Christ or Chaos

Openly Admitting What Has Been The Case From The Beginning

Impeded by a finger that got seriously infected from a cat scratch, this commentary will be rather brief (maybe not), something that the twenty or so remaining readers of this website may (or may not) appreciate.

One of the central themes that I have addressed in the past ten and one-half years since coming to accept the true state of the Church Militant in this time of apostasy and betrayal concerns the warfare against the nature of dogmatic truth that has been waged by the conciliar revolutionaries, including each of the conciliar "popes," since the "election" of Angelo Roncalli on October 28, 1958, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude, as the first in the current line of antipopes who have attacked every aspect of Catholic Faith, Worship and Morals. This attack on the nature of dogmatic truth is nothing other than an attack upon then nature of God Himself, Who is without any shadow of change or alteration.

Yet it is that the conciliar revolutionares, imbued with the Modernist heresy of dogmatic evolutionism, have used various euphemisms to mask the fact that they are indeed dogmatic evolutionists. “Saint John Paul II,” for example, masqueraded the Modernist principle of dogmatic evolutionism by referring to as “living tradition,” meaning that everything in Sacred Deposit of Faith was open to reinterpretation and “adaptation” as the circumstances require:

5. Today the Church rejoices at the renewed confirmation of the prophet Joel's words which we have just heard: "I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh" (Acts 2:17). You, present here, are the tangible proof of this "outpouring" of the Spirit. Each movement is different from the others, but they are all united in the same communion and for the same mission. Some charisms given by the Spirit burst in like an impetuous wind, which seizes people and carries them to new ways of missionary commitment to the radical service of the Gospel, by ceaselessly proclaiming the truths of faith, accepting the living stream of tradition as a gift and instilling in each person an ardent desire for holiness.

Today, I would like to cry out to all of you gathered here in St Peter's Square and to all Christians: Open yourselves docilely to the gifts of the Spirit! Accept gratefully and obediently the charisms which the Spirit never ceases to bestow on us! Do not forget that every charism is given for the common good, that is, for the benefit of the whole Church. (Meeting with ecclesial movements and new communities.)

is not therefore a matter of inventing a "new programme". The programme already exists: it is the plan found in the Gospel and in the living Tradition, it is the same as ever. Ultimately, it has its centre in Christ himself, who is to be known, loved and imitated, so that in him we may live the life of the Trinity, and with him transform history until its fulfilment in the heavenly Jerusalem. This is a programme which does not change with shifts of times and cultures, even though it takes account of time and culture for the sake of true dialogue and effective communication. This programme for all times is our programme for the Third Millennium.

But it must be translated into pastoral initiatives adapted to the circumstances of each community. The Jubilee has given us the extraordinary opportunity to travel together for a number of years on a journey common to the whole Church, a catechetical journey on the theme of the Trinity, accompanied by precise pastoral undertakings designed to ensure that the Jubilee would be a fruitful event. I am grateful for the sincere and widespread acceptance of what I proposed in my Apostolic Letter Tertio Millennio Adveniente. But now it is no longer an immediate goal that we face, but the larger and more demanding challenge of normal pastoral activity. With its universal and indispensable provisions, the programme of the Gospel must continue to take root, as it has always done, in the life of the Church everywhere. It is in the local churches that the specific features of a detailed pastoral plan can be identified — goals and methods, formation and enrichment of the people involved, the search for the necessary resources — which will enable the proclamation of Christ to reach people, mould communities, and have a deep and incisive influence in bringing Gospel values to bear in society and culture.

I therefore earnestly exhort the Pastors of the particular Churches, with the help of all sectors of God's People, confidently to plan the stages of the journey ahead, harmonizing the choices of each diocesan community with those of neighbouring Churches and of the universal Church. (Apostolic Letter Novo Millennio Ineunte.)

It should be noted furthermore that Karol Joseph Wojtyla/John Paul II note specifically in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, July 2, 1988, that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre had placed the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (more commonly known as the Society of Saint Pius X) into schism with what is purported to be the Catholic Church by consecrating four priests as bishops without a “papal” mandate and for refusing to accept what the “canonized pope” said was “the living character of tradition”:

4. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth".(5)

But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.(6)

5. Faced with the situation that has arisen I deem it my duty to inform all the Catholic faithful of some aspects which this sad event has highlighted.

a) The outcome of the movement promoted by Mons. Lefebvre can and must be, for all the Catholic faithful, a motive for sincere reflection concerning their own fidelity to the Church's Tradition, authentically interpreted by the ecclesiastical Magisterium, ordinary and extraordinary, especially in the Ecumenical Councils from Nicaea to Vatican II. From this reflection all should draw a renewed and efficacious conviction of the necessity of strengthening still more their fidelity by rejecting erroneous interpretations and arbitrary and unauthorized applications in matters of doctrine, liturgy and discipline.

To the bishops especially it pertains, by reason of their pastoral mission, to exercise the important duty of a clear-sighted vigilance full of charity and firmness, so that this fidelity may be everywhere safeguarded.(7)

However, it is necessary that all the Pastors and the other faithful have a new awareness, not only of the lawfulness but also of the richness for the Church of a diversity of charisms, traditions of spirituality and apostolate, which also constitutes the beauty of unity in variety: of that blended "harmony" which the earthly Church raises up to Heaven under the impulse of the Holy Spirit.

b) Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other experts in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel themselves called upon to answer in the present circumstances. Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council's continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church. (Karol Wojytla/John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, July 2, 1988.)

Wojtyla/John Paul II was absolutely correct to state that the teaching of the universal magisterium of the Catholic Church cannot be contrary to Tradition. Some in the Society of Saint Pius X have posited a nonexistent conflict between the “authoritative magisterium” and the “governing magisterium.” There is no such distinction as no such division in the magisterium exists. It is a fabrication. The universal ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church cannot teach error, something that was reviewed most recently in Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton Calls Out Tricks of Shoddy Minimism.

Unfortunately, for “Saint John Paul II,” however, his very argument in favor of the continuity between the “Second” Vatican Council and the Tradition of the Catholic Church is based upon an admission that that false council’s texts might be too obscure to understand properly “especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.” Holy Mother Church teaches clearly. There is nothing “new” in her teaching. The “Polish Pope” was trying to have it both ways by referring to the “living character of Tradition” to call the Society of Saint Pius X to obedience while at the same time unwittingly admitting that that there are “new” points of doctrine that need to be “understood.” This is not from the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, Who is immutable.

What was a "living tradition" for Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II mutated into Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who had championed dogmatic evolutionism by means of his Hegelian reasoning over the course of thirty-four years prior to doing so as in capacity as the fifth in the current line of antipopes on December 22, 2005, when he gave it the name of "the heremeutic of continuity":

1971: "In theses 10-12, the difficult problem of the relationship between language and thought is debated, which in post-conciliar discussions was the immediate departure point of the dispute.

The identity of the Christian substance as such, the Christian 'thing' was not directly ... censured, but it was pointed out that no formula, no matter how valid and indispensable it may have been in its time, can fully express the thought mentioned in it and declare it unequivocally forever, since language is constantly in movement and the content of its meaning changes." (Fr. Ratzinger: Dogmatic formulas must always change.)

1990: "The text [of the document Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation] also presents the various types of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms - perhaps for the first time with this clarity - that there are decisions of the magisterium that cannot be the last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. The nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times influenced, may need further correction.

In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last century [19th century] about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time [on evolutionism]. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from falling into the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they became obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at their proper time."

(Joseph Ratzinger, "Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation," published with the title "Rinnovato dialogo fra Magistero e Teologia," in L'Osservatore Romano, June 27, 1990, p. 6, cited at Card. Ratzinger: The teachings of the Popes against Modernism are obsolete)

Secondly, it was necessary to give a new definition to the relationship between the Church and the modern State that would make room impartially for citizens of various religions and ideologies, merely assuming responsibility for an orderly and tolerant coexistence among them and for the freedom to practise their own religion.

Thirdly, linked more generally to this was the problem of religious tolerance - a question that required a new definition of the relationship between the Christian faith and the world religions. In particular, before the recent crimes of the Nazi regime and, in general, with a retrospective look at a long and difficult history, it was necessary to evaluate and define in a new way the relationship between the Church and the faith of Israel.

These are all subjects of great importance - they were the great themes of the second part of the Council - on which it is impossible to reflect more broadly in this context. It is clear that in all these sectors, which all together form a single problem, some kind of discontinuity might emerge. Indeed, a discontinuity had been revealed but in which, after the various distinctions between concrete historical situations and their requirements had been made, the continuity of principles proved not to have been abandoned. It is easy to miss this fact at a first glance.

It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.

On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change.

Basic decisions, therefore, continue to be well-grounded, whereas the way they are applied to new contexts can change. Thus, for example, if religious freedom were to be considered an expression of the human inability to discover the truth and thus become a canonization of relativism, then this social and historical necessity is raised inappropriately to the metaphysical level and thus stripped of its true meaning. Consequently, it cannot be accepted by those who believe that the human person is capable of knowing the truth about God and, on the basis of the inner dignity of the truth, is bound to this knowledge.

It is quite different, on the other hand, to perceive religious freedom as a need that derives from human coexistence, or indeed, as an intrinsic consequence of the truth that cannot be externally imposed but that the person must adopt only through the process of conviction.

The Second Vatican Council, recognizing and making its own an essential principle of the modern State with the Decree on Religious Freedom, has recovered the deepest patrimony of the Church. By so doing she can be conscious of being in full harmony with the teaching of Jesus himself (cf. Mt 22: 21), as well as with the Church of the martyrs of all time. The ancient Church naturally prayed for the emperors and political leaders out of duty (cf. I Tm 2: 2); but while she prayed for the emperors, she refused to worship them and thereby clearly rejected the religion of the State.

The martyrs of the early Church died for their faith in that God who was revealed in Jesus Christ, and for this very reason they also died for freedom of conscience and the freedom to profess one's own faith - a profession that no State can impose but which, instead, can only be claimed with God's grace in freedom of conscience. A missionary Church known for proclaiming her message to all peoples must necessarily work for the freedom of the faith. She desires to transmit the gift of the truth that exists for one and all. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005.)

What was that Pope Pius XII wrote in Humani Generis about how the "new theologians" deny that the true meaning of doctrines may be known and understood with metaphysical certitude?

Let me remind you:

34. It is not surprising that these new opinions endanger the two philosophical sciences which by their very nature are closely connected with the doctrine of faith, that is, theodicy and ethics; they hold that the function of these two sciences is not to prove with certitude anything about God or any other transcendental being, but rather to show that the truths which faith teaches about a personal God and about His precepts, are perfectly consistent with the necessities of life and are therefore to be accepted by all, in order to avoid despair and to attain eternal salvation. All these opinions and affirmations are openly contrary to the documents of Our Predecessors Leo XIII and Pius X, and cannot be reconciled with the decrees of the Vatican Council. It would indeed be unnecessary to deplore these aberrations from the truth, if all, even in the field of philosophy, directed their attention with the proper reverence to the Teaching Authority of the Church, which by divine institution has the mission not only to guard and interpret the deposit of divinely revealed truth, but also to keep watch over the philosophical sciences themselves, in order that Catholic dogmas may suffer no harm because of erroneous opinions. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)

For the likes of men such as the conciliar revolutionaries to be correct, the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity not only hid the true meaning of doctrines for over nineteen hundred years, He permitted true popes and the Fathers of Holy Mother Church's twenty true general councils to condemn propositions that have, we are supposed to believe, only recently been "discovered" as having been true. Blasphemous and heretical.

As we know, Jorge Mario Bergoglio and some of his chief comrades including Christoph Schonborn and Lorenzo Baldisseri, have cast aside any pretense of hiding the fact that dogmatic evolutionism is anything than what it is, thus openly admitting what has been the case from the very beginnings of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

“Therefore, there’s no reason to be scandalized that there is a cardinal or a theologian saying something that’s different than the so-called ‘common doctrine.’ This doesn’t imply a going against. It means reflecting. Because dogma has its own evolution; that is a development, not a change.”

The cardinal added that it is “right that there is a reaction” and that “this is exactly what we want today. We want to discuss things, but not in order to call things into doubt, but rather to view it in a new context, and with a new awareness. Otherwise, what’s theology doing but repeating what was said in the last century, or 20 centuries ago?” (Lorenzo Baldiserri Admits Communion for Adulters is Dogmatic Evolution.)

Matters of Catholic dogma are never to a subject of any kind of discussion or debate. Then again, the entirety of the conciliar revolution is premised upon attacking the nature of dogmatic truth thereby creating the illusion that everything is subject to debate and change to suit the circumstances of the times.

Indeed, Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s Herculean effort to dismiss the witness given by Saint John the Baptist in opposition to the adulterous and bigamous Herod the Tetrarch and that given by the English martyrs, including Saints John Fisher and Thomas More, in opposition to the lecherous King Henry VIII’s “marriage” to his mistress, Anne Boleyn, as he put away his true wife, Catherine of Aragon is premised entirely on Modernism’s subjectivism, which was denounced as follows by Pope Pius XII when addressing the Thirtieth General Congregation of the Society of Jesus in September of 1957:

The more serious cause, however, was the movement in high Jesuit circles to modernize the understanding of the magisterium by enlarging the freedom of Catholics, especially scholars, to dispute its claims and assertions. Jesuit scholars had already made up their minds that the Catholic creeds and moral norms needed nuance and correction. It was for this incipient dissent that the late Pius XII chastised the Jesuits’ 30th General Congregation one year before he died (1957). What concerned Pius XII most in that admonition was the doctrinal orthodoxy of Jesuits. Information had reached him that the Society’s academics (in France and Germany) were bootlegging heterodox ideas. He had long been aware of contemporary theologians who tried “to withdraw themselves from the Sacred Teaching authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them in error” (Humani generis).

In view of what has gone on recently in Catholic higher education, Pius XII’s warnings to Jesuits have a prophetic ring to them. He spoke then of a “proud spirit of free inquiry more proper to a heterodox mentality than to a Catholic one”; he demanded that Jesuits not “tolerate complicity with people who would draw norms for action for eternal salvation from what is actually done, rather than from what should be done.” He continued, “It should be necessary to cut off as soon as possible from the body of your Society” such “unworthy and unfaithful sons.” Pius obviously was alarmed at the rise of heterodox thinking, worldly living, and just plain disobedience in Jesuit ranks, especially at attempts to place Jesuits on a par with their Superiors in those matters which pertained to Faith or Church order (The Pope Speaks, Spring 1958, pp. 447-453). (Monsignor George A. Kelly, Ph.D.,The Catholic College: Death, Judgment, Resurrection. See also the full Latin text of Pope Pius XII's address to the thirtieth general congregation of the Society of Jesus at page 806 of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis for 1957: AAS 49 [1957]. One will have to scroll down to page 806.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio was trained by the very sort of revolutionaries whose false moral theology was condemned by Pope Pius XII in 1957, and it is this false moral theology, which is nothing other than Judeo-Masonic moral relativism, which itself is the product of the Protestant Revolution’s theological relativism. Modernism is, of course, the synthesis of all heresies. Amoris Latetia is nothing other than a celebration of subjectivism, of basing a false moral teahcing on what is "actually done, rather than from what should be done."

There is no need to repeat what I wrote at great length in the afore-cited series on Amoris Laetitia to demonstrate that Pope Pius XII’s words apply directly to Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his band of theological and liturgical revolutionaries. Bergoglio really meant what he wrote in Amoris Laetitia conceding the ability of pastors to “discern” how those lacking conciliar decrees of nullity can receive the Sacraments, including what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical abomination, which is why he wrote his brother apostates in Buenos Aires, Argentina, to say that their interpretation of Amoris Laetitia on this point was the only one possible:

Bp. Sergio Alfredo Fenoy
Delegate to the Buenos Aires Pastoral Region

Dear Brother:

I hereby acknowledge having received the document “Basic criteria for the application of Amoris Laetitia chapter VIII” from the Buenos Aires Pastoral Region. Thank you very much for sending it; and I congratulate you for the work done, a true example of accompaniment to the priests… and we all know how this closeness between the bishop and his clergy is necessary. The “closest” neighbor to the bishop is the priest, and for us bishops the commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves begins precisely with our priests.

The document is very good and fully expresses the meaning of Amoris Laetitia chapter VIII. There are no other interpretations. And I am sure that it will do much good. May the Lord reward them for this effort of pastoral charity.

And it is precisely this pastoral charity that moves us to seek out those who are most distant, and once we have found them, to begin a journey of acceptance, accompaniment, discernment, and integration into the ecclesial community. We know this is exhausting, it is a pastoral “melee” that is not content with programmatic, organizational, or legal mediation, but it is necessary. Simply embrace, accompany, discern, integrate. Of these four pastoral attitudes, the least cultivated and practiced is discernment; and I consider the formation in personal and communal discernment in our seminaries and presbyteries to be an urgent task.

Finally I would like to remind you that Amoris Laetitia was the result of the work and prayer of the whole Church, with the mediation of two Synods and the Pope. Therefore I recommend a complete catechesis of the Exhortation, which will certainly assist in the growth, consolidation, and sanctification of the family.

Once again I thank you for the work done and I encourage you to continue forward, in the diverse communities of the diocese, with the study and catechesis of Amoris Laetitia. (As found at: Novus Ordo Watch.)

Although many “conservatives” in the conciliar structures who have never understood the plain fact that their “Pope Francis” cooked the books on this matter early in his false “pontificate” tried to deny the authenticity of their “pontiff’s” letter to the “bishops” of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires that confirmed their interpretation of Amoris Laetitia as the only one possible, officials in the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River acknowledged the letter’s authenticity on September 12, 2016:

(Vatican Radio) Pope Francis has written a letter to the bishops of the Buenos Aires region of Argentina, praising them for their document which spells out ways in which priests should apply the teachings of his apostolic exhortation ‘Amoris Laetitia’.

Pope was responding to a document by the bishops entitled ‘Basic criteria for the application of chapter 8 of ‘Amoris Laetitia’ which details ways of ‘accompanying, discerning and integrating weakness’ for Catholics living in irregular family situations. That chapter focuses on the need to support and integrate divorcees into the life of the Church, specifying that “in certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments”.

In his letter the Pope underlines the urgency of formation of priests for the practice of discernment, stressing that this is central to the task of accompanying families in difficulty. He calls for in-depth catechesis on the exhortation which he says will “certainly help the growth, consolidation and holiness of family life”.

Expressing his appreciation for the ‘pastoral charity’ contained in the bishops’ document, Pope Francis insists “there are no other interpretations” of the apostolic exhortation which he wrote at the conclusion of the two synods on the family in 2014 and 2015. (Vatican Says Jorge's Letter Buenos Aires "Bishops" Is Authentic.)

What Jorge Mario Bergoglio considers merely “irregular situations” have been condemned repeatedly by the authority of the Catholic Church and, as noted above, they make a mockery of the martyrdom of numerous saints and the zealous work for souls by such missionaries as Saint Francis Solano and Saint Anthony Mary Claret.

“Conservatives” and “traditionally-minded” Catholics find themselves facing a heresy that they can no longer seek to explain away by having recourse to Wojtyla/John Paul II’s “living tradition” and/or Ratzinger/Benedict’s “hermeneutic of continuity.”

While it is good that more than a handful of Catholics may now take a hard look at the fact that a heretic cannot sit on Throne of Saint Peter, most, however, will either accept their “pope’s” mercy to those who have not even bothered even with the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s vastly streamline nullity process that has itself undermined the indissolubility of ratified and consummated marriages or they will shrug their shoulders as they have since the “Second” Vatican Council at photographs such as this one:

The "Restorer of Tradition" giving a "joint blessing" with Archlayman of Canterbury

Oh, just incidentally, you understand, how did the Anglican sect that Ratzinger, following the leads of Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Montini/Paul VI and Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II, legitimized by means of his words and deeds start?

Yes, the adulterous and bigamous Henry VIII started the "Church of England." The Protestant Revolution was all about justifying lust and divorce. It is the same for the conciliar revolutionaries.

Like examples could be given ad nauseam, ad infinitum. Others, of course, can be found in numerous articles on this site and elsewhere in cyberspace, not to mention a compendium, necessarily dated now by the rush of subsequent events but nevertheless a handy reference guide, entitled No Space Between Ratzinger and Bergoglio: So Close in Apostasy, So Far From Catholic Truth.

Where has been the outrage about offenses given to the Most Blessed Trinity by the conciliar "popes" as they have violated the First and Second Commandments repeatedly?

Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI did exactly what Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II before him had done. Jorge Mario Bergoglio's final, crushing blows to the immutable precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments did not come out of nowhere, and those within the “hierarchy” and the laity of the conciliar structures who are understandably and justifiably outraged by these latest developments really have no one else to blame as they have been active apologists for false doctrines (false ecumenism, inter-religious "prayer services," esteeming the symbols of false religions, reaffirmg adherents of false religions in their false beliefs) that violate the First and Second Commandments.

Violate the First and Second Commandments, good readers, and everything else will follow thereafter, including the Third Commandment (promulgation of a sacrilegious liturgy and other sacramentally invalid rites), the Fourth Commandment (separation of church and state, religious liberty) and the Fifth Commandment (conciliar "popes" have decried the death penalty and Bergoglio has said that there is no such thing as a just war). Why should any particular respect be given to the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments when the honor and glory and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity have been undermined and mocked with complete impunity?

The veritable “house of cards” that has been constructed out of the constant erosion of the sensus Catholicus by the documents of the “Second” Vatican Council and the “magisterium” of the postconciliar “popes” has fallen down by the septuagenarian juvenile delinquent from South America, a man who delights, absolutely delights, in “making a mess” as he springs “surprises” that he dares so blasphemously to represent as coming from God when they are nothing other than the phantasms of his heretical imagination.

By the way, as long as we are on the subject of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, which the conciliar revolutionaries have undermined by means of the aforementioned liberalized nullity process, “natural family planning”—which is based on inversion of the ends of marriage that had been condemned by Pope Pius XII in 1944—and has resulted in a supposedly “moral” form of avoiding the conception of children, and by means of the ever-increasingly explicit programs of classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments that have reinforced the world’s attack on the innocence and purity of children. This is to say nothing as to how the lords of conciliarism have consistently enabled the sin of Sodom to point that some of its "bishops" are calling for a recognition of this sin cries out for vengeance as a legitimate expressoin of "love." Doubt my word? Read Amoris Laetitia.

No, this did not all begin with Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his agenda of sin that has many Catholics in the conciliar structures who follow these developments to the point of wondering how to deal with a supposed “pope” who preaches heresy.

The boldness of the conciliar revolutionaries is such that the notorious friend all things lavender and a firm supporter of the ideology of biological evolutionism and doctrinal evolutionism, Christoph “Cardinal” Schonborn, who just happens to be a disciple of one Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, can speak openly about “dogmatic evolution” after having discarded the pretense of trying to justify the unjustifiable by calling the heresies of Amoris Laetitia to be nothing other than an “organic development of doctrine”. Consider the following excerpts of an interview Schonborn gave recently to his “pope’s” fellow lay Jesuit, “Father” Anthony Spadaro, the editor of La Civilta Cattolica:

Some have spoken of AL as a minor document, a personal opinion of the Pope (so to speak) without full magisterial value. What value does this Exhortation possess? Is it an act of the magisterium?

This seems obvious, but it is good to specify it in these times, in order to prevent some voices from creating confusion among the faithful when they assert that this is not the case ...

It is obvious that this is an act of the magisterium: it is an Apostolic Exhortation. It is clear that the Pope is exercising here his role of pastor, of master and teacher of the faith, after having benefited from the consultation of the two Synods. I have no doubt that it must be said that this is a pontifical document of great quality, an authentic teaching of sacra doctrina, which leads us back to the contemporary relevance of the Word of God. I have read it many times, and each time I note the delicacy of its composition and an ever greater quantity of details that contain a rich teaching. There is no lack of passages in the Exhortation that affirm their doctrinal value strongly and decisively. This can be recognized from the tone and the content of what is said, when we relate these to the intention of the text – for example, when the Pope writes: “I urgently ask ...”, “It is no longer possible to say ...”, “I have wanted to present to the entire Church ...”, and so on. AL is an act of the magisterium that makes the teaching of the Church present and relevant today. Just as we read the Council of Nicaea in the light of the Council of Constantinople, and Vatican I in the light of Vatican II, so now we must read the previous statements of the magisterium about the family in the light of the contribution made by AL. We are led in a living manner to draw a distinction between the continuity of the doctrinal principles and the discontinuity of perspectives or of historically conditioned expressions. This is the function that belongs to the living magisterium: to interpret authentically the Word of God, whether written or handed down. (Schornborn Interview with Antonio Spadaro.)

What was it that Schonborn’s mentor said about attempting to make dogma the product of historically-conditioned expressions that must be reinterpreted in each era according to the circumstances of the times because human language can never fully communicate its supposed nuances?