Otto von Bergoglio’s Kulturkampf (or Jorge Mario Zedong’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution), part one

Although I suppose that there is little that can be done to convince the unconvinced that the counterfeit church of conciliarism has not been, is not now nor can ever be the Catholic Church, the conciliar revolutionaries are doing their very best to demonstrate who do understand their religious sect to be false that our judgments on this matter are indisputably correct. The counterfeit church of conciliarism is a synthetic entity that has been created to serve as a quasi-religious adjunct to Marxism’s latest incarnation in the form of “globalism,” “environmentalism,” “inclusion,” and the deconstruction of the family to mean whatever it is the global elites decide to be.

Although containing nothing other than a summary of every Modernist presupposition that Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes, it is, though, significant to note that he made it a point of providing participants of the ongoing “synod,” which bears quite a resemblance to the illegal Synod of Pistoia whose propositions were condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794, a copy of a Modernist” reimagining of the Catholic Church that has been written by his Jacobin/Bolshevik mentors:

VATICAN CITY (LifeSiteNews) –– In a hugely significant move, participants of the Synod on Synodality were quietly given the text of a secretive pact – first composed by a group of liberal theologians during Vatican II – which is part of a relativistic and “egalitarian” plan embodied and enacted by Pope Francis to “change the identity of the Catholic Church.”

In an article published October 13, Jesuit-run America Magazine revealed that participants of the Synod on Synodality were given a controversial and secret text during their October 12 trip to the Catacombs of Sts. Sebastian, Callistus and Domitilla. (An archive of the America Magazine report is available here.)

The report stated how the prayer booklet given to Synod participants “included the full text of the Pact of the Catacombs.” Of note is that this was not included in the booklet emailed to journalists of the Vatican press corps.

The text and its being given to the Synod members is hugely significant, with Church historian Professor Roberto de Mattei describing it as the “last act of a process” beginning with Vatican II and culminating in Pope Francis’ Synod on Synodality. 

Commenting to LifeSiteNews about the event, de Mattei stated:

The Catacombs Pact distributed to the Synod Fathers last week is not a purely commemorative event, but the last act of a process that began with the Second Vatican Council and has its ultimate expression in the Synodal project encouraged by Pope Francis to change the identity of the Catholic Church, removing any “Constantinian” element and transforming it into an egalitarian and pauperist social agency.

On November 16, 1965, 42 bishops attending the Second Vatican Council met in the Catacombs of St. Domitilla to compile and sign the “Pact of the Catacombs,” or the Catacombs Pact. The text has remained largely out of the public eye, but is a formulation of 13 key points pertaining to Church life, organization and practice, all based on tenets of the heterodox ideology known as Liberation Theology. 

It highlights aspects which strongly resonate with “social justice” activists of today, such as:

• Living in the “ordinary manner of our people,” 
• Rejecting “the appearance and reality of riches” including in dress and belongings, seemingly including liturgical objects,
• Handing over the finances to laity in the dioceses,
• Refusing traditional ecclesiastical titles like “Excellency,”
• Avoiding any semblance of hierarchical treatment, including during the liturgy,
• To be more focused on the style of “collegiality,”
• To “be more humanly present, more welcoming,” and to “show ourselves to be open to all, whatever their religion.”
• Some accounts suggest the Pact garnered support from as many as 500 bishops at the council.

In his detailed account of the Second Vatican Council, de Mattei wrote how the pact was proposed by a group of prelates known as the “Church of the Poor,” which he described as one of the three “most important and effective pressure groups of the council.”

Bottom of Form

The “Church of the Poor” began meeting as early as the first session of the Council, in October 1962.

The late Bishop of Ivrea, Luigi Bettazzi – who until his death in July 2023 was the last remaining signatory of the Pact – stated the text was chiefly written by Archbishop Hélder Câmara, a Brazilian prelate who is described as an “icon” and “father” of liberation theology. 

Prof. de Mattei records that Câmara’s collaboration with prominent liberal advocate Cardinal Joseph Suenens at Vatican II was “one of the ‘hidden’ driving forces of the conciliar assembly.”

As de Mattei highlights, Câmara described his friend Suenens as “the key man of the Council, certain of the direct and personal trust of the Holy Father.” Câmara defended Suenens’ description as “the world head of progressivism,” adding “he is my leader at the Council.” (Francis gives Synod members Vatican II lobby group's liberation theology text. Droleskey note: Sunens was better as Leo Joseph Sunens and he was one of the leaders of the so-called “Catholic Charismatic Renewal.”)

There is really much less to this that the breathless headlines at Lifesite News make it appear as the entirety of the Bergoglian anti-papal presidency has been on full display from the moment he appeared on the balcony of the Basilica of Saint Peter on Wednesday, March 13, 2013, and, significantly, it was apparent throughout the course of his twenty year non-episcopal career in Buenos Aires, Argentina, as can be gleaned in the following interview he gave to the Communion and Liberation cult’s 30 Days:

Excerpt One:

BERGOGLIO: Staying, remaining faithful implies an outgoing. Precisely if one remains in the Lord one goes out of oneself. Paradoxically precisely because one remains, precisely if one is faithful one changes. One does not remain faithful, like the traditionalists or the fundamentalists, to the letter. Fidelity is always a change, a blossoming, a growth. The Lord brings about a change in those who are faithful to Him. That is Catholic doctrine. Saint Vincent of Lerins makes the comparison between the biologic development of the person, between the person who grows, and the Tradition which, in handing on the depositum fidei from one age to another, grows and consolidates with the passage of time: «Ut annis scilicet consolidetur, dilatetur tempore, sublimetur aetate». (30Giorni | What I would have said at the Consistory (Interview with Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio by Sefania Falasca)

Brief Comment:

Paradox and contradiction worthy of His Apostateness, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Antipope Emeritus. "One does not remain faithful, like the traditionalists or the fundamentalists, to the letter"?

Boy, have they got an apostate on their hands, a man who is as free with the teaching of saints such as Saint Vincent Lerins as the man who defeated him at the 2005 conciliar conclave. This is what Saint Vincent Lerins actually taught about Catholic Tradition:

"Do not be misled by various and passing doctrines. In the Catholic Church Herself we must be careful to hold what has been believed everywhere, always and by all; for that alone is truly and properly Catholic." (Saint Vincent of Lerins, quoted in Tumultuous Times by Frs. Francisco and Dominic Radecki, CMRI, p. 279.)

"But he appears so humble and simple," some might say.

I say, so what? Humility and simplicity without the Catholic Faith mean nothing. 

Excerpt Two:

Q. Is this what you would have said at the Consistory?

BERGOGLIO: Yes. I would have spoken about these three key points.

Q. Nothing else?

BERGOGLIO: Nothing else… No, perhaps I would have mentioned two things of which there is need in this moment, there is more need: mercy, mercy and apostolic courage.

Q. What do they mean to you?

BERGOGLIO: To me apostolic courage is disseminating. Disseminating the Word. Giving it to that man and to that woman for whom it was bestowed. Giving them the beauty of the Gospel, the amazement of the encounter with Jesus… and leaving it to the Holy Spirit to do the rest. It is the Lord, says the Gospel, who makes the seed spring and bear fruit.

Q. In short, it is the Holy Spirit who performs the mission.

BERGOGLIO: The early theologians said: the soul is a kind of sailing boat, the Holy Spirit is the wind that blows in the sail, to send it on its way, the impulses and the force of the wind are the gifts of the Spirit. Without His drive, without His grace, we don’t go ahead. The Holy Spirit lets us enter the mystery of God and saves us from the danger of a gnostic Church and from the danger of a self-referential Church, leading us to the mission.

That means also overthrowing all your functionalist solutions, your consolidated plans and pastoral systems …

BERGOGLIO: I didn’t say that pastoral systems are useless. On the contrary. In itself everything that leads by the paths of God is good. I have told my priests: «Do everything you should, you know your duties as ministers, take your responsibilities and then leave the door open». Our sociologists of religion tell us that the influence of a parish has a radius of six hundred meters. In Buenos Aires there are about two thousand meters between one parish and the next. So I then told the priests: «If you can, rent a garage and, if you find some willing layman, let him go there! Let him be with those people a bit, do a little catechesis and even give communion if they ask him». A parish priest said to me: «But Father, if we do this the people then won’t come to church». «But why?» I asked him: «Do they come to mass now?» «No», he answered. And so! Coming out of oneself is also coming out from the fenced garden of one’s own convictions, considered irremovable, if they risk becoming an obstacle, if they close the horizon that is also of God.

This is valid also for lay people…  (30Giorni | What I would have said at the Consistory (Interview with Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio by Sefania Falasca)

Brief Comment:

The danger of a self-referential Church?

Overthrowing all your functionalist solutions, your consolidated pastoral systems?

Coming out of oneself is also coming out from the fenced garden of one's own convictions, considered irremovable, if they risk becoming an obstacle, if they close the horizon that is also of God?

How is this not identical to what Joseph Alois "Cardinal" Ratzinger, evoking the spirit of Hans Urs von Balthasar, wrote in Principles of Catholic Theology in 1982?

Does this mean that the Council should be revoked? Certainly not. It means only that the real reception of the Council has not yet even begun. What devastated the Church in the decade after the Council was not the Council but the refusal to accept it. This becomes clear precisely in the history of the influence of Gaudium et spes. What was identified with the Council was, for the most part, the expression of an attitude that did not coincide with the statements to be found in the text itself, although it is recognizable as a tendency in its development and in some of its individual formulations. The task is not, therefore, to suppress the Council but to discover the real Council and to deepen its true intention in the light of the present experience. That means that there can be no return to the Syllabus, which may have marked the first stage in the confrontation with liberalism and a newly conceived Marxism but cannot be the last stage. In the long run, neither embrace nor ghetto can solve for Christians the problem of the modern world. The fact is, as Hans Urs von Balthasar pointed out as early as 1952, that the "demolition of the bastions" is a long-overdue task. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 391.)

Pope Pius VIII, writing in his one and only encyclical letter, Traditi Humilitate Nostrae, May 24, 1829, during his very brief pontificate warned us about those such as Hans Urs von Balthasar, Joseph Ratzinger and Jorge Mario Bergoglio, men who have sought to "raze" the foundations of the Church:

Although God may console Us with you, We are nonetheless sad. This is due to the numberless errors and the teachings of perverse doctrines which, no longer secretly and clandestinely but openly and vigorously, attack the Catholic faith. You know how evil men have raised the standard of revolt against religion through philosophy (of which they proclaim themselves doctors) and through empty fallacies devised according to natural reason. In the first place, the Roman See is assailed and the bonds of unity are, every day, being severed. The authority of the Church is weakened and the protectors of things sacred are snatched away and held in contempt. The holy precepts are despised, the celebration of divine offices is ridiculed, and the worship of God is cursed by the sinner. All things which concern religion are relegated to the fables of old women and the superstitions of priests. Truly lions have roared in Israel. With tears We say: "Truly they have conspired against the Lord and against His Christ." Truly the impious have said: "Raze it, raze it down to its foundations." (Pope Pius VIII, Traditi Humilitate Nostrae, May 24, 1829.)

This is a complete condemnation of what Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes. 

Excerpt Three:

Q, What should one do?

BERGOGLIO: Look at our people not for what it should be but for what it is and see what is necessary. Without preconceptions and recipes but with generous openness. For the wounds and the frailty God spoke. Allowing the Lord to speak… In a world that we can’t manage to interest with the words we say, only His presence that loves us, saves us, can be of interest. The apostolic fervor renews itself in order to testify to Him who has loved us from the beginning.

Q. For you, then, what is the worst thing that can happen in the Church?

BERGOGLIO: It is what De Lubac calls «spiritual worldliness». It is the greatest danger for the Church, for us, who are in the Church. «It is worse», says De Lubac, «more disastrous than the infamous leprosy that disfigured the dearly beloved Bride at the time of the libertine popes». Spiritual worldliness is putting oneself at the center. It is what Jesus saw going on among the Pharisees: «… You who glorify yourselves. Who give glory to yourselves, the ones to the others».  (30Giorni | What I would have said at the Consistory (Interview with Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio by Sefania Falasca).)

Brief Comment:

Generous openness to what? The devil, that's what.

Quoting De Lubac on spiritual worldliness, which means ridding the Catholic Church of the belief that she alone possesses truth and has the sole right from God to teach, govern and sanctify men?

Apostasy.

Simple apostasy.

You want another example?

Sure, below you will find an an excerpt from an speech Jorge Mario Bergoglio gave upon the release of Father Luis Guissani's The Attraction of Jesus that was republished in yet another Communion and Liberation magazine, Traces, which is based in Argentina:

The book presented today, El atractivo de Jesucristo, is not a theological treatise, it is a dialogue of friendship; these are table conversations between Father Guissani and his disciples. It is not a book for intellectuals, but for people who are men and women. It is the description of that initial experience, which I shall refer to later on, of wonder which arises in dialogue about daily experience that is provoked and fascinated by the exceptionally human and divine presence and gaze of Jesus Christ. It is the story of a personal relationship–intense, mysterious, and concrete at the same time–of an impassioned and intelligent affection for the person of Jesus, and this enables Fr. Giussani to come to the threshold, as it were, of Mystery, to speak familiarly and intimately with Mystery.

Everything in our life, today just as in Jesus’ time, begins with an encounter. An encounter with this Man, the carpenter of Nazareth, a man like all men and yet different. The first ones, John, Andrew, and Simon, felt themselves to be looked at into their very depths, read in their innermost being, and in them sprang forth a surprise, a wonder that instantly made them feel bound to Him, made them feel different.

When Jesus asked Peter, “Do you love Me?”, “his ‘Yes’ was not the result of an effort of will, it was not the fruit of a ‘decision’ made by the young man Simon: it was the emergence, the coming to the surface of an entire vein of tenderness and adherence that made sense because of the esteem he had for Him–therefore an act of reason;” it was a reasonable act, “which is why he couldn’t not say ‘Yes.’”

We cannot understand this dynamic of encounter which brings forth wonder and adherence if it has not been triggered–forgive me the use of this word–by mercy. Only someone who has encountered mercy, who has been caressed by the tenderness of mercy, is happy and comfortable with the Lord. I beg the theologians who are present not to turn me in to the Sant’Uffizio or to the Inquisition; however, forcing things a bit, I dare to say that the privileged locus of the encounter is the caress of the mercy of Jesus Christ on my sin.

In front of this merciful embrace–and I continue along the lines of Giussani’s thought–we feel a real desire to respond, to change, to correspond; a new morality arises. We posit the ethical problem, an ethics which is born of the encounter, of this encounter which we have described up to now. Christian morality is not a titanic effort of the will, the effort of someone who decides to be consistent and succeeds, a solitary challenge in the face of the world. No. Christian morality is simply a response. It is the heartfelt response to a surprising, unforeseeable, “unjust” mercy (I shall return to this adjective). The surprising, unforeseeable, “unjust” mercy, using purely human criteria, of one who knows me, knows my betrayals and loves me just the same, appreciates me, embraces me, calls me again, hopes in me, and expects from me. This is why the Christian conception of morality is a revolution; it is not a never falling down but an always getting up again. (The Attraction of the Cardinal.)

This is quintessentially Modernist as the Modernists taught that man's belief in God and His Divine Son spring forth from an inner impulse and not by virtue of having had the supernatural virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity infused into his soul in the Sacrament of Baptism. Pope Saint Pius X dissected this heresy very well in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907:

7. However, this Agnosticism is only the negative part of the system of the Modernists: the positive part consists in what they call vital immanence. Thus they advance from one to the other. Religion, whether natural or supernatural, must, like every other fact, admit of some explanation. But when natural theology has been destroyed, and the road to revelation closed by the rejection of the arguments of credibility, and all external revelation absolutely denied, it is clear that this explanation will be sought in vain outside of man himself. It must, therefore, be looked for in man; and since religion is a form of life, the explanation must certainly be found in the life of man. In this way is formulated the principle of religious immanence. Moreover, the first actuation, so to speak, of every vital phenomenon -- and religion, as noted above, belongs to this category -- is due to a certain need or impulsion; but speaking more particularly of life, it has its origin in a movement of the heart, which movement is called a sense. Therefore, as God is the object of religion, we must conclude that faith, which is the basis and foundation of all religion, must consist in a certain interior sense, originating in a need of the divine. This need of the divine, which is experienced only in special and favorable circumstances. cannot of itself appertain to the domain of consciousness, but is first latent beneath consciousness, or, to borrow a term from modern philosophy, in the subconsciousness, where also its root lies hidden and undetected.

It may perhaps be asked how it is that this need of the divine which man experiences within himself resolves itself into religion? To this question the Modernist reply would be as follows: Science and history are confined within two boundaries, the one external, namely, the visible world, the other internal, which is consciousness. When one or other of these limits has been reached, there can be no further progress, for beyond is the unknowable. In presence of this unknowable, whether it is outside man and beyond the visible world of nature, or lies hidden within the subconsciousness, the need of the divine in a soul which is prone to religion excites -- according to the principles of Fideism, without any previous advertence of the mind -- a certain special sense, and this sense possesses, implied within itself both as its own object and as its intrinsic cause, the divine reality itself, and in a way unites man with God. It is this sense to which Modernists give the name of faith, and this is what they hold to be the beginning of religion.

8. But we have not yet reached the end of their philosophizing, or, to speak more accurately, of their folly. Modernists find in this sense not only faith, but in and with faith, as they understand it, they affirm that there is also to be found revelation. For, indeed, what more is needed to constitute a revelation? Is not that religious sense which is perceptible in the conscience, revelation, or at least the beginning of revelation? Nay, is it not God Himself manifesting Himself, indistinctly, it is true, in this same religious sense, to the soul? And they add: Since God is both the object and the cause of faith, this revelation is at the same time of God and from God, that is to say, God is both the Revealer and the Revealed. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

This is not a minor point at all. It is quite essential to the entire belief system of concilairism. Jorge Mario Bergoglio was only repeating what he had been taught by the late Father Luigi Guissani, a belief about man's "inner sense" and "relation to God" that had been propagated throughout the late Joseph Alois Ratzinger's entire priesthood.

Everything about Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s entire career as a lay Jesuit revolutionary is premised upon a “poor” church that overthrows its “functionalities” and ends all “rigidity,” meaning, of course, that this “church” is open to every error imaginable.

Pope Saint Pius X prophesied of this false religious sect as follows:

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

Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes that religion is matter of responding to the alleged “needs of the people” as they actually live their lives, not the assent of the will to those truths revealed by God Himself and that He has entrusted to His Catholic Church, she who is guided infallibly by the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, for its infallible explication and eternal safekeeping. Bergoglio believes in a “church” that has taught “error” and is thus neither infallible or inerrant on Faith and Morals, He has told us repeatedly that the real heretics are not those who effect from one more truths taught by Holy Mother Church, who canst neither deceive nor be deceived, but those who not show what he thinks is “mercy” to those whose lives do not conform to what he disparagingly refers to do as “rigid” ideas that take no account of how people live.

Remember Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes 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 Jorge Mario Bergoglio speaks incessantly 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 Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes as he has not an original thought in his Modernist skull.

Consider what he said to the editors of Jesuit periodicals in Europe two years ago as he defined heresy to be a failure to respond to the “needs” of the people rather than what it is: a defection from the Holy Faith as It has been revealed by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ:

Holy Father, thank you for this meeting. What is the meaning and mission of the journals of the Society of Jesus? Do you have a mission for us?

It is not easy to give a clear and precise answer. In general, of course, I believe that the mission of a cultural journal is to communicate. I would add, however, to communicate in the most embodied way possible, in a personal way, with the authenticity of a face-to-face engagement. By this I mean that it is not enough to communicate ideas. You have to communicate ideas that come from experience. This for me is very important. Ideas must come from experience.

Take the example of heresies, whether they are theological or human, for there are also human heresies. In my view, a heresy arises when the idea is disconnected from human reality. Hence the phrase someone said – Chesterton if I remember correctly – that “heresy is an idea gone mad.” It has gone mad because it has lost its human roots.

The Society of Jesus should not be interested in communicating abstract ideas. It is interested, instead, in communicating human experience through ideas and reasoning, through experience. Ideas are to be discussed. Discussion is a good thing, but for me it is not enough. It is human reality that is to be discerned. Discernment is what really counts. The mission of a Jesuit publication cannot be only to discuss, but it must be above all able to help discernment that leads to action.

Sometimes, in order to discern, you have to throw a stone! If you throw a stone the waters are stirred up; everything moves and you can discern. But if instead of throwing a stone, you throw… a mathematical equation, a theorem, then there will be no movement, and therefore no discernment.

Notice that this phenomenon of abstract ideas about the human condition is ancient. It characterized, for example, decadent scholasticism, a theology of pure ideas, totally distant from the reality of salvation, which is the encounter with Jesus Christ. That is why a cultural magazine must work on reality, which is always superior to the idea. And if the reality is scandalous, even better.

For example, I recently met with the “Santa Marta Group,” which works on the scandalous reality of human trafficking. This is something that moves us, touches us and pushes us forward. On the other hand, abstract ideas about the enslavement of people do not move anyone. We have to start from experience and its narration.

This is the principle that I wanted to tell you about and that I recommend to you: reality is superior to the idea, and therefore you must deal with ideas and reflections that arise from reality.

When you enter the world of ideas alone and move away from reality you end up with what is ridiculous. Ideas are discussed, reality is discerned. Discernment is the charism of the Society. In my opinion, it is the first charism of the Society and it is what the Society must continue to focus on, including in its cultural journals. They must be helpful and promote discernment. (Francis in Conversation with the Editors of European Jesuit Journals.)

Pope Pius XII understood that the Society of Jesus was being overrun by Modernist renegades, which is why he said the following to those of its representatives who attended the Thirtieth General Congregation on September 14, 1957:

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

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

Jorge Mario Bergoglio was trained by the very sort of revolutionaries whose false moral theology was condemned by Pope Pius XII in 1957, and it is this false moral theology, which is nothing other than Judeo-Masonic moral relativism, which itself is the product of the Protestant Revolution’s theological relativism. Modernism is, of course, the synthesis of all heresies. Bergoglio’s whole program, enunciated nearly five years ago in Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013, and given concrete form in Amoris Latetia, March 19, 2016, is nothing other than a celebration of subjectivism, of basing a false moral teaching on what is "actually done, rather than from what should be done. 

Thus, you see, Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes that an adherence to the immutable truths of the Holy Faith is cruel “heresy” whereas to “meet the people where they are” is fidelity to a falsified gospel of his own creation.

Writing in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, Pope Saint Pius XII condemned such subjectivism:

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 Jorge Mario Bergoglio, whose longtime associate, Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga said the following in identical presentations he made in Miami, Florida, and Irving, Texas in October of 2013:

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 ten 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 the late 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 ten 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 what appeared to be the eighteen millionth time on October 9, 2023, a little over two years ago now:

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.)

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.)

This was 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.

No, there is nothing really new or original to anything that Jorge Mario Bergoglio says or does, and the fact that he gave a copy of a Jacobin/Bolshevik manifesto to the participants of a “synod” whose “results” have been predetermined means nothing other than the alleged “pope” means to put the final touches on his lifelong adherence to actual heresies before he dies so his own Kulturkampf or Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution will last long after his death as his foils among the “conservatives” continue to gnash their teeth and proclaim “loyalty” to the Catholic Church while undermining her very infallibility on all that pertains to Faith and Morals.

To proclaim our own fealty to the Catholic Church, we should consider and make our own the words of Saint Augustine that were quoted by Pope Leo XIII near the end of Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896:

And with the same yearning Our soul goes out to those whom the foul breath of irreligion has not entirely corrupted, and who at least seek to have the true God, the Creator of Heaven and earth, as their Father. Let such as these take counsel with themselves, and realize that they can in no wise be counted among the children of God, unless they take Christ Jesus as their Brother, and at the same time the Church as their mother. We lovingly address to all the words of St. Augustine: "Let us love the Lord our God; let us love His Church; the Lord as our Father, the Church as our Mother. Let no one say, I go indeed to idols, I consult fortune-tellers and soothsayers; but I leave not the Church of God: I am a Catholic. Clinging to thy Mother, thou offendest thy Father. Another, too, says: 'Far be it from me; I do not consult fortune - telling, I seek not soothsaying, I seek not profane divinations, I go not to the worship of devils, I serve not stones: but I am on the side of Donatus.' What doth it profit thee not to offend the Father, who avenges an offence against the Mother? What doth it profit to confess the Lord, to honour God, to preach Him, to acknowledge His Son, and to confess that He sits on the right hand of the Father, if you blaspheme His Church? . . . If you had a beneficent friend, whom you honoured daily - and even once calumniated his spouse, would you ever enter his house? Hold fast, therefore, O dearly beloved, hold fast altogether God as your Father, and the Church as your Mother" (Enarratio in Psal. lxxxviii., sermo ii., n. 14). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

We must never calumniate Holy Mother Church by daring to think that heretics such as the conciliar "popes," including Jorge Mario Bergoglio, part in anything other than a false religious sect that is creation of and belongs entirely to the adversary himself.

Remaining ever reliant upon and confident in the protection of Our Lady, may we cling to her tenderly through her Most Holy Rosary and by our total consecration to her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.

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 Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Saints Chrysanthus and Daria, pray for us.