Circus Jorge, part seven, the end!

Well, Circus Jorge has ended.

While some have concluded that the conclusion of “Synod ‘15” has been worse than expected, no one who understands that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is an apostate and that religious sect he serves is not the Catholic Church is in the least bit surprised by what transpired over the course of the past three weeks. Those who were waiting anxiously to see what “Pope Francis” would do even though he has been using every opportunity in the past thirty-one months, eleven days to posit a false dichotomy between the “hardness” of doctrine and the mercy of the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King, simply do not want to see that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is indeed the fulfillment of the “operation of error” prophesied by none other than Saint Paul the Apostle:

[1] And we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of our gathering together unto him: [2] That you be not easily moved from your sense, nor be terrified, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by epistle, as sent from us, as if the day of the Lord were at hand. [3] Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, [4] Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. [5] Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

[6] And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. [7] For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. [8] And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, [9] Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, [10] And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:

[11] That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity. [12] But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, beloved of God, for that God hath chosen you firstfruits unto salvation, in sanctification of the spirit, and faith of the truth: [13] Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. [14] Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. [15] Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God and our Father, who hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope in grace,

[16] Exhort your hearts, and confirm you in every good work and word. (2 Thess. 2: 1-16.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his Jacobin/Boleshevik confederates, enabled so well by their “false opposites” in the Girondist/Mensevik camp, do indeed personify men of sin who are working an operation of error to complete what none other than Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger, quoting his Hegelian mentor, the late Father Hans Urs von Balthasar, was the “demolition of the bastions:

Does this mean that the Council should be revoked? Certainly not. It means only that the real reception of the Council has not yet even begun. What devastated the Church in the decade after the Council was not the Council but the refusal to accept it. This becomes clear precisely in the history of the influence of Gaudium et spes. What was identified with the Council was, for the most part, the expression of an attitude that did not coincide with the statements to be found in the text itself, although it is recognizable as a tendency in its development and in some of its individual formulations. The task is not, therefore, to suppress the Council but to discover the real Council and to deepen its true intention in the light of the present experience. That means that there can be no return to the Syllabus, which may have marked the first stage in the confrontation with liberalism and a newly conceived Marxism but cannot be the last stage. In the long run, neither embrace nor ghetto can solve for Christians the problem of the modern world. The fact is, as Hans Urs von Balthasar pointed out as early as 1952, that the "demolition of the bastions" is a long-overdue task. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 391)

All that Bergoglio and his band of revolutionaries are doing is to demolish what little remained of Catholic doctrine in an entity based upon heresy, sacrilege, blasphemy, error and scandal from its very beginning, starting, as has been noted so many times on this site, with the very nature of dogmatic truth itself. Despite differences of style and demeanor, the conciliar warfare against the nature of dogmatic truth unites the supposedly “conservative” “Saint John Paul II” and alleged “restorer of tradition,” “Pope Benedict XVI,” with the vulgar, coarse party animal from Buenos Aires, Argentina.

 “Pope Francis’s” “homily” at the Casa Santa Marta on Friday, October 23, 2015, during that day’s session of his Ding Dong School Of Apostasy flatly rejected any belief in the stability and immutability of Catholic doctrine as he said that “the times are changing and we Christians must continually, but freely within the truth of the faith.” As will be demonstrated momentarily, the “truth of the faith” for Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a “simple” and “purer” reading of the Gospel of Christ the King that is based upon an adherence to the “spirit” of doctrine, not its letter.

This is the Vatican Radio report on the exhortation to “change continually” given by the false pontiff on Friday, October 23, 2015:

(Vatican Radio)  Pope Francis said on Friday (23rd October) that the times are changing and we Christians must change continually, freely but within the truth of the faith. He urged Christians to look at the signs of the times and warned them against succumbing to the comfort of conformity. The Pope’s remarks came during his homily at the morning Mass celebrated at the Santa Marta residence.

Reading the signs of the times

Taking his cue from the reading of St Paul’s letter to the Romans, Pope Francis’s homily reflected on the discernment that the Church needs to employ whilst looking at the signs of the times and doing what Christ wants. He noted how St Paul’s preaching stressed the freedom which has saved us from sin whilst Christ himself spoke of reading the signs of the times. God set us free, the Pope explained, and in order to have this freedom, we must open ourselves to the power of the Holy Spirit and clearly understand what is happening within and around us through discernment.

“We have this freedom to judge whatever is happening around us.  But in order to judge, we must have a good knowledge of that is happening around us.  And how can we do this?  How can we do this, which the Church calls ‘recognizing the signs of the times?’ Times are changing.  And it’s precisely Christian wisdom that recognizes these changes, recognizes the changing times and recognizes the signs of the times. What one thing and another thing means. And do this freely, without fear.” 

Pope Francis conceded that this is not an easy thing to do on account of the external conditioning that pressures Christians as well, encouraging many of them to seek comfort in doing nothing. 

“This is something that we usually don’t do: we stick with conformity, we reassure ourselves with (words like) ‘they told us, I heard, people said they read….’ In this way we are reassured.  But what is the truth?  What is the message that the Lord wants to give me with this sign of the times?  First of all, in order to understand the signs of the times we need silence: to be silent and observe. And afterwards we need to reflect within ourselves. One example: why are there so many wars nowadays?  Why did something happen? And pray… silence, reflection and prayer.  It’s only in this way that we can understand the signs of the times, what Jesus wants to tell us.”

Freedom within the truth of the Gospel

Understanding the signs of the times, noted the Pope, should not be confined to an elite cultural group. He recalled how Jesus didn’t tell us to look at how the professors, the doctors and the intellectuals do things but instead urged us to look at the farm labourer who knows how to “separate the wheat from the chaff.”

“Times are changing and we Christians must change continually. We must change whilst remaining fixed to our faith in Jesus Christ, fixed to the truth of the Gospel but we must adapt our attitude continuously according to the signs of the times. We are free. We are free thanks to the gift of freedom given to us by Jesus Christ. But our job is to look at what is happening within us, discern our feelings, our thoughts and what is happening around us and discern the signs of the times – through silence, reflection and prayer.” (Times change and Christians must change continually.)

The antidotes to this heresy can be found in Appendix B below. Longtime readers have seen these antidotes many times on this site.

For the moment, however, Bergoglio once again showed himself to be prototypical anti-intellectual who has a hatred for genuine Catholic theology. This is the case because his is a religion of man that is based on upon the affective senses, which is why he must seek to prove that his rejection of Catholic scholarship and apologetics is the only “true” interpretation of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s teaching that he believes has been corrupted by the “intellectuals” and “doctors,” thus blaspheming the likes of Saint Jerome, Saint John Chrysostom, Saint John of Damascus, Saint Augustine, Saint Athanasius, Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, Saint Anselm, Saint Ambrose, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Bonaventure, Saint Francis de Sales, Saint Anthony of Padua, who was, after all, the “hammer of heretics,” Saint Vincent Ferrer and Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, to name just a few of Holy Mother’s leading lights.

This is, of course, pure Modernism as it is based upon the inner religious “sense” from which all religious “impulses” are said to originate, something that Pope Saint Pius X noted in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907:

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 Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Bergoglio, of course, is not alone in belief in the mutability of doctrine. He has simply taken off the mask of pseudo-scholarship Ratzinger/Benedict has used to promote Modernism’s philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned “evolution of dogma.” Here is a brief review of the Antipope Emeritus’s “greatest hits” of expressing in a cleverer and artful manner exactly what Bergoglio did in his own crude style two days ago:

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)

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. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005.)

Yes, you see, there is no space between Ratzinger and Bergoglio, who are so close in apostasy, so close in apostasy, so far from Catholic truth.

First, the insidious little pest was once again “humble” extolling himself and the likes of Walter Kasper, Reinhard Marx, Franz-Josef Bode, Godfried Daneels, Vincent Nichols, Mark Coleridge, Donald Wuerl, et al. are the “true defenders of doctrine” as opposed to those among his Girondist/Mensheivk “opponents” who are fixated, he believes, on “formulae, laws and divine commandments” rather than exalting “the greatness of the true God” according to the “boundless generosity of His Mercy.”

What a hypocritical fraud, a man who dares to make light of dogmatic formulae, laws and divine commandments as though each has not been revealed by God Himself, something that Pope Pius XI made very clear in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928:

Besides this, in connection with things which must be believed, it is nowise licit to use that distinction which some have seen fit to introduce between those articles of faith which are fundamental and those which are not fundamental, as they say, as if the former are to be accepted by all, while the latter may be left to the free assent of the faithful: for the supernatural virtue of faith has a formal cause, namely the authority of God revealing, and this is patient of no such distinction. For this reason it is that all who are truly Christ's believe, for example, the Conception of the Mother of God without stain of original sin with the same faith as they believe the mystery of the August Trinity, and the Incarnation of our Lord just as they do the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, according to the sense in which it was defined by the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican. Are these truths not equally certain, or not equally to be believed, because the Church has solemnly sanctioned and defined them, some in one age and some in another, even in those times immediately before our own? Has not God revealed them all? For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. But in the use of this extraordinary teaching authority no newly invented matter is brought in, nor is anything new added to the number of those truths which are at least implicitly contained in the deposit of Revelation, divinely handed down to the Church: only those which are made clear which perhaps may still seem obscure to some, or that which some have previously called into question is declared to be of faith.  (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

Second, Bergoglio’s efforts to compare those who hold to the integrity of the Sacred Deposit of Faith with the elder brother in the Parable of the Prodigal Son remain what they have been since he walked out on the balcony of the Basilica of Saint Peter on the evening of Wednesday, March 13, 2013, reprehensibly demagogic.

The Prodigal Son sought his father’s forgiveness after he had repented of his life of profligacy. He did not ask his father to accept it back while he lived in a profligate manner. Bergoglio believes that those who are unrepentant sinners can be compared to the Prodigal Son while those who hold fast to repentance as a condition to receive Absolution in the Sacrament of Penance can be compared to the elder brother. This is a distortion of the Gospel according to Saint Luke and thus blasphemy against the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost.

Alas, this is not the first time that “Pope Francis,” who has blasphemed Our Lord and His Most Blessed Mother on numerous occasions, has distorted the Parable of the Prodigal Son. Here is an example from Thursday, November 7, 2013: 


(Vatican Radio) Finding the lost sheep is a joy to God, because he has a “loving weakness” for those who are lost. These were the words of Pope Francis during his homily at Mass on Thursday morning in Casa Santa Marta.

Commenting on the parables of the lost sheep and of the lost coin, Pope Francis talked about the attitude of the scribes and the Pharisees, who were scandalised by the things that Jesus did. They murmured against him: “This man is dangerous, he eats with the publicans and the sinners, he offends God, he desecrates the ministry of the prophet to accost these people”. Jesus, the Pope explained, says that this “is the music of hypocrisy”, and “answers this hypocrisy with a parable”.

“He replies to this murmuring with a joyful parable. The words ‘joy’ and ‘happiness’ appear in this short text four times: three times joy, and once happiness. “And you” – it’s as if he were saying – “you are scandalised by this, but my Father rejoices”. That is the most profound message of this story: the joy of God, a God who doesn’t like to lose. God is not a good loser, and this is why, in order not to lose, He goes out on his own, and He goes, He searches. He is a God who searches: He searches for all those who are far away from Him, like the shepherd who goes to search for the lost sheep.”

The work of God, the Pope continued, is to “go and search”, in order to “invite everyone to the celebrations, good and bad”.

“He can’t stand losing one of His own. And this is the prayer of Jesus, too, on Holy Thursday: “Father, may none get lost, of those You have given to me”. He is a God who walks around searching for us, and has a certain loving weakness for those who are furthest away, who are lost. He goes and searches for them. And how does he search? He searches until the end, like the shepherd who goes out into the darkness, searching, until he finds the sheep. Or like the woman, when she loses a coin, who lights a lamp and sweeps the house, and searches carefully. That’s how God searches. “I won’t lose this son, he’s mine! And I don’t want to lose him.” This is our Father: he always comes searching for us.”

Then, Pope Francis explained, “when he has found the sheep” and brought it back into the fold with the others, no one must say ‘you are lost’, but everyone should say ‘you are one of us’, because this returns dignity to the lost sheep. “There is no difference”, because God “returns to the fold everyone he finds. And when he does this, he is a God who rejoices”.

“The joy of God is not the death of the sinner, but the life of the sinner. And how far from this were those who murmured against Jesus, how far from the heart of God! They didn’t know Him. They thought that being religious, being good people meant always being well-mannered and polite, and often pretending to be polite, right? This is the hypocrisy of the murmuring. But the joy of God the Father, in fact, is love. He loves us. “But I’m a sinner, I’ve done this and that and the other!” “But I love you anyway, and I go out searching for you, and I bring you home.” This is our Father. Let’s reflect on this.” (God has a loving weakness for the lost sheep.)

Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ seeks out the lost sheep in order to convert them, to accept them and then invite them to a "party" to "celebrate" their having been "found" even though they remain in a state of Mortal Sin without any intention of reforming their lives.

One will notice here that Jorge Mario Bergoglio distorted the Parable of the Prodigal Son yet again, which Our Lord told in order to relate the contrition of the sinner and the joy of his father upon seeing that he had repented of his life of sin:

[11] And he said: A certain man had two sons: [12] And the younger of them said to his father: Father, give me the portion of substance that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his substance. [13] And not many days after, the younger son, gathering all together, went abroad into a far country: and there wasted his substance, living riotously. [14] And after he had spent all, there came a mighty famine in that country; and he began to be in want. [15] And he went and cleaved to one of the citizens of that country. And he sent him into his farm to feed swine.

[16] And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks the swine did eat; and no man gave unto him. [17] And returning to himself, he said: How many hired servants in my father' s house abound with bread, and I here perish with hunger? [18] I will arise, and will go to my father, and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee: [19] I am not worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants. [20] And rising up he came to his father. And when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and was moved with compassion, and running to him fell upon his neck, and kissed him.

[21] And the son said to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, I am not now worthy to be called thy son. [22] And the father said to his servants: Bring forth quickly the first robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: [23] And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it, and let us eat and make merry: [24] Because this my son was dead, and is come to life again: was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry. [25] Now his elder son was in the field, and when he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard music and dancing:

[26] And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant. [27] And he said to him: Thy brother is come, and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe. [28] And he was angry, and would not go in. His father therefore coming out began to entreat him. [29] And he answering, said to his father: Behold, for so many years do I serve thee, and I have never transgressed thy commandment, and yet thou hast never given me a kid to make merry with my friends: [30] But as soon as this thy son is come, who hath devoured his substance with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.

[31] But he said to him: Son, thou art always with me, and all I have is thine. [32] But it was fit that we should make merry and be glad, for this thy brother was dead and is come to life again; he was lost, and is found. (Luke 15: 11-31.)

The son who was dead had come back to live because he had repented of his sins, which is what happens to a spiritual dead soul in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance after a good, integral and sincere confession of his sins and a firm purpose of amending his life.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio never mentions the very point of repentance that Our Lord had made when relating the Parable of the Prodigal Son as he believes that everyone, without respect to his desire to amend his life, is welcomed at the "feast." Well, this may be the case insofar as the "feast" he desires to celebrate, which is why he is being so acclaimed by the forces of the world, the flesh and the devil. It is not, however, what Our Lord desires as His eternal feast in Heaven is open only to those who die in a state of Sanctifying Grace as a member of His Catholic Church.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio's insane desire for "feasting" in the midst of the proliferation of numberless sins against the honor and glory and majesty of God, which he himself commits, objectively speaking, on a daily basis by acting and speaking as does and by staging the hideous Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service, was the theme of general audience remarks on Wednesday, November 6, 2013:

“A Christian is one who is invited. Invited to what? To a shop? To take a walk? The Lord wants to tell us something more: You are invited to join in the feast, to the joy of being saved, to the joy of being redeemed, to the joy of sharing life with Christ. This is a joy! You are called to a party! A feast is a gathering of people who talk, laugh, celebrate, are happy together. I have never seen anyone party on their own. That would be boring, no? Opening the bottle of wine . . . That’s not a feast, it’s something else. You have to party with others, with the family, with friends, with those who’ve been invited, as I was invited. Being Christian means belonging, belonging to this body, to the people that have been invited to the feast: this is Christian belonging.”

Turning to the Letter to the Romans, the Pope then affirmed that this feast is a “feast of unity.” He underlined the fact that all are invited, “the good and the bad.” And the first to be invited are the marginalized:

“The Church is not the Church only for good people. Do we want to describe who belongs to the Church, to this feast? The sinners. All of us sinners are invited. At this point there is a community that has diverse gifts: one has the gift of prophecy, another of ministry, who teaching. . . We all have qualities and strengths. But each of us brings to the feast a common gift. Each of us is called to participate fully in the feast. Christian existence cannot be understood without this participation. ‘I go to the feast, but I don’t go beyond the antechamber, because I want to be only with the three or four people that I familiar with. . .’ You can’t do this in the Church! You either participate fully or you remain outside. You can’t pick and choose: the Church is for everyone, beginning with those I’ve already mentioned, the most marginalized. It is everyone’s Church!”

Speaking about the parable in which Jesus said some who were invited began to make excuses, Pope Francis said: “They don’t accept the invitation! They say ‘yes,’ but their actions say ‘no.’” These people, he said, “are Christians who are content to be on the guest list: chosen Christians.” But, he warned, this is not sufficient, because if you don’t participate you are not a Christian. “You were on the list,” he said, but this isn’t enough for salvation! This is the Church: to enter into the Church is a grace; to enter into the Church is an invitation.” And this right, he added, cannot be purchased. “To enter into the Church,” he added, “is to become part of a community, the community of the Church. To enter into the Church is to participate in all the virtues, the qualities that the Lord has given us in our service of one for the other.” Pope Francis continued, “To enter into the Church means to be responsible for those things that the Lord asks of us.” Ultimately, he said, “to enter into the Church is to enter into this People of God, in its journey towards eternity.” No one, he warned, is the protagonist of the Church: but we have ONE,” who has done everything. God “is the protagonist!” We are his followers . . . and “he who does not follow Him is the one who excuses himself” and does not go to the feast:

The Lord is very generous. The Lord opens all doors. The Lord also understands those who say to Him, ‘No, Lord, I don’t want to go to you.’ He understands and is waiting for them, because He is merciful. But the Lord does not like those who say ‘yes’ and do the opposite; who pretend to thank Him for all the good things; who have good manners, but go their own way and do not follow the way of the Lord: those who always excuse themselves, those who do not know joy, who don’t experience the joy of belonging. Let us ask the Lord for this grace of understanding: how beautiful it is to be invited to the feast, how beautiful it is to take part in it and to share one’s qualities, how beautiful it is to be with Him and how wrong it is to dither between ‘yes’ and ‘no,’ to say ‘yes,’ but to be satisfied merely with being a nominal Christian. (It is everyone's Church.)

Who are those wo do not want to "participate" in the "feast"?

Those who do not engage in the "full, active and conscious" manner while they enjoy the "feast" that is the Novus Ordo liturgical service, whose very false spirit is evocative of worldliness and anthropocentrism (man-centeredness) and "community fellowship" while those who participate fully, active and consciously are "reaffirmed" by the presider in their essential goodness, that God loves them "just the way they are," which wsa the entire point of Circus Jorge aka "Synod '15."

On the practical level, Bergoglio's belief that to "enter into the Church is to participate in all the virtues, the qualities that the Lord has given us in our service of one for the other" is all about whether Catholics care for the "poor" and into their lives with joy to alleviate their temporal needs and physical suffering. Jorge Mario Bergoglio mentioned nothing about becoming holy, of avoiding the near occasions of sin (going anywhere near him and his false church is indeed an occasion of sin!), of obeying the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. No, his is the "gospel" of "liberation theology," which seeks not to judge unrepentant sinners or to condemn the grave harm their sins do to themselves and the world-at-large, but which is full of condemnation for those who seek the conversion of such sinners and who take seriously the quest for personal sanctity despite their own sins and failings.

Those who think that anything that has happened in the past three weeks is “new” or that “Pope Francis” would reject the views of the revolutionaries he had handpicked to lead the now concluded circus are living in a fantasy world as he has expressed himself openly to one and all in the past thirty-one months after having done so for fifteen years as the conciliar “archbishop” of Buenos Aires, Argentina. The willingness to hold out false “hope” that a man who is a known heretic and blasphemer would do anything other than to champion the revolution in whose cradle he was formed theologically is truly inexcusable at this late date. It is also highly irresponsible when one considers, as noted in part six two days ago now, that it is forbidden to criticize, no less to reject, the teaching of a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter.

Third, the Argentine Apostate’s closing address to “Synod ‘15” on Saturday, October 24, 2015, the Feast of Saint Raphael the Archangel, included a gratuitous rejection of “relativism” and “demonizing” several paragraphs after he had cited the “Second” Vatican Council’s call for “inculturation” to demonstrate “disparities” between cultures on various moral issues, something that is the height of relativism, and as he has demonized the “bishops” who opposed his schemes in direct, harsh and unforgiving terms:

It was also about laying closed hearts, which bare the closed hearts which frequently hide even behind the Church’s teachings or good intentions, in order to sit in the chair of Moses and judge, sometimes with superiority and superficiality, difficult cases and wounded families.

It was about making clear that the Church is a Church of the poor in spirit and of sinners seeking forgiveness, not simply of the righteous and the holy, but rather of those who are righteous and holy precisely when they feel themselves poor sinners.

It was about trying to open up broader horizons, rising above conspiracy theories and blinkered viewpoints, so as to defend and spread the freedom of the children of God, and to transmit the beauty of Christian Newness, at times encrusted in a language which is archaic or simply incomprehensible.

In the course of this Synod, the different opinions which were freely expressed – and at times, unfortunately, not in entirely well-meaning ways – certainly led to a rich and lively dialogue; they offered a vivid image of a Church which does not simply “rubberstamp”, but draws from the sources of her faith living waters to refresh parched hearts.

And – apart from dogmatic questions clearly defined by the Church’s Magisterium – we have also seen that what seems normal for a bishop on one continent, is considered strange and almost scandalous for a bishop from another; what is considered a violation of a right in one society is an evident and inviolable rule in another; what for some is freedom of conscience is for others simply confusion. Cultures are in fact quite diverse, and each general principle needs to be inculturated, if it is to be respected and applied. The 1985 Synod, which celebrated the twentieth anniversary of the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council, spoke of inculturation as “the intimate transformation of authentic cultural values through their integration in Christianity, and the taking root of Christianity in the various human cultures”. Inculturation does not weaken true values, but demonstrates their true strength and authenticity, since they adapt without changing; indeed they quietly and gradually transform the different cultures.

We have seen, also by the richness of our diversity, that the same challenge is ever before us: that of proclaiming the Gospel to the men and women of today, and defending the family from all ideological and individualistic assaults.

And without ever falling into the danger of relativism or of demonizing others, we sought to embrace, fully and courageously, the goodness and mercy of God who transcends our every human reckoning and desires only that “all be saved” (cf. 1 Tm 2:4). In this way we wished to experience this Synod in the context of the Extraordinary Year of Mercy which the Church is called to celebrated. (Jorge Pulls No Punches.)

There are four points to be made about this section will be made before turning very briefly to another section and thence to two sections the final report of “Synod ’15,” a document that will be as useless as any platform adopted by the delegates of national nominating conventions of the organized crime family of the naturalist “right” in the United States of America (the organized crime family of the naturalist “left,” however, actually follows its platform of statism and moral evil with great fidelity) as Jorge bides his time before lowering the boom on the Girondists/Mensheviks by "opening wide" the doors of false mercy.

First, the man most Catholics believe is the Successor of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on earth disparaged those “bishops” and others who made interventions, such as the courageous Dr. Anca Maria Cernea, whose brilliant defense of Catholic truth was highlighted two days ago, who have “closed hearts” and thus sit in the “Chair of Moses” to judge others with superficiality and superiority even as he used superficiality and demagoguery to dismiss the concerns of some of the Girondist/Menshevik “bishops” concerning an already attenuated, corrupted version of Catholic doctrine on the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

As has been mentioned before on this site, Bergoglio uses the same Marxist tactic as does Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro to denounce demonization while denouncing opponents with a morally superior tone of sanctimonious righteousness precisely to demonize and thus discredit them. Dr. Anca Maria Cernea to place herself in the “chair of Moses” to judge others, Jorge? You are a truly hideous and loathsome human being.

Second, the currently presiding universal public face of apostasy’s reference to the “broadening of horizons” on the part of the “blinkered” “conspirators” who tried to spoil his big shew on the Aula Paula Sicko inside the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River by referring to “doctrine,” of all things, is very similar to the language used by Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI on March 10, 2009, to explain why he had remitted the “excommunications” of the four bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X who had been “excommunicated” by Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II on July 2, 1988:

Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents - to the extent possible - in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim Him and, with Him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?

"Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things - arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them - in this case the Pope - he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint. (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, March 10, 2009.)

A different tone?

To be certain.

A different message?

Not in the slightest.

Third, the Argentine Apostate “doubled down” in his own hardness of heart against any objections made against his Modernist agenda on the part of his Girondist/Menshevik foils in his “homily” at the closing staging of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service on Sunday, October 25, 2015, the Feast of Christ the King and the Commemoration of the Twenty-second Sunday after Pentecost, thus showing that his remarks on Saturday, October 24, 2015, the Feast of Saint Raphael the Archangel, were just another reiteration of all of the screeds he has given in the Casa Santa Marta in the past thirty-one months since refusing to take possession of the Apostolic Palace, something that is highly symbolic in and of itself.

Here is but a brief except from the “homily” given at the closing false liturgical service for “Synod ‘15”:

There is a second temptation, that of falling into a “scheduled faith”.  We are able to walk with the People of God, but we already have our schedule for the journey, where everything is listed: we know where to go and how long it will take; everyone must respect our rhythm and every problem is a bother.  We run the risk of becoming the “many” of the Gospel who lose patience and rebuke Bartimaeus.  Just a short time before, they scolded the children (cf. 10:13), and now the blind beggar: whoever bothers us or is not of our stature is excluded.  Jesus, on the other hand, wants to include, above all those kept on the fringes who are crying out to him.  They, like Bartimaeus, have faith, because awareness of the need for salvation is the best way of encountering Jesus. (Jorge's Propaganda Indoctrination at Closing Staging of Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo for "Synod '15".)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio really, really despises clarity and surety of Catholic doctrine, and he has contempt for those who believe that such clarity exists as a matter independently of human acceptance of it.

As been noted endlessly on this site, the conciliar “popes” have projected onto God whatever attributes they want Him to possess. This is paganism.

Angelo Roncalli/“Saint John XXIII” disparaged anathemas and the denunciation of error. So did Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul the Sick. So does Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Montini/Paul VI (yes, I alternate the titles now and again), Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI have projected onto God a love of false religious, false religious ceremonies, inter-religious “prayer,” “inter-religious dialogue,” “religious liberty” as a human right, separation of Church and State, which is, of course, a denial of the Social Reign of Christ the King and thus heretical in and of itself, episcopal collegiality, which is denial of the monarchical and hierarchical nature of Holy Mother Church, and have inverted the ends proper to the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony while endorsing “responsible parenthood” by means of “natural family planning.”

Moreover, Bergoglio’s own hatred for the surety and clarity of doctrine is shared entirely by the man, Ratzinger/Benedict, who signed off on the International Theological Commission’s The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised, April 19, 2007, equating the fate of preborn babies with that of the Holy Innocents, thus distorting the meaning of the martyrdom of the children whose deaths we honor on December 28 within the Octave of Christmas, and who once spoke of Purgatory in murky terms as to make it appear as though its existence is in doubt (see From Sharp Focus to Fuzziness). Ratzinger/Benedict, of course, rejected the Scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas precisely because he could accept the Angelic Doctor’s “crystal clear logic”:

The cultural interests pursued at the seminary of Freising were joined to the study of a theology infected by existentialism, beginning with the writings of Romano Guardini. Among the authors preferred by Ratzinger was the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber. Ratzinger loved St. Augustine, but never St. Thomas Aquinas: "By contrast, I had difficulties in penetrating the thought of Thomas Aquinas, whose crystal-clear logic seemed to be too closed in on itself, too impersonal and ready-made" (op. cit., p.44). This aversion was mainly due to the professor of philosophy at the seminary, who "presented us with a rigid, neo-scholastic Thomism that was simply too far afield from my own questions" (ibid.). According to Cardinal Ratzinger, whose current opinions appear unchanged from those he held as a seminarian, the thought of Aquinas was "too closed in on itself, too impersonal and ready-made," and was unable to respond to the personal questions of the faithful. This opinion is enunciated by a prince of the Church whose function it is to safeguard the purity of the doctrine of the Faith! Why, then, should anyone be surprised at the current disastrous crisis of Catholicism, or seek to attribute it to the world, when those who should be the defenders of the Faith, and hence of genuine Catholic thought, are like sewers drinking in the filth, or like gardeners who cut down a tree they are supposed to be nurturing? What can it mean to stigmatize St. Thomas as having a "too impersonal and ready-made" logic? Is logic "personal"? These assertions reveal, in the person who makes them, a typically Protestant, pietist attitude, like that found in those who seek the rule of faith in personal interior sentiment.

In the two years Ratzinger spent at the diocesan seminary of Freising, he studied literature, music, modern philosophy, and he felt drawn towards the new existentialist and modernist theologies. He did not like St. Thomas Aquinas. The formation described does not correspond to the exclusively Catholic formation that is necessary to one called to be a priest, even taking into account the extenuating circumstances of the time, that is, anti-Christian Nazism, the war and defeat, and the secularization of studies within seminaries. It seems that His Eminence, with all due respect, gave too much place to profane culture, with its "openness" to everything, and its critical attitude...Joseph Ratzinger loved the professors who asked many questions, but disliked those who defended dogma with the crystal-clear logic of St. Thomas. This attitude would seem to us to match his manner of understanding Catholic liturgy. He tells us that from childhood he was always attracted to the liturgical movement and was sympathetic towards it. One can see that for him, the liturgy was a matter of feeling, a lived experience, an aesthetically pleasing "Erlebnis," but fundamentally irrational (op. cit. passim.). (The Memories of a Destructive Mind: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's Milestones.)


One who rejects Scholasticism, the official philosophy of the Catholic Church, will lose the surety, clarity and precision with which to understand for himself and then to explicate to others the truths of the Faith. Such is the expressed goal of Modernism and of its off-shoot, the New Theology, as various terms of the Faith are employed in a "double sense" to signify one thing to those who understand those terms as they have been defined by the Church from time immemorial but which are meant to signify quite another to the schismatics and heretics in the various sects of Protestantism and in Orthodoxy.  The goal of Modernism and the New Theology in this regard is "strip away," if you will, the "filter provided by Scholasticism in order to "understand" Sacred Scripture and the Fathers of the Church in a manner that would serve as the "bridge" to "unity" with such schismatics and heretics.

Pope Pius XII noted this very clearly in the encyclical letter that condemned the precepts of the New Theology, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950:

In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.

Moreover they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism or any other system. Some more audacious affirm that this can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. They add that the history of dogmas consists in the reporting of the various forms in which revealed truth has been clothed, forms that have succeeded one another in accordance with the different teachings and opinions that have arisen over the course of the centuries.

It is evident from what We have already said, that such tentatives not only lead to what they call dogmatic relativism, but that they actually contain it. The contempt of doctrine commonly taught and of the terms in which it is expressed strongly favor it. Everyone is aware that the terminology employed in the schools and even that used by the Teaching Authority of the Church itself is capable of being perfected and polished; and we know also that the Church itself has not always used the same terms in the same way. It is also manifest that the Church cannot be bound to every system of philosophy that has existed for a short space of time. Nevertheless, the things that have been composed through common effort by Catholic teachers over the course of the centuries to bring about some understanding of dogma are certainly not based on any such weak foundation. These things are based on principles and notions deduced from a true knowledge of created things. In the process of deducing, this knowledge, like a star, gave enlightenment to the human mind through the Church. Hence it is not astonishing that some of these notions have not only been used by the Oecumenical Councils, but even sanctioned by them, so that it is wrong to depart from them.

Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily pass from despising scholastic theology to the neglect of and even contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself, which gives such authoritative approval to scholastic theology. This Teaching Authority is represented by them as a hindrance to progress and an obstacle in the way of science. Some non Catholics consider it as an unjust restraint preventing some more qualified theologians from reforming their subject. And although this sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith -- Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition -- to be preserved, guarded and interpreted, still the duty that is incumbent on the faithful to flee also those errors which more or less approach heresy, and accordingly "to keep also the constitutions and decrees by which such evil opinions are proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See," is sometimes as little known as if it did not exist. What is expounded in the Encyclical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs concerning the nature and constitution of the Church, is deliberately and habitually neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they profess to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks. The Popes, they assert, do not wish to pass judgment on what is a matter of dispute among theologians, so recourse must be had to the early sources, and the recent constitutions and decrees of the Teaching Church must be explained from the writings of the ancients.

Although these things seem well said, still they are not free from error. It is true that Popes generally leave theologians free in those matters which are disputed in various ways by men of very high authority in this field; but history teaches that many matters that formerly were open to discussion, no longer now admit of discussion.

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.  (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is only a more crude, visceral, vulgar populizer of the hatred of the clarity and surety of Catholic doctrine than the pseudo-intellectual Joseph Ratzinger, who resorted to the shopworn, condenmned principles of "time conditioned" formulae that is nothing other than Modernism's evolution of doctrine, and those who have not called him out for his because of their "gratitude" to this heretic and blasphemer for Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, have done the cause of truth a fruther disservice, noting, of course, that it is a disservice to the cause of truth to assert that heretics can be true and legitiamte Successors of Saint Peter.

Third, Jorge Mario Bergoglio once again blasphemed the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, by implying that He inspires new sources of doctrinal interpretation in the name of “pastoral adaptation” and “inculturation” that arose from the “living waters” of the disparities between cultures on moral norms. God the Holy Ghost works to safeguard the transmission of the Sacred Deposit of Faith through a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter and those true bishops who are in communion with him. It is thus heretical to imply that God the Holy Ghost “inspires” the “community of believers” to “interpret” the Gospel of Christ the King according to the supposed needs of the “times” and the actual state of their lives.

Bergoglio clearly believes that is “unmerciful” to expect people to obey the precepts of the Divine Positive Law, the Natural Law and the precepts and ecclesiastical ordinances of Holy Mother Church. This false belief denies both the efficacy and sufficiency of the graces won for us by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by means of the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into our hearts and souls through the  loving hands of Our Lady she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, to effect the amendment of the lives of those steeped in what are, objectively speaking, unrepentant Mortal Sins.

Fourth, Jorge Mario Bergoglio's Saturday, October 24, 2015, closing address to "Synod '15" (so many "closings," so little time!) further blasphemed the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, by implying that He inspires new sources of doctrinal interpretation in the name of “pastoral adaptation” and “inculturation” that arose from the “living waters” of the disparities between cultures on moral norms. God the Holy Ghost works to safeguard the transmission of the Sacred Deposit of Faith through a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter and those true bishops who are in communion with him. It is thus heretical to imply that God the Holy Ghost “inspires” the “community of believers” to “interpret” the Gospel of Christ the King according to the supposed needs of the “times” and the actual state of their lives.

Bergoglio clearly believes that is “unmerciful” to expect people to obey the precepts of the Divine Positive Law, the Natural Law and the precepts and ecclesiastical ordinances of Holy Mother Church. This false belief denies both the efficacy and sufficiency of the graces won for us by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by means of the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into our hearts and souls through the  loving hands of Our Lady she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, to effect the amendment of the lives of those steeped in what are, objectively speaking, unrepentant Mortal Sins.

To believe as Jorge Mario Bergoglio does is to blaspheme the true God Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity, and to reaffirm hardened sinners in the belief that is neither possible or necessary to reform their lives, that they are “just fine with God” as they are. To believe as Jorge Mario Bergoglio does, therefore, is to believe as Martin Luther did, namely, that all that is necessary to be saved and to know the “mercy” of Our Lord is to make a profession of faith in His Holy Name on their lips and in their hearts. Nothing else is necessary for salvation, which is why it is good to reiterate once again Martin Luther’s invitation to his “evangelicals” to “sin, and sin boldly” in the belief that they would be “forgiven” the more that they sinned:

Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly.... as long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin.... No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day." (Let Your Sins Be Strong: A Letter from Martin Luther to Philip Melancthon. number 99, August 1, 1521)

This is exactly what Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his gaggle of pro-perversity heretics within the counterfeit church of concilairism believe. These men have no horror over the reality that is personal sin.

Such a heretical view of sin and its effects on the soul--and on the entire Church Militant here on the face of this earth--is nothing other than an open invitation to sin, heedless of the ways in which each Actual Sin, whether Mortal or Venial, darkens the intellect, weakens the will and disorders our already disorderly passions more and more. Such a heretical view of sin and its effects on the soul--and on the entire Church Militant here on the face of this earth--denies the simple truth that Mortal Sin does indeed deprive one of the state of Justification, that is, of Sanctifying Grace, making one a mortal enemy of God until he has been reconciled to Him in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance, which was instituted by Our Lord Himself when He spoke these words to the Apostles on Easter Sunday after His Resurrection from the dead:

He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. (John 20: 21-23.) 

Who cares that Martin Luther rejected the truth that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ instituted the Sacrament of Penance?

Not Jorge Mario Bergoglio, that’s for sure, as he is preparing to celebrate the five hundredth anniversary of the Protestant Revolution against the true Church that Our Lord founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope, and that has enjoyed a perpetual immunity from error and heresy with the Lutherans themselves.

Insofar as the “Synod ‘15” is concerned, I have no intention of commenting on anything other than two sections as it is nothing other than window dressing that is, as noted earlier in this commentary, as meaningless as a platform adopted at a Republican National Convention.

Please indulge a slight diversion for a few moments, and I think that there is one reader of this site, who resides somewhere west of the Sandusky River and east of the Pacific Ocean, who might the recitation of the story below to be of some interest even though many readers might ask “Why is this relevant?”. Bear with me. I will explain the relevance in a moment.

The late United States Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, R-Illinois, was the Minority Leader of the United States Senate from January 3, 1959, to the time of his death on September 7, 1969. An irascible thirty-third degree Freemason with a gravel voice who was a fine orator in behalf of naturalism, Dirksen took to the podium of the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia in 1952 and pointed his finger at New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey, who had been the Republican Party's nominee for President of the United States of America in 1944 and 1948, and said, "You led us d running vown the long road to defeat (long pause while he shook his finger)--twice!” (Although my internet provider’s allotment of twenty measly gigabytes is running out, not to be replenished until November 6, 2015, those who are interested might find Dirksen’s excoriation of Dewey on in the former’s nominating speech delivered behalf of “Mister Republican,” United States Senator Robert Taft, another thirty-third degree Mason—as had been his father, President and later Chief Justice William Howard Taft, at the 1952 Republican convention:

Dirksen, a true Freemason who was prone to changing his mind on issues very frequently as he had no genuine, lasting principles to guide him, was the Chairman of the Republican National Convention Platform Committee in 1968. He took to the podium in Miami Beach, Florida, during the 1968 Republican National Convention and held up the massive document containing the pages of the platform, saying to the assembled delegates: "Here is your platform," thereupon throwing the huge book down to the convention floor from the podium. "All in favor, say 'Aye'!" And that was the end of the Republican platform for 1968.

Political party platforms are interesting naturalistic exercises in putting together a statement of positions on various issues of concern to the rank-and-file party members as well as to "independent" voters in some instances. They rarely serve as the foundation of public policy, as the late Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen demonstrated mockingly in 1968 when he threw the Republican Party Platform book onto the convention floor in Miami Beach, Florida. What matters are the positions taken by a party's presidential nominee, not the party's platform, most of which is designed to keep the "Indians on the reservation" when a particular nominee takes views that diverge from those expressed in the platform.

In like manner, you see, the final report of “Synod ‘15” is meaningless and irrelevant. Jorge Mario Bergoglio has made it clear that he is doing to do as he please with the report’s recommendations, which are filled with ambiguity and the usual “time bombs” that the soon-to-be seventy-nine year-old juvenile delinquent from Buenos Aires, Argentina, will set off sooner—much sooner—rather later, perhaps as soon as the beginning of his “jubilee year of mercy,” which is nothing other a Blasphemous Year of the Sin of Presumption, one of the two unforgivable sins against God the Holy Ghost. 

To wit, three different passages in the final report of “Synod ‘15” provide Jorge Mario Bergoglio with all of the “room” he needs to extend a “generous” application of “mercy” to those who are divorced and civilly remarried without a decree of nullity from a conciliar marriage tribunal whenever he issues a decision that he has made clear is his and his alone and to those who are steeped in the sin of Sodom.

Here are the passages (found on the resist while recognize Rorate Caeli website on the “path of discernment” for those Catholics, presumably heterosexual, who are cohabiting without benefit of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony:

69. The sacrament of marriage as a faithful and indissoluble union between a man and a woman called to accept one another and to welcome life, is a great grace for the human family. The Church has the joy and the duty to announce this grace to every person and in every context. She feels that today, in an even more urgent way, She has the responsibility of making the baptized rediscover how the grace of God works in their lives - even in the most difficult situations - in order to lead them to the fullness of the sacrament. The Synod, while appreciating and encouraging families who honor the beauty of Christian marriage, intends to promote the pastoral discernment of situations in which the reception of this gift has difficulty in being appreciated, or in which it is compromised in various ways. Keeping dialogue open with these faithful [people] in order to enable the maturing of a coherent openness to the Gospel of marriage and the family in its fullness, is a grave responsibility. Pastors should identify the elements that may favor evangelization and the human and spiritual growth of those entrusted to their care by the Lord. 

70. The pastoral [care] must propose with clarity the Gospel message and must capture the positive elements present in those situations that do not yet or no longer correspond to it [ie to the Gospel message]. In many countries, a growing number of couples live together without marriage neither canonical not civil. In some countries there is a traditional wedding, agreed upon by the families and often celebrated in different stages. In other countries instead there is an increasing number of those who, after living together for a long time, ask for the celebration of marriage in church. Simple cohabitation is often chosen because of the general mentality contrary to institutions and contrary to firm commitments, but also because there is an expectation of financial security (job and fixed salary). In other countries, finally, de facto unions are becoming more numerous, not only for the rejection of the values ​​of family and marriage, but also due to the fact that marriage is perceived as a luxury [for people in particular] social conditions, so that material misery pushes people to live in de-facto unions. All these situations must be addressed in a constructive manner, trying to transform them into opportunities for a journey of conversion towards the fullness of marriage and the family in the light of the Gospel.   

71. The choice of civil marriage or, in several cases, simple cohabitation, is often not motivated by prejudice or resistance against the sacramental union, but from cultural situations or cultural contingents. In many circumstances, the decision to live together is a sign of a relationship that actually wants to navigate towards the prospect of stability. This will, which translates into a lasting bond, reliable and open to life can be considered a commitment on which to base a path to the sacrament of marriage, discovered to be God's plan for [the couple's] lives. The path of growth, which can lead to sacramental marriage, will be encouraged by the recognition of the distinguishing characteristics of a generous and lasting love: the desire to seek the good of others before their own; the experience of forgiveness requested and given; the aspiration to build a family that is not closed in on itself but open to the good of the ecclesial community and of the entire society. Along this route those signs of love that properly correspond to the reflection of God should be valorized into an authentic conjugal project. ("Synod '15" Final Report, as found at: Rorate Caeli.)

What does this mean?

Well, it means that those who are committing the sin of fornication have “positive” elements that must be dealt with in a “constructive manner.”

In other words, there is to be no exhortation to quit committing the Mortal Sin of fornication, thus meaning that pastors, such as they are, in the false conciliar sect are not to exercise the Spiritual Work of Mercy of Admonishing the Sinner at any time. Sin is thus a means of showing “love” and be a constructive tool to help fornicators on the path of discernment without mentioning the word that does not appear with regularity (tongue planted firmly in cheek, you understand) in the collects and Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service.

Moreover, although these passages are susceptible to a “wide and generous” application to those who are committing the sin of Sodom even though the following section “Synod ‘15’s” final report explains that “same sex marriage” is not to be treated as the same as that as between a man and a woman:

76. The Church has modeled her attitude to the Lord Jesus that in the boundless love he offered to every person without exception (MV, 12). To the families who live the experience to have within them the homosexual person, the Church reaffirms that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, must be respected in their dignity and welcomed with respect, with care to avoid "any brand of unjust discrimination "(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, 4). To reserve a specific attention to the accompaniment of the families in which they live homosexual person. Regarding Proposals to equivalent to marriage to unions between homosexual persons, "there is no foundation whatsoever to assimilate or establish even remotely analogous between homosexual unions and God's plan for marriage and the family" (ibid). The Synod believes in any case completely unacceptable that the local churches suffer pressure in this matter and that international bodies to condition financial aid to poor countries to the introduction of laws that establish the "marriage" between people of the same sex. (“Synod ‘15” Final report, as found in a computer-generated English translation at Google Translate, courtesy of a link provided by Novus Ordo Watch Wire.)

Even this “compromise” language, which has displeased some of the ardent homosexuals and homosexualist activists amongst the “synod fathers” from Hades, contains the typical conciliar concessions made by the Vatican dicasteries under their conciliar captivity that Mrs. Randy Engel, who is in need of our prayers now as she continues to suffer from serious health problems, has documented so well in her distinguished career as a Catholic writer, especially in her massive The Rite of Sodomy. One of these concessions involves the fact that there is no such thing as “sexual orientation,” which is a category made up by the homosexual collective to engineer the language and thus alter human perception and behavior about that which is abhorrent in the sight of God and wreaks both spiritual and bodily devastation upon those who base their human self-identification on their propensity to commit one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

Moreover, the passage above says nothing about the necessity of seeking spiritual counseling for those who are affliction with perverse affections and it lacks any exhortation to those actually committing sins of unnatural vice to be restored to the state of Sanctifying Grace by making a full, integral confession of their sins to a priest and to cooperate with the graces received in the Sacrament of Penance to quit the sin of Sodom once and for all. Ah, that presupposes that such a conversion is believed possible or even desirable, which many of the “synod fathers” think is unreasonable as “stable” “same-sex relationships” are said to show forth the same kind of “elements” of “love” that exist amongst fornicators.

What does this all mean?

Well, let us turn to “Dr. Luther” once again, the adversary’s most favored “theologian”:

Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly.... as long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin.... No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day." (Let Your Sins Be Strong: A Letter from Martin Luther to Philip Melancthon. number 99, August 1, 1521)

The final outcome of this section will be simple: Jorge Mario Bergoglio will bestow “mercy” on those whose “orientation” is both psychologically disordered, naturally abhorrent and spiritually injurious to the peace and prosperity of eternity.

Finally, “Synod ‘15’s” passages on  the undebatable doctrine of the inadmissibility of the divorced and civilly remarried to the reception of what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service that was nevertheless, of course, hotly debated at “Synod ’15”, provides a wide and generous amount of “pastoral” room for Jorge Mario Bergoglio to mandate the use of the “internal forum solution” that the Orthodox use to soothe the consciences of those in adulterous relationships and that none other than Father Joseph Ratzinger endorsed forty-three years ago:

For many of the faithful who have experienced double unhappy, verification of the invalidity of the marriage is a way forward. The recent Motu Proprio Mitis iudex Dominus Iesus and Mitis et Misericors Iesus led to a simplification of the procedures for the possible declaration of nullity of marriage. With these texts, the Holy Father also wanted to "make clear that the Bishop himself in his Church, which is made ​​up of a pastor and leader, is by that very judge among the faithful entrusted to him" (MI, preamble, III). The implementation of these documents is therefore a great responsibility for the diocesan Ordinaries, called to judge themselves some cases and, in any case, to ensure easier access of the faithful to justice. This involves the preparation of a sufficient staff, composed of clerical and lay, which devote a priority in this ecclesial service. It will therefore be necessary to provide separate people or couples in crisis, an information service, counseling and mediation, tied to the family apostolate, which can also accommodate people in view of the preliminary process to double (cf. MI, Art. 2-3).

83. The testimony of those who even in difficult conditions do not undertake a new union, while remaining faithful to the sacramental bond, deserves the appreciation and support of the Church. It wants to show them the face of a God faithful to his love and always able to give back strength and hope. People separated or divorced but have not remarried who are often witnesses of marital fidelity, must be encouraged to find in the Eucharist the food that sustains them in their state.

Discernment and integration

84. The baptized who are divorced and civilly remarried need to be more integrated in the Christian communities in different ways as possible, avoiding any chance of scandal. The logic of integration is the key to their pastoral care, because they only know that they belong to the Body of Christ which is the Church, but it can have a joyful and fruitful experience. Are baptized, are brothers and sisters, the Holy Spirit pours into their gifts and talents for the good of all. Their participation can be expressed in different ecclesial services: it is therefore necessary to discern which of the various forms of exclusion currently practiced in the liturgy, pastoral, educational and institutional framework can be overcome. They not only do not have to feel excommunicated, but can live and grow as living members of the Church, feeling like a mother who welcomes them always, he takes care of them with affection and encourages them in the path of life and of the Gospel. This integration is also needed for the care and Christian education of their children, who must be considered the most important. For the Christian community, take care of these people is not a weakening of their faith and testimony about the indissolubility of marriage: rather, the Church expresses in this very carefully his charity.

85. St. John Paul II offered a comprehensive policy, which remains the basis for the evaluation of these situations: "Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, are obliged to discern situations. There is indeed a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have contracted a second marriage for the sake of the children, and are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous marriage, irreparably broken, had never been valid "(FC, 84). It is therefore the duty of priests to accompany the people concerned on the way of understanding according to the teaching of the Church and the guidelines of the Bishop. This process will be useful to make an examination of conscience, by moments of reflection and repentance. The divorced and remarried should ask themselves how they have behaved towards their children when the conjugal union has entered into crisis; Though there have been attempts at reconciliation; as is the situation of the partners abandoned; what effect has the new report on the rest of the family and the community of the faithful; as such it offers to young people who are preparing for marriage. A sincere reflection can strengthen trust in the mercy of God that is not denied to anyone.

Moreover, one can not deny that in some circumstances "imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or nullified" (CCC, 1735) due to several constraints. Accordingly, the judgment of an objective situation should not lead to a judgment on the 'subjective culpability "(Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration of June 24, 2000, 2a). Under certain circumstances people find it very difficult to act differently. Therefore, while supporting a general rule, it must recognize that the responsibility with respect to certain actions or decisions is not the same in all cases. The pastoral discernment, while taking account of a properly formed conscience of the people, must take responsibility for these situations. The consequences of acts are not necessarily the same in all cases.

86. The process of discernment and directs these faithful to an awareness of their situation before God. The interview with the priest, in the internal forum, contributes to the formation of a correct judgment on what hinders the possibility of a fuller participation in the life of the Church and the steps that can foster it and make it grow. Given that the same law no gradation (cf. FC 34), this discernment will never consider the needs of truth and charity of the Gospel proposed by the Church. For this to happen, are guaranteed the necessary conditions of humility, confidence, love for the Church and its teaching, in the sincere search for God's will and the desire to achieve a more perfect answer to it. (“Synod ‘15” Final report, as found in a computer-generated English translation at Google Translate, courtesy of a link provided by Novus Ordo Watch Wire.)

So much for Saint John the Baptist’s exhortation to Herod the Tetrarch to quit his bigamous and adulterous marriage, Herodias, who was also the wife of his brother Philip at a time when the latter was still very much alive and well.

So much for the English Martyrs.

So much for the work of Saint Anthony Mary Claret and countless other saints who expended great labors to convert those in adulterous relationships.

So much even for the flawed effort of "Saint John Paul II" to uphold the Catholic teaching that those living in adulterous relationships must abstain from that which is proper to the married state if circumstances, especially the presence of children, made it difficult to separate:

Living in such a world, under the pressures coming above all from the mass media, the faithful do not always remain immune from the obscuring of certain fundamental values, nor set themselves up as the critical conscience of family culture and as active agents in the building of an authentic family humanism.

Among the more troubling signs of this phenomenon, the Synod Fathers stressed the following, in particular: the spread of divorce and of recourse to a new union, even on the part of the faithful; the acceptance of purely civil marriage in contradiction to the vocation of the baptized to “be married in the Lord”, the celebration of the marriage sacrament without living faith, but for other motives; the rejection of the moral norms that guide and promote the human and Christian exercise of sexuality in marriage.

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”

Similarly, the respect due to the sacrament of Matrimony, to the couples themselves and their families, and also to the community of the faithful, forbids any pastor, for whatever reason or pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry. Such ceremonies would give the impression of the celebration of a new sacramentally valid marriage, and would thus lead people into error concerning the indissolubility of a validly contracted marriage.

By acting in this way, the Church professes her own fidelity to Christ and to His truth. At the same time she shows motherly concern for these children of hers, especially those who, through no fault of their own, have been abandoned by their legitimate partner.

With firm confidence she believes that those who have rejected the Lord’s command and are still living in this state will be able to obtain from God the grace of conversion and salvation, provided that they have persevered in prayer, penance and charity. (Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, November 22, 1981.)

Then again, Wojtyla/John Paul II undermined this flawed effort, expressed as it was in conciliarspeak and premised upon the inversion of the ends of marriage that justified the use of so-called "natural family planning," in the passage from Familiaris Consortio that was cited by the final report of "Synod '15", which, however, preceded the Polish Modernist's qualification for the divorced and civilly "remarried" to abstain from that proper to the married state. This qualification was, of course, omitted in "Synod '15's" final report as Bergoglio and his band of revolutionaries really do not believe that it is possible for human beings to restrain themselves from carnal desire, calling to mind the late Father John A. Hardon's observation that the Protestant Revolution was about "lust and divorce." So is the conciliar revolution in these its latter days of revolutionary devolution to the stage of the celebration of hedonism.

No, the final report of "Synod '15" had no use for even a flawed reiteration of Catholic truth by even one of its own "saints."

As I did happen to note in part one of this series, however, none of this is news and it is all entirely predictable, which is why those who say that “Synod ‘15” was “worse than expected” are living in the same kind of fantasy world as those who assured us in the days following Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s “election” as the universal public face of apostasy on March 13, 2013, that the Argentine Apostate, who had a proven track record of persecuting traditionally-minded religious sisters in the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires and of promoting the same kind of apostasies there that he had been doing as “Pope Francis” for the past thirty-one months, had a “Marian devotion of the most traditional kind.” Bergoglio’s form of “devotion” to the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, she is the very Mother of God, has included at least two blasphemous statements that deny the doctrinal effects of her Immaculate Conception and thus of the perfect integrity of body and soul that she enjoyed even as she suffered as our Co-Redemptrix, the Queen of Martyrs, at the foot of the Holy Cross of her Divine Son, Christ the King. Some “kind” of traditional “devotion,” the kind that comes from hell itself. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a blaspheming heretic, a stark-raving mad Modernist.

No special amount of expertise or brilliance is required to have come to the conclusions that I reached in sixteen months ago now when reviewing the Instrumentum Laboris that provided the foundation for the fireworks at “Extraordinary Synod ‘14”:

1. Following the practice of the heretical and schismatic Greek Orthodox, divorced and civilly remarried Catholics without a decree of nullity from the conciliar officials, not that it is worth anything, will be permitted to receive what is purported to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service on a case-by-case basis handled by means of the interior forum of the conciliar “reconciliation room.” In other words, everybody gets to stick their paws out to receive what they think is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

2. The nullity process itself will be “streamlined” even further, making it possible for “decisions” in a matter of months, if not sooner.

3. “Pastoral outreach” to “unmarried couples” will be enlarged and expanded.

4. The “internal forum” solution, which has been used for decades now by cooperative priests and presbyters, will be adopted to assuage the consciences of married couples who find it “too difficult” to avoid the use of contraceptives. “Education” in methods of “natural family planning” will be recommended as the way to “plan” the number of children a married couple desires to have. For the refutation of “natural family planning,” please see Forty-Three Years After Humanae Vitae, Always Trying To Find A Way and Planting Seeds of Revolutionary Change.

5. “Ministries” to those engaged in the commission of perverse sins against nature will be expanded and found more universally than they have been up until to now, confined in some dioceses to a few well-known dens of iniquity (e.g. Saint Francis Xavier Church in New York, Most Holy Redeemer Church in San Francisco, California, Saint Brigid’s Church in Westbury, New York, Saints Cyril and Methodius Church in Deer Park, New York, Saint Joan of Arc Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, among so many, many others).  The children who are unfortunate to be in the care of unrepentant practitioners of perversity with be baptized and welcomed into conciliar schools, thereby mainstreaming acceptance of perverse behavior and overthrowing any lingering concept of a detestation of personal sin that might be lurking in the hearts of Catholics who are as of yet attached to the conciliar structures.

Yes, this is only one man’s assessment of the most likely outcome that will be announced at some point after the end of the conciliar “synod of bishops” on Sunday, October 25, 2015, the Feast of Christ the King in the Catholic Church. The “streamlining” of the nullity process is now a fait’ accompli, something that was noted in "Synod 15's" final report. While assessment number five is only hinted at in paragraph seventy-six in Circus Jorge's final report, anyone who has a degree of Catholic common sense knows that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not going to stop the likes of Reinhard Marx and Franz-Josef Bode and Vincent Nichols and Blase Cupich from purusing their own "expansive" course of "inclusiveness" with respect to those steeped in the sin of Sodom. Indeed, the final report of "Synod '15" gives such creatures free rein to "experiment" as they see fit prior to their "pope's" vindication of their efforts to open "wide" the doors of false "mercy."

When all is said and done, however, noting that Bergoglio will render his own decisions in due course, we see at work here the classic mentality of the modern liberal mind, which exalts the human being and human "needs" above all else, viewing the world in purely natural and Pelagian terms of human self-redemption. Father Felix Sarda y Salvany, a Spanish priest, explained in What Is Liberalism?, which was translated and published in the United States of America in 1899, that the spirit of Protestantism leads to the toleration of error. Toleration of error results in its own turn in the false belief that error can serve as the foundation of social order:

Protestantism naturally begets toleration of error. Rejecting the principle of authority in religion, it has neither criterion nor definition of faith. On the principle that every individual or sect may interpret the deposit of Revelation according to the dictates of private judgment, it gives birth to endless differences and contradictions. Impelled by the law of its own impotence, through lack of any decisive voice of authority in matters of faith, it is forced to recognize as valid and orthodox any belief that springs from the exercise of private judgment. Therefore does it finally arrive, by force of its own premises, at the conclusion that one creed is as good as another; it then seeks to shelter its inconsistency under the false plea of liberty of conscience. Belief is not imposed by a legitimately and divinely constituted authority, but springs directly and freely from the unrestricted exercise of the individual’s reason or caprice upon the subject-matter of Revelation. The individual or the sect interprets as it pleases–rejecting or accepting what it chooses. This is popularly called liberty of conscience. Accepting this principle, Infidelity, on the same plea, rejects all Revelation, and Protestantism, which handed over the premise, is powerless to protest against the conclusion; for it is clearer that one who, under the plea of rational liberty, has the right to repudiate any part of Revelation that may displease him, cannot logically quarrel with one who, on the plea of rational liberty, on the same plea, no creed is as good as any. Taking the field with this fatal weapon of Rationalism, Infidelity has stormed and taken the very citadel of Protestantism, helpless against the foe of its own making.

As a result, we find amongst the people of this country [Spain] (excepting well formed Catholics, of course) that authoritative and positive religion has met with utter disaster and that religious beliefs or unbeliefs have come to be mere matters of opinion, wherein there are always essential differences, each one being free to make or unmake his own creed–or to accept no creed.

Such is the mainspring of the heresy constantly dinned into our ears, flooding our current literature and our press. It is against this that we have to be perpetually vigilant, the more so because it insidiously attacks us on the grounds of a false charity and in the name of a false liberty. Nor does it appeal to us only on the ground of religious toleration.

The principle ramifies in many directions, striking root into our domestic, civil, and political life, whose vigor and health depend upon the nourishing and sustaining power of religion. For religion is the bond which unites us to God, the Source and the End of all good; and Infidelity, whether virtual, as in Protestantism, or explicit, as in Agnosticism, severs the bond which binds men to God and seeks to build human society on the foundations of man’s absolute independence. Hence we find Liberalism laying down as the basis of its propaganda the following principles:

1. The absolute sovereignty of the individual in his entire independence of God and God’s authority.

2. The absolute sovereignty of society in its entire independence of everything which does not proceed from itself.

3. Absolute civil sovereignty in the implied right of the people to make their own laws in entire independence and utter disregard of any other criterion than the popular will expressed at the polls and in parliamentary majorities.

4. Absolute freedom of thought in politics, morals, or in religion. The unrestrained liberty of the press.

Such are the radical principles of Liberalism. In the assumption of the absolute sovereignty of the individual, that is, his entire independence of God, we find the common source of all others. To express them all in one term, they are, in the order of ideas, Rationalism, or the doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of human reason. Here human reason is made the measure and sum of truth. Hence we have individual, social, and political Rationalism, the corrupt fountainhead of liberalist principles [which are]: absolute worship, the supremacy of the State, secular education repudiating any connection with religion, marriage sanctioned and legitimatized by the State alone, etc; in one word, which synthesizes all, we have Secularization, which denies religion any active intervention in the concerns of public and of private life, whatever they be. This is veritable social atheism.

Such is the source of liberalism in the order of ideas; such in consequences of our Protestant and infidel surroundings, is the intellectual atmosphere which we are perpetually breathing into our souls. Nor do these principles remain simply in the speculative order, poised forever in the region of thought. Men are not mere contemplatives. Doctrines and beliefs inevitably precipitate themselves into action. The speculation of today becomes the deed of tomorrow, for men, by force of the law of their nature, are ever acting out what they think. Rationalism, therefore, takes concrete shape in the order of facts. It finds palpable expression and action in the press, in legislation, and in social life. The secular press reeks with it, proclaiming with almost unanimous vociferation, absolute division between public life and religion. It has become the shibboleth of journalism, and the editor who will not recognize it in his daily screed soon feels the dagger of popular disapproval. In secularized marriage and in our divorce laws, it cleaves the very roots of domestic society; in secularized education, the cardinal principle of our public school system, it propagates itself in the hearts of the future citizens and the future parents; in compulsory school laws, it forces in the entering wedge of socialism; in the speech and intercourse of social life, it is constantly asserting itself with growing reiteration; in secret societies, organized in a spirit destructive of religion and often for the express purpose of exterminating Catholicity, it menaces our institutions and places the country in the hands of conspirators, whose methods and designs, beyond the reach of the public eye, constitute a tyranny of darkness.

In a thousand ways does the principle of Rationalism find its action and expression in social and civil life, and however diversified be its manifestation, there is in it always a unity and a system of opposition to Catholicity. Whether concerted or not, it ever acts in the same direction, and whatever special school within the genus of Liberalism professes it or puts it into action–be it in society, in domestic life, or in politics–the same essential characteristics will be found in all its protean shapes–opposition to the Church–and it will ever be found stigmatizing the most ardent defenders of the Faith as reactionaries, clericals, Ultramntanes [See p. 92, par. 1], etc.

Wherever found, whatever its uniform, Liberalism in its practical action is ever a systematic warfare against the Church. Whether it intrigue, whether it legislate, whether it orate or assassinate, whether it call itself Liberty or Government or the State of Humanity or Reason, or whatnot, its fundamental characteristic is an uncompromising opposition to the Church.

Liberalism is a world complete in itself; it has its maxims, its fashions, its art, its literature, its diplomacy, its laws, its conspiracies, its ambuscades. It is the world of Lucifer, disguised in our times under the name of Liberalism, in radical opposition and in perpetual warfare against that society composed of the Children of God, the Church of Jesus Christ. (Father Felix Sarda y Salvany, Liberalism Is A Sin, republished by TAN Books and Publishers, pp. 8-13; translated and adapted by Conde B. Pallen, Ph.D., LL.D., and published originally by B. Herder Book Company, St. Louis, Missouri, in 1899 under the title of What Is Liberalism?)

This describes both the letter and the "spirit" of the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes," including Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his band of Jacobin/Bolshevik comrades. The sole determinant for morality and pastoral "action" is a false sense of "mercy" based upon doing nothing to disturb the "delicate consciences" of those steeped in sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, something that makes perfect logic when one considers the fact that the conciliar revolutionaries violate the first three Commandments with impunity on a regular basis.

Indeed, Pope Pius VI's  introduction to Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794, is also a masteful description of everything to do with the letter and the "spirit" of the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes":

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mind you, that was only part of Pope Pius VI's introductory text of Auctorem Fidei. Pope Pius VI used the text of the encyclical letter, which condemned the propositions of the illegal Synod of Pistoia, to specify each proposition condemned.

The whole Conciliar Enterprise, if a term can be coined that borrows a bit from the language of an anti-sedevacantist writer, has been condemned from beginning to end, and not one little bit of it can come from the Catholic Church, she who is the virginal, immaculate mystical spouse of her Divine Founder and Invisible Head, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Alas, there is really not much more that is left for the lords of conciliarism to "undress" as they have destroyed, whether by means of outright denial or by the methods outlined by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei or by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, and The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910, or by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, Catholic doctrine, Catholic worship and Catholic pastoral praxis to such an extent that most Catholics have absolutely no authentic sensus Catholicus left by which they can recognize and reject the errors of the day as coming from figures of Antichrist himself.

Contray to Jorge Mario Bergoglio and "Synod '15's" call for a false concept of mercy and toleration to be extended to hardened sinners, the Patron Saint of Moral Theologians, Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, described the true compassion of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ for sinners, a compassion that is premised upon the resolve of the sinner to amend his life:

10. Jesus Christ has come, not to condemn, but to deliver sinners from Hell, as soon as they resolve to amend their lives. And when he seems them obstinately bent on their own perdition he addresses them with tears in the words of Ezechiel: “Why will you die, O house of Israel?”—xxvii. 31. My children, why will you die? Why do you voluntarily rush into Hell, when I have come from Heaven to deliver you from it by my death? He adds: You are already dead to the grace of God. But will not your death: return to me, and I will restore to you the life which you have lost. “For I desire not the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God: return yet and live”—v. 32. But some sinners, who are immersed in the abyss of sin, may say: Perhaps, if we return to Jesus Christ, he will drive us away. No; for the Redeemer has said: “And him that comes to me I will not cast out”—John, vi. 37. No one that comes to me with sorrow for his past sins, however manifold and enormous they have been, shall be rejected.  (Saint Alphonsus de Ligouri, Sermon XVIII, For the Fourth Sunday of Lent, “On the Tender Compassion Jesus Christ Entertains Towards Sinners,” The Sermons of St. Alphonsus de Liguori For All the Sundays of the Year, Published 1852 by James Duffy, Dublin, Ireland, and reprinted by TAN Books in 1982, pp. 146.)

It is not enough to shed tears. The condition for receiving absolution from a true Catholic priest in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance is for the penitent to resolve to amend his life. Those who chose to persist in Mortal Sins send themselves to Hell.

Ah, Jorge Mario Bergoglio really does not believe that anyone can go to Hell if they “encounter the Lord” and express some kind of sorrow, which is nothing other than recycled Lutheranism. (For an excellent commentary on Bergoglio’s religion of sentimentality and false mercy, see Novus Ordo Watch Wire.)

Here is news that may give Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his fellow revolutionaries a fair bit of agita: the Mother of God has spoken of Hell to a sinner and has shown three shepherd children souls suffering in Hell in itself:

Then the Lady said, "Where does that heretic live who cut the willow tree? Does he not want to be converted?"

Pierre [Port-Combet, who had become a Calvinist] mumbled an answer. The Lady became more serious, "Do you think that I do not know that you are the heretic? Realize that your end is at hand. If you do not return to the True Faith, you will be cast into Hell! But if you change your beliefs, I shall protect you before God. Tell people to pray that they may gain the good graces which, God in His mercy has offered to them."

Pierre was filled with sorrow and shame and moved away from the Lady. Suddenly realizing that he was being rude, Pierre stepped closer to her, but she had moved away and was already near the little hill. He ran after her begging, "Please stop and listen to me. I want to apologize to you and I want you to help me!"

The Lady stopped and turned. By the time Pierre caught up to her, she was floating in the air and was already disappearing from sight. Suddenly, Pierre realized that the Most Blessed Virgin Mary had appeared to him! He fell to his knees and cried buckets of tears, "Jesus and Mary I promise you that I will change my life and become a good Catholic. I am sorry for what I have done and I beg you please, to help me change my life…"

On August 14, 1656, Pierre became very sick. An Augustinian priest came to hear his confession and accepted him back into the Catholic Church. Pierre received Holy Communion the next day on the Feast of the Assumption. After Pierre returned to the Catholic Faith, many others followed him. His son and five daughters came back to the Catholic Church as well as many Calvinists and Protestants. Five weeks later on September 8, 1656, Pierre died and was buried under the miraculous willow tree, just as he had asked. (Our Lady of the Willow Tree.)

It was on July 13, 1917, that Our Lady showed Jacinta and Francisco Marto and Lucia dos Santos the place that will be, most unfortunately, the future eternal home of Jorge Mario Begoglio unless he repents of his crimes against the honor and glory and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity and the eternal and temporal good of the souls redeemed by the shedding of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross, Hell:

"I want you to come here on the 13th of next month, [August] to continue to pray the Rosary every day in honour of Our Lady of the Rosary, in order to obtain peace for the world and the end of the war, because only she can help you."

"Continue to come here every month. In October, I will tell you who I am and what I want, and I will perform a miracle for all to see and believe."

Lucia made some requests for sick people, to which Mary replied that she would cure some but not others, and that all must say the rosary to obtain such graces, before continuing: "Sacrifice yourselves for sinners, and say many times, especially when you make some sacrifice: O Jesus, it is for love of You, for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary."

"You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war is going to end; but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the pontificate of Pius XI. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that he is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father.

"To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays. If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated. In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world."

Mary specifically told Lucia not to tell anyone about the secret at this stage, apart from Francisco, before continuing: "When you pray the Rosary, say after each mystery: 'O my Jesus, forgive us, save us from the fire of hell. Lead all souls to heaven, especially those who are most in need.' "

Lucia asked if there was anything more, and after assuring her that there was nothing more, Mary disappeared off into the distance. (Our Lady's Words at Fatima.)

Our Lady promised on July 13 1917, to return to request the consecration of Russia by the Holy Father. She came to visit Sister Lucia in Tuy, Spain, on June 13, 1929, to specify the terms of this consecration:

"The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father, in union with all the Bishops in the world, to make the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means. There are so many souls whom the Justice of God condemns for sins committed against me, that I have come to ask reparation: sacrifice yourself for this intention and pray." (Our Lady's Words at Fatima.)

Our Lady herself said that “There are so many souls whom the Justice of God condemns for sins committed against” her, the Theotokos, “that I have come to ask for reparation.”

Yes, the Mother of God spoke of the Justice of God, a truth that Jorge Mario Bergoglio and most of the "synod fathers" at Circus Jorge deny by implying that such strict justice is incompatible with God’s Mercy. Bergoglio does not believe that God condemns any sinner to Hell for all eternity, save for perhaps the “rigid,” closed-in-on-themselves” adherents of the “no church” of the past. Bergoglio, though, is being ever faithful to his false religion, whose Roman Rite liturgy makes no mention of a God Who judges and the need for sinners to do penance for their sins lest their go to Hell for all eternity. In other words, Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes that the Mother of God and the Fathers of the Council of Trent, who met under the Divine guidance and infallible protection of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, were wrong. He is a blaspheming heretic who is sending himself and those who follow him to Hell.

For those who want Catholic teaching on the true compassion of God for sinners, please read the entirety of Saint Alphonsus de Liguori’s sermon for Laetare Sunday in the appendix below. It is much different than that of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his fellow revolutionaries at "Synod '15" as the founder of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer was a true Catholic bishop, priest and doctor of the Church. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a heretic and lay member of the revolutionized Society of Jesus.

We must continue to pray to Our Lady during these final days of the month of October, the month of her Most Holy Rosary, to weep over our sins as we seek to make reparation for them as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon. 

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us! 

Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, 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 Evaristus, pray for us.


For the Fourth Sunday of Lent

On the tender compassion which Jesus Christ entertains towards sinners

“Make the men sit down”—John, vi. 10.

We read in this day’s gospel, that, having gone up into a mountain with his disciples, and seeing a multitude of five thousand persons who followed him because they saw the miracles which he wrought on them that were diseased, the Redeemer said to St. Philip: “Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?” “Lord”, answered St. Philip, “two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient that every one may take a little”.  St. Andrew then said: “There is a boy here that has five barley loaves and two fishes; but what are these among so many?” But Jesus Christ said: Make the men sit down. And he distributed the loaves and fishes among them. The multitude were satisfied: and the fragments of bread which remained filled twelve baskets. The Lord wrought this miracle through compassion for the bodily wants of these poor people; but for more tender is his compassion for those who are deprived of the divine grace. This tender compassion of Jesus Christ for sinners shall be the subject of this day’s discourse.

1. Through the bowels of his mercy towards men, who groaned under the slavery of sin and Satan, our most loving Redeemer descended from Heaven to Earth, to redeem and save them from eternal torments, by his own death. Such was the language of St. Zachary, the father of the Baptist, when the Blessed Virgin, who had already become the mother of the Eternal Word, entered his house: “Through the bowels of the mercy of our God, in which the Orient from on high hath visited us”—Luke, i. 78.

2. Jesus Christ, the good pastor, who came into the world to obtain salvation for us his sheep, has said: “I am come that they may have life and may have it more abundantly”—John, x. 10.) Mark the expression, “more abundantly”, which signifies that the Son of Man came on Earth not only to restore us to the life of grace which we lost, but to give us a better life than that which we forfeited by sin. Yes; for, as St. Leo says, the benefits which we have derived from the death of Jesus, are greater than the injury which the Devil has done us by sin. “Ampliora adept sumus per Christi gratiam quam per daibli amisceramus invidiam”—ser. 1., de Ascen. The same doctrine is taught by the Apostle, who says that, “where sin abounded, grace did more abound”—Rom., v 20.

3. But, my Lord, since thou hast resolved to take human flesh, would not a single prayer offered by thee be sufficient for the redemption of all men? What need then was there of leading of life of poverty, humiliation, and contempt, for thirty-three years, of suffering a cruel and shameful death on an infamous gibbet, and of shedding all thy blood by dint of torments? I know well, answers Jesus Christ, that one drop of my blood or a simple prayer, would be sufficient for the salvation of the world; but neither would be sufficient to show the love which I bear to men: and therefore, to be loved by men when they should see me dead on the cross for the love of them, I have resolved to submit to so many torments and to so painful a death. This, he says, is the duty of a good pastor. “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd given his life for his sheep. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep…I lay down my life for my sheep”—John, x. 11, 15.

4. O men, O men, what greater proof of love could the Son of God give us than to lay down his life for us his sheep? “In this we have known the charity of God; because he hath laid down his life for us”—I. John, iii. 16. No one, says the Saviour, can show greater love to his friends, than to give his life for them. “Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends”—John, xv. 13. But thou, O Lord, hast died not only for friends, but for us who were thy enemies by sin. “When we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son”—Rom., v. 10. O infinite love of our God, exclaims St. Bernard; “to spare slaves, neither the Father has spared the Son, nor the Son himself”. To pardon us, who were rebellious servants, the Father would not pardon the Son, and the Son would not pardon himself, but, by his death, has satisfied the divine justice for the sins which we have committed.

5. When Jesus Christ was near his passion, he went one day to Samaria: the Samaritans refused to receive him. Indignant at the insult offered by the Samaritans to their Master, St. James and St. John, turning to Jesus, said: “Lord, wilt though that we command fire to come down from Heaven and consume them?”—Luke, ix. 54. But Jesus, who was all sweetness, even to those who insulted him, answered: “You know not of what spirit you are. The Son of Man came not to destroy souls, but to save”—v. 55 and 56. He severely rebuked the disciples. What spirit is this spirit of patience and compassion; for I am come, not to destroy, but to save the souls of men” and you speak of fire, of punishment, and of vengeance. Hence, in another place, he said to his disciples: “Learn of me, because I am meek and humble of heart”—Mat., xi. 29. I do not wish you to learn of me to chastise, but to be meek, and to bear pardon and injuries.

6. How beautifully has he described the tenderness of his heart towards sinners in the following words!—“What man of you that hath an hundred sheep; and, if he lose one of them, doth he not  leave the ninety-nine in the desert, and go after that which is lost until he find it: and go after that which is lost until he find it: and when he hath found it, lay it upon his shoulder rejoicing; and coming home, call together his friends and neighours, saying to them: Rejoice with me; because I have found my sheep that was lost?”—Luke, xv. 4, 5, and 6. But, O Lord, it is not that thou oughtest to rejoice, but the sheep that has found her pastor and her God. The sheep indeed, answers Jesus; rejoices at finding me, her shepherd; but far greater is the joy which I feel at having found one of my lost sheep. He concludes the parable in these words,--“I say to you, that even so there shall be joy in Heaven upon one sinner that doth penance, more than ninety-nine just, who need not penance”—Luke, xv. 7. There is more joy in Heaven at the conversion of one sinner, than upon ninety-nine just men who preserve their innocence. What sinner, then, can be so hardened, as not to go instantly and cast himself at the feet of his Saviour, when he knows the tender love with which Jesus Christ is prepared to embrace him and carry him on his shoulders, as soon as he repents of his sins?

7. The Lord has also declared his tenderness towards penitent sinners in the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke, xv. 12, & c.). In that parable the Son of God says, that a certain young man, unwilling to be any longer under the control of his father, and desiring to live according to his caprice and corrupt inclinations, asked the portion of his father’s substance which fell to him. The father gave it with sorrow weeping over the ruin of his son. The son departed from his father’s house. Having in a short time dissipated his substance, he was reduced to such a degree of misery, that, to procure the necessities of life, he was obliged to feed swine. All this was a figure of a sinner, who, after departing from God, and losing the divine grace and all the merits he had acquired, leads a life of misery under the slavery of the Devil. In the gospel it is added, that the young man, seeing his wretched condition, resolved to return to this father: and the father, who is a figure of Jesus Christ, seeing his sin return to him, was instantly moved to pity. “His father saw him, and was moved with compassion”—v. 20; and, instead of driving him away, as the ungrateful son had deserved, “running to him, he fell upon his neck and kissed him”. He ran with open arms to meet him by his embraces. He then said to his servants: “Bring forth quickly the first robe, and put it on him.” According to St. Jerome and St. Augustine, the first robe signifies divine grace, which, in addition to new celestial gifts, God, by granting pardon, gives to the penitent sinner. “And put a ring on his finger”. Give him the ring of a spouse. By recovering the grace of God, the soul becomes again the spouse of Jesus Christ. “And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it, and let us eat and make merry”—v. 23. Bring hither the fatted calf—which signifies the holy c communion or Jesus in the holy sacrament mystically killed and offered in sacrifice on the altar;--let us eat and rejoice. But why, O divine Father, so much joy at the return of so ungrateful a child? Because, answers the Father, this my son was dead, and he is come to life again; he was lost, and I have found him.

8. The tenderness of Jesus Christ was experienced by the sinful woman (according to St. Gregory, Mary Magdalene) who cast herself at the feet of Jesus, and washed them with her tears (Luke vii. 47 and 50). The Lord turning to her with sweetness, consoled her by saying: “Thy sins are forgiven;...thy faith hath made thee safe; go in peace”—Luke, vii. 48 and 50. Child, they sins are pardoned; they confidence in me has saved thee; go in peace. It was also felt by the man who was sick for thirty-eight years, and who has infirm in both body and soul. The lord cured his malady, and  pardoned his sins. “Behold”, says Jesus to him, “thou art made whole; sin no more, lest some worse thing happen to thee”—John, v. 14. The tenderness of the Redeemer was also felt by the leper who said to Jesus Christ: “Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean”—Matt., viii. 2. Jesus answered: I will” be thou made clean”—v. 3, As if he said: “Yes; I will that thou be made clean; for I have come down from Heaven for the purpose of consoling all: be healed, then, according to thy desire. “And forthwith his leprosy was cleansed.”

9. We have also a proof of the tender compassion of the Son of God for sinners, in his conduct towards the woman caught in adultery. The scribes and the pharisees bought her before him, and said: “This woman was even now taken in adultery. Now Moses, in the law, commands us to stone such a one. But what sayest thou?”—John, viii. 4 and 5. And this they did, as St. John says, tempting him. They intended to accuse of transgressing the law of Moses if he said that she ought to be liberated; and they expected to destroy his character for meekness, if he said that she should be stoned. “Si dicat lapidandam”, says St. Augustine, “famam perdet mansuetudinis; sin dimittendam, transgressae legis accusabitur”—tract. xxxiii., in Joan. But what was the answer of our Lord? He neither said that she should be stoned nor dismissed; but, “bowing himself down, he wrote with his finger on the ground”. The interpreters say, that, probably, what he wrote on the ground was a text of Scripture admonishing the accusers of their own sins, which were, perhaps greater than that of the woman charged with adultery. “He then lifted himself up, and said to them: ‘He that is without sin among you, let them first cast a stone at her’”—v. 7. The scribes and the pharisees went away one by one, and the woman stood alone. Jesus Christ, turning to her, said: “Hath no one condemned thee. Go, and now sin no more”—v. 11. Since no one has condemned you, fear not that you shall be condemned by me, who have come on Earth, not to condemn, but to pardon and save sinners: go in peace, and sin no more.

10. Jesus Christ has come, not to condemn, but to deliver sinners from Hell, as soon as they resolve to amend their lives. And when he seems them obstinately bent on their own perdition he addresses them with tears in the words of Ezechiel: “Why will you die, O house of Israel?”—xxvii. 31. My children, why will you die? Why do you voluntarily rush into Hell, when I have come from Heaven to deliver you from it by my death? He adds: You are already dead to the grace of God. But will not your death: return to me, and I will restore to you the life which you have lost. “For I desire not the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God: return yet and live”—v. 32. But some sinners, who are immersed in the abyss of sin, may say: Perhaps, if we return to Jesus Christ, he will drive us away. No; for the Redeemer has said: “And him that comes to me I will not cast out”—John, vi. 37. No one that comes to me with sorrow for his past sins, however manifold and enormous they have been, shall be rejected.

11. Behold how, in another place, the Redeemer encourages us to throw ourselves at this feet with a secure hope of consolation and pardon. “Come to me, all you that labour and are burdened and I will refresh you”—Mat., xi. 28. Come to me, all ye poor sinners, who labour for your own damnation, and who groan under the weight of your crimes; come, and I will deliver you from all your troubles. Again, he says, “Come and accuse me, saith the Lord; if our sins be scarlet, they shall be white as snow; and if they bed as crimson, they shall be made white as wool”—Isa., i 18. Come with sorrow for the offenses you committed against me, and if I do not give you pardon, accuse me. As if he said: Upbraid me; rebuke me as a liar; for I promise that, though your sins were of scarlet—that is, of the most horrid enormity—your soul, by my blood, in which I shall was it, will become white and beautiful as snow.

12. Let us, then, O sinners, return incessantly to Jesus Christ. If we have left him, let us immediately return before death overtakes us in sin, and sends us to Hell, where the mercies and graces of the Lord shall, if we do not amend, be so many swords which shall lacerate the heart for all eternity.” (Saint Alphonsus de Ligouri, Sermon XVIII, For the Fourth Sunday of Lent, “On the Tender Compassion Jesus Christ Entertains Towards Sinners,” The Sermons of St. Alphonsus de Liguori For All the Sundays of the Year, Published 1852 by James Duffy, Dublin, Ireland, and reprinted by TAN Books in 1982, pp. 142-148.)

Appendix C

The Catholic Church's Condemnation of the Evolution of Dogma

  • For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward

    • not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence,
    • but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
  • Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth.

The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either: the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.

Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false. . . .

3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

And so in the performance of our supreme pastoral office, we beseech for the love of Jesus Christ and we command, by the authority of him who is also our God and saviour, all faithful Christians, especially those in authority or who have the duty of teaching, that they contribute their zeal and labour to the warding off and elimination of these errors from the church and to the spreading of the light of the pure faith.

But since it is not enough to avoid the contamination of heresy unless those errors are carefully shunned which approach it in greater or less degree, we warn all of their duty to observe the constitutions and decrees in which such wrong opinions, though not expressly mentioned in this document, have been banned and forbidden by this holy see. (Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session III, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason, April 24, 1870. SESSION 3 : 24 April 1.)

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 Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. . . .

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. (The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910; see also Nothing Stable, Nothing Secure.)