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

Part three of this series dealt with Ad Theologiam Promovendam’s death knell to Catholic moral theology, a kind of capstone to Amoris Laetitia and a glimpse into what the future holds for the conciliar sect as it becomes an ape of the Anglican sect’s own “popular theology,” which has about as much in common with even a generic version of “Christianity” as can be found a gigantic Hindu temple in New Jersey that was described by one New York Post reader as “paganism at its finest.” Conciliarism and Anglicanism are both different aspects of a paganism with a slightly Christian gloss wherein “believers” distort the plain words of Sacred Scripture to suit their own purposes and also project their own beliefs onto a “divinity” so as to assuage themselves in their own sins against the Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Commandments.

After all, Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s agenda concerning sodomy and practicing sodomites was vividly clear when he made his “Who am I to judge?” comment while returning to Rome from Rio di Janeiro on Monday, July 29, 2013, and when he personally telephoned a French man drawn to sodomy to say that his “homosexuality” did not matter, he has gotten bolder and bolder in the past twelve months in his efforts to demonize believing Catholics and in his efforts lionize those who support the practice of sodomy as an expression of “love.” He has done this when writing to and then meeting with the leaders of New Ways Ministry, and he did this recently when meeting with the leaders of “DignityUSA”:

VATICAN CITY (LifeSiteNews) — Pope Francis met with the leaders of a network of heterodox, pro-LGBT activist groups after his weekly papal audience in St. Peter’s Square. 

On October 25, Francis spoke to the co-chairs of the “Global Network of Rainbow Catholics” (GNRC), a coalition of dissenting, pro-LGBT, self-professed Catholic groups from across the world, following his Wednesday audience. 

Among the North American members of the coalition are DignityCanada, DignityUSA, New Ways Ministry, and Fortunate Families. 

The executive director of DignityUSA, Marianne Duddy-Burke, told the National Catholic Reporter (NCR) after the meeting that the pope talked to them for “several minutes” and was “incredibly gracious.” Duddy-Burke called the meeting “a big day for LGBTQ Catholics.” 

“I was in tears,” she told NCR. “We have great hope for what he is trying to do to make the church more inclusive.” 

Duddy-Burke said she handed Francis a t-shirt with the print “todos, todos, todos” (Spanish for “everyone, everyone, everyone”) in reference to the pope’s frequent statement that “everyone” is “welcome” in the Church. 

In addition to Duddy-Burke, Francis met with Christopher Vella, the other co-chair of the Global Network of Rainbow Catholics and the coordinator of Maltese pressure group Drachma LGBTI, and Ruby Almeida, GNRC’s media officer, who chairs LGBT activist groups in the U.K. and India. Vella is in a homosexual “marriage.”

According to a Facebook post by the Global Network of Rainbow Catholics, Francis told the pro-LGBT leaders to “go ahead” (“andate avanti”) with their work, seemingly encouraging their dissent from Catholic moral teaching. 

The DignityUSA leader is known for supporting so-called “transgender rights,” including mutilating surgeries for people who are confused about their sex. In a recent statement regarding laws in the U.S. that ban transgender surgeries for children in some states, Duddy-Burke said that she wants to see “stronger, moral leadership” from Joe Biden, who should be “champion for the trans community.” 

This past summer, pro-LGBT activist priest Father James Martin was the first to invite Duddy-Burke to speak inside a Catholic church in more than 30 years, according to NCR.  

DignityUSA openly calls for changing Catholic teaching on sexuality. In its mission statement, the organization states that “We work for the development of sexual and gender theology leading to the reform of [the Catholic Church’s] teachings and practices regarding human sexuality, gender identities[.]” 

It furthermore asserts “that gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex persons” can express their “sexuality physically, in a unitive manner that is loving, life-giving, and life-affirming,” ignoring the fact that only intercourse between a man and woman can create new life and be “life-giving” and that sin cannot be “loving.”

The Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is gravely sinful, disordered, and an “intrinsic moral evil,” in accordance with Sacred Scripture and Tradition.

Francis has been promoting heterodox, pro-LGBT personalities throughout his pontificate, and especially in the past few weeks. On October 17, he met with the co-founder of New Ways Ministry, Sister Jeannine Gramick, who has a history of LGBT and abortion activism and was previously condemned and censured by the Vatican. In 2021, it became public that Francis had written two letters that praised the heretical, pro-LGBT group New Ways Ministry. 

On September 29, the pope personally met with the infamous Fr. James Martin again, whom he also made a voting member at the Synod on Synodality. 

The pope has furthermore written a note to the executive director of Fortunate Families, another dissident organization that is part of the “Global Network of Rainbow Catholics,” thanking him for their “ministry.”  (Pope Francis welcomes leaders of heretical LGBT activist groups in latest scandalous meeting.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is obsessed with promoting the “ministry” of those who are either perverts themselves and/or are enablers of the spread of the preternatural pandemic that is sodomy and its related vices, and one of the principal, though hardly exclusive, purposes of the “synodal path” is to further mainstream and normalize that which is aberrant and spiritually suicidal into every nook and cranny of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

However, the Argentine Apostate is also concerned about the destruction of each of the fields of study within the theological sciences: Dogmatic (Systematic) Theology, Moral Theology, Ecclesiology, Eschatology, Mariology, Sacred Scripture, Sacramental Theology, Patristics, Canon Law, and Pastoral Theology. Ad Theologiam Promovendam is being used as a Trojan Horse by which an open and absolutely unapologetic dogmatic evolution to produce a false religion that is the fulfillment of the late Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s religion of evolution that will lead one and all to the “Omega Point.” The Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical abomination will become the path by which all this receives liturgical expression in what Chardin himself envisioned as the “Mass of the world.”

A commentary in America Magazine that is, of course, very favorably disposed to the evolutionism of Teilhard de Chardin, explained the late French Jesuit priest’s heretical concepts with an almost breathless sense of anticipation about their realization:

Four characteristics of Teilhard’s theological vision

One of the characteristics of a sublime text is that it is capable of taking root in a different way in the mind of each reader, fulfilling different needs, arousing suggestions and different connotations in each person and in each moment. As a result, no individual summary or analysis can exhaust the possibilities of so suggestive a text as The Mass on the World. Nevertheless, below I offer four suggestions of how The Mass on the World illuminates Teilhard’s theological vision.

In order to be able to appreciate the degree to which Teilhard’s ideas were prophetic, we should remember that these writings were largely composed in the pontificate of Benedict XV, a pope fearful of modernity and science, and that the church was still half a century away from experiencing the revitalizing breath of the Second Vatican Council.

Teilhard dissolves old scholastic dichotomies. His theological vision seeks to harmonize a world convulsed by hatreds with the divine invitation to fraternal unity. He does so primarily by dissolving or discarding many of the Platonic dualities that church scholars never quite knew how to solve: body and soul, matter and spirit, the mud of the earthly reality and the angelic and celestial world.

Teilhard, who considered himself a son of the ground more than a son of heaven, reconciles us with matter, proclaiming its natural goodness and its evolutionary mystery, and does not hesitate to give it the rank of sacredness, reminding us of the manifest acceptance of God contained in the Book of Genesis: “And God saw that it was good.” He comes to call that divine acceptance “the hand of God and the flesh of Christ” by tangibly supporting God’s presence in the world.

He reconciles science and theology. If his book Man’s Place in Nature:The Human Zoological Group tried to walk a bridge between theology, biology and physics, in The Mass on the World, a very short text full of poetry and mysticism, Teilhard incorporates the intuitions of three scientific paradigms that the church still looked upon with the suspicion of novelty. The first is evolutionary theory, stretching from the insights of Darwin all the way to contemporary formulations arising from biology, anthropology and genetics. Second, the notion of an expanding universe that began with an initial explosion of energy that created everything that exists, a “Big Bang,” can clearly be seen in his theological vision as expressed in The Mass on the World. Third, the text outlines an idea that was beginning to be glimpsed in scientific circles: the insight to interpret the biosphere as a living entity, a superorganism in which all processes are connected to ensure their self-regulation. It would later find in James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis its best formulation: the “Gaia hypothesis.”

He unifies disparate strands of theology. While the Pauline epistolary tradition and medieval scholastic reflection showed a partially unconnected mosaic of independent and well-differentiated truths of faith, Teilhard succeeds in connecting them as the coherent totality of a single truth, expanding their meaning and theological relevance. We discover with him that the concepts of creation, incarnation, redemption, consecration, the centrality of the Eucharist, providence, the communion of saints, the presence of God in the world or the commandment of love are not distinct realities but indissoluble and necessary aspects of the same vision. In turn, we see that this vision is not discordant with cosmic and biological evolution, the historical genesis of religions, the mystery of death and human suffering or any scientific research or human work. All can be a free and creative extension of God’s innovative power. Few authors possess this ability of Teilhard to generate integrative models of thought or formulate such unified explanations.

He expands the scope of theology. In addition to unifying the theological concepts mentioned above, Teilhard delves into the idea that these realities (and their theological interpretation) are not specific moments in the history of salvation; nor are they limited to the spatial realm of the biosphere. They overflow that space to become cosmic processes and go beyond time to become continually updated.

For example, the Pauline metaphor of the church as the mystical body of Christ, in which the various anatomical parts cannot do without each other, is extended by Teilhard to the whole of creation. The biosphere, as a material body, at the same time diverse and coordinated, absolutely needs a soul to give it consistency and meaning.

Similarly, for Teilhard the eucharistic matter of bread and wine also extend beyond their condition as fruits of the earth, beyond their presence at that Passover dinner of more than two millennia ago, and are charged with a broader meaning. Bread becomes for him a representation of all that painstakingly germinates, grows, blossoms, matures and multiplies in the world. So too, wine can be a representation of everything that diminishes or decreases; of blood shed; of whatever causes us pain and suffering; of sickness, decrepitude, disappointment, betrayal and death. Such a plenitude of meaning comes to us in a chalice that we would sometimes like to set aside, but of which we partake following the example of Jesus.

These and other brilliant conceptual extensions of Teilhard not only expand the horizons of faith in God but also remove them from the angelic context in which medieval theology placed them and plant them in the tangible reality of matter. Thus, for example, the sacramental consecration of bread and wine is incardinated in a much broader interpretation that reflects the way in which the supernatural dimension connects with natural reality and illuminates it. That is, it speaks to us about the definitive consecration of the entire creation, which will meet God on the evolutionary path to what Teilhard called the Omega Point.

In this way, the risen Christ will end up being the soul of the great mystical body that is the universal reality. Our study of what we might call cosmogenesis, biogenesis and the history of the human being are nothing more than the evolutionary steps before Christogenesis, the great consecration in which we are all immersed.

For Teilhard, we live in the bosom of a great cosmic Eucharist that will culminate in each of us when, at the Omega Point of our individual history, we approach a definitive communion. At that moment, our physical disintegration will not be the end. It will be only the requirement to be able to lose ourselves, already without the heavy opposition of our atoms, in the immense horizon of God’s mercy and to be one with him. (Teilhard de Chardin, consecration and the cosmos: How a Jesuit mystic expanded the scope of theology.)

Omitted from this very accurate summary of Teilhard de Chardin’s delusional beliefs is the fact that he also believed in transhumanism and in “designer babies” (see, for example, Dr. Dianne N. Irving’s Father Teilhard de Chardin, S.J. Teilhard de Chardin and Designer Babies).

The America Magazine is very important to understanding the entirety of what Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s agenda has been and will continue to be until he dies, and it is the agenda that will be carried on by his successor if Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ does not intervene to put an end to the madness of conciliarism before that time.

The so-called “synodal path” is simply a smokescreen by which handpicked lay stooges can provide the cover of “popular theology” for a pagan and pantheistic theology that is offensive to the Most Holy Trinity and lethal to the interior life of men and thus to eternal life in Heaven, which is a place, not an “Omega Point,” a place in which individual human beings who have died in a state of Sanctifying Grace as members of the Catholic Church gaze upon the ineffable mystery of the Beatific Vision while retaining their unique and unrepeatable identities as men and women who have gained the crown of eternal life by cooperating with the merits won for them by the Paschal Lamb. Human beings do not “meld” into becoming divine.

Although it is easy to caricature Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s open endorsement of Teilhard de Chardin’s false theology without having to identify Chardin as such, it should be remembered the late “Saint Pope John Paul II” praised Abbe Paul Couturier’s “spiritual ecumenism” in Ut Unum Sint, May 24, 1995, and the late “restorer of tradition,” Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, was himself very favorably disposed to Chardin:

Though few might have cast him in advance as a "green pope," Pope Benedict XVI has amassed a striking environmental record, from installing solar panels in the Vatican to calling for ecological conversion. Now the pontiff has also hinted at a possible new look at the undeclared patron saint of Catholic ecology, the late French Jesuit scientist and philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

Benedict's brief July 24 reference to Teilhard, praising his vision of the entire cosmos as a "living host," can be read on multiple levels -- as part of the pontiff's rapprochement with the Jesuits, or as a further instance of finding something positive to say about thinkers whose works have set off doctrinal alarms, as Benedict previously did with rebel Swiss theologian and former colleague

The potential implications for environmental theology, however, are likely to generate the greatest interest among Teilhard's fans and foes alike -- and more than a half-century after his death in 1955, the daring Jesuit still has plenty of both. Admirers trumpet Teilhard as a pioneer, harmonizing Christianity with the theory of evolution; critics charge that Teilhard's optimistic view of nature flirts with pantheism.

Benedict's comment came during a July 24 vespers service in the Cathedral of Aosta in northern Italy, where the pope took his annual summer vacation July 13-29.

Toward the end of a reflection upon the Letter to the Romans, in which St. Paul writes that the world itself will one day become a form of living worship, the pope said, "It's the great vision that later Teilhard de Chardin also had: At the end we will have a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host.

"Let's pray to the Lord that he help us be priests in this sense," the pope said, "to help in the transformation of the world in adoration of God, beginning with ourselves."

Though offered only in passing, and doubtless subject to overinterpretation, Benedict's line nevertheless triggered headlines in the Italian press about a possible "rehabilitation" of Teilhard, sometimes referred to as the "Catholic Darwin." That reading seemed especially tempting since, as a consummate theologian, Benedict is aware of the controversy that swirls around Teilhard, and would thus grasp the likely impact of a positive papal reference.

At the very least, the line seemed to offer a blessing for exploration of the late Jesuit's ideas. That impression appeared to be confirmed by the Vatican spokesperson, Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi, who said afterward, "By now, no one would dream of saying that [Teilhard] is a heterodox author who shouldn't be studied."

Teilhard's most prominent living disciple in Italy, lay theologian Vito Mancuso, told reporters that he was "pleasantly surprised" by Benedict's words and that they have "great importance."

Teilhard, who died in 1955 at the age of 73, was a French Jesuit who studied paleontology and participated in the 1920s-era discovery of "Peking Man" in China, a find that seemed to confirm a gradual development in the human species. Teilhard has also been linked to the 1912 discovery of "Piltdown Man" in England, later exposed as a hoax.

On the basis of his scientific work, Teilhard developed an evolutionary theology asserting that all creation is developing towards an "Omega Point," which he identified with Christ as the Logos, or "Word" of God. In that sense, Teilhard broadened the concept of salvation history to embrace not only individual persons and human culture, but the entire universe. In short order, Teilhard's thought became the obligatory point of departure for any Catholic treatment of the environment.

Yet from the beginning, Teilhard's theology was also viewed with caution by officials both of the Jesuit order and in the Vatican. Among other things, officials worried that his optimistic reading of nature compromised church teaching on original sin. In 1962 -- seven years after his death -- the Vatican's doctrinal office issued a warning that his works "abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine."

In 1981, on the 100th anniversary of Teilhard's birth, speculation erupted about a possible rehabilitation. It was fueled by a letter published in L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, by the then-Cardinal Secretary of State Agostino Casaroli, who praised the "astonishing resonance of his research, as well as the brilliance of his personality and richness of his thinking." Casaroli asserted that Teilhard had anticipated John Paul II's call to "be not afraid," embracing "culture, civilization and progress."

Responding to ferment created by the letter, the Vatican issued a statement insisting that its 1962 verdict on Teilhard still stands -- to date, Rome's last official pronouncement on Teilhard. (The statement was issued in July 1981, four months before then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, took over as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.)

Across the years, Benedict has sometimes seemed to be of two minds himself.

In his 1968 work Introduction to Christianity, Ratzinger wrote that Eastern Christianity has a deeper appreciation for the "cosmic and metaphysical" dimension of Christianity than the West, but that the West seemed to be recovering that perspective, "especially as a result of stimuli from the work of Teilhard." He argued that Teilhard gave authentic expression to the Christology of St. Paul.

As pope, Benedict has occasionally used language that seems to reflect a Teilhardian touch. In his 2006 Easter homily, the pontiff referred to the theory of evolution, describing the Resurrection as "the greatest 'mutation,' absolutely the most crucial leap into a totally new dimension that there has ever been in the long history of life and its development."

Yet Ratzinger's ambivalence about Teilhard is of equally long vintage. In a commentary on the final session of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), a young Ratzinger complained that Gaudium et Spes, the "Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World," played down the reality of sin because of an overly "French," and specifically "Teilhardian," influence.

Overall, the impression is that Benedict finds much to like about Teilhard's cosmic vision, even if he also worries about interpretations at odds with orthodox faith.

Benedict's July 24 remark on Teilhard builds upon the pope's strong record on the environment, considered by many observers to be the most original feature of his social teaching. Most recently, Benedict devoted a section of his new social encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, to a call for deepening what he called "that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God."

In her recent book Ten Commandments for the Environment: Pope Benedict XVI Speaks Out for Creation and Justice, Catholic writer Woodeene Koenig-Bricker described Benedict as "the greenest pope in history," arguing that he has not only made strong environmental statements but also put them into practice.

In that light, one wonders if Benedict's shade of green could eventually allow Teilhard to be named the patron saint of Catholic ecology de jure, as well as de facto. If so, July 24 could be remembered as the first stirring of an "evolutionary leap" in the late Jesuit's reputation and official standing. (

No true Successor of Saint Peter has ever spoken in such a way, and while there are some who still cling to the myth that the late” Pope Benedict XVI” had substantive disagreements with his successor, the truth remains that both men accepted the same essential evolutionary principles as the late Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J. 

Ratzinger/Benedict also praised a direct disciple of Chardin’s who specialized in a form of ecumenical syncretism called “spiritual ecumenism,” the aforementioned Abbe Paul Couturier:

I see good reason in this context for optimism in the fact that today a kind of "network" of spiritual links is developing between Catholics and Christians from the different Churches and Ecclesial Communities:  each individual commits himself to prayer, to the examination of his own life, to the purification of memory, to the openness of charity.

The father of spiritual ecumenism, Paul Couturier, spoke in this regard of an "invisible cloister" which unites within its walls those souls inflamed with love for Christ and his Church. I am convinced that if more and more people unite themselves interiorly to the Lord's prayer "that all may be one" (Jn 17: 21), then this prayer, made in the Name of Jesus, will not go unheard (cf. Jn 14: 13; 15: 7, 16, etc.).

With the help that comes from on high, we will also find practical solutions to the different questions which remain open, and in the end our desire for unity will come to fulfilment, whenever and however the Lord wills. (Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Ecumenical meeting at the Archbishopric of Cologne: Address, August 19, 2005.) 

Contrary to what the late Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI believed, a there are not "questions which remain open" for discussion," only a Deposit of Faith to be accepted by everyone on the face of the earth without any exceptions or qualifications or reservations whatsoever. Then again, the conciliar “popes,” including Jorge Mario Bergoglio, of course, have not considered themselves bound by the pronouncements of our true popes, adverting to the philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned "hermeneutic of continuity a " to justify ignoring those pronouncements that are at odds with the goals of conciliarism. Thus it is that have been allies of the evolutionary theology of the late Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., whose belief in mutability of truth served to shape the aforementioned Abbe Paul Couturier's view of "spiritual ecumenism:"

A third influence on Couturier was Teilhard de Chardin. Both men were scientists, and Teilhard's vision of the unity of creation and humanity expressed in the unity of Christ and the life of the Church appealed both scientifically and spiritually to Couturier. A reasoned consequence for him was that the unity of Christians was the sign for the unity of humanity, and that praying for the sanctification of Jews, Muslims and Hindus, among many others, could not fail but to lead to a new spiritual understanding of God where Christ could at last be recognised and understood. Couturier felt this keenly as he was partly Jewish and had been raised among Muslims in North Africa. It is worth noting that among Couturier's voluminous correspondents were Jews, Muslims, and Hindus, as well as every kind of Christian, all caught up in the Abbé's spirit of prayer, realising the significance and dimensions of prayer for the unity of Christians. Coincidentally, years later Mother Theresa spoke of the considerable number of Muslims who volunteered and worked at her house in Calcutta: 'If you are a Christian, I want to make you a better Christian - if you are a Muslim, I want to make you a better Muslim'. It cannot be denied that what those Muslims were seeing in Mother Theresa was Jesus Christ himself, just as the Abbe attracted so many to prayer across previously unbridgeable divides by his humility, penitence, and joyful charity in the peace of Christ.

2003-2004 also marks the 50th Anniversary of the launch of the Week of Prayer in Morocco as an act of charity and prayer among the people of Islam, a significant milestone in the experiences of today as much as then. (The Abbé Paul Couturier and Spiritual Ecumenism)

It was to condemn the work of the likes of Abbe Paul Couturier that Pope Pius XI wrote the following in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928:

This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise? For here there is question of defending revealed truth. Jesus Christ sent His Apostles into the whole world in order that they might permeate all nations with the Gospel faith, and, lest they should err, He willed beforehand that they should be taught by the Holy Ghost: has then this doctrine of the Apostles completely vanished away, or sometimes been obscured, in the Church, whose ruler and defense is God Himself? If our Redeemer plainly said that His Gospel was to continue not only during the times of the Apostles, but also till future ages, is it possible that the object of faith should in the process of time become so obscure and uncertain, that it would be necessary to-day to tolerate opinions which are even incompatible one with another? If this were true, we should have to confess that the coming of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles, and the perpetual indwelling of the same Spirit in the Church, and the very preaching of Jesus Christ, have several centuries ago, lost all their efficacy and use, to affirm which would be blasphemy. But the Only-begotten Son of God, when He commanded His representatives to teach all nations, obliged all men to give credence to whatever was made known to them by "witnesses preordained by God," and also confirmed His command with this sanction: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned." These two commands of Christ, which must be fulfilled, the one, namely, to teach, and the other to believe, cannot even be understood, unless the Church proposes a complete and easily understood teaching, and is immune when it thus teaches from all danger of erring. In this matter, those also turn aside from the right path, who think that the deposit of truth such laborious trouble, and with such lengthy study and discussion, that a man's life would hardly suffice to find and take possession of it; as if the most merciful God had spoken through the prophets and His Only-begotten Son merely in order that a few, and those stricken in years, should learn what He had revealed through them, and not that He might inculcate a doctrine of faith and morals, by which man should be guided through the whole course of his moral life. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

To paraphrase Pope Pius XI, if what Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Father Federico Lombardi and other conciliarists believe about ecumenism is true, then "the very preaching of Jesus Christ" has lost all Its "efficacy and use, to affirm which would be blasphemy." Yes, indeed, the conciliarists believe in a blasphemous understanding of God and His Divine Revelation as they heap one hot coal after another upon themselves by ignoring the consistent, perennial, immutable teachings of the Catholic Church for the sacrileges, blasphemies, apostasies, errors, novelties, and heresies of their own false, man-made religion, conciliarism.

Otto von Bergoglio’s Kulturkampf (or Jorge Mario Zedong’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution) is proceeding apace to its own syncretistic destruction sooner or later. Our last true pope thus far, Pope Pius XII, condemned the very essence of Modernist dogmatic evolutionism while it was being recycled and relabeled as the “new theology” as follows in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950:

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

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

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

17. Hence to neglect, or to reject,or to devalue so many and such great resources which have been conceived, expressed and perfected so often by the age-old work of men endowed with no common talent and holiness, working under the vigilant supervision of the holy magisterium and with the light and leadership of the Holy Ghost in order to state the truths of the faith ever more accurately, to do this so that these things may be replaced by conjectural notions and by some formless and unstable tenets of a new philosophy, tenets which, like the flowers of the field, are in existence today and die tomorrow; this is supreme imprudence and something that would make dogma itself a reed shaken by the wind. The contempt for terms and notions habitually used by scholastic theologians leads of itself to the weakening of what they call speculative theology, a discipline which these men consider devoid of true certitude because it is based on theological reasoning.

18. Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily pass from despising scholastic theology to the neglect of and even contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself, which gives such authoritative approval to scholastic theology. This Teaching Authority is represented by them as a hindrance to progress and an obstacle in the way of science. Some non-Catholics consider it as an unjust restraint preventing some more qualified theologians from reforming their subject. And although this sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith - Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition - to be preserved, guarded and interpreted, still the duty that is incumbent on the faithful to flee also those errors which more or less approach heresy, and accordingly "to keep also the constitutions and decrees by which such evil opinions are proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See,"[2] is sometimes as little known as if it did not exist. What is expounded in the Encyclical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs concerning the nature and constitution of the Church, is deliberately and habitually neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they profess to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks. The Popes, they assert, do not wish to pass judgment on what is a matter of dispute among theologians, so recourse must be had to the early sources, and the recent constitutions and decrees of the Teaching Church must be explained from the writings of the ancients.

19. Although these things seem well said, still they are not free form error. It is true that Popes generally leave theologians free in those matters which are disputed in various ways by men of very high authority in this field; but history teaches that many matters that formerly were open to discussion, no longer now admit of discussion.

20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)

In summary, you see, Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s Ad Theologiam Promovendam, is a denial of Holy Mother Church’s Divine Constitution as it contends that those in false religions who worship their devils as gods can play a role in helping Catholics to “understand” the world and to work for some kind of mutual “common ground.” This is Chardinianism writ large and every bit of it comes precondemned by the entire Patrimony of the Holy Faith in addition to the specific pronouncements of a true popes as necessity required them to speak out in defense of the unicity  and the perfect integrity of Holy Mother Church, she who need not look to any outside source for an understanding of Faith, Morals, or Worship.

The Catholic Church is about the work of glorifying the Most Holy Trinity and in the sanctification and salvation of souls.

The counterfeit church of conciliarism is about the work of glorifying the created world and of assuaging the deadened consciences of hardened sinners that they can eat, drink, and be merry here without concern for where they will spend eternity.

May Our Lady, she who is the Queen of All Saints, help us to persevere in the truth during the midst of this general apostasy and also to keep us humbly on our knees in supplication to her through her Most Holy Rosary as to afford her maternal protection now, and at the hour of our death.

Viva Cristo ReyVivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of Sorrows, 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.

All the Saints, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.