Another Front in the Conciliar Civil War, part two

As noted two days ago in Another Front in the Conciliar Civil War, part one, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is going nowhere. He is staying in the Casa Santa Marta, where he has been holed up since before the conclave, engineered as by the friends of all things impure, Godfried “Cardinal” Daneels (see Plenty To Say, Godfried, Plenty) and, a then-“cardinal” who was ineligible to vote but was permitted to attend the meetings beforehand, Theodore Edgar McCarrick (see Make That 224 Red Hats--and Two White Cassocks--To Go, Please),

August 28, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Pope Francis has named Cardinal Joseph Tobin, a prelate who former papal nuncio Archbishop Carlo Viganò has testified owes his rise to power to disgraced ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, as a delegate to the October synod on youth.

U.S. bishops’ president Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, Archbishop Jose Gomez, Archbishop Charles Chaput, Bishop Frank Caggiano, and Bishop Robert Barron were originally slated to attend the meeting. Pope Francis approved those delegates and then hand-picked Tobin to join them.

Gomez is the Vice President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). Chaput chairs the USCCB Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth, of which Caggiano is a member. Barron, an auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, has a large social media following and has expressed his support for Amoris Laetitia, the controversial result of the synods on the family. He has also raised eyebrows for claiming, sometimes in more nuanced ways than others, that hell is probably empty.

Tobin, the Archbishop of Newark, has floated the idea of female cardinals and personally welcomed an “LGBT pilgrimage” to his cathedral. In February 2018, Tobin tweeted and then deleted, “nighty-night, baby. I love you.” He said the tweet was “meant as a private communication with one of my sisters.”

The Archdiocese of Newark is one of the dioceses that was formerly led by McCarrick. The archdiocese ultimately paid one of McCarrick’s victims, a priest, a settlement provided he signed a confidentiality agreement. Tobin has faced many questions of how much he knew about McCarrick’s predation.

Earlier this month, after six priests anonymously gave accounts of a homosexual subculture in his archdiocese, Cardinal Tobin sent all Newark priests a letterencouraging them to stay silent if approached by the media.

“I would like to believe that the ‘anonymous sources’ were not, in fact, priests of the Archdiocese,” he wrote. “No one – including the anonymous sources cited in the article – has ever spoken to me about a ‘gay sub-culture’ in the Archdiocese of Newark.”

Tobin was named in Archbishop Viganò's recent testimony on Pope Francis' covering up for McCarrick as rising to power outside normal processes. Viganò linked Tobin's appointment to McCarrick. 

“The appointments of Blase Cupich to Chicago and Joseph W. Tobin to Newark were orchestrated by McCarrick, Maradiaga and Wuerl, united by a wicked pact of abuses by the first, and at least of coverup of abuses by the other two,” Archbishop Viganò said in testimony backed by another former nuncio worker.

It’s unclear why Pope Francis picked Tobin, particularly given he is under so much scrutiny because of the McCarrick scandal, to participate in the youth synod. Catholics have already raised concerns about the youth synod being hijacked to promote dissent from Church teaching. (Bergoglio Handpicks US "Cardinal" Enmeshed in McCarrick Scandal as Youth Synod Delegate.)

Unclear?

Seriously?

Come on, Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s selection yesterday of the homosexual apologist and protégé of the disgraced, venal, doctrinally and morally corrupt Theodore Edgar McCarrick to serve om the American delegation to the “world synod of youth” that will take place in Rome in six weeks was his defiant answer to “Archbishop” Carlo Maria Vigano’s statement, No, let me correct this. The Argentine Apostate’s naming of Joseph “Cardinal” Tobin to be part of the American delegation to the “world synod of youth” is just the first of what will be many acts of arrogant defiance on the part of a man who has a defiant contempt for all that is contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith and who is a veritable apostle of impurity, indecency, immodesty, perversity and every act of moral degeneracy imaginable, including the mainstreaming of bodily mutilation.

Despite his talk of a “gay lobby inside the Vatican” and of homosexual “bishops” as representative of a “left-wing ideology,” “Pope Francis has always—and I do mean always—hunkered down and doubled-down when anyone challenges his appointment of sodomites to various positions.

Remember, the first such instance of this occurred just four months into his false “pontificate” after he appointed “Monsignor” Battista Ricca, whose sodomite behavior was legendary when he served in the Vatican nunciature in Uruguay, to head the Vatican Institute for Religious Works, known more commonly as the Vatican Bank:

Consider how Bergoglio indemnified a proven sodomite, “Monsignor” Battista Ricca, who remains his own hand-picked director of the Institute for Religious Works, the Vatican Bank, while he was flying back to Rome on Monday, July 29, 2013, the Feast of Saint Martha, after having presided over the travesty known as “World Youth Day” in Rio di Janeiro, Brazil:

Speaking of other problems within the administration of the Holy See, including rumours of a ‘gay lobby’ within the Vatican, Pope Francis said there are many saintly people working in the Curia but also those who are not so saintly and cause scandals which harm the Church. Quoting from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, he said that people with homosexual tendencies must not be excluded but should be integrated into society. “If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge him?” he asked. (Francis the Revolutionary holds press conference on flight back from Brazil. See also Francis Says ¡Viva la Revolución!, part three.) 

Those five little words, "Who am I to judge?", helped the Homosexual Collective within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism and in the world-at-large to advance their agenda of perversity in the name of "toleration" and "compassion" and "diversity" with more and more boldness.

The facts in Battista Ricca's case were entirely correct. Jorge, however, just  merely shrugged his shoulders and said "Who am I to judge?", the slogan that warmed the hearts of practitioners of perversity worldwide, just two weeks after his spokesflack, "Father" Federico Lombardi, S.J., had called the accuations against Ricca to have been "not trustworthy," something that prompted Vaticanologist Sandro Magister to shoot back with a point-by-by-point refutation of Lombardi:

Questioned on L'Espresso's cover story on the prominent promotion by Pope Francis of a supposed member of the Vatican "Gay Lobby" (previous post), Fr. Federico Lombardi, Holy See spokesman, called the accusation "untrustworthy" (non attendibile). Not only that, according to journalist Matteo Matzuzzi on Twitter, Lombardi said today that, "the Pope has had the chance to verify whether the accusations against Msgr. Ricca were consistent or not," and that "Pope Francis is aware of the accusations made against Msgr. Ricca but has decided to keep him in his position".

Sandro Magister, the well-known Vaticanist and article author, and L'Espresso (institutionally) fired back:

This was the immediate reply of L'Espresso:

"To Father Lombardi, who defines as 'not trustworthy' what was published regarding Msgr. Ricca, L'Espresso replies reaffirming point by point the facts referred by Sandro Magister in his piece, confirmed by several primary sources and, as a whole, considered at the time of such gravity by the same Vatican authorities that forced them to remove the Monsignor from the Uruguay nunciature, in which he rendered his service, giving scandal to bishops,priests, religious and lay persons in that country.

"It can be added that the Vatican authorities, instead of making up improbable and ad-lib denials, could verify the trustworthiness of all that was published by L'Espresso by simply consulting the exhaustive documentation in their possession on the affair, in particular that related to his time in the Montevideo nunciature. Further documentation is available from the Uruguayan authorBities, from security forces to fire brigades. Not to mention the numerous bishops, priests, religious, laymen in Uruguay who were direct witnesses of the scandal and are ready to speak." (On "Gay Lobby", Sandro Magister challenges the Vatican: "We have the evidence".)

Facts have never mattered to Jorge Mario Bergoglio as he is ultimate ideologue, and it is no accident at all that the appointment of sodomites to the conciliar hierarchy began under the wretched practitioner of sodomy named Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul the Sick. Bergoglio is seen by his fellow Jacobin/Bolshevik revolutionaries as being the true successor of the Montinian revolution, which he, “Pope Francis,” is bringing to its intended ends.

The he arrogant octogenarian from Argentina was equally defiant over seven months ago now as he reacted to protests against “Bishop” Juan Barros in Chile, his own lavender-friendly appointee as the “bishop” of Osorno,  Chile, for having protected a proven perverted presbyter, Fernando Karadima:

SANTIAGO, Chile — A number of Chilean Catholics reacted with disappointment and anger on Friday, a day after Pope Francis spoke in defense of a bishop who they say protected a pedophile priest. The remarks, made on Thursday just before Francis left Chile for Peru, upended his efforts to rehabilitate the Catholic Church’s reputation while visiting South America.

Francis told reporters Thursday there was not a shred of evidence against Bishop Juan Barros Madrid, who victims of the Rev. Fernando Karadima, Chile’s most notorious priest, have accused of being complicit in his crimes.

“The day someone brings me proof against Bishop Barros, then I will talk,” Francis said before celebrating Mass outside the northern Chilean city of Iquique. “But there is not one single piece of evidence. It is all slander. Is that clear?”

The pope’s comments set off a storm in Chile, raising questions about his commitment to repairing the damage from sexual abuse scandals and improving the decline in the church’s image and following in the traditionally devout country.

Benito Baranda, coordinator of the pope’s visit to Chile, told a radio station in Santiago that Bishop Barros “should have ceased to be bishop a long time ago.” He added: “The damage he is inflicting on the church is big.”

Mr. Baranda, a psychologist, said that the church “never believed Karadima’s victims from the start” and that the pope’s support for the bishop “reignites the feeling of not being believed, or that they are exaggerating or being deceitful. It’s like when children say they suffer abuse but no one believes them because they are children.”

However, the president of the Chilean bishops’ conference, Msgr. Santiago Silva, said the organization would “unconditionally support” the pope’s position on Bishop Barros. “The pope told us what he wants, and he wants Monsignor Barros to continue,” Monsignor Silva said.

Alejandro Goic, the bishop of Rancagua, said that what “the pope says has extraordinary value,” but he added that “the church’s main priority should be the victims.”

Anne Barrett Doyle, a co-director of BishopAccountability.org, a group that monitors abuse cases, called the pope’s remarks “a stunning setback.”

She added: “He has just turned back the clock to the darkest days of this crisis. Who knows how many victims now will decide to stay hidden, for fear they will not be believed?”

And the government’s spokeswoman, Paula Narváez, said on her Twitter account: “Respecting, believing and supporting victims of sexual abuse is an ethical imperative. No institutional defense can override this basic principle for a fair society, one that is empathetic with those who most need it.”

Father Karadima was convicted by the Vatican in 2011 of abusing teenage boys beginning in the 1980s, and he was ordered to lead a “life of prayer and penitence.” That year, a judge found the allegations “truthful and reliable” but dismissed a criminal case because the statute of limitations had expired.

Bishop Barros, a former military chaplain, was part of Father Karadima’s inner circle and, according to one of the victims, witnessed the priest’s advances on him.

“As if I could have taken a selfie or picture while Karadima abused me or others and Juan Barros stood there watching it all,” one of Father Karadima’s victims, Juan Carlos Cruz, wrote on Twitter.

Despite the allegations against Father Barros, Francis appointed him bishop of Osorno, in southern Chile, in 2015. Dozens of priests and legislators said they opposed the move.

The pope told a group of tourists visiting Vatican City in 2015 that people in Orsono who protested the appointment were “dumb.”

“The Osorno community is suffering because it’s dumb,” he said, according to video recorded by one of the tourists. The city had “let its head be filled with what politicians say, judging a bishop without any proof.”

This week, lay and religious groups from Osorno and Santiago, the capital, protested throughout the pope’s visit and called for action against the bishop.

But Bishop Barros has continued to enjoy the support of the Vatican, and there was no public indication that Francis was reconsidering his position. Bishop Barros participated in the pope’s ceremonies in Santiago, Iquique and the southern city of Temuco. In Iquique, Bishop Barros told reporters that Francis had offered him “words of support and affection.”

The Associated Press reported this week that Francis had acknowledged the furor over the legacy of Father Karadima in a 2015 letter to the Chilean bishop’s conference. The letter said the pope proposed Bishop Barros and two other bishops go on sabbatical before taking up any new positions, a plan that ultimately fell apart.

Francis began his visit to Chile on Tuesday morning by publicly apologizing for the sexual abuse involving the clergy, saying he felt “pained and ashamed” over the “irreparable damage” done to their victims. But he refused to meet with victims of Father Karadima.

“What the pope has done today is offensive and painful, and not only against us, but against everyone seeking to end the abuses,” James Hamilton, one of the victims, said during a news conference Thursday.

The archbishop of Santiago, Francisco Javier Errázuriz, who has been harshly criticized by Father Karadima’s victims for failing to protect them or investigate their accusations at the time, said the controversy over Bishop Barros was an “invention.”  (Jorge Says Critics of Barros are Slanderers.)

After a storm of protests from Chilean Catholics and from survivors of clerical abuse worldwide, Bergoglio was forced to accept the resignation of “Bishop” Juan Barros Madrid on June 11, 2018, the Feast of Saint Barnabas (see Apostate Accepts Resignation of Juan Barros). Battista Ricca, however, is still in power and there he will remain while the Argentine Apostate promotes the homosexuals and their apologists all throughout the nooks and crannies of his false religious sect that represents itself to be the Catholic Church but is nothing other than her counterfeit ape.

To be sure, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has removed a few Jacobin/Menshevik conciliar revolutionaries who have provided sanctuary to and/or provided cover for clerical predators. In two such cases, those of “Bishop” Robert Finn of Kansas City-Saint Joseph, Missouri, and Rogelio Livieres Plano of Ciudad del Este, Paraguay, who was the protector and enabler of a predator, Father Carlos Urutigoity, ordained by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X who later formed the “Society of Saint John” (see Still No Excuses For Those Who Defend The Society of Saint John and Urrutigoity: The Legal Filings) under the protection of “Bishop” James Clifford Timlin, himself a notorious protector of clerical abusers. The removal of “bishops” Finn and Livieres Plano, though, gave Bergoglio the opportunity to appoint his own men in their places as the ousted pair were supportive of Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007. When it comes to Theodore Edgar McCarrick’s boys such as Blase Cupich and Joseph Tobin, though, there has been and there will continue to be nothing other than full “papal” support and approval.

No, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is staying put in the Casa Santa Marta until he is good and ready to leave on his own terms, although Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Whose Sacred Doctrine he defiles and Whose Most Blessed Mother he blasphemes, may very well decide when the egregious, pestilential heretic and blasphemer leaves Vatican City at the moment by taking him while still in office as the sixth in the current line of antipopes.

Role Reversals I: The National Catholic Reporter

“Archbishop” Carlo Maria Vigano’s statement has been verified by “Father” Jean-Francois Lantheaume, who served as his first counsellor at the Vatican Embassy in Washington, District of Columbia, and who personally informed the-then Theodore Edgar “Cardinal” McCarrick of the censure being placed upon him by “Pope Benedict XVI,” who, sources close to the National Catholic Register report, has confirmed the matter himself in a general way:

August 27, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – The former first counsellor at the apostolic  nunciature in Washington, D.C. corroborates Archbishop Carlo Viganò’s testimony that Pope Francis and a number of high-ranking prelates helped cover up ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick’s sex abuse.

Viganò, the former U.S. nuncio, released a bombshell 11-page statement saying that he personally spoke to Pope Francis about McCarrick’s abusive behavior. According to Viganò, Pope Francis actually lifted canonical sanctions Pope Benedict XVI had placed on predatory prelate, allowing him to make repeated public appearances, and enlisted his help in picking U.S. bishops.

McCarrick becoming a “kingmaker” in bishop selection led to the appointments of Chicago’s Cardinal Blase Cupich and Newark’s Cardinal Joseph Tobin (Newark is McCarrick’s former see and one of the dioceses that paid a settlement to a priest abused by McCarrick).

“Viganò said the truth. That’s all,” Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume told Catholic News Agency. He declined to say anything further in that interview.

“What is certain is that Pope Benedict imposed the above canonical sanctions on McCarrick and that they were communicated to him by the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, Pietro Sambi,” Archbishop Viganò wrote in his testimony. “Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, then first Counsellor of the Nunciature in Washington and Chargé d'Affaires a.i. after the unexpected death of Nuncio Sambi in Baltimore, told me when I arrived in Washington — and he is ready to testify to it— about a stormy conversation, lasting over an hour, that Nuncio Sambi had with Cardinal McCarrick whom he had summoned to the Nunciature. Monsignor Lantheaume told me that “the Nuncio’s voice could be heard all the way out in the corridor.”

In addition to Monsignor Lantheaume, Viganò has another in the Church who is apparently vouching for the credibility of his accusations: On Saturday, the National Catholic Register reported that it “independently confirmed that the allegations against McCarrick were certainly known to Benedict, and the Pope Emeritus remembers instructing Cardinal Bertone to impose measures but cannot recall their exact nature.” (Former Nunciature Official Backs Vigano: He Told the Truth.)

“Archbishop” Vigano has nothing to do gain by coming forth as he has. However, as noted in part one of this series two days ago, defenders of the Bergoglian agenda against Catholic Faith, Worship and Morals are attempted to demonize the former Vatican envoy to the United States of America. Chief among these demonizers is the National Catholic Reporter newspaper, which was in the vanguard of reporting about clerical abuse in the late-1980s and 1990s.

In a remarkable role reversal for a newspaper that has long championed the cause of so-called “loyal dissent” from the immutable truths contained in the Sacred Deposit Faith, the writers of the National Catholic Reporter are engaging in a concerted campaign of character assassination against “Archbishop” Carlo Maria Vigano, which is quite interesting as they are doing to the former nuncio what many of them and their predecessors at the newspaper condemned chancery officials for doing when exposing clerical abuse scandals: shooting the messenger!

The National Catholic Reporter is thus seeking to discredit “Archbishop” Vigano  by refusing even to consider that what he is alleged is true and that the “pope” whose “pontificate” they believe is being threatened by a putsch or a coup from the “right” did indeed have knowledge of Theodore Edgar McCarrick’s legendary history of predatory behavior and chose nevertheless to lift the tepid sanctions that had been imposed upon him by “Pope Benedict XVI,” thus liberating McCarrick to move about freely, speak openly and serve as his own kingmaker.

The editors and the writers of the National Catholic Reporter cannot hold their long-awaited “liberal, progressive pope” to the same standard that they held “conservative” “bishops” in from the late-1980s and to the present day when allegations of their own clerical abuse and/or protection and enabling of clerical abusers is exposed. Moreover, the editors and the writers of the National Catholic Reporter cannot accept—nor will they ever admit—that sodomy is the cause of at least four-fifths to nine-tenths of all cases of clerical abuse.

Well, what Vigano has alleged is either true or it is not. The fact that both the former first counsellor at the Vatican Embassy and sources close to Antipope Emeritus Ratzinger/Benedict XVI have confirmed that sanctions, at least of some sort, had been imposed on “Uncle Teddy” McCarrick cannot interfere with the self-serving narrative that the National Catholic Reporter must propagate in order to indemnify their “pope” of “mercy,” their “pope” who “accompanies” unrepentant sinners on their headlong journey into eternal perdition.

Then again, there is, of course, some consistency in what the National Catholic Reporter, which has discovered “papal loyalty” in the past five years, five months for the first time in its fifty-two year history, is doing to “Archbishop” Carlo Maria Vigano as support for the lavender agenda has long been a distinguishing characteristic of its editorials, commentaries and news stories. This journal of heterodoxy, moral relativism and the promotion of liturgical sacrilege must put loyalty to the “pope of mercy” above even the concepts of truth and justice on the natural level. No dispassionate investigation of the facts can thus be undertaken. “Archbishop” Vigano must be smeared and vilified.

In the end, of course, the National Catholic Reporter, which has championed the cause of illegal immigration and the rise of socialist-based statist programs funded by the forcible redistribution of wealth by the means of the coercive, confiscatory taxing powers of the civil state and has long served institutionally as an apologist for pro-abortion, pro-perversity Catholics in politics and governance, has “common ground” with Jorge Mario Bergoglio because he, like its writers, disparage or seek to ignore or to deconstruct the plain words of Sacred Scripture condemning divorce and remarriage, sodomy, fornication and ever other form of immodesty, indecency and impurity:

[13] If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them. [14] If any man after marrying the daughter, marry her mother, he hath done a heinous crime: he shall be burnt alive with them: neither shall so great an abomination remain in the midst of you. [15] He that shall copulate with any beast or cattle, dying let him die, the beast also ye shall kill. (Leviticus 20: 13-15.)

And into whatsoever city or town you shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and there abide till you go thence. And when you come into the house, salute it, saying: Peace be to this house. And if that house be worthy, your peace shall come upon it; but if it be not worthy, your peace shall return to you. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet. Amen I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. (Matthew 10: 11-15.) 

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 the 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.)

Yes, it is the rejection of these plain words, each of which was written under the direct inspiration of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, that has resulted in the National Catholic Reporter’s reversal from “papal” critic and doctrinal dissenter to the defender of “papal” orthodoxy. This is quite a role reversal for the National Catholic Reporter. However, this journal of darkness and perdition that has championed “women priests” and the “rights” of the laity in the conciliar liturgy is far from alone in the role reversals of the present moment.

Role Reversals II: “Conservative” Catholics in the Conciliar Structures

Many so-called “conservative” Catholics within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have long fashioned themselves to be defenders of a “correct” interpretation of the “Second” Vatican Council and have done all kinds of intellectual gymnastics to square the circle over and over again. I know. I was one of their number for quite a long time, and I am very much aware of the reparation that I need to make before I die for the errors I helped to propagate in the belief that I was defending “papal” teaching. The problem, as many of us permitted ourselves to be deluded into thinking, was with the “bad bishops,” not with the Polish phenomenologist and Modernist.

Well, “conservative” who criticized opposition to Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968, itself a revolutionary document even though it forbade artificial means to regulate births, and Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio, November 24, 1981, have found themselves as part of the “loyal opposition” in the past five years, five months by openly criticizing Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s 2014 extraordinary “synod of bishops” and the 2015 ordinary “synod of bishops” that resulted in Amoris Laetitia, March 19, 2016 (see Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men: A Brief Overview, Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men: Another Brief Overview, Jorge's Exhortaion of Self-Justification Before Men, part three, Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part four, Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part five, Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part six, Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part seven, Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part eight, Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part nine, and Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part ten, THE END!). The very people who used to defend “the pope” have become allied with “resist while recognize” Catholics to pick and choose what a man they believe to be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter chooses to insert into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis and, as the late Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton taught sixty-two years ago, thus places a particular matter beyond question an debate.

There is an irony in all of this that has thus far escaped the attention of almost everyone who has commented on “Archbishop” Vigano’s statement, which was sent to “conservative” publications and websites for dissemination. The irony is that the National Catholic Reporter found its niche, so to speak, after the issuance of Humanae Vitae fifty years ago, but so did organizations such as Catholics United for the Faith, which was founded in 1966, thus setting up a battle of false opposites within a false church to do battle over a document that propagated a false teaching about the ends proper to Holy Matrimony and thus popularized the falsehood of the regulation of birth by natural means to be part of Catholic teaching. The “dissenters” at the time believed—and still believe—that “conscience” should be the sole guide about the moral liceity of contraception while “papal defenders” sought rally “around the pope” while accepting the false teaching that inverted the ends proper to Holy Matrimony.

This was—and, of course—remains a diabolical means to divide Catholics and shatter respect for papal authority and the very nature of the papacy itself as many, although far from all, of the very people who saw themselves as “papal defenders” of “Pope Paul VI’s” false teaching in Humanae Vitae had to swallow hard a year later to accept their “pope’s” promulgation of the greatest liturgical abuse in salvation history, the abomination known as the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service. Some have speculated over the course of the past fifty years that Montini/Paul VI’s intent was to lay such a trap by issuing Humanae Vitae as the final touches were being put on Annibale Bugnini’s “new Mass,” thus forcing Catholics who were averse to such a revolutionary change in the conciliar church’s Roman Rite to accept it as a matter of “loyalty” to the pope who had, it was believed, “defended the line” against artificial contraception.

To wit, I was offered a full-time faculty position at Christendom College in 1979, which I considered for a time before accepting one at the then-named Allentown College of Saint Francis de Sales in Center Valley, Pennsylvania, after having served two years on a non-tenure track position at Illinois State University. (I took the job in Pennsylvania as it paid six thousand six hundred dollars more than Christendom College and because it placed me closer to my native Long Island.) The terms of the Christendom College contract required a faculty member to profess loyalty to Humanae Vitae and to the Novus Ordo. Mind you, I did not understand the dangers of either at the time. However, the two were linked together as a matter of “loyalty” to the “pope.” This was reasonable if one accepted the proposition that the recently-deceased Montini/Paul VI, who never served as a parish priest at any time in his priestly life, had been a true pope, but I came to realize over time that the adversary used the lavender socialist from Milan, Italy, to get believing Catholics to “stand with their pope” while convincing others to “dissent” from the “pope.”

The net effect, of course, has been to destroy all concept of Catholic teaching on the papacy and the nature of Holy Mother Church herself as it is impossible for a true pope to change the ends of marriage and/or to change the Sacred Liturgy in such a way that vitiates its validity and institutes and sustains a different faith than that instituted by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Reversal to Form: Resist While Recognize Catholics

One of the most tragic consequences of the conciliar revolution has been the destruction of the sensus Catholicus concerning the nature of the papacy and the obedience that Catholics must render to one who is a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter. The “resist while recognize” movement has succeeded in reducing the papacy instituted by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to the level of the American presidency or to the level of a prime minister in a country with a parliamentary-ministerial system of government.

The “resist while recognize” movement has its roots in a number of places, starting with Jansenism, whose precepts concerning the papacy were condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794:

The doctrine of the synod by which it professes that "it is convinced that a bishop has received from Christ all necessary rights for the good government of his diocese," just as if for the good government of each diocese higher ordinances dealing either with faith and morals, or with general discipline, are not necessary, the right of which belongs to the supreme Pontiffs and the General Councils for the universal Church,—schismatic, at least erroneous.

7. Likewise, in this, that it encourages a bishop "to pursue zealously a more perfect constitution of ecclesiastical discipline," and this "against all contrary customs, exemptions, reservations which are opposed to the good order of the diocese, for the greater glory of God and for the greater edification of the faithful"; in that it supposes that a bishop has the right by his own judgment and will to decree and decide contrary to customs, exemptions, reservations, whether they prevail in the universal Church or even in each province, without the consent or the intervention of a higher hierarchic power, by which these customs, etc., have been introduced or approved and have the force of law,—leading to schism and subversion of hierarchic rule, erroneous.

8. Likewise, in that it says it is convinced that "the rights of a bishop received from Jesus Christ for the government of the Church cannot be altered nor hindered, and, when it has happened that the exercise of these rights has been interrupted for any reason whatsoever, a bishop can always and should return to his original rights, as often as the greater good of his church demands it"; in the fact that it intimates that the exercise of episcopal rights can be hindered and coerced by no higher power, whenever a bishop shall judge that it does not further the greater good of his church,—leading to schism, and to subversion of hierarchic government, erroneous. (Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794. See Novus Ordo Watch's World Exclusive Translation of Pope Pius VI's Introduction to Auctorem Fidei. )

Led by the Society of Saint Pius X, the “resist while recognize” movement has considered itself to be a “check” upon the sacramental rites authorized by and the statements made and the actions committed by men they have considered to be true, valid and legitimate Successors of Saint Peter. Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, however, founded the Catholic Church upon the rock of Peter, the Pope, not upon the bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X—or upon any member of the laity in the “resist while recognize” movement. It is without precedent for a society of apostolic life that has not had a "canonical mission" to exercise any ministry within the Catholic Church for over thirty-three years to serve as “check” on the theological orthodoxy and the liturgical reverence exhibited by men deemed to be true popes. Is it necessary for the infallible guidance of God the Holy Ghost that is guaranteed to Holy Mother Church to be augmented by the Society of Saint Pius X or by the laity who are either formally or informally associated with it? This is without precedent in the history of the Catholic Church.

The ”resist while recognize” movement also has roots in Gallicanism, which was summarized and mocked by Bishop Emil Bougard, the Bishop of Laval, France, from 1887 to 1888, as follows:

The violent attacks of Protestantism against the Papacy, its calumnies and so manifest, the odious caricatures it scattered abroad, had undoubtedly inspired France with horror; nevertheless the sad impressions remained. In such accusations all, perhaps, was not false. Mistrust was excited., and instead of drawing closer to the insulted and outraged Papacy, France stood on her guard against it. In vain did Fenelon, who felt the danger, write in his treatise on the "Power of the Pope," and, to remind France of her sublime mission and true role in the world, compose his "History of Charlemagne." In vain did Bossuet majestically rise in the midst of that agitated assembly of 1682, convened to dictate laws to the Holy See, and there, in most touching accents, give vent to professions of fidelity and devotedness toward the Chair of St. Peter. We already notice in his discourse mention no longer made of the "Sovereign Pontiff." The "Holy See," the "Chair of St. Peter," the "Roman Church," were alone alluded to. First and alas! too manifest signs of coldness in the eyes of him who knew the nature and character of France! Others might obey through duty, might allow themselves to be governed by principle--France, never! She must be ruled by an individual, she must love him that governs her, else she can never obey.

These weaknesses should at least have been hidden in the shadow of the sanctuary, to await the time in which some sincere and honest solution of the misunderstanding could be given. But no! parliaments took hold of it, national vanity was identified with it. A strange spectacle was now seen. A people the most Catholic in the world; kings who called themselves the Eldest Sons of the Church and who were really such at heart; grave and profoundly Christian magistrates, bishops, and priests, though in the depths of their heart attached to Catholic unity,--all barricading themselves against the head of the Church; all digging trenches and building ramparts, that his words might not reach the Faithful before being handled and examined, and the laics convinced that they contained nothing false, hostile or dangerous. (Right Reverend Emile Bougaud, The Life of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque. Published in 1890 by Benziger Brothers. Re-printed by TAN Books and Publishers, 1990, pp. 24-29.)

So much for the utterly absurd claim that there are exists some kind of “irreducible minima” of truths by which anyone, no less one of the conciliar “popes,” can hold and thus remain a member of the Catholic Church even though he denies or puts into question many others. It does not get much clearer, does it?

Many, although not all, of those in the “resist while recognize” movement held their fire during the “pontificate” of Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI despite his multiple offenses against the honor and glory and majesty of God, his own “papal” embrace of dogmatic evolutionism and his outright denial of the historicity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s Resurrection from the dead on Easter Sunday and of Saint Peter’s discourse to the Jews on Pentecost Sunday. (Those interested in reviewing the “laundry list” of Ratzinger/Benedict’s multiple defections from the Catholic Faith during his “pontificate should read Mister Asteroid Is Looking Pretty Good Right About Now, Living In Fantasyland To The Very End, part one, Living In Fantasyland To The Very End, part two, Living In Fantasyland To The Very End, part three, Living In Fantasyland To The Very End, part four, Whittling Away At The Last Catholic Bastion and It's Two O'Clock: Do Your Know Where Your "Pope" Is?.)

The “resist while recognize” movement ceased fire because of Summorum Pontificum but its opposition to a man they accepted as a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter once it was clear to them what was clear to many of us on March 13, 2013, namely, that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is bereft of the Catholic Faith. Rather than recognize that those who defect from the Faith in only one thing are not Catholics and cannot hold ecclesiastical offices legitimately, though, most in the “resist while recognize” movement have intensified their criticism of “Pope Francis” and many are calling upon him to resign.  So much for the following words of Pope Leo XIII:

To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor. In this subordination and dependence lie the order and life of the Church; in it is to be found the indispensable condition of well-being and good government.On the contrary, if it should happen that those who have no right to do so should attribute authority to themselves, if they presume to become judges and teachers, if inferiors in the government of the universal Church attempt or try to exert an influence different from that of the supreme authority, there follows a reversal of the true order, many minds are thrown into confusion, and souls leave the right path . . . .

On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. He has the charge of the universal welfare of the Church, to which is subordinate any particular need, and all others who are subject to this order must second the action of the supreme director and serve the end which he has in view. Since the Church is one and her head is one, so, too, her government is one, and all must conform to this.

When these principles are forgotten there is noticed among Catholics a diminution of respect, of veneration, and of confidence in the one given them for a guide; then there is a loosening of that bond of love and submission which ought to bind all the faithful to their pastors, the faithful and the pastors to the Supreme Pastor, the bond in which is principally to be found security and common salvation.

In the same way, by forgetting or neglecting these principles, the door is opened wide to divisions and dissensions among Catholics, to the grave detriment of union which is the distinctive mark of the faithful of Christ, and which, in every age, but particularly today by reason of the combined forces of the enemy, should be of supreme and universal interest, in favor of which every feeling of personal preference or individual advantage ought to be laid aside.

That obligation, if it is generally incumbent on all, is, you may indeed say, especially pressing upon journalists. If they have not been imbued with the docile and submissive spirit so necessary to each Catholic, they would assist in spreading more widely those deplorable matters and in making them more burdensome. The task pertaining to them in all the things that concern religion and that are closely connected to the action of the Church in human society is this: to be subject completely in mind and will, just as all the other faithful are, to their own bishops and to the Roman Pontiff; to follow and make known their teachings; to be fully and willingly subservient to their influence; and to reverence their precepts and assure that they are respected. He who would act otherwise in such a way that he would serve the aims and interests of those whose spirit and intentions We have reproved in this letter would fail the noble mission he has undertaken. So doing, in vain would he boast of attending to the good of the Church and helping her cause, no less than someone who would strive to weaken or diminish Catholic truth, or indeed someone who would show himself to be her overly fearful friend. (Pope Leo XIII, Epistola Tua, June 17, 1885.)

Not only must those be held to fail in their duty who openly and brazenly repudiate the authority of their leaders, but those, too, who give evidence of a hostile and contrary disposition by their clever tergiversations and their oblique and devious dealings. The true and sincere virtue of obedience is not satisfied with words; it consists above all in submission of mind and heart.

But since We are here dealing with the lapse of a newspaper, it is absolutely necessary for Us once more to enjoin upon the editors of Catholic journals to respect as sacred laws the teaching and the ordinances mentioned above and never to deviate from them. Moreover, let them be well persuaded and let this be engraved in their minds, that if they dare to violate these prescriptions and abandon themselves to their personal appreciations, whether in prejudging questions which the Holy See has not yet pronounced on, or in wounding the authority of the Bishops by arrogating to themselves an authority which can never be theirs, let them be convinced that it is all in vain for them to pretend to keep the honor of the name of Catholic and to serve the interests of the very holy and very noble cause which they  have undertaken to defend and to render glorious.

Now, We, exceedingly desirous that any who have strayed return to soundness of mind and that deference to the sacred Bishops inhere deeply in the hearts of all men, in the Lord We bestow an Apostolic Blessing upon you, Venerable Brother, and to all your clergy and people, as a token of Our fatherly good will and charity. (Pope Leo XIII, Est Sane Molestum, December 17, 1888. The complete text may be found at: Est Sane Molestum, December 17, 1888. See also  Pope Leo XIII Quashes Popular “Resist-And-Recognize Position.)

As far as I am aware, no one in the “resist while recognize” movement has of yet “recognized” that Epistola Tua and Est Sane Molestum even exist, no less that each condemns the false assertion that one can openly criticize a true pope on matters of Faith and Morals. Both of these apostolic letters were entered into Pope Leo XIII’s Acta Apostolicae Sedis and are thus binding upon the consciences of every single Catholic around the world without any reservations, exceptions or qualifications whatsoever.  

The fact remains, however, that the See of Saint Peter has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, because the men who have laid claim to the papacy had expelled themselves from the bosom of Holy Mother Church long before their apparent elections.

As interesting and as important as “Archbishop” Carlo Maria Vigano’s courageous statement is, therefore, readers of this site should remember that Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s protection of Theodore Edgar McCarrick and his dissembling about it is not what disqualifies him as a true and legitimate Successor of Sant Peter. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not “Pope Francis” because he does not possess nor profess the Catholic Faith and is an enemy of the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity, and of the souls for whom Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood to redeem, thus making him an enemy of all legitimate social order as he preaches heresy, commits sacrilege and indemnifies hardened sinners as they promote their sins publicly and castigate anyone who dares to call them to correction.

As the Month of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Nears Its End

Although it is not my intention in the slightest to disparage the courage of “Archbishop” Carlo Maria Vigano, it is nevertheless important to remember that the news generated by his statement of facts about the hideous apostate from Argentina’s protection of Theodore Edgar McCarrick until last month is a distraction from the truth that God is offended by concilarism and its falsehoods, liturgical abominations, and condemned pastoral practices. We must keep focused on root causes and on principles without letting ourselves get caught up in the theatrics of the moment. Theatrics pass. Truths remain.

We must, therefore, place our abiding trust in the Immaculate Heart of Mary, remembering to renew as often as possible, especially in this final days of August and on every First Saturday during the year, the consecration to this most pure and loving maternal heart that was composed by Pope Pius XII in 1942:

Queen of the most holy Rosary, help of Christians, refuge of the human race, victorious in all the battles of God, we prostrate ourselves in supplication before thy throne, in the sure hope of obtaining mercy and of receiving grace and timely aid in our present calamities, not through any merits of our own on which we do not rely, but only through the immense goodness of thy mother’s Heart. In Thee and in thy Immaculate Heart, at this grave hour of human history, do we put our trust; to thee we consecrate ourselves, not only with all of Holy Church, which is the mystical body of thy Son Jesus, and which is suffering in so many of her members, being persecuted, but also with the whole world, torn by discords, agitated with the hatred, the victim of its own iniquities. Be thou moved by the sight of such material and moral degradation, such sorrows, such anguish, so many tormented souls in danger of eternal loss! Do thou, O Mother of mercy, obtain for us from God a Christ-like reconciliation of the nations, as well as those graces which can convert the souls of men in an instant, those graces which prepare the way and make certain the long desired coming of peace on earth. O Queen of peace, pray for us, and grant unto the world in the truth, the justice, and the charity of Christ. Above all, give us peace in our hearts, so that the kingdom of God, may spread it the tranquility of order. Accord thy protection to unbelievers and to all those who lie in the shadow of death; cause the Sun of Truth to rise upon them; may they enabled to join with us in repeating before the Saviour of the world: “Glory to God in the highest, and peace to men of good will.” Give peace to the nations that are separated us from error or discord, and in a special manner to those peoples who profess a singular devotion toward thee; bring them back to Christ’s one fold, under the one true Shepherd. Obtain full freedom for the holy Church of God; defend her from her enemies; check the ever-increasing torrent of immorality; arouse in the faithful a practical love of purity, a practical Christian life, and an apostolic zeal, so that the number of those who serve God may increase in merit and in number. Finally, even as the Church and all mankind were once consecrated to the Heart of thy Son Jesus, because He was for all those who put their hope in Him an inexhaustible source of victory and salvation, so in like manner do we consecrate ourselves forever to thee also and to thy Immaculate Heart, Of Mother us and Queen of the world; may thy love and patronage hasten the day when the kingdom of God shall be victorious and all the nations, at peace with God and with one another, shall call thee blessed and intone with thee, from the rising of the sun to its going down, the everlasting “Magnificat” of glory, of love, of gratitude to the Heart of Jesus in which we alone can find truth, life, and peace. (Pope Pius XII, Rescript from the Secretariat of State, November 17, 1942, document exhibited, November 19, 1942, The Raccolta: A Manual of Indulgences, Prayers and Devotions Enriched with Indulgences, approved by Pope Pius XII, May 30, 1951, and published in English by Benziger Brothers, New York, 1957, pp. 345-347.)

This era of apostasy will come to an end.

There will be the great renewal of the Catholic Church when a true pope is restored to the Throne of Saint Peter and consecrate Russia with all of the world’s true bishops to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart.

Our daily praying of as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit will help us to be wounded more perfectly by the ineffable love of Love Incarnate in His Most Sacred Heart. And it is by being wounded by this ineffable love of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus that we, His totally consecrated slaves through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, that we can more perfectly make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world, including of the conciliarists who have abandoned "that church" for the strange new church that has offended God so greatly and harmed souls so much over the course of five decades now.

Let us suffer well and with gratitude and with joy in this time of apostasy and betrayal as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. Heaven awaits us if we walk our own little Via Dolorosa without complaint

Isn't the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven worth bearing with the sufferings of the present time?

Our Lady's Immaculate Heart will triumph. May we play some small part in helping to plant a few seeds for this triumph by our own daily fidelity to her Fatima Message, whose fulfillment will bring upon us the dawning of an era of peace wherein all men everywhere will exclaim during the Reign of Mary:

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Saint Rose of Lima, pray for us.

Saints Felix and Adauctus, pray for us.

Appendix 

Pope Pius VI's Introduction to Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794

They knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, the innovators sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.

Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.

It is as if the innovators pretended that they always intended to present the alternative passages, especially to those of simple faith who eventually come to know only some part of the conclusions of such discussions, which are published in the common language for everyone's use. Or again, as if the same faithful had the ability on examining such documents to judge such matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of error.

It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor St. Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.

In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following:

Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements that disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged. The more freely We embraced a program of complete moderation, the more we foresaw that, in order to reconcile souls and bring them to the unity of spirit in the bond of peace (which, we are glad to say, has by God’s favor already happily occurred in many), it would be of enormous assistance to be prepared in case pertinacious sectarians of the synod – if any, God forbid, still remain, – should be free in the future to bring in as allies Catholic schools and make them partners of their own just condemnation in order to set in motion new disturbances: They endeavor to entice to their side the clearly unwilling and resistant schools by a kind of distorted likeness of similar terms, even though the schools profess expressly different opinions. Then, if any previously imagined, milder opinion about the synod has hitherto escaped the notice of these imprudent men, let every opportunity of complaining still be closed to them. If they are sound in doctrine, as they wish to seem, they cannot take it hard that the teachings identified in this manner– teachings that exhibit errors from which they claim to be entirely distant – stand condemned.

Yet We did not think that We had sincerely proved our mildness, or more correctly, the charity that impels us toward our brother, whom we wish to assist by every means , if We may still be able. Indeed, We are impelled by the charity that moved our predecessor Celestine. He did not refuse to wait with a greater patience than what seemed to be called for, even against what the law demanded, for priests [bishops] to mend their ways. For we, along with Augustine and the Fathers of Milevis, prefer and desire that men who teach perverse things be healed in the Church by pastoral care rather than be cut off from Her without hope of salvation, if necessity does not force one to act.

Therefore, so as it should not appear that any effort to win over a brother was overlooked, before We progressed further, We thought to summon the aforementioned bishop to Us by means of very cordial letters written to him at our request, promising that we would receive him with good will and that he would not be barred from freely and openly declaring what seemed to him to meet the needs of his interests. In truth, We had not lost all hope of the possibility that, if he possessed that teachable mind, which Augustine, following the Apostle, required above all else in a bishop, as soon as the chief points of doctrine under dispute, which seemed worthy of greater consideration, were proposed to him simply and candidly, without contention and rancor, then almost beyond a doubt he could, upon reflection, more reasonably explain what had been proposed ambiguously and openly repudiate the notions displaying manifest perversity.

And so, with his name held in high regard amid the delighted acclaim of all good men, the turmoil aroused in the Church would be restrained as peaceably as possible by means of a much-desired correction.

But now since he, alleging ill health, has decided not to make use of the kindness offered to him, We can no longer postpone fulfilling our apostolic duty. It is not a matter of the danger of only one or another diocese: Any novelty at all assails the Universal Church. Now for a long time, from every side, the judgment of the supreme Apostolic See has not only been awaited but earnestly demanded by unremitting,  repeated petitions. God forbid that the voice of Peter ever be silent in that See, where, living and presiding perpetually, he presents the truth of the faith to those in search of it.

A lengthier forbearance in such matters is not safe, because it is almost just as much of a crime to close one’s eyes in such cases, as it is to preach such offenses to religion.

Therefore, such a wound must be cut away, a wound by which not one member is hurt, but the entire body of the church is damaged.

And with the aid of divine piety, We must take care that, with the dissensions removed, the Catholic faith be preserved inviolate, and that those whose faith has been proved may be fortified by our authority once those who defend perverse teachings have been recalled from error. (Novus Ordo Watch's World Exclusive, First-Ever English Translation of the Introductory Text to Pope Pius VI's Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794.)