Reviewing Jorge's Eleventh Year of Apostasy

The cottage industry known as the “resist while recognize” movement, which has become an enterprise whose adherents hold all manner of conferences to disparage the man they believe is a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, has reached the point now where some, such as John Henry-Westen of Lifesite News, are claiming that “Pope Francis” has “waged war” upon faithful Catholics. While it is true that the man who claims to be “Pope Francis” has done so, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is neither a priest nor a bishop, and he is certainly not the Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ on earth. It is ontologically impossible for a true people to be an enemy of the Catholic Faith or of the members of the Church Militant on earth, and it is blasphemously to believe that can ever happening no less that it is happening now.

While members of the “resist while recognize” movement like to point out that there has never been a period when the See of Saint Peter has been vacant for more than thirty months, and they use this fact as “proof” that an extended period of papal vacancy is impossible as it would mean a violating of Our Lord’s promises that Saint Peter would have perpetual successors, a sophism that Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D. (November 12, 1915-November 18, 2012; ordained in May of 1941), answered as follows two decades ago:

November 30, 2002

Dear Correspondent:

You quote the passage from Vatican Council I, Session IV, which states clearly that St. Peter, the first pope, has “perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church…”

You, understandably,  wonder how it could be that there are still “perpetual successors” of St. Peter if the men who have claimed to be popes in our times have been in reality public heretics, who therefore could not, as heretics, be the true successors of St. Peter.

The important thing here to understand just what kind of “perpetual succession” in the papacy Our Lord established.

Did Our Lord intend that there should be a pope on the Chair of Peter every single moment of the Church’s existence and every single moment of the papacy existence?

You will immediately realize that, no, Our Lord very obviously did not establish that kind of “perpetual succession” of popes.  You know that, all through the centuries of the Church’s existence, popes have been dying and that there then followed an interval, after the death of each pope, when there was no “perpetual successor,” no pope, occupying the Chair of Peter.  That Chair became vacant for a while whenever a pope died.  This has happened more than 260 times since the death of the first pope.

But you also know that the death of a pope did not mean the end of the “perpetual succession” of popes after Peter.

You understand now that “no pope” does not mean “no papacy.”  A vacant Chair of Peter after the death of a pope does not mean a permanent vacancy of that Chair.  A temporary vacancy of the Chair of Peter does not mean the end of the “perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church.” 

Even though Our Lord, had He so willed it, could have seen to it that, the moment one pope died, another man would automatically succeed him as pope, He nevertheless did not do it that way.

Our Lord did it the way we have always known it to be, that is, He allowed for an interval, or interruption, of undesignated duration, to follow upon the death of each pope.

That interruption of succession of popes has, most of the time, lasted several weeks, or a month or so, but there have been times when the interruption lasted longer than that, considerably longer.

Our Lord did not specify just how long that interruption was allowed to last before a new pope was to be elected.  And He did not declare that, if the delay in electing a new pope lasted too long, the “perpetual succession” was then terminated, so that it would then have to be said that “the papacy is no more.”

Nor did the Church ever specify the length or duration of the vacancy of the Chair of Peter to be allowed after the death of a pope.

So it is clear that the present vacancy of the Chair of Peter, brought on by public heresy, despite the fact that it has lasted some 40 years or so, does not mean that the “perpetual succession” of popes after St. Peter has come to an end.

 What we must realize here is that the papacy, and with it the “perpetual succession” of popes is a Divine institution, not a human institution. Therefore, man cannot put an end to the papacy, no matter how long God may allow heresy to prevail at the papal headquarters in Rome.

Only God could, if He so willed, terminate the papacy.  But He willed not do so, because He has made His will known to His Church that there will be “perpetual successors” in the papal primacy that was first entrusted to St. Peter.

We naturally feel distressed that the vacancy of the Chair of Peter has lasted so long, and we are unable to see the end of that vacancy in sight.  But we do realize that the restoration of the Catholic Faith, and with it the return of a true Catholic Pope to the Papal Chair, will come when God wills it and in the way He wills it.

If it seems to us, as of now, that there are no qualified, genuinely Catholic electors, who could elect a new and truly Catholic Pope.  God can, for example, bring about the conversion of enough Cardinals to the traditional Catholic Faith, who would then proceed to elect a new Catholic Pope.

God can intervene in whatever way it may please Him, in order to restore everything as He originally willed it to be in His Holy Church.

Nothing is impossible with God. Father Martin Stépanich, O.F.M., S.T.D.

March 25, 2003

Dear Faithful Catholic:

Your letter of February 21, 2003, tells me about “doubting Thomases” who say that they “just can’t believe” that the Chair of Peter could have been vacant for as much as 40 years, or even for only 25 years, without the “perpetual succession” of popes being thereby permanently broken.

Those “doubting Thomases” presumably grant that the “perpetual succession” of popes remains unbroken during the relatively short intervals that follow upon the deaths of popes, and you indicate that, at least for a while, they have even understood – to their credit – that a public and unrepentant heretic cannot possibly be a true Catholic Pope and that the Chair of St. Peter must necessarily become vacant if it is taken over by such a public heretic.

But, as you sadly say, those “doubting Thomases” changed their views after they read the Declaration of Ecumenical Council Vatican I (1870) which you quoted from Denzinger in your letter of November 8, 2002.  Vatican I declared that “the Blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the Universal Church…”

Notice carefully that Vatican I says nothing more than that St. Peter shall have “perpetual successors” in the primacy, which obviously means that the “perpetual succession” of popes will last until the end of time.

Vatican I says nothing about how long Peter’s Chair may be vacant before the “perpetual succession” of popes would supposedly come to a final end.  Yet the “doubting Thomases” imagine they see in the Vatican I declaration something which just isn’t there.  They presume to think that “perpetual successors in the primacy” means that there can never be an extra long vacancy of Peter’s Chair, but only those short vacancies that we have always known to occur after the deaths of popes.  But that isn’t the teaching of Vatican I.  It is the mistaken “teaching” of “doubting Thomases.”

Curiously enough, the “doubting Thomases” never suggest just how long a vacancy of Peter’s Chair would be needed to put a supposedly final end to the “perpetual succession” of popes.  Their imagination has gotten them into an impossible situation.  They “just can’t believe” that the vacancy of Peter’s Chair could last for 25 or 40 years or more, while, at the same time, they “just can’t believe” that a public heretic could possibly be a true Catholic Pope.  At one and the same time, they do have a Pope, yet they do not have a Pope.  They have a heretic “Pope,” but they do not have a true Catholic Pope.

Not being able to convince the “doubting Thomases” that they are all wrong and badly confused, you have hoped that some unknown “Church teaching” could be found in some book that would make the “doubting Thomases” see the light.

But you don’t need any additional “Church teaching” besides what you have already quoted from Vatican I.  You can plainly see that Vatican I did not say anything about how long a vacancy of Peter’s Chair may be.  You also know that Our Lord never said that the vacancy of the Papal Chair may last only so long and no longer.

Most important of all, never forget that men cannot put an end to the “perpetual succession” of popes, no matter how long public heretics may occupy Peter’s Chair.  The Catholic Papacy comes from God, not from man.  To put an end to the “perpetual succession” of popes, you would first have to put an end to God Himself. Father Martin Stépanich, O.F.M., S.T.D. An Objection to Sedevacantism: 'Perpetual Successors' to Peter (For another Father Stepanich letter, one that summarizes the sedevacantist case so very clearly, see: Father Stepanich Letter on Sedevacantism.)

The anti-sedevacantist effort to use Pastor Aeternus in an attempt to prove sedevacantism to be fallacious was dissected in a post on Novus Ordo Watch Wire in 2016:

Now, certainly, we are required by our holy Catholic Faith to believe that the Church will endure until the end of time (see Salaverri, On the Church of Christ, nn. 288, 294ff.). She was founded by God as a perpetual institution for the salvation of men. But just as she cannot cease to exist, neither can she fail. This latter consideration alone disqualifies the Novus Ordo Sect from being the Catholic Church because it does not teach the true Faith, and, especially on account of its invalid pseudo-sacraments, it does not sanctify souls. It is simply not the ark of salvation.

Sedevacantists do not hold that the Catholic Church has ceased to exist or even — unless perhaps the end of the world should be imminent — that the papal succession has ended. Rather, the succession of Popes has been interrupted, even if for an unusually long time. It will continue whenever the God whose Providence governs all things, wills it to.

How will the papal succession resume? We do not know for sure; but this is what distinguishes genuine Catholic Faith from the pseudo-faith of heretics: The Catholic has genuine divine Faith in God and His promises and therefore is not in need of having all the answers: “Faith … must exclude not only all doubt, but all desire for demonstration” (Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part I, Article I; italics added).

People who are quick to argue that “God would never allow such a lengthy interregnum!” should realize that what we know God will never allow is for the Papacy to fail. That is what can never happen. But the Papacy does not fail by there not being a Pope for a time; it would fail by someone like Francis being Pope, as we demonstrate in this article and in this video. We have to remember that no Pope does not mean no Papacy. The only way one can affirm as true Vatican I’s teaching about the Papacy is to hold that Jorge Bergoglio is not the Pope.

In 1892 — 22 years after the First Vatican Council’s dogma regarding perpetual successors — the Jesuit Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly published a book entitled The Relations of the Church to Society (download free here or purchase here). In this work, he touched upon the question of an extended interregnum and how it would relate to the perpetuity of the Church and the promises of Christ:

The great schism of the West [1378-1417] suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfil His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree. (Rev. Edmund J. O’Reilly, The Relations of the Church to Society [London: John Hodges, 1892], pp. 287-288; underlining added.)

Nothing more needs to be added to this — Fr. O’Reilly has hit the nail on the head. In fact, a few pages earlier, he specifically states that even if during the Western Schism none of the three papal claimants had been the true Pope and the Chair of St. Peter had been vacant all that time, this too would not have been contrary to the promises of Christ:

We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope — with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum. (O’Reilly, The Relations of the Church to Society, p. 283; underlining added.)

Thus we see that the frightful situation Holy Mother Church is in today, while certainly distressing and extraordinary, is simply not impossible and not contrary to the teaching of the First Vatican Council. (The Perpetual Successors Objection.)

We are indeed eyewitnesses to the “stranger evils” discussed by Father Edmund O’Reilly in the latter part of the Nineteenth Century.

What is excluded by Catholic teaching on the papacy is a period of sixty-five years, five months, of putative “popes” and their “bishops” denying the unicity of the Catholic Church, making warfare upon the nature of dogmatic truth, which has been and continues to be nothing other than a blasphemous against the nature of God Himself, the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, and the objective nature of moral truths that do not depend upon human acceptance for their binding force or validity.

With this is mind, permit to review some of the salient lowlights” that occurred during Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s eleventh year as the universal public face of apostasy from March 13, 2023, to March 13, 2024, keeping in mind the selective summary that follows is far from being exclusive in nature.

First, “Father” James Martin, S.J., who is held in very high esteem by his fellow lay Jesuit revolutionary, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, and who was one of Jorge’s hand-picked delegates to the first part of the “synod on synodality” that was held five months ago inside the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River, asserted on April 21, 2023, that Catholics should not follow everything Sacred Scripture, including in the epistles of the New Testament, that is ”hurtful” to “LGBTQKLMONPQ” practitioners of perverted vice:

(LifeSiteNews) — Dissident Jesuit priest Father James Martin has claimed Christians “shouldn’t do everything” the Bible “commands” in his new “Outreach Guide to the Bible and Homosexuality.”

Martin attempts to show how an explicit defense of homosexual behavior can be reconciled with Christianity in his “guide,” citing biblical scholars who allegedly help interpret Biblical passages on homosexuality. However, the advice of Martin as well as the scholars boils down to this: Even Christians can ignore Scriptural prohibitions on homosexual behavior.

Martin laments that such biblical verses “are used against LGBTQ people over and over,” and goes on to advise that “one response” to these verses “is to see them in their historical context and remember that even devout Christians shouldn’t do everything that [the] Old Testament commands. Likewise for the Epistles in the New Testament.”

Martin’s rejection of Scriptural passages condemning homosexual behavior also appears inconsistent with his suggestion that what the Bible has to say on homosexuality matters. In his introduction to his guide, he writes, “The questions, though, remain: How can we best understand what the Bible says on homosexuality? What did these passages mean then and what do they mean today?

The writers the dissident Jesuit cites do little to clarify the question. Walter Brueggemann, who Martin refers to as a “giant in the field of biblical scholarship,” claims that St. Paul’s intention in his passage condemning homosexuality is “not fully clear.”

St. Paul writes: “For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” (Rom. 1:23-27)

Brueggemann then concedes that “it is impossible to explain away” this text as well as a clear prohibition on homosexuality in Leviticus (“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (Lev. 18:22).

The scholar suggests that because Scripture expresses God’s welcome, in an apparent self-contradiction, to those who don’t keep “purity codes” (in this case, eunuchs, who are forbidden from the community of God according to Deuteronomy 23:1), that those who don’t abstain from homosexual behavior are likewise considered part of God’s covenant family, as if the moral law were equivalent to temporary Jewish ceremonial law.

Brueggemann fails to address this distinction between moral and ceremonial law, whereas Catholic apologist Trent Horn has pointed out that homosexual acts fall squarely within the moral domain, considering that their penalty under the Old Testament is death, something only assigned to sins like idolatry, murder, and adultery, not to the violation of ceremonial laws. Horn has also noted that mention of homosexual sin is “sandwiched between moral laws and not ceremonial ones.”

The very passage Brueggemann cites, in fact, indicates that eunuchs can be considered part of God’s family if they “hold fast” to His covenant, which means keeping God’s moral law and avoiding serious sin: “For thus says the Lord: To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give, in my house and within my walls, a monument and a name better than sons and daughters.” (Isaiah 56:4-5)

Brueggemann ambiguously concludes that “the full acceptance and embrace of LGBTQ persons follows as a clear mandate of the Gospel in our time.” It is true that, according to the CCC, that those with same-sex attraction “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” However, it also affirms that “homosexual acts … are contrary to the natural law, that “they close the sexual act to the gift of life,” and that “under no circumstances can they be approved.”

None of the other scholars cited by Martin can refute Scripture’s clear prohibition on homosexual acts, but instead claim there may be loopholes, or, like Brueggemann, they suggest that because we are called to “welcome all,” active homosexuals must be included in the Body of Christ as well.

Fr. Martin is notorious for his open and heretical promotion of homosexual lifestyles and his celebration of homosexuality as a great “gift” for the Church. His tweets stating the homosexual Pete Buttigieg was “married” drew strong condemnation from numerous bishops and priests, with a Spanish priest denouncing him for “speaking out on social media in a scandalous way against the Catholic faith.”

Martin has a longstanding record of promoting LGBT ideology in dissent from Catholic teaching. Among his most notorious actions, Martin has promoted an image drawn from a series of blasphemous, homoerotic works, showing Christ as a homosexual, promoted same-sex civil unions, and has described viewing God as male as “damaging.” (Fr. James Martin on homosexuality: ‘Christians shouldn’t do everything’ the Bible ‘commands’.)

This is what I wrote at the time eleven months ago:

Where can one begin with such utter apostasy in support of that which is hideous in the sight of the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Holy Trinity, as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His Catholic Church?

I suppose that first, one can reiterate what was stated in part one of this series, namely, that men such as James Martin and his cohort of “biblical scholars” believe in a deity that is nothing other than a projection of their own perverse imaginations.

Second, James Martin and his cohort of “biblical scholars” do not believe that sodomite behavior is inherently sinful. Quite the contrary, they believe it is a normal and natural expression of “love” and should be accepted as such. As they truly sick and twisted minds have convinced themselves of such hideous fables, it should be evident that anyone who can attempt to ignore the plain words of Holy Writ that contradict their fables is, humanly speaking, any capacity to see the error of their ways. They believe in sodomy, and they who are headed to be damned believe that Sacred Scripture can be damned so as not wound their own guilty consciences and those of the hardened sinners whose evil ways they seek to indemnify at every turn.

Third, leaving aside Lifesite News’s constant references to the heretical Catechism of the Catholic Church, a document that is absolutely irrelevant to believing Catholics, it must be noted that there is no such thing as “LGBTQ” people, only human beings who choose to perversely use the gift that God has given to them for the continuation of the species and to unite one man and one woman in bond of Holy Matrimony that is dissolved only upon the death of one of the spouses.

Fourth, Sacred Scripture contains salutary warnings to fallen creatures to do good and to avoid evil, and sodomy, as Holy Mother Church teaches, is one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance. Here is the litany of such quotations once again:

And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done. (Genesis 1: 26-30.)

[13] If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them. [14] If any man after marrying the daughter, marry her mother, he hath done a heinous crime: he shall be burnt alive with them: neither shall so great an abomination remain in the midst of you. [15] He that shall copulate with any beast or cattle, dying let him die, the beast also ye shall kill. (Leviticus 20: 13-15.)

For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them. (Romans 1: 18-32.)

[9] Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, [10] Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6: 9)

[1] Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James: to them that are beloved in God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called. [2] Mercy unto you, and peace, and charity be fulfilled. [3] Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. [4] For certain men are secretly entered in, (who were written of long ago unto this judgment,) ungodly men, turning the grace of our Lord God into riotousness, and denying the only sovereign Ruler, and our Lord Jesus Christ. [5] I will therefore admonish you, though ye once knew all things, that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, did afterwards destroy them that believed not:

[6] And the angels who kept not their principality, but forsook their own habitation, he hath reserved under darkness in everlasting chains, unto the judgment of the great day. [7] As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire. [8] In like manner these men also defile the flesh, and despise dominion, and blaspheme majesty. [9] When Michael the archangel, disputing with the devil, contended about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him the judgment of railing speech, but said: The Lord command thee. [10] But these men blaspheme whatever things they know not: and what things soever they naturally know, like dumb beasts, in these they are corrupted.

[11] Woe unto them, for they have gone in the way of Cain: and after the error of Balaam they have for reward poured out themselves, and have perished in the contradiction of Core. [12] These are spots in their banquets, feasting together without fear, feeding themselves, clouds without water, which are carried about by winds, trees of the autumn, unfruitful, twice dead, plucked up by the roots, [13] Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own confusion; wandering stars, to whom the storm of darkness is reserved for ever. [14] Now of these Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying: Behold, the Lord cometh with thousands of his saints, [15] To execute judgment upon all, and to reprove all the ungodly for all the works of their ungodliness, whereby they have done ungodly, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against God. 

[16] These are murmurers, full of complaints, walking according to their own desires, and their mouth speaketh proud things, admiring persons for gain' s sake. [17] But you, my dearly beloved, be mindful of the words which have been spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, [18] Who told you, that in the last time there should come mockers, walking according to their own desires in ungodlinesses. [19] These are they, who separate themselves, sensual men, having not the Spirit. [20] But you, my beloved, building yourselves upon your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, 

[21] Keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, unto life everlasting. [22] And some indeed reprove, being judged:[23] But others save, pulling them out of the fire. And on others have mercy, in fear, hating also the spotted garment which is carnal. [24] Now to him who is able to preserve you without sin, and to present you spotless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, in the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,[25] To the only God our Saviour through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory and magnificence, empire and power, before all ages, and now, and for all ages of ages. Amen. (Jude 1-25.)

There are no “loopholes” in these passages. . . .

Fifth, so-called “biblical scholars” who believe that they can deconstruct the plain words inspired by God the Holy Ghost are abject rebels who have been anathematized by the Council of Trent:

Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,—considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,—ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,—in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, —wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,—whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,—hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established. (Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent.)

Thus stands condemned the efforts of James Martin and his “biblical scholars” to deconstruct the following passages of Sacred Scripture that are not in the least unclear or ambiguous.

Furthermore, Pope Leo XIII explained that no one must ever doubt the fact that the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, inspired every word of Sacred Scripture, which cannot be ignored by anyone desirous of pleasing God and saving his own immortal soul.

Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write — He was so present to them — that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the Author of the entire Scripture. Such has always been the persuasion of the Fathers. “Therefore,” says St. Augustine, “since they wrote the things which He showed and uttered to them, it cannot be pretended that He is not the writer; for His members executed what their Head dictated.”⁵⁸ And St. Gregory the Great thus pronounces: “Most superfluous it is to inquire who wrote these things — we loyally believe the Holy Ghost to be the Author of the book. He wrote it Who dictated it for writing; He wrote it Who inspired its execution.” (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, November 18, 1893.)

To take issue with the clear denunciations of sodomy contained in Holy Writ is to blaspheme God the Holy Ghost, and Pope Benedict XV, aware that innovators were trying to deconstruct the plain words of Sacred Scripture by casting aspersions upon Saint Jerome’s translation of it into the Latin Vulgate by claiming that the holy Dalmatian’s work was unreliable:

Pope Benedict XV used a good deal of Spiritus Paraclitus, September 15, 1920, to denounce innovators who were attempting to distort Saint Jerome's body of work for their own Modernist ends. One will see in the passages below an exact description of how the conciliar "popes," including Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio, have sought to reconcile the Modernist precepts of conciliarism with the truths of Catholicism by distorting the work of various Church Fathers, Doctors and saints:

24. Nor do modern innovators stop here: they even try to claim St. Jerome as a patron of their views on the ground that he maintained that historic truth and sequence were not observed in the Bible, “precisely as things actually took place, but in accordance with what men thought at that time,” and that he even held that this was the true norm for history.[44] A strange distortion of St. Jerome’s words! He does not say that when giving us an account of events the writer was ignorant of the truth and simply adopted the false views then current; he merely says that in giving names to persons or things he followed general custom. Thus the Evangelist calls St. Joseph the father of Jesus, but what he meant by the title “father” here is abundantly clear from the whole context. For St. Jerome “the true norm of history” is this: when it is question of such appellatives (as “father,” etc), and when there is no danger or error, then a writer must adopt the ordinary forms of speech simply because such forms of speech are in ordinary use. More than this: Jerome maintains that belief in the Biblical narrative is as necessary to salvation as is belief in the doctrines of the faith; thus in his Commentary on the Epistle to Philemon he says:

“What I mean is this: Does any man believe in God the Creator? He cannot do so unless he first believe that the things written of God’s Saints are true.” He then gives examples from the Old Testament, and adds: “Now unless a man believes all these and other things too which are written of the Saints he cannot believe in the God of the Saints.”[45]

25. Thus St. Jerome is in complete agreement with St. Augustine, who sums up the general belief of Christian antiquity when he says:

Holy Scripture is invested with supreme authority by reason of its sure and momentous teachings regarding the faith. Whatever, then, it tells us of Enoch, Elias and Moses — that we believe. We do not, for instance, believe that God’s Son was born of the Virgin Mary simply because He could not otherwise have appeared in the flesh and ‘walked amongst men’ — as Faustus would have it — but we believe it simply because it is written in Scripture; and unless we believe in Scripture we can neither be Christians nor be saved.[46]

26. Then there are other assailants of Holy Scripture who misuse principles — which are only sound, if kept within due bounds — in order to overturn the fundamental truth of the Bible and thus destroy Catholic teaching handed down by the Fathers. If Jerome were living now he would sharpen his keenest controversial weapons against people who set aside what is the mind and judgment of the Church, and take too ready a refuge in such notions as “implicit quotations” or “pseudo-historical narratives,” or in “kinds of literature” in the Bible such as cannot be reconciled with the entire and perfect truth of God’s word, or who suggest such origins of the Bible as must inevitably weaken — if not destroy — its authority.

27. What can we say of men who in expounding the very Gospels so whittle away the human trust we should repose in it as to overturn Divine faith in it? They refuse to allow that the things which Christ said or did have come down to us unchanged and entire through witnesses who carefully committed to writing what they themselves had seen or heard. They maintain — and particularly in their treatment of the Fourth Gospel — that much is due of course to the Evangelists — who, however, added much from their oown imaginations; but much, too, is due to narratives compiled by the faithful at other periods, the result, of course, being that the twin streams now flowing in the same channel cannot be distinguished from one another. Not thus did Jerome and Augustine and the other Doctors of the Church understand the historical trustworthiness of the Gospels; yet of it one wrote: “He who saw it has borne witness, and his witness is true; and he knows that he tells the truth, and you also may believe” an. 19:35). So, too, St. Jerome: after rebuking the heretical framers of the apocryphal Gospels for “attempting rather to fill up the story than to tell it truly,”[47] he says of the Canonical Scriptures: “None can doubt but that what is written took place.”[48] Here again he is in fullest harmony with Augustine, who so beautifully says: “These things are true; they are faithfully and truthfully written of Christ; so that whosoever believes His Gospel may be thereby instructed in the truth and misled by no lie.”[49]

28. All this shows us how earnestly we must strive to avoid, as children of the Church, this insane freedom in ventilating opinions which the Fathers were careful to shun. This we shall more readily achieve if you, Venerable Brethren, will make both clergy and laity committed to your care by the Holy Spirit realize that neither Jerome nor the other Fathers of the Church learned their doctrine touching Holy Scripture save in the school of the Divine Master Himself. We know what He felt about Holy Scripture: when He said, “It is written,” and “the Scripture must needs be fulfilled,” we have therein an argument which admits of no exception and which should put an end to all controversy. (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritius Paraclitus, September 15, 1920.)

There is really nothing more that needs to be written about men who, barring a miraculous conversion, will wind up being “welcomed” into hell by the adversary, who will then proceed to torture them for all eternity those who were stupid as to claim that “welcoming” practitioners of perverse sins against nature important enough for them to teach that, in essence, Holy Scripture is not inerrant and can be ignored with impunity in order not to offend the tender sensibilities of those steeped, objectively speaking, in one Mortal Sin after another. (From: Unsound Men Promoting Unsound Doctrines, part two.)

It was but a little over three months later, in July of 2023, that Jorge Mario Bergoglio appointed another of his unsound men who promotes unsounds doctrine, Victor Manuel Fernandez, to be the perfect of the conciliar “Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.”

Once again, here is what I wrote at the time:

The speed with which Jorge Mario Bergoglio is acting to purge “conservative” “bishops” as well as others appointed by Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II or Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI who have aided and abetted clerical abuses while not being sufficiently “progressivist” for the Argentine Apostate’s liking seems to indicate that “Pope Francis’s” recent hospitalization may have brought with it news that his end is near. It could also be the case that, having recent the ten-year mark in his antipapal governance, Senor Jorge believes that the time is right to move with alacrity to dispatch “reactionaries” and thus to remove all traces of any immediate influence of his two immediate predecessors as the universal public faces of apostasy from the conciliar curia and from the ranks of the conciliar hierarchy.

Bergoglio’s appointment of “Archbishop” Victor Manuel Fernandez, who had a major role in drafting Evangelii Gaudium, November 24, 2013 (see Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part one, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part two, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part three, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part four, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part five, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part six, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part seven) , and the infamous “apostolic exhortation,” Amoris Laetitia, March 19, 2016 (see Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men: A Brief Overview, Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men: Another Brief Overview, Jorge's Exhortaion of Self-Justification Before Men, part three,  Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part four, Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part five, Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part six, Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part seven, Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part eight, Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part nine, Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part ten, THE END!), as the prefect of the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s misnamed Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is an “in your face” proclamation that the days of the supposed “pit bill of doctrinal” orthodoxy, Joseph Alois “Cardinal” Ratzinger are over. No more denunciation of doctrinal errors. No more references to moral theology manuals that do not reflect the “smell of the sheep.” Jorge’s appointment of Victor Manuel Fernandez is his own death knell to any kind of moral certitude, thus paving the way wide for the endorsement of fornication in cases where couples have a “commitment” to each other, the formal acceptance of divorce and civil remarriage without the fig leaf of a conciliar decree of marital nullity, contraception, abortion in certain “hard” cases,” euthanasia in the cases of the terminally ill, and, of course, the “blessing” of sodomite unions in perdition, to say nothing of endorsing gender mutilation in the name of “diversity,” “love,” and “toleration. It is only a matter of time before the offices of the congregation, which are housed at Santa Uffizio 11 outside the Vatican’s walls, will be adorned with the rainbow flag. The so-called Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith under Victor Manuel Fernandez will become the Congregation of Moral Relativism, Casuistry, and Accompaniment of Hardened Sinners.

How can I say such things?

Well, for one, we have the marching orders that the false “pontiff” has given to his long time friend in apostasy, Victor Manuel Fernandez:

Pope Francis has named Archbishop Víctor Manuel Fernández, his longtime personal theologian and ghostwriter, to lead the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The Argentine prelate succeeds Cardinal Luis Ladaria Ferrer, SJ, 79, who has been prefect of the dicastery since 2017.

Fernández, almost 61, will take up his new post in the middle of September, the Vatican said. The prolific writer has been archbishop of La Plata, Argentina, since 2018.

“As the new prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, I entrust to you a task that I consider very valuable,” Pope Francis wrote in a letter to Fernández, published July 1 with the announcement of his appointment.

The pope said the dicastery at times has promoted pursuing “doctrinal errors” over “promoting theological knowledge.”

“What I expect from you is certainly something very different,” Francis said. “I ask you as prefect to dedicate your personal commitment in a more direct way to the main purpose of the dicastery, which is ‘guarding the faith.’”

Fernández posted a photo of himself with Pope Francis on Twitter on June 30, the day before the announcement of his appointment as doctrine prefect.

He said he spent the week with the pope and called it “the new stage for Francis.”

“He works more hours than anyone else in the Vatican,” the archbishop wrote in Spanish. “Here he is seen tired after five hours with dense stuff, but after a siesta he was perfect and happy.”

Fernández is a controversial figure in the Church in Argentina, in part because of some of his past publications. The theologian has published more than 300 articles and books.

Pope Francis, who has known Fernández for decades, reportedly entrusted him with drafting his first apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium, a text in which the archbishop cited his own prior scholarship as a source document.

The archbishop was also reputedly involved in the drafting of Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis’ 2016 apostolic exhortation on love in the family, which followed the Church’s two synods on the family.

Fernández was heavily involved in both synods on the family in 2014 and 2015 and was on the commission for the writing of the 2015 synod’s final report.

Quoting his apostolic exhortations Evangelii Gaudium and Gaudete et Exsultate, Pope Francis wrote that Fernández’s task as the new head of the Vatican’s doctrine office “should express that the Church ‘encourages the charism of theologians and their theological research efforts’ as long as ‘they are not content with a desk theology,’ with ‘a cold, hard logic that seeks to dominate everything.’ It will always be true that reality is superior to the idea.”

Fernández was born in 1962 in the small rural town of Alcira, in the Province of Córdoba. He was ordained a priest in August 1986 in Río Cuarto, a mostly rural diocese. In 1988 he obtained a degree in theology with a biblical specialization at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome and then obtained a doctorate in theology at the UCA in 1990. He was pastor of Santa Teresita in Río Cuarto (Córdoba) from 1993 to 2000 and was founder and director of the Jesús Buen Pastor Lay Formation Institute and Teacher Training Center in the same city.

In the early 1990s he moved to Buenos Aires, where he was appointed a consultor to several commissions within the Argentinean bishops’ conference and the Latin American Bishops Council (CELAM).

Having shown a great capacity for writing, Fernández was brought by then-Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio as an expert to the Fifth General Conference of the Latin American Bishops, held in 2007 at the Brazilian Marian shrine of Aparecida. 

Aparecida, many sources have claimed, solidified the relationship between the future pope and the theologian.

From 2008 to 2009 he was dean of the faculty of theology of the Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina and president of the Argentine Theological Society.

On Dec. 15, 2009, Cardinal Bergoglio appointed Fernández as rector of the Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina. However, Fernández was not able to take the oath of office until ( May 20, 2011, after he had answered objections to his appointment raised by Vatican officials who expressed concerns about the orthodoxy of certain elements of his scholarship.

An avid writer, by the time Fernández was chosen by Bergoglio as the UCA rector, he had written hundreds of articles and books, including, “Incarnated Spiritual Theology” (2004), a book that was featured in the Argentinean soap opera “Esperanza Mía,” about an illicit love affair between a priest and a nun.

The book commonly regarded as his most unusual is the 1995 work “Heal Me With Your Mouth: The Art of Kissing.” Regarding the book, Fernández explained that “in these pages I want to synthesize the popular feeling, what people feel when they think of a kiss, what they experience when they kiss ... So, trying to synthesize the immense richness of life, these pages emerged in favor of kissing. I hope that they help you kiss better, that they motivate you to release the best of yourself in a kiss.”

The book has disappeared from most official lists of Fernández’s works.

Pope Francis appointed Fernández the titular Archbishop of Tiburnia on May 13, 2013, thus making him the first rector of UCA to become an archbishop. (Pope Francis appoints Argentine Archbishop Fernández as head of doctrine dicastery.)

Before continuing with a discussion of Victor Manuel Fernandez’s “theology,” such as it is, it is important to note that Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger was no defender of the Catholic Faith, which he did not possess. “Cardinal” Ratzinger used his twenty-three years, five months as the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to, among other things, explicitly endorse dogmatic relativism, rehabilitate Antonio Rosmini (forty of whose errors were condemned by Pope Leo XIII in 1888), declare that Nestorian canon that did not include explicit words of consecration was nevertheless “valid,” and, among many other things, declared that a “Jewish reading of the Bible was a possible one” that it could be not said that every page in the Old Testament points unequivocally to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (see the appendices below). This is not exactly a record of a “pit bull” of orthodoxy. However, Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes that any kind of reiteration of Catholic doctrine, even is couched in conciliarspeak, does not touch the “hearts” of Catholics as it is steeped in “cold, hard logic,” which, ironically, Ratzinger himself rejected early in his seminary days as he came under the influence of the heretical New Theologians and their Hegelianism. (From: Jorge Mario Bergoglio's Version of Beat the Clock.)

It was another two months later, in September of 2023, that “Pope Francis” evangelized once again in favor of the dogmatically condemned and theologically absurd proposition of “dogmatic evolutionism, although, to his credit, he does so openly without using euphemisms such as Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II’s “living tradition” or Joseph Alois Ratzinger’s “hermeneutic of continuity.”

Once again, I turn to my commentary about Bergoglio’s reaffirmation of dogmatic evolutionism as found in an article published over six months ago now:

Readers of this website know that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a open and unapologetic dogmatic evolutionist, which means that he believes that the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Holy Trinity, has revealed nothing that is immutable, which means that God Himself is not immutable. To believe in the dogmatically condemned and philosophically absurd principle of dogmatic evolutionism is to prove oneself to be a pagan intent on projecting onto God whatever it is he wants Him to teach so that the mores of the day can be justified as compatible with Catholic teaching.

Not only has Bergoglio’s undisguised embrace of dogmatic evolutionism been condemned by the [First] Vatican Council, by Pope Saint Pius X and Pope Pius XII (see Appendix B for the familiar proofs), his continued misrepresentation of the teaching of Saint Vincent Lerins, as occurred for semes like the one fifty-two gazillion times since he become the universal public face of apostasy on March 13, 2013, when he gave an interview to Portuguese Jesuit revolutionaries, is a direct contradiction of what the Saint taught in fidelity to a true Catholic understanding of Tradition.

While omitting other parts of my commentary concern Bergoglio’s false claims about the death penalty and slavery, here is the part that deals with what “Pope Francis” said about Saint Vincent Lerins to the Portuguese Jesuit revolutionaries:

I would like to remind those people that indietrismo [being backward-looking] is useless and we need to understand that there is an appropriate evolution in the understanding of matters of faith and morals as long as we follow the three criteria that Vincent of Lérins already indicated in the fifth century: doctrine evolves ut annis consolidetur, dilatetur tempore, sublimetur aetate. In other words, doctrine also progresses, expands and consolidates with time and becomes firmer, but is always progressing. Change develops from the roots upward, growing in accord with these three criteria.

The pope went on to give some examples of the evolution of doctrine in the Catholic Church in recent times. “Today it is a sin to possess atomic bombs; the death penalty is a sin. You cannot employ it, but it was not so before. As for slavery, some pontiffs before me tolerated it, but things are different today. So, you change, you change, but with the criteria just mentioned.”

The first Latin American pope recalled that “Vincent of Lérins makes the comparison between human biological development and the transmission from one age to another of the depositum fidei [deposit of faith], which grows and is consolidated with the passage of time. Here, our understanding of the human person changes with time, and our consciousness also deepens.”

He added, “The other sciences and their evolution also help the Church in this growth in understanding. The view of Church doctrine as monolithic is erroneous.”  (Pope Francis speaks out against his critics in the U.S. Catholic Church.)

Fourth, Readers of this website know that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is an open and unapologetic dogmatic evolutionist, which means that he believes that the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Holy Trinity, has revealed nothing that is immutable, which means that God Himself is not immutable. To believe in the dogmatically condemned and philosophically absurd principle of dogmatic evolutionism is to prove oneself to be a pagan intent on projecting onto God whatever it is he wants Him to teach so that the mores of the day can be justified as compatible with Catholic teaching.

Not only has Bergoglio’s undisguised embrace of dogmatic evolutionism been condemned by the [First] Vatican Council, by Pope Saint Pius X and Pope Pius XII (see Appendix B for the familiar proofs), his continued misrepresentation of the teaching of Saint Vincent Lerins, is a direct contradiction of what the Saint taught in fidelity to a true Catholic understanding of Tradition:

[56.] In like manner, it behooves Christian doctrine to follow the same laws of progress, so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age, and yet, withal, to continue uncorrupt and unadulterate, complete and perfect in all the measurement of its parts, and, so to speak, in all its proper members and senses, admitting no change, no waste of its distinctive property, no variation in its limits.

t[57.] For example: Our forefathers in the old time sowed wheat in the Church's field. It would be most unmeet and iniquitous if we, their descendants, instead of the genuine truth of grain, should reap the counterfeit error of tares. This rather should be the result—there should be no discrepancy between the first and the last. From doctrine which was sown as wheat, we should reap, in the increase, doctrine of the same kind— wheat also; so that when in process of time any of the original seed is developed, and now flourishes under cultivation, no change may ensue in the character of the plant. There may supervene shape, form, variation in outward appearance, but the nature of each kind must remain the same. God forbid that those rose-beds of Catholic interpretation should be converted into thorns and thistles. God forbid that in that spiritual paradise from plants of cinnamon and balsam, darnel and wolfsbane should of a sudden shoot forth.

Therefore, whatever has been sown by the fidelity of the Fathers in this husbandry of God's Church, the same ought to be cultivated and taken care of by the industry of their children, the same ought to flourish and ripen, the same ought to advance and go forward to perfection. For it is right that those ancient doctrines of heavenly philosophy should, as time goes on, be cared for, smoothed, polished; but not that they should be changed, not that they should be maimed, not that they should be mutilated. They may receive proof, illustration, definiteness; but they must retain withal their completeness, their integrity, their characteristic properties.

[58.] For if once this license of impious fraud be admitted, I dread to say in how great danger religion will be of being utterly destroyed and annihilated. For if any one part of Catholic truth be given up, another, and another, and another will thenceforward be given up as a matter of course, and the several individual portions having been rejected, what will follow in the end but the rejection of the whole? On the other hand, if what is new begins to be mingled with what is old, foreign with domestic, profane with sacred, the custom will of necessity creep on universally, till at last the Church will have nothing left untampered with, nothing unadulterated, nothing sound, nothing pure; but where formerly there was a sanctuary of chaste and undefiled truth, thenceforward there will be a brothel of impious and base errors. May God's mercy avert this wickedness from the minds of his servants; be it rather the frenzy of the ungodly. (Commonitorium, by Saint Vincent of Lerins.) 

Far from proving what Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis desires, the full passage that follows text he cited, as found in the Novus Ordo breviary, contradicts him entirely and condemns everything that he, Bergoglio/Francis contended in his interview was true and necessary.

Saint Vincent of Lerins also stated in the Commonitorium that we must avoid all profane novelties of words, drawing upon the very words of Saint Paul the Apostle to Saint Timothy, which were, after all, written under the divine inspiration of God the Holy Ghost:

[60.] But let us return to the apostle. "O Timothy," he says, "Guard the deposit, shunning profane novelties of words." "Shun them as you would a viper, as you would a scorpion, as you would a basilisk, lest they smite you not only with their touch, but even with their eyes and breath." What is "to shun"? Not even to eat 1 Corinthians 5:11 with a person of this sort. What is "shun"? "If anyone," says St. John, come to you and bring not this doctrine. What doctrine? What but the Catholic and universal doctrine, which has continued one and the same through the several successions of ages by the uncorrupt tradition of the truth and so will continue for ever— "Receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed, for he that bids him Godspeed communicates with him in his evil deeds." 2 John 10

[61.] "Profane novelties of words." What words are these? Such as have nothing sacred, nothing religious, words utterly remote from the inmost sanctuary of the Church which is the temple of God. Profane novelties of words, that is, of doctrines, subjects, opinions, such as are contrary to antiquity and the faith of the olden time. Which if they be received, it follows necessarily that the faith of the blessed fathers is violated either in whole, or at all events in great part; it follows necessarily that all the faithful of all ages, all the saints, the chaste, the continent, the virgins, all the clergy, Deacons and Priests, so many thousands of Confessors, so vast an army of martyrs, such multitudes of cities and of peoples, so many islands, provinces, kings, tribes, kingdoms, nations, in a word, almost the whole earth, incorporated in Christ the Head, through the Catholic faith, have been ignorant for so long a tract of time, have been mistaken, have blasphemed, have not known what to believe, what to confess.

[62.] "Shun profane novelties of words," which to receive and follow was never the part of Catholics; of heretics always was. In truth, what heresy ever burst forth save under a definite name, at a definite place, at a definite time? Who ever originated a heresy that did not first dissever himself from the consentient agreement of the universality and antiquity of the Catholic Church? That this is so is demonstrated in the clearest way by examples. For who ever before that profane Pelagius attributed so much antecedent strength to Free-will, as to deny the necessity of God's grace to aid it towards good in every single act? Who ever before his monstrous disciple Cœlestius denied that the whole human race is involved in the guilt of Adam's sin? Who ever before sacrilegious Arius dared to rend asunder the unity of the Trinity? Who before impious Sabellius was so audacious as to confound the Trinity of the Unity? Who before cruellest Novatian represented God as cruel in that He had rather the wicked should die than that he should be converted and live? Who before Simon Magus, who was smitten by the apostle's rebuke, and from whom that ancient sink of every thing vile has flowed by a secret continuous succession even to Priscillian of our own time,— who, I say, before this Simon Magus, dared to say that God, the Creator, is the author of evil, that is, of our wickednesses, impieties, flagitiousnesses, inasmuch as he asserts that He created with His own hands a human nature of such a description, that of its own motion, and by the impulse of its necessity-constrained will, it can do nothing else, can will nothing else, but sin, seeing that tossed to and fro, and set on fire by the furies of all sorts of vices, it is hurried away by unquenchable lust into the utmost extremes of baseness?

[63.] There are innumerable instances of this kind, which for brevity's sake, pass over; by all of which, however, it is manifestly and clearly shown, that it is an established law, in the case of almost all heresies, that they evermore delight in profane novelties, scorn the decisions of antiquity, and, through oppositions of science falsely so called, make shipwreck of the faith. On the other hand, it is the sure characteristic of Catholics to keep that which has been committed to their trust by the holy Fathers, to condemn profane novelties, and, in the apostle's words, once and again repeated, to anathematize every one who preaches any other doctrine than that which has been received. (Commonitorium, by Saint Vincent of Lerins.)

This should sufficiently prove that Jorge Mario Bergoglio continues to entirely misrepresent the teaching of Saint Vincent of Lerins, which was only simply a reiteration of the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church, thus corrupting it for the purposes of seeking to justify the unjustifiable and to defend the indefensible, the false religion of conciliarism.

Even if Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s “interpretation” of Saint Vincent Lerins is correct, which it is not, the fact, which is not a fact at all, of course, would mean nothing as God the Holy Ghost, Who is immutable, has directed our true popes and twenty authentic general councils to declare that dogmatic truth ever remains the same. These pronouncements “trump,” if I can use that word, the writings even of canonized saints, who are not infallible.

Mind you, Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s interpretation of Saint Vincent Lerins is an outright misrepresentation, a lie, which, much like Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., he is compelled to keep telling again and again and again. (From: Jorge Mario Bergoglio Evangelizes on Behalf of Dogmatic Evolutionism and Moral Relativism.)

This story was published shortly before Senor Bergoglio went to Mongolia, where he said the following:

Finally, I would like to reject certain “myths.” First, the myth that only the wealthy can engage in volunteer work. That is indeed a “fantasy”, whereas reality tells us the opposite. It is not necessary to be wealthy to do good; rather, almost always it is people of modest means who choose to devote their time, skills and generosity to caring for others. Another myth needing to be dispelled is that the Catholic Church, distinguished throughout the world for its great commitment to works of social promotion, does all this to proselytize, as if caring for others were a way of enticing people to “join up.” No! The Church does not go forward by proselytism, it goes forward by attraction. Christians do whatever they can to alleviate the suffering of the needy, because in the person of the poor they acknowledge Jesus, the Son of God, and, in him, the dignity of each person, called to be a son or daughter of God. I would like to envision this House of Mercy as a place where people of different creeds, and non-believers as well, can join efforts with local Catholics in order to offer compassionate assistance to our many brothers and sisters in the one human family. Indeed. the word “compassion” means the ability to suffer with others, and the State will rightly seek to protect and promote it. For this dream to come true, it is essential, here and elsewhere, that those in public office support such humanitarian initiatives, encouraging a virtuous synergy for the sake of the common good. Finally, a third myth needs to be discredited: the notion that only money counts, as if the only way to care for others is to employ a salaried staff and invest in large facilities. Certainly, charity demands professionalism, but charitable works should not turn into businesses. Rather, they should retain their freshness as works of charity where those in need can find people ready to listen to them with compassion, regardless of whatever pay they may receive. (Apostolic Journey to Mongolia: Meeting with Charity Workers and Inauguration of the House of Mercy.)

This is not how the Church advances?

Is this heretic serious?

Can he be so blind to the history of Holy Mother Church from Pentecost Sunday onward that resulted in the establishment of Christendom in the First Millennium and its flourishing in the first half of the Second Millennium?

Although I will deal with his utter ideological falsehood uttered by a man who denounces faithful Catholics as “ideologues” in the second half of this commentary, suffice it to say for the moment that, among others, every pope, starting with Saint Peter himself, who sought the conversion of non-Catholics to the Catholic Church would have had to wrong.

To call to mind just a few examples, Pope Saint Celestine I had to be wrong to send Saint Patrick to Ireland to convert the pagan chieftains and thus the members of their clans.

Pope Saint Gregory the Great had to be wrong the monk who would be known as Saint Augustine of Canterbury to re-evangelize Britain, resulting in a land that was thoroughly Catholic until King Henry VIII took England out of the Church in 1534 for reasons of lust that would have met with Senor Jorge’s hearty approval.

Pope Saint Zachary and Pope Clement II had to be wrong to commission Saint Boniface to seek the conversion of the Germanic tribes.

Saint Hyacinth, the Apostle of the Northland, Saint Josaphat, and Saint Andrew Bobola each had to be wrong to seek the return of the schismatic and heretical Orthodox to the true Faith.

Saint Fidelis of Sigmaringen was wrong to have sought the conversion of Calvinists .

Saint Peter Claver and, three centuries later, Saint Anthony Mary Claret were wrong to seek to convert slaves and indigenous Americans as well as to exhort those living in “irregular situations” to quit their lives of sin.

Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Pius XI were wrong to have, respectively, exhorted the Orthodox and Protestants to convert to the true Faith. . . .

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a naturalist who believes that the Catholic Church exists to perform works of humanitarian kindness, which he labels as “charity.” However, it is manifestly Notre to refuse to exhort others to convert to the Catholic Faith.

While it is true that there are many ways to pray and work for the conversion non-Catholics to the true Faith and that each person and each situation presents different challenges that require Catholics to pray for the wisdom to know how to start the work of conversion, it is also true that no matter what approach is used, including of attracting souls to the Faith by means of our good example and good works, Catholics are called to will the good of all others, and the ultimate expression of that good is the salvation of their souls as members of the Catholic Church.

Pope Saint Pius X, dispelling the fallacies of The Sillon, whose naturalism and religious indifferentism influenced Father Angelo Roncalli even after Papa Sarto had condemned The Sillon, explained that there is only one kind of authentic charity, Catholic Charity:

The same applies to the notion of Fraternity which they found on the love of common interest or, beyond all philosophies and religions, on the mere notion of humanity, thus embracing with an equal love and tolerance all human beings and their miseries, whether these are intellectual, moral, or physical and temporal. But Catholic doctrine tells us that the primary duty of charity does not lie in the toleration of false ideas, however sincere they may be, nor in the theoretical or practical indifference towards the errors and vices in which we see our brethren plunged, but in the zeal for their intellectual and moral improvement as well as for their material well-being. Catholic doctrine further tells us that love for our neighbor flows from our love for God, Who is Father to all, and goal of the whole human family; and in Jesus Christ whose members we are, to the point that in doing good to others we are doing good to Jesus Christ Himself. Any other kind of love is sheer illusion, sterile and fleeting.

Indeed, we have the human experience of pagan and secular societies of ages past to show that concern for common interests or affinities of nature weigh very little against the passions and wild desires of the heart. No, Venerable Brethren, there is no genuine fraternity outside Christian charity. Through the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ Our Saviour, Christian charity embraces all men, comforts all, and leads all to the same faith and same heavenly happiness.

By separating fraternity from Christian charity thus understood, Democracy, far from being a progress, would mean a disastrous step backwards for civilization. If, as We desire with all Our heart, the highest possible peak of well being for society and its members is to be attained through fraternity or, as it is also called, universal solidarity, all minds must be united in the knowledge of Truth, all wills united in morality, and all hearts in the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ. But this union is attainable only by Catholic charity, and that is why Catholic charity alone can lead the people in the march of progress towards the ideal civilization.

Finally, at the root of all their fallacies on social questions, lie the false hopes of Sillonists on human dignity. According to them, Man will be a man truly worthy of the name only when he has acquired a strong, enlightened, and independent consciousness, able to do without a master, obeying only himself, and able to assume the most demanding responsibilities without faltering. Such are the big words by which human pride is exalted, like a dream carrying Man away without light, without guidance, and without help into the realm of illusion in which he will be destroyed by his errors and passions whilst awaiting the glorious day of his full consciousness. And that great day, when will it come? Unless human nature can be changed, which is not within the power of the Sillonists, will that day ever come? Did the Saints who brought human dignity to its highest point, possess that kind of dignity? And what of the lowly of this earth who are unable to raise so high but are content to plow their furrow modestly at the level where Providence placed them? They who are diligently discharging their duties with Christian humility, obedience, and patience, are they not also worthy of being called men? Will not Our Lord take them one day out of their obscurity and place them in heaven amongst the princes of His people? . . .

We fear that worse is to come: the end result of this developing promiscuousness, the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion (for Sillonism, so the leaders have said, is a religion) more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men become brothers and comrades at last in the “Kingdom of God”. – “We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind.”

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 and his false religious sect that I have referring to as the counterfeit church of conciliarism for the past seventeen years work for “mankind,” not for Holy Mother Church, not to advance the Kingdom of God, not to exhort hardened sinners to reform their lives, not to exhort non-Catholics to convert to the true Faith, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true and just social order.

Writing in his last encyclical letter, Meminisse Iuvat, July 14, 1958, Pope Pius XII explained that anyone who believed that they could the “better world” without the Catholic Faith “either weakens thereby the very bases of society, or tries to replace them with props not strong enough to support the edifice of human worth, freedom, and well-being”:

4. If we weigh carefully the causes of today’s crises and those that are ahead, we shall soon find that human plans, human resources, and human endeavors are futile and will fail when Almighty God — He who enlightens, commands, and forbids; He who is the source and guarantor of justice, the fountainhead of truth, the basis of all laws — is esteemed but little, denied His proper place, or even completely disregarded. If a house is not built on a solid and sure foundation, it tumbles down; if a mind is not enlightened by the divine light, it strays more or less from the whole truth; if citizens, peoples, and nations are not animated by brotherly love, strife is born, waxes strong, and reaches full growth.

5. It is Christianity, above all others, which teaches the full truth, real justice, and that divine charity which drives away hatred, ill will, and enmity. Christianity has been given charge of these virtues by the Divine Redeemer, who is the way, the truth, and the life,[2] and she must do all in her power to put them to use. Anyone, therefore, who knowingly ignores Christianity — the Catholic Church — or tries to hinder, demean, or undo her, either weakens thereby the very bases of society, or tries to replace them with props not strong enough to support the edifice of human worth, freedom, and well-being.

6. There must, then, be a return to Christian principles if we are to establish a society that is strong, just, and equitable. It is a harmful and reckless policy to do battle with Christianity, for God guarantees, and history testifies, that she shall exist forever. Everyone should realize that a nation cannot be well organized or well ordered without religion. (Pope Pius XII, Meminisse Iuvat, July 14, 1958.) 

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is an anti-apostle who denounces “proselytism” as he is quite content to leave both hardened sinners in their lives of perdition until they die, and he is more than content to let non-Catholics go about their business of “doing good” that, as the German Redemptorist, Father Michael Muller, C.SS.R., noted, does nothing to advance the salvation of their souls. (From: Anti-Apostle Number Six (aka Jorge Mario Bergoglio) Acts as An Anti-Apostle in Mongolia.)

A month later, that is, in October of 2023, Jorge Mario Bergoglio held his “synod on synodality,” which began with the following address on October 4, 2023:

This welcoming gaze of Jesus also invites us to be a welcoming Church, not one with closed doors. In such a complex time as ours, new cultural and pastoral challenges emerge that call for a warm and kindly inner attitude so that we can encounter each other without fear. In synodal dialogue, in this beautiful “journey in the Holy Spirit” that we are making together as the People of God, we can grow in unity and friendship with the Lord in order to look at today’s challenges with his gaze; to become, using a fine expression of Saint Paul VI, a Church that “makes itself a conversation” (Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam suam, 65). A Church “with a gentle yoke” (cf. Mt 11:30), which does not impose burdens and which repeats to everyone: “Come, you who are weary and oppressed, come, you who have lost your way or feel far away, come, you who have closed the doors to hope: the Church is here for you!” The doors of the Church are open to everyone, everyone, everyone!

3. Brothers and sisters, holy People of God, in the face of the difficulties and challenges that lie ahead, the blessing and welcoming gaze of Jesus prevents us from falling into some dangerous temptations: of being a rigid Church – a customs post –, which arms itself against the world and looks backward; of being a lukewarm Church, which surrenders to the fashions of the world; of being a tired Church, turned in on itself. In the Book of Revelation, the Lord says, “I stand at the door and knock so that it may be opened”; but often, brothers and sisters, he stands at the door knocking but from within the Church so that we may allow him to go out with the Church to proclaim his Gospel.

Let us walk together: humble, fervent and joyful. Let us walk in the footsteps of Saint Francis of Assisi, the saint of poverty and peace, the “fool of God” who bore in his body the stigmata of Jesus and, in order to clothe himself with him, stripped himself of everything. How difficult it is for all of us to carry out this interior and exterior self-emptying.  The same is true for institutions. Saint Bonaventure relates that while he was praying, the Crucified One said to him, “Go and repair my church” (Legenda maior, II, 1). The Synod serves to remind us of this: our Mother the Church is always in need of purification, of being “repaired”, for we are a people made up of forgiven sinners – both elements: forgiven sinners –, always in need of returning to the source that is Jesus and putting ourselves back on the paths of the Spirit to reach everyone with his Gospel. Francis of Assisi, in a time of great struggles and divisions, between temporal and religious powers, between the institutional Church and heretical currents, between Christians and other believers, did not criticize or lash out at anyone. He took up only the weapons of the Gospel: humility and unity, prayer and charity. Let us do the same: humility, unity, prayer and charity! 

And if God's holy people with their shepherds from all over the world have expectations, hopes and even some fears about the Synod we are beginning, let us continue to remember that it is not a political gathering, but a convocation in the Spirit; not a polarized parliament, but a place of grace and communion. The Holy Spirit often shatters our expectations to create something new that surpasses our predictions and negativity. Perhaps I can say that the more fruitful moments of the Synod are those connected to prayer, an atmosphere of prayer, through which the Lord works in us. Let us open ourselves to him and call upon him, the protagonist, the Holy Spirit. Let us allow him to be the protagonist of the Synod! And let us walk with him, in trust and with joy. (Opening of the Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops.)

Translations from the Conciliarspeak:

Translation 1: Those living in objective states of Mortal Sin cannot be barred from receiving what purports to be “Holy Communion” in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical abomination.

Translation 2: The Ten Commandments and the Six Precepts of Holy Mother Church merely “ideals” that cannot be “imposed” upon those whose personal circumstances or “informed consciences” consider them to be too burdensome to accept and/or to obey.

Translation 3: The Catholic Church has heretofore laid down “unreasonable burdens” upon the sensitive consciences of those who are in “love,” meaning, of course, that God has commanded the impossible, something that is itself impossible and blasphemous.

Translation 4: God the Holy Ghost is a mutable spirit Who is always in tune with the “times” of the passing world and the fads of hardened sinners.

Translation 5: The entire patrimony of the Catholic Church prior to 1958 has burdened and alienated them from the “true and living gospel,” which always must be conformed to the “experiential,” “existential” realities of a given time in history.

Antidotes to Translation 1:

There is, of course, no mystery on the settled issues concerning Holy Mother Church’s consistent condemnation of those who approach to receive Holy Communion in a state of Morta Sin. The Catholic Church has always condemned sins of impurity, and Saint Paul himself tells us that those who receiving Holy Communion unworthily do so unto their own damnation:

For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come  [1 Corinthians 11:26]  27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.  28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.  29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 11: 26-29.)

Saint John Chrysostom said explicitly that “To this Table then let there draw night no Judas Iscariot, no Simon Magus”:

Let us hear, all of us, both Priests and laymen, let us hear What Food it is whereof we are made worthy let us hear, I say, and let us quake. The Lord satisfieth us with His Own holy Flesh, setting Himself slain before us. What excuse therefore shall we have, if, being so fed as we are, we sin as we do If, eating of the Lamb, we are still wolves If, pastured as the sheep of the flock, we raven like lions This mysterious Sacrament forbiddeth unto us not outrage only, but any the least enmity it is the Mystery of peace. Upon the Jews God laid it to make year by year by solemn festivals a yearly commemoration of His mercies unto them, but upon thee to do this in remembrance of His love to thee, day by day. To this Table then let there draw nigh no Judas Iscariot, no Simon Magus. These men fell through covetousness let us fly that bottomless pit. (Saint John Chrysostom, as found in Matins, The Divine Office, Monday within the Octave of Corpus Christi.). (From: Yesterday's Dissenters, Today's "Doctrinal" Enforcers, part two. Other commentaries that dealt with the “synod on synodality” include  Otto von Bergoglio’s Kulturkampf (or Jorge Mario Zedong’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution), part one, Otto von Bergoglio's Kulturkampf (or Jorge Mario Zedong's Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, part two, Otto von Bergoglio's Kulturkampf (or Jorge Mario Zedong's Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, part two, Otto von Bergoglio's Kulturkampf (or Jorge Mario Zedong's Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution), part four.)

Bergoglio’s next-to-last-act of calendar year 2023 was to lop off the head of another conciliar “bishop,” Joseph Strickland, who had been the conciliar “bishop” of Tyler, Texas, since his appointment by Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XI in 2012, who had run afoul of “Pope Francis” because of his open questioning of the “pope’s” magisterium, prompting me to write the following after having addressed Jorge’s ordered “visitation” of Strickland several months before:

Well, similarly, the unabashed leftist named Jorge Mario Bergoglio has made it a point to target, isolate, and remove his high-profile critics within the counterfeit church of conciliarism that he has headed since Wednesday, March 13, 2013. Staring with the “apostolic visitation” he order of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate in 2013, and the Rogelio Livieres of Ciudad del Este in Paraguay in 2014, the Argentine Apostate, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, has engaged in a veritable reign of terror against “conservative” or “traditionally-minded” “bishops” that completely parallels his compatriots in the secular realm and, moreover, has become more nakedly bold and undisguised in recent years ever since he revoked Summorum Pontificum with Traditiones Custodes on July 16, 2021, the Feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel. The very man who waxes about “collegiality,” “synodality,” “participation,” and upon “listening to the “voice of the people” is the very same man who condemns as “ideological,” “closed-minded,” “self-referential,” and “hard-hearted” those who adhere to as much of the Catholic Faith as a corrupted (by the “Second” Vatican Council, attacks upon the nature of dogmatic truth, false ecumenism/inter-religious “prayer” services, the so-called Catechism of the Catholic Chiurch, and the 1983 conciliar code of canon law) sensus Catholicus informs them, and he is ever ready to act against these recusant Catholics, whether clerical or lay, at a moment’s notice without so much as consulting them personally in the manner he consults with practicing sodomites, mutants, and other practitioners of indecency, scurrility, blasphemy, heresy, apostasy, and outright sacrilege.

Thus, like the Joseph Robinette Bidens of the world, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a consummate hypocrite who panders to hardened sinners without any desires at all to exhort them to quit their lives of perdition. This is eminently reasonable when one considers the fact that his own heart is hardened against authentic Catholic Faith, Worship, and Morals. He has indemnified Talmudists, Buddhists, Hindus, Protestants of all stripes (Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Evangelicals, “Mega Church” and “Gospel of Prosperity” adherents, freelancing Protestants of one sort or another), atheists, rationalists, pro-aborts, pro-sodomites, Communists, especially the Red Chinese, and globalist organizations such the Soros Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum, and the World Health Organization. He has spared nothing in his endless criticism of “conservatives” in public life and has denigrated his gratuitous rhetoric about abortion by personally indemnifying the likes of Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi immediately the putative archbishop of San Francisco, Salvatore Cordileone, barred her from the reception of what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic liturgical service.

Once again, despite crying crocodile tears about clerical abusers, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has provided protection time and time again to his fellow Jacobin/Bolshevik conciliar revolutionaries who have been guilty of grave moral crimes involving rank perversity even what are acts of attempted sacrilege in the context of what purports to be true offerings of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, perhaps none so notorious as “Father” Marko Ivan Rupnik, S.J., whose notorious behavior with deeply satanic overtones was documented in an article on LifeSite News to which I choose not to link as it contained graphically disturbing details of sick and behavior from a man who believes himself to be a priest. It is only because of outcries of how Marko Ivan Rupnik got himself incardinated in a Slovenian diocese after being expelled by the Society of Jesus that “Pope Francis” decided to waive a statute of limitations that had been used as the pretext for not proceeding with ecclesiastic charges against him (see The Rupnik Case: How is this still happening?).

Unless the incredulous author at The Catholic Thing, however, we know that Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s impulse is to indemnify sodomite clerics and to make it a point to endorse sodomite-friendly clerics such as “Father” James Martin, S.J, the leaders of New Ways Ministry and Dignity USA, and to authorize his hand-picked prefect of the recently renamed “Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith,” Victor Manuel Fernandez, to permit mutants (“transgendered”) to serve as Baptismal Godparents and to be baptized themselves (see Trans persons can be baptized as Catholics, serve as godparents).

When it comes to those nasty “conservatives” who want to “cage” what Bergoglio calls “the spirit” (there are all kinds of spirits; not all of them are holy), however, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is ever eager to lower the boom, which is what he did when personally removing “Bishop” Joseph Strickland as the conciliar “bishop” of Tyler, Texas, on Saturday, November 11, 2023, after Strickland, who was subject to one of those infamous “apostolic visitations” headed by Jacobin/Bolshevik conciliar revolutionaries, one of whom, Gerald Kicanas, the retired “bishop” of Tucson, Arizona, protected sodomite clerical abusers. The backstory about the cast of clerical thugs involved in the Strickland investigation was chronicled very concisely in the following article found on a sedeplenist website:

On Saturday, November 11, Bishop Joseph Strickland was formally removed from the pastoral governance of the diocese of Tyler, Texas. The lawless process employed to remove him from office resembled a script from a gangster film.

The Players

The story began with an apostolic visitation ordered by the new prefect of the Dicastery of Bishops, Archbishop Robert Prevost. Prevost, a Chicago native, served as a missionary in Peru. On September 26, 2015, Pope Francis appointed him bishop of Chiclayo (Northern Peru.) On November 21, 2020, Francis appointed Prevost as a member of the Congregation for the Bishops upon the recommendation of Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago.

The visitation was conducted by Bishop Dennis Sullivan of Camden and Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson in June of this year.

Bishop Sullivan gained national attention in 2014 when his diocese purchased a The New Jersey diocese purchased a 7,000 square foot mansion with eight bedrooms and six bathrooms. In 2020, Sullivan’s diocese filed for bankruptcy protection as a result of sexual abuse claims and later agreed to an $87 million payout in 2022.

Bishop Kicanas of Tuscon was formerly an appointed an auxiliary bishop in Chicago under Cardinal Joseph Bernardin. Kicanas was head of Catholic Relief Services in 2012 when they were funding pro-abortion pro-abortion groups. In 2010, Kicanas lost his bid to become president of the USCCB due to his radical position on several issues.

US Papal Nuncio Archbishops Christophe Pierre and Robert Prevost,head of the Dicastery for Bishops, met with Pope Francis in September to discuss the removal of Bishop Strickland. Both men were promoted to be cardinals later that month by Pope Francis.

Christophe Pierre is a French prelate who was named as Apostolic Nuncio to the United States in 2016. Pierre reportedly threatened Bishop Strickland at the USCCB fall meeting in 2021, “wagged his finger” at Strickland while saying “Bishop Strickland, we’re watching you — stop talking about the deposit of faith.” Pierre has also recently come under fire for disparaging comments regarding cassocks and the Traditional Latin Mass.

Pope Francis dropped the hammer on Bishop Strickland on Saturday, November 11, issuing a terse statement on the Vatican’s website announcing Strickland’s removal and the appointment of an apostolic administrator. The Vatican announcement did not provide a reason for the bishop’s removal. Strickland reportedly was not inform of his removal until he read the statement on Saturday morning.

Galveston-Houston Archbishop Cardinal Daniel DiNardo issued a statement later the same day stating that “continuation in office of Bishop Strickland was not feasible.” DiNardo serves as the metropolitan bishop responsible for dealing with governance matters in several Texas dioceses, including Tyler. (Strickland’s Take-Down Looks Like Something Out of a Gangster Movie.)

Leaving aside this article’s acceptance of the nonexistent legitimacy of the conciliar church’s orders and the fact that the conciliar sect is not the Catholic Church, the information provided above is a fairly accurate summary of how “Bishop” Strickland came to be removed, it overlooks the fact that the results of the “apostolic visitation” were as predetermined as were the results of the 2014 and 2015 “synods” that produced Amoris Laetitia, March 19, 2016, and as the results of the 2023 “synod,” which will be continued in 2024, has already resulted in calls for “changes” at odds with what Christophe Pierre warned Strickland not to discuss, the Sacred Deposit of Faith. No investigation of any religious community or conservative/traditional “bishop” within the conciliar structures is intellectually honest. Each has a predetermined result: the removal and demonization of men who are opposed to Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s agenda to bring conciliarism to his logical conclusion: its “evolution” into being but a quasi-religious subsidiary of the Judeo-Masonic New World Order, which is why Senor Jorge enforced lockdowns upon the Catholic churches in conciliar captivity in Italy, endorsed and required anyone traveling with him on the antipapal plane to be fully vaccinated with the killer poisons, and has served as the waterboy for Klaus Schwab and George Soros, especially by means of supporting the 2030 “sustainable development goals” and serving as a clerical cheerleader for the transhumanist pantheism that is part and parcel of the “climate change” junk science (see Otto von Bergoglio’s Kulturkampf (or Jorge Mario Zedong’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution), part one, Otto von Bergoglio's Kulturkampf (or Jorge Mario Zedong's Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, part two, Otto von Bergoglio’s Kulturkampf (or Jorge Mario Zedong’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution), part three, and Otto von Bergoglio's Kulturkampf (or Jorge Mario Zedong's Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution), part four).

One of the “apostolic visitators, Gerald Kicanas, protected a known homosexual clerical predator, “Father” Daniel McCormack, when he, Kicanas, was an auxiliary “bishop” under the sodomite named Joseph Bernardin:

The documents name several Catholic leaders who were aware of the allegations against accused priests, and chose to not report it to authorities.

Among many others, Tucson Diocese Bishop Gerald Kicanas was one of the leaders in the Chicago Diocese at the time of these allegations.

The new information comes to light after the archdiocese handed the documents over to victims' attorneys, who said they wanted to show how the archdiocese concealed abuse for decades, including moving priests to new parishes where they molested again.

The records date back to the 1980's and 1990's, a time when Kicanas was a leader in a Chicago seminary that was home to some of the accused priests.

Tucson News Now attempted to talk to Bishop Kicanas at the diocese office, but we were told that unless we kept the case of convicted priest Daniel McCormack out of our story, the Bishop would not grant our request for an interview.

A diocese spokeswoman said the Bishop was under court order not to discuss specifics in that case.  We agreed not to ask questions about that particular case, but were told the Bishop would not interview with us unless we kept that case completely out of our story tonight.

The Bishop said it was unfair of us to mention the details, when he could not comment.  Former priest Daniel McCormack was charged and convicted of child abuse involving several young boys.  He was sentenced to five years in prison, all to be served concurrently.

In the 6,000 pages of investigative reports and court documents, Bishop Kicanas is mentioned in at least two cases: They involved Father Daniel McCormack and Father Russ Romano.

Lawyers say Bishop Kicanas was one of many Catholic Church leaders involved in a massive cover-up related to the priest sex-abuse cases.

In the Father McCormack case, court documents state Bishop Kicanas was aware of the allegations against McCormack but still supported his ordination to become a priest.  In an interview with the Sun-Times in 2007, Kicanas is quoted as saying, "It would have been grossly unfair not to have ordained him. There was a sense that his activity was part of the developmental process and that he had learned from his experience.  I was more concerned about his drinking.  We sent him to counseling for that." (Documents released: Bishop Kicanas named in priest sex scandal cover up.)

“Bishop” Joseph Strickland’s most grievous “crime” in Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s eyes is that he was adamantly opposed to the admission of homosexuals and the effeminate into the conciliar clergy and was opposed to the ever-evolving and ceaselessly mutating agenda of the alphabet soup collected of people who are not only to content to practice sodomy and its related vices but who demand that everyone accept and celebrate their “lifestyle” lest they singe their tender feelings and cause them even a moment of something approaching a qualm of conscience, thus replicating what Saint Paul the Apostle saw and condemned in pagan Rome and described as follows in his Epistle to the Romans:

For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them. (Romans 1: 18-32.)

Many there are within the “hierarchy” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism who are “filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, and whisperers who are truly hateful of God, “proud, haughty, inventors of evil inventions” and completely without mercy.” Jorge Mario Bergoglio boasts of being so very “tolerant” and “merciful,” but he seethes with livid anger against men such as Joseph Strickland who think that they are defending the Catholic Faith even though they themselves have endorsed dogmatic evolutionism wrapped up and relabeled in the late Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s “hermeneutic of continuity,” are full-throated supporters of “religious liberty,” believe that Protestant “ministers” have a “mission” from Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Christ to serve and to sanctity souls, have practiced false ecumenism, and have helped to propagate explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments in violation of Pope Pius XI’s explicit prohibition of such instruction as contained in Divine Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929, while seeking to hold as “orthodox” the conciliar church’s inversion of the ends proper to Holy Matrimony.

No matter all this, though, Jorge Mario Bergoglio wants every one of his “bishops” to support what he supports, namely, welcoming unrepentant sinners who are steeped in lives of an unapologetic perversity and proving them with access to what purports to be Holy Communion without going to confession and to “bless” that “stable, loving” relationships if the occasion arises for them to do so. The real reason why “Pope Francis” sacked “Bishop Strickland” is the latter’s outspokenness against sodomy, including his trip to Los Angeles, California, to denounce the Los Angeles Dodgers’ presentation of a “community service” award to the blasphemous “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence."

Related to this is Non-Papa Jorge's hatred of even the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that was in place universally for precisely four years before it was supplanted by Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI's Ordo Missae, which went into effect on the First Sunday of Advent, November 29, 1964, because the Mass of all ages contains references to God's Divine Judgment on sinners, the need to make reparation for our sins, and the possibility of eternal damnation. Such references in the "Eucharistic celebration" are considered to be too "judgmental" and contrary to the "spirit of times," which is reflected in Paragraph Fifteen of the 2002 English translation of the conciliar sect's General Instruction to the Roman Missal:

The same awareness of the present state of the world also influenced the use of texts from very ancient tradition. It seemed that this cherished treasure would not be harmed if some phrases were changed so that the style of language would be more in accord with the language of modern theology and would faithfully reflect the actual state of the Church's discipline. Thus there have been changes of some expressions bearing on the evaluation and use of the good things of the earth and of allusions to a particular form of outward penance belonging to another age in the history of the Church. (Paragraph Fifteen of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal, 2002.)

Now that the preliminaries are out of the way, it is important to emphasize once again that a man who believes himself to be a true bishop has a solemn obligation to obey a man he accepts as a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter. A man who believes himself to be a true bishop who concludes that he is duty bound to open criticize a true pope and to call his agenda opposed to the Sacred Deposit Faith has to have the intellectual honesty to conclude that such a “pope” is not pope at all and that the religious sect of which he heads is not now, has not been, nor can ever be the Catholic Church.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio talks about “collegiality” when it serves his purposes to browbeat the revanchists among his hierarchy and clergy to fall into life within by “smelling the scent of the sheep,” meaning never to call sinners stepped in sins of impurity, whether natural or unnatural, to correction and, failing that, to use his full plenipotentiary powers as a putative Supreme Pontiff to reshape the hierarchy so that they speak una voce dicentes as his vice-regents and emissaries. This is what a true pope should always want to do and the fact that the conciliar “popes,” including Jorge Mario Bergoglio, have sought to advance teachings that have been condemned by Holy Mother Church’s general councils and/or her true and legitimate Successors of Saint Peter should convince men who desire to defend the Faith such as “Bishop” Joseph Strickland, whom we saw once when we lived in Tyler, Texas, ten years ago as he was dining with an elderly couple at Oliveto Restaurant on the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary (no, I did not introduce myself as I did not want to interfere as was having his meal with his parishioners), that, despite their best intentions and the apostolic courage that prompts them to act upon those intentions, that none of what has been happening in the past sixty five years, sixteen days has anything to do with the Catholic Faith and everything to do with the rise of a counter church that is Holy Mother Church’s corrupt ape. (From Jorge Mario Bergoglio is Intent on Making the Protection of Sin Great Again.

It is perhaps only a matter of time before the Argentine Apostate “excommunicates” Joseph Strickland in the manner that he has done with another critic, whose own criticism of Bergoglio was highlighted in Jorge Mario Bergoglio is Only the End Product of a False Religion, "Father" Missigbeto eight months ago. For all his Modernism, Jorge Mario Bergoglio sure knows how to exercise the plenipotentiary powers of the papacy that he thinks are his to wield.

Ah, but the real coup-de-grace of “Pope Francis’s” eleventh year as the universal public face of apostasy came when he issued Fiducia Supplicans on December 18, 2023. There is not much more that can be said that I have not written previouslu, although I will provide a few excerpts from relevant commentaries on this site that were published on December 29, 2023, and December 31, 2023:

here is really no need to repeat in this commentary what has been stated at least fifty or sixty times before in various commentaries that I have written for this website.

However, let me summarize the following facts that have produced the truly Modernist piece of propaganda on behalf of those steeped in what are unrepentant Mortal Sins in the objective order of things, leaving all subjective considerations solely to the Divine Judge, Christ the King that is Fiducia Supplicans, December 18. 2023.

First, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has stated repeatedly that sins against Holy Purity are the “least of sins.” See, for example, The "Least of Sins"? Saint Alphonsus de Liguori Contra Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Second, the Argentine Apostate has also stated on various occasions, including in Amoris Laetitia, March 19, 2016, that is not Catholic to hold people to “impossible standards” of perfection, meaning, of course that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself did not mean it when He said, “  Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect  [Matthew 5:48], and, thus, that Our Divine Redeemer has commanded the impossible, a belief that is both heretical and blasphemous.

As Pope Pius XI noted in his Address to Italian Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951, when discussing situations wherein a husband and wife must maintain themselves in Josephite manner, “God does not demand the impossible.” The ineffable graces won for us by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ during His Passion, Death, and Resurrection on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of His Most Blessed Mother, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, are sufficient to keep the commandments and the precepts that flow therefrom perfectly. Those who do not take sins of impurity, whether natural or unnatural seriously, will find every excuse imaginable to rationalize such sins, up to and including directly blaspheming God in the process.

Third, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has used countless opportunities to indemnify sodomite behavior, starting with the following five words by which he dismissed the sodomite behavior of “Monsignor” Battista Ricca, “Who am I to judge?”, on Monday, July 29, 2013, and it was only two months later that a Frenchman said that “Pope” Francis had said to him in a telephone conversation that his “homosexuality” did not matter.

Bergoglio has made it a point to speak about “different kinds of families,” and he has enabled and empower the likes of James Martin, Timothy Radcliffe, New Ways Ministry, and DignityUSA while engaging in multiple meetings with those who had attempted to accomplish the ontologically and biologically impossible feat of mutilating their bodies by chemical and surgical means to change the genders God had given them while they in the womb. See, for example, Jorge Mario Bergoglio Leaves No Doubt: The Books Are Really Cooked, the Fix Is Really In.

Fourth, Senor Jorge the Blaspheming Heretic has made it a point to appoint and/or promote sodomite-friendly “bishops” such as Wilton Gregory, Blase Cupich, Joseph Tobin, John Stowe, Robert McElroy, et al., while going out of his way to punish the likes of “Bishop” Joseph Strickland, and he almost immediately undermined the 2021 declaration by the then named Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that the conciliar clergy could not "bless” sodomites engaged in some kind consensual union in unnatural vice:

Entirely unsurprising, therefore, the lay Jesuit revolutionary, who has been so very “welcoming” towards “bishops,” priests/presbyters and ordinary laymen steeped in perversity throughout his wrecking ball of a career as a false cleric imbued from his seminary days in false principles that he has put into practice with the anti-apostolic zeal of a demon, slyly undermined the “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s” reply to the “dubium” concerning “blessings” for those living in “civil unions” during his Angelus address of Sunday, March 21, 2021, which was Passion Sunday in the calendar of the Catholic Church but which was the “Fifth Sunday of Lent” in the disordered world of the counterfeit church of conciliarism:

Today too, many people, often without saying so, implicitly would like to “see Jesus”, to meet him, to know him. This is how we understand the great responsibility we Christians and of our communities have. We too must respond with the witness of a life that is given in service,  a life that takes upon itself the style of God – closeness, compassion and tenderness – and is given in service. It means sowing seeds of love, not with fleeting words but through concrete, simple and courageous examples, not with theoretical condemnations, but with gestures of love. Then the Lord, with his grace, makes us bear fruit, even when the soil is dry due to misunderstandings, difficulty or persecution, or claims of legalism or clerical moralism. This is barren soil. Precisely then, in trials and in solitude, while the seed is dying, that is the moment in which life blossoms, to bear ripe fruit in due time. It is in this intertwining of death and life that we can experience the joy and true fruitfulness of love, which always, I repeat, is given in God’s style: closeness, compassion, tenderness. (Angelus Address, March 21, 2021.)

Permit me a bit of conjecture, please.

As a Modernist, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a seasoned practitioner of speaking out of both sides of his mouth. He knows full well that news of his refusing to approve the “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s response to the “dubium” about “civil unions” would have been leaked if he chose to reject it. Clever little demon that he is, I believe, he “approved” the response but set about undermining so that “both sides” could “play ball,” so to speak, as he has absolutely no problem with the de facto practice of “blessing” “civil unions” as he his own appointees have permitted lesbians to have their children, conceived by artificial insemination or by “surrogate” mothers, baptized, and he has shown his own openness to sodomite-friendly priests/presbyters and he has said to private individuals that God does not “care” about homosexuality. (From Antipope Approveth, Antipope Undermineth What He Approveth.)

Fifth, Jorge Mario Bergoglio and the fiends he keeps appointing to his false religious sect’s dicasteries and hierarchy have sought to ignore and/or to diminish the relevance of the following words of Sacred Scripture that clearly condemn sodomy and its related vices in no uncertain terms, condemnations that were written under the direct and infallible inspiration provided by the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost. . . .

Victor Manuel Fernandez’s Fiducia Supplicans, therefore, is simply the manifestation of his fellow Argentine’s desire to make sodomites, lesbians, mutants, and others feel “included” even though their Mortal Sins exclude them from the life of Sanctifying Grace in their immortal souls and from eternal life in Heaven if they persist in these wretched sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance until the point of their deaths. All the document’s flowing words about the importance of blessings in stirring up graces within souls mean nothing as those who receive blessings must be willing to conform their lives to God’s laws.

Despite all the protestations to the contrary within the text of Fiducia Supplicans, the very fact that what purports to be the Catholic Church has seen fit to administer extra-liturgical, non-ritualized “blessings” to those who are said to be in “loving relationships” does indeed convey some kind of inherent “goodness” in that which is odious in the site of God as it perverts His love into an empty-headed concept of pure sentimentality. Ferndandez’s protestations that Fiducia Supplicans does not convey equate “same-sex” relationships with the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony are about as absurd as the repeated statements made by the likes of Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself that conciliarism’s embrace of false ecumenism and interreligious prayer services are not an embrace of religious indifferentism. The converse is true, of course, with respect to the “blessings” of practicing sodomites, mutants, et al., as it is true about the claims that false ecumenism is not religious indifferentism when it is precisely that.

Furthermore, if “blessings” are so important to “Pope Francis,” when did he not impart them to journalists shortly after his bogus election in 2013 nor to individuals gathered to greet him below the balcony of the United States Capitol building on Thursday, September 24, 2015, the Feast of Our Lady of Ransom?

As if to show himself a complete pagan, Bergoglio stepped out on the balcony of the United States Capitol to greet the crowd that had gathered in the area below. Here is an account of what transpired when House Speaker John Boehner (R-West Chester, Ohio) led him out to the balcony:

In improvised remarks made from the balcony of the American Congress to huge crowds gathered in the National Mall in Washington, Pope Francis asked God to bless all the people of America, especially the children and their families. Speaking in his native Spanish, he asked the crowds to pray for him too, adding that “if there are among you any who do not believe or cannot pray, I ask you please to send good wishes my way”.

The Pope's impromptu greeting came after his address inside Congress to a joint meeting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Before taking his leave of the cheering crowds lining the Mall, the Pope said in English “Thank you very much – and God bless America!” (Bergoglio gives impromptu greeting to crowds in Washington Mall.)

It is as though Jorge said, "Hey, baby, send me some good vibes." To quote a friend of ours, "What a jerk."

I do not have “good wishes” to send your way, Senor Bergoglio. I offer prayers for your conversion as, objectively speaking, you are leading men and their nations to the eternal hellfire that awaits you if your persist in your apostasy to the moment you die. “Time” will be judge you then. Christ the King will do so, and you are deceiving yourself if you think that you’ve got it made.

Obviously, none of us have it “made,” which is why we must accept all penances with joy as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits. (From Polluting the Atmosphere With the Smoke of Antichrist, part three.)

In plain English, of course, Fiducia Supplicans uses doublespeak to clumsily suggest that those who have do no desires to reform their lives want God’s assistance to “live better lives” even while continuing to sin unrepentantly. The real fact of the matter is that the sodomites, lesbians, and mutants have long desired these “blessings” as they convey precisely what Victor Manuel Fernandez says that they do; not: namely, “blessings” that connote God’s favor upon their lives.

Here is one of the efforts Fernandez made within the text of Fiducia Supplicans to absurdly claim that God can bestow his favor upon those who refuse to reform their lives by humbly confessing their sins and then to remove from their lives all associations that are sinful or present the near occasion of sin:

27. In the catechesis cited at the beginning of this Declaration, Pope Francis proposed a description of this kind of blessing that is offered to all without requiring anything. It is worth reading these words with an open heart, for they help us grasp the pastoral meaning of blessings offered without preconditions: “It is God who blesses. In the first pages of the Bible, there is a continual repetition of blessings. God blesses, but humans also give blessings, and soon it turns out that the blessing possesses a special power, which accompanies those who receive it throughout their lives, and disposes man’s heart to be changed by God. [...] So we are more important to God than all the sins we can commit because he is father, he is mother, he is pure love, he has blessed us forever. And he will never stop blessing us. It is a powerful experience to read these biblical texts of blessing in a prison or in a rehabilitation group. To make those people feel that they are still blessed, notwithstanding their serious mistakes, that their heavenly Father continues to will their good and to hope that they will ultimately open themselves to the good. Even if their closest relatives have abandoned them, because they now judge them to be irredeemable, God always sees them as his children.”[19] (Fiducia Supplicans, December 18, 2023.)

Blasphemy.

Heresy.

God is “mother?”

God hates sin.

God’s love for us is an act of His Holy Will, which is directed at the sanctification and salvation our immortal souls, and no one truly loves another if he does or says anything that contrary to the sanctification and salvation of his immortal soul. You and I know this, of course, but Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Victor Manuel Fernandez do not believe that sodomy excludes one from the Kingdom of God or hereafter. They are blasphemous heretics.

God does not suborn sin.

God does not bless sin, and He does not bless those who are intent of living in Mortal Sin.

It is that simple. (From: Jorge Demands That His Clergy Suborn Sins That Cry Out to Heaven for Vengeance.)

In what must be something of a surprise to Senor Jorge, many of his African “bishops” are forbidding their clergy from administering these “blessings,” and they are doing so on right principles. In addition to “Archbishop” Anyolo’s statement on behalf of the Kenyan conciliar clergy, conciliar “bishops” in Malawi and Rwanda have forbidden the implantation of Fiducia Supplicans within their countries, and the “bishops” of Cameroon have issued their own very strong condemnation of the document that was produced by one Argentinian heretic and approved by another Argentinian heretic:

YAOUNDÉ, Cameroon (LifeSiteNews) — The Catholic bishops of Cameroon have issued one of the strongest rejections of Pope Francis’ document advocating for same-sex blessings, stating that they “formally forbid” any blessings of same-sex couples in the country.

“Homosexuality falsifies and corrupts human anthropology and trivializes sexuality, marriage and the family, the foundations of society,” read the Cameroon bishops’ statement. “In fact homosexuality sets humanity against itself and destroys it.”

Signed by on behalf of the 33 prelates of the country by Archbishop Andrew Fuanya Nkea (president of the National Episcopal Conference of Cameroon) their document was issued “for the sake of human dignity and the salvation of all humanity in Jesus Christ.” 

Published December 21 – in response to Pope Francis’ and Cardinal Victor Fernández’s December 18 text Fiducia Supplicans approving blessing of same-sex couples – the statement made reference to a “wave of indignation, questioning and concern” which had spread in light of Fiducia Supplicans.

The Cameroon bishops’ statement marks perhaps the strongest intervention yet in the unprecedented, swift fallout over the Vatican’s document. They condemned not just the practice of same-sex blessings, but the practice of even tolerating homosexuality. Drawing on Catholic teaching and Sacred Scripture, the text stated how the practice of homosexuality is “a flagrant violation of the heritage bequeathed to us by our ancestors,” and was a “clear sign of the imploding decadence of civilizations.” 

quoted from Romans (1:26) noting that “homosexual acts are not ‘sexual,’ but ‘acts against nature.’” 

Continuing, they wrote: 

homosexuality is not a human right. It is an alienation that seriously harms humanity because it is not based on any value proper to the human being: it is a dehumanization of love, “an abomination.” (Lev 18:22)

Furthermore, “rejecting it [homosexuality] is in no way being discriminative; it is a legitimate protection of the constant values of humanity in the face of a vice that has become the subject of a claim to legal recognition and, today, the subject of a blessing,” they added. 

While the Pope’s text argued in favor of blessings for couples in same-sex relationships, without demanding repentance of rejection of the homosexual lifestyle, the Cameroon bishops warned that this practice was impossible for the Catholic Church. To offer a blessing to a homosexual couple “would be tantamount to encouraging a choice and practice of life that cannot be recognized as being objectively ordered to the reveal designs of God,” they wrote. (Cameroon bishops ‘formally forbid all blessings of homosexual couples’.)

I do not believe that too many conciliar priests or presbyters, in the United States of America, many of whom have made so many compromises over the years as their have progressed up the clerical ladder in their careers that they no longer possess the prophetic courage necessary to stand up as forthrightly as have many of the African “bishops” (as well as those in Hungary, Kazakhstan, and the very secular country of Uruguay), will suddenly find the courage that they have suppressed for so long to defend the plain truth that homosexuality and effeminacy are abhorrent in the sight of the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity.

As strong as some of the statements from some of the conciliar "bishops" in Africa have been, however, there is the itsy-bitsy little problem represented by the fact that a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter would never have issued Fiducia Supplicans, and perhaps more to the point, no true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter would have approved Sacrosanctum Concilium, Lumen Gentium, Dignitatis Humanae, Gaudium et Spes, Nostra Aetate, nor would he have engaged in inter-religious “prayer” services, signed “joint declarations” with various Protestant and Orthodox officials, praised pagan religions and wished them well on their diabolically inspired festival days, or embraced all manner of globalist and transhumanist agenda items as ritualistically has been done by the conciliar “popes.” The conciliar “bishops” who are opposing Fiducia Supplicans must come to realize that their problem is not Jorge Mario Bergoglio per se but the false, Hegelian, and Judeo-Masonic foundation upon which, as noted earlier, the entire conciliar enterprise is built and upon which it must collapse right on top of itself.

While it remains to be seen whether the “merciful” “Pope Francis” will move against those “bishops” who are firmly opposing Fiducia Supplicans as he moved so quickly against “Bishop” Joseph Strickland, this opposition, however much it is contrary to the monarchical nature of the papacy, might serve to be for Bergoglio what Humanae Vitae was for Montini/Paul VI: the vitiation of his “pontificate’s” ability to persuade his “bishops” to obey him. (From: Jorge Demands that His Clergy Suborn Sins That Cry Out to Heaven for Vengeance, part two.)

As we know, of course, “Pope Francis” did surrender to the criticism of the African “bishops,” but Victor Manuel Fernandez patronized them for clinging to “cultural traditions” that view sodomy as inherently sinful (see Two Argentine Fiends Patronize African “Bishops” In Defense of Sodomy), a claim that Bergoglio himself made on January 29, 2024:

VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis said in an interview published on Monday that Africans were a “special case” in the opposition of bishops and many other people in the continent to homosexuality.

But he said he was confident that, except for Africans, critics of his decision to allow blessings for same-sex couples would eventually understand it.

Blessings were allowed last month in a document called Fiducia Supplicans (Supplicating Trust), which has caused widespread debate in the Catholic Church, with particularly strong resistance coming from African bishops.

“Those who protest vehemently belong to small ideological groups,” Francis told Italian newspaper La Stampa. “A special case are Africans: for them homosexuality is something ‘bad’ from a cultural point of view, they don’t tolerate it”.

“But in general, I trust that gradually everyone will be reassured by the spirit of the ‘Fiducia Supplicans’ declaration by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith: it aims to include, not divide,” the pope said.

Last week, Francis appeared to acknowledge the pushback the document received, especially in Africa, where bishops have effectively rejected it and where in some countries same-sex can lead to prison or even the death penalty.

He said that when the blessings are given, priests should “naturally take into account the context, the sensitivities, the places where one lives and the most appropriate ways to do it.”

In the interview with La Stampa, Francis said he was not concerned about the risk of conservatives breaking away from the Catholic Church due to his reforms, saying that talk of a schism is always led by “small groups.” (Pope says Africans are ‘special case’ when it comes to LGBTQ blessings.)

It is clear, you see, that Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not believe that sodomy is inherently evil or “bad,” that the poor, backward Africans oppose sodomy because of “cultural” circumstances, not because they know it is opposed to nature itself and has been condemned solemnly in Sacred Scripture, every word of which was inspired directly by the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost. (From Corrupt in Faith, Worship, Morals, and Pastoral Practice.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s false pontificate is simply the result of teleology of the errors upon which the entire conciliar enterprise is based.

As I noted at the beginning of this commentary, which did not even touch on many other matters, including Bergoglio’s saying that “he likes to think that hell is empty” (see Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s “Thoughts” Are Irrelevant to Catholic Truth) nor his continued celebration of the Abu Dhabi document on “fraternity and living together (see Jorge Mario Bergoglio Celebrates the "Fruits" of the Abu Dhabi Apostasy as the Middle East is Aflame With Conflict), no true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter has ever made war upon the Catholic Faith or the members of the Church Militant on the face of this earth. Such a papal warfare is impossible as the jaws of hell can never prevail against the infallibility of a true pope nor the infallibility of Holy Mother Church’s universal ordinary magisterium (see Just Ignore Him?)

Father Francis X. Weninger, S.J., the great German missionary to the United States of America who traveled throughout the country, particularly in the Midwest, in the latter part of the Nineteenth Century wrote a book in defense of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility that included the following quotation from the one hundred fifty-seventh letter of Saint Ambrose:

In his 157th letter he remarks: “The Catholic faith derives so much strength and support from the words of the Apostolic See, that it is criminal to entertain any doubts concerning it.” “In verbis sedis Apostolicce tarn antiqua aique fundala, certa et clara est Catholica jides, ut nefas sit de ilia dubitare.” (Father Francis X. Weninger, S.J., On The Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and On His Relation to a General Council, Third Edition. New York: Sadlier and Company, 1890; Cincinnati, Ohio: John P. Walsh, 1890.)

In plain English, you see, at the heart of the whole crisis facing the Church Militant on earth right now is whether Jorge Mario Bergoglio is indeed a true Successor of Saint Peter. If he is, then Catholics must submit to his governance on matters of Faith and Morals with docility. There has never been a circumstance in the history of the Catholic Church where individuals, both in the clergy and in the laity, have acted on almost universal basis throughout the world as a sort of "super magisterium" to monitor the correctness of papal decrees and decisions. Sure, there have been instances of this confined to various regions at one point or another, which is why Pope Pius VI condemned the illegal Synod of Pistoia and its tenets in Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794.

However, there has never been a period before in the history of the Catholic Church in which one pope after another has contradicted the past dogmatic decrees and dared to commit one blasphemy after another against the honor and majesty and glory of God. One must come to recognize that such apostasy and blasphemy is not of God and that it cannot come from the Catholic Church. It took me long enough to "get it" despite entreaties made by one person after another dating back to November 25, 1976. Men who speak and act as the conciliarists have done have expelled themselves from the Catholic Church. Millions upon millions of Catholics gave up their lives rather than even to give the appearance of the sort of blasphemies that have become commonplace in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

On Friday in the Fourth Week of Lent

Today, Friday, March 15, 2024, is Friday in the Fourth Week of Lent and the Commemoration of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s Passion (it is also the Feast of Saint Clement Mary Hofbauer in some places.

The Gospel that is read at Holy Mass today is that of Our Lord raising his friend Lazarus of Bethany from the dead, which was the subject of the following commentary offered by Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., in The Liturgical Year:

Let us meditate upon this admirable history; and as we meditate, let us hope; for it not only shows us what Jesus does for the souls of others, but what he has done for ours. Let us also renew our prayers for the Penitents, who now, throughout the world are preparing for the great reconciliation. It is not a mother that is here represented as praying for the resurrection of her child; it is two sisters asking this grace for a brother. The example must not be lost on us—we must pray for one another. But let us take our Gospel in the order of its truths.

First, Lazarus was sick; and then, he died. The sinner begins by being tepid and careless; and then he receives the mortal wound. Jesus could have cured Lazarus of his sickness; but he permitted it to be fatal. He intends to work such a miracle, and that within sight of Jerusalem, that his enemies shall have no excuse for refusing to receive him as the Messias. He would also prove that he is the sovereign Master of life, in order that he might hereby teach his Apostles and Disciples not to be scandalized at the death he himself was soon to suffer. In the moral sense, God, in his wisdom, sometimes leaves an ungrateful soul to itself, although he foresees that it will fall into sin. It will rise again; and the confusion it will feel for having sinned will lead it to that great preservative against a future fall—humility.

The two sisters, Martha and Mary, are full of grief, yet full of confidence in Jesus. Let us observe how their two distinct characters are shown on this occasion. Jesus tells Martha that he is the Resurrection and the Life, and that they who believe in him shall not die, that is, shall not die the death of sin. But when Mary came to him, and he saw her weeping, he groaned in the spirit, and troubled himself, because he knew the greatness of her love. His divine Heart was touched with compassion as he beheld those who were so dear to him, smarting under that chastisement of death, which sin had brought into the world. Having reached the sepulcher where Lazarus was buried, he wept, for he loved Lazarus. Thus did our Redeemer by his own weeping sanctify the tears which Christian affection sheds over the grave of a relative or friend. Lazarus has been in the sepulcher four days: it is the image of the sinner buried in his sin. To see him now is what even his sister shudders at: but Jesus rebukes her, and bids them take away the stone. Then, with that voice which commands all nature and makes hell tremble, he cried out Lazarus, come forth! He that had been dead rises up in the sepulcher; but his feet and hands are tied, his face is covered with a napkin; he lives, but he can neither walk nor see. Jesus orders him to be set free; and then, by the hands of the men that are present, he receives the use of his limbs and eyes. So is it with the sinner that receives pardon. There is no voice but that of Jesus which can call him to conversion, and touch his heart, and bring him to confess his sins; but Jesus has put into the hands of Priests the power to loosen, enlighten, and give movement. This miracle, which was wrought by our Savior at this very season of the year, filled up the measure of his enemies’ rage, and set them thinking how they could soonest put him to death. The few days he has still to live are all to be spent at Bethania, where the miracle has taken place, and which is but a short distance from Jerusalem. In nine days from this, he will make his triumphant entry into the faithless city, after which he will return to Bethania, and after three or four days, will once more enter Jerusalem, there to consummate the Sacrifice, whose infinite merits are to purchase resurrection for sinners.

The early Christians loved to see this history of our Lord’s raising Lazarus to life painted in the walls of the Catacombs. We also find it carved on the Sarcophagi of the fourth and fifth centuries; and later on, it was not unfrequently chosen as a subject for the painted windows of our Cathedrals. This symbol of spiritual resurrection was formerly honored by a most solemn ceremony in the great Monastery of Holy Trinity at Vendôme, in France. Every year, on this day, a criminal who had been sentenced to death was led to the Church of the Monastery. He had a rope round his neck, and held in his hand a torch weighing thirty-three pounds, in memory of the years spent on earth by our Savior. The Monks made a procession in which the criminal joined; after which a sermon was preached, at which he also assisted. He was then taken to the foot of the Altar, where the Abbot, after exhorting him to repentance, imposed on him, as a penance, the pilgrimage to Saint Martin’s Church at Tours. The Abbot loosened the rope from his neck and declared him to be free. The origin of this ceremony was that when Louis of Bourbon, Count of Vendôme, was prisoner in England, in the year 1426, he made a vow that if God restored him to liberty, he would establish this custom in the Church of Holy Trinity as a return of gratitude and as an homage to Christ, who raised up Lazarus from the tomb. God accepted the vow, and the Prince soon recovered his freedom. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year Friday in the Fourth Week of Lent.)

This is a wonderful meditation to afford us hope in our salvation despite our tepidity, perhaps even during this penitential season of Lent, and it affords us the hope also that Holy Mother Church, which is undergoing her mystical passion at this time (see            ), will indeed rise up from her contemporary, figurative catacombs as she arose from the actual catacombs of the first three centuries.

Christ is King.

His Most Blessed Mother is our Immaculate Queen.

Saint Joseph is the Patron of the Universal Church and the Protector of the Faithful.

Relying upon our dear Blessed Mother, especially through her Most Holy Rosary, and upon the patronage our Good Saint Joseph, may we pray for the day when the triumph of her Immaculate Heart will be triumphant and a true pope and a true reverence for the papacy itself will be restored for the honor and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity and for the sanctification and salvation of the souls redeemed by every single drop of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s Most Precious Blood.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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