Jorge the Idolatrous Scoundrel Plays the Race Card

What more can be said?

Really, what more needs to be said?

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not only a manifest heretic. The insidious, pestilential demon of a human being is a coward who must resort to the use of name-calling to dismiss the growing number of his critics even from within the ranks of his own false religious sect that purports to be the Catholic Church but is in fact her counterfeit ape, the counterfeit church of conciliarism. One of the last resorts of scoundrels such as Bergoglio is to use the “race card” as a means to denounce anyone, presumably including the brave, articulate and zealous Alexander Tshguggel, who believes that Bergoglio is “Pope Francis,” as “racists” who oppose his apostate agenda, which has come into full focus  at the recently concluded “Amazon Synod.”

Permit me to take up a few moments of your time before trying to summarize what the shallow hedonist and idolater from Buenos Aires, Argentina, represents as the conciliarism’s ultimate end product by commenting on Bergoglio’s use of the race card as found in a Lifesite News story:

ROME, November 7, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — Offering his thoughts on the Amazon Synod, Pope Francis excoriated certain “circles and sectors” who allegedly consider much of humanity a “lower-class entity” with scant “spiritual and intellectual life.” These unnamed individuals, the pope opined, hope out of racism or bigotry to withhold the Gospel.

Pope Francis spoke with Italian journalist Gianni Valente during interviews conducted during the recent Amazon Synod. In talks gathered into a book in Italian titled Without Him We Can Do Nothing, the pontiff described his vision for the Church to embrace a missionary spirit, even while he blasted unnamed groups for mischaracterizing others as “lower-class.”

In the interview, the pope said, “There are circles and sectors that present themselves as ilustrados [enlightened] — they sequester the proclamation of the gospel through a distorted reasoning that divides the world between ‘civilization’ and ‘barbarism.'”

Pope Francis said, “The idea that the Lord has among his favorites many dark-complexioned people irritates them, it puts them in a bad mood. They consider a large part of the human family as a lower-class entity, incapable, according to their standards, of achieving decent levels in spiritual and intellectual life. On this basis, contempt can develop for people considered to be second-rate,” he said, adding that “all this also emerged during the Synod of Bishops for the Amazon.”

Perhaps signaling to his native country, the pope referred to “cabecitas negras” (literally, “little black heads”) — an Argentine slang term deriding people of dark complexion. When reports emerged from the synod that there were alleged aspersions cast at the feather headdresses used by some of the indigenous participants in the conference, Pope Francis deplored the “sarcastic words” directed at indigenous people wearing feathers. He said, “Tell me: what’s the difference between having feathers on your head and the three-peaked hat [birettas] worn by certain officials in our dicasteries?”

The book was released on November 5 and coincided with the close of Extraordinary Missionary Month in October. During October, the Vatican hosted the Amazon Synod, which had the ostensible goal of discussing how the Gospel can be proclaimed in the remote regions of South America, issues of inculturation, and ordination of mature married men to the priesthood in the Latin Rite. Even before the synod’s outset, controversy was stirred by the instrumentum laboris — the working document that offered points of discussion and goals to be met at the synod. Critics of the document included Cardinals Raymond Burke, Walter Brandmüller, and Gerhard Müller. Cardinal Brandmüller called the document “heretical” and an “apostasy” from Divine Revelation.

A tree-planting ceremony attended by Pope Francis at the outset of the synod immediately became controversial because of pagan rituals it incorporated and pagan effigies that were gifted to the pontiff. The very same idols, variously described as “Our Lady of the Amazon” and the “Pachamama” fertility goddess — the latter by the pope himself — showed up at a church not far from the Vatican, causing further controversy and comment. Then, on Oct. 21, a young Austrian entered the church, removed the effigies, and threw them into the Tiber River. His acts were recorded on video, which was then widely circulated on social media. Identifying himself as “Alexander,” the English-speaking Austrian man said in a later video that he was “very upset” when he saw people bowing before the idols at the church in Rome. He explained: “There are some laymen, and we stand up because we don’t want things like that happening in the Catholic Church.” After the incident, Pope Francis apologized to the synod organizers and even suggested that the idols would be returned to the church.

Author Valente told Religion News Service that the pope’s interview is a riposte to “to all the closed- and narrow-minded points of view that we witnessed” during the synod. He said “certain powerful ecclesiastical circles” in the United States show hostility toward the pope.

Pope Francis advocated for a revival of a missionary spirit in the Church. He said that nowadays, Catholics must “bear in mind that the revealed message is not identified with a particular culture,” the pope said. “And when meeting new cultures, or cultures that have not accepted the Christian proclamation, we must try not to impose a determined cultural form together with the evangelical proposition.” Proselytism “is always violent by nature,” he said, and “cuts out Christ” and grace from the Holy Spirit. Without aid from the Holy Spirit, mission work is but “a religious, or perhaps an ideological conquest, perhaps carried out even with good intentions.”

Being moved by the Holy Spirit, said the pope, produces an “attraction” for those who want to follow the path of missionaries. Missionaries should work in “facilitating, making easy, without placing obstacles to Jesus’s desire to embrace everyone, to heal everyone, to save everyone.” They should not be selective, impose “pastoral tariffs,” or be guards who control “who has the right to enter.” (Bergoglio Denounces Amazon Synod Critics as Racist.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not only a caricature—a cartoon figure, if you will—of a Modernist. He is a cardboard cutout figure of a leftist/statist/globalist in the mode of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and his first attorney general, Eric Himpton Holder, both of whom repeatedly denounced critics as “racists” as they were incapable—as in utterly incapable—of engaging their critics with rational debate. This was enough to stop their hapless, spineless “opponents” in the organized crime family of the naturalist “right” from taking any effective action, up to and including impeachment, for their serial violations of the Constitution of the United States of America and efforts to cover-up for the criminal activity of the Internal Revenue Service, the “Fast and Furious” and Benghazi scandals. They cried “racism,” and the Republicans back down (see, for example, We Oppose You Because of Your Policies, Mister President, Not Because of Your Skin Color.)

Obviously, Bergoglio’s critics within the counterfeit church of conciliarism will be emboldened by the use of the race card and will wear his criticism as a badge of honor.  They will not be kowed the way Republicans were during the eight tragic years of the heavy-handed statist governance of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and Joseph Robinette “Pay to Plan” Biden and their minions. Ah, but the fact that Bergoglio is need of being criticized by those who have held him—at least up to this point—as a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter is itself a testament to the manner in which the conciliar revolutionaries and their Gallican opposition have succeeded in destroying any true understanding of the nature of the papacy and that the Faith of Peter cannot fail.

The man who incanted the slogan “Who I am to judge?” six years ago to excuse the trust he had placed in the perverted “Monsignor” Battista Ricca is never shy about judging others by using baseless, gratuitous  assertions against Catholics who seek to oppose sacrilege, blasphemy and apostasy that he takes directly out of his ideological playbook that bears all the hallmarks of Karl Marx, Vladimir I. Lenin and Saul Alinsky.

You see, Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not believe in anything about the Catholic Faith. He is the very epitome of the spirit of The Sillon that Pope Saint Pius X condemned as follows in Notre Charge Apostolique:

We know only too well the dark workshops in which are elaborated these mischievous doctrines which ought not to seduce clear-thinking minds. The leaders of the Sillon have not been able to guard against these doctrines. The exaltation of their sentiments, the undiscriminating good-will of their hearts, their philosophical mysticism, mixed with a measure of illuminism, have carried them away towards another Gospel which they thought was the true Gospel of Our Savior. To such an extent that they speak of Our Lord Jesus Christ with a familiarity supremely disrespectful, and that – their ideal being akin to that of the Revolution – they fear not to draw between the Gospel and the Revolution blasphemous comparisons for which the excuse cannot be made that they are due to some confused and over-hasty composition.

We wish to draw your attention, Venerable Brethren, to this distortion of the Gospel and to the sacred character of Our Lord Jesus Christ, God and man, prevailing within the Sillon and elsewhere. As soon as the social question is being approached, it is the fashion in some quarters to first put aside the divinity of Jesus Christ, and then to mention only His unlimited clemency, His compassion for all human miseries, and His pressing exhortations to the love of our neighbor and to the brotherhood of men. True, Jesus has loved us with an immense, infinite love, and He came on earth to suffer and die so that, gathered around Him in justice and love, motivated by the same sentiments of mutual charity, all men might live in peace and happiness. But for the realization of this temporal and eternal happiness, He has laid down with supreme authority the condition that we must belong to His Flock, that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practice virtue, and that we must accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors. Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. He was as strong as he was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross. These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one’s personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910).

Pope Saint Pius X described and condemned the exact beliefs held by Jorge Mario. The false religion that is conciliarism, much like the Marxism-Leninism with which Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his closest friends believes can be understood in a “Catholic” way, is all about man with a capital “M,” not about Christ the King, Who Bergoglio believes only to have been a “man,” not the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity made Man in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb of His Most Blessed Mother by the power of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost. It is a just a figurative “hop, skip and jump” from Arianism to the pantheism and idolatry that Bergoglio has so warmly embraced and declares is part of the “missionary spirit” of a false religion that keeps mutating uncontrollably despite the efforts of an army of Girondist/Menshevik revolutionaries to get the conciliar toothpaste back into its tube.

Conciliarism is spiraling out of control just as Luther’s revolution spun out of control in his own lifetime, spawning an antinomianism that he hated but never realized with the logical fruit of his own “evangelical gospel” that had set “believers” “free” from their very means of salvation, Holy Mother Church. Bergoglio has succeeded in taking conciliarism to denying even the necessity of obeying the moral law as the logical consequence of his antipapal predecessors’ denial of the immutability of dogma, for which the Argentine Apostate has complete antipathy, which is why he surrounds himself with apostates of like mind (see Development of Doctrine is a people that walks together). This point has made hundreds upon hundreds of times on this site.

Bergoglio’s disbelief in the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as expressed by the nonagenarian atheist Eugenio Scalfari—and never denied by the Vatican—explains why he is so free to do what so many millions of martyrs refused to do at the point of their very lives: engage in acts of outright idolatry. If the hypostatic union of the two natures in one Person, Our Lord Jesus Christ, is but a myth made up by dogmatists, then there was no need for Him to make atonement for human sins, especially since, as Bergoglio believes, there is no such thing as Original Sin, another dogmatic myth. Our Lord simply showed us His “love” on the wood of the Holy Cross so that we could care for the poor and the environment.

A stretch?

Well, believe it or not, the nasty little secret that so many commentators seem to have overlooked: Arians abound in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, and some of them have been indemnified, if only by omission by Joseph Alois Ratzinger in his starring role as “Pope Benedict XVI.” Yes, the “restorer of tradition” said absolutely nothing to contradict “Archbishop” Robert Zollitsch’s heretical statement, televised in Germany on Holy Saturday, April 11, 2009, that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ did not make a propitiatory offering of Himself on the wood of the Holy Cross in atonement for our sins, only that He gave us an example of “solidarity” to demonstrate that He was with us at all times:

FREIBURG, Germany April 21, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - According to the chairman of the Catholic bishops' conference of Germany, the death of Jesus Christ was not a redemptive act of God to liberate human beings from the bondage of sin and open the gates of heaven. The Archbishop of Freiburg, Robert Zollitsch, known for his liberal views, publicly denied the fundamental Christian dogma of the sacrificial nature of Christ's death in a recent interview with a German television station.

Zollitsch said that Christ "did not die for the sins of the people as if God had provided a sacrificial offering, like a scapegoat."

Instead, Jesus had offered only "solidarity" with the poor and suffering. Zollitsch said "that is this great perspective, this tremendous solidarity."

The interviewer asked, "You would now no longer describe it in such a way that God gave his own son, because we humans were so sinful? You would no longer describe it like this?"

Monsignor Zollitsch responded, "No."

Archbishop Robert Zollitsch was appointed to the See of Freiburg im Breisgau in 2003 under Pope John Paul II. He is he sitting Chairman of the German Episcopal Conference, to which he was elected in 2008 and is regarded as a "liberal" in the German episcopate.

In February 2008 he said that priestly celibacy should be voluntary and that it is not "theologically necessary." Zollitsch has also said he accepts homosexual civil unions by states, but is against same-sex "marriage."

He told Meinhard Schmidt-Degenhard, the program's host, that God gave "his own son in solidarity with us unto this last death agony to show: 'So much are you worth to me, I go with you, and I am totally with you in every situation'."

"He has become involved with me out of solidarity - from free will."

Christ, he said, had "taken up what I have been blamed for, including the evil that I have caused, and also to take it back into the world of God and hence to show me the way out of sin, guilt and from death to life." (Christ did not die for the sins of His people).

What did Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI do about this?

Nothing.

What did Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI say about this?

Nothing.

Zollitsch continued as the conciliar “archbishop” of Freiburg im Bresgau until he turned seventy-five years of age in 2013, five months after Ratzinger/Benedict had resigned from the conciliar seat of apostasy. Not one word of rebuke of him was ever uttered by the “new theologian” who has made warfare against the nature of dogmatic truth throughout the course of his priestly life and who has personally esteemed the symbols of false religions with his own priest hands while frequently saying that all “religions” play a role in promoting “peace.” Here is a brief flashback to one such occasion nearly ten years ago:

VATICAN CITY, 17 DEC 2009 (VIS) - Today in the Vatican, the Holy Father received the Letters of Credence of eight new ambassadors to the Holy See: Hans Klingenberg of Denmark; Francis K. Butagira of Uganda; Suleiman Mohamad Mustafa of Sudan; Elkanah Odembo of Kenya; Mukhtar B. Tileuberdi of Kazakhstan; Abdul Hannan of Bangladesh; Alpo Rusi of Finland, and Einars Semanis of Latvia.

Addressing the diplomats as a group, the Pope referred to the need for "a just relationship between human beings and the creation in which they live and work" In this context, he underlined the need for "environmental responsibility" because "the continual degradation of the environment constitutes a direct threat to man's survival and his development, and threatens peace among individuals and peoples".

Benedict XVI encouraged the political authorities of the countries the ambassadors represent, and those of all nations, "not only to increase their efforts in favour of environmental protection but also - since the problem cannot be faced only at the national level - to produce proposals and provide encouragement in order to reach vital international agreements that may prove useful and just for all sides".

After then highlighting the importance of "converting or modifying the current development model of our societies", the Pope pointed out that "the Church proposes that this profound change ... be guided by the notion of the integral development of the human person".

"If it is true", said the Holy Father, "that over history religions have often been a factor of conflict, it is also nonetheless true that religions lived according to their profound essence have been, and still are, a force for reconciliation and peace. At this moment in history religions must, through open and sincere dialogue, seek the path of purification in order to conform ever more closely to their true vocation".

"Peaceful coexistence of different religions in each nation is sometimes difficult", he continued. "More than a political problem, this co-existence is a religious problem which lies within the bosom of each one of those traditions. Believers are called to ask God about His will concerning each human situation".

"For people of faith or people of good will, the resolution of human conflicts and the delicate coexistence of different religious expressions can be transformed into an opportunity for human coexistence within a social order full of goodness and wisdom, the origin and impulse of which lies in God. Such coexistence, respecting the nature of things and the inherent wisdom that comes from God, is called peace", said Pope Benedict.

"The peace we so long for will not come into being save by the joint action of individuals, who discover the true nature of God, and of leaders of civil and religious society who - respecting the dignity and faith of all people - know how to give religion its noble and authentic role in creating and perfecting the human person. This overall reworking, at once temporal and spiritual, will enable a new beginning towards the peace that God wishes to be universal". (RELIGIONS ARE A FORCE FOR PEACE AND RECONCILIATION .)

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is an apostate. He has no understanding as to the simple fact that God hates false religions. He does not accept the truth that each false religion is from the devil and was condemned by King David himself in Psalm 95, verse 5:

For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils: but the Lord made the heavens.

Wht doesn't everyone who is "una cum Benedict" just go out and get the following bumper sticker that could be attached to the "Popemobile?" (From Just In Time For Christmas.)

No one who believes that the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity became Man in Our Lady’s Virginal and Immaculate Womb can speak of the “coexistence” of “religions” as the “pathway” to “peace.”

In truth, therefore, Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s clever means of using Eugenio Scalfari to express his true beliefs without having exact quotation marks around them has been made possible by the steady degeneration of conciliarism from the “Second” Vatican Council to plain, unapologetic idolatry without any equivocation.

This is very important to recognize as to disbelieve in the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus and to deny that He rose Bodily from the dead on Easter Sunday makes it an act against “love” to speak with firmness about the Catholic truth that idolatry is a Mortal Sin, and it is thus also an act of “love” to reaffirm fornicators, adulterers and the perverted in their lives of perdition as the only “sins” that matter are those against “inclusiveness,” globalism, diversity and the environment.

The aforementioned Robert Zollitsch, for example, foreshadowed the entire agenda of Amazon Synod with these remarks six years ago:

Archbishop of Freiburg Robert Zollitsch, who chairs the German Bishops' Conference, called for the change at the end of a four-day meeting to discuss possible reforms.

The conference, the first of its kind, invited 300 Roman Catholic experts to propose reforms. Zollitsch's comments echo year-long calls from the Central Committee of German Catholics to permit women to become deacons. On Sunday, Zollitsch said that aim was no longer a 'taboo.'

Zollitsch said the Catholic Church could only regain credibility and strength by committing to reform. He described an "atmosphere of openness and freedom" at the conference.

Deacons assist priests during church services and can perform baptisms and marriages outside of mass. Their primary role however is to serve the needy in their community and their duties are considered secular rather than pastoral.

Another proposal to emerge from the conference was to extend the rights of remarried divorcees to sit on church bodies such as parish councils. Conference members also discussed the possibility of granting them the right to receive Holy Communion and attend confession.

"It's important to me that, without undermining the sanctity of marriage, these men and women are taken seriously within the church and feel respected and at home," said Zollitsch. At present the reforms remain speculative and there is no proposed time-frame for their implementation. The position of divorcees remains highly controversial within the Church.

The conference also touched on the difficulty, particularly in eastern Germany, of recruiting people to work for Catholic institutions such as hospitals and kindergarten. At present the Church can only employ Roman Catholics. However Zollitsch called for work permits to be extended to non-Catholics and to those with "different lifestyles." This would technically apply to homosexual people too. However Church labour reforms are unlikely to be introduced in the next three years.

While reform might be slow to come, the sentiments expressed at the conference are a signal to many that change is on the way. "I have never experienced a process of strategy development as transparent as this one," said Thomas Berg, of the Baden-Württemberg Leadership Academy, who attended the conference. (Women Catholic Deacons No Longer Taboo.) 

There is only one thing that is "taboo" in the counterfeit church of conciliarism: the Sacred Deposit of Faith as It has been handed down to us by the Apostles and taught infallibly by Holy Mother Church under the infallible guidance of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, from Pentecost Sunday to the present day.

It must be remembered that liberalism, born principally, although not exclusively, from the so-called "philosophy" of John Locke in An  Essay on Human Understanding and the Second Treatise on Civil Government, teaches that men can, unaided by the teaching or the supernatural helps of Holy Mother Church, "solve" human problems by their own unaided powers.

Liberals and their mutant descendants in the false opposite of the "left" contend that human beings can devise various structures to address social problems without understanding that such problems exist because of the sins of men. It is thus unnecessary for men to reform their lives by cooperating with the graces graces won for them on the wood of the Holy Cross by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as He offered Himself up to His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal Father for our sins. If the structures devised by men fail to produce the desired results, all one needs to do is to have the consent of a majority to proceed with structural reforms, each of which winds up worsening social problems as the structures reject the fact that Original Sin is the remote cause and that Actual Sin is the proximate cause of all human problems.

Thus it is that Modernists such as Zollitsch and his collegial first among equals south of him in the Vatican, Bergoglio/Francis, are never satisfied with their "reforms" and much clamor for more as the boundaries of what constitutes "full, active and conscious" participation in the life of their counterfeit church expand the more that sin proliferates in the world as a result of the sacramentally barren liturgical rites they employ to convey the falsehoods of their synthetic faith.

Why shouldn't there be deaconesses in the counterfeit church of conciliarism?

After all, women can distribute what purports to be Holy Communion with their own unconsecrated hands. They can serve at the altar as the extension of the hands of the presbyter. They can serve as lectorettes and leaders of song right from what Catholics would call the sanctuary of a church. They can even recite or improvise various "prayers of the faithful" at the lectern after the Credo during the weekend liturgy.

Deaconesses just are not that big of a step forward for the conciliar revolutionaries, concerned as they are about "empowering" groups they believe have been "disenfranchised" and "repressed" by that "old church" of "triumphalism."

Why not hire those who are engaged in unrepentant sins, whether natural or unnatural, in violation of the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments?

Why not grant them those engaged in perverse acts against nature "civil union" status?

What's the big deal?

Robert Zollitsch is a "mainstream" conciliar revolutionary.

Yet it is that anyone who opposes this agenda is considered to be a “racist” who wants to stifle Bergoglio’s heretical misrepresentation of God the Holy Ghost as a “free spirit” Who wants men to adapt to the times and not to God’s immutable truths as He has revealed them to Holy Mother Church for their infallible explication and eternal safekeeping. This is why he has contempt for Holy Mother’s twenty true general councils and for all dogmatic declarations as “corruptions” of his imaginary “gospel.”

Pope Saint Pius X explained the Modernist methodology that Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his revolutionary comrades have used throughout their entire public careers as enemies of Christ the King, His true Church and thus of the good of souls, including those souls to whom they cater by seeking to deify pagan and barbaric practices to realm of universal esteem and veneration:

30. Some Modernists, devoted to historical studies, seem to be deeply anxious not to be taken for philosophers. About philosophy they profess to know nothing whatever, and in this they display remarkable astuteness, for they are particularly desirous not to be suspected of any prepossession in favor of philosophical theories which would lay them open to the charge of not being, as they call it, objective. And yet the truth is that their history and their criticism are saturated with their philosophy, and that their historico-critical conclusions are the natural outcome of their philosophical principles. This will be patent to anyone who reflects. Their three first laws are contained in those three principles of their philosophy already dealt with: the principle of agnosticism, the theorem of the transfiguration of things by faith, and that other which may be called the principle of disfiguration. Let us see what consequences flow from each of these. Agnosticism tells us that history, like science, deals entirely with phenomena, and the consequence is that God, and every intervention of God in human affairs, is to be relegated to the domain of faith as belonging to it alone. Wherefore in things where there is combined a double element, the divine and the human, as, for example, in Christ, or the Church, or the sacraments, or the many other objects of the same kind, a division and separation must be made and the human element must he left to history while the divine will he assigned to faith. Hence we have that distinction, so current among the Modernists, between the Christ of history and the Christ of faith; the Church of history and the Church of faith; the sacraments of history and the sacraments of faith, and so in similar matters. Next we find that the human element itself, which the historian has to work on, as it appears in the documents, is to be considered as having been transfigured by faith, that is to say, raised above its historical conditions. It becomes necessary, therefore, to eliminate also the accretions which faith has added, to relegate them to faith itself and to the history of faith. Thus, when treating of Christ, the historian must set aside all that surpasses man in his natural condition, according to what psychology tells us of him, or according to what we gather from the place and period of his existence. Finally, they require, by virtue of the third principle, that even those things which are not outside the sphere of history should pass through the sieve, excluding all and relegating to faith everything which, in their judgment, is not in harmony with what they call the logic of facts or not in character with the persons of whom they are predicated. Thus, they will not allow that Christ ever uttered those things which do not seem to be within the capacity of the multitudes that listened to Him. Hence they delete from His real history and transfer to faith all the allegories found in His discourses. We may peradventure inquire on what principle they make these divisions? Their reply is that they argue from the character of the man, from his condition of life, from his education, from the complexus of the circumstances under which the facts took place; in short, if We understand them aright, on a principle which in the last analysis is merely subjective. Their method is to put themselves into the position and person of Christ, and then to attribute to Him what they would have done under like circumstances. In this way, absolutely a priori and acting on philosophical principles which they hold but which they profess to ignore, they proclaim that Christ, according to what they call His real history, was not God and never did anything divine, and that as man He did and said only what they, judging from the time in which He lived, consider that He ought to have said or done. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Yes, the conciliar revolutionaries, starting in an incipient way with Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII and degenerating down to Jorge Mario Bergoglio, have always been about the business of projecting onto Our Lord whatever it is they want as they despise doctrinal and moral certainty, and it is because they despise doctrinal and moral certainty that what they think is the Catholic liturgy must be used an instrument to enshrine and evangelize their false beliefs to their ow eternal detriment and that of the souls who are unfortunate enough to accept them as officials of the Catholic Faith.

Today is the Feast of Saint Martin of Tours, whose heroic life as a Successor of the Apostles stands as a sharp rebuke to the apostate from Argentina who parades around in white while indemnifying every falsehood and every political and moral reprobate on the face of this earth. Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., quoted none other than the great Archbishop of Poitiers, Louis Edouard Cardinal Pie, the great champion of the Social Reign of Christ the King who was the Bishop of Poitiers, France from from May 23, 1849, to the time of his death on May 18, 1880, about the life of Saint Martin of Tours, including the latter’s  hatred of the very sort of idols adored by Bergolgio the Scoundrel:

‘Nowadays there is much talk about the necessity of reasoning to persuade men as to the reality of divine things: but that is forgetting Scriptures and history; nay, it is degenerating. God has not deemed it consistent with His majesty to reason with us. He has spoken: He has said what is and what is not; and as He exacts faith in His Word, He has sanctioned His Word. But how has He sanctioned it? After the manner of God, not of man; by works, not by reasons: non in sermone, sed in virtute, not by the arguments of a humanly persuasive philosophy: non in persuasibilibus humanae sapentiae verbis, but by displaying a power altogether divine: sed in ostensione spiritus et virtutis. And wherefore? For this profound reason: Ut fides non in sapientia hominum, sed in virtute Dei, that faith may not rest upon the wisdom of man, but the power of God. But men will not have it so: they tell us that in Jesus Christ the theurgist wrongs the moralist; that miracles are a blemish in so sublime an ideal. But they cannot reverse the order; they cannot abolish the Gospel, nor history. Begging the pardon of the learned men of our age and their obsequious followers: not only did Christ work miracles, but He established the Faith upon the foundation of miracles. And the same Christ—not to confirm His own miracles, which are the support of all others; but out of compassion for us who are so prone to forgetfulness, and who are more impressed by what we see than by what se hear—the same Jesus Christ has placed in His Church, and that for all time, the power of working miracles. Our age has seen some, and will see yet more. The fourth century witnessed in particular those of St. Martin.

‘The working of wonders seemed mere play to him; all nature obeyed him; the animals were subject to him. “Alas!” cried the saint one day: “the very serpents listen to me, and men refuse to hear me.” Men, however, often did hear him. The whole of Gaul heard him, and not only Aquitaine, but also Celtic and Belgic Gaul. Who could resist words enforced by so many prodigies? In all these provinces he overthrew the idols one after another, reduced the statues to powder, burnt or demolished all the temples, destroyed the sacred groves and all the haunts of idolatry. Was it lawful? you may ask. If I study the legislation of Constantine and Constantius, perhaps it was. But this I know: Martin, eaten up with zeal for the house of the Lord, was obeying none but the Spirit of God. And I must add that against the fury of the pagan population Martin’s only arms were the miracles He wrought, the visible assistance of angels sometimes granted him, and, above all, the prayers and tears he poured out before God, when the hard-heartedness of the people resisted the power of his words and of his wonders. With these means Martin changed the face of a country. Where he found scarcely a Christian on his arrival, he left scarcely an infidel at his departure. The temples of the idols were immediately replaced by temples of the true God, for, says Sulpicius Severus, as soon as he had destroyed the homes of superstition, he built churches and monasteries. It is thus that all Europe is covered with sanctuaries bearing the name of St. Martin.’ (From Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Volume 15, Time after Pentecost, Book VI, pp. 146-147.)

Just another “racist,” Jorge?

No, Saint Martin of Tours did what comes naturally to a Catholic who is possessed of the true sensus fidei: he overturned idols and destroyed their homes because he knew, loved and served the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio does what comes naturally to man who lacks any semblance of the true sensus fidei as he is moved by “spirits” that come from the darkest reaches of hell that he is on a path to spend all eternity with if he does not public repent of his crimes and make a public abjuration of them before he dies.

As we continue to pray for the restoration of a true and legitimate pope on the Throne of Saint Peter and an end to the wreckage produced by conciliarism, may it be our continued privilege to offer up our prayers, sufferings and sacrifices in this time of apostasy and betrayal to the Throne of the Most Holy Trinity as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate of Mary, especially by praying as many Rosaries as our state-in-life permits.

Vivat Christus Rex!

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Saint Martin of Tours, pray for us.

Saint Mennas, pray for us.