Two Argentine Fiends Patronize African “Bishops” In Defense of Sodomy

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is intent on mandating the “blessing” of those who have made the free will choice to live in violation of Holy Purity by committing sins of unnatural vice that cry out to Heaven for vengeance at the risk of producing a schism within his false religious sect.

As we have seen in past decades in the Anglican sect and at present with the multifaceted grouping of heretics who are associated in some manner or another with the Methodist sect, the protection, promotion, and celebration of sodomy by the leaders of some “mainstream” Protestant sects has led to wholesale divisions and defections. Hundreds of Methodist churches have broken with the United Methodist sect in the past few years because of overriding importance that “enlightened” Methodist leaders have given to the cause of abject perversity, and it is very plain now that Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his follow Argentine defender of impurity and vice as the “least of sins,” Victor Manuel Fernandez, are more than willing to risk schisms within their own false sect to rigidly enforce their decision to “bless” those who have brought down God’s wrath upon their heads for their execrable sins that offend God, pervert the natural for the unnatural, spiritually and bodily wound those who engage in them, and represent the death knell of a society itself.

Steeling themselves against the objections made in an especially strong manner by “bishops” in Africa, Hungary, Kazakhstan, and a few other places, “Pope Francis” authorized Victor Manuel Fernandez, who is the head of the so-called Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, to issue a document yesterday, January 4, 2024, the Octave Day of the Holy Innocents, to reinforce the need for all clergy within the counterfeit church of conciliarism to obey Fiducia Supplicans, December 18, 2023, without objection. I will make comments as appropriate throughout the course of Fernandez’s “Press Release” of January 4, 2024:

We are writing this Press Release to help clarify the reception of Fiducia supplicans, while recommending at the same time a full and calm reading of the Declaration so as to better understand its meaning and purpose.

1. Doctrine

The understandable statements of some Episcopal Conferences regarding the document Fiducia supplicans have the value of highlighting the need for a more extended period of pastoral reflection. What is expressed by these Episcopal Conferences cannot be interpreted as doctrinal opposition, because the document is clear and definitive about marriage and sexuality. There are several indisputable phrases in the Declaration that leave this in no doubt:

«This Declaration remains firm on the traditional doctrine of the Church about marriage, not allowing any type of liturgical rite or blessing similar to a liturgical rite that can create confusion». One acts in these situations of couples in irregular situations «without officially validating their status or changing in any way the Church’s perennial teaching on marriage» (Presentation).

«Therefore, rites and prayers that could create confusion between what constitutes marriage – which is the “exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the generation of children”–and what contradicts it are inadmissible. This conviction is grounded in the perennial Catholic doctrine of marriage; it is only in this context that sexual relations find their natural, proper, and fully human meaning. The Church’s doctrine on this point remains firm» (4).

«Such is also the meaning of the Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which states that the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex» (5).

«For this reason, since the Church has always considered only those sexual relations that are lived out within marriage to be morally licit, the Church does not have the power to confer its liturgical blessing when that would somehow offer a form of moral legitimacy to a union that presumes to be a marriage or to an extra-marital sexual practice» (11). (Press release concerning the reception of Fiducia supplicans.)

Interjection Number One:

This is an exercise in positivism writ large, namely, to assert gratuitously that something is so when in fact it is not.

First, let me remind those who read this article that the counterfeit church of conciliarism already has changed Holy Mother Church’s immutable doctrine on the nature of Holy Matrimony:

856. The primary object of marriage is the procreation and education of offspring; the secondary purpose is mutual assistance and the remedy of concupiscence. (This can be found on page 205 of the following link, which is the 1917 Code of Canon Law in English:  1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law.)

Can.  1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized. (Canon 1055.1.)

Second, all the bluff and bluster concerning how Fiducia Supplicans has not changed Catholic doctrine about Holy Matrimony is nothing other than a straw man argument and a smokescreen wrapped up in pious pretensions about Catholic orthodoxy to coverup the simple fact that “Pope Francis” does not consider the sin of Sodom to be damnable in the sight of the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Holy Trinity, nor that those who engage in it have lost the life of Sanctifying Grace in their souls and are thus in need of being exhorted to quit their lives of perversion that, if left unrepented before their deaths, will lead them headlong in the depths of fiery abyss of hell for all eternity.

Third, Bergoglio and Fernandez speak only of “irregular situations,” not sin, and they believe, much in the manner of an Italian apologist for all things Bergoglio, Rocco Buttiglione, “love is never wrong" even though our love for others must be based upon God’s love for us, namely, to will the good. No one “loves” another if he does or says anything to interfere with that person’s sanctification and salvation, goals which absolutely exclude all impure behavior (fornication, self-abuse, adultery, and sodomy and its related noxious vices):

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

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

6] And the angels who kept not their principality, but forsook their own habitation, he hath reserved under darkness in everlasting chains, unto the judgment of the great day. [7] As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire. [8] In like manner these men also defile the flesh, and despise dominion, and blaspheme majesty. [9] When Michael theo archangel, disputing with the devil, contended about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him the judgment of railing speech, but said: The Lord command thee. [10] But these men blaspheme whatever things they know not: and what things soever they naturally know, like dumb beasts, in these they are corrupted.  (Jude 1 6-10.)

As I have noted so many times in the past, one will never see the conciliar revolutionaries citing these passages despite their supposed love of “returning” to the Scriptures. They, much like Martin Luther himself, ignore those passages of Holy Writ that do not coincide with their attachment to various vices, most especially their penchant for serving as apologists for sodomy in the name of “human dignity” even though the sin of Sodom is a genocidal act against the dignity with which those raised to the status of adopted sons and daughters of the Most Holy Trinity in the Baptismal font.

All right, on to the next passage of the January 4, 2024, Victor Manuel Fernandez press release:

Evidently, there is no room to distance ourselves doctrinally from this Declaration or to consider it heretical, contrary to the Tradition of the Church or blasphemous. (Press release concerning the reception of Fiducia supplicans.)

Interjection Number Two:

There is no room for those within the counterfeit church of conciliarism to distance themselves from Fiducia Supplicans only because it has been issued by one who those who have distanced themselves from it are bound to obey. As the document is indeed heretical in that it turns the Divine Positive Law and Natural Laws on their heads and is indeed both blasphemy and absolutely contrary to the entire Tradition of the Catholic Church, those who have said that they will not abide by Fiducia Supplicans must come to realize the no true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter would issue such a document any more than any true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter would give joint “blessings” with non-Catholic clergy, enter into temples of false worship while esteeming even pagan idols as worthy of veneration, nor dare to say that the Old Covenant was not superseded by the New and Eternal Covenant.

Obedience to a true pope is not optional, and if one finds that such obedience is impossible without abandoning Catholic doctrine then one is duty bound to face the reality that the one demanding obedience is no pope at all.

Back to the “press release”:

2. Practical reception

Some Bishops, however, express themselves in particular regarding a practical aspect: the possible blessings of couples in irregular situations. The Declaration contains a proposal for short and simple pastoral blessings (neither liturgical nor ritualised) of couples in irregular situations (but not of their unions), underlining that these are blessings without a liturgical format which neither approve nor justify the situation in which these people find themselves. (Press release concerning the reception of Fiducia supplicans.)

Interjection Number Three:

As noted in Jorge Demands that His Clergy Suborn Sins That Cry Out to Heaven for Vengeance, part two, the homosexual collective has been seeking the approval of what appears to be the Catholic Church for the past fifty years. Led in no small measure by priests and presbyters within those older religious communities that were colonized as homosexual havens in the decades before but especially in the decades after the “Second” Vatican Council and by lavender-friendly clergy in various parishes around the world, homosexual activists have clamored for some kind of “recognition,” and the supposedly “informal,” “extra-liturgical,” and “non-ritualized” “blessings” of public sinners are precisely such a recognition despite Victor Manuel Fernandez’s endless protestations to the contrary.

To wit, it was over twenty-six years ago now that the then pastor of the Church of Saint Brigid in Westbury, New York, “Father” Francis X. Gaeta, invited a homosexual activist from the pervert-friendly parish of Saint Paul the Apostle Church in the City of New York to give a sermon after the distribution of what purported to be Holy Communion in a Novus Ordo travesty staged at Saint Brigid School to berate Catholic Church for not embracing the lifestyles of those who express their "love" in ways that are not "approved" by church leaders. Gaeta, who officiated at the staging, smiled broadly, and applauded vigorously after the man finished his sermon by saying that it was his job to “move” what they thought was the Catholic Church in the direction of “inclusiveness,” stating the Church must accept the sin of Sodom as an expression of “love” and “compassion.” (I covered the event for The Wanderer, for which a comprehensive report was written that is no longer in my possession.)

Such events are now more commonplace than ever within the conciliar structures, and they were far from unknown during the presidency of the late Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. Indeed, one of Ratzinger’s own appointees, Timothy Michael Dolan, who has been the conciliar “archbishop” of New York since April 15, 2009, personally presided over a “rededication” ceremony at Saint Francis Xavier Church in the Greenwich Village section of the Borough of Manhattan on June 19, 2010, and listened as various speakers extolled the "LGBT ministry" at a parish, located in the western part of Greenwich Village, whose parishioners annually walk behind a parish banner in the annual parade of perversity that makes its insidious way down Fifth Avenue, passing right in front of the Cathedral of Saint Patrick in the process.

Fiducia Supplicans is a triumph for these activists, and they know it even though Senor Jorge and Senor Victor deny that that this is the case.

Fine.

Back to the press release:

Documents of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith such as Fiducia supplicans, in their practical aspects, may require more or less time for their application depending on local contexts and the discernment of each diocesan Bishop with his Diocese. In some places no difficulties arise for their immediate application, while in others it will be necessary not to introduce them, while taking the time necessary for reading and interpretation. (Press release concerning the reception of Fiducia supplicans.)

Interjection Number Four:

This is all a prelude to what is nothing other than a patronizing effort to assert that certain “cultures” (meaning Africa) will need “time” to be “educated” about the “orthodoxy” of Fiducia Supplicans. More on that in just a short while.

Back to the ext:

Some Bishops, for example, have established that each priest must carry out the work of discernment and that he may, however, perform these blessings only in private. None of this is problematic if it is expressed with due respect for a text signed and approved by the Supreme Pontiff himself, while attempting in some way to accommodate the reflection contained in it.

Each local Bishop, by virtue of his own ministry, always has the power of discernment in loco, that is, in that concrete place that he knows better than others precisely because it is his own flock. Prudence and attention to the ecclesial context and to the local culture could allow for different methods of application, but not a total or definitive denial of this path that is proposed to priests. (Press release concerning the reception of Fiducia supplicans.)

Interjection Number Five:

Sure. Go ahead. Please take some time to “discern” what how and in what manner these “blessings” will be administered but administer them you must as the text of Fiducia Supplicans has been “signed and approved by the Supreme Pontiff himself,” who demands that there can not be a “total or definitive denial of the path that is proposed” for the conciliar clergy.

In other words, obey the “pope,” no ifs, ands, or buts.

As Dom Prosper Gueranger noted in his hagiography of Pope Saint Clement I for his feast day on November 23 when describing the tone of the Saint’s Epistle to the Corinthians circa 95 A.D., all look to Peter for direction, knowing that no one can disobey a Successor of Saint Peter without disobeying God Himself.

Redundant.

Of course.

However, repetition is the mother of learning, and those within the conciliar hierarchy and clergy who recognize Fiducia Supplicans for the smokescreen that it is in defense of sodomy and those who base their human self-identification upon their proclivity to commit sins against nature have to realize that such a document would never be issued by a true pope acting in his capacity as monarch of the Catholic Church.

The next part of the “press release” contains the patronizing of the poor, ignorant African “bishops,” who are prisoners, Victor Manuel Fernandez would have us believe, of their “cultural traditions”:

3. The delicate situation of some countries

The cases of some Episcopal Conferences must be understood in their contexts. In several countries there are strong cultural and even legal issues that require time and pastoral strategies that go beyond the short term.

If there are laws that condemn the mere act of declaring oneself as a homosexual with prison and in some cases with torture and even death, it goes without saying that a blessing would be imprudent.  It is clear that the Bishops do not wish to expose homosexual persons to violence.  It remains vital that these Episcopal Conferences do not support a doctrine different from that of the Declaration signed by the Pope, given that it is perennial doctrine, but rather that they recommend the need for study and discernment so as to act with pastoral prudence in such a context.

In truth, there are not a few countries that, to varying degrees, condemn, prohibit and criminalize homosexuality.  In these cases, apart from the question of blessings, there exists a great and wide-ranging pastoral responsibility that includes training, the defense of human dignity, the teaching of the Social Doctrine of the Church and various strategies that do not admit of a rushed response. (Press release concerning the reception of Fiducia supplicans.)

Interjection Number Six:

This entire section is premised upon the following premises: (1) the African “bishops” will need time to adapt themselves to a “perennial teaching” that is nothing of the sort because they are, as mentioned above, prisoners of their cultural traditions; and (2) the sodomy is a human right that must be recognized, not punished, by the civil law.

As to the first premise, suffice it to say that the African “bishops” who have forbidden the implementation of Fiducia Supplicans know full well that the document is at variance with Catholic Faith and Morals, something was expressed very clearly by the “bishops” of Cameroon. Here is a reminder:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continuing, they wrote: 

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

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

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

No matter their refusal to see the true state of the Church Militant in this time of apostasy and betrayal, the conciliar “bishops” have stated the truth about Fiducia Supplicans in a very clear and concise manner, and no amount of bluff and bluster from the Argentine protectors of libertinage can turn something that is evil into something worthy of a “blessing.”

Those engaged in sodomy must be exhorted to convert and go to Confession. They must resolve to sin no more. They can benefit from our prayers and the true Masses we have offered for their conversion, but they cannot be “blessed” even in a “non-ritualized” manner as everyone with a modicum of common sense understand that such act is a recognition of a person’s choice to identify with sins that unnatural, perverse, abhorrent, and detrimental to their own temporal and eternal welfare as well as that of the common temporal good of society itself.

Finally, it should be noted in this regard that authentic Catholic social teaching recognizes that the civil state has a right and a duty to criminalize sodomy and to punish sodomites who flagrantly violate the law. Despite Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s deep hatred of Donald John Trump, he is as one with Trump on this matter as the forty-fifth president used sodomite Richard Grenel to work in favor of ending laws, especially in Africa, that criminalized sodomy. The protection of sodomy as a civil right is no part of the social teaching of the Catholic Church.

Wake up, African “bishops”! The Catholic Church is not responsible for Fiducia Supplicans any more than she is responsible for the “innovations” of the “Second” Vatican Council and the magisteria of the conciliar “popes.”

Speaking of innovations, the next part of the “press release” praised Fiducia Supplicans for its being a “novelty” and an “innovation” just after having said that it was part of the Catholic Church’s “perennial teaching”:

4. The real novelty of the document

The real novelty of this Declaration, the one that requires a generous effort of reception and from which no one should declare themselves excluded, is not the possibility of blessing couples in irregular situations. It is the invitation to distinguish between two different forms of blessings: “liturgical or ritualized” and “spontaneous or pastoral”. The Presentation clearly explains that «the value of this document […] is that it offers a specific and innovative contribution to the pastoral meaning of blessings, permitting a broadening and enrichment of the classical understanding of blessings, which is closely linked to a liturgical perspective».  This «theological reflection, based on the pastoral vision of Pope Francis, implies a real development from what has been said about blessings in the Magisterium and the official texts of the Church». (Press release concerning the reception of Fiducia supplicans.)

Interjection Number Seven:

How can something be a “perennial teaching” in one section and then an “innovation” in the next?

Oh well, logic and consistency are not the strong suits of the conciliar revolutions.

There are no “irregular situations,” only people who choose to live in a state of Mortal Sin to mise the gift that God has given men and women to give unto Him children for His own greater honor and glory to know, love, and serve Him in this life through His Catholic Church and then to be ever-ready to be citizens of Heaven for all eternity after their deaths.

Then again, you see, it should be remembered that the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical abomination, makes very few references to sin, to a God Who judges souls, and to the possibility of eternal damnation in its liturgical prayers. This is in no small measure because at least one homosexual, Rembert George Weakland, O.S.B., was on the Concilium that planned this synthetic travesty, and that the “pope” who approved it, Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul VI, was himself a sodomite.

“Irregular situations?”

There are no such things, and such Orwellian euphemisms would never be uttered by one possessed of the Catholic Faith.

Furthermore, of course, the Catholic Church has consistently condemned “innovations” and “novelties,” especially those that are claimed to be a “legitimate development of doctrine” when they are in se nothing other than a contradiction of and rupture with true Catholic doctrine:

These firings, therefore, with all diligence and care having been formulated by us,  we define that it be permitted to no one to bring forward, or to write, or to compose, or to think, or to teach a different faith. Whosoever shall presume to compose a different faith, or to propose, or teach, or hand to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles or Jews, or from any heresy, any different Creed; or to introduce a new voice or invention of speech to subvert these things which now have been determined by us , all these, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laymen: let them be anathematized . ( Sixth Ecumenical: Constantinople III ).

As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that, where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which it can be found without even a light tarnish of error. Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834.) 

They [the Modernists] 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 Nicaea, 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.)

Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers  in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolves and changes from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously . . . . The purpose of this is, then,  not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way . (Pope Saint Pius X, The Oath Against Modernism , September 1, 1910.)

Fiducia Supplicans and Victor Manuel Fernandez’s January 4, 2024, press release are not expressions of a legitimate development of doctrine. They are Modernist rationalizations of sodomy and those who practice it.

The January 4, 2024, press release goes on to say:

In the background is found the positive evaluation of “popular pastoral care” which appears in many of the Holy Father’s texts. In this context, the Holy Father invites us to value the simple faith of the People of God who, even in the midst of their sins, emerge from their everyday lives and open their hearts to ask for God’s help.

For this reason, rather than the blessing of couples in irregular unions, the text of the Dicastery has adopted the other profile of a “Declaration”, which is much more than a responsum or a letter. The central theme, which invites us especially to a deeper pastoral practice which enriches our pastoral praxis, is to have a broader understanding of blessings and of the proposal that these pastoral blessings, which do not require the same conditions as blessings in a liturgical or ritual context, flourish.  Consequently, leaving polemics aside, the text requires an effort to reflect serenely, with the heart of shepherds, free from all ideology. (Press release concerning the reception of Fiducia supplicans.)

The binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law are not “ideologies” that “enslave” the faithful. They contain commands that must be obeyed, and God does not demand the “impossible.” There is no part of “pastoral care” in which those who are committed to live in states of Mortal Sin, objectively speaking, are to be singled out for a special “blessing”  when they refuse to seek out the ineffable mercy of the Divine Redeemer in the Sacred Tribunal Penance, and every single effort by Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Victor Manuel Fernandez to make a rupture with Catholic Faith and Morals just proves how desperate they are to convince the gullible that the obvious is obscure, and the obscure is a development that is praiseworthy.

Not so:

Although some Bishops consider it prudent not to impart these blessings for the moment, we all need to grow equally in the conviction that: non-ritualized blessings are not a consecration of the person nor of the couple who receives them, they are not a justification of all their actions, and they are not an endorsement of the life that they lead. When the Pope asked us to grow in a broader understanding of pastoral blessings, he proposed that we think of a way of blessing that does not require the placing of so many conditions to carry out this simple gesture of pastoral closeness, which is a means of promoting openness to God in the midst of the most diverse circumstances.

5. How do these “pastoral blessings” present themselves in concrete terms?

To be clearly distinguished from liturgical or ritualized blessings, “pastoral blessings” must above all be very short (see n. 38). These are blessings lasting a few seconds, without an approved ritual and without a book of blessings. If two people approach together to seek the blessing, one simply asks the Lord for peace, health and other good things for these two people who request it. At the same time, one asks that they may live the Gospel of Christ in full fidelity and so that the Holy Spirit can free these two people from everything that does not correspond to his divine will and from everything that requires purification.

This non-ritualized form of blessing, with the simplicity and brevity of its form, does not intend to justify anything that is not morally acceptable.  Obviously it is not a marriage, but equally it is not an “approval” or ratification of anything either. It is solely the response of a pastor towards two persons who ask for God’s help. Therefore, in this case, the pastor does not impose conditions and does not enquire about the intimate lives of these people.

Since some have raised the question of what these blessings might look like, let us look at a concrete example: let us imagine that among a large number making a pilgrimage a couple of divorced people, now in a new union, say to the priest: “Please give us a blessing, we cannot find work, he is very ill, we do not have a home and life is becoming very difficult: may God help us!” (Press release concerning the reception of Fiducia supplicans.)

Interjection Number Eight:

Just a pack of lies.

Here we are on the Vigil of the Epiphany of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to the Gentile Kings, who humbly adored Him as they bestowed gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh upon Him, and our attention is turned to an insidious effort by an antipope and one of his chief henchmen to convince us that a “pastoral blessing” bestowed in a manner that does not seek to “enquire” about the “intimate lives” of public sinners is somehow pleasing to the God-Man who became Incarnate in Our Lady’s Virginal and Immaculate Womb to die upon the Holy Cross to make atonement for our own sins and to make it possible for us to liberated from our slavery to the devil by means of Original and Actual Sin so that can serve Him in a state of Sanctifying Grace even to the point of our dying breath.

We are called to sanctity, not empty sentimentality of making people “feel good” about themselves according to formulae such as suggested by Victor Manuel Fernandez:

In this case, the priest can recite a simple prayer like this: “Lord, look at these children of yours, grant them health, work, peace and mutual help.  Free them from everything that contradicts your Gospel and allow them to live according to your will. Amen”. Then it concludes with the sign of the cross on each of the two persons.

We are talking about something that lasts about 10 or 15 seconds. Does it make sense to deny these kinds of blessings to these two people who ask for them? Is it not more appropriate to support their faith, whether it be small or great, to assist them in their weaknesses with a divine blessing, and to channel that openness to transcendence which could lead them to be more faithful to the Gospel?

In order to avoid any doubt, the Declaration adds that, when the blessing is requested by a couple in an irregular situation, «even though it is expressed outside the rites prescribed by the liturgical books, this blessing should never be imparted in concurrence with the ceremonies of a civil union, and not even in connection with them. Nor can it be performed with any clothing, gestures, or words that are proper to a wedding. The same applies when the blessing is requested by a same-sex couple» (n. 39). It remains clear, therefore, that the blessing must not take place in a prominent place within a sacred building, or in front of an altar, as this also would create confusion.

For this reason, every Bishop in his Diocese is authorized by the Declaration Fiducia supplicans to make this type of simple blessing available, bearing in mind the need for prudence and care, but in no way is he authorized to propose or make blessings available that may resemble a liturgical rite. (Press release concerning the reception of Fiducia supplicans.)

Interjection Number Ten:

There is no mention of performing any of the Spiritual Works of Mercy, is there?

Of course not.

Instead, these “blessings” actually belong to the ways in which we can be accessories to the sins of other:

• 1. By counsel.
• 2. By command.
• 3. By consent.
• 4. By provocation.
• 5. By praise or flattery of the evil done.
• 6. By silence.
• 7. By connivance.
• 8. By partaking.
• 9. By defense of the ill done.

Conciliarism is by its very false nature uncharitable as it makes a mockery of the authentic, immutable teaching that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by making it appear that it is somehow opposed to tenderness and mercy to follow these words that Saint Paul wrote in his Second Epistle to Saint Timothy:

[1] I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: [2] Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. [3] For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: [4] And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. [5] But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober. (2 Tim. 4: 1-15.)

A physician does not "judge" anyone if he warns him what might happen if he does not stop engaging in a certain course of behavior that is deleterious to his bodily health.

Similarly, one who warns another about the state of his soul as he persists in a life of unrepentant sin is simply performing a fundamental Spiritual Work of Mercy, and those who are inclined to and/or steeped in perverse sins against nature are not to be left without being remonstrated as this is a duty of a Catholic before God and to the eternal and temporal good of the sinner.

It is one thing to sin and to be sorry and then to seek out the mercy of the Divine Redeemer in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance. It is quite another to persist in sin, no less perverse sins against nature, unrepentantly and to expect others to reaffirm him in those sins, whether explicitly by words of approval or implicitly by silence, which betokens consent. Catholics must judge the states of their own souls every night in their Examen of Conscience, and they have a duty to help others to recognize the serious states of sin into which they have plunged themselves, praying beforehand to God the Holy Ghost to fill them with wisdom and prudence so as to provide a warning in such a way that could plant a seed to get an unrepentant sinner to a true priest in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not only refuse to this, but he has also said very plainly on a number of occasions now that “homosexuality” does not matter, and he has made absolutely no distinction between one’s being inclined to commit perverse sins against nature and those who do so and persist in doing so.

Alas, Victor Manuel Fernandez’s directives below that the conciliar “bishops” must take care to avoid developing a formal “rite” and to make sure that the “blessings” of sodomites do not take place in front of an altar will be honored in the breach as such “blessings” are already being bestowed in front of altars and in other “sacred places.” Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s favored “bishops” and “presbyters” are doing and will continue doing whatever they like as they bestow these “blessings,” and some will do at “civil union” ceremonies without incurring any penalties for acting in such a manner.

The last part of the January 4, 2024, press release calls for a “catechesis” to help the fuddy-duddy goofballs who understand that these “blessings” of those in “irregular situations” do indeed connote approval them to do what the man they think is the “pope” wants done:

6. Catechesis

In some places, perhaps, some catechesis will be necessary that can help everyone to understand that these types of blessings are not an endorsement of the life led by those who request them. Even less are they an absolution, as these gestures are far from being a sacrament or a rite. They are simple expressions of pastoral closeness that do not impose the same requirements as a sacrament or a formal rite. We will all have to become accustomed to accepting the fact that, if a priest gives this type of simple blessings, he is not a heretic, he is not ratifying anything nor is he denying Catholic doctrine.

We can help God’s People to discover that these kinds of blessings are just simple pastoral channels that help people give expression to their faith, even if they are great sinners. For this reason, in giving a blessing to two people who come together to ask for it spontaneously, we are not consecrating them nor are we congratulating them nor indeed are we approving that type of union.  In reality the same happens when individuals are blessed, as the individual who asks for a blessing – not absolution – could be a great sinner, but this does not mean we deny him this paternal gesture in the midst of his struggle to survive.

If this is clarified as a result of good catechesis, we can free ourselves from the fear that these blessings of ours may express something inadequate. We can be freer and perhaps closer and more fruitful ministers, with a ministry that is full of gestures of fatherhood and hospitality, without fear of being misunderstood. (Press release concerning the reception of Fiducia supplicans.)

Interjection Number Twelve:

To quote the grifter from Delaware who is one of the greatest demagogues ever known in history: “Come on, man.”

“Struggle to survive”?

Nonsense.

Most of those who will seek these “blessings” have perfectly clear consciences, and they will go on sinning without a single word of reproof from those who bestow them lest they get a letter of excommunication as has an Italian presbyter who denounced Fiducia Supplicans from the pulpit one day and was given the boot just one day later:

IVORNO, Italy (LifeSiteNews) — An Italian priest has been summarily excommunicated after he declared during a homily that Pope Francis “is not the pope, he’s a usurper.”

In a brief statement dated January 1, chancellor of the Diocese of Livorno Father Matteo Giavazzi informed the diocese that Father Ramon Guidetti had incurred a latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication. The chancellor’s statement read:

“We inform you that Don Ramon Guidetti, priest of the Diocese of Livorno and parish priest of the Parish of San Ranieri in Guasticce, on December 31, 2023, during the Eucharistic celebration, publicly performed an act of a schismatic nature, refusing submission to the Supreme Pontiff and communion with the members of the Church subject to him (can. 751 CIC).”

No details were given in the diocesan decree regarding the action that Guidetti performed.

Continuing, Giavazzi declared Fr. Guidetti was suspended and also removed from his position as parish priest, effective immediately.

“Priests and faithful are warned not to participate in any of his celebrations or other practices of worship, because they would incur ipso facto the very serious penalty of excommunication,” the chancellor closed.  (Italian priest excommunicated after saying 'usurper' Pope Francis 'is not the pope'.)

Presbyter Guidetti is a “resignationist” even though Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI was himself a heretic and never held the papacy for a single moment (see, for example, It Is Never Advisable to Die as the Former Head of a False Religion, part one, It Is Never Advisable to Die as the Former Head of a False Religion, part two, and It Is Never Advisable to Die as the Former Head of a False Religion, part three). However, he was certainly correct to denounce Fiducia Supplicans despite his delusions about Ratzinger/Benedict, and we must pray that such presbyters and those “bishops” who understand falsehood when they see it will come to recognize that the whole conciliar enterprise is false and thus, if qualified, be ordained truly to the Catholic priesthood to work for the greater honor and glory of God and for the sanctification and salvation of the souls redeemed by His Co-Equal, Co-Eternal Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Many true popes have warned us about the likes of the wolves in shepherds’ clothing now. One of these popes was Pope Gregory XVI, who wrote the following in Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832:

6. These and many other serious things, which at present would take too long to list, but which you know well, cause Our intense grief. It is not enough for Us to deplore these innumerable evils unless We strive to uproot them. We take refuge in your faith and call upon your concern for the salvation of the Catholic flock. Your singular prudence and diligent spirit give Us courage and console Us, afflicted as We are with so many trials. We must raise Our voice and attempt all things lest a wild boar from the woods should destroy the vineyard or wolves kill the flock. It is Our duty to lead the flock only to the food which is healthful. In these evil and dangerous times, the shepherds must never neglect their duty; they must never be so overcome by fear that they abandon the sheep. Let them never neglect the flock and become sluggish from idleness and apathy. Therefore, united in spirit, let us promote our common cause, or more truly the cause of God; let our vigilance be one and our effort united against the common enemies.

7. Indeed you will accomplish this perfectly if, as the duty of your office demands, you attend to yourselves and to doctrine and meditate on these words: “the universal Church is affected by any and every novelty”[5] and the admonition of Pope Agatho: “nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning.”[6] Therefore may the unity which is built upon the See of Peter as on a sure foundation stand firm. May it be for all a wall and a security, a safe port, and a treasury of countless blessings.[7] To check the audacity of those who attempt to infringe upon the rights of this Holy See or to sever the union of the churches with the See of Peter, instill in your people a zealous confidence in the papacy and sincere veneration for it. As St. Cyprian wrote: “He who abandons the See of Peter on which the Church was founded, falsely believes himself to be a part of the Church.” (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

The Catholic Church is not responsible for anything to do with conciliarism, and we must always pray that more and more Catholics will come to understand this fact and, despite all fear of a loss of human respect from friends and family members, adhere to the truth without flinching in order to have access to the true Sacraments and to pray for the restoration of a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter to put an end to the madness that is before our very eyes.

Our Lady stands ever ready to help us in these difficult times. We must always cling to her with childlike simplicity as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits and, on this non-penitential Vigil of the Epiphany of Our Lord, prepare to adore Him with the humility of Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthazar every day of our lives.

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.

Pope Saint Telesphorus, the eighth pope, who died what Saint Irenaeus has described as a glorious death for the Holy Faith in the year 138 A.D., pray for us.