Circus Jorge, part three

The unraveling of what appeared to be “unity” in the counterfeit church of conciliarism at what is being called “Synod ‘15” is doing something of a service in the cause of truth by demonstrating the false religious sect’s actual state of disunity in practice.

Disunity in matters of doctrine, liturgy, moral teaching and pastoral practices exists throughout the nooks and crannies of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, including within many of its parishes as it is all too frequently the case that different priests/presbyters have differing beliefs on matters of Faith and Morals and/or completely different “styles” of staging the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service. Pitched battles have been fought in many of these parishes (and I participated in several of them, to be sure, in the stupid belief that I was “fighting” for the Catholic Faith) over the past five decades as the odiferous “fruit” of the “Second” Vatican Council and its revolutionary spirit began to “ripen” in seminaries, universities, colleges, religious communities of men and women, national “episcopal” offices, chancery offices, high schools, elementary schools, and parishes.

Many of us in the laity wrote to chancery offices. We wrote to the “apostolic delegation/papal nunciature.” We wrote to the “pope.” We wrote to curial offices. We wrote letters to the editor. We wrote articles in various newspapers. We did this—and much more—to “defend the Faith” and to help the “suffering pope,” Karol Wojytla/John Paul II, restore doctrinal and liturgical “order” within what we thought was the Catholic Church. Only a few individuals, relatively speaking, were able to see that the “battles for the Faith” that many of us conservatives” fought in the 1970s and 1980s into the 1990s were as pointless as the mythical Sisyphus’s constant efforts to roll a boulder up a hill despite the bolder rolling back upon him every time.

Moreover, the divisions that are being manifested at the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s 2015 “synod of bishops on the family” have long characterized the semi-annual meetings of the formerly named “National Conference of Catholic Bishops/United States Catholic Conference, which has been called the “United States Conference of Catholic Bishops” since July 1, 2001. Most of these divisions have been engendered by the very nature of conciliarim’s rejection of various articles of Catholic doctrine, starting with the nature of Divine truth and thus of God Himself, including the doctrine of the Divine Constitution of the Catholic Church, which has been eclipsed by Lumen Gentium, November 21, 1964, false ecumenism, and episcopal collegiality.

To wit, consider how the revolutionary implementation of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service engendered storms of conflict between the Jacobin/Bolshevik conciliar revolutionaries and their hapless opponents in the Girondist/Menshevik camp over the matter of the translation of the Latin editio typica, as defective, heretical and bad as it is, of the “reformed, renewed liturgy” into the vernacular.

Numerous pitched battles were fought by "conservative" "bishops" and various priests/presbyters and laymen in the 1970s and 1980s to assure "proper" translations of Latin edtio typica to the English as it was as early as the late-1970s that some of the American "bishops," working in conjunction with the ultra-progressive revolutionary apparatchiks who served as consultants to ICEL

Memorably, the late "Bishop" Austin Vaughan, an auxiliary of the Archdiocese of New York, a truly humble and scholarly priest who worked very hard to maintain the Catholic Faith in the conciliar structures, rose to the floor at the November 1979 meeting of the "National Conference of Catholic Bishops" (hereinafter referred to as the NCCB) to protest the demands being made by others, many of whom at that point were indeed true bishops, for "gender-inclusive" language. Although written after his death on June 25, 2000, at a time I was still under the misapprehension that the counterfeit church of conciliarism was the Catholic Church, the following description of "Bishop" Vaughan's intervention at the NCCB meeting provided a glimpse into the pitched battles that were fought on the matter of the "proper" translation of the atrocity that has been the singular instrument of perdition in catechizing Catholics to accept the apostate ways of conciliarism, the Novus Ordo:

Humble though he was, however, Bishop Vaughan was also a man of abiding courage. Without any degree of bitterness or sarcasm, he would use his interventions during the annual meeting of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops to stand foursquare in behalf of doctrinal orthodoxy and liturgical reverence. He was a thorn in the side of those intent on making the Mass their ideological plaything. At a time in 1979 when the bishops and the International Committee for English in the Liturgy (ICEL) were pushing for all types of “gender-neutral language,” Bishop Vaughan reminded his brother bishops that there were more than 1,100 errors in translation from the Latin Missale Romanum of Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI found in the English Sacramentary. Many of his brother bishops just gnashed their teeth as he quietly and calmly spelled out how the faith was being eviscerated by real revolutionaries. (A True Friend of Our Lord and Our Lady, which was written in 2000 when I was an indulterer, sad to say.)

The vote taken by the conciliar "bishops" in 1979 paved the way for the "bishop" members of ICEL to petition the conciliar Vatican to approve their proposed change of the words "pro multis," which had been mistranslated originally by ICEL as "for all men," in the four "Eucharistic prayers" to "pro omnibus," "for all," which was considered to be "gender inclusive." The Vatican gave approval for this change in the Fall of 1981 when I was studying at Mount Saint Mary's Seminary in Emmitsburg, Maryland, while on leave from teaching at Nassau Community College.

The whooping and hollering was noticeable in the hallways of that once venerable seminary when word arrived that "Rome" had approved the "gender inclusive" change. Although other ICEL-proposed changes were rejected at the same time, the elimination of the word "man," in the various "Eucharistic Prayers" was deemed to be a major victory. Such are the problems created by living languages and by the heightened sensitivities of those who are concerned about their own feelings and sense of earthly empowerment. It was not too long thereafter, however, that the word "man" was blacked out in the missalettes in the chapel at Mount Saint Mary's, reminiscent of how a Ruthenian Rite Catholic Church, Saint Andrew's in Westbury, Long Island, had blacked out the words "and the Son" in the Filioque of the Nicene Creed (a phenomenon in other Uniat Rite churches that had the full approval of "Saint John Paul II.”

Battles continued raging into the 1990s as the ideologues who worked and served as consultants to ICEL, egged on by many in the American conciliar "episcopate" and by their feminist minders in the older communities of consecrated religious, pushed and pushed and the pushed the envelope to snowball the "conservatives" into accepting various changes designed to create a totally "gender inclusive" liturgy, including in the ordinary of the Novus Ordo Sacramentary and in the conciliar rite for presbyteral installation. Believe me, I was eyewitness to the proceedings at the NCCB meeting in Washington, District of Columbia, in November of 1993 as a correspondent for The Wanderer.

My work for The Wanderer and as a covert aide to a conciliar "bishop" who was working with prominent "conservative" priests to stop the "avalanche" of ICEL's propagandizing, gave me an opportunity to work in a more formal way with very prominent "conservative" priests to keep those "gender inclusive" translations from making their way into the texts of the Collects in the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service. There was even a little bit of a victory at the annual meeting of the then named National Conference of Catholic "Bishops" in 1993 as some "conservative" 'bishops" stood their ground against a set of translations that was being foisted upon the entire body of "bishops" by the apparatchiks in the International Committee on English in the Liturgy, whose longtime executive secretary, Dr. John Page, had been interviewed by me just a short time before that 'bishops'" meeting.

The following report, written by a "conservative" presbyter in the Diocese of Arlington, Virginia, summarized some of the complex history of ICEL's relentless efforts to get the conciliar Vatican to "hold the line" on the ideologues' "abuses." The report contained the remarkable back-hand admission by "Bishop" Anthony Bosco that the American conciliar "bishops" should stop arguing about the "translations" as "Rome" would serve as a "safeguard" against any doctrinal "hanky panky" on the part of ICEL:

The decade of the 1990s saw ICEL in a flurry of translation and revision. The most significant ICEL project was the revised ICEL Sacramentary. This is ICEL's first major revision of the translation of the Latin Roman Missal since 1973. The Sacramentary is the book of prayers used by the priest to celebrate Mass. ICEL expected its Sacramentary to be routinely confirmed by the Vatican in 1994 after an anticipated quick approval by the American (and other English-speaking) bishops.

But at their November 1993 plenary meeting, the American bishops delayed the approval process up to three years when they rejected the first segment of the new ICEL Sacramentary. That action set back the work of ICEL for several years. A year later, during the November 1994 meeting of American bishops, Bishop Donald W. Trautman of Erie— then the chairman of the bishops' Committee on Liturgy—admitted that instead of producing a revised Sacramentary in 1994 as originally planned, ICEL now envisioned a 1998 release as more likely. Even that estimate proved optimistic.

The texts for the revised Sacramentary —eventually released in eight segments, along with certain ancillary texts—were finally approved by the American bishops in 1997, after an exhausting and confusing review process. The Vatican received the texts in 1998. It remains uncertain if and when these texts will be confirmed. The National Catholic Reporter is probably correct in reporting (in a December 24, 1999 article) that, "most observers doubt [the ICEL Sacramentary] will be approved without significant revision."

Revisions by the Vatican—significant or not—were certainly expected by some of the bishops. At the November 1994 plenary meeting of bishops, Bishop Anthony G. Bosco of Greensburg, tried to allay any fears among his brother bishops by suggesting that questions of orthodoxy in the translated texts would be ultimately resolved by the Holy See. He predicted that the Holy See would review the texts with a "fine sieve." He suggested, therefore, that the bishops not continue the "debate on taste" with respect to the translations.

In a September 20, 1997 letter to Bishop Anthony M. Pilla, who was then the president of the NCCB, the then-Archbishop Medina indicated that ICEL's revised Rites of Ordination "cannot be approved or confirmed by the Holy See for liturgical use." Archbishop Medina wrote that the texts of the Rites of Ordination would not be confirmed "not only by reason of its failure to adhere faithfully" to the Latin original "and to convey accurately in English its contents, but also because the translation is not without doctrinal problems." Archbishop Medina observed that because "the shortcomings are so diffused . . . minor isolated corrections will not suffice."

The ICEL translation of the Rites of Ordination is a translation project separate and distinct from the ICEL Sacramentary. For reasons that have never been revealed, the former translation was never approved by the body of the American bishops. Had it been confirmed by the Vatican without that approval from the US bishops' conference, a precedent would have been set that would obviously have influenced the confirmation process for the revised ICEL Sacramentary. (War of the Words: ICEL Called to Accountability.)

Look at all of this insanity, which I thought prior to 1994 actually meant "something" good was happening. Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II’s decision to permit altar girls in April of 1994 drove me away from such battles, which is why I did not attend the 1994 meeting of the NCCB as I had had quite enough, concluding that the Novus Ordo was, although “valid,” something that I realized later it was not, irredeemable.

What is truly laughable about the information "Father" Jerry Pokorsky, whose heart was certainly in the right place, provided in his article was that it documents unintentionally the argument against a liturgy in a living language. None of this madness was known before in the history of the Catholic Church. None of it.

There were no "episcopal conferences" and multi-national commissions to deal with "translations" of the Missale Romanum of Pope Saint Pius V, who made that missal mandatory in 1570 to standardize the offering of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition so as to avoid the minor regional differences that had arisen over time and to eliminate any possibility that some of the "innovations" that some bishops had authorized prior to the Council of Trent to "respond" to the "spirit" of the Protestant Revolution of being a permanent feature in the liturgical life of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church.

The mammoth efforts to translate and re-translate and to revise and revise yet again the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service have engendered confusion in the ranks of the conciliar "episcopate," "presbyterate" and laity that would have absolutely unimaginable even as late as the 1950s as Catholic Worship is an expression of the Catholic Faith, which unites men around the altar of sacrifice, not confuses and divides them over which "translation" from the Latin editio typica to the vernacular is "kosher," shall we say.

Perhaps most to the point is the simple fact that all of the conflict and controversy engendered and all of the efforts expended to understand "what the prayer really says" is absurd on its face as the Latin editio typica and the conciliar rites of "episcopal consecration" and "priestly ordination" themselves are invalid and contains prayers that have been influenced by various Orthodox, Protestant and Judeo-Masonic currents.

The Novus Ordo's ideology is anthropocentric (man-centered), not Christocentric. The liturgical revolutionary, "Archbishop" Piero Marini, a direct acolyte of the Freemason Annibale Bugnini, C.M., kept telling us that we have not yet seen the full "fruit" of the "renewal" contained within the hideous liturgical service that he helped to write and whose implementation he sought to implement in the most scandalous expansive manner possible, especially as he planned and executed the outdoor extravaganza liturgies at which Wojtyla/John Paul II presided between October 16, 1978, and April 1 (or 2, depending on when he actually died), 2005:

The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Marini told the audience, was really "a matrix for other reforms" and possible changes yet to come. It is not enough, he said, to look at the written document as a manual for reforming the church's rites.

"It was an event that continues even today to mark ecclesial life," the archbishop said. "It has marked our ecclesial life so much that very little of the church today would be as it is had the council not met."

Marini, who was master of liturgical ceremonies under Blessed John Paul II, told the liturgists that Vatican II did not give the world static documents. In an ever-evolving culture, the Catholic liturgy is incomplete unless it renews communities of faith.

"The council is not behind us. It still precedes us," Marini said. (Vatican II continues to mark ecclesial life today, Marini says.)

When did Piero Marini say this?

Well, it wasn't fifty years ago. It was in Erie, Pennsylvania, during a conference of liturgical revolutionaries that was held between October 7 and 12, 2013. And guess who thinks very highly of Marini?

That's right.

You got.

None other than Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who praised the "bishop" members of the International Commission for English in the Liturgy on Friday, October 18, 2013, the Feast of Saint Luke, for their "exemplary" work in making the liturgy more "accessible" to the "people" to afford them a life of "full, active and conscious participation" the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service:

I welcome the members and staff of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy as you gather in Rome to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the Commission’s establishment. I thank Archbishop Arthur Roche, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, and a former President of ICEL, for presenting you. Through you, I send greetings and the expression of my gratitude to the Conferences of Bishops which you represent, and to the consultors and personnel who cooperate in the ongoing work of the Commission.

Founded as part of the implementation of the great liturgical renewal called for by the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Divine Liturgy, ICEL was also one of the signs of the spirit of episcopal collegiality which found expression in the Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (cf. Lumen Gentium, 22-25). The present anniversary is an occasion for giving thanks for the work which the Commission has accomplished over the past fifty years in providing English translations of the texts of the liturgy, but also in advancing the study, understanding and appropriation of the Church’s rich sacramental and euchological tradition. The work of the Commission has also contributed significantly to that conscious, active and devout participation called for by the Council, a participation which, as Pope Benedict XVI has rightly reminded us, needs to be understood ever more deeply “on the basis of a greater awareness of the mystery being celebrated and its relation to daily life” (Sacramentum Caritatis, 52). The fruits of your labours have not only helped to form the prayer of countless Catholics, but have also contributed to the understanding of the faith, the exercise of the common priesthood and the renewal of the Church’s missionary outreach, all themes central to the teaching of the Council. Indeed, as Blessed John Paul II pointed out, “for many people, the message of the Second Vatican Council was perceived principally through the liturgical reform” (Vicesimus quintus annus, 12).

Dear friends, last evening you celebrated a solemn Mass of thanksgiving at the tomb of Saint Peter, beneath the great inscription which reads: Hinc una fides mundo refulget; hinc unitas sacerdotii exoritur. By enabling the vast numbers of the Catholic faithful throughout the world to pray in a common language, your Commission has helped to foster the Church’s unity in faith and sacramental communion. That unity and communion, which has its origin in the Blessed Trinity, is one which constantly reconciles and enhances the richness of diversity. May your continuing efforts help to realize ever more fully the hope expressed by Pope Paul VI in promulgating the Roman Missal: that “in the great diversity of languages, a single prayer will rise as an acceptable offering to our Father in heaven, through our high priest Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit”.

To you, and to all associated with the work of the Commission, I cordially impart my Apostolic Blessing as a pledge of abiding joy and peace in the Lord. (Antipope meets with International Commission on English in the Liturgy.)

In other words, all of the pitched battles fought to prevent the International Commission in the Liturgy from mistranslating and/or creating "alternative" prayers based on a "sense" of the "spirit" of the Sunday readings or of a particular feast day have been for naught. Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not really care "what the prayer says" as long as there is a "sense" of permitting the people to "feel at home" and to be fully "active and conscious" participants in the "renewed liturgy," which is to say that Catholics had been inactive and unconscious passive bystanders for oh, well, let me see, yes, that's right, around nineteen centuries.

In like manner, you see, the pitched battle going on now at “Synod ‘15” as “cardinals” and “bishops” from F Troop (“Where Indian fights are colorful sights and nobody takes a lickin’, Where paleface and redskin both turn chicken”—F Troop) is meaningless. The results of this farce have been predetermined the moment that Jorge Mario Bergoglio stepped out on the balcony of the Basilica of Saint Peter on Wednesday evening, March 13, 2013, as he told “Monsignor” Guido Marini, who is no relation to Piero Marini, that “carnival is over” as he, the newly-elected “Pope Francis,” refused to don the papal mozzetta and then asked for the people to pray for him without his giving them a “blessing.” Bergoglio is doing now on a universal scale exactly what he did in Buenos Aires, and it is laughable to see various “conservatives” and semi-traditional commentators try to convince themselves that the farce that is going on at “Synod ‘15” is not part of their “pope’s” plan to make what is purported to be the Catholic Church a DFZ—a “Doctrine Free Zone”—where all are welcome regardless of what they believe, except in actual Catholicism, of course, and how they live, making the conciliar sect a JFZ—a Judgment Free Zone as well.

Thus it is that the now-infamous letter that was leaked to the currently out-of-favor with the Press Office of the Not-So-Holy See Vaticanologist Sandro Magister, who is a close ally and friend of Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI by means of his association with the late Father Hans von Balthasar’s “Communion and Liberation” movement, is just the latest example of the insanity engendered by error and its mutations. While the news about the letter and the comical “no, not me, I didn’t sign the letter” or “yes, I signed a letter, just not the one reported by Sandro Magister” certainly makes for good theater, it signifies nothing other than the fact that disunity is one of the principle characteristics of what passes for faith, worship, morals and pastoral practice in the counterfeit church of conciliarism. And I am not going to waste a single moment on the insanity represented by this letter and the controversy it has engendered other to reiterate what I noted a few days ago, namely, that those conciliar “bishops” who are upset with the current proceedings at “Synod ‘15” will stay well within the conciliar sect despite all of the huffing and puffing that is going on at this time.

The conciliar revolution has “matured” or, perhaps more accurately, “evolved” to the point where it is more possible for sin to be endorsed frankly as an “integral part” of human dignity at the level of a supposed synod of alleged Catholic bishops than it has been in the past.

While the information below has been sanitized by Vatican spinmeisters, just consider what the hideous friend of the homosexual collective, “Father” Thomas Rosica, C.S.B., chose to report as having been part of an invention by a “bishop” in one of the meetings, which are grouped by languages so as to keep any real opposition to Jorge’s agenda from being expressed with a single voice (a typical tactic of social revolutionaries, and one that has been used very effectively in conciliar “update” programs for priests/presbyters, consecrated religious and so-called religious educators):

Synod: “The distinction between sin and sinner no longer works”

At the midday press conference organized by the Vatican press office, Father Thomas Rosica emphasized this statement made by a Synodal Father during Saturday’s discussion on the third part of the Instrumentum laboris (while the second part is being examined by circuli minores since Monday morning):

“The distinction between sin and sinner no longer works. ”

This sentence had already been highlighted by the rapporteur in Italian which brought in substance: The differentiation between sin and sinner no longer works because sexuality is an integral part of the person.

Father Rosica added: “We must express these things in a new way so that people can understand them.” (Rap Sheet, by Hilary White)

Yes, the conciliar revolutionaries now feel emboldened to base what passes for moral theology on how people actually behave rather than on how they must behave in order to save their souls by observing the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. Bold assertions such as those made by the unnamed “bishop” that “Father” Thomas Rosica chose to disclose in a press conference are just a contemporary example of applying to the real of moral theology the same sort of relativism that produced a supposedly Catholic liturgical rite dependent on the use of “equivalent” translations from a dogmatically and sacramentally defective original to the vernacular. Those who believe that this “toothpaste” can be put back into the conciliar tube from which it came are delusional. The mask is now ripped off. Conciliarism, which is merely part of the larger Judeo-Masonic move in the direction of One World Governance to which a One World Ecumenical Church is to be subordinate, has shown itself to be about the celebration of hedonism.

Yes, you read that correctly.

Conciliarism has shown itself to be about the celebration of hedonism, placing itself far distant from the actual truth of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s attitude about sinners and sin as summarized so clearly by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. He was as strong as he was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross. These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one's personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

It was in defense of the truth about Our Lord and His Holy Doctrine that Pope Saint Pius X clearly explicated the Divine Redeemer’s approach toward sin and error.

Catholicism is clear. Heresy and error demand complexity and paradox. This is why the conciliar revolutionaries recoil at the clarity of Saint Paul the Apostle’s Second Epistle to the Timothy:

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

Thomas Rosica's endorsement of impurity stands in great contrast to the teaching of the Doctor of Moral Theologians, Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, the founder of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer, the Redemptorist Fathers. Saint Alphonsus used his sermon for the Sixteenth Sunday after Pentecost to condemn those who seek to make light of the sin of impurity, thereby condemning the Argentine Apostate over three centuries before he came onto the scene to revel in a sea of sewage:

The man who indulges in impurity is like a person labouring under the dropsy. The latter is so much tormented by thirst, that the more he drinks the more thirsty he becomes. Such, too, is the nature of the accursed vice of impurity; it is never satiated. "As," says St. Thomas of Villanova, “the more the dropsical man abounds in moisture, the more he thirsts; so, too, is it with the waves of eternal pleasures." I will speak Today of the vice of impurity, and will show, in the first point, the delusion of those who say that this vice is but a small evil; and, in the second, the delusion of those who say, that God takes pity on this sin, and that he does not punish it.

First Point. Delusion of those who say that sins against purity are not a great evil.

1. The unchaste, then, say that sins contrary to purity are but a small evil. Like “the so wallowing in the mire" ("Sus lota in volutabro luti” 2 Pet. ii. 22) , they are immersed in their own filth, so that they do not see the malice of their actions; and therefore they neither feel nor abhor the stench of their impurities, which excite disgust and horror in all others. Can you, who say that the vice of impurity is but a small evil can you, I ask, deny that it is a mortal sin? If you deny it, you are a heretic; for as St. Paul says: "Do not err. Neither fornicators, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, etc., shall possess the kingdom of God." (1 or. vi. 9.) It is a mortal sin; it cannot be a small evil. It is more sinful than theft, or detraction, or the violation of the fast. How then can you say that it is not a great evil? Perhaps mortal sin appears to you to be a small evil? Is it a small evil to despise the grace of God, to turn your back upon him, and to lose his friendship, for a transitory, beastly pleasure? (Saint Alphonsus de Ligouri, Sermon for the Sixteenth Sunday after Pentecost.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his band of fiends and other all-around Boris Badenov no-goodnik types do deny the immensity of the sin of impurity. Moreover, they even deny that sins of impurity are even sinful, no less mortally so, in nature. Bergoglio, of course, does not believe that anyone can commit a Mortal Sin, well, with the exception of perhaps harming the Amazon Rainforest. He is a heretic. Period. So are those who are helping to reaffirm hardened sinners in lives of wanton perdition and licentiousness.

Saint Alphonsus went on to state:

2. St. Thomas teaches, that mortal sin, because it is an insult offered to an infinite God, contains a certain infinitude of malice. "A sin committed against God has a certain infinitude, on account of the infinitude of the Divine Majesty." (S. Thom., 3, p., q. 1, art. 2, ad. 2.) Is mortal sin a small evil? It is so great an evil, that if all the angels and all the saints, the apostles, martyrs, and even the Mother of God, offered all their merits to atone for a single mortal sin, the oblation would not be sufficient. No; for that atonement or satisfaction would be finite; but the debt contracted by mortal sin is infinite, on account of the infinite Majesty of God which has been offended. The hatred which God bears to sins against purity is great beyond measure. If a lady find her plate soiled she is disgusted, and cannot eat. Now, with what disgust and indignation must God, who is Purity itself, behold the filthy impurities by which his law is violated? He loves purity with an infinite love; and consequently he has an infinite hatred for the sensuality which the lewd, voluptuous man calls a small evil. Even the devils who held a high rank in heaven before their fall disdain to tempt men to sins of the flesh.

3. St. Thomas says (lib. 5, de Erud. Princ., c. li.), that Lucifer, who is supposed to have been the devil that tempted Jesus Christ in the desert, tempted him to commit other sins, but scorned to tempt him to offend against chastity. Is this sin a small evil? Is it, then, a small evil to see a man endowed with a rational soul, and enriched with so many divine graces, bring himself by the sin of impurity to the level of a brute?” Fornication and pleasure," says St. Jerome,” pervert the understanding, and change men into beasts." (In Oseam., c. iv.) In the voluptuous and unchaste are literally verified the words of David;” And man, when he was in honour, did not understand: he is compared to senseless beasts, and is become like to them." (Ps. xlviii. 13.) St. Jerome says, that there is nothing more vile or degrading than to allow oneself to be conquered by the flesh. ” Nihil vilius quam vinci a carne." Is it a small evil to forget God, and to banish him from the soul, for the sake of giving the body a vile satisfaction, of which, when it is over, you feel ashamed? Of this the Lord complains by the Prophet Ezechiel;” Thus saith the Lord God: Because thou hast forgotten me, and has cast me off behind thy back” (xxiii. 35.) St. Thomas says, that by every vice, but particularly by the vice of impurity, men are removed far from God. “Per luxuriant maxime recedit a Deo." (In Job cap. xxxi.)

4. Moreover, sins of impurity, on account of their great number, are an immense evil. A blasphemer does not always blaspheme, but only when he is drunk or provoked to anger. The assassin, whose trade is to murder others, does not, at the most, commit more than eight or ten homicides. But the unchaste are guilty of an unceasing torrent of sins, by thoughts, by words, by looks, by complacencies, and by touches; so that, when they go to confession they find it impossible to tell the number of the sins they have committed against purity. Even in their sleep the devil represents to them obscene objects, that, on awakening, they may take delight in them; and because they are made the slaves of the enemy, they obey and consent to his suggestions; for it is easy to contract a habit of this sin. To other sins, such as blasphemy, detraction, and murder, men are not prone; but to this vice nature inclines them. Hence St. Thomas says, that there is no sinner so ready to offend God as the votary of lust is, on every occasion that occurs to him.” Nullus ad Dei contemptum promptior." The sin of impurity brings in its train the sins of defamation, of theft, hatred, and of boasting of its own filthy abominations. Besides, it ordinarily involves the malice of scandal. Other sins, such as blasphemy, perjury, and murder, excite horror in those who witness them; but this sin excites and draws others, who are flesh, to commit it, or, at least, to commit it with less horror. (Saint Alphonsus de Ligouri, Sermon for the Sixteenth Sunday after Pentecost..)

Catholicism is clear. Heresy and error demand complexity and paradox. This is why the conciliar revolutionaries recoil at the clarity of Saint Paul the Apostle’s Second Epistle to the Timothy:

The counterfeit church of conciliarism is little more than a political party composed of rival chieftains, and it is very interesting that events in the Aula Paolo Sicko within the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber are occurring at the same as the fractious, feckless naturalists of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “right” are trying to choose a candidate for Speaker of the United States House of Representative and as a man who cannot accept any kind of criticism without insulting his critics, Donald Trump, has taken the farce that is electoral politics in the United States of America into the twilight zone of absurdity.

That is, the “conservatives” within the counterfeit church of conciliarism serve the role of Bergoglio’s useful idiots whose ineptitude and cowardice make it more possible for the Argentine Apostate to advance his own revolutionary ends at this time by making them appear to be sullen “meanies” who are concerned about procedural matters and not going out to the “existential peripheries” to show “mercy” to those who have wounded their own souls by persisting lives in unrepentant Mortal Sins.

Similarly, the very disunited cast of characters within the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “right—both at congressional level and at the level of presidential politics—serve their own roles as “useful idiots” whose bumbling and fumbling schemes and internecine conflicts wind up enabling and emboldening the lawlessness of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, who knows that he can govern in a recklessly lawless manner by issuing executive fiats in the knowledge that no one in the leadership of the Republican Party is going to stop him.

Such must be the inevitable lot of those who try to fight supposedly “greater evils” with what are said to be “lesser evils.” Attempts to stop the unraveling of erroneous presuppositions with an allegedly more rigorous adherence to those presuppositions are doomed to failure.

The modern civil state, for example, has been doomed to degenerate to the point of a de facto authoritarianism, if not a subtle form of totalitarianism, because it is premised on the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic notion that the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity in His Most Blessed Mother’s Virginal and Immaculate and upon the belief that men do not need to have belief in, access to and cooperation with Sanctifying Grace to realize order within their own souls and thus in their own nations. In other words, the modern civil state is based upon the interrelated lies of naturalism and Pelagianism, that is, the belief that human beings are more or less self-redemptive and can thus stir up within themselves the necessary graces to do whatever it is they need to do to be “successful,” whether “success” is defined in supernatural (salvation) or temporal (worldly goals) terms.

Popes Pius IX and Pope Leo XIII explained that naturalism must wind up in social chaos and thus the triumph of materialism, moral relativism and social lawlessness:

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling. (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)

A system of morality based exclusively on human reason robs man of his highest dignity and lowers him from the supernatural to the merely natural life. Not but that man is able by the right use of reason to know and to obey certain principles of the natural law. But though he should know them all and keep them inviolate through life-and even this is impossible without the aid of the grace of our Redeemer-still it is vain for anyone without faith to promise himself eternal salvation. "If anyone abide not in Me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up and cast him into the fire, and he burneth" john xv., 6). "He that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark xvi., 16). We have but too much evidence of the value and result of a morality divorced from divine faith. How is it that, in spite of all the zeal for the welfare of the masses, nations are in such straits and even distress, and that the evil is daily on the increase? We are told that society is quite able to help itself; that it can flourish without the assistance of Christianity, and attain its end by its own unaided efforts. Public administrators prefer a purely secular system of government. All traces of the religion of our forefathers are daily disappearing from political life and administration. What blindness! Once the idea of the authority of God as the Judge of right and wrong is forgotten, law must necessarily lose its primary authority and justice must perish: and these are the two most powerful and most necessary bonds of society. Similarly, once the hope and expectation of eternal happiness is taken away, temporal goods will be greedily sought after. Every man will strive to secure the largest share for himself. Hence arise envy, jealousy, hatred. The consequences are conspiracy, anarchy, nihilism. There is neither peace abroad nor security at home. Public life is stained with crime. (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)

These are perfect descriptions of the world in which we live today at a time when our minders make it their business to mind everything about our own business as they promote all manner of moral and social evils while surrendering national sovereignty and failing to abide by the very constitution that they swore to uphold, and they are also perfect descriptions of how the crimes against Christ the King and His Sacred Deposit of Faith—and thus against the eternal and temporal good of the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood to redeem during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday—committed by the lords of conciliarism wind up producing insane babbling designed to reaffirm men in their sins and to do away with all sense of objective truth in the minds of Catholics once and for all.

Too strong?

Consider the words of Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself:

All of us are quite aware of, and deeply worried by, the disturbing social and political situation of the world today. Our world is increasingly a place of violent conflict, hatred and brutal atrocities, committed even in the name of God and of religion. We know that no religion is immune from forms of individual delusion or ideological extremism. This means that we must be especially attentive to every type of fundamentalism, whether religious or of any other kind. A delicate balance is required to combat violence perpetrated in the name of a religion, an ideology or an economic system, while also safeguarding religious freedom, intellectual freedom and individual freedoms. But there is another temptation which we must especially guard against: the simplistic reductionism which sees only good or evil; or, if you will, the righteous and sinners. The contemporary world, with its open wounds which affect so many of our brothers and sisters, demands that we confront every form of polarization which would divide it into these two camps. We know that in the attempt to be freed of the enemy without, we can be tempted to feed the enemy within. To imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants and murderers is the best way to take their place. That is something which you, as a people, reject. (Bergoglio's Address to U.S. Congress.)

The counterfeit church of conciliarism is just as much the victim of its own foundational errors and its embrace of a “living tradition” as is the modern civil state the victim of its own anti-Incarnational, naturalist and Pelagian errors that have led to “living constitutions” and statism. Error leads to disunity and conflict. Catholicism leads to unity of minds and thus concord. It is that simple

By way of contrast with Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his Jacobin/Bolshevik hedonist-loving “bishops, Pope Pius XI explained in Lux Veritatis, December 25, 1931, that he had issued Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930, to refute the evil errors about the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and its integrity that are being endorsed at this time by synod “father” after synod “father” at the farce in the Aula Paulo Sicko in the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River:

Moreover, We may well regard it as a happy omen, that it has fallen to Us to celebrate this fifteenth centenary: to Us, We say, who have defended the dignity and the sanctity of chaste wedlock against the encroaching fallacies of every kind (Encyclical Letter, Casti connubii, December 21, 1930), and who have both solemnly vindicated the sacred rights of the Catholic Church over the education of youth, and have declared and explained the manner in which it should be given, and the principles to which it should be conformed. (Encyclical Letter, Divini Illius Magistri, December 21, 1929.) For the precepts which We have set forth, concerning both these matters, have in the office of the divine maternity, and in the family of Nazareth, an excellent example proposed for the imitation of all. As Our predecessor, Leo XIII of happy memory, says: "Fathers of families indeed have in Joseph a glorious pattern of vigilance and paternal prudence; mothers have in the most holy Virgin Mother of God a remarkable example of love and modesty and submission of mind, and of perfect faith; but the children of a family have in Jesus, who was subject to them, a divine model of obedience, which they may admire, and worship and imitate." (Apostolic Letter, Neminem fugit, January 14, 1882.)

But in a more special manner it is fitting that those mothers of this our age, who being weary, whether of offspring or of the marriage bond, have the office they have undertaken degraded and neglected, may look up to Mary and meditate intently on her who has raised this grave duty of motherhood to such high nobility. For in this way there is hope that they may be led, by the help of grace of the heavenly Queen, to feel shame for the dishonour done to the great sacrament of matrimony, and may happily be stirred up to follow after the wondrous praise of her virtues, by every effort in their power.

If all these things prosper according to Our purpose, that is to say if the life of the family, the beginning and the foundation of all human society, is recalled to this most worthy model of holiness, without doubt We shall at length be able to meet the formidable crisis of evils confronting Us, with an effective remedy. In this way, it will come to pass that "the peace of God which passeth all understanding" may "keep the hearts and minds" of all (Phil. iv. 7), and that the much desired Kingdom of Christ, minds and forces being joined together, may be everywhere established.

We will not close this Encyclical Letter, Venerable Brethren, without mentioning a matter which will surely be pleasing to you all. Desiring that there may be a liturgical monument of this commemoration, which may help to nourish the piety of clergy and people towards the great Mother of God, We have commanded Our supreme council presiding over Sacred Rites to publish an Office and Mass of the Divine Maternity, which is to be celebrated by the universal Church. And, meanwhile, as an earnest of heavenly gifts, and a pledge of Our paternal affection, We impart the Apostolic Benediction, very lovingly in the Lord, to you, Venerable Brethren, one and all, and to your clergy and people. (Pope Pius XI, Lux Veritatis, December 25, 1531.)

The Divine Office for today, October 14, 2015, the Feast of Pope Saint Callistus I, has some unsettling words of Catholic truth from Pope Leo XIII for those who believe that any of what has happened in the past or is apparently presently in the counterfeit church of conciliarism has anything whatsoever to do with the Catholic Church:

When the Lord, as we read in the Gospel, asked his disciples who did men, amid their divers speculations, believe him the Son of Man to be, blessed Peter answered and said: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And the Lord answered and said unto him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father, which is in heaven: and I say also unto thee: That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. But the dispensation of truth perdures, and blessed Peter, persevering in the strength of the rock which he hath received, hath not relinquished the position he assumed at the helm of the Church.

In the universal Church it is as if Peter were still saying every day: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. For every tongue which confesseth the Lord is taught that confession by the teaching of Peter. This is the Faith that overcometh the devil and looseth the bonds of his prisoners. This is the Faith which maketh men free of the world and bringeth them to heaven, and the gates of hell are impotent to prevail against it. This is the rock which God hath fortified with such ramparts of salvation, that the contagion of heresy will never be able to infect it, nor idolatry and unbelief to overcome it. And therefore, dearly beloved, we celebrate today's festival with reasonable obedience, that in my humble person he may be acknowledged and honoured who doth continue to care for all the shepherds as well as sheep entrusted unto him, and who doth lose none of his dignity even in an unworthy successor.

When, therefore, we address our exhortations to your godly ears, believe ye that ye are hearing him speak whose office we are discharging. Yea, it is with his love for you that we warn you. And we preach unto you no other thing than that which he taught, entreating you as did he: Gird up the loins of your mind; be sober; be ye holy in all manner of living; pass the time of your sojourning here in the fear of God. My disciples, dearly beloved, ye are to me as the disciples of the Apostle Paul were to him, namely: My crown and joy; if so be that your faith, abide, still in all lowliness and holiness, like unto the first times of the Gospel. For although the whole Church, which is in all the world, should indeed abound in all the virtues, it becometh especially you among all others to excel in acts of piety, founded as ye be on the very citadel of the Apostolic Rock ye who have not only been redeemed with the rest of men by our Lord Jesus Christ, but who have been instructed by the blessed Apostle Peter far beyond all others. (Matins, Divine Office, Feast of Pope Saint Callistus I.)

The Catholic Church can never be infected by the contagion of heresy. None of her true bishops has anything but hatred for idolatry and unbelief. The counterfeit church of conciliarism is rife with heresy and celebrates sin, idolatry and unbelief. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is the antithesis of a true pope because he is not a true pope. It is that simple.

Let’s face facts. What is going on in Rome right now has nothing to do with Catholicism. Moreover, what has been going on in Rome since the Modernist Angelo Roncalli stepped onto the balcony of the Basilica of Saint Peter on October 28, 1958, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude, has had nothing to do with Catholicism. The only difference between 1958 and 2015 is the fact that the forces of Antichrist in his antichurch have been emboldened to portray sin as part of “human dignity” and the toleration of it as “mercy” in the name of the Gospel of the Divine Redeemer.

We turn to Our Lady in these times, seeking to console the good God by means of her Most Holy Rosary as did Francisco Marto in the time between her apparitions in the Cova da Iria and his holy death from the Spanish Influenza on April 4, 1919, and to make reparation for our own sins and those of the whole world as her consecrated slaves through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.

Yes, Our Lady will come to throw the bums out, to quote the late William C. Koneazny once again. We just have to do our part to sanctify and save our own souls in these perilous times by entrusting ourselves to her Divine Son through the very Heart that will triumph in the end, her Immaculate Heart.

Why live in fear with a Blessed Mother who is so dear, so near to us in all of our needs?

Pray the Rosary!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.

Pope Saint Callistus I, pray for us.

You are here

Circus Jorge, part three

Support Christ or Chaos