Jorge's Guide for Clerical Deformation: Textbook Modernism

As I was laid low by a flu-like illness for the better part of two weeks that impeded writing for this site, I am attempting to catch up with some of what has happened recently before moving on to some book projects.

Although I do have two more articles on the farce of naturalism to complete before turning to those projects, an address that the Argentine Apostate, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, gave to the priests and presbyters of the Diocese of Rome. Italy (there is a Rome, New York, of course, but it is part of the Diocese of Syracuse), on Thursday, March 2, 2017, deserves a bit of attention as it was based in its entirety on some of the basic precepts of Modernism that were analyzed and condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907. There is really no need to belabor the point given the fact that anyone who does not see the truth about Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his false religious sect at this point may be beyond convincing even if the false “pontiff” declares himself open to be working as a precursor of Antichrist. I mean, what more is needed to demonstrate that the conciliar sect is not and cannot be the Catholic Church.

This having been noted, however, I know that there are a few people who still access this site now and again, and is for them that the truly unwelcome task of dealing with “Pope Francis” once again is being undertaken.

Bergoglio’s address to the priests and presbyters of Rome contained nothing new, but what was eyepopping about it for me was how bold he was in using the exact reasoning in the exact same method as condemned by Pope Saint Pius X one hundred ten years ago this year. Permit me to demonstrate this for you out there in cyberspace:

Faith is sustained and given room to progress through hope. Hope is still anchored in Christ, in a transcendent future, of which the temporal future — considered in a chronologically linear way — is only an expression. Hope invigorates the backwards glance of faith, leading us to find new things in the past — in the treasure of our memory — because one meets the same God one hopes to meet in the future. Moreover, hope extends to the outermost boundaries, in all the expanse and depth of the immediate and daily present, and it sees new possibilities in one’s neighbour and in what can be done in the here and now. Hope is knowing how to see — in the face of the poor whom we encounter every day — the same Lord who will come again one day to judge us according to the criteria we read in chapter 25 of the Gospel of Matthew: “As you did it to one of the least of my brethren, you did it to me” (v. 40). (Bergoglio's Guidebook of Clerical Malformation: Textbook Modernism.)

Brief Comment Number One:

Bergoglio’s reference to “faith” in this paragraph has nothing to do with the Supernatural Virtue of Faith, which is infused into our souls at Baptism and is nourished by the Sacraments, by our prayers, especially those before the Most Blessed Sacrament and to the Mother of God, by good spiritual reading, the preaching of true priests and by our acceptance of all that is contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

The true Supernatural Virtue of Faith requires a certitude in all that God has revealed to us through His true Church and a firm knowledge that there is nothing that we can experience in this life for which He will not send us the sufficient graces to endure. Unlike the apostate from Argentina, who believes that “doubt” is healthy, the Supernatural Virtue of Faith excludes all doubt about God, His Revelation and His Divine Providence over our lives and the events of the world.

Bergoglio, though, believes a “linear” view of the faith closes oneself off from the “realities” of the moment. In other words, what he considers as “faith” has nothing to do with an immutable Deposit Faith as the “believer” must “progress” to adapt “faith” to the changing circumstances of the time. Those changed circumstances, he is asserting, include serving the “poor,” among whom he numbers as those who must be “accompanied” in this lives of unrepentant sin. Certitude of faith and stability of its teaching lead to a “static” view of the world, making one unable to adjust properly to the needs of the “poor.” Everything about “faith” must be reassessed according the “light” of concrete circumstances lest it “dies” from a lack of “progressing” in response to the “inner impulse” that gives it its vital ability to “grow.”

Pope Saint Pius X discussed such Modernist falsehoods in Pascendi Dominci Gregis as follows:

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. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 7, 1907.)

Bergoglio believes that the “inner impulse,” not objective truth, is what defines “faith” and how it must be adapted to the “needs” of others, including those steeped in personal sins of impurity and those steeped in the sins of unbelief in the Catholic Faith. This is why he is so tolerant, accepting and approving of false religions and those who adhere to them. His address to the priests and presbyters of Rome was designed to make sure that they get with his “program,” not that many of them would be opposed to it at this point.

The false “pontiff” believes faith “progresses existentially in the transcendent impulse that moves” “toward the future but also toward the past in all the breadth of the present moment”:

In this way, faith progresses existentially by believing in the transcendent “impulse” that moves — is active and operative — toward the future, but also toward the past in all the breadth of the present moment. This is how we can interpret the passage from Paul’s letter to the Galatians where he says that what really counts is “faith working through love” (5:6): a charity that, when moved by memory, confesses, with praise and joy, that it has received love; a charity that, when it looks on high, confesses its desire to open its heart to the fullness of the greatest Good; these two confessions of a faith rich in gratitude and hope translate into action in the present: faith confesses itself in practice, by going out of itself, by transcending itself in adoration and service. (Bergoglio's Guidebook of Clerical Malformation: Textbook Modernism.)

Brief Comment Number Two:

Jaw-dropping Modernism.

The belief that there is a “conflict” between the present and the past that will result in “progress” for the future is nothing other than the false principle of the Hegelian dialectic, which contends that an original thesis contains within itself the seeds of its very contradiction, the antithesis, and that the clash between the two produces the new “thesis,” that is, the synthesis. Hegel believed that the ultimate result of this clash would be the “ideal” thesis, at which point the dialectic would cease.

The evolutionary principle of a dialectical clash is a cornerstone of the Judeo-Masonic world of Modernity and its trust that “progress” is inevitable. Hegelianism influenced Karl Marx’s view of history, although he believed that he had turned it “right side up” by identifying the clash of economic classes (dialectical materialism) as opposed to Hegel’s clash of competing ideas (dialectical idealism). Charles Darwin’s own, disproved ideology of the evolution of the species made its own contribution upon the Modernity’s march toward “progress.” John Dewey, the ideological father of the content and direction of what is said to be “public education,” was a believer both in the evolution of the species and in the evolution of society in the direct of “progress.”

Dewey admitted Darwinism’s influence upon his own ideology as follows:

The development of biology clinches this lesson, with its discovery of evolution. For the philosophic significance of the doctrine of evolution lies precisely in its emphasis upon continuity of simpler and more complex organic forms until we reach man. The development of organic forms begins with structures where the adjustment of environment and organism is obvious, and where anything which can be called mind is at a minimum. As activity becomes more complex, coordinating a greater number of factors in space and time, intelligence plays a more and more marked role, for it has a larger span of the future to forecast and plan for. The effect upon the theory of knowing is to displace the notion that it is the activity of a mere onlooker or spectator of the world, the notion which goes with the idea of knowing as something complete in itself. For the doctrine of organic development means that the living creature is a part of the world, sharing its vicissitudes and fortunes, and making itself secure in its precarious dependence only as it intellectually identifies itself with the things about it, and, forecasting the future consequences of what is going on, shapes its own activities accordingly. If the living, experiencing being is an intimate participant in the activities of the world to which it belongs, then knowledge is a mode of participation, valuable in the degree in which it is effective. It cannot be the idle view of an unconcerned spectator.

(iii) The development of the experimental method as the method of getting knowledge and of making sure it is knowledge, and not mere opinion -- the method of both discovery and proof -- is the remaining great force in bringing about a transformation in the theory of knowledge. The experimental method has two sides. (i) On one hand, it means that we have no right to call anything knowledge except where our activity has actually produced certain physical changes in things, which agree with and confirm the conception entertained. Short of such specific changes, our beliefs are only hypotheses, theories, suggestions, guesses, and are to be entertained tentatively and to be utilized as indications of experiments to be tried. (ii) On the other hand, the experimental method of thinking signifies that thinking is of avail; that it is of avail in just the degree in which the anticipation of future consequences is made on the basis of thorough observation of present conditions. Experimentation, in other words, is not equivalent to blind reacting. Such surplus activity -- a surplus with reference to what has been observed and is now anticipated -- is indeed an unescapable factor in all our behavior, but it is not experiment save as consequences are noted and are used to make predictions and plans in similar situations in the future. The more the meaning of the experimental method is perceived, the more our trying out of a certain way of treating the material resources and obstacles which confront us embodies a prior use of intelligence. What we call magic was with respect to many things the experimental method of the savage; but for him to try was to try his luck, not his ideas. The scientific experimental method is, on the contrary, a trial of ideas; hence even when practically -- or immediately -- unsuccessful, it is intellectual, fruitful; for we learn from our failures when our endeavors are seriously thoughtful. (John Dewey, Democracy and Education, published by Macmillan in 1916, p. 323.)

To believe that man has evolved from apes results in a world where most men devolve into acting like apes, and it is to reaffirm primal ape-like behavior that public miseducation and its reliance upon junk science such as evolutionism is directed in order to produce the “productive” servant of the civil state. Some progress, huh?

There is but one word to describe the “contributions” of the likes of Hegel and Dewey, et al.: Sophistry. (Marxism, of course, is a “species,” if you will, based frankly on an anti-Theistic view of man and thus of the world.)

In its own turn, therefore, Modernism accepts the evolutionary principle as a reality and applies to God and His Revelation. Nothing is real unless it has “evolved”—and whatever is “evolving” must tend in the direction of “progress.”

This is what Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes. Indeed, it is what each of his predecessors in the conciliar seat of apostasy has believed, and it is want he wants his priests and presbyters to embrace even though such beliefs have been identified and condemned as follows by Pope Saint Pius X:

The following is their conception of the magisterium of the Church: No religious society, they say, can be a real unit unless the religious conscience of its members be one, and also the formula which they adopt. But this double unity requires a kind of common mind whose office is to find and determine the formula that corresponds best with the common conscience; and it must have, moreover, an authority sufficient to enable it to impose on the community the formula which has been decided upon. From the combination and, as it were, fusion of these two elements, the common mind which draws up the formula and the authority which imposes it, arises, according to the Modernists, the notion of the ecclesiastical magisterium. And, as this magisterium springs, in its last analysis, from the individual consciences and possesses its mandate of public utility for their benefit, it necessarily follows that the ecclesiastical magisterium must be dependent upon them, and should therefore be made to bow to the popular ideals. To prevent individual consciences from expressing freely and openly the impulses they feel, to hinder criticism from urging forward dogma in the path of its necessary evolution, is not a legitimate use but an abuse of a power given for the public weal. So too a due method and measure must be observed in the exercise of authority. To condemn and proscribe a work without the knowledge of the author, without hearing his explanations, without discussion, is something approaching to tyranny. And here again it is a question of finding a way of reconciling the full rights of authority on the one hand and those of liberty on the other. In the meantime the proper course for the Catholic will be to proclaim publicly his profound respect for authority, while never ceasing to follow his own judgment. Their general direction for the Church is as follows: that the ecclesiastical authority, since its end is entirely spiritual, should strip itself of that external pomp which adorns it in the eyes of the public. In this, they forget that while religion is for the soul, it is not exclusively for the soul, and that the honor paid to authority is reflected back on Christ who instituted it.

26. To conclude this whole question of faith and its various branches, we have still to consider, Venerable Brethren, what the Modernists have to say about the development of the one and the other. First of all they lay down the general principle that in a living religion everything is subject to change, and must in fact be changed. In this way they pass to what is practically their principal doctrine, namely, evolution. To the laws of evolution everything is subject under penalty of death -- dogma, Church, worship, the Books we revere as sacred, even faith itself. The enunciation of this principle will not be a matter of surprise to anyone who bears in mind what the Modernists have had to say about each of these subjects. Having laid down this law of evolution, the Modernists themselves teach us how it operates. And first, with regard to faith. The primitive form of faith, they tell us, was rudimentary and common to all men alike, for it had its origin in human nature and human life. Vital evolution brought with it progress, not by the accretion of new and purely adventitious forms from without, but by an increasing perfusion of the religious sense into the conscience. The progress was of two kinds: negative, by the elimination of all extraneous elements, such, for example, as those derived from the family or nationality; and positive, by that intellectual and moral refining of man, by means of which the idea of the divine became fuller and clearer, while the religious sense became more acute. For the progress of faith the same causes are to be assigned as those which are adduced above to explain its origin. But to them must be added those extraordinary men whom we call prophets -- of whom Christ was the greatest -- both because in their lives and their words there was something mysterious which faith attributed to the divinity, and because it fell to their lot to have new and original experiences fully in harmony with the religious needs of their time. The progress of dogma is due chiefly to the fact that obstacles to the faith have to be surmounted, enemies have to be vanquished, and objections have to be refuted. Add to this a perpetual striving to penetrate ever more profoundly into those things which are contained in the mysteries of faith. Thus, putting aside other examples, it is found to have happened in the case of Christ: in Him that divine something which faith recognized in Him was slowly and gradually expanded in such a way that He was at last held to be God. The chief stimulus of the evolution of worship consists in the need of accommodation to the manners and customs of peoples, as well as the need of availing itself of the value which certain acts have acquired by usage. Finally, evolution in the Church itself is fed by the need of adapting itself to historical conditions and of harmonizing itself with existing forms of society. Such is their view with regard to each. And here, before proceeding further, We wish to draw attention to this whole theory of necessities or needs, for beyond all that we have seen, it is, as it were, the base and foundation of that famous method which they describe as historical.

27. Although evolution is urged on by needs or necessities, yet, if controlled by these alone, it would easily overstep the boundaries of tradition, and thus, separated from its primitive vital principle, would make for ruin instead of progress. Hence, by those who study more closely the ideas of the Modernists, evolution is described as a resultant from the conflict of two forces, one of them tending towards progress, the other towards conservation. The conserving force exists in the Church and is found in tradition; tradition is represented by religious authority, and this both by right and in fact. By right, for it is in the very nature of authority to protect tradition: and in fact, since authority, raised as it is above the contingencies of life, feels hardly, or not at all, the spurs of progress. The progressive force, on the contrary, which responds to the inner needs, lies in the individual consciences and works in them -- especially in such of them as are in more close and intimate contact with life. Already we observe, Venerable Brethren, the introduction of that most pernicious doctrine which would make of the laity the factor of progress in the Church. Now it is by a species of covenant and compromise between these two forces of conservation and progress, that is to say between authority and individual consciences, that changes and advances take place. The individual consciences, or some of them, act on the collective conscience, which brings pressure to bear on the depositories of authority to make terms and to keep to them. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 7, 1907.)

Pope Saint Pius X identified everything Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes and was urging the priests and presbyters of Rome to accept. All that “Pope Francis” does and preaches is premised upon his acceptance of Modernism’s evolutionary principles, something that can be seen clearly from the summary he provided at the end of his March 2, 2017, address:

It would be good for us to pause for a moment and reflect on this idea of the progress in faith that occurs through the discernment of the moment. Progress in faith within the framework of memory and hope is more developed; whereas this firm point of discernment, perhaps less so. It could even seem that where faith is, there is no need for discernment: one believes, and that is enough. But this is dangerous, especially if in the place of renewed acts of faith in a Person — in Christ our Lord —, which have all the dynamism we have already considered, one substitutes merely intellectual acts of faith, the dynamism of which is exhausted in the elaboration of abstract reflections and formulas. Conceptual formulation is a necessary moment in thought, just as choosing a means of transportation is necessary to reach a destination. But faith is not exhausted in abstract formulas, nor charity in a particular good. Rather, it is constitutive of faith and charity that they grow and progress by reaching a greater level of trust and the desire for a greater common good. It is constitutive of faith to be “operative”, active, just as it is for charity. And the touchstone is discernment. Faith, in fact, can fossilize by protecting the love it has received, turning it into a museum piece. Faith can also vaporize into a projection of desired love, turning it into a virtual object that exists only on a utopic island. The discernment of real, concrete love is possible in the present moment as it works for the good of someone most dramatically in need, and this makes faith active, creative, and effective. (Bergoglio's Guidebook of Clerical Malformation: Textbook Modernism.)

Everything gets “fossilized” if it does not “grow” and “progress” in direction of “change” based upon the inner needs and circumstances of the moment. This is so transparently Modernist that it is simply breathtaking to behold.

Well, after over half of century of violating each of the Ten Commandments and robbing Catholics of the true sensus Catholicus, the conciliar revolutionaries do not fear that too many Catholics know that Pascendi Dominici Gregis even exists, no less that our last truly canonized Roman Pontiff make short work of Bergoglio’s summary of Modernist principles as follows:

13. Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and clearly flows from their principles. For among the chief points of their teaching is the following, which they deduce from the principle of vital immanence, namely, that religious formulas if they are to be really religious and not merely intellectual speculations, ought to be living and to live the life of the religious sense. This is not to be understood to mean that these formulas, especially if merely imaginative, were to be invented for the religious sense. Their origin matters nothing, any more than their number or quality. What is necessary is that the religious sense -- with some modification when needful -- should vitally assimilate them. In other words, it is necessary that the primitive formula be accepted and sanctioned by the heart; and similarly the subsequent work from which are brought forth the secondary formulas must proceed under the guidance of the heart. Hence it comes that these formulas, in order to be living, should be, and should remain, adapted to the faith and to him who believes. Wherefore, if for any reason this adaptation should cease to exist, they lose their first meaning and accordingly need to be changed. In view of the fact that the character and lot of dogmatic formulas are so unstable, it is no wonder that Modernists should regard them so lightly and in such open disrespect, and have no consideration or praise for anything but the religious sense and for the religious life. In this way, with consummate audacity, they criticize the Church, as having strayed from the true path by failing to distinguish between the religious and moral sense of formulas and their surface meaning, and by clinging vainly and tenaciously to meaningless formulas, while religion itself is allowed to go to ruin. "Blind'- they are, and "leaders of the blind" puffed up with the proud name of science, they have reached that pitch of folly at which they pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true meaning of religion; in introducing a new system in which "they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the holy and apostolic traditions, they embrace other and vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, unapproved by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity, they think they can base and maintain truth itself." (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 7, 1907.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes that doctrines can become “fossilized” if they are not allowed to be “adapted” to the alleged “needs” of the moment. In other words, the excerpt above from Pascendi Dominici Gregis is an exact summary and condemnation of “Pope Francis’s” “exhortation” to the Roman “clergy” under whose nonexistent “authority” they are to implement his prescriptions that result of what Pope Saint Pius X described as the ruin and the wreck of all religion:

12. We have thus reached one of the principal points in the Modernist's system, namely, the origin and the nature of dogma. For they place the origin of dogma in those primitive and simple formulas, which, under a certain aspect, are necessary to faith; for revelation, to be truly such, requires the clear knowledge of God in the consciousness. But dogma itself, they apparently hold, strictly consists in the secondary formulas .

To ascertain the nature of dogma, we must first find the relation which exists between the religious formulas and the religious sense. This will be readily perceived by anyone who holds that these formulas have no other purpose than to furnish the believer with a means of giving to himself an account of his faith. These formulas therefore stand midway between the believer and his faith; in their relation to the faith they are the inadequate expression of its object, and are usually called symbols; in their relation to the believer they are mere instruments.

Hence it is quite impossible to maintain that they 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. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 7, 1907.)

Concilairism is nothing other than an immense structures of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is simply doing those who want to see this this truth clearly as what he believes was condemned not only by Pope Saint Pius X but by the [First] Vatican Council, which issued the following Constitution on Dogmatic Faith under the authority of Pope Pius IX on April 24, 1870:

• 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.)

Several other such condemnations may be found in the appendix below.

Only those who are intellectually dishonest can refuse to admit that the very view of dogmatic truth being popularized at present by Jorge Mario Bergoglio and by Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II’s “living tradition” and Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s “hermeneutic of continuity” stands condemned by the authority of the Catholic Church as nothing other than dogmatic evolutionism.

God is immutable. His Divine Revelation is certain, and it has always been kept intact and without the slightest varnish of error by His Catholic Church. This is pretty easy to understand.

The Argentine Apostate, of course, is covering his false religious sect with buckets of the thickest varnish available as he praises false religions, reaffirms unbelievers in their errors and encourages priests and presbyters to "accompany" fornicators, aduterers, sodomites and mutants in their lives of wanton wickedness. He celebrates the lives of such unrepentant sinners even though Saint Paul the Apostle taught us that they can have no place in the Kingdom of Heaven:

Brethren: Be imitators of God, as very dear children and walk in love, as Christ also loved us and delivered Himself up for us an offering and a sacrifice to God to ascend in fragrant odor. But immorality and every uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as becomes saints; or obscenity or foolish talk or scurrility, which are out of place; but rather thanksgiving. For know this and understand, that no fornicator, or unclean person, or covetous one - for that is idolatry - has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one lead you astray with empty words; for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the children of disobedience. Do not, then, become partakers with them. For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk, then, as children of light, for the fruit of the light is in all goodness and justice and truth. (Ephesians 1-9.)

No one must let themselves be led astray with Jorge Mario Bergoglio's emty words that bring upon him and those he reaffirms in their deeds of wickedness the very wrath of God.

We turn in a special way this month of March to the Patron of the Universal Church and the Protector of the Faithful, Saint Joseph, whose feast is transferred from today, March 19, to tomorrow, March 20, because it is impeded today by the Third Sunday of Lent.

Saint Joseph, the Chaste Spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the foster-Father of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, will help us to persist in our embrace of the truths of the Holy Faith in this time of apostasy and betrayal if we but fly unto his patronage after our tender reliance upon his beloved, virginal spouse, Our Lady, by means of her Most Holy Rosary. We really have nothing to fear with such a helper as Saint Joseph so very near. All we need to do is trust in his intercessory power in this life as we beg him to help us most importantly at the hour of our death to be saved from all sin and from any contagion with the errors and heresies of a false religious sect that is in the grip of the adversary.

May Saint Joseph fashion for us for the cause of sanctity just as surely as he fashioned fine pieces of carpentry with wood by begging him to live more fully as the consecrated slaves of his Divine Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of his own most chaste spouse, the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Appendix A

Other of the Catholic Church's Condemnations of the Evolution of Dogma

Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. . . .

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. (The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910; see also Nothing Stable, Nothing Secure.)

In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.

Moreover they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism or any other system. Some more audacious affirm that this can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. They add that the history of dogmas consists in the reporting of the various forms in which revealed truth has been clothed, forms that have succeeded one another in accordance with the different teachings and opinions that have arisen over the course of the centuries.

It is evident from what We have already said, that such tentatives not only lead to what they call dogmatic relativism, but that they actually contain it. The contempt of doctrine commonly taught and of the terms in which it is expressed strongly favor it. Everyone is aware that the terminology employed in the schools and even that used by the Teaching Authority of the Church itself is capable of being perfected and polished; and we know also that the Church itself has not always used the same terms in the same way. It is also manifest that the Church cannot be bound to every system of philosophy that has existed for a short space of time. Nevertheless, the things that have been composed through common effort by Catholic teachers over the course of the centuries to bring about some understanding of dogma are certainly not based on any such weak foundation. These things are based on principles and notions deduced from a true knowledge of created things. In the process of deducing, this knowledge, like a star, gave enlightenment to the human mind through the Church. Hence it is not astonishing that some of these notions have not only been used by the Oecumenical Councils, but even sanctioned by them, so that it is wrong to depart from them.

Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily pass from despising scholastic theology to the neglect of and even contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself, which gives such authoritative approval to scholastic theology. This Teaching Authority is represented by them as a hindrance to progress and an obstacle in the way of science. Some non Catholics consider it as an unjust restraint preventing some more qualified theologians from reforming their subject. And although this sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith -- Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition -- to be preserved, guarded and interpreted, still the duty that is incumbent on the faithful to flee also those errors which more or less approach heresy, and accordingly "to keep also the constitutions and decrees by which such evil opinions are proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See," is sometimes as little known as if it did not exist.What is expounded in the Encyclical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs concerning the nature and constitution of the Church, is deliberately and habitually neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they profess to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks. The Popes, they assert, do not wish to pass judgment on what is a matter of dispute among theologians, so recourse must be had to the early sources, and the recent constitutions and decrees of the Teaching Church must be explained from the writings of the ancients. (Pope Pius XII,Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)

Appendix B

Pope Pius XII's Specific Condemnation of the "New Theology's" Disparagement of  the Scholastic Method

27. Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[6] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith.

28. These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of Our sons who are deceived by imprudent zeal for souls or by false science. To them We are compelled with grief to repeat once again truths already well known, and to point out with solicitude clear errors and dangers of error.

29. It is well known how highly the Church regards human reason, for it falls to reason to demonstrate with certainty the existence of God, personal and one; to prove beyond doubt from divine signs the very foundations of the Christian faith; to express properly the law which the Creator has imprinted in the hearts of men; and finally to attain to some notion, indeed a very fruitful notion, of mysteries[7] But reason can perform these functions safely and well, only when properly trained, that is, when imbued with that sound philosophy which has long been, as it were, a patrimony handed down by earlier Christian ages, and which moreover possesses an authority of even higher order, since the Teaching Authority of the Church, in the light of divine revelation itself, has weighed its fundamental tenets, which have been elaborated and defined little by little by men of great genius. For this philosophy, acknowledged and accepted by the Church, safeguards the genuine validity of human knowledge, the unshakable metaphysical principles of sufficient reason, causality, and finality, and finally the mind's ability to attain certain and unchangeable truth.

30. Of course this philosophy deals with much that neither directly nor indirectly touches faith or morals, and which consequently the Church leaves to the free discussion of experts. But this does not hold for many other things, especially those principles and fundamental tenets to which We have just referred. However, even in these fundamental questions, we may clothe our philosophy in a more convenient and richer dress, make it more vigorous with a more effective terminology, divest it of certain scholastic aids found less useful, prudently enrich it with the fruits of progress of the human mind. But never may we overthrow it, or contaminate it with false principles, or regard it as a great, but obsolete, relic. For truth and its philosophic expression cannot change from day to day, least of all where there is question of self-evident principles of the human mind or of those propositions which are supported by the wisdom of the ages and by divine revelation. Whatever new truth the sincere human mind is able to find, certainly cannot be opposed to truth already acquired, since God, the highest Truth, has created and guides the human intellect, not that it may daily oppose new truths to rightly established ones, but rather that, having eliminated errors which may have crept in, it may build truth upon truth in the same order and structure that exist in reality, the source of truth. Let no Christian therefore, whether philosopher or theologian, embrace eagerly and lightly whatever novelty happens to be thought up from day to day, but rather let him weigh it with painstaking care and a balanced judgment, lest he lose or corrupt the truth he already has, with grave danger and damage to his faith.

31. If one considers all this well, he will easily see why the Church demands that future priests be instructed in philosophy "according to the method, doctrine, and principles of the Angelic Doctor,"[8] since, as we well know from the experience of centuries, the method of Aquinas is singularly preeminent both for teaching students and for bringing truth to light; his doctrine is in harmony with divine revelation, and is most effective both for safeguarding the foundation of the faith, and for reaping, safely and usefully, the fruits of sound progress.[9]

32. How deplorable it is then that this philosophy, received and honored by the Church, is scorned by some, who shamelessly call it outmoded in form and rationalistic, as they say, in its method of thought. They say that this philosophy upholds the erroneous notion that there can be a metaphysic that is absolutely true; whereas in fact, they say, reality, especially transcendent reality, cannot better be expressed than by disparate teachings, which mutually complete each other, although they are in a way mutually opposed. Our traditional philosophy, then, with its clear exposition and solution of questions, its accurate definition of terms, its clear-cut distinctions, can be, they concede, useful as a preparation for scholastic theology, a preparation quite in accord with medieval mentality; but this philosophy hardly offers a method of philosophizing suited to the needs of our modern culture. They allege, finally, that our perennial philosophy is only a philosophy of immutable essences, while the contemporary mind must look to the existence of things and to life, which is ever in flux. While scorning our philosophy, they extol other philosophies of all kinds, ancient and modern, oriental and occidental, by which they seem to imply that any kind of philosophy or theory, with a few additions and corrections if need be, can be reconciled with Catholic dogma. No Catholic can doubt how false this is, especially where there is question of those fictitious theories they call immanentism, or idealism, or materialism, whether historic or dialectic, or even existentialism, whether atheistic or simply the type that denies the validity of the reason in the field of metaphysics.

33. Finally, they reproach this philosophy taught in our schools for regarding only the intellect in the process of cognition, while neglecting the function of the will and the emotions. This is simply not true. Never has Christian philosophy denied the usefulness and efficacy of good dispositions of soul for perceiving and embracing moral and religious truths. In fact, it has always taught that the lack of these dispositions of good will can be the reason why the intellect, influenced by the passions and evil inclinations, can be so obscured that it cannot see clearly. Indeed St. Thomas holds that the intellect can in some way perceive higher goods of the moral order, whether natural or supernatural, inasmuch as it experiences a certain "connaturality" with these goods, whether this "connaturality" be purely natural, or the result of grace;[10] and it is clear how much even this somewhat obscure perception can help the reason in its investigations. However it is one thing to admit the power of the dispositions of the will in helping reason to gain a more certain and firm knowledge of moral truths; it is quite another thing to say, as these innovators do, indiscriminately mingling cognition and act of will, that the appetitive and affective faculties have a certain power of understanding, and that man, since he cannot by using his reason decide with certainty what is true and is to be accepted, turns to his will, by which he freely chooses among opposite opinions.

34. It is not surprising that these new opinions endanger the two philosophical sciences which by their very nature are closely connected with the doctrine of faith, that is, theodicy and ethics; they hold that the function of these two sciences is not to prove with certitude anything about God or any other transcendental being, but rather to show that the truths which faith teaches about a personal God and about His precepts, are perfectly consistent with the necessities of life and are therefore to be accepted by all, in order to avoid despair and to attain eternal salvation. All these opinions and affirmations are openly contrary to the documents of Our Predecessors Leo XIII and Pius X, and cannot be reconciled with the decrees of the Vatican Council. It would indeed be unnecessary to deplore these aberrations from the truth, if all, even in the field of philosophy, directed their attention with the proper reverence to the Teaching Authority of the Church, which by divine institution has the mission not only to guard and interpret the deposit of divinely revealed truth, but also to keep watch over the philosophical sciences themselves, in order that Catholic dogmas may suffer no harm because of erroneous opinions. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)