Circus Jorge, part four

There are few times when anything written or said by the pro-abortion, pro-perversity former Mayor of the City of New York, New York, Rudolph William Giuliani, will be cited favorably on this website. This is one of those few times.

Giuliani wrote an op-ed column in the New York Post on Sunday, October 11, 2015, the Feast of the Divine Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Commemoration of the Twentieth Sunday after Pentecost, in which he explained that he had “no dog in this fight” about the illegal, nasty, take-out tackle that a veritable brutish thug named Chase Utley used to go way, way, way, way out of the basepath to upend a fine young man named Ruben Tejada, whose leg was broken after he was blindsided by the tackle as his back was turned to the oncoming bully from Los Angeles by way of Philadelphia. Giuliani, a partisan of the incarnation of all evil in the world outside of the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, the New York Yankees, expressed his view that the blind-as-a-bat umpire did not understand the rules of the game, awarding second base to the bully, who should have been called out for interference. (I knew little of these details until reading the column as I do not follow such frivolities very closely any longer, you understand.)

Here is what Giuliani wrote about his having no rooting interest in what is called the National League Division Series between the Brooklyn, excuse me, Los Angeles Dodgers and the New York Mets:

As a Yankees fan, I don’t have a dog in this fight. But the integrity of the game matters a great deal to me.

The violation of the rules that helped the Dodgers beat the Mets on Saturday is even more egregious and in a much more consequential situation. If we want to use sports as an example — particularly for young people — to have appreciation for playing by the rules, we should enforce those rules.

Then, and only then, will we know who truly won that game. (Replay the game. For those keeping score at home, which is the way professional broadcasts used to announce games without embellishment or endless "analyses," temporal justice prevailed when the fifth game of the aforesaid series turned out to the benefit of the champions of the downtrodden and beleaguered masses.)

Rudolph William Giuliani is certainly correct about his interpretation of the rules of the game of baseball. What is tragic, of course, is that he cares more about the integrity of the game of baseball than he does about the integrity of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. (Contrary to Giuliani, I would have had a "dog" in the aforementioned fight if I followed such things on a regular basis with the intensity that that characterized the period between 1962 and 2002 when I walked out of Shea Stadium. That having been noted, it is nevertheless good to see "justice" prevail  in the world now and again as, being but a weak vessel of clay, there are still a few flickering memories of bygone times.)

Then again, why should the twice-divorced, thrice married Giuliani be forced to care about the integrity of the Catholic Faith when the men who are believed to constitute the “hierarchy” of the Catholic Church do not care about the inviolable purity of Catholic doctrine?

This is a longwinded way of saying that a believing Catholic has “no dog in this fight” between the Jacobin/Bolshevik conciliar revolutionaries and their hapless, feckless counterparts and foils in the Girondist/Menshevik camp of false opposites. What is going on in the Aula Paulo Sicko right now is nothing other than absolute insanity that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Catholic Faith in the slightest. The proceedings of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s “Synod ‘15” on the family are as relevant to the Holy Faith as are the proceedings of the heretical and schismatic Anglican sect’s Lambeth conferences.

It is really as simple as all of this: Heretics spout heresy. It is both absurd and insane to expect anything other than heresy to issue from a heretics.

Sure, there are “elements” of truth principles in many heretical statements. However, this is what makes heresy so diabolically dangerous as men of complete darkness appear to be “angels of light” who attempt to quote Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, in defense of their efforts to redefine, distort, misrepresent and corrupt the integrity of both Sacred Scripture and Apostolic (Sacred) Tradition.

None other than the infamous homosexualist named Christoph Schornborn, a disciple of Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned “hermeneutic of continuity,” which is nothing other than Modernism’s anathematized precept of the “evolution of dogma,” attempted to call Saint Thomas Aquinas as a witness in behalf of the efforts of German language conciliar “bishops” to “apply” the doctrine of the indissolubility of a ratified and consummated marriage in a “prudent” manner that takes into consideration the circumstances of the times. Schonborn further stated that Sacred Scripture alone cannot be the basis of the deliberations at “Synod ’15,” going so far as to insinuate pretty clearly that there is an ongoing “revelation” by the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity in the hearts of individual believers:

The Church thus stands in an inescapable field of tension between a necessary clarity of doctrine regarding marriage and family on the one side and the concrete pastoral task of accompanying and convincing those individuals whose lifestyle correspond only partially with the principles of the Church on the other. With these latter, steps should be taken on the way to the fullness of life found in marriage and family as promised in the Gospel of the family. 

Here it is necessary to have a pastoral approach oriented to the individual which equally involves both the normativity of doctrine and the personality of each human being, keeping sight of his capacity for conscience and strengthening his responsibility. "For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged. Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths." (GS §16) 

We request that the final version of the text consider two additional aspects:

Every impression that Sacred Scripture only serves as a source of quotes for dogmatic, legal or ethical convictions should be avoided. The Law of the New Covenant is the work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of the faithful (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, §1965-66). The written word is to be integrated into the living word residing via the Holy Spirit in the heart of man. This gives Sacred Scripture a broad spiritual power. (English Translation of Second German Language Group Report.)

What is being made manifest at the Aula Paulo Sicko now is open, in-your-face, undisguised, unfiltered Modernism. Men such as Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Walter Kasper, Godfried Daneels, Christoph Schonborn, Vincent Nichols, Reinhard Marx, Donald Wuerl, Blase Cupich, et al. do not have the Catholic Faith.

One will note that the Modernist synopsis provided by Christoph Schonborn in behalf of the German language apostate “bishops” made a reference to Gaudium et Spes, December 7, 1965, which is the official conciliar document to “reconcile” what is thought to be the Catholic Church with the “world,” especially the “world” as it came to be as a result of the “new era” introduced by the anti-Theistic French Revolution on July 14, 1789.

We have none other than Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI to thank for stating, without contradicting himself, mind you, the true purpose of Gaudium et Spes without any degree of ambiguity or qualification:

Let us be content to say here that the text serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 382.)

What happened in 1789?

Wasn't there some kind of anti-Theistic revolution in France, the elder daughter of the Church?

What did Pope Leo XIII write about such reconciling with the principles of the revolution just a year before he promoted the Bishop of Mantua, Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto, to be the Patriarch of Venice?

Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)

Pope Saint Pius X understood that it is our solemn duty before God to denounce error and expose the murky designs of Modernism without any equivocation or hesitation whatsoever. From placing us "outside of the Church," as some of those lost in the fog of a self-serving denial that they use sanctimoniously to condemn us and our firm, unequivocal defense of the truth and our refusal to have any association with spiritual robber barons who are the very embodiment of everything condemned by Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto before and after he became Pope Pius X, our denunciation of the errors of conciliarism, each of which have been condemned by our true popes, must continue until the day we die if we die before God restores His Holy Church as a result of the Triumph of the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Blessed Virgin Mary.

It was just three years after his being appointed as the Bishop of Mantua, Italy, on November 10, 1884, by his predecessor, Pope Leo XIII, that the future Pope Saint Pius X identified Modernism in its nascent forms as a threat to the very intergrity of the Catholic Faith:

The first pastoral visitation called for comprehensive solutions and new orientations. This was the subject of a diocesan synod. It was announced on February 16, 1887, in a pastoral letter. The bishop wrote that the aim of the synod would be to "draw up, after mature and deliberate reflection, a resume of diocesan statutes and establish suitable rules to meet new situations, new evils and new challenges--rules which earlier synod could not have imagined." It has been observed that this pastoral letter is also "a veritable declaration of holy war against errors of a nascent modernism," even if the word Modernism was not yet used. In fact, Msgr. Sarto was here opposing those who, "setting themselves up as masters, assert that the Church must always adapt herself to the demands of the times, and that it has become impossible to keep the primitive integrity of her laws." The Bishop of Mantua denounced this "modern Christianity which has forgotten the ancient folly of the Cross [and where] the dogmas of the faith must be adapted to the requirements of the new philosophy...." Here we see that the anti-Modernist battle waged by Pius X arises from a very ancient concern for the faith.  (Yves Chiron, Saint Pius X: Restorer of the Church. Translated by Graham Harrison. Angelus Press, 2002, p. 67.)

Yes, it was in early-1887, over twenty and one-half years before he wrote Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, that the Bishop Giuseppe Sarto saw the effects of a nascent modernism among the clergy and the people of the Diocese of Mantua. Bishop Sarto made no compromise of any kind with error. He denounced it firmly as the Bishop of Mantua and as the Cardinal Archbishop and Patriarch of Venice before succeeding Pope Leo XIII as the Supreme Pastor and Sovereign Pontiff on August 4, 1903, the Feast of Saint Dominic de Guzman.

Giuseppe Cardinal Sarto was no less firm when he became the Patriarch of Venice in 1893. He expressed himself concerning the dangers of men such as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis even before he could take canonical possession of his patriarchal see in 1894 as a result of a dispute with civil authorities:

Three days later, on the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin, Cardinal Sarto addressed his first pastoral letter to the clergy of Venice; the letter was also addressed to the clergy of Mantua as a kind of pastoral last testament. Since he had many weeks to prepare it, it was not an occasional writing but a long exhortation, as well as a warning against Catholic liberalism which seemed, to the Patriarch of Venice, to be spreading more and  more at the heart of the Church. In it, the new Patriarch of Venice called priests to be united in fidelity to the Holy See: "...the Bishop alone is the guardian and interpreter of the Sovereign Pontiff's commands, and the priests must be intimately united to the Bishop..." This unity is more indispensable than ever, because, in our days, the Church "practically at every moment has to fight to defend her liberty, her dignity and her rights." The Church's enemies are "the baneful sects" and "rotten materialism," but they would not have so much success if "certain people, under the cover of the glorious name of Catholic, did not come to their aid." These "liberal Catholics" (cattolici-liberali) "dream of a kind of peace, or rather, a conciliation between light and darkness": they stigmatize "all Catholics who think differently from them as 'the clerical party,'" and they say that "in all things that concern the State, the civil authority ought to have the pre-eminence over the authority of the Church" and "under the pretext of liberty they permit the license of irreligion and insult." These liberal Catholics, wrote Cardinal Sarto again, "always preach charity and prudence, as if it were charitable to let the wolf devour the lam, and as if it were a virtue to cultivate this prudence of the flesh, which God has condemned, as it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the prudence of the prudent I will thwart (1 Cor 1:19)." Liberal Catholics are "wolves in sheep's clothing; it is more important than anything else that murky designs should be exposed to the light and denounced." (Yves Chiron, Saint Pius X: Restorer of the Church. Translated by Graham Harrison. Angelus Press, 2002, pp. 87-88.)

Yet it is that the conciliar revolutionaries want to further a “reconciliation” with Modernity that has failed them.

Their church pews have been emptied of Catholics precisely as a result of the “reconciliation” with Modernity and Modernism under various guises (including “the inculturation of the Gospel” within the context of the invalid and thus sacramentally fruitless Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service.

Their religious miseducation programs have produced former Catholics by the hundreds of millions around the world. Some of these disaffected Catholics have had whatever little of the sensus Catholicus that they may have known yanked from them by parish priests/presbyters and high school, college, university and professional school instructors.

Their efforts to “cure” the problems have consisted principally in devising more and more of the exact schemes that have failed. Then again, liberalism, which is a sin, by the way, requires an adherence to man’s ability to “solve” the problems he has created without understanding their causes, both remote and proximate, and without reforming their own lives. Thus it is that liberals in the civil and ecclesiastical realms are forever doomed to failing to accomplish anything than, recalling Gilbert Keith Chesterton’s wise observation, keep on making the same times repeatedly as “conservatives” admire the ruins and seek to preserve them.

This is exactly what is happening at Circus Jorge.

I mean, how much time does a man, especially one with family duties who is searching for some kind of employment, have to parse every bit of the madness that is taking place in Rome at this time to prove the point that has been made so many times on this site, namely, that the “conservatives” in the counterfeit church of conciliarism who are battling the “radicals” accept the false underlying premises of the “Second” Vatican Council and the “magisterium” of the conciliar “popes”?

Given the lateness of the hour and a desire to get a few hours of rest, consider the utter ignorance of the Catholic Faith as represented by some of the reports of the various language groups that were issued on Wednesday, October 14, 2015, the Feast of Pope Saint Callistus I:

Fidelity and indissolubility should be referred to as a gift and call, rather than in the legal terms of duty; they should not be perceived as superimposed on commitment, but rather as deeply integrated into the language of love and within its theological dimension. Marriage should be considered as a call to love and communion”.

The Spanish group recommends that emphasis be placed on gradualness and processuality in understanding the process by which God communicates the grace of the Covenant, educating by taking into account each person, progressively, in their community, correcting, accompanying and forgiving. As part of divine pedagogy, processuality is also present in Tradition and in the Aparecida document, notes the rapporteur Cardinal Jose Luis Lacunza Maestrojuan. “There are expressions that render marriage and the family absolute, while Jesus relativises them in the Kingdom of God. There are encounters between Jesus and specific persons in specific contexts, but it emphasis should be given to those that occur in the context of the family: Lazarus and his family, Peter and his famiyl … Jesus always opens doors. God's faithfulness is expressed in the sacrament of marriage, but in a human way: 'quidquid recipitur, ad modum recipientis recipitur'. The indissoluble fidelity of marriage is a mystery that includes fragility. We have a theology of the family and the marriage, but more closely linked to morality. The Magisterium should present the Gospel of the family in an organic and integrated from. Following the thesis of the 'semina Verbi', the many positive values in other types of families cannot be overlooked”.

Several groups attribute great importance to the preparation of young couples for marriage and the need to support them on their journey. While the French group B notes a significant reduction in marriages in European capitals, the Latin American Cardinal Lacunza, who clarifies that “when talking about young people and marriage, it is done from the perspective of fear, which is not enough, it is an anthropological question: they live in the moment, 'for ever' does not fit in with their way of thinking”. Perhaps we could speak about informality: perhaps we have surrounded marriage with so many formalities that do not fit into the minds of young people who often identify formality with hypocrisy. Moreover, to say that they are afraid or do not dare would contradict the experience of many young people who accept the risk of volunteer work or risk for political or other struggles”. (Insanity and Apostasy on the Tiber.)

As seen above in the report on the language groups, many of the circus performers in Circus Jorge believe that the very word “indissolubility” is too strong, that it “intimidates” those who do not want to make “permanent commitments.” Others have gone so far as to state frankly—and without the use of the exercise in Modernist gymnastics required by Wojtyla/John Paul II’s “living tradition” and/or Ratzinger/Benedict’s “hermeneutic of continuity”—that the problem facing the conciliar sect today is the concept of the immutability of doctrine.

No, to quote the lack Jack Paar, I kid you not.

One of these men is the conciliar “archbishop” of Brisbane, Australia, a bloak named Mark Coleridge, who gave an interview within the past two days to Joshua McElwee of the Jacobin/Boleshevik National Catholic Reporter:

It was as Supreme Pontiff that Pope Saint Pius X condemned the very Modernist methodology, labeled today as the "hermeneutic of continuity," that the now-retired and suddenly very reclusive Ratzinger/Benedict used to attack nearly every aspect of the Holy Faith and to reduce to the level of a mere "allegory" the account of Adam and Eve's Fall from Grace in the Garden of Eden:

Hence it is quite impossible [the Modernists assert] to maintain that they [dogmatic statements] absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion.

It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: 'These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts.' On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ''Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason'; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ''The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.' Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: 'Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries -- but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.' (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

End of debate, Mark Coleridge and Louis Sako. You are outside the pale of the Catholic Church. So is your boss from Argentina.

It was in unmistakably clear terms that Pope Leo XIII addressed some of the same issues that are “on the table” for “pastoral reasons” in the name of “mercy” and “meeting the people where they are” at Circus Jorge in the Paul VI Audience Hall inside the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River at this time:

Nevertheless, the naturalists, as well as all who profess that they worship above all things the divinity of the State, and strive to disturb whole communities with such wicked doctrines, cannot escape the charge of delusion. Marriage has God for its Author, and was from the very beginning a kind of foreshadowing of the Incarnation of His Son; and therefore there abides in it a something holy and religious; not extraneous, but innate; not derived from men, but implanted by nature. Innocent III. therefore. and Honorius III, our predecessors, affirmed not falsely nor rashly that a sacrament of marriage existed ever amongst the faithful and unbelievers. We call to witness the monuments of antiquity, as also the manners and customs of those people who, being the most civilized, had the greatest knowledge of law and equity. In the minds of all of them it was a fixed and foregone conclusion that, when marriage was thought of, it was thought of as conjoined with religion and holiness. Hence, among those, marriages were commonly celebrated with religious ceremonies, under the authority of pontiffs, and with the ministry of priests. So mighty, even in the souls ignorant of heavenly doctrine, was the force of nature, of the remembrance of their origin, and of the conscience of the human race. As, then, marriage is holy by its own power, in its own nature, and of itself, it ought not to be regulated and administered by the will of civil rulers, but by the divine authority of the Church, which alone in sacred matters professes the office of teaching.

Next, the dignity of the sacrament must be considered, for through addition of the sacrament the marriages of Christians have become far the noblest of all matrimonial unions. But to decree and ordain concerning the sacrament is, by the will of Christ Himself, so much a part of the power and duty of the Church that it is plainly absurd to maintain that even the very smallest fraction of such power has been transferred to the civil ruler.

Lastly should be borne in mind the great weight and crucial test of history, by which it is plainly proved that the legislative and judicial authority of which We are speaking has been freely and constantly used by the Church, even in times when some foolishly suppose the head of the State either to have consented to it or connived at it. It would, for instance, be incredible and altogether absurd to assume that Christ our Lord condemned the long-standing practice of polygamy and divorce by authority delegated to Him by the procurator of the province, or the principal ruler of the Jews. And it would be equally extravagant to think that, when the Apostle Paul taught that divorces and incestuous marriages were not lawful, it was because Tiberius, Caligula, and Nero agreed with him or secretly commanded him so to teach. No man in his senses could ever be persuaded that the Church made so many laws about the holiness and indissolubility of marriage, and the marriages of slaves with the free-born, by power received from Roman emperors, most hostile to the Christian name, whose strongest desire was to destroy by violence and murder the rising Church of Christ. Still less could anyone believe this to be the case, when the law of the Church was sometimes so divergent from the civil law that Ignatius the Martyr, Justin, Athenagoras, and Tertullian publicly denounced as unjust and adulterous certain marriages which had been sanctioned by imperial law.

Furthermore, after all power had devolved upon the Christian emperors, the supreme pontiffs and bishops assembled in council persisted with the same independence and consciousness of their right in commanding or forbidding in regard to marriage whatever they judged to be profitable or expedient for the time being, however much it might seem to be at variance with the laws of the State. It is well known that, with respect to the impediments arising from the marriage bond, through vow, disparity of worship, blood relationship, certain forms of crime, and from previously plighted troth, many decrees were issued by the rulers of the Church at the Councils of Granada, Arles, Chalcedon, the second of Milevum, and others, which were often widely different from the decrees sanctioned by the laws of the empire. Furthermore, so far were Christian princes from arrogating any power in the matter of Christian marriage that they on the contrary acknowledged and declared that it belonged exclusively in all its fullness to the Church. In fact, Honorius, the younger Theodosius, and Justinian, also, hesitated not to confess that the only power belonging to them in relation to marriage was that of acting as guardians and defenders of the holy canons. If at any time they enacted anything by their edicts concerning impediments of marriage, they voluntarily explained the reason, affirming that they took it upon themselves so to act, by leave and authority of the Church, whose judgment they were wont to appeal to and reverently to accept in all questions that concerned legitimacy and divorce; as also in all those points which in any way have a necessary connection with the marriage bond. The Council of Trent, therefore, had the clearest right to define that it is in the Church's power "to establish diriment impediments of matrimony," and that "matrimonial causes pertain to ecclesiastical judges."

Let no one, then, be deceived by the distinction which some civil jurists have so strongly insisted upon -- the distinction, namely, by virtue of which they sever the matrimonial contract from the sacrament, with intent to hand over the contract to the power and will of the rulers of the State, while reserving questions concerning the sacrament of the Church. A distinction, or rather severance, of this kind cannot be approved; for certain it is that in Christian marriage the contract is inseparable from the sacrament, and that, for this reason, the contract cannot be true and legitimate without being a sacrament as well. For Christ our Lord added to marriage the dignity of a sacrament; but marriage is the contract itself, whenever that contract is lawfully concluded. . . .

Truly, it is hardly possible to describe how great are the evils that flow from divorce. Matrimonial contracts are by it made variable; mutual kindness is weakened; deplorable inducements to unfaithfulness are supplied; harm is done to the education and training of children; occasion is afforded for the breaking up of homes; the seeds of dissension are sown among families; the dignity of womanhood is lessened and brought low, and women run the risk of being deserted after having ministered to the pleasures of men. Since, then, nothing has such power to lay waste families and destroy the mainstay of kingdoms as the corruption of morals, it is easily seen that divorces are in the highest degree hostile to the prosperity of families and States, springing as they do from the depraved morals of the people, and, as experience shows us, opening out a way to every kind of evil-doing in public and in private life.

Further still, if the matter be duly pondered, we shall clearly see these evils to be the more especially dangerous, because, divorce once being tolerated, there will be no restraint powerful enough to keep it within the bounds marked out or presurmised. Great indeed is the force of example, and even greater still the might of passion. With such incitements it must needs follow that the eagerness for divorce, daily spreading by devious ways, will seize upon the minds of many like a virulent contagious disease, or like a flood of water bursting through every barrier. These are truths that doubtlessly are all clear in themselves, but they will become clearer yet if we call to mind the teachings of experience. So soon as the road to divorce began to be made smooth by law, at once quarrels, jealousies, and judicial separations largely increased: and such shamelessness of life followed that men who had been in favor of these divorces repented of what they had done, and feared that, if they did not carefully seek a remedy by repealing the law, the State itself might come to ruin. The Romans of old are said to have shrunk with horror from the first example of divorce, but ere long all sense of decency was blunted in their soul; the meager restraint of passion died out, and the marriage vow was so often broken that what some writers have affirmed would seem to be true -- namely, women used to reckon years not by the change of consuls, but of their husbands. In like manner, at the beginning, Protestants allowed legalized divorces in certain although but few cases, and yet from the affinity of circumstances of like kind, the number of divorces increased to such extent in Germany, America, and elsewhere that all wise thinkers deplored the boundless corruption of morals, and judged the recklessness of the laws to be simply intolerable.

Even in Catholic States the evil existed. For whenever at any time divorce was introduced, the abundance of misery that followed far exceeded all that the framers of the law could have foreseen. In fact, many lent their minds to contrive all kinds of fraud and device, and by accusations of cruelty, violence, and adultery to feign grounds for the dissolution of the matrimonial bond of which they had grown weary; and all this with so great havoc to morals that an amendment of the laws was deemed to be urgently needed.

Can anyone, therefore, doubt that laws in favor of divorce would have a result equally baneful and calamitous were they to be passed in these our days? There exists not, indeed, in the projects and enactments of men any power to change the character and tendency with things have received from nature. Those men, therefore, show but little wisdom in the idea they have formed of the well-being of the commonwealth who think that the inherent character of marriage can be perverted with impunity; and who, disregarding the sanctity of religion and of the sacrament, seem to wish to degrade and dishonor marriage more basely than was done even by heathen laws. Indeed, if they do not change their views, not only private families, but all public society, will have unceasing cause to fear lest they should be miserably driven into that general confusion and overthrow of order which is even now the wicked aim of socialists and communists. Thus we see most clearly how foolish and senseless it is to expect any public good from divorce, when, on the contrary, it tends to the certain destruction of society. (Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, February 10, 1890.)

Most of the revolutionaries attending Circus Jorge have never heard of Aracanum, and those who are familiar with it do not believe that Pope Leo XIII expressed universally binding truths as he was "conditioned" by the "ghetto mentality" of the era in which he wrote.

The conciliar revolutionaries simply do not believe that the Sacred Deposit of Faith has been entrusted by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself to His Holy Catholic Church for Its infallible explication under the guidance of God the Holy Ghost, Who is immutable.

Dogma is not “churned out,” Patriarch Sako. Everything in the Catholic Faith has been revealed by Our Lord Himself, and it is blasphemous to contend that the firm presentation of the truths contained in the Sacred Deposit Faith poses a “threat” to those who want to have their ears tickled with fables and fantasies of false “mercy” to reaffirm them in their lives of sin.

This is nothing other than the embodiment of the Modernist call for the “adaptation” of the Faith to experiences of individuals. It has nothing to do with the Catholic Faith. Nothing.

Pope Pius XI himself condemned the concept of adaptation of supposedly “changing” circumstances as it relates to the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony:

How grievously all these err and how shamelessly they leave the ways of honesty is already evident from what we have set forth here regarding the origin and nature of wedlock, its purposes and the good inherent in it. The evil of this teaching is plainly seen from the consequences which its advocates deduce from it, namely, that the laws, institutions and customs by which wedlock is governed, since they take their origin solely from the will of man, are subject entirely to him, hence can and must be founded, changed and abrogated according to human caprice and the shifting circumstances of human affairs; that the generative power which is grounded in nature itself is more sacred and has wider range than matrimony -- hence it may be exercised both outside as well as within the confines of wedlock, and though the purpose of matrimony be set aside, as though to suggest that the license of a base fornicating woman should enjoy the same rights as the chaste motherhood of a lawfully wedded wife.

Armed with these principles, some men go so far as to concoct new species of unions, suited, as they say, to the present temper of men and the times, which various new forms of matrimony they presume to label "temporary," "experimental," and "companionate." These offer all the indulgence of matrimony and its rights without, however, the indissoluble bond, and without offspring, unless later the parties alter their cohabitation into a matrimony in the full sense of the law.

Indeed there are some who desire and insist that these practices be legitimatized by the law or, at least, excused by their general acceptance among the people. They do not seem even to suspect that these proposals partake of nothing of the modern "culture" in which they glory so much, but are simply hateful abominations which beyond all question reduce our truly cultured nations to the barbarous standards of savage peoples. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

Circus Jorge is the antithesis of Arcanum and Casti Connubii as it is the antithesis of the Catholic Church. It is the work of Antichrist, which is why, as stated earlier, no believing Catholic has a “dog” in the fight between the Jacobins/Bolsheviks and the Girondists/Mensheviks.

Each camp of conciliar revolutionaries is composed of blasphemers, men who say that they believe in the Catholic Faith while endorsing propositions that have been anathematized by the Catholic Church and while praising false religions and participating in their false ceremonies that are hideously loathsome in the sight of the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Holy Trinity. This is why so little time, relatively speaking, needs to be spent on the circus as one cannot “save” that which is erroneous by nature from its own inevitable ruinous consequences.

We need to make reparation for the blasphemies, heresies, and apostasies that are being spread so widely at Circus Jorge, doing this through Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary, especially in this month of November, and also by paying closer attention than perhaps many of us have before now to the Golden Arrow devotion, which Our Lord Himself requested to be instituted to combat the blasphemies of our times.

Herewith is Sister Mary of Saint Peter of what Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ told her concerning the nature of blasphemy and how it relates also to the very nature of Holy Mother Church herself:

REVELATION OF JANUARY 5, 1846

Vigil of the Epiphany

Our Lord chose the Eve of this great Feast, commemorating as it does His manifestations to the gentiles, to grant Sister Mary of St. Peter the LOFTIEST of all His revelations on the Holy Face. In this exalted communication, the Divine Redeemer holds out blessings of unbounded hope even for those blasphemers who OPENLY attack Religion and the Holy Catholic Church. Referring to this class of sinners as “His poor sheep, bitten by the serpent and infected with the MADNESS of blasphemy,” the Saviour entrusts them to Sister Mary's care, appointing her as their shepherdess. He solemnly enjoins her that “she MUST lead these poor sheep to graze on the pastures of the divine mysteries of His life in order that they might be CURED, and He bids her to brand all these poor straying sheep with the picture of His Holy Face. Later, taking the Sister to task for mistrusting somewhat the Mercy of God, and neglecting to pray sufficiently for blasphemers, the Saviour pointed to Himself as the First Model of those who entreated the Eternal Father in behalf of this class of sinners, saying: “Did I not Myself give you the example of praying for blasphemers while I was on the cross?”

THE DIVINE MASTER made known to me that the land (“adjoining our convent) which we purchased from His Heavenly Father through the offerings of His Holy Face was to serve as a symbol of the land of the living which we must buy for a large number of souls with the divine and mysterious coin of His adorable Face. Tis divine Shepherd afterwards showed me a sheepfold and He said that He appointed my as its shepherdess.

Our Lord then made me understand that these, His poor sheep had been bitten by the serpent who had infected them with the madness of blasphemy. He told me that I must lead these poor sheep to graze on the pastures of the Divine mysteries of His life in order that they might be cured, and He also said that I must shelter these sheep in the adorable wounds of His Sacred Heart and that I must brand them with the picture of His Holy Face.

However, the Divine Saviour also warned me that I would have much to suffer because this herd of blasphemers was in a special madder under the leadership of demons, that is Lucifer himself. As for the various flocks composed of others sinners, for example the immoral, the drunkards, and the avaricious, Lucifer left these sinners to be led by the other, less powerful demons according as these demons willingly chose to lead various evil-doers, but that blasphemers are Lucifer's own particular herd.

“It is he,” declared the Saviour, “who makes this Word of Reparation so difficult for you. But do not fear him. St. Michael and the other holy angels will protect you. I give you My cross to use as a shepherd's crook, and through this weapon you will become formidable to the demon.”

After that our Lord made me hear that it was for this very mission that He had withdrawn me from the word and called me to live in this His holy house. Fearing as always that I was being deluded, I experienced a certain uneasiness about this revelation but our Lord hastened to reassure me saying:

“Be calm! Satan has too great a fear of the cross to mark any of his works with it.”

During prayer on another recent occasion, our Lord reprimanded me for neglecting to pray for the conversion of blasphemers. He showed me that I had listened to the demon and that I had allowed that wicked spirit to tempt me to mistrust the mercy of God. Then the Saviour added:

“Did I not Myself give you the example of praying for blasphemers while I was on the cross?”

After that our Saviour told me that He has great plans of showing mercy to this particular class of sinners, and that He desired to use me as an instrument for the accomplishment of these plans, in spite of my unworthiness, through the inauguration of the Work of Reparation. He further explained to me that this Work included not only reparation for what is generally called blasphemy, that is abusing the Holy Name of God, but that it also embraced reparation for all attacks against Religion and against Holy Church, since these also constitute a form of blasphemy.  (The Golden Arrow: The Autobiography of and Revelation of Sister Mary of Saint Peter (1816-1848) On Devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus, edited by Dorothy Scallan and translated by Father Emeric B. Scallan, S.T.B., published originally by William Frederick Press, New York, New York, 1954, and republished by TAN Books and Publishers, Charlotte, North Carolina, 2012, pp. 165-169.)

Why be in communion with blasphemers, believing that one set of blasphemers can save an already corrupted teaching on the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony from the designs of another set of blasphemers?

It is time for us all to pray our Rosaries more fervently, putting aside the distractions of the moment, and by commencing devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus, discussed in Circus Jorge, part two, so that we can make some reparations for the crimes of the conciliar blasphemers as well to pay back of what we owe for our own many sin. We must make this reparation, of course, by gratefully accepting the hardships and the difficulties of the moment as nothing in comparison to the crown of glory that awaits those who die in a state of Sanctifying Grace as members of the Catholic Church after having refused the easy path of human respect and “fellowship” to preserve by Our Lady’s graces in the true Faith in this time of apostasy and betrayal.

The conciliarists lose in the end. Christ the King will emerge triumphant once again as the fruit of the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of His Mother and our Queen, Mary Immaculate. The Church Militant will rise again from her mystical death and burial.

Keep praying. Keep sacrificing. Keep fulfilling Our Lady's Fatima Message in your own lives.

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary right now?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Saint Hedwig, pray for us.