what Vatican II wanted us to live”.  The Pope, he said, seems to believe that we still have a lot to learn, “and it is true. I have to learn to listen more”, the Cardinal said. He noted that as Archbishop of Vienna, he tries to listen to the priests and to the people of his diocese. “That is what we have been trying to do in five great diocesan assemblies in the last ten years: listen to each other” and to what each person has deep in their hearts.

Not a parliament

Cardinal Schönborn went on to note that something the Holy Father insists on a lot is that “we are not a parliament”. The Synod is not a Church parliament where different interest groups fight for the majority. A Synod, he said, finds its rules in the Church and in the Acts of the Apostles, “Pope Francis has addressed the diocese of Rome, speaking about how the Apostles dealt with difficulties in a synodal way”, and he noted that in Chapter 15 of Acts, the discussion was born from one side saying that all pagans had to become Jewish in order to then become Christian, whereas Paul and Barnabas said that it was not so, and that faith in Christ was sufficient.  

Cardinal Schönborn explained that in this very grave conflict they did not form a commission, and neither did they write papers: “They listened to each other.” This is what the Holy Father wants us to do too: “to listen not only within our small inner circle of the Church but to have an open ear to what is in the life of so many people: Christians and non-Christians.. what are their worries.. what are their joys.. and then to ask 'what do we do when we have listened?'”

What next?

Pope Francis and the rest of the Church "do not then expect polls, but rather that we do what the Apostles did in Jerusalem: speak about their experience."

Cardinal Schönborn noted that this is what we invite people to do in our dioceses and diocesan assemblies: “Speak about your experience”; “How did you come to faith?”, “What does it mean in your life to be faithful?”, “How did you pass on this faith to your children?” This experience, he said, is not something abstract. And in sharing this experience, Cardinal Schönborn encourages the faithful to examine themselves… “what does the spirit tell us?”, he asks.  This, he added, “is what Pope Francis calls discernment”. Personal experience on the local level, praying together, listening to each other, and coming to an understanding of what God really wanted is what leads us to say “we, along with the Holy Spirit have decided…”

This is the Synodal experience the Holy Father wants for us, said Cardinal Schönborn, adding “it sounds very abstract but it is very practical.

Getting involved as laity

Cardinal Schönborn also focused on the fundamental need to involve the laity and on how his own diocese has been trying to do that: "You all carry a treasure of life experience, even the younger ones, the children. Let us, first of all, share our faith experience".

Noting that we often ask why the free churches, the evangelical churches are so alive and why they have so many young people, he said "It's very easy, [...] They listen to each other, they tell their experiences". We must share our experience he said reiterating that "We must listen to the readings and to the Gospel on Sunday and we must ask ourselves 'what does this say in my life' and 'what can I take from these words?'". 

"We must learn," the Austrian Cardinal concluded, "how to discern what God tells us today, personally, in our community, in our country, in our Church and even on the universal level. (Cardinal Schönborn: the synodal process asks us to listen, to share, to discern.)

This is quintessential Modernism.

The true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity, does not change the meaning of His Sacred Deposit of Faith to suit the needs of the “people” according to “today’s” “challenges. Our Holy Faith is not based upon our “personal experiences.” It is based on teaching of the Catholic Church, she who neither deceived nor be deceived. Modernism is based on so-called “faith experiences,” not Catholicism.

Pope Saint Pius X explained this in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:

4. Thus far, Venerable Brethren, We have considered the Modernist as a philosopher. Now if We proceed to consider him as a believer, and seek to know how the believer, according to Modernism, is marked off from the philosopher, it must be observed that, although the philosopher recognizes the reality of the divine as the object of faith, still this reality is not to be found by him but in the heart of the believer, as an object of feeling and affirmation, and therefore confined within the sphere of phenomena; but the question as to whether in itself it exists outside that feeling and affirmation is one which the philosopher passes over and neglects. For the Modernist believer, on the contrary, it is an established and certain fact that the reality of the divine does really exist in itself and quite independently of the person who believes in it. If you ask on what foundation this assertion of the believer rests, he answers: In the personal experience of the individual. On this head the Modernists differ from the Rationalists only to fall into the views of the Protestants and pseudo-mystics. The following is their manner of stating the question: In the religious sense one must recognize a kind of intuition of the heart which puts man in immediate contact with the reality of God, and infuses such a persuasion of God’s existence and His action both within and without man as far to exceed any scientific conviction. They assert, therefore, the existence of a real experience, and one of a kind that surpasses all rational experience. If this experience is denied by some, like the Rationalists, they say that this arises from the fact that such persons are unwilling to put themselves in the moral state necessary to produce it. It is this experience which makes the person who acquires it to be properly and truly a believer.

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

15. There is yet another element in this part of their teaching which is absolutely contrary to Catholic truth. For what is laid down as to experience is also applied with destructive effect to tradition, which has always been maintained by the Catholic Church. Tradition, as understood by the Modernists, is a communication with others of an original experience, through preaching by means of the intellectual formula. To this formula, in addition to its representative value they attribute a species of suggestive efficacy which acts firstly in the believer by stimulating the religious sense, should it happen to have grown sluggish, and by renewing the experience once acquired, and secondly, in those who do not yet believe by awakening in them for the first time the religious sense and producing the experience. In this way is religious experience spread abroad among the nations; and not merely among contemporaries by preaching, but among future generations both by books and by oral transmission from one to another. Sometimes this communication of religious experience takes root and thrives, at other times it withers at once and dies. For the Modernists, to live is a proof of truth, since for them life and truth are one and the same thing. Thus we are once more led to infer that all existing religions are equally true, for otherwise they would not survive. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

The conciliar revolutionaries are doing nothing other than revival and institutionalization of every condemned Modernist proposition. As Pope Saint Pius X noted one hundred fourteen every years ago, the Modernist reliance on “personal experience” of “believers” is paganism, which is the projection onto whatever “divinity” they worship of their own chosen characteristics.

Furthermore, even what Jorge Mario Bergoglio is doing at the current synod on synodality was outlined at the “Second” Vatican Council by Josef Cardinal Frings, who was the Archbishop of Cologne, Germany, and June 21, 1942, to December 17, 1978, on December 8, 1963. He defended  his vision of a “decentralized” and “democratic church” in a confrontation with Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani over the nature of the Holy Office then headed by Ottaviani during the proceedings of the “Second” Vatican Council on Friday, November 8, 1963:

VATICAN CITY (UPD—Two, leading Catholic cardinals engaged in a sharp verbal clash at the Ecumenical Council today over alleged abuses by the Holy Office. Involved in (he confrontation were Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, head of (he powerful Holy Office and leader of the conservatives at the council, and Joseph Cardinal Frings, archbishop of Cologne, Germany, and a leader of the liberal bloc.

Frings’ slashing attack on the Holy Office was greeted by loud applause from the council fathers despite a council rule against applause. Ottaviani’s reply was received in silence. The exchange was the sharpest and most direct of its kind to take place at the current council to date. It brought into the open, in brutally frank language, the deep-seated differences between liberals and conservatives at the council which previously had been discussed only in polite and indirect terms.

Calls Office Unfair

Cardinal Frings charged that the procedures of the Holy Office—the Vatican body which enforces orthodoxy in doctrine —“are not fair and just.” Referring to the inquisitorial functions of the Holy Office in weighing cases against Catholics suspected of heresy, Cardinal Frings said; “It is not right for one Vatican congregation to have the power to accuse, judge and condemn any individual without his having been heard in his own defense.” He said (he Holy Office “does harm to the faithful and causes scandal to those outside the church.”

Protests Criticism

Cardinal Ottaviani arose to “protest most vigorously” against Frings’ attack on the Holy Ofifce. He said the criticism was voiced from “lack of knowledge, not to say worse.” Ottaviani said the Pope himself must approve all actions of the Holy Office, that the office consults many theologians when a doctrinal case is pending, and "to say that anyone is condemned without discussion is completely out of harmony with the facts.”

The two cardinals also disagreed over the significance of test votes taken at the Ecumenical Council last week on a series of questions concerning the doctrine that bishops have a divine right to share with the Pope in the government of the church. Earlier, council sources had said that many American bishops were ready to back the proposal to set up an "episcopal senate” in Rome. The "senate” would be composed of bishops from all parts of the world, chosen to represent their national hierarchies. It would outrank the Roman Curia. (Cardinal Frings Attack the Holy Office. Cardinal Ottaviani Replies.) 

Well, it was clearly the case that Cardinal Frings very much wanted the church that could never exist, that is, a church based on Modernist principles that had been condemned in their nascent form by the [First] Vatican Council and by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Pope Saint Pius X prophetically described the “church as it exists today” in Pascendi Dominci Gregis:

It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in the ecclesiastical seminaries. They wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live. They desire the reform of theology: rational theology is to have modern philosophy for its foundation, and positive theology is to be founded on the history of dogma. As for history, it must be written and taught only according to their methods and modern principles. Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to be harmonized with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas are to be inserted except those that have been reformed and are within the capacity of the people. Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to be reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head. They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity and authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized The Roman Congregations and especially the index and the Holy Office, must be likewise modified The ecclesiastical authority must alter its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political organizations it must adapt itself to them in order to penetrate them with its spirit. With regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, and are to be more encouraged in practice. They ask that the clergy should return to their primitive humility and poverty, and that in their ideas and action they should admit the principles of Modernism; and there are some who, gladly listening to the teaching of their Protestant masters, would desire the suppression of the celibacy of the clergy. What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed by them and according to their principles?  (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, No. 38)

The list of “reforms” that Pope Saint Pius X knew that the Modernists wanted to implement stands out as a prophetic warning as to the agenda that was formed by Modernist theologians in the years before the "Second" Vatican Council and became the fundamental basis for the whole ethos of conciliarism. Consider the prophetic nature of Pope Saint Pius X's list of “reforms” that the Modernists wanted to implement:

1) The passion for innovation. Innovation, which the Church has always eschewed, has become the very foundation of conciliarism. Indeed, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI praised novelty and innovation repeatedly, doing so during his now infamous December 22, 2005, Christmas address to his conciliar curia. Since when has this been the case in the history of the Catholic Church? It is standard practice in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, and "innovation" is the hallmark of the caricature of conciliarism, Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

2) “They wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live.” This is a cogent summary of the belief of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI himself, which he outlined in Principles of Catholic Theology and in his own autobiography, Milestones. Bergoglio has no regard for philosophy of any kind as he is moved solely by pure subjectivism without the window dressing of his predecessors "new theology."

3) “Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to harmonized with science and history.” Thus it is, of course, that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI told us, both before and during his false "pontificate," that such things as Pope Pius IX's The Syllabus of Errors and even Pope Saint Pius X's Pascendi Dominci Gregis, among other encyclical letters and papal pronouncements (see Witness Against Benedict XVI: The Oath Against Modernism) itself served a useful purpose at one point in history but lose their binding force over time. In other words, we must harmonize Catholicism with the events of history (the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King, the institutionalization of Protestant “churches,” the rise of the secular state) and not be “tied down” by a "time-centered" view of the Faith. As repetition is the mother of learning, perhaps it is good to repeat once again that this Modernist view of dogma was specifically condemned by the [First] Vatican Council. No Catholic is free to ignore these binding words and remain a Catholic in good standing:

For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward

• not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence,
• but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
• Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth.

The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either: the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.

Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false. . . .

3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

And so in the performance of our supreme pastoral office, we beseech for the love of Jesus Christ and we command, by the authority of him who is also our God and saviour, all faithful Christians, especially those in authority or who have the duty of teaching, that they contribute their zeal and labour to the warding off and elimination of these errors from the church and to the spreading of the light of the pure faith.

But since it is not enough to avoid the contamination of heresy unless those errors are carefully shunned which approach it in greater or less degree, we warn all of their duty to observe the constitutions and decrees in which such wrong opinions, though not expressly mentioned in this document, have been banned and forbidden by this holy see. (Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session III, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason, April 24, 1870. SESSION 3 : 24 April 1.)

4) “Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to be reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head.” This describes the liturgical thrust of conciliarism quite accurately. Indeed, the last sentence in this sentence has particular application to Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who was somewhat disposed to be "indulgent" to the symbolism of the liturgy but was nevertheless committed to “reforming” the conciliar “reform.” Obviously, Jorge Mario Bergoglio comes from a more “liberated” background than his predecessor. The modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition can have its place, according to the falsehoods he published in Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, for those who are “attached” to it. Bergoglio has made sure, of course, that there is no turning back on the “reform” itself, including the reduction of the saints commemorated on conciliarism's universal calendar. Indeed, then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the following in Principles of Catholic Theology in 1982:

Among the more obvious phenomena of the last years must be counted the increasing number of integralist groups in which the desire for piety, for the sense of mystery, is finding satisfaction. We must be on our guard against minimizing these movements. Without a doubt, they represent a sectarian zealotry that is the antithesis of Catholicity. We cannot resist them too firmly. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 389-390) 

5) “They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity and authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized The Roman Congregations and especially the index and the Holy Office, must be likewise modified.” The conciliarists have summarized Pope Saint Pius X's description of their Modernist view of Church governance very succinctly: Collegiality. It is no accident that Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI gave away the Papal Tiara, which is on display in the crypt of the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C., and that Albino Luciani/John Paul I and Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Joseph Alois/Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio each refused to be crowned. Ratzinger/Benedict XVI went so far as to remove the tiara from his coat-of-arms, which is reflective of episcopal collegiality with his own bishops and a gesture in the direction of those steeped in the heresies of the Orthodox, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has divested what little remained of “papal dignity” in the conciliar Petrine Ministry in the past one hundred three months.

6) “The ecclesiastical authority must alter its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political organizations it must adapt itself to them in order to penetrate them with its spirit.” This is of the essence of Gaudium et Spes, December 7, 1965. And it is of the essence of Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's belief that the “Second” Vatican Council represented an "official reconciliation" with the principles of 1789. Just as a little reminder so that readers with short memories do not think that I am misrepresenting the thought of the man who does not believe it to be the mission of the Catholic Church to seek with urgency the conversion of Protestants and Jews and the Orthodox and all others who are outside her maternal bosom: 

Let us be content to say here that the text serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789. Only from this perspective can we understand, on the one hand, the ghetto-mentality, of which we have spoken above; only from this perspective can we understand, on the other hand, the meaning of the remarkable meeting of the Church and the world. Basically, the word "world" means the spirit of the modern era, in contrast to which the Church's group-consciousness saw itself as a separate subject that now, after a war that had been in turn both hot and cold, was intent on dialogue and cooperation. From this perspective, too, we can understand the different emphases with which the individual parts of the Church entered into the discussion of the text. While German theologians were satisfied that their exegetical and ecumenical concepts had been incorporated, representatives of Latin American countries, in particular, felt that their concerns, too, had been addressed, topics proposed by Anglo-Saxon theologians likewise found strong expression, and representatives of Third World countries saw, in the emphasis on social questions, a consideration of their particular problems. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 381-382)

Pope Saint Pius X wrote the following in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906 about those who would dare to contend that the Church had to "reconcile" herself to the separation of Church and State, which the Catholic Church condemned repeatedly and vigorously throughout her history prior to the "Second" Vatican Council:

That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. Our illustrious predecessor, Leo XIII, especially, has frequently and magnificently expounded Catholic teaching on the relations which should subsist between the two societies. "Between them," he says, "there must necessarily be a suitable union, which may not improperly be compared with that existing between body and soul.-"Quaedam intercedat necesse est ordinata colligatio (inter illas) quae quidem conjunctioni non immerito comparatur, per quam anima et corpus in homine copulantur." He proceeds: "Human societies cannot, without becoming criminal, act as if God did not exist or refuse to concern themselves with religion, as though it were something foreign to them, or of no purpose to them.... As for the Church, which has God Himself for its author, to exclude her from the active life of the nation, from the laws, the education of the young, the family, is to commit a great and pernicious error. -- "Civitates non possunt, citra scellus, gerere se tamquam si Deus omnino non esset, aut curam religionis velut alienam nihilque profuturam abjicere.... Ecclesiam vero, quam Deus ipse constituit, ab actione vitae excludere, a legibus, ab institutione adolescentium, a societate domestica, magnus et perniciousus est error." (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)

Pope Saint Pius X condemned as "absolutely false" the thesis that the State must be separated from the Church. Absolutely false. The conciliar "popes," including Jorge Mario Bergoglio, have accepted as true and good that which a canonized pope, repeating the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church, which no one has any authority to contradict, condemned as absolutely false. Are you beginning to see, possibly, that there is a problem with the conciliarism in its entirety? Are you beginning to see, possibly, that there is no reconciling the unprecedented heresies, sacrileges, apostasies, blasphemies of novelties of conciliarism and conciliarists,  with the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church?

In addition to the above-noted paragraph in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Pope Saint Pius X went on to note the arrogance of the Modernists in their desire for novelty and in their contempt for scholastic theology and their efforts to view the Fathers in light of their own Modernist predilections:

Would that they had but displayed less zeal and energy in propagating it! But such is their activity and such their unwearying labor on behalf of their cause, that one cannot but be pained to see them waste such energy in endeavoring to ruin the Church when they might have been of such service to her had their efforts been better directed. Their artifices to delude men's minds are of two kinds, the first to remove obstacles from their path, the second to devise and apply actively and patiently every resource that can serve their purpose. They recognize that the three chief difficulties which stand in their way are the scholastic method of philosophy, the authority and tradition of the Fathers, and the magisterium of the Church, and on these they wage unrelenting war. Against scholastic philosophy and theology they use the weapons of ridicule and contempt. Whether it is ignorance or fear, or both, that inspires this conduct in them, certain it is that the passion for novelty is always united in them with hatred of scholasticism, and there is no surer sign that a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the scholastic method. Let the Modernists and their admirers remember the proposition condemned by Pius IX: "The method and principles which have served the ancient doctors of scholasticism when treating of theology no longer correspond with the exigencies of our time or the progress of science." They exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those "who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind...or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church"; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: "We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by everyone of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church." Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: "I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.''  (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, No. 42)

This paragraph is a ringing condemnation of the work of conciliarism and of its progenitors, the so-called “new theologians” (Henri de Lubac, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Karl Rahner, Joseph Ratzinger, et al.). Look at how Pope Saint Pius X zeroed in on the three things that Joseph Ratzinger spent nearly 400 pages trying to deconstruct and explain away in Principles of Catholic Theology: (1) The Scholastic Method of Philosophy; (2) The Authority and Tradition of the Fathers; and (3) the Magisterium of the Church  The then "Cardinal" Ratzinger had to rely upon his Hegelian view of the world to explain away dogmatic pronouncements and articles contained in the Deposit of Faith that constituted part of the Church's Ordinary Magisterium. 

Pope Pope Pius XII, writing in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, explained the "new theology's" effort to hold Tradition of no account, preferring that own rationalism to a reliance upon the teaching authority of Holy Mother Church:

22. To return, however, to the new opinions mentioned above, a number of things are proposed or suggested by some even against the divine authorship of Sacred Scripture. For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council's definition that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters. They even wrongly speak of a human sense of the Scriptures, beneath which a divine sense, which they say is the only infallible meaning, lies hidden. In interpreting Scripture, they will take no account of the analogy of faith and the Tradition of the Church. Thus they judge the doctrine of the Fathers and of the Teaching Church by the norm of Holy Scripture, interpreted by the purely human reason of exegetes, instead of explaining Holy Scripture according to the mind of the Church which Christ Our Lord has appointed guardian and interpreter of the whole deposit of divinely revealed truth.

23. Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church's vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual. By means of this new exegesis the Old Testament, which today in the Church is a sealed book, would finally be thrown open to all the faithful. By this method, they say, all difficulties vanish, difficulties which hinder only those who adhere to the literal meaning of the Scriptures.

24. Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the principles and norms of interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII in his Encyclical "Providentissimus," and Benedict XV in the Encyclical "Spiritus Paraclitus," as also by Ourselves in the Encyclical "Divino Affflante Spiritu."

25. It is not surprising that novelties of this kind have already borne their deadly fruit in almost all branches of theology. It is now doubted that human reason, without divine revelation and the help of divine grace, can, by arguments drawn from the created universe, prove the existence of a personal God; it is denied that the world had a beginning; it is argued that the creation of the world is necessary, since it proceeds from the necessary liberality of divine love; it is denied that God has eternal and infallible foreknowedge of the free actions of men -- all this in contradiction to the decrees of the Vatican Council[5] (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)

Obviously, this should not be surprising.

The “Second” Vatican Council and its aftermath was a celebration of much of the Protestant spirit that found itself enshrined in the Novus Ordo service and in the innovation of "episcopal collegiality." What is interesting to point out, however, is that the novelties and blasphemies and sacrileges of conciliarism have produced such a fundamental loss of Faith that hardly anyone in the conciliar hierarchy, no less among the lay faithful, bats an eyelash when a conciliar “pope
 speaks out at a world "synod of bishops" and says that he wants a “different church.”

Well, that “different church” has been in existence since the “Second” Vatican Council and its aftermath. Behold the wretched results as church attendance has plummeted, clerical scandals have skyrocketed, and sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance are celebrated in the name of “accompaniment” in major churches and cathedrals under the control of the conciliar revolutionaries.

Holy Mother Church is unchanging. She is our mater and magister, our mother and our teacher.

Mothers provide us with the surety of their maternal love. Teachers of the Holy Faith provide us with the unchanging truths that have been deposited in Holy Mother Church by her Invisible Head and Mystical Bridegroom, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Holy Mother Church must reflect in her structures, worship and teaching the regal authority, transcendence, majesty, honor, stability and immutability of God Himself.

How can the children of Holy Mother Church come to truly know, love and serve God as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His Catholic Church if those who claim to have “authority” as members of the Catholic “hierarchy” propose that almost nothing is permanent about the Faith?

Impermanence is, of course, of the nature of Modernism. Modernists want to create instability and insecurity so as to convince the average Catholic that what “appears” to be Catholic to them, that is, the traditions of the Faith, are not permanent. This causes the average Catholic to distrust the sensus Catholicus he has by means of his Baptism and Confirmation (if validly Confirmed, that is) and throws him into a state of bewilderment, a state that is exploited by the revolutionary “experts” to advance their agenda in the name of “obedience” and submission to the “expertise” of those who want to impose one novelty after another, whether “approved” or "unapproved" by the conciliar authorities occupying the Vatican at the present time.

The devil’s time is short, and he is making the best of the time he has now with Jorge Mario Bergoglio and those who are helping him mold a “church” that is different even from the conciliar sect that exists as this time, which has retained some of the vestigial structures of Catholicism that the Argentine Apostate want to obliterate.  

God has known from all eternity that we would be living in this time of apostasy and betrayal.

Each of us is a sinner. We must suffer for our sins. There is no escape from this suffering, and living in this particular time of apostasy and betrayal is part of the plan in the economy of God's salvation to effect effect our own salvation as we suffer and suffer well for our sins and those of the whole world. The graces won for us by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on the wood of the Holy Cross that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, are sufficient this moment. They are sufficient for every moment and every need. Why do we worry so?

Each of us has an obligation to do our own duty before God by making reparation for our own many sins that have worsened the state of the Church Militant on earth and of the world-at-large in many ways that we may understand fully only in eternity. We must live more and more penitentially as the consecrated slaves of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits, especially during this month of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  

This era of apostasy and betrayal will pass. The true sensus Catholicus will be restored. Catholics will once again have a true sense of the horror of personal sin and they will seek voluntarily to make reparation for their own sins and those of the whole world as the slaves of the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. Men and their nations will submit themselves to the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by Holy Mother Church.

Yes, there will be the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary when her Fatima Message is fulfilled. We may not live to see this with our own eyes. Moses was given a glimpse of the Promised Land but died before entering there. The Apostles and the martyrs of the first centuries of Holy Mother Church did not live to see the glory of Christendom that resulted from their fidelity and their sacrifices. We must not look for “results” in our own lifetimes.

May the Rosaries we pray each day help to bring about the restoration of the Church Militant on earth and of Christendom in the world.

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Luke the Evangelist, pray for us.