Looking More Plausible By The Moment

Atheist Eugenio Scalfari, who co-founded La Reppublica newspaper in Italy in 1996 and served as its editor until 1996, continues to show himself as one of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s useful mouthpieces. Permit me a moment or two to explain this.

Although the Argentine Apostate is not a priest or a bishop, he has learned some of the ways of certain Jesuits, especially the Modernists among them even in the decades before the “Second” Vatican Council, and is thus very astute in the methodology that he employs to “push the envelope” of the conciliar revolution while giving spokesflacks such as “Father” Federico Lombardi, S.J., and “Father” Thomas Rosica, C.S.C., room to claim that the nonagenarian Scalfari’s articles about him, “Pope Francis,” are unreliable because Scalfari does not take notes or us some type of recording device when interviewing the false “pontiff.” This suits Bergoglio’s purposes very well as Scalfari provides a fairly accurate “sense” of what Bergoglio has said on various occasions, which is proved by the fact that Bergoglio himself makes no effort to correct Scalfari’s alleged inaccuracies.

Remember, Bergoglio can unleash hounds such as “Father” Fidenzio Volpi when the persecution of the Franciscan Friars and Sisters of the Immaculate is criticized. Both Volpi and “Father” Thomas Rosica have threatened lawsuits criticism leveled against them. Far from exhibiting the spirit of Holy Indifference as outlined by Saint Anthony Mary Claret in The Golden Key to Heaven in the midst of criticism and accusations, Bergoglio and his band of revolutionary hacks are thin-skinned and thus recoil at criticisms.

On the other hand. Jorge Mario Bergoglio has never once sought to remonstrate publicly with Eugenio Scalfari, who serves his purposes just as effectively as those at the so-called “peripheries” (practicing homosexuals and lesbians, those are divorced and remarried without a conciliar decree of nullity, men and women who chosen to mutilate their bodies in order to present themselves as “transgendered,” etc.) who have written to him and/or have met with him personally. Bergoglio knows full well that those to whom he writes and/or speaks or meets will blab their fool heads off to show how he is so full of “mercy” and “compassion.” Scalfari serves this same purpose, providing Bergoglio with an outlet to advance the cause of the “peripheries” without the use of exact quotes.

While it is certainly true that Scalfari’s latest article, which was published in La Reppublica on Laetare Sunday, March 15, 2015, is subject to well-founded skepticism as it makes no effort to provide basic journalistic facts concerning the context of the false “pontiff”s” alleged remarks, there is, however, just enough that rings true in it to make it serve the Argentine Apostate’s insidious agenda.

Before commenting on the most shocking part of Scalfari’s latest elegy of praise for Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his agenda that provides his, Scalfari’s, atheist heart with great succor, just a little bit of time will be spent refuting some of the old Socialist’s gratuitous claims about Saint Francis of Assisi and about the very founding mission of the Society of Jesus:

Pope Bergoglio did not pick the name Francis (unusual for the Church of Rome) by chance: the Saint from Assisi saw and loved all of God’s creatures because they all carry a spark of the divinity in them; the good shepherd is that spark which must discover and cancel with his love the dross accumulated in life itself and which has banished it into the depths, suffocating its light.

However, the theme of sin and repentance remain. And if repentance does not come? If the spark has gone out or has never existed? Pope Francis never considered that that spark could go out or that some natures could have even been deprived of it from birth; so the care for souls must never stop nor be interrupted and this is the task of the missionary work of the Church. At one of our meetings he spoke to me of that mission which concerned also unbelievers. “The missionary Church” – he said to me – does not proselytize, but strives to awaken the search for good in their souls.”

“Your Holiness, – I replied – I don’t believe in the existence of the soul.”

[Pope’s reply]“You don’t believe in the soul, but you have one anyway.”

This is the faith that sustains him and illuminates the way: the love of neighbor is the passion that inspires him. (Exclusive translation: newest papal controversial declarations to Scalfari- Did Pope defend the annihilation of souls?  [A Rorate Translation by Contributor Francesca Romana]

What can one say?

First, it should be noted that Saint Francis of Assisi himself sought the conversion of Mohammedans, being willing to put his very life at risk for doing so:

An early font presents the following account of the discourse of the Franciscans: "If you do not wish to believe," said the two friars, "we will commend your soul to God because we declare that if you die while holding to your law, you will be lost; God will not accept your soul. For this reason we have come to you." They added that they would demonstrate to the Sultan's wisest counselors the truth of Christianity, before which Mohammed's law counted for nothing. In answer to this challenge, and in order to confute the teaching of the two missionaries, the Sultan called in the religious advisers, the imams. However, they refused to dispute with the Christians and instead insisted that they be killed, in accordance with Islamic law.

But the Sultan, captivated by the speech of the two Franciscans, and by their sincere concern for his own salvation, ignored the demand of his courtiers. Instead, al-Kamil listened willingly to Francis, permitting him great liberty in his preaching. He told his imams that beheading the friars would be an unjust recompense for their efforts, since they had arrived with the praiseworthy intention of seeking his personal salvation. To Francis he said: "I am going to go counter to what my religious advisers demand and will not cut off your heads . . . you have risked you own lives in order to save my soul." (Frank M. Rega, St. Francis of Assisi and the Conversion of the Muslims, TAN Books and Publishers, 2007, pp. 60-61.)

Saint Francis, a Catholic, spoke in a slightly different manner than the ecumenist, the retired Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who spoke as follows: in Amman, Jordan, on May 8, 2009:

Places of worship, like this splendid Al-Hussein Bin Talal mosque named after the revered late King, stand out like jewels across the earth’s surface. From the ancient to the modern, the magnificent to the humble, they all point to the divine, to the Transcendent One, to the Almighty. And through the centuries these sanctuaries have drawn men and women into their sacred space to pause, to pray, to acknowledge the presence of the Almighty, and to recognize that we are all his creatures. (Muslim religious leaders, members of the Diplomatic Corps and Rectors of universities in Jordan in front of the mosque al-Hussein bin Talal in Amman)

As Mr. Rega noted in his fine book, Saint Francis of Assisi made no compromises whatsoever with the Holy Integrity of the Catholic Faith:

St. Francis was bold yet gentle. His gentleness and Christian meekness were not timid or cowardly and did not cause him to draw back and shrink before the threatening situation, especially during his initial encounters with the [Muslim] sentries and the hostile imams. His confidence and fearlessness reflected the action of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit inspired his zeal and emboldened him to overcome human weakness. Pope Gregory IX, in the Bull of Canonization of the Saint, wrote that Francis conquered "by his simple preaching, unadorned with the persuasive words of human wisdom and made forceful by the power of God, who chooses the weak of this world to confound the strong."

What then was the specific content of his preaching that caused it to make such an impact on the Sultan? The Franciscan Rule is the key that reveals the substance of Francis' preaching. Chapter XVI of the Rule of 1221, regarding the mission to the unbelievers, was in all likelihood written soon after his return from Egypt, as noted previously (Chapter 13). In it he declares that the friars, when they have seen that it is pleasing to the Lord, are to "announce the word of God." This is the very first teaching precept that he mentions. And to what purpose is the word of God announced? That the infidels and Saracens may believe in the Triune God and in Jesus the Redeemer, in order to be baptized and become Christians. Essentially, Francis was presenting Jesus as a Divine Person and the Saviour of mankind, rather than as just another prophet who was no different from the prophets who had come before Him, as the Koran teaches. (Koran 2: 136). (Frank Rega, Saint Francis of Assisi and the Conversion of the Muslims, TAN Books and Publishers, 2007, pp. 128-129.) 

Bergoglio and his atheist pal belive in a mythical version of Saint Francis of Assisi.

Indeed, it must be noted that the sissified portrait of the great Saint of Assisi, who bore the very brand marks of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, was refuted forcefully by Pope Pius XI in Rite Expiatis, April 30, 1926:

Pope Pius XI, writing in Rite Expiatis, April 13, 1926, warned anyone, including the egregious apostate from Argentina about whom a bit of attention will be turned tomorrow after completing yet another set of video lectures for my students, who would try to paint Saint Francis of Assisi as one who was indifferent to the doctrines of the Catholic Church is sadly mistaken and do a profound disservice to the Seraphic Saint and to the good of souls:

What evil they do and how far from a true appreciation of the Man of Assisi are they who, in order to bolster up their fantastic and erroneous ideas about him, imagine such an incredible thing as that Francis was an opponent of the discipline of the Church, that he did not accept the dogmas of the Faith, that he was the precursor and prophet of that false liberty which began to manifest itself at the beginning of modern times and which has caused so many disturbances both in the Church and in civil society! That he was in a special manner obedient and faithful in all things to the hierarchy of the Church, to this Apostolic See, and to the teachings of Christ, the Herald of the Great King proved both to Catholics and nonCatholics by the admirable example of obedience which he always gave. It is a fact proven by contemporary documents, which are worthy of all credence, "that he held in veneration the clergy, and loved with a great affection all who were in holy orders." (Thomas of Celano, Legenda, Chap. I, No. 62) "As a man who was truly Catholic and apostolic, he insisted above all things in his sermons that the faith of the Holy Roman Church should always be preserved and inviolably, and that the priests who by their ministry bring into being the sublime Sacrament of the Lord, should therefore be held in the highest reverence. He also taught that the doctors of the law of God and all the orders of clergy should be shown the utmost respect at all times." (Julian a Spira, Life of St. Francis, No. 28) That which he taught to the people from the pulpit he insisted on much more strongly among his friars. We may read of this in his famous last testament and, again, at the very point of death he admonished them about this with great insistence, namely, that in the exercise of the sacred ministry they should always obey the bishops and the clergy and should live together with them as it behooves children of peace. (Pius XI, Rite expiatis)

Pope Leo XIII, writing in Auspicato Concessum, September 17, 1882, explained, quite contrary to the spirit of effeminacy that is extant in the counterfeit church in general and in many of the provinces of the Franciscan friars attached to its nefarious structures, the Holy Founder of the Order of Friars Minor was a Catholic man who bravely embraced the the folly of the Cross no matter what anyone thought of him, bearing within his own body the very brand marks of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, namely, the stigmata:

And even as at that period the blessed Father Dominic Guzman was occupied in defending the integrity of heaven sent doctrine and in dissipating the perverse errors of heretics by the light of Christian wisdom, so was the grace granted to St. Francis, whom God was guiding to the execution of great works, of inciting Christians to virtue, and of bringing back to the imitation of Christ those men who had strayed both long and far. It was certainly no mere chance that brought to the ears of the youth these counsels of the gospel: "Do not possess gold, nor silver, nor money in your purses; nor scrip for your journey, nor two coats. nor shoes. nor a staff." And again, "If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor . . . and come, follow Me." Considering these words as directed personally to himself, he at once deprives himself of all, changes his clothing, adopts poverty as his associate and companion during the remainder of his life, and resolves to make those great maxims of virtue, which he had embraced in a lofty and sublime frame of mind, the fundamental rules of his Order.

Thenceforth, amidst the effeminacy and over-fastidiousness of the time, he is seen to go about careless and roughly clad, begging his food from door to door, not only enduring what is generally deemed most hard to bear, the senseless ridicule of the crowd, but even to welcome it with a wondrous readiness and pleasure. And this because he had embraced the folly of the cross of Jesus Christ, and because he deemed it the highest wisdom. Having penetrated and understood its awful mysteries, he plainly saw that nowhere else could his glory be better placed.

With the love of the cross, an ardent charity penetrated the heart of St. Francis, and urged him to propagate zealously the Christian faith, and to devote himself to that work, though at the risk of this life and with a certainty of peril. This charity he extended to all men; but the poorest and most repulsive were the special objects of his predilection; so that those seemed to afford him the greatest pleasure whom others are wont to avoid or over-proudly to despise.

Therefore has he deserved well of that brotherhood established and perfected by Jesus Christ, which has made of all mankind one only family, under the authority of God, the common Father of all.

By his numerous virtues, then, and above all by his austerity of life, this irreproachable man endeavored to reproduce in himself the image of Christ Jesus. But the finger of Providence was again visible in granting to him a likeness to the Divine Redeemer, even in externals.

Thus, like Jesus Christ, it so happened that St. Francis was born in a stable; a little child as he was, his couch was of straw on the ground. And it is also related that, at that moment, the presence of angelic choirs, and melodies wafted through the air, completed this resemblance. Again, like Christ and His Apostles, Francis united with himself some chosen disciples, whom he sent to traverse the earth as messengers of Christian peace and eternal salvation. Bereft of all, mocked, cast off by his own, he had again this great point in common with Jesus Christ, -- he would not have a corner wherein he might lay his head. As a last mark of resemblance, he received on his Calvary, Mt. Alvernus (by a miracle till then unheard of) the sacred stigmata, and was thus, so to speak, crucified.

We here recall a fact no less striking as a miracle than considered famous by the voice of hundreds of years. One day St. Francis was absorbed in ardent contemplation of the wounds of Jesus crucified, and was seeking to take to himself and drink in their exceeding bitterness, when an angel from heaven appeared before him, from whom some mysterious virtue emanated: at once St. Francis feels his hands and feet transfixed, as it were, with nails, and his side pierced by a sharp spear. Thenceforth was begotten an immense charity in his soul; on his body he bore the living tokens of the wounds of Jesus Christ. (Pope Leo XIII, Auspicato Concessum, September 17, 1882.)

Enough said.

Scalfari also tried to claim Pope Benedict XVI (Prospero Lorenzo Lambertini) as a figure analogous to that of Jorge Mario Bergoglio:

I remember also saying to him that I never thought that there could have been a pontiff like him and his reply was that it was the Lord’s [business] in His endless mercy, to know the future.

Recalling the history of the Catholic Church, there are two predecessors in particular who made mercy the main theme of their pontificate: Lambertini in the 18th century and Roncalli half a century ago. Almost all the others, from the Council of Nicea onwards, held the preaching of the Gospel and the governing of temporal power together, giving the precedence to one or the other according to the times in which they lived, as well as to the disposition of their own personalities. (Exclusive translation: newest papal controversial declarations to Scalfari- Did Pope defend the annihilation of souls?  [A Rorate Translation by Contributor Francesca Romana]

This is laughable on its face as Pope Benedict XIV, though he permitted Jesuits and other missionaries to use symbols of indigenous peoples by way of analogy to convert them to the true Faith, was no precursors of such conciliar precepts as false ecumenism, false mercy and episcopal collegiality.

Pope Benedict XIV, who reigned between August 14, 1740, and  May 3, 1758 (the year 1768 had appeared in this article's original posting, something that was a pure typographical error for which I apologize as I thank the reader who noted it), affirmed the doctrine of Papal Infallibility Pastoralis Romani Pontificis, March 30, 1741, a little more than one hundred nineteen years before the [First] Vatican Council did solemnly on July 18, 1870. Papa Lambertini also rebuked the bishops of Poland for seeking to dissolve marriages of longstanding in spite of no legitimate canonical impediments to do so, something that is just a little contrary to the impetus of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s desire for what he thinks is the Catholic Church to “mature” prior to the 2015 “synod of bishops” that will serve as the springboard for endorsing the administration of what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service to those are divorced and civilly “remarried” without the cover provided by a conciliar decree of nullity.

Perhaps very significantly, Pope Benedict XIV understood the Talmudic very well, something that is reflected in his A. Quo Primum (not to be confused with Pope Saint Pius V’s bull of the same name that was issued on July 1, 1570), June 14, 1751, as he warned against the pernicious influences of Jews living near Catholics in Poland while at the same inveighing against all violence directed against Jews as had been done by Radulph the Monk in the Twelfth Century:

We esteem the glorious memory of Polish martyrs, confessors, virgins and holy men; their exemplary lives are recorded in the holy annals of the Church. We also recall the many successful councils and synods which gloriously defeated the Lutherans who tried tenaciously, using a variety of methods, to establish a foothold and welcome in this kingdom. At that time indeed the great council of Piotrkow met under Our great predecessor and fellow citizen Gregory XIII, with prelate Lippomano, bishop of Verona and Apostolic nuncio, as its president. To the great glory of God it prohibited the principle of freedom of conscience; adherents of this principle were seeking to introduce and establish it in Poland. Another threat to Christians has been the influence of Jewish faithlessness; this influence was strong because Christians and Jews were living in the same cities and towns. However their influence was minimized because the Polish bishops did all they could to aid the Poles in their resistance to the Jews. What the bishops did is recorded in the large tome which contains the constitutions of the synods of the province of Gniezno. These facts establish most clearly and plainly the great glory which the Polish nation has won for its zeal in preserving the holy religion embraced by its ancestors so many ages before.

2. In regard to the matter of the Jews We must express our concern, which causes Us to cry aloud: "the best color has been changed." Our credible experts in Polish affairs and the citizens of Poland itself who communicated with Us have informed Us that the number of Jews in that country has greatly increased. In fact, some cities and towns which had been predominantly Christian are now practically devoid of Christians.

The Jews have so replaced the Christians that some parishes are about to lose their ministers because their revenue has dwindled so drastically. Because the Jews control businesses selling liquor and even wine, they are therefore allowed to supervise the collection of public revenues. They have also gained control of inns, bankrupt estates, villages and public land by means of which they have subjugated poor Christian farmers. The Jews are cruel taskmasters, not only working the farmers harshly and forcing them to carry excessive loads, but also whipping them for punishment. So it has come about that those poor farmers are the subjects of the Jews, submissive to their will and power. Furthermore, although the power to punish lies with the Christian official, he must comply with the commands of the Jews and inflict the punishments they desire. If he doesn't, he would lose his post. Therefore the tyrannical orders of the Jews have to be carried out.

3. In addition to the harm done to Christians in these regards, other unreasonable matters can result in even greater loss and danger. The most serious is that some households of the great have employed a Jew as "Superintendent-of-the-Household"; in this capacity, they not only administer domestic and economic matters, but they also ceaselessly exhibit and flaunt authority over the Christians they are living with. It is now even commonplace for Christians and Jews to intermingle anywhere. But what is even less comprehensible is that Jews fearlessly keep Christians of both sexes in their houses as their domestics, bound to their service. Furthermore, by means of their particular practice of commerce, they amass a great store of money and then by an exorbitant rate of interest utterly destroy the wealth and inheritance of Christians. Even if they borrow money from Christians at heavy and undue interest with their synagogues as surety, it is obvious to anyone who thinks about it that they do so to employ the money borrowed from Christians in their commercial dealings; this enables them to make enough profit to pay the agreed interest and simultaneously increase their own store. At the same time, they gain as many defenders of their synagogues and themselves as they have creditors.

4. The famous monk, Radulph, inspired long ago by an excess of zeal, was so inflamed against the Jews that he traversed Germany and France in the twelfth century and, by preaching against the Jews as the enemies of our holy religion, incited Christians to destroy them. This resulted in the deaths of a very large number of Jews. What must we think his deeds or thoughts would be if he were now alive and saw what was happening in Poland? But the great St. Bernard opposed this immoderate and maddened zeal of Radulph, and wrote to the clergy and people of eastern France: "The Jews are not to be persecuted: they are not to be slaughtered: they are not even to be driven out. Examine the divine writings concerning them. We read in the psalm a new kind of prophecy concerning the Jews: God has shown me, says the Church, on the subject of my enemies, not to slay them in case they should ever forget my people. Alive, however, they are eminent reminders for us of the Lord's suffering. On this account they are scattered through all lands in order that they may be witnesses to Our redemption while they pay the just penalties for so great a crime" (epistle 363). And he writes this to Henry, Archbishop of Mainz: "Doesn't the Church every day triumph more fully over the Jews in convicting or converting them than if once and for all she destroyed them with the edge of the sword: Surely it is not in vain that the Church has established the universal prayer which is offered up for the faithless Jews from the rising of the sun to its setting, that the Lord God may remove the veil from their hearts, that they may be rescued from their darkness into the light of truth. For unless it hoped that those who do not believe would believe, it would obviously be futile and empty to pray for them." (epistle 365).

5. Peter, abbot of Cluny, likewise wrote against Radulph to King Louis of France, and urged him not to allow the destruction of the Jews. But at the same time he encouraged him to punish their excesses and to strip them of the property they had taken from Christians or had acquired by usury; he should then devote the value of this to the use and benefit of holy religion, as may be seen in the Annals of Venerable Cardinal Baronius (1146). In this matter, as in all others, We adopt the same norm of action as did the Roman Pontiffs who were Our venerable predecessors. Alexander III forbade Christians under heavy penalties to accept permanent domestic service under Jews. "Let them not continually devote themselves to the service of Jews for a wage." He sets out the reason for this in the decretal Ad haec, de Judaeis. "Because Jewish ways do not harmonize in any way with ours and they could easily turn the minds of the simple to their own superstitions and faithlessness through continual intercourse and unceasing acquaintance." Innocent III, after saying that Jews were being received by Christians into their cities, warns that the method and condition of this reception should guard against their repaying the benefit with evildoing. "They on being admitted to our acquaintance in a spirit of mercy, repay us, the popular proverb says, as the mouse in the wallet, the snake in the lap and fire in the bosom usually repay their host." The same Pope stated that it was fitting for Jews to serve Christians rather than vice versa and added: "Let not the sons of the free woman be servants of the sons of the handmaid; but as servants rejected by their lord for whose death they evilly conspired, let them realize that the result of this deed is to make them servants of those whom Christ's death made free," as we read in his decretal Etsi Judaeos. Likewise in the decretal Cum sit nimis under the same heading de Judaeis, et Saracenis, he forbids the promotion of Jews to public office: "forbidding Jews to be promoted to public offices since in such circumstances they may be very dangerous to Christians." Innocent IV, also, in writing to St. Louis, King of France, who intended to drive the Jews beyond the boundaries of his kingdom, approves of this plan since the Jews gave very little heed to the regulations made by the Apostolic See in their regard: "Since We strive with all Our heart for the salvation of souls, We grant you full power by the authority of this letter to expel the Jews, particularly since We have learned that they do not obey the said statutes issued by this See against them" (Raynaldus, Annals, A.D. 1253, no. 34).

6. But if it is asked what matters the Apostolic See forbids to Jews living in the same cities as Christians, We will say that all those activities which are now allowed in Poland are forbidden; these We recounted above. There is no need of much reading to understand that this is the clear truth of the matter. It is enough to peruse decretals with the heading de Judaeis, et Saracenis; the constitutions of Our predecessors, the Roman Pontiffs Nicholas IV, Paul IV, St. Pius V, Gregory XIII and Clement VIII are readily available in the Roman Bullarium. To understand these matters most clearly, Venerable Brothers, you do not even need to read those. You will recall the statutes and prescripts of the synods of your predecessors; they always entered in their constitutions every measure concerning the Jews which was sanctioned and ordained by the Roman Pontiffs.

7.  The essence of the difficulty, however, is that either the sanctions of the synods are forgotten or they are not put into effect. To you then, Venerable Brothers, passes the task of renewing those sanctions. The nature of your office requires that you carefully encourage their implementation. In this matter begin with the clergy, as is fair and reasonable. These will have to show others the right way to act, and light the way for the rest by their example. For in God's mercy, We hope that the good example of the clergy will lead the straying laity back to the straight path. You will be able to give these orders and commands easily and confidently, in that neither your property nor your privileges are hired to Jews; furthermore you do no business with them and you neither lend them money nor borrow from them. Thus, you will be free from and unaffected by all dealings with them.

8. The sacred canons, prescribe that in the most important cases, such as the present, censures should be imposed upon the recalcitrant; and that those cases which bode danger and ruin to religion should be reckoned as reserved cases in which only the bishop can give absolution. The Council of Trent considered your jurisdiction when it affirmed your right to reserve cases. It did not restrict such cases to public crimes only, but extended them to include more notorious and serious cases, provided they were not purely internal. But we have often said that some cases should be considered more notorious and serious. These are cases, to which men are more prone, which are a danger both to ecclesiastical discipline and to the salvation of the souls which have been entrusted to your episcopal care. We have discussed these at length in Our treatise On the diocesan synod, Book 5, 5.

9. In this matter We will help as much as possible. If you have to proceed against ecclesiastics exempt from your jurisdiction, you will doubtless encounter additional difficulties. Therefore We are giving Our Venerable Brother Archbishop Nicaenus, Our Nuncio there, a mandate appropriate for this business, in order that he may supply for you the necessary means from the powers entrusted to him. At the same time We promise you that when the situation arises, We will cooperate energetically and effectively with those whose combined authority and power are appropriate to remove this stain of shame from Poland. But first Venerable Brothers, ask aid from God, the source of all things. From Him beg help for Us and this Apostolic See. And while We embrace you in the fullness of charity, We lovingly impart to you, Our brothers, and to the flocks entrusted to your care, Our Apostolic Blessing. (Pope Benedict XIV, A Quo Primum, June 14, 1751.)

Pope Benedict XIV as a harbinger of Jorge’s “false mercy,” “episcopal collegiality” and false ecumenism?

Not on your life.

The following part, however, contains Scalfari’s paraphrased summary of what he purports to be the seventy-eight year old Bergoglio’s views of the immortality of the soul and what happens to a soul who is “lost.” Scalfari provides no quotation or context to his description of Bergoglio’s beliefs, which are truly explosive if they reflect what the aged heretic in the Casa Santa Marta truly believes:

What happens to that lifeless soul? Will it be punished? How?

Francis’ answer is very clear: there is no punishment, but the annihilation of that soul. All the others will participate in the bliss of living in the presence of the Father. The annihilated souls will not be part of that banquet; with the death of the body their journey is ended and this is the basis for the missionary work in the Church: to save the lost souls. And this is also the reason why Francis is a Jesuit to the core. (Exclusive translation: newest papal controversial declarations to Scalfari- Did Pope defend the annihilation of souls?  [A Rorate Translation by Contributor Francesca Romana]

Until this afternoon, I found it very implausible to believe that “Pope Francis,” as bold as he is in his apostasy, heresy, blasphemy and sacrilege, would make such a statement that flies in the face of the very words of Our Lord Himself about the fact that the goats go off to Hell for all eternity:

[41] Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. [43] I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. [44] Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? [45] Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

[46] And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting. (Matthew 25: 41-46.)

While Senor Jorge has brazenly denied doctrine in other areas, to be so bold as to say that that there is no other punishment for a damned soul other than its annihilation seems very surreal. Can this really be true?

Anything is possible, of course. Thus far, however, there has been silence from the Casa Santa Marta and from the conciliar Vatican’s spokesflacks. Perhaps some “clarification” or denial that Scalfari has accurately reflected the false “pope’s” views will be forthcoming. It has been eleven days now, and no such clarification been issued and no statement of denial made.

Ah, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has told us repeatedly what contempt he has for doctrine and those who adhere to it as it was formulated precisely by our true popes and Holy Mother Church’s twenty legitimate general councils. He did so this morning, Thursday, March 26, 2015, Thursday of Passion Week, during his daily session of the Ding Dong School of Apostasy at the Casa Santa Marta inside the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River:

Abraham’s joy upon hearing that as God promised, he may become a father inspired Pope Francis’ reflection Thursday.  Commenting on the day’s readings, Pope Francis remarked that Abraham is old, as well as his wife Sara, but he believes and opens "his heart to hope" and is "full of consolation." Jesus reminds the doctors of the law that Abraham "rejoiced" to see his day "and was full of joy":

"And that's what these doctors of the law did not understand. They did not understand the joy of promise; they did not understand the joy of hope; they did not understand the joy of the alliance. They did not understand! They did not know how to rejoice, because they had lost the sense of joy that only comes from faith. Our father Abraham was able to rejoice because he had faith; he was justified in the faith. These others had lost faith. They were doctors of the law, but without faith! But what’s more: they had lost the law! Because the center of the law is love, love for God and neighbor. "

The Pope then continued:

"It’s only that they had a system of precise doctrines and that they clarified each and every day that no one touch them. Men without faith, without law, attached to doctrines that also become an attitude of casuistry: you can pay the tax to Caesar, can you not? This woman, who has been married seven times: when she goes to Heaven will she be the bride of those seven men? This casuistry… This was their world, an abstract world, a world without love, a world without faith, a world without hope, a world without trust, a world without God. And for this, they could not rejoice!"

Perhaps, the doctors of the law - the Pope observes ironically - could also have fun, "but without joy," indeed "with fear." "This is life without faith in God, without trust in God, without hope in God." And "their heart was petrified." It's sad, the Pope stressed, to be a believer without joy - and  joy is not there when there is no faith, when there is no hope, when there is no law - but only the regulations, cold doctrine":

"The joy of faith, the joy of the Gospel is the touchstone of the faith of a person. Without joy that person is not a true believer. Let's go home, but before that, we celebrate here with these words of Jesus: “Abraham your father rejoiced to see my day; he saw it and was glad.” And ask the Lord for the grace to be rejoicing in hope, for the grace to see the day of Jesus when we will be with Him and for the grace of joy." (Faith, not cold doctrine, brings joy.)

This egregious, wretched little man is a broken record.

Writing in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, Pope Saint Pius X analyzed and condemned the Modernist contempt for clarity of doctrine and the teaching of popes and ecumenical councils:

The Modernists completely invert the parts, and of them may be applied the words which another of Our predecessors Gregory IX, addressed to some theologians of his time: "Some among you, puffed up like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the meaning of the sacred text...to the philosophical teaching of the rationalists, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science...these men, led away by various and strange doctrines, turn the head into the tail and force the queen to serve the handmaid."

18. This will appear more clearly to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In their writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful. But this is done deliberately and advisedly, and the reason of it is to be found in their opinion as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they are dealing with history they take no account of the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechize the people, they cite them respectfully. In the same way they draw their distinctions between exegesis which is theological and pastoral and exegesis which is scientific and historical. So, too, when they treat of philosophy, history, and criticism, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, they feel no especial horror in treading in the footsteps of Luther and are wont to display a manifold contempt for Catholic doctrines, for the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be taken to task for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, maintaining the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly rebuke the Church on the ground that she resolutely refuses to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, having for this purpose blotted out the old theology, endeavor to introduce a new theology which shall support the aberrations of philosophers. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Pope Saint Pius X had described each of the conciliar “popes” with prophetic clarity. Bergoglio’s five predecessors have simply made it more possible for him to be so bold as to make certain what they tried to obfuscate with contradiction, paradox and ambiguity: that a false, ephemeral sense of “love” is all that matters, not doctrine. This can be termed as the “theology” of Burt Bacharach and Hal David (“What the world needs now is love, sweet love”).

Solely for the sake of argument, however, in order to prove the heretical nature of the belief ascribed, whether accurately or not, to Bergoglio, it would quite useful to call upon the words of another Modernist, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, who said the following in a “homily” on the Capitol Mall in Washington, District of Columbia, on Sunday October 7, 1979, as he denounced abortion in front of the nine justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America who were seated directly in front of where he spoke:

Yes, I was there, applauding and cheering along with the rest of crowd, whipped up as we were in a “papal” frenzy of delight as the adversary was pleased to deceive us with a defense of life that was based on the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment and of the Natural Law but on conciliarism’s respect for “the human person” and “human dignity.” Nevertheless, though, “Saint John Paul II” did note that “when God gives life, it is forever,” the meaning that the soul is immortal. It is becoming increasingly more plausible, although nonetheless shocking, to conclude Bergoglio does not believe this.

Insofar as a Catholic’s teaching on the immortality of the soul, consider the words of Saint Augustine in The City of God:

Chapter 1.— Of the Fall of the First Man, Through Which Mortality Has Been Contracted.

Having disposed of the very difficult questions concerning the origin of our world and the beginning of the human race, the natural order requires that we now discuss the fall of the first man (we may say of the first men), and of the origin and propagation of human death. For God had not made man like the angels, in such a condition that, even though they had sinned, they could none the more die. He had so made them, that if they discharged the obligations of obedience, an angelic immortality and a blessed eternity might ensue, without the intervention of death; but if they disobeyed, death should be visited on them with just sentence— which, too, has been spoken to in the preceding book.

Chapter 2.— Of that Death Which Can Affect an Immortal Soul, and of that to Which the Body is Subject.

But I see I must speak a little more carefully of the nature of death. For although the human soul is truly affirmed to be immortal, yet it also has a certain death of its own. For it is therefore called immortal, because, in a sense, it does not cease to live and to feel; while the body is called mortal, because it can be forsaken of all life, and cannot by itself live at all. The death, then, of the soul takes place when God forsakes it, as the death of the body when the soul forsakes it. Therefore the death of both— that is, of the whole man— occurs when the soul, forsaken by God, forsakes the body. For, in this case, neither is God the life of the soul, nor the soul the life of the body. And this death of the whole man is followed by that which, on the authority of the divine oracles, we call the second death. This the Saviour referred to when He said, Fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 10:28 And since this does not happen before the soul is so joined to its body that they cannot be separated at all, it may be matter of wonder how the body can be said to be killed by that death in which it is not forsaken by the soul, but, being animated and rendered sensitive by it, is tormented. For in that penal and everlasting punishment, of which in its own place we are to speak more at large, the soul is justly said to die, because it does not live in connection with God; but how can we say that the body is dead, seeing that it lives by the soul? For it could not otherwise feel the bodily torments which are to follow the resurrection. Is it because life of every kind is good, and pain an evil, that we decline to say that that body lives, in which the soul is the cause, not of life, but of pain? The soul, then, lives by God when it lives well, for it cannot live well unless by God working in it what is good; and the body lives by the soul when the soul lives in the body, whether itself be living by God or no. For the wicked man's life in the body is a life not of the soul, but of the body, which even dead souls— that is, souls forsaken of God— can confer upon bodies, how little so-ever of their own proper life, by which they are immortal, they retain. But in the last damnation, though man does not cease to feel, yet because this feeling of his is neither sweet with pleasure nor wholesome with repose, but painfully penal, it is not without reason called death rather than life. And it is called the second death because it follows the first, which sunders the two cohering essences, whether these be God and the soul, or the soul and the body. Of the first and bodily death, then, we may say that to the good it is good, and evil to the evil. But, doubtless, the second, as it happens to none of the good, so it can be good for none. (Saint Augustine, The City of God: See The Immorality of the Soul.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes that he knows more than Saint Augustine of Hippo?

Well, according to Eugenio Scalfari, he does, and this is becoming more and more plausible to believe.

Then again, perhaps part of the Argentine Apostate’s program is to confuse the faithful so as to engender battles between his critics and his defenders within the conciliar structures as he proceeds merrily to plant insidious seeds such as those that Eugenio Scalfari has ascribed to him without any contradiction or denial thus far:

The Company founded by Loyola taught and still teaches its followers that the premise of mission is being in tune with others i.e. being on the same wavelength, without which dialogue would be impossible. For that reason the missionary Church has to update itself according to the passage of the times and the diversities of places.

When dialogue finally becomes possible among different peoples, of diverse cultures, civics and religions, it is then that the missionary Church may stimulate the call for the good and limit the love of self.

Francis’ teaching makes a lot of sense even for those who don’t believe because it touches a deeply human factor, which is independent of belief in God and Christ His Son. It is a teaching which highlights the difference between man and the animal from which he descends, with a mind capable of reflection and self-judgment, by holding the bridle of his own narcissism and his head hled high, gazing at the stars. (Exclusive translation: newest papal controversial declarations to Scalfari- Did Pope defend the annihilation of souls?  [A Rorate Translation by Contributor Francesca Romana]

Really?

The spirit of one of the first Jesuits, Saint Francis Xavier, who was canonized with the his holy founder, Saint Ignatius of Loyola, by Pope Gregory XV on March 12, 1622, the Feast of Pope Saint Gregory the Great:

As to the numbers who become Christians, you may understand them from this, that it often happens to me to be hardly able to use my hands from the fatigue of baptizing: often in a single day I have baptized whole villages. Sometimes I have lost my voice and strength altogether with repeating again and again the Credo and the other forms. The fruit that is reaped by the baptism of infants, as well as by the instruction of children and others, is quite incredible. These children, I trust heartily, by the grace of God, will be much better than their fathers. They show an ardent love for the Divine law, and an extraordinary zeal for learning our holy religion and imparting it to others. Their hatred for idolatry is marvellous. They get into feuds with the heathen about it, and whenever their own parents practise it, they reproach them and come off to tell me at once. Whenever I hear of any act of idolatrous worship, I go to the place with a large band of these children, who very soon load the devil with a greater amount of insult and abuse than he has lately received of honor and worship from their parents, relations, and acquaintances. The children run at the idols, upset them, dash them down, break them to pieces, spit on them, trample on them, kick them about, and in short heap on them every possible outrage. (St. Francis Xavier: Letter from India, to the Society of Jesus at Rome, 1543.)

We have in these parts a class of men among the pagans who are called Brahmins. They keep up the worship of the gods, the superstitious rites of religion, frequenting the temples and taking care of the idols. They are as perverse and wicked a set as can anywhere be found, and I always apply to them the words of holy David, "from an unholy race and a wicked and crafty man deliver me, O Lord." They are liars and cheats to the very backbone. Their whole study is, how to deceive most cunningly the simplicity and ignorance of the people. They give out publicly that the gods command certain offerings to be made to their temples, which offerings are simply the things that the Brahmins themselves wish for, for their own maintenance and that of their wives, children, and servants. Thus they make the poor folk believe that the images of their gods eat and drink, dine and sup like men, and some devout persons are found who really offer to the idol twice a day, before dinner and supper, a certain sum of money. The Brahmins eat sumptuous meals to the sound of drums, and make the ignorant believe that the gods are banqueting. When they are in need of any supplies, and even before, they give out to the people that the gods are angry because the things they have asked for have not been sent, and that if the people do not take care, the gods will punish them by slaughter, disease, and the assaults of the devils. And the poor ignorant creatures, with the fear of the gods before them, obey them implicitly. These Brahmins have barely a tincture of literature, but they make up for their poverty in learning by cunning and malice. Those who belong to these parts are very indignant with me for exposing their tricks. Whenever they talk to me with no one by to hear them they acknowledge that they have no other patrimony but the idols, by their lies about which they procure their support from the people. They say that I, poor creature as I am, know more than all of them put together.

They often send me a civil message and presents, and make a great complaint when I send them all back again. Their object is to bribe me to connive at their evil deeds. So they declare that they are convinced that there is only one God, and that they will pray to Him for me. And I, to return the favor, answer whatever occurs to me, and then lay bare, as far as I can, to the ignorant people whose blind superstitions have made them their slaves, their imposture and tricks, and this has induced many to leave the worship of the false gods, and eagerly become Christians. If it were not for the opposition of the Brahmins, we should have them all embracing the religion of Jesus Christ. (St. Francis Xavier: Letter from India, to the Society of Jesus at Rome, 1543.)

My own and only Father in the Heart of Christ, I think that the many letters from this place which have lately been sent to Rome will inform you how prosperously the affairs of religion go on in these parts, through your prayers and the good bounty of God. But there seem to be certain things which I ought myself to speak about to you; so I will just touch on a few points relating to these parts of the world which are so distant from Rome. In the first place, the whole race of the Indians, as far as I have been able to see, is very barbarous; and it does not like to listen to anything that is not agreeable to its own manners and customs, which, as I say, are barbarous. It troubles itself very little to learn anything about divine things and things which concern salvation. Most of the Indians are of vicious disposition, and are adverse to virtue. Their instability, levity, and inconstancy of mind are incredible; they have hardly any honesty, so inveterate are their habits of sin and cheating. We have hard work here, both in keeping the Christians up to the mark and in converting the heathen. And, as we are your children, it is fair that on this account you should take great care of us and help us continually by your prayers to God. You know very well what a hard business it is to teach people who neither have any knowledge of God nor follow reason, but think it a strange and intolerable thing to be told to give up their habits of sin, which have now gained all the force of nature by long possession. Saint Francis Xavier, Letter on the Missions,  to St. Ignatius de Loyola, 1549.)

Saint Francis worked as a Catholic, not as a conciliar revolutionary who believes that the Catholic Church and false religions that worship the devil must "peacefully coexist."

Time and this writer’s own physical strength does not permit any further discussion of Eugenio Scalfari’s March 15, 2015, article in La Repubblica except to note that everything Scalfari desires what he thinks is the Catholic Church to be in future is what Bergoglio himself believes. Once again, of course, Pope Saint Pius X explained it all in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:

38. It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in the ecclesiastical seminaries. They wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live. They desire the reform of theology: rational theology is to have modern philosophy for its foundation, and positive theology is to be founded on the history of dogma. As for history, it must be written and taught only according to their methods and modern principles. Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to be harmonized with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas are to be inserted except those that have been reformed and are within the capacity of the people. Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to he reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head. They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity and authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized. The Roman Congregations and especially the index and the Holy Office, must be likewise modified The ecclesiastical authority must alter its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political organizations it must adapt itself to them in order to penetrate them with its spirit. With regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, and are to be more encouraged in practice. They ask that the clergy should return to their primitive humility and poverty, and that in their ideas and action they should admit the principles of Modernism; and there are some who, gladly listening to the teaching of their Protestant masters, would desire the suppression of the celibacy of the clergy. What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed by them and according to their principles?

39. It may, perhaps, seem to some, Venerable Brethren, that We have dealt at too great length on this exposition of the doctrines of the Modernists. But it was necessary that We should do so, both in order to meet their customary charge that We do not understand their ideas, and to show that their system does not consist in scattered and unconnected theories, but, as it were, in a closely connected whole, so that it is not possible to admit one without admitting all. For this reason, too, We have had to give to this exposition a somewhat didactic form, and not to shrink from employing certain unwonted terms which the Modernists have brought into use. And now with Our eyes fixed upon the whole system, no one will be surprised that We should define it to be the synthesis of all heresies. Undoubtedly, were anyone to attempt the task of collecting together all the errors that have been broached against the faith and to concentrate into one the sap and substance of them all, he could not succeed in doing so better than the Modernists have done. Nay, they have gone farther than this, for, as We have already intimated, their system means the destruction not of the Catholic religion alone, but of all religion. Hence the rationalists are not wanting in their applause, and the most frank and sincere among them congratulate themselves on having found in the Modernists the most valuable of all allies. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Despite all of the complexity that they use to make it appear that they alone have the ability to understand the “hidden meaning” of the Gospel, the method of Modernists is really quite simple to understand. Modernists simply project onto God and His Divine Revelation their own false beliefs. As unfettered by their heretical ancestors in Orthodoxy and Protestantism, Modernists claim that they are “stripping away” a version of the Gospel that had been “corrupted” by Scholasticism and by the Church’s general councils of the Second Millennium, especially the Councils of  Florence and Trent and the [First] Vatican Council.

In other words, everything about Divine Revelation is reduced to a supposedly “pure” reading of the Gospels that just happens that is able to be reinterpreted according to the “needs” of the times. Open contradictions of the defined teaching of the Catholic Church are called “legitimate developments of doctrine” even though such an exercise defies logic and the anathemas of Holy Mother Church.

Indeed, Pope Saint Pius X explained that Scholasticism is one of the chief obstacles that Modernists have to remove in order for their rationalistic system of heresies to seem “sensible” even though it is based on inherent sets of contradictions that lead to endless changes and adaptations:

Would that they had but displayed less zeal and energy in propagating it! But such is their activity and such their unwearying labor on behalf of their cause, that one cannot but be pained to see them waste such energy in endeavoring to ruin the Church when they might have been of such service to her had their efforts been better directed. Their artifices to delude men's minds are of two kinds, the first to remove obstacles from their path, the second to devise and apply actively and patiently every resource that can serve their purpose. They recognize that the three chief difficulties which stand in their way are the scholastic method of philosophy, the authority and tradition of the Fathers, and the magisterium of the Church, and on these they wage unrelenting war. Against scholastic philosophy and theology they use the weapons of ridicule and contempt. Whether it is ignorance or fear, or both, that inspires this conduct in them, certain it is that the passion for novelty is always united in them with hatred of scholasticism, and there is no surer sign that a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the scholastic method. Let the Modernists and their admirers remember the proposition condemned by Pius IX: "The method and principles which have served the ancient doctors of scholasticism when treating of theology no longer correspond with the exigencies of our time or the progress of science." They exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those "who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind...or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church"; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: "We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by everyone of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church." Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: "I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.'' (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Pope Pius XII, our last true pope thus far, explained the "new theologians" who attempted to recycle and repackage Modernism had the same hatred for Scholasticism as the foundation for the a clear explication of the truths contained in the Sacred Deposit Faith:

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.

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 this 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.

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.

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," 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. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)

If you will excuse me, my good and few readers, I am going to take my leave of Jorge Mario Bergoglio until after Holy Week. As I think I may have noted before Holy Week last year, I don’t care if he stands on his head and formally declares himself to be a direct agent of Antichrist as even that would not be “news” at this point. Anyone who does not see that Popes Saint Pius X and Pius XII believed in a different religion than Jorge Mario Bergoglio will never be convinced of the truth of the matter.

For our part, of course, we must intensify our penances as we enter Holy Week with First Vespers for Palm Sunday on Saturday evening, March 28, 2015, keeping close to Sorrowful Mother through her Most Holy Rosary and praying her Dolors during this very time in which our very redemption was wrought for us by the Passion of Death of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday in which she participated completely as our Co-Redemptrix.

The Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph in the end. We must simply offer her the sufferings of the moment as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son through that same Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

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.