Jorge Puts On His Catholic Hat? Don't You Believe It

[A brief preface to today's article: Novus Ordo Watch Wire starts its Tradcast Podcast on Monday, January 19, 2015, the Feast of Saint Marius and Companions and the Commemoration of Saint Canute. Please make sure to listen as the Novus Ordo Watch Wire site is the best source for instant news, accompanied most of the time by consise, compelling commenataries, on the internet today. Indeed, there are only two other sites, The  Daily Catholic and Call Me Jorge that I believe provide superb information without distorting facts. Each of these three sites is noted for linking to original articles so that readers can see that nothing of what the conciliar revolutionaries have said and done has been taken out of context or presented in an intellectually dishonest manner.

[Today also begins the Chair of Unity Octave Week. Please pray the appointed prayers every day starting today and lasting through next Sunday, January 25, 2015, the Third Sunday after the Epiphany and the Commemoration of the Conversion of Saint Paul.]

Catastrophe seems to strike wherever Jorge Mario Bergoglio finds himself in the world.

It was almost eighteen months ago that carefully-laid plans to use what some of us disparaged as the Superman “Fortress of Crystal” stage for the “papal” vigil on Saturday, July 27, 2013, and the closing Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo farce at the end of World Youth Day in Rio di Janeiro, Brazil on Sunday, July 28, 2013, had to be scuttled because of monstrous rains that destroyed a good deal of the altar and left the seating area in a pile of mud puddles:

Terrenos en Guaratiba, ¿dónde está el campo de la fe, está inundado por las lluvias en Río (Foto: André Mourão / Agencia Día / Estadão contenido)

Superman's Altar Is Not In Good Shape in Rio di Janeiro


God's Just Chastisement Visited Upon the Madness of World Youth Day


O prefeito Eduardo Paes anunciou na tarde desta quinta-feira (25) que a vigília e a última missa da Jornada Mundial da Juventude, que estão programadas para sábado e domingo (27 e 28), foram transferidas de Guaratiba, na zona oeste do Rio, para a praia de Copacabana, na zona sul. Leia mais

Behold the Desolation of Just One of Many Altars of Abomination

(Photographs found on the Veritas Liberavit Vos website)

One of Vatican Radio's correspondents, Sean Patrick Lovett, wrote a report about the conciliar "archbishop" of Rio di Janiero's liturgical travesty on Tuesday evening, July 23, 2013, the Feast of Saint Apollinaris and the Commemoration of Saint Liborius, that gushed with awe-filled wonder at what unfolded during the carefully staged and choreographed outdoor revival ceremony that called itself a "Mass." That report was referenced in yesterday's commentary on this site, Francis The Syncretist.

Mr. Sean Patrick Lovett wrote a slightly different report yesterday, inadvertently describing the extent of God's wrath that reduced the area surrounding the monstrosity that some have dubbed the "Superman Altar" into a mud-drenched war zone:

(Vatican Radio) So the rain finally had its way. It even succeeded in changing the best-laid plans of Popes and men. The Campus Fidei at Guaratiba, originally scheduled to host both the Youth Vigil and the closing Youth Day Mass, is now officially out of bounds.

What until last week was a bucolic, grass-covered, tree-lined park worthy of welcoming any pope, currently looks more like a Florida swamp. Mud and sludge alternates with improvised lakes and marshes – the result of days and nights of incessant rainfall.

The solution?

Well, there is only one. At such short notice, the only alternative is to concentrate everything at Copacabana: the stage is already there, the sound and illumination systems are in place, the facilities and utilities were already tried and tested during the opening youth day Mass on Tuesday.

The location change will even make it easier for the young people themselves, many of whom are already in the area of Copacabana beach. Not to mention the journalists: the international press centre is not even 100 metres away. Pity that security has placed us under “lock-down” – meaning that no one enters or leaves the centre from three hours before the Pope’s arrival until after he leaves. So much for being “on-the-spot”… SPL  (WYD Rio: weather forces change of venue for Sat, Sun events.)


No, God will not mocked.


Remember, God did visit an earthquake upon the Basilica of Saint Francis of Assisi in Assisi, Italy, on September 26, 1997, just thirty-one days of the eleventh anniversary of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II having presided over a veritable assortment of the friends of Ba'al, who offered "worship" to their false gods, as totally unrelated to the sacrileges that had taken place there. The following photograph says volumes about the loss of all sense of the honor and glory and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity exhibited by the soon-to-be former "pope's" immediate predecessor:

Assisi I, October 17, 1986


Remember also that flooding devastated the Shrine of Our Lady of Lourdes twice in the past year.

The first wave of flooding hit Lourdes on October 21, 2012, just eight days after it had been reported shortly after it had been reported that Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick's cause for "beatification" was approved by the conciliar Congregation for the Causes of the Saints (see Paul VI to be beatified soon and France assesses damage of Lourdes flooding):


A massive clean-up was under way on Sunday in the French pilgrimage town of Lourdes, famed for its Catholic sanctuaries, after flash floods forced the evacuation of some 450 pilgrims and closed the main shrine.

Flooding at the Grotto of Massabielle, Round 1


A second wave of flooding devastated the Grotto of Massabielle on the very day, Tuesday, June 18, 2013, that the ANSA news service in Italy reported that Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's alleged second "miracle" had been approved by the conciliar congregation for the causes of making phony saints and was simply awaiting "papal" approval for their joint "canonization" (see Two For The Price Of One, part one and Two For The Price Of One, part two and Vatican-sources-say-second-miracle-approved-for-John-Paul-II):


France Flood

June 19, 2013, the day after the rains hit Lourdes, France 

Oh, yes, there was also the little matter of that bolt of lightning that struck the dome of the Basilica of Saint Peter in the Vatican the very day that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI announced his resignation. What day was that? You are so very inquisitive! Ah, the day? Yes, it was Monday, February 11, 2013, the Feast of the Apparition of Our Lady of Lourdes:

God will not be mocked. He continues to send clear signs of His displeasure by means of natural disasters of various sorts, and it is indeed very possible that He is showing his displeasure with the lords of conciliarism and their numerous falsehoods by permitting various events to occur in close proximity to developments in the conciliar church.

Tragically, it was just nine months ago now that a well-meaning soul, Marco Gusmini, was killed while he was standing in front of hideous “bent” crucifix that was erected to honor the visit of the soon-to-be “Pope Saint John Paul the Great” to Brescia, Italy, in 1998 and moved thereafter to Cevo, Italy. This was another manifest sign that God will no longer be mocked by even the hideous images erected by the conciliarists:

A 21-year old man has died after being crushed by a crucifix erected in honour of Pope John Paul II in northern Italy.

Marco Gusmini was killed instantly and one other man taken to hospital, Italian media reported.

Part of the 30m-high (100ft) sculpture collapsed at a ceremony ahead of the Pope’s canonisation. John Paul II and his predecessor, Pope John XXIII, are due to be declared saints on Sunday.

The crucifix commemorates the Pope’s visit to the area in 1998.

The installation, near the town of Cevo, was designed as a large curved cross with a statue of Jesus Christ, weighing 600kg (1,320lb), fixed to the top.

A group of children were reported to be in attendance at the time.

The cross was designed by sculptor Enrico Job and was created for John Paul II’s visit to nearby Brescia.

The two popes will be declared saints at the Vatican on Sunday.

It is not the first death caused by a falling crucifix in Italy.

In 2004, the Associated Press reported that a 72-year old woman had been crushed to death by a 7ft-tall metal crucifix in the town of Sant’Onofrio in the south of the country. (Crucifix Erected in Honor of Wojtyla/John Paul II collapses and kills a twenty-one year-old man.)

Omitted from the report above was the fact that the late Mr. Gusmini lived on “Pope John XIII” Street in Lovere, Italy:

The massive cross was unusually shaped – it bowed and bent downwards and was held in place by steel cables.

In what one Italian newspaper called “a tragedy full of disturbing coincidences”, the victim lived with his parents in a town called Lovere in Via Papa Giovanni XXIII – Pope John XXIII Street. (Man Crushed to Death by Giant Crucifix Dedicated to Wojtyla/John Paul II.)

Additionally, it was nearly eight months ago that a fire caused major damage in the Grotto of the Nativity just hours after Jorge Mario Bergoglio had left Israel following his doctrinally, spiritually, liturgically and morally corrupt visit to the Middle East:

A fire broke out in Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity on Tuesday, just hours after Pope Francis wrapped up a three-day Middle East pilgrimage during which he visited the shrine.

Bethlehem's governor, Abdel-Fatah Hamayel, said it was a small fire caused by an oil lamp falling over just before dawn, leaving some damage to fabric wall hangings inside the grotto.

The fire was discovered when the security guard smelled smoke – the blaze broke out in the cave underneath the 4th-century basilica where Christians believe Mary gave birth to Jesus.

Inside, the charred remains of several brightly coloured wall hangings hung limply against the cave walls, which were blackened with soot. Two ornate icons of Mary holding Jesus had smoke damage.

A statement from Bethlehem police said a wooden-topped bowl had caught fire at the entrance to the grotto which caused candles to fall down and set fire to curtains, with a number of wall tiles also cracking in the heat.

Pope Francis visited the church on Sunday after celebrating an open-air mass in Bethlehem's Manger Square at the start of the Israeli-Palestinian leg of his Middle East pilgrimage, which began in Jordan on Saturday.

The basilica, which was built by the Roman emperor Constantine, attracts more than a million pilgrims every year, making it the biggest tourist attraction in the occupied Palestinian territories outside Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem.

In a separate development, police were investigating an arson attempt on Tuesday, at Jerusalem's Church of the Dormition which occurred shortly after the pope finished celebrating mass in the nearby upper room.

"Someone entered the church and went down to the crypt, took a book that is used by pilgrims to a small room next to the organ, and set some wooded crosses on fire," Benedictine abbot Nikodemus Schnabel told AFP late on Monday. (Bethlehem Church Catches Fire After Pope's Visit.)

Three Words: “Francis Was Here”


Wherever Francis goes, there is mayhem, always theologically and spiritually, sometimes even physically. We call him “Chaos Frank” for a reason.

It’s pretty evident that Almighty God is making it extremely easy now to “get it.” Ever since Jorge Bergoglio’s election on March 13, 2013, the Vatican II Church has been in utter turmoil.

He who has eyes to see, let him see. (Fire in Bethlehem Nativity Church after Francis visits.)

Three months later, a region of the Republic of Korea was hit with torrential rains less than two weeks after Jorge Mario Bergoglio visited that country last year:

SEOUL, Aug. 28 (Yonhap) -- President Park Geun-hye said Thursday that she would consider declaring South Korea's southeastern areas hit hard by recent torrential rains a special disaster zone.

The designation, if made, would make the affected areas eligible for additional government support, including up to 80 percent of the costs associated with the disaster.

"I will consider declaring a special disaster zone" after assessing damage caused by torrential rains that hit the country's second-largest city of Busan and nearby areas on Monday, she said.

She made the comments as she toured areas hit by torrential rains that sparked landslides, disrupted rail services and temporarily halted the operation of a nuclear power plant.

Heavy downpours also left 13 people dead and one missing, according to the National Emergency Management Agency.

One of the hardest hit areas is Gijang, a county in Busan, which received a record 160 millimeters (6.2 inches) of rain per hour on Monday.

Also Thursday, the government and Park's ruling Saenuri Party held a meeting and reached a consensus on declaring a special disaster zone, according to Cho Won-jin, a ruling party lawmaker who attended the session.

Park instructed officials to provide every possible support to those who suffered losses due to heavy rains, and to come up with fundamental anti-disaster measures to ensure similar damage does not recur, according to her office.

"It would be good to provide quick assistance to make sure every person can spend the holiday in their homes if possible," Park said, referring to the Chuseok holiday, the Korean equivalent of Thanksgiving Day, which falls on Sept. 7. (Park to mull declaring S. Korea' s southeast special.)

Mind you, this is not even to mention the tragedy that befell Bergoglio’s own immediate family immediately upon his return from South Korea (see Bergoglio Relatives Killed in Fatal Car Crash.)

Most unfortunately for the poor soul killed yesterday, Saturday, January 17, 2015, the Feast of Saint Antony of the Desert, the Bergoglio Factor struck again, this time in The Philippines, as an employee of Catholic Relief Services was struck by a pole after the false “pontiff” had staged an outdoor serving of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service on Leyte Island, which had been devasted by Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda) on November 8, 2013:

Tragedy struck Pope Francis' visit to the central Philippine city of Tacloban, where he was comforting victims of Typhoon Haiyan, a devastating storm that left more than 7,300 people dead or missing just over a year ago.

Police said a 27-year-old volunteer with Catholic Relief Services who was among about 150,000 people who attended a rain-drenched Mass celebrated by the pope near Tacloban's seaside airport was killed after she was hit by scaffolding.

Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi said the pope inquired about how he could show "his own suffering and solidarity" with the woman's family. Police reports said the woman, who suffered a skull fracture, was an only child.

Francis cut short his visit because of an approaching storm, which brought rains and strong winds to Tacloban. (Woman dies in accident after Bergoglio's liturgical travesty.)

While we must pray for those who have suffered and the souls of those who have died as a result of catrastrophes associated with the near-presence of a known apostate and blaspheme  are merely symbolic of the devastation wrought in the vineyard of Christ the King during this time of apostasy and betrayal as a result of the dawning of the age of conciliarism with the "election" of Angelo Roncalli on October 28, 1958, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude, as the first in the current series of papal usurpers.

As noted earlier, God will not be mocked even though Senor Sensitivty, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, tried to put on his “Catholic hat” in Manila, The Philippines, on Friday, January 16, 2015, the Feast of Pope Saint Marcellus I, when he tried to make himself a strong defender of Catholic doctrine by appearing to oppose contraception:

The pressures on family life today are many.  Here in the Philippines, countless families are still suffering from the effects of natural disasters.  The economic situation has caused families to be separated by migration and the search for employment, and financial problems strain many households.  While all too many people live in dire poverty, others are caught up in materialism and lifestyles which are destructive of family life and the most basic demands of Christian morality.  The family is also threatened by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very institution of marriage, by relativism, by the culture of the ephemeral, by a lack of openness to life. 

I think of Blessed Paul VI in the moment of that challenge of population growth, he had the strength to defend openness to life. He knew the difficulties families experience and that’s why in his encyclical (Humanae Vitae) he expressed compassion for specific cases and he taught confessors to be particularly compassionate for particular cases. And he went further, he looked at the people on the earth and he saw that lack (of children) and the problem it could cause families in the future. Paul VI was courageous, a good pastor  and he warned his sheep about the wolves that were approaching.  And from the heavens he blesses us today. (Bergolgio Invokes Paul the Sick to defend families.)

Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul the Sick is certainly not able to “bless” anyone form the “heavens.” This doctrinally, liturgically, pastorally and morally corrupt socialist and Judaizing force in the counterfeit church of conciliarism presided over three full sessions of the “Second” Vatican Council before he took the wrecking ball to almost everything to do with Catholic life as it had been known from time immemorial until then, starting with the Sacred Liturgy itself.

This hideous, venal little man, who was blackmailed by Soviet agents into betraying the identities of priests sent behind the Iron Curtain by Pope Pius XII had sent them there when he, Montini, was working in the Secretariat of State of the Holy See, ruined the good order of prayer life and conduct within the communities and men and women religious. He instituted a regime of novelty as something to be expected as “natural” in the life of what he represented as the Catholic Church. He sold out great foes of Communism such as Josef Cardinal Mindszenty, the Primate of Hungary, while giving the Communists almost everything they wanted from him as part of his rotten policy of Ostpolitik. Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul the Sick appointed homosexual men to the conciliar hierarchy, whose very validity he overthrew when promulgating the conciliar rite of episcopal consecration in 1968.

Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul the Sick “blesses us from the heavens”?

Well, what does one expect from a man, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who cut his revolutionary eye-teeth and began his presbyteral career while Montini was masquerading as “Pope Paul VI”?

Far from being an defense of Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage, Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968, was a revolutionary document that formally overthrew the primary end of marriage—the propagation and education of children—in favor of the personalism of Hebert Doms and Dietrich von Hildebrand that was condemned by Pope Pius XII in 1944 and again in 1951. Montini did this in order to justify what he called was "responsible parenthood" and the use of what became known as "natural family planning" to limit the size of families in response to an alleged "population crisis." (For a full explication of the revolutoinary nature of Humanae Vitae and natural family planning, see Forty-Three Years After Humanae Vitae, Always Trying To Find A Way and Planting Seeds of Revolutionary Change.)


The Personalism endorsed by Montini/Paul the Sick in Humanae Vitae led directly to the undermining of marriage as it is premised first of all on spouses and not on the honor and glory of God by bringing forth as many (or as few) children as He chooses them to have, and it was, as noted just above, condemned by Pope Pius XII in a decree issued by the Holy Office on April 1, 1944:

Certain publications concerning the purposes of matrimony, and their interrelationship and order, have come forth within these last years which either assert that the primary purpose of matrimony is not the generation of offspring, or that the secondary purposes are not subordinate to the primary purpose, but are independent of it.

In these works, different primary purposes of marriage are designated by other writers, as for example: the complement and personal perfection of the spouses through a complete mutual participation in life and action; mutual love and union of spouses to be nurtured and perfected the psychic and bodily surrender of one’s own person; and many other such things.

In the same writings a sense is sometimes attributed to words in the current documents of the Church (as for example, primary, secondary purpose), which does not agree with these words according to the common usage by theologians.

This revolutionary way of thinking and speaking aims to foster errors and uncertainties, to avoid which the Eminent and Very Fathers of this supreme Sacred Congregation, charged with the guarding of faith and morals, in a plenary session on Wednesday, the 29th of March, 1944, when the question was proposed to them: “Whether the opinion of certain writers can be admitted, who either deny that the primary purpose of matrimony is the generation of children and raising offspring, or teach that the secondary purposes are not essentially subordinate to the primary purpose, but are equally first and independent,” have decreed that the answer must be: In the negative. (As found in Henry Denzinger, Enchirdion Symbolorum, thirteenth edition, translated into English by Roy Deferrari and published in 1955 as The Sources of Catholic Dogma–referred to as “Denziger,” by B. Herder Book Company of St. Louis, Missouri, and London, England, No. 2295, pp. 624-625.)

Pope Pius XII amplified this condemnation when he delivered his Address to Italian Midwives on the Nature of their Profession, October 29, 1951:

"Personal values" and the need to respect such are a theme which, over the last twenty years or so, has been considered more and more by writers. In many of their works, even the specifically sexual act has its place assigned, that of serving the "person" of the married couple. The proper and most profound sense of the exercise of conjugal rights would consist in this, that the union of bodies is the expression and the realization of personal and affective union.

Articles, chapters, entire books, conferences, especially dealing with the "technique" of love, are composed to spread these ideas, to illustrate them with advice to the newly married as a guide in matrimony, in order that they may not neglect, through stupidity or a false sense of shame or unfounded scruples, that which God, Who also created natural inclinations, offers them. If from their complete reciprocal gift of husband and wife there results a new life, it is a result which remains outside, or, at the most, on the border of "personal values"; a result which is not denied, but neither is it desired as the center of marital relations.

According to these theories, your dedication for the welfare of the still hidden life in the womb of the mother, and your assisting its happy birth, would only have but a minor and secondary importance.

Now, if this relative evaluation were merely to place the emphasis on the personal values of husband and wife rather than on that of the offspring, it would be possible, strictly speaking, to put such a problem aside. But, however, it is a matter of a grave inversion of the order of values and of the ends imposed by the Creator Himself. We find Ourselves faced with the propagation of a number of ideas and sentiments directly opposed to the clarity, profundity, and seriousness of Christian thought. Here, once again, the need for your apostolate. It may happen that you receive the confidences of the mother and wife and are questioned on the more secret desires and intimacies of married life. How, then, will you be able, aware of your mission, to give weight to truth and right order in the appreciation and action of the married couple, if you yourselves are not furnished with the strength of character needed to uphold what you know to be true and just?

The primary end of marriage

Now, the truth is that matrimony, as an institution of nature, in virtue of the Creator's will, has not as a primary and intimate end the personal perfection of the married couple but the procreation and upbringing of a new life. The other ends, inasmuch as they are intended by nature, are not equally primary, much less superior to the primary end, but are essentially subordinated to it. This is true of every marriage, even if no offspring result, just as of every eye it can be said that it is destined and formed to see, even if, in abnormal cases arising from special internal or external conditions, it will never be possible to achieve visual perception.

It was precisely to end the uncertainties and deviations which threatened to diffuse errors regarding the scale of values of the purposes of matrimony and of their reciprocal relations, that a few years ago (March 10, 1944), We Ourselves drew up a declaration on the order of those ends, pointing out what the very internal structure of the natural disposition reveals. We showed what has been handed down by Christian tradition, what the Supreme Pontiffs have repeatedly taught, and what was then in due measure promulgated by the Code of Canon Law. Not long afterwards, to correct opposing opinions, the Holy See, by a public decree, proclaimed that it could not admit the opinion of some recent authors who denied that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of the offspring, or teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinated to the primary end, but are on an equal footing and independent of it.

Would this lead, perhaps, to Our denying or diminishing what is good and just in personal values resulting from matrimony and its realization? Certainly not, because the Creator has designed that for the procreation of a new life human beings made of flesh and blood, gifted with soul and heart, shall be called upon as men and not as animals deprived of reason to be the authors of their posterity. It is for this end that the Lord desires the union of husband and wife. Indeed, the Holy Scripture says of God that He created man to His image and He created him male and female, and willed—as is repeatedly affirmed in Holy Writ—that "a man shall leave mother and father, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh".

All this is therefore true and desired by God. But, on the other hand, it must not be divorced completely from the primary function of matrimony—the procreation of offspring. Not only the common work of external life, but even all personal enrichment—spiritual and intellectual—all that in married love as such is most spiritual and profound, has been placed by the will of the Creator and of nature at the service of posterity. The perfect married life, of its very nature, also signifies the total devotion of parents to the well-being of their children, and married love in its power and tenderness is itself a condition of the sincerest care of the offspring and the guarantee of its realization.

To reduce the common life of husband and wife and the conjugal act to a mere organic function for the transmission of seed would be but to convert the domestic hearth, the family sanctuary, into a biological laboratory. Therefore, in Our allocution of September 29, 1949, to the International Congress of Catholic Doctors, We expressly excluded artificial insemination in marriage. The conjugal act, in its natural structure, is a personal action, a simultaneous and immediate cooperation of husband and wife, which by the very nature of the agents and the propriety of the act, is the expression of the reciprocal gift, which, according to Holy Writ, effects the union "in one flesh".

That is much more than the union of two genes, which can be effected even by artificial means, that is, without the natural action of husband and wife. The conjugal act, ordained and desired by nature, is a personal cooperation, to which husband and wife, when contracting marriage, exchange the right.

Therefore, when this act in its natural form is from the beginning perpetually impossible, the object of the matrimonial contract is essentially vitiated. This is what we said on that occasion: "Let it not be forgotten: only the procreation of a new life according to the will and the design of the Creator carries with it in a stupendous degree of perfection the intended ends. It is at the same time in conformity with the spiritual and bodily nature and the dignity of the married couple, in conformity with the happy and normal development of the child".

Advise the fiancée or the young married woman who comes to seek your advice about the values of matrimonial life that these personal values, both in the sphere of the body and the senses and in the sphere of the spirit, are truly genuine, but that the Creator has placed them not in the first, but in the second degree of the scale of values. (Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951.)

This was a ringing condemnation of the very philosophical and theological foundations of the indiscriminate, institutionalized teaching and practice of "natural family planning" in the lives of Catholic married couples. It is also yet another papal condemnation of conciliarism's view of marriage.

One cannot overemphasize the importance of Pope Pius XII's condemnation of the very personalist ideology that is at the root of what is called today "natural family planning" as it came just a little over seven years and one-half years after the Holy Office's condemnation of the work, which was identical to that of Dietrich von Hildebrand's, of Father Herbert Doms, who had inverted the end of marriage. The condemnation of Father Doms' work was alluded to in a passage from the October 29, 1951, address just cited above. Here it is once again for the sake of emphasis:

It was precisely to end the uncertainties and deviations which threatened to diffuse errors regarding the scale of values of the purposes of matrimony and of their reciprocal relations, that a few years ago (March 10, 1944), We Ourselves drew up a declaration on the order of those ends, pointing out what the very internal structure of the natural disposition reveals. We showed what has been handed down by Christian tradition, what the Supreme Pontiffs have repeatedly taught, and what was then in due measure promulgated by the Code of Canon Law. Not long afterwards, to correct opposing opinions, the Holy See, by a public decree, proclaimed that it could not admit the opinion of some recent authors who denied that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of the offspring, or teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinated to the primary end, but are on an equal footing and independent of it. (Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951.)

Montini/Paul the Sick, on the other hand,  prefaced Humanae Vitae's expanded conditions for the use of a woman's infertile periods as the basis of avoiding the conception of children upon with yet another reference to the myth of overpopulation:

1. The most serious duty of transmitting human life, for which married persons are the free and responsible collaborators of God the Creator, has always been a source of great joys to them, even if sometimes accompanied by not a few difficulties and by distress.

At all times the fulfillment of this duty has posed grave problems to the conscience of married persons, but, with the recent evolution of society, changes have taken place that give rise to new questions which the Church could not ignore, having to do with a matter which so closely touches upon the life and happiness of men.

2. The changes which have taken place are in fact noteworthy and of varied kinds. In the first place, there is the rapid demographic development. Fear is shown by many that world population is growing more rapidly than the available resources, with growing distress to many families and developing countries, so that the temptation for authorities to counter this danger with radical measures is great. Moreover, working and lodging conditions, as well as increased exigencies both in the economic field and in that of education, often make the proper education of a larger number of children difficult today. A change is also seen both in the manner of considering the person of woman and her place in society, and in the value to be attributed to conjugal love in marriage, and also in the appreciation to be made of the meaning of conjugal acts in relation to that love.

Finally and above all, man has made stupendous progress in the domination and rational organization of the forces of nature, such that he tends to extend this domination to his own total being: to the body, to psychical life, to social life and even to the laws which regulate the transmission of life.

3. This new state of things gives rise to new questions. Granted the conditions of life today, and granted the meaning which conjugal relations have with respect to the harmony between husband and wife and to their mutual fidelity, would not a revision of the ethical norms, in force up to now, seem to be advisable, especially when it is considered that they cannot be observed without sacrifices, sometimes heroic sacrifices?

And again: by extending to this field the application of the so-called "principle of totality," could it not be admitted that the intention of a less abundant but more rationalized fecundity might transform a materially sterilizing intervention into a licit and wise control of birth? Could it not be admitted, that is, that the finality of procreation pertains to the ensemble of conjugal life, rather than to its single acts? It is also asked whether, in view of the increased sense of responsibility of modern man, the moment has not come for him to entrust to his reason and his will, rather than to the biological rhythms of his organism, the task of regulating birth.

4. Such questions required from the teaching authority of the Church a new and deeper reflection upon the principles of the moral teaching on marriage: a teaching founded on the natural law, illuminated and enriched by divine revelation. (Giovanni Montini/Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968.) \

It is upon these false premises that the hideous friend of the lavender collective handed so many Catholic couples over to the devil so that they could immersed in considerations of physicality that have never had any place in Catholic teaching. Although Montini/Paul VI re-stated the immutable teaching of the Church concerning the begetting of children, this was part of the "bait and switch" game as he used his own text to place what he called the "unitive" end before that of procreation:

And finally this love is fecund for it is not exhausted by the communion between husband and wife, but is destined to continue, raising up new lives. "Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents."8

10. Hence conjugal love requires in husband and wife an awareness of their mission of "responsible parenthood," which today is rightly much insisted upon, and which also must be exactly understood. Consequently it is to be considered under different aspects which are legitimate and connected with one another.

In relation to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means the knowledge and respect of their functions; human intellect discovers in the power of giving life biological laws which are part of the human person.

In relation to the tendencies of instinct or passion, responsible parenthood means that necessary dominion which reason and will must exercise over them.

In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth.

Responsible parenthood also and above all implies a more profound relationship to the objective moral order established by God, of which a right conscience is the faithful interpreter. The responsible exercise of parenthood implies, therefore, that husband and wife recognize fully their own duties towards God, towards themselves, towards the family and towards society, in a correct hierarchy of values.

In the task of transmitting life, therefore, they are not free to proceed completely at will, as if they could determine in a wholly autonomous way the honest path to follow; but they must conform their activity to the creative intention of God, expressed in the very nature of marriage and of its acts, and manifested by the constant teaching of the Church.

11. These acts, by which husband and wife are united in chaste intimacy, and by means of which human life is transmitted, are, as the Council recalled, "noble and worthy,"and they do not cease to be lawful if, for causes independent of the will of husband and wife, they are foreseen to be infecund, since they always remain ordained towards expressing and consolidating their union. In fact, as experience bears witness, not every conjugal act is followed by a new life. God has wisely disposed natural laws and rhythms of fecundity which, of themselves, cause a separation in the succession of births. Nonetheless the Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by their constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life.

12. That teaching, often set forth by the magisterium, is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning. Indeed, by its intimate structure, the conjugal act, while most closely uniting husband and wife, capacitates them for the generation of new lives, according to laws inscribed in the very being of man and of woman. By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its ordination towards man's most high calling to parenthood. We believe that the men of our day are particularly capable of seeing the deeply reasonable and human character of this fundamental principle. (Giovanni Montini/Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968.)

Who had been calling for "responsible parenthood" for five decades prior to her death on September 6, 1966?

The nymphomaniac, racist and eugenicist named Margaret Sanger, the founder of the Birth Control League that became known as Planned Parenthood, that's who. Her followers continue to champion this shopworn slogan that found its way into the text of an alleged "papal" encyclical letter. Montini/Paul VI's acceptance of "responsible parenthood" slogan of Margaret Sanger and her diabolical minions, coupled with the inversion of the ends of marriage propagated by Dietrich von Hildebrand, constitutes a revolution against the ends of marriage that have "baptized," if you will, a supposedly "natural" form of contraception that is to be used as a matter of routine, not in truly extraordinary cases, where is it only lawful, that is, permissible, and never mandated.

The inclusion of "psychological" reasons to abstain from the conception of children by the use of "knowing" the physicality of a woman's body has been interpreted rather broadly, shall we say. In plain English: the use of "psychological" reasons to abstain from the conception of children has been used to reaffirm the "consciences" of those who are "not ready" for children. This is no different whatsoever than those who have chosen the use of artificial means to prevent the conception of children because they are "not ready" to have them. They have careers. They have poor finances. They have elderly parents for whom to care. They have "plans." They have to get through school. And on and on on. Everybody's got a "serious reason." These are nothing other than excuses and rationalizations that consider marriage in purely naturalistic and materialistic, if not utilitarian, terms without any true love of God and thus of trust that He will send married couples all of the supernatural and temporal helps that they need to provide for the children that God sees fit to send them.

The "teaching" that led to what is called today as "natural family planning" is not to be found in Pope Pius XII's October 29, 1951, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession. It is to be found in Paul VI's Humanae Vitae, devoted to the "responsible parenthood" slogan of Planned Parenthood and the United Nations and environmental groups.

Truly responsible Catholic parenthood is founded in a love for God's Holy Will and by training however many or few children in the truths of the Catholic Faith, which require parents to eschew worldliness and to arm them with the supernatural and natural means to live in a "popular culture" devoted to the glorification of the very thing that caused Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to suffer in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death and that caused those Seven Swords of Sorrow to be pierced through and through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, that is, sin. That's truly responsible Catholic parenthood. Not that which is represented by "Paul the Sick" and Humanae Vitae.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio was not, therefore, putting on his “Catholic hat” two days ago in Manila, The Philippines. He was doing the bidding of the poor Filipino “bishops” in their battle against President Benigno Aquino III, who accepted foreign aid from the government of the United States of America five years ago on condition of providing contraception and other “family planning” services, which Aquino himself fully supports despite remaining a member of the counterfeit church of conciliarism in perfectly “good standing.” (For a review of the topsy-turvy sequence of events in The Philippines that took place in 2010, see Distracting Us With More Side Shows, part three.)

The conciliar revolutionaries like to throw a few crumbs now and again in the direction of the “Pelagians” within their ranks so as to keep them as happy on their conciliar reservation just as careerist Republicans throw a few crumbs now and again in the direction of “pro-life” and “pro-family” conservatives to keep them on their own reservation of naturalism. The crumbs thrown by Jorge Mario Bergoglio in Manila two days ago, though, are laced with the poisons of Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul the Sick’s revolutionary endorsement of “natural family planning” and Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II’s truly demented “theology of the body” that arose therefrom in perfectly conformity he the personalism that had been condemned by Pope Pius XII in 1944 and 1951.

Pope Saint Pius X explained the modus operandi of Modernists very clearly as he dissected their unique ability to promote heresy on some occasions and to appear as Catholics on others:

The Modernists completely invert the parts, and of them may be applied the words which another of Our predecessors Gregory IX, addressed to some theologians of his time: "Some among you, puffed up like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the meaning of the sacred the philosophical teaching of the rationalists, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science...these men, led away by various and strange doctrines, turn the head into the tail and force the queen to serve the handmaid."

18. This will appear more clearly to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In their writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful. But this is done deliberately and advisedly, and the reason of it is to be found in their opinion as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they are dealing with history they take no account of the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechize the people, they cite them respectfully. In the same way they draw their distinctions between exegesis which is theological and pastoral and exegesis which is scientific and historical. So, too, when they treat of philosophy, history, and criticism, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, they feel no especial horror in treading in the footsteps of Luther and are wont to display a manifold contempt for Catholic doctrines, for the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be taken to task for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, maintaining the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly rebuke the Church on the ground that she resolutely refuses to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, having for this purpose blotted out the old theology, endeavor to introduce a new theology which shall support the aberrations of philosophers. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8 1907.)

This describes each of the spiritual robber barons who have posed as “popes” since death of Pope Pius IX on October 9, 1958, including the two living “popes,” Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis.

Yes, The Chair is Still Empty, which is why we need to pray today, which is the commemorated Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter, for the restoration of a true pope on the Throne of Saint Peter, something that will occur in a truly miraculous manner.

Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., provided us with a marvelous reflection on the history and signficance of this day:

The Archangel Gabriel told the Blessed Virgin Mary, in the Annunciation, that the Son Who was to be born of Her should be a King, and that of His Kingdom there should be no end. Hence, when the Magi were led from the East to the Crib of Jesus, they proclaimed in Jerusalem that they came to seek a King. But his new Empire needed a capital; and whereas the King, Who was to fix His throne in it, was, according to the eternal decrees, to re-ascend into Heaven, it was necessary that the visible character of His Royalty should be left here on earth, and this even to the end of the world. He that should be invested with this visible character of Christ our King would be the Vicar of Christ.

Our Lord Jesus Christ chose Simon for this sublime dignity of being His Vicar. He changed his name into one which signifies the Rock, that is “Peter;” and in giving him this new name, He tells us that the whole Church throughout the world is to rest upon this man as upon a Rock which nothing shall ever move (Matt. 16: 18). But this promise of Our Lord included another; namely, that as Peter was to close his earthly career by the cross, He would give him Successors in whom Peter and his authority should live to the end of time.

But again, there must be some mark or sign of this succession, to designate to the world who the Pontiff is on whom, to the end of the world, the Church is to be built. There are so many Bishops in the Church; in which one of them is Peter continued? This Prince of the Apostles founded and governed several Churches; but only one of these was watered with his blood, and that one was Rome; only one of these is enriched with his Tomb, and that one is Rome; the Bishop of Rome, therefore, is the Successor of Peter, and consequently the Vicar of Christ. It is of the Bishop of Rome alone that it is said: Upon thee will I build My Church; and again: To thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven (St. Matthew 16: 19); and again: I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; do thou confirm thy brethren (St. Luke 22: 32); and again: Feed my lambs; feed my sheep. (St. John 21: 15, 17).

Protestantism saw the force of this argument, and therefore strove to throw doubts on St. Peter’s having lived and died in Rome. They who labored to establish doubts of this kind rightly hoped that, if they could gain their point, they would destroy the authority of the Roman Pontiff, and even the very notion of a Head of the Church. But History has refuted this puerile objection, and now all learned Protestants agree with Catholics in admitting a fact which is one of the most incontestable, even on the ground of human authority.

It was in order to nullify, by the authority of the Liturgy, this strange pretension of Protestants, that Pope Paul IV, in 1558, restored the ancient Feast of St. Peter’s Chair at Rome, and fixed it on the 18th of January. For many centuries the Church had not solemnized the mystery of the Pontificate of the Prince of the Apostles on any distinct feast, but had made the single Feast of February 22nd serve for both the Chair at Antioch and the Chair at Rome. From that time forward, the 22nd of February has been kept for the Chair at Antioch, which was the first occupied by the Apostle...

When St. Peter entered Rome, he came to realize and explain the destinies of this Queen of Cities; he came to promise her an Empire even greater than the one she already possessed. This new Empire is not to be founded by the sword, as was the first. Rome has been hitherto the proud mistress of nations; henceforth she is to be the Mother of the world by Charity; and though all peaceful, yet her Empire shall last to the end of time. Let us listen to St. Leo the Great, describing to us in one of the finest of his Sermons, and in his own magnificent style, the humble yet all-eventful entrance of the Fisherman of Genesareth into the Capital of the Pagan world:

“The good and just and omnipotent God, Who never refused His mercy to the human race, and instructed all men in general in the knowledge of Himself by His super-abundant benefits, took pity, by a more hidden counsel and a deeper love, on the voluntary blindness of them that had gone astray, and on the wickedness which was growing in its proneness to evil; and sent therefore into the world His co-equal and co-eternal Word. The Word being made Flesh did so unite the Divine and human nature, as that the deep abasement of the one was the highest uplifting of the other. (The Liturgical Year.)

Our Lady knew that the bridal couple’s wedding feast in Cana was running out of wine before the bride and groom did. She beseeched her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to assist them. Unable to refuse her anything, Our Lord complied, thereby performing his first public miracle, which was a foreshadowing of the Holy Eucharist, at her humble behest.

Similarly, Our Lord will not His dear Blessed Mother’s request for the restoration of a true pope o the Throne of Saint Peter sooner rather than later if he beseech her with humility and with confidence, especially through her Most Holy Rosary as His own consecrated slaves that her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.

Let us continue to trust in Our Lady and her Fatima Message in these troubling times as we run whatever risks we must to avoid all contact with conciliarism and its fraudulent officials in order to cleave to Catholicism without any reservations or qualifications whatsoever.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady of Mount Carmel, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us, especially on your feast day today!

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Saint Prisca, pray for us.