Women Priests Are No Longer Just the Stuff of Fantasies

I had the privilege in the Fall of 1984 of compiling a name index for an anthology of his articles that were published under the title of Women Priests and Other Fantasies, finding time for this while I was teaching three courses as an adjunct professor in the Department of Government and Politics at Saint John's University in Jamaica, Queens, New York. Although I had spent a year living in the same residence, Saint Philip's Hall, at Holy Apostles Seminary as Father Miceli in the 1983-1984 academic year, and got to know him very well during that time, I was very impressed with the careful nature of his good Catholic scholarship in the book he asked me to index. This scholarship was also evident in his other books, including his doctoral dissertation at Fordham University, Ascent to Being, and The Gods of Atheism, The Antichrist, The Roots of Violence and his last book, a collection of retreat talks, Rendezvous with God.

Father Miceli, who entered the New Orleans Province of the Society of Jesus in 1936 at the age of twenty-one and was ordained to the Holy Priesthood in 1949, was, though, a boy from the South Bronx to the core of his pugnacious being. He was a street-fighter without peer. He loved to tear heretics to shreds with his incisive intelligence and his sharp, biting wit. One of his favorite ways of referring to a Catholic who dissent from the Sacred Deposit of Faith was by saying, "He [or she] is a disaaaaassta!"

To wit, pun completely intended, Father Miceli was eating a tuna fish salad sandwich in the refectory of Holy Apostles Seminary in Cromwell, Connecticut, in September of 1983. I was seated at the table with him along with two seminarians, Michael Scott and Anthony Mary Dandry, who were installed as presbyters for the Diocese of Metuchen in 1987 and 1989, respectively (both now deceased).

Also at the table was a woman who was taking theology courses at the seminary for "theological fulfillment" just "in case" God the Holy Ghost "changed His mind" about ordaining women to the priesthood. Father Miceli patiently gave one learned explanation after another to this woman to show her about the ontological impossibility of ordaining women to the priesthood. Finally, however, Father Miceli, having reached the point of total intellectual exasperation, just shook his head in disbelief and spoke while chewing his tuna fish salad sandwich, "Lady, you're crazy!" He then smiled broadly, being very pleased with himself, and looked from side to side for approvals of satisfaction from the rest of us, which he, quite of course, received.

Well, “women priests” are no longer the stuff of fantasies in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Like everything else in the false conciliar sect, today’s forbidden practice is tomorrow’s “innovation” that is approved by the conciliar officials in the Vatican after decades of disobedience has accustomed the “people” to a feature that has no precedent in the history of the Catholic Church. The same will be true one day of “women priests.”

Conciliarism has opened up a veritable Pandora's Box of relentless change and innovation that has robbed millions upon millions of Catholics of their sensus Catholicus and bewildered and confused those who do have something left of that sensus Catholicus. Protestations against the nonadmissability of women to the priesthood ring rather hollow when one considers the fact that women can touch what is purported to be the Sacred Species with their own hands as they distribute Holy Communion to the faithful in their roles as "extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist." Women can proclaim the Word of God as lectors. They can lead "priestless" "Communion services." They can serve as administrators of parishes, having the responsibility, given to them by their "ordinaries," to supervise the work of "priests," thereby further emasculating the notion of the priesthood as an imaging of the Chief Priest and Victim of every Mass.

There are women serving as chancellors of the Catholic dioceses that are now in the hands of the conciliar revolutionaries. There has even been some talk from officials in the conciliar Vatican of permitting deaconesses. With little else in the counterfeit church of conciliarism that has not been subject to change and reconsideration and reinterpretation, why should the average Catholic think that Our Lord's own choice exclusively of males to His Holy Priesthood is not going to "change" at some point in the future.

I asked Dr. John Page, the Executive Director of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (I.C.E.L.) from 1980 to 2002, when interviewing him in his offices in Washington, District of Columbia, for The Wanderer in 1993 if any of the scores of "experts" listed as ICEL's advisors supported ordination of women to the priesthood. He gave a vague answer, saying only that it was his job and that of I.C.E.L. to "push the liturgy into the Twenty-first Century." That answer was not a denial of the presence of perhaps even large number of ICEL "advisors" who supported women's ordination to the conciliar presbyterate, something that many theologians in the conciliar structures have long contended is only a "matter of time."

Even though Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II had reiterated the impossibility of the ordination of women to what is purported to be the Catholic priesthood, the expectations created by egalitarianism and feminism encouraged by the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service helped to prepare the way for ever newer “changes” on the level of universal praxis in the conciliar world after years of acts of disobedience that went unpunished by one conciliar “pope” after another.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who has long cleaved to the Jacobin/Girondist view of the conciliar revolution, is merely ending any pretense that there is any token “opposition” inside the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River to “unapproved” practices that he believes is tearing down the “walls of exclusion” that have thus prevented women from what he believes is their rightful place in the leadership of liturgy and church administration. In other words, the Argentine Apostate, serving the role of the adversary himself, wants to place women over men, thus inverting the very order of Creation (Nature) and Redemption (Grace) signified by Our Lady’s humble fiat to the will of God the Father at the Annunciation that untied the knot of Eve’s prideful disobedience to God when she ate from the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Conciliarism has thus resulted in creating expectations that lead people into believing that ontological absurdities are possible even though its own officialdom does not see how this has occurred. Moreover, the exigencies of false ecumenism have been such that those in false religions believe that they have a mission from God Himself to "push" what they believe to be the "Catholic" Church further and further in the direction of the "enlightenment" represented by the most revolutionary strains of modern though, strains that reject the subordination of women even to Our Lord Himself (which is what the chapel veil signifies) and emphasizes the strict equality of all men at all times in all circumstances in order to appease the insatiable pride of those who do not accept the simple fact that each of us, whether a man or a woman, must conform our lives at all times to the Mind of God Himself as He has discharged It exclusively in the Catholic Church that He founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. Such a due submission of men and women to the authority of the Catholic Church is opposed to the spirit of the "enlightenment," which rejects the Social and Personal Kingship of Jesus Christ over nations and over individual human beings, a spirit which exults in the unabashed "freedoms of speech, of press, and of religion" that permit error to be spread and souls to be confused by all manner of insidious poisons.

This is why Bergoglio has now made de jure what he himself did in Argentina and has done as “Pope Francis,” namely, to wash the feet of women on Maundy Thursday:

Vatican City, 21 January 2016 (VIS) – The Holy Father has written a letter, dated 20 December and published today, to Cardinal Robert Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, in which he decrees that from now on, the people chosen for the washing of the feet in the liturgy of Holy Thursday may be selected from all the People of God, and not only men and boys.

The Pope writes to the cardinal that he has for some time reflected on the "rite of the washing of the feet contained in the Liturgy of the Mass in Coena Domini, with the intention of improving the way in which it is performed so that it might express more fully the meaning of Jesus' gesture in the Cenacle, His giving of Himself unto the end for the salvation of the world, His limitless charity".

"After careful consideration", he continues, "I have decided to make a change to the Roman Missal. I therefore decree that the section according to which those persons chosen for the Washing of the feet must be men or boys, so that from now on the Pastors of the Church may choose the participants in the rite from among all the members of the People of God. I also recommend that an adequate explanation of the rite itself be provided to those who are chosen".

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has today published a decree on the aforementioned rite, dated 6 January 2016, the full text of which is published below:

"The reform of the Holy Week, by the decree Maxima Redemptionis nostrae mysteria of November 1955, provides the faculty, where counselled by pastoral motives, to perform the washing of the feet of twelve men during the Mass of the Lord's Supper, after the reading of the Gospel according to John, as if almost to represent Christ's humility and love for His disciples.

In the Roman liturgy this rite was handed down with the name of the Mandatum of the Lord on brotherly charity in accordance with Jesus' words, sung in the Antiphon during the celebration.

In performing this rite, bishops and priests are invited to conform intimately to Christ who 'came not to be served but to serve' and, driven by a love 'to the end', to give His life for the salvation of all humankind.

To manifest the full meaning of the rite to those who participate in it, the Holy Father Francis has seen fit to change the rule by in the Roman Missal (p.300, No. 11) according to which the chosen men are accompanied by the ministers, which must therefore be modified as follows: 'Those chosen from among the People of God are accompanied by the ministers' (and consequently in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum No. 301 and No. 299 b referring to the seats for the chosen men, so that pastors may choose a group of faithful representing the variety and unity of every part of the People of God. This group may consist of men and women, and ideally of the young and the old, healthy and sick, clerics, consecrated persons and laypeople.

This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, by means of the faculties granted by the Supreme Pontiff, introduces this innovation in the liturgical books of the Roman Rite, recalling pastors of their duty to instruct adequately both the chosen faithful and others, so that they may participate in the rite consciously, actively and fruitfully". (hAnother "Abuse" Gets "Regularized" for Universal Abuse.)

There you have the ideology of the conciliar liturgical revolution in a nutshell: to foster a liturgy in which everyone may “participate in the rite consciously, actively and fruitfully,” which implies that Catholics who worshipped from time immemorial in the Mass of Tradition were unconscious, passive and fruitless in their apostolic works, especially that of charity. Such a belief is blasphemous and defames the great, heroic sacrifices made by the Catholics of all ages prior to the dawning of the age of conciliarism to maintain the true Faith even in the midst of threats to their very lives made by infidels, Protestants, the Orthodox, Mohammedans, social revolutions of one kind or another (French, Nazi, Soviet, Maoist, Castroist, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Laotian, Sandinista, etc.), and Judeo-Masonry.

Pope Pius XII dealt with such revolutionary fare as follows in Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947:

108. Many of the faithful are unable to use the Roman missal even though it is written in the vernacular; nor are all capable of understanding correctly the liturgical rites and formulas. So varied and diverse are men's talents and characters that it is impossible for all to be moved and attracted to the same extent by community prayers, hymns and liturgical services. Moreover, the needs and inclinations of all are not the same, nor are they always constant in the same individual. Who, then, would say, on account of such a prejudice, that all these Christians cannot participate in the Mass nor share its fruits? On the contrary, they can adopt some other method which proves easier for certain people; for instance, they can lovingly meditate on the mysteries of Jesus Christ or perform other exercises of piety or recite prayers which, though they differ from the sacred rites, are still essentially in harmony with them. (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947.)

“Mass” in the vernacular has helped “the people” to understand the liturgy?

Hardly.

There has been a massive decline of baptized Catholics frequenting the supposed “easier to understand” and “more accessible” liturgy in the vernacular and, of course, a concomitant loss of Faith, even in theoretical sense, of the Real Presence of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, admitting that He is not in any of the Roman Rite churches under the control of the conciliar revolutionaries save for those few instances in which a true priest has offered the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition and reserved consecrate Hosts in a tabernacle.

“Mass” in the vernacular has brought about “full, active and conscious” participation” of the faithful in the liturgy? This means, of course, that every truly canonized saint who either offered or assisted at the Immemorial Mass of Tradition were not fully, actively, and consciously participating in the ineffable Sacrifice of Calvary, perpetuated in an unbloody manner by an alter Christus acting in persona Christi.

Everything that the conciliar revolutionaries, including Jorge Mario Bergoglio, have been asserting about the "fruit" of the conciliar stage-show (Novus Ordo liturgical service) as opposed to the "rigidity" and "formality" of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition had been rejected resoundingly by Pope Pius XII as follows:

162. From what We have already explained, Venerable Brethren, it is perfectly clear how much modern writers are wanting in the genuine and true liturgical spirit who, deceived by the illusion of a higher mysticism, dare to assert that attention should be paid not to the historic Christ but to a "pneumatic" or glorified Christ. They do not hesitate to assert that a change has taken place in the piety of the faithful by dethroning, as it were, Christ from His position; since they say that the glorified Christ, who liveth and reigneth forever and sitteth at the right hand of the Father, has been overshadowed and in His place has been substituted that Christ who lived on earth. For this reason, some have gone so far as to want to remove from the churches images of the divine Redeemer suffering on the cross.

163. But these false statements are completely opposed to the solid doctrine handed down by tradition. "You believe in Christ born in the flesh," says St. Augustine, "and you will come to Christ begotten of God."[148] In the sacred liturgy, the whole Christ is proposed to us in all the circumstances of His life, as the Word of the eternal Father, as born of the Virgin Mother of God, as He who teaches us truth, heals the sick, consoles the afflicted, who endures suffering and who dies; finally, as He who rose triumphantly from the dead and who, reigning in the glory of heaven, sends us the Holy Paraclete and who abides in His Church forever; "Jesus Christ, yesterday and today, and the same forever."[149] Besides, the liturgy shows us Christ not only as a model to be imitated but as a master to whom we should listen readily, a Shepherd whom we should follow, Author of our salvation, the Source of our holiness and the Head of the Mystical Body whose members we are, living by His very life.

164. Since His bitter sufferings constitute the principal mystery of our redemption, it is only fitting that the Catholic faith should give it the greatest prominence. This mystery is the very center of divine worship since the Mass represents and renews it every day and since all the sacraments are most closely united with the cross.[150]

165. Hence, the liturgical year, devotedly fostered and accompanied by the Church, is not a cold and lifeless representation of the events of the past, or a simple and bare record of a former age. It is rather Christ Himself who is ever living in His Church. Here He continues that journey of immense mercy which He lovingly began in His mortal life, going about doing good,[151] with the design of bringing men to know His mysteries and in a way live by them. These mysteries are ever present and active not in a vague and uncertain way as some modern writers hold, but in the way that Catholic doctrine teaches us. According to the Doctors of the Church, they are shining examples of Christian perfection, as well as sources of divine grace, due to the merit and prayers of Christ; they still influence us because each mystery brings its own special grace for our salvation. Moreover, our holy Mother the Church, while proposing for our contemplation the mysteries of our Redeemer, asks in her prayers for those gifts which would give her children the greatest possible share in the spirit of these mysteries through the merits of Christ. By means of His inspiration and help and through the cooperation of our wills we can receive from Him living vitality as branches do from the tree and members from the head; thus slowly and laboriously we can transform ourselves "unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ."[152]

166. In the course of the liturgical year, besides the mysteries of Jesus Christ, the feasts of the saints are celebrated. Even though these feasts are of a lower and subordinate order, the Church always strives to put before the faithful examples of sanctity in order to move them to cultivate in themselves the virtues of the divine Redeemer. (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947.)

The Immemorial Mass of Tradition communicates the permanence and the transcendence of God and the solemnity due Him in a fitting act of worship wherein His Divine Son’s Redemptive Act in atonement for our sins on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday is extended or perpetuated in time in an unbloody manner by an alter Christus acting in persona Christi. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not a spectacle of human emotionalism, sentimentality, community fellowship or collective affirmation of unrepentant sinners in their lives of sin. It is a propitiatory offering for the sins of men, and even illiterate peasants in the Middle Ages knew this to be so as their hearts and souls were filled with reverence as they adored God as the ineffable Sacrifice of the Cross was made present before their very eyes, which beheld the Lamb of God in the Sacred Species, He who takest away the sis of the world.

The Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service, however, is a means of communicating a Protestant and Masonic sense of egalitarianism, which means that lay people, especially women, must invade the preserve that is the sanctuary, wherein only men are permitted to act either as ordained priests deacons, or subdeacons or as non-ordained men serve as extensions of the hands of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, a man, Who chose twelve men, not women, to be His Apostles.

The conciliar revolutionaries do not respect the fact that the Word Who was made Flesh in His Most Blessed Mother’s Virginal and Immaculate Womb was not “bound” by the “constraints” of the time in which He lived and the constraints of the “patriarchal” Jewish religion. Christ the King is God, Omniscient and Omnipotent. He did choose women to be present at the Last Supper to be ordained to the episcopacy, the fullness of His Holy Priesthood, because men act as the progenitors, to whom women must be subject as they, the men, themselves are subject to Him I all things.

Yet it is that the conciliar revolutionaries have done with the matter of women having their feet washed in the Novus Ordo version of the “Mass of the Last Supper” on the evening of Maundy Thursday as they had done in the past with communion-in-the-hand and altar girls: they ignored the Vatican’s “official line,” knowing full well that there would come a day when the stodgy spoilsports in the Vatican would bend to the “reality” as it exists at the “retail” level in conciliar-occupied dioceses and archdioceses around the world.

Indeed, William F. Murphy, a product of the lawlessly corrupt Archdiocese of Boston during the reign of Bernard "Cardinal" Law who has served nearly fifteen years now as the conciliar “bishop” of the diocese in which I spent close to an aggregate of forty-two years or so, the Diocese of Rockville Centre, wrote an article to “thank” “Pope Francis” for permitting what had become an accepted practice in an area that was decimated by over twenty-four years of revolutionary destruction wrought by the late “Bishop” John Raymond McGann:

On the Feast of St. Agnes, The Vatican News published a letter of the Holy Father approving a change in the norms for the washing of feet at the Holy Thursday Mass of the Lord’s Supper. As your Bishop, I want publicly to thank the Holy Father for this act that clarifies in a positive way a norm that was written in 1955 when Pope Pius XII issued his own reforms for the celebrations of Holy Week. This act of Pius XII was a true watershed moment in the renewal of the Roman Liturgy for Holy Week, the most important and central part of our life as a worshipping community. The 1955 norms called for a renewal of the liturgical action of “washing the feet” of twelve men (the Latin is VIRI, males.).

In subsequent years in many dioceses of the United States, including our own, the practice grew up of washing the feet of both men and women, young and old members of the parish community. Over 25 years ago, the U.S. Bishops Conference wrote to the Congregation for Rites asking for a clarification of the word, VIRI, and pointed out that pastoral practice in our country had varied and the bishops would hope that the Congregation would take this into account. The Congregation responded at that time saying that no decision was available at that time and that dioceses might continue to follow whatever the local practice was until there would be a clarification. Thus our Diocese was acting correctly in continuing the practice of including male and female.

While the Congregation’s rescript of January 21 will not change our practice, the Pope has resolved in a very positive way a certain doubt that lingered among some of our brothers and sisters about what is permitted or not. What we have done we will continue to do, now with the blessing of Pope Francis whose sensitivity has removed that doubt.

Media reports, once again, have added their own “spin” to this simple but helpful act. They claim that some “traditional Catholics” fear this will discourage vocations to the priesthood. This is patent nonsense. That reminds me to remind you that I have asked every Catholic in our diocese and every Catholic family to pray daily for vocations to the priesthood for our Diocese.

Media also cite some unidentified persons who hail this as a “change” that is a step toward ordaining women to the priesthood. This is equally nonsensical and irresponsible.

Finally some opine that perhaps we should include persons of any other religious background or none. That too stretches a rite of deep symbolic meaning for Christians that would not be held by persons of other faiths, be they Jews or Muslims or non believers. It is a privilege I have had for many years now to serve as one of the members of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and as Consultor for the Commission for religious relations with Jews. A basic principle of our dialogues is mutual respect for one another’s traditions, a respect that does not try to dilute their meaning in each tradition by a false irenicism that empties the actions of a specific religious tradition in favor of a populist syncretism that ultimately distorts the traditions of us all.

Conclusion: Thank you Pope Francis for this clarification that endorses what we have been doing for some time here. Thanks to all my brother priests whose pastoral sensitivity will lead them to invite men and women, young and old, religious and laity, all members of their parish communities to have their feet washed as a symbolic remembrance of the Lord who washed his apostles’ feet to show concretely that he “who is Lord and Master has come to serve and not to be served”. (Murphy Thanks Jorge For Regularizing An Abuse Engendered by Feminism and Egalitariaism.)

“Bishop” Murphy lives in a fantasy world, especially when one considers the simple fact that Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself has washed the feet of Mohammedans in 2013 and 2014. The Mohammedan whose feet he washed in 2013 was a woman. So much for Murphy’s contention made in the following paragraph from the passage above:

Talk about delusional.

Here is a news flash for you, “Bishop” Murphy: “Pope Francis” believes that all religions lead to God and serve Him here in this life. He does not believe that non-Catholics need to be converted to the true Faith. He goes out of his way to hide his pectoral cross when in the presence of Jews and other non-Catholics who are “offended” by the very sign of our faith, the very means by which Our Lord redeemed us on the Holy Cross. “Pope Francis” basks in his role as an “innovator” and “bridge-builder,” which includes involving non-Catholics in what purports to be, albeit falsely, the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church.

“Bishop” Murphy, there is a disconnect between what you want to be so and what is indeed the case.

Moreover, while Jorge Mario Bergoglio has spoken out against the admissibility of women to the conciliar presbyterate, he has done so solely because of the fact that Karol Wojtyla/John Paul reaffirmed the inadmissibility of women to Holy Orders in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, May 22, 1994, not because he, Bergoglio, believes, that it is ontologically impossible for women to be ordained:

102. Lay people are, put simply, the vast majority of the people of God. The minority – ordained ministers – are at their service. There has been a growing awareness of the identity and mission of the laity in the Church. We can count on many lay persons, although still not nearly enough, who have a deeply-rooted sense of community and great fidelity to the tasks of charity, catechesis and the celebration of the faith. At the same time, a clear awareness of this responsibility of the laity, grounded in their baptism and confirmation, does not appear in the same way in all places. In some cases, it is because lay persons have not been given the formation needed to take on important responsibilities. In others, it is because in their particular Churches room has not been made for them to speak and to act, due to an excessive clericalism which keeps them away from decision-making. Even if many are now involved in the lay ministries, this involvement is not reflected in a greater penetration of Christian values in the social, political and economic sectors. It often remains tied to tasks within the Church, without a real commitment to applying the Gospel to the transformation of society. The formation of the laity and the evangelization of professional and intellectual life represent a significant pastoral challenge.

103. The Church acknowledges the indispensable contribution which women make to society through the sensitivity, intuition and other distinctive skill sets which they, more than men, tend to possess. I think, for example, of the special concern which women show to others, which finds a particular, even if not exclusive, expression in motherhood. I readily acknowledge that many women share pastoral responsibilities with priests, helping to guide people, families and groups and offering new contributions to theological reflection. But we need to create still broader opportunities for a more incisive female presence in the Church. Because “the feminine genius is needed in all expressions in the life of society, the presence of women must also be guaranteed in the workplace”[72] and in the various other settings where important decisions are made, both in the Church and in social structures.

104. Demands that the legitimate rights of women be respected, based on the firm conviction that men and women are equal in dignity, present the Church with profound and challenging questions which cannot be lightly evaded. The reservation of the priesthood to males, as a sign of Christ the Spouse who gives himself in the Eucharist, is not a question open to discussion, but it can prove especially divisive if sacramental power is too closely identified with power in general. It must be remembered that when we speak of sacramental power “we are in the realm of function, not that of dignity or holiness”.[73] The ministerial priesthood is one means employed by Jesus for the service of his people, yet our great dignity derives from baptism, which is accessible to all. The configuration of the priest to Christ the head – namely, as the principal source of grace – does not imply an exaltation which would set him above others. In the Church, functions “do not favour the superiority of some vis-à-vis the others”.[74] Indeed, a woman, Mary, is more important than the bishops. Even when the function of ministerial priesthood is considered “hierarchical”, it must be remembered that “it is totally ordered to the holiness of Christ’s members”.[75] Its key and axis is not power understood as domination, but the power to administer the sacrament of the Eucharist; this is the origin of its authority, which is always a service to God’s people. This presents a great challenge for pastors and theologians, who are in a position to recognize more fully what this entails with regard to the possible role of women in decision-making in different areas of the Church’s life. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013.)

Note how Jorge Mario Bergoglio referred to the "ministerial," not the sacerdotal (sacrificing), priesthood.

Moreover, Jorge Mario Bergoglio had the temerity to disparage the power that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, He Who is the Chief Priest and Victim of every Mass, our High Priest Who governs us in all things, has given to his ordained priests to teach, rule and sanctify in His Holy Name. Bergoglio also dared to claim the priesthood is but a mere "function" that is not in the "realm" of "dignity" and holiness."

This man is a blaspheming heretic, one who makes a liar of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and of the teaching He gave to Holy Mother Church that has been guided infallibly by God the Holy Ghost.

Pope Pius XII's Mediator Dei refuted Bergoglio's reduction of the Holy Priesthood to but a mere function and not one that is separate and distinct from that of the common priesthood shared by each baptized Catholic:

83. For there are today, Venerable Brethren, those who, approximating to errors long since condemned[82] teach that in the New Testament by the word "priesthood" is meant only that priesthood which applies to all who have been baptized; and hold that the command by which Christ gave power to His apostles at the Last Supper to do what He Himself had done, applies directly to the entire Christian Church, and that thence, and thence only, arises the hierarchical priesthood. Hence they assert that the people are possessed of a true priestly power, while the priest only acts in virtue of an office committed to him by the community. Wherefore, they look on the eucharistic sacrifice as a "concelebration," in the literal meaning of that term, and consider it more fitting that priests should "concelebrate" with the people present than that they should offer the sacrifice privately when the people are absent.

84. It is superfluous to explain how captious errors of this sort completely contradict the truths which we have just stated above, when treating of the place of the priest in the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. But we deem it necessary to recall that the priest acts for the people only because he represents Jesus Christ, who is Head of all His members and offers Himself in their stead. Hence, he goes to the altar as the minister of Christ, inferior to Christ but superior to the people.[83] The people, on the other hand, since they in no sense represent the divine Redeemer and are not mediator between themselves and God, can in no way possess the sacerdotal power. (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947.)

That is pretty clear, is it not?

The priest his superior to the people by the virtue of the indelible seal that was impressed upon His immortal soul at his ordination when he his soul was conformed to the Priesthood and Victimhood of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ for all eternity. He is to be treated with dignity and respect as befits the ineffable powers given unto him to utter mere words over the mere elements of the earth, thus calling down Christ the King from Heaven!

Jorge Mario Bergoglio's concept of a mere sacramental functionary whose "function" possesses no inherent dignity or holiness blasphemes Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself Who instituted His Holy Priesthood at the Last Supper with His own royal dignity, holiness and power.

Although Jorge Mario Bergoglio explained that the ordained priest "administers the Eucharist," he omitted what Pope Pius XI, writing in Ad Catholici Sacerdotii, December 30, 1935, explained at great length: the power to remit sins:

20. But among all these powers of the priest over the Mystical Body of Christ for the benefit of the faithful, there is one of which the simple mention made above will not content Us. This is that power which, as St. John Chrysostom says: "God gave neither to Angels nor Archangels" -- the power to remit sins. "Whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain they are retained"; a tremendous power, so peculiar to God that even human pride could not make the mind conceive that it could be given to man. "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" And, when we see it exercised by a mere man there is reason to ask ourselves, not, indeed, with pharisaical scandal, but with reverent surprise at such a dignity: "Who is this that forgiveth sins also?" But it is so: the God-Man who possessed the "power on earth to forgive sins" willed to hand it on to His priests; to relieve, in His divine generosity and mercy, the need of moral purification which is rooted in the human heart.

21. What a comfort to the guilty, when, stung with remorse and repenting of his sins, he hears the word of the priest who says to him in God's name: "I absolve thee from thy sins!" These words fall, it is true, from the lips of one who, in his turn, must needs beg the same absolution from another priest. This does not debase the merciful gift; but makes it, rather, appear greater; since beyond the weak creature is seen more clearly the hand of God through whose power is wrought this wonder. As an illustrious layman has written, treating with rare competence of spiritual things: ". . . when a priest, groaning in spirit at his own unworthiness and at the loftiness of his office, places his consecrated hands upon our heads; when, humiliated at finding himself the dispenser of the Blood of the Covenant; each time amazed as he pronounces the words that give life; when a sinner has absolved a sinner; we, who rise from our knees before him, feel we have done nothing debasing. . . We have been at the feet of a man who represented Jesus Christ, . . . we have been there to receive the dignity of free men and of sons of God."

22. These august powers are conferred upon the priest in a special Sacrament designed to this end: they are not merely passing or temporary in the priest, but are stable and perpetual, united as they are with the indelible character imprinted on his soul whereby he becomes "a priest forever"; whereby he becomes like unto Him in whose eternal priesthood he has been made a sharer. Even the most lamentable downfall, which, through human frailty, is possible to a priest, can never blot out from his soul the priestly character. But along with this character and these powers, the priest through the Sacrament of Orders receives new and special grace with special helps. Thereby, if only he will loyally further, by his free and personal cooperation, the divinely powerful action of the grace itself, he will be able worthily to fulfill all the duties, however arduous, of his lofty calling. He will not be overborne, but will be able to bear the tremendous responsibilities inherent to his priestly duty; responsibilities which have made fearful even the stoutest champions of the Christian priesthood, men like St. John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, St. Gregory the Great, St. Charles and many others. (Pope Pius XI, Ad Catholici Sacerdotii, December 30, 1935.)

Pope Pius XI also wrote of the inherent dignity and holiness of the priesthood, which is why a priest must remember his sacerdotal dignity and strive for a greater holiness of life than that of the lay faithful:

31. Most sublime, then, Venerable Brethren, is the dignity of the priesthood. Even the falling away of the few unworthy in the priesthood, however deplorable and distressing it may be, cannot dim the splendor of so lofty a dignity. Much less can the unworthiness of a few cause the worth and merit of so many to be overlooked; and how many have been, and are, in the priesthood, preeminent in holiness, in learning, in works of zeal, nay, even in martyrdom.

32. Nor must it be forgotten that personal unworthiness does not hinder the efficacy of a priest's ministry. For the unworthiness of the minister does not make void the Sacraments he administers; since the Sacraments derive their efficacy from the Blood of Christ, independently of the sanctity of the instrument, or, as scholastic language expresses it, the Sacraments work their effect ex opere operato.

33. Nevertheless, it is quite true that so holy an office demands holiness in him who holds it. A priest should have a loftiness of spirit, a purity of heart and a sanctity of life befitting the solemnity and holiness of the office he holds. For this, as We have said, makes the priest a mediator between God and man; a mediator in the place, and by the command of Him who is "the one mediator of God and men, the man Jesus Christ." The priest must, therefore, approach as close as possible to the perfection of Him whose vicar he is, and render himself ever more and more pleasing to God, by the sanctity of his life and of his deeds; because more than the scent of incense, or the beauty of churches and altars, God loves and accepts holiness. "They who are the intermediaries between God and His people," says St. Thomas, "must bear a good conscience before God, and a good name among men." On the contrary, whosoever handles and administers holy things, while blameworthy in his life, profanes them and is guilty of sacrilege: "They who are not holy ought not to handle holy things."

34. For this reason even in the Old Testament God commanded His priests and levites: "Let them therefore be holy because I am also holy: the Lord who sanctify them." In his canticle for the dedication of the temple, Solomon the Wise made this same request to the Lord in favor of the sons of Aaron: "Let Thy priests be clothed with justice: and let Thy saints rejoice." So, Venerable Brethren, may we not ask with St. Robert Bellarmine: "If so great uprightness, holiness and lively devotion was required of priests who offered sheep and oxen, and praised God for the moral blessings; what, I ask, is required of those priests who sacrifice the Divine Lamb and give thanks for eternal blessings?" "A great dignity," exclaims St. Lawrence Justinian, "but great too is the responsibility; placed high in the eyes of men they must also be lifted up to the peak of virtue before the eye of Him who seeth all; otherwise their elevation will be not to their merit but to their damnation."

35. And surely every reason We have urged in showing the dignity of the Catholic priesthood does but reinforce its obligation of singular holiness; for as the Angelic Doctor teaches: "To fulfill the duties of Holy Orders, common goodness does not suffice; but excelling goodness is required; that they who receive Orders and are thereby higher in rank than the people, may also be higher in holiness." The Eucharistic Sacrifice in which the Immaculate Victim who taketh away the sins of the world is immolated, requires in a special way that the priest, by a holy and spotless life, should make himself as far as he can, less unworthy of God, to whom he daily offers that adorable Victim, the very Word of God incarnate for love of us. Agnoscite quod agitis, imitamini quod tractatis, "realize what you are doing, and imitate what you handle," says the Church through the Bishop to the deacons as they are about to be consecrated priests. The priest is also the almoner of God's graces of which the Sacraments are the channels; how grave a reproach would it be, for one who dispenses these most precious graces were he himself without them, or were he even to esteem them lightly and guard them with little care. (Pope Pius XI, Ad Catholici Sacerdotii, December 30, 1935.)

Pope Pius XI also condemned Bergoglio's oft-stated belief, expressed also in Evangelii Gaudium, that his presbyters must be involved actively with the poor, that they need to get themselves out of their sacristies and into the "muck" of the streets:

37. It would be a grave error fraught with many dangers should the priest, carried away by false zeal, neglect his own sanctification, and become over immersed in the external works, however holy, of the priestly ministry. Thereby, he would run a double risk. In the first place he endangers his own salvation, as the great Apostle of the Gentiles feared for himself: "But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway." In the second place he might lose, if not divine grace, certainly that unction of the Holy Spirit which gives such a marvelous force and efficacy to the external apostolate. (Pope Pius XI, Ad Catholici Sacerdotii, December 30, 1935.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio's concept of the Holy Priesthood came into its own in the 1970s, and I had heard it many times from vocation directors in various dioceses and of religious communities. One vocation director told me the following on June 22, 1979: "A man is actually ordained to the priesthood when the people applaud following the imposition of hands. This ratifies the conferral of the order." Yes, those are exact words.

Even the official teaching of the conciliar church used to insist that there was a distinction, both in degree and in kind, between the Holy Priesthood and that of the lay faithful, a point was made by a "commission of cardinals" who had reviewed the infamous "Dutch Catechism":

8. The Ministerial or Hierarchical Priesthood and the Power of Teaching and Ruling in the Church. — Care must be taken not to minimize the excellence of the ministerial priesthood, that in its participation of the priesthood of Christ, differs from the common priesthood of the faithful, not only in degree, but in essence (Cf.: Conc. Vat. II, Const. Lumen Gentium, n. 10); Instructio de Cultu Mysterii eucharistici, AAS, 59 [1967] n. 11, p. 548).

Care should be taken that in describing the priestly ministry there is brought out more clearly the mediation between God and men which they exercise not only in preaching the word of God, in forming the Christian Community and in administering the Sacraments, but also and chiefly in offering the Eucharistic sacrifice in the name of the whole Church (cf. Conc. Vat. II, Const. Lumen Gentium, n. 28; Decr. Presbyterorum ordinis, nn. 2, 13).

Furthermore, the Cardinals asked that the new Catechism clearly recognize that the teaching authority and the power of ruling in the Church is given directly to the Holy Father and to the Bishops joined with him in hierarchical communion, and that it is not given first of all to the people of God to be communicated to others. The office of Bishops, therefore, is not a mandate given them by the people of God but is a mandate received from God Himself for the good of the whole Christian community.

It is to be brought out more clearly that the Holy Father and the Bishops in their teaching office do not only assemble and approve what the whole community of the faithful believes. The people of God are so moved and sustained by the spirit of truth that they cling to the word of God with unswerving loyalty and freedom from error under the leadership of the Magisterium to whom it belongs authentically to guard, explain and defend the deposit of faith. Thus it has come about that in understanding the faith that has been handed down, in professing that faith and in manifesting it in deed, there is a unique collaboration between Bishops and the faithful (Cf. Conc. Vat. II, Lumen Gentium, n. 11, and Dei Verbum, n. 10). Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Scripture—which constitute the one and only holy deposit of the word of God—and the magisterium of the Church are so joined that one cannot stand without the other (Cf. Conc. Vat. II, Const. Dei Verbum, n. 10). (Declaration of the Commission of Cardinals on the Dutch Catechism.)

Alas, basing the teaching authority of the Catholic Church on the documents of the "Second" Vatican Council can never prevent the rise of those who reject what was considered official in the "past" with impunity. A false foundation, no matter if used to try to reiterate Catholic teaching, can never provide a bulwark against error and heresy.

The Council of Trent condemned Bergoglio's revolutionary beliefs as follows:

And if any one affirm, that all Christians indiscrimately are priests of the New Testament, or that they are all mutually endowed with an equal spiritual power, he clearly does nothing but confound the ecclesiastical hierarchy, which is as an army set in array; as if, contrary to the doctrine of blessed Paul, all were apostles, all prophets, all evangelists, all pastors, all doctors. (Council of Trent, Twenty-fourth Session, Chapter 4, July 15, 1563.)

This all began with Father Martin Luther. It ends with Antichrist himself. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is just a "middle man," if you will, to serve as a very important bridge until then.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio's call in Evangelii Gaudium, November 25, 2013, for women to be given more "responsibility" in the Catholic Church is simply a repetion of all that he has said throughout his long career of tyrannical Modernist destruction. It is why he has appointed feminist "bishops" to key positions. It denigrates the essential differences between men and women that exist in the Order of Nature (Creation) and the Order of Redemption (Grace), differences which even the Mother of God herself respected as she submitted herself duly to the authority of Saint Joseph, her Most Chaste Spouse and the Patron of the Universal Chuch and the Protector of the Faithful, and as she received the very Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in Holy Communion from the episcopal hands of Saint John the Evangelist.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio distorts history and truth, fearing not to blaspheme God and His Most Blessed Mother.

Bergoglio is a clever man. Although he is moving rapidly to amalgamate the disparate factions of falsehood into the One World Ecumenical Church as a tool of Judeo-Masonry’s One World Governance, and to mainstream practicing sodomites and adulterers and fornicators into parish life without demanding that they amend their lives, he is moving a bit—and just a bit—more incrementally in other areas. However, he has made it clear that he wants to feminize his false church as much as possible, including reducing presbyters to functionaries whose role will one day be supplanted by women, possibly during the reign of Bergoglio’s likely successor, Luis “Cardinal” Tagle, who is the conciliar “archbishop” of Manila, The Philippines.

One of the ways that Jorge Mario Bergoglio floats trial balloons to further revolutionize the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism is to authorize “speculative” articles in the Vatican’s semi-official newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, and in La Civiltà Cattolica, the Italian Jesuit journal, that are meant to reflect his mind in order to prepare the way for “papally”-approved innovations that have been in practice at the “retail level” in various nooks and crannies of the conciliar structures for decades now, including consideration being given to let women preach during the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service:

VATICAN CITY (CNS) — The Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, published several commentaries reflecting on the possibility of allowing laypeople, including women, to preach at Mass.

Women already guide retreats, lead conferences and preach in some circumstances, wrote French Dominican Sister Catherine Aubin.

“So why can’t they preach before everyone during a celebration” of Mass? said the commentary — one of a series to appear March 2 in the newspaper’s monthly insert dedicated to women.

Church liturgical norms say that people who are not ordained — including nuns — may not preach the homily at Mass, although they can preach in other situations.

The Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law teaches that qualified and committed lay Catholic men and women are allowed to preach in particular circumstances and cooperate in exercising the ministry of the word. Preaching during Mass, however, is reserved to those who have received the sacrament of orders, that is, deacons and priests.

Sister Aubin, who is a theologian and professor at Rome’s Pontifical Urbanian University, said people who have experienced the joy and love of Christ are unable to “stop themselves from going out to speak it, to announce it, to proclaim it, because it is him, Christ, who makes all men and women — encountered along his journey — witnesses, messengers and apostles.”

Swedish Dominican Sister Madeleine Fredell wrote in her article that preaching is part of her vocation as a Dominican, and “even though I can (preach) almost anywhere,” she regretted “not being able to give the homily during Mass.”

“I am convinced that listening to the voice of women at the moment of the homily would enrich our Catholic worship,” said the theologian.

Enzo Bianchi, prior of the Bose ecumenical community, wrote in the newspaper’s main section that the issue of allowing laypeople, especially women, to deliver the homily “is sensitive, but I believe it is urgent to address it.”

“It would be important, without changing traditional doctrine, to offer the possibility to laypeople, men and women, to speak in the liturgical assembly with some clear conditions,” he wrote.

Specifically, he said, the lay Catholic must recognize that preaching is a charism and gift meant to be of real service to others and he or she must receive approval, even temporary, from the bishop, he said. Additionally, he said, before the delivery of the homily, at the ambo the priest presiding at Mass could bless the person the bishop has authorized to preach. (httpVatican Newspaper: "Theologians Reflect" on the Ontological Impossiblity of Women Priests.)

These are, of course, expressions that represent the antithesis of the humility of Our Lady, the very fairest flower of the human race, who always sought to lower herself before others despite the fact that she is the only woman ever conceived without stain of Original Sin and is therefore preeminent in grace above all other created beings. (Eve was created, not conceived, directly by God from Adam, and shared with her husband the preternatural gifts of having a superior will and a superior intellect as the fruits of Original Innocence.) The conciliar feminazis believe other Christs (conciliar presbyters presumed to be true priests) must bow before them and do as they please. Humility is simply not in the lexicon of such tools of the devil to feed the feminist pride of women who seek empowerment, not self-abasement for love of God as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church.

It is no accident, therefore, that the anti-Marianist and arch-Modernist blasphemer named Enzo Bianchi, one of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s favorite “theologians,” was permitted to author an article about women preaching at the Novus Ordo liturgical travesty as he believes that the Most Blessed Mother is not a “reference point for the advancement of women in the Church:

(Rome) "Mary can not be the reference point for the advancement of women in the Church." In reality, Bianchi is a layman. He gave an interview to the daily newspaper La Repubblica, which was published last September 9th. Bianchi was appointed by Pope Francis as Consultor in July 2014 of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity.

La Repubblica published an interview under the title "The church of the future," of Enzo Bianchi by Sylvia Roochney. Bianchi explained it: "In the Church there are good intentions, but about there are unreal expectations about women: The model Maria, Virgin and Mother, can not be the reference point for the advancement of women in the church. The fashionable, subliminally alleged idea that Mary was more important than St. Peter, is a stupid idea, just as the wheels of a car would be more important than the steering wheel."

Next Bianchi said, "We are not yet able to take unequivocal equality between men and women seriously. The path of the Church is still very far, because even all the men are at the decision-levers, while women are restricted to low services," said Enzo Bianchi.

That the Magisterium says the exact opposite, does not move "Prior" Bianchi. Bianchi wants to flatter Pope Francis with his sudden emphasis of the apostle Peter, although he himself called for the "overcoming" of the papacy "in a spirit of ecumenism" in 2013 (see The papal Consultant who wants to abolish the Pope - False Ecumenism), said on June 12, 2015: "The feminine genius is a grace: The church is a woman, and Mary is much more important than the apostles".

Pope John Paul II stressed the importance of Mary in his "Letter by the Pope to Women" of 29 June 1995; in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis of 22 May 1994; in the Apostolic Letter Mulieres Dignitatem August 15, 1988; as Pope Paul VI. in the Apostolic ExhortationSignum magnum of 13 May 1967 to name just a few of many examples that refute Bianchi's assertion.

Bianchi is known for his heterodox statements: Last August, he claimed that "family is a form that is given by society". Specifically, he said, so that the family could be changed by the society.

"False Prophet"

The former Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy of the Pontifical Lateran University, Msgr. Antonio Livi, called Enzo Bianchi a "false prophet". Bianchi was the representative of a "horizontal, anthropocentric Christianity without God, replacing the only way to salvation by a demagogic search for worldly peace, according to an illusory universal friendship and by secular solidarity," said the Catholic historian Cristina Siccardi.

Silvia Ronchey is also no stranger. The Assistant Professor of Byzantine Studies and daughter of a former Italian minister of culture, she comes from a Masonic tradition. She is a welcome guest in the circle of the aproned brothers. Her father, Alberto Ronchey took part in the Bilderburg Meeting in 1969 as a journalist for the Corriere della Sera in Mont Tremblant, Canada.

In 2011 Silvia Ronchey the historically confusing book "The True Story of Hypatia" that says less about Hypatia, but all the more about Ronchey's anti-Catholic and anti-Christian prejudices. Gustavo Raffi, the then Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Italy, even traveled to promote the book. (Antipapal Consulto Bianchi Says Our Lady Is Not A "Suitable Reference Point for the Advancement of Women int he Counterfeit Church of Conciliarism.)

Yet it is Enzo Bianchi enjoys the favor of “Pope” precisely because of the reasons that “Monsignor” Antonio Livi gave to document Bianchi’s defections from the Holy Faith. The man is indeed a false prophet. Ah, so is “Pope Francis,” and this something for men such as Antonio Livi to recognize and to accept as to enable a figure of Antichrist and his heretical beliefs and blasphemous statements about Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and Our Lady is itself a work of Antichrist and is thus a cowardly refusal to see the truth that is plainly before the eyes of all those who have been given the gift of the true Faith through no merits of their own.

As mentioned before, it may not be until the accession of Bergoglio’s successor to the antipapal aluminum folding chair that a new kind of “hermeneutic” will be “discovered” that justifies the “ordination” of women to the conciliar presbyterate. It is, however, just a matter of time before such “ordinations,” which have taken place in split-off sects from conciliarism, become accepted as a “tradition” founded in the “prophetic insights” of the Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, some of the synods of Lutherans, Congregationalists and other Protestant sects, including the so-called “United Church of Christ,” will occur with the “official” sanction of a conciliar “pope.”

If one thinks that this far-fetched, the appendix below provides information that will help reader to see that it was once thought impossible that the “conservative” “Pope John Paul II” would permit altar girls. Indeed, the Polish Modernist and Phenomenologist gave his “papal” assent to a set of instructions, Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, that were designed to “hold the line” against “abuses” in the liturgical abuse par excellence, the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical travesty. Today’s “forbidden practice” becomes tomorrow’s accepted “tradition” whose “tradition” is founded in opposition to the authentic Tradition of the Catholic Church and that has “evolved” as a result of acts of disobedience to the conciliar church’s own Modernist “code of canon law.”

In other words, revolutionaries use disobedience to get their way in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, starting with their disobedience to Our Lord Himself and His Sacred Deposit of Faith. Women priests are not just the stuff of fantasies any more. Not at all.

We must not lose heart in these difficult times. It is essential for us to maintain the true Catholic Faith in the underground no matter what anyone may think of us for doing so, and we can only do this with the help of Our Lady, she who is the very Blessed Mother of God, and of her Most Chaste Spouse, our Good Saint Joseph, who is the Patron of the Universal Church and the Protector of the Faithful.

Additionally, we have the witness of the lives of the saints, whose work on earth for love of God and the eternal good of souls is crowned by their intercession for us from Heaven, including Saint John of God, whose feast was celebrated yesterday, Tuesday, March 8, 2016, and the one whose feast day is today, Wednesday, March 9, 2016, Saint Frances of Rome.

Here are accounts of their lives as provided in Matins from the Divine Office for each feast:

John of God was born of Catholic and godly parents in the town of Montemor in Portugal, in the year 1495. The lot to which God had elected him was foreshown at his birth by a light shining over the house, and by the ringing of a bell untouched by human hands. He fell at one time into a loose habit of life, but was recalled by the grace of God, and began to show tokens of true reformation. By hearing the Word of God, he so felt himself stirred up to strive after nobler things, that he considered not that to which he had already attained, and yearned to be perfect, as our Father in heaven is perfect. He gave away all his property to the poor and prisoners, and became a gazing -stock to all that knew him, by the strength of his repentance, and the depth of his self-contempt. On this account he was commonly supposed to be mad, and was once shut up in a lunatic asylum. He was only the more filled with schemes of charity, and collected, by begging, funds sufficient to build a large double Hospital in the town of Granada. Here he founded the new Order of Hospital Brethren with which he enriched the Church. These Brethren are now spread throughout all parts of the world, and engaged in ministering to the souls and bodies of the sick.

The strove to get for the sick poor, whom he sometimes brought to the Hospital on his own shoulders, whatever was needful for their souls or bodies. His charity was extended to the poor outside of his institution, and he used to supply food privately to necessitous widows, and more so to young women whose virtue was tempted on account of their poverty. He was most careful in encouraging the virtue of purity in all whom he knew. On one occasion when there was a great fire in the hospital at Granada, John bravely entered the burning house, ran from one part of it to another, carried out the sick on his shoulders, and threw the beds out of the windows, and finally, after passing half-an-hour in the midst of the flames, which were now raging with great violence, by the mercy of God left the building uninjured, to the great wonder of all the citizens; thereby to teach all them that love God that the fire which burnt in his heart gave him strength to risk the fire which threatened him from without.

He was a marked example of every kind of austerity, of the most lowly obedience, of the deepest voluntary poverty, of the most constant prayer, of ghostly contemplation, and of love towards the blessed Virgin. He was distinguished for the gift of tears. Being at last seized by deadly sickness, he duly received, with saintly affection, all the Sacraments of the Church. After all strength seemed to have left him, he got out of his bed, put on his own clothes, and knelt down before an image of the Lord Christ hanging on the Cross. Round it he threw his arms and pressed it against his heart, and in this position, as it were in the kiss of the Lord, he died, on the 8th day of March 1550. After his death his body did not leave its grip of the crucifix until it was forcibly taken away, six hours after. During these six hours all the inhabitants of the city came to see it, and noticed a savour of strange sweetness proceeding from it. His name was illustrious as a worker of miracles both before and after his death, and the Supreme Pontiff Alexander VIII. added it to those of the Saints, and Leo XIII., at the desire of the Bishops of the Catholic world, and in accordance with a vote of the Congregation of Rites, declared him the patron in heaven of all the sick and those who nurse them, wheresoever dwelling, and ordered that his name should be called upon in the Litany for the dying. (Matins, Divine Office, Feast of Saint John of God, March 8.)

The noble Roman matron Frances A was born in the year 1384, and was a pattern of godliness from her earliest years. As a child she shrank from games, and set no store by the amusements of the world, but delighted to be continually alone and engaged in prayer. At the age of eleven years she desired to consecrate her virginity to God, and to enter a convent, but humbly yielded obedience to the wishes of her parents, and was married to Lawrence de' Pontiani, a young man whose rank was equal to his wealth. As a wife she persevered, as far as she lawfully could, in her determination to lead an austere life; she abstained as much as possible from going to shows, feasts, and such like amusements, dressed plainly in woollen stuffs, and spent in prayer or the service of her neighbour whatever time she did not occupy with her duties as mistress of her husband's house. She strove earnestly to wean the married women of Rome from the vanities of the world and the frivolities of dress. To this end she founded during her husband's lifetime the Sisterhood of the Oblates, under the rule of the Benedictine congregation called of the Mount of Olives. When it pleased God, (in the year 1413,) that her husband should be banished, all her goods taken away, and her home ruined, she meekly bowed down before His holy will, often repeating the words of the blessed Job The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord. i. 21.

On her husband's death she (in 1437) betook herself immediately to the house of the Oblates, and, with her feet bare and a rope round her neck, threw herself down on the threshold, entreating the sisters with tears to receive her into their number. When she obtained her wish, although she was the mother of them all, she would be among them only as one that served, glorying rather to be called the most degraded of women and a vessel of uncleanness. Her lowly esteem of herself was shown both by her word and example. She passed often through the city from a vineyard in the country carrying a bundle of sticks on her head, or driving an ass laden with faggots; she succoured the needy, for whom she collected large alms, and visited the sick in the hospitals, ministering to them both food for the body and exhortations healthful for their souls. She strove continually to bring her body into subjection by watchings, fastings, haircloth, the wearing of an iron girdle, and the often use of a scourge. She never ate but once a day, and then only vegetables, and she took no drink but water. These severities she however sometimes relaxed, in obedience to her confessor, on whose word and wishes she framed her customs.

So great was her mental realisation of the things of God, and chiefly of the sufferings of the Lord Christ, and so abundant her tears in contemplating them, that she seemed sometimes about to sink under her grief. Often when she was engaged in prayer, and principally after she had received the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, her spirit became altogether lifted up to God, and she remained motionless, carried away by the thought of heavenly things. The enemy of man assailed her with divers reproaches and buffetings to break her off her intent, but she feared him not, and with the help of an Angel whom God gave her to be her familiar friend, she won a noble victory over the tempter. God glorified her with the gifts of healing and of prophecy, whereby she foretold things to come, and saw the secrets of the hearts of men. More than once while her thoughts were busy in God she remained unwet by streams or rain. When there was left only bread enough for three sisters, the Lord at her prayers was pleased so to multiply it, that fifteen had enough, and the basket was filled again with the fragments. In the month of January also, when the sisters were gathering sticks in the country, and were thirsty, she satisfied them abundantly with bunches of fresh grapes from a tree. She departed to be with the Lord, famous for good works and miracles, in the fifty-sixth year of her age, (upon the 9th day of March, in the year of our Lord 1440.) The Supreme Pontiff Paul V. caused her to be numbered among the saints. (Matins, Divine Office, Feast of Saint Frances of Rome, March 9.)

May our daily fidelity to praying as many Rosaries as our state-in-life permit, especially during this season of Lent, as we pray the Litany of Loreto in her honor and that of Saint Joseph in this, his month of March, help us to imitate the total self-abnegation of Saints John of God and Frances of Rome so that we can, despite our sins and failings, plant the seeds for the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the flowering once again of the true Catholic Faith in the hearts, minds and souls of everyone on the face of the earth.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death.

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.

Saint Frances of Rome, pray for us

Appendix

Pushing the Envelope to Altar Girls

Despite various conciliar pronouncements that have been made when various breakoff sects from conciliarism have “ordained” women, nothing will stop the not-so-secret efforts on the part of conciliar priests/presbyters to "push the envelope" on the ontological (referring to the nature of things) impossibility of "women's ordination."

To paraphrase the late Hubert Horatio Humphrey, the American "bishops" were as pleased as punch that their strategy worked, so much so that they used it to expand the conciliar practice of distributing what purports be Communion under both kinds, thereby creating a "need" for so-called Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist to further blur the distinction between the priesthood of the ordained priest and the common priesthood of the lay faithful (the late Monsignor George Kelly, who was well connected with Vatican officials, confirmed this to me in his offices at Saint John's University in 1983 when I was consulting with him about the late "Bishop" John Raymond McGann's infamous persecution of the late Father Robert Mason, the pastor of Our Lady of Lourdes Church in Massapequa Park, New York, from 1976 to 2008), and they used it yet again to secure permission in 1994 from Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II for "altar girls" in 1994. Wojtyla/John Paul II was not serious about enforcing the ban against altar girls that was reiterated in various postconciliar documents, including Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, which was issued by the then named Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship as a follow-up to Wojtyla/John Paul II's Holy Thursday letter to conciliar priests/presbyters, Dominicae Cenae, February 24, 1980):

18. There are, of course, various roles that women can perform in the liturgical assembly: these include reading the Word of God and proclaiming the intentions of the Prayer of the Faithful. Women are not, however, permitted to act as altar servers. (Inaestimabile Donum.)

Inaestimabile Donum, which I thought, quite naively and stupidly, of course, was going to "solve" liturgical abuses in the Novus Ordo service, which is, of course, as noted above, the liturgical abuse par excellence, cited Liturgicae Instauratione, which was issued by the then named Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship on September 5, 1970, as the source for the reiteration of the ban of women from serving at the altar. Interestingly, Liturgicae Instauratione was issued less than ten months after the Novus Ordo went into effect on Sunday, November 30, 1969, as a means of correcting the "unauthorized" abuses that had become very widespread in such a short space of time. Such widespread abuses were, as I have recognized for some time now, the inevitable result of what happens when a false liturgical rite is promulgated and implemented, especially one that was meant to eradicate the traditional Roman Rite (please see Taking The Obvious For Granted).

Just as Martin Luther did not foresee the disastrous consequences of his revolution against the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man's return to the Catholic Church that he himself denounced but never understood were entirely of his own doing, so is it the case that the conciliar revolutionaries, in their zeal to accommodate what they believed was the Catholic liturgy to the desires of Protestants, did not foresee the liturgical free-for-all that would develop almost as soon as the Novus Ordo went into effect as the parishes under conciliar captivity began to resemble the cacophonous nature of congregationalism (each parish "doing liturgy" a little differently) than the universal nature of Catholicism. Endless efforts have thus been made by these conciliar revolutionaries to put their fingers the dike to prevent the flood of "unauthorized" abuses from spreading. Each of these efforts has failed. They must fail as nothing that is premised on false beliefs can ever be made to "work" for the temporal or eternal good of man, no less, of course, for the honor and glory and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity.

Here is the section from Liturgicae Instauratione that discussed the "proper" role of women in the staging of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service:

7. In conformity with norms traditional in the Church, women (single, married, religious), whether in churches, homes, convents, schools, or institutions for women, are barred from serving the priest at the altar.

According to the norms established for these matters, however, women are allowed to:

a. proclaim the readings, except the gospel. They are to make sure that, with the help of modern sound equipment, they can be comfortably heard by all. The conferences of bishops are to give specific directions on the place best suited for women to read the word of God in the liturgical assembly.

b. announce the intentions in the general intercessions;

c. lead the liturgical assembly in singing and play the organ or other instruments;

d. read the commentary assisting the people toward a better understanding of the rite;

e. attend to other functions, customarily filled by women in other settings, as a service to the congregation, for example, ushering, organizing processions, taking up the collection [29]. (Liturgicae Instauratione, September 5, 1970.)

Here one can see the flawed efforts of the conciliar revolutionaries to "hold the line" on some things while permitting other things that are offensive to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and thus injurious to the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood to redeem.

Where is the logic in expecting to hold the line against women serving at the altar when they are permitted to touch with their own unconsecrated hands what purports be the Sacred Species?

Where is the logic in expecting to hold the line against women serving at the altar when they are permitted to flood the sanctuary, which is the preserve of the priest and those males who are permitted to serve him as the extension of the hands of Christ, Who is the Chief Priest and Victim and every Mass?

There is no such logic. The falsehoods of concilairism are as illogical and thus self-destructive as the falsehoods of every other heresy, including Protestantism, which is but a precursor and prototype of conciliarism, especially in its Anglican forms.

Women can proclaim the Word of God as lectors.

They can lead "priestless" "Communion services."

They can serve as administrators of parishes, having the responsibility, given to them by their "ordinaries," to supervise the work of "priests," thereby further emasculating the notion of the priesthood as an imaging of the Chief Priest and Victim of every Mass. There are women serving as chancellors of the Catholic dioceses that are now in the hands of the conciliar revolutionaries. There has even been some talk from officials in the conciliar Vatican of permitting deaconesses. With little else in the counterfeit church of conciliarism that has not been subject to change and reconsideration and reinterpretation, why should the average Catholic think that Our Lord's own choice exclusively of males to His Holy Priesthood is not going to "change" at some point in the future.

Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the New Adam, came to undo the effects of the sin of the first Adam, the progenitor, who was a male. Only men can be progenitors. Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is the progenitor of our redemption. He chose twelve males to be His Apostles. Many women were His disciples. They were not present at the Last Supper as Our Lord, Who is both God and Man and thus has complete knowledge of everything and was not "culture bound" as some egalitarians wishing to find an "out" for women's "ordination" insist, ordained the twelve Apostles, including the traitor Judas Iscariot (whom now retired pastor of one conciliar church in the Diocese of Rockville Centre has placed in Heaven), knowing full well what He was doing. Our Lord broke every Pharisaical norm imaginable (associating with women, Samaritans and public sinners; curing and plucking grain on the Sabbath). Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the New Adam Who wrought our Redemption on the wood of the Holy Cross to pay back with His own Most Precious Blood the debt of human sin that was owed to Him in His Infinity as God, ordained twelve men to serve as the progenitors of the ineffable Sacrifice of the Cross as they offered Holy Mass acting in His very Person (in persona Christi).

As the late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen noted, if anyone was worthy to say "Hoc est enim Corpus Meum" and "Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis Mei, Hic est enim Calix Sánguinis mei, novi et ætérni testaménti; mystérium fidei: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundétur in remissiónem peccatórum" it was Our Lady as from whom else did Our Divine Redeemer obtain the Body and Blood with which He redeemed us on the wood of the Cross and which we receive in Holy Communion? Although the Venerable Mary of Agreda relates that Our Lady was in another room in the Cenacle at the Last Supper and was brought Holy Communion by an angel, she was not with Our Lord and the twelve Apostles as He instituted the the Holy Priesthood and the Holy Eucharist for our sanctification and salvation. There are different roles for men and women in the Order of Creation (Order of Nature) and there are different roles for men and women in the Order of Redemption (Order of Grace).

It is no diminution of the dignity of women to point this out.

Was Our Lady "offended" by the fact that she, the fairest flower of our race who had the privilege of Incarnating the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity by the power of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, was not ordained to the Holy Priesthood:? Of course not. No other woman has any "right" to be "offended" at her nonadmissibility to Holy Orders as this is the Holy Will of God Himself, Who acts in accord with the very nature of things as He has created them.

Despite the reaffirmation of the nonadmissibility of women to the priesthood that was made by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II iin 1994 and was reiterated in 2010 by means of an addition to the conciliar code of canon law at the direction of the since-retired Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, the simple fact of the matter is that many, although not all, of those who promote the ontological absurdity of women's "ordination" to the conciliar priesthood are permitted to remain in "good standing" in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

"Bishop" Emil Aloysius Wcela, a now retired auxiliary "bishop" in the theological and liturgical cesspool known as the Diocese of Rockville Centre, was permitted to be "consecrated" to the conciliar "episcopate on December 13, 1988, even though he was fully and openly on record in support of women's ordination to the conciliar priesthood. There are many other examples of this. Indeed, the disgraced former "bishop" of the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois, Daniel Leo Ryan, permitted an article in support of women's ordination to appear his rag of a diocesan newspaper in 1996, prompting him to lash out at The Wanderer for running an article daring to criticize him for doing so.

As noted in the text of today’s commentary, “women priests” in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism are just a matter of time. It is “when,” not “if.”

You are here

Women Priests Are No Longer Just the Stuff of Fantasies

"False Prophet"

Support Christ or Chaos