Pope Saint Pius X defined Modernism very succinctly as follows in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:
39. It may be, Venerable Brethren, that some may think We have dwelt too long on this exposition of the doctrines of the Modernists. But it was necessary, both in order to refute their customary charge that We do not understand their ideas, and to show that their system does not consist in scattered and unconnected theories but in a perfectly organised body, all the parts of which are solidly joined so that it is not possible to admit one without admitting all. For this reason, too, We have had to give this exposition a somewhat didactic form and not to shrink from employing certain uncouth terms in use among the Modernists. And now, can anybody who takes a survey of the whole system be surprised that We should define it as the synthesis of all heresies? Were one to attempt the task of collecting together all the errors that have been broached against the faith and to concentrate the sap and substance of them all into one, he could not better succeed than the Modernists have done. Nay, they have done more than this, for, as we have already intimated, their system means the destruction not of the Catholic religion alone but of all religion. With good reason do the rationalists applaud them, for the most sincere and the frankest among the rationalists warmly welcome the modernists as their most valuable allies. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
More than any of this five immediate predecessors in the current line of antipopes that began when an unreconstructed Modernist, Angelo Cardinal Roncalli, stepped out on the balcony of the Basilica of Saint Peter on October 28, 1958, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude, There is no need to document the many ways in which Jorge Mario Bergoglio has disparaged Catholic doctrine in favor of a “religion” of sentiment and sense pleasure centered around the service of “man,” especially by deifying the poor, and of the physical elements of this mortal, passing world. He is more than a naturalist. He is a pantheist who makes his conception of God and nature, including man himself, as indistinguishable from one other. In other words, the Argentine Apostate makes no distinction between the Creator and the creature.
Pope Saint Pius X explained that Modernism is, perhaps above all else, based in human sentiment which makes of God and His Divine Revelation a matter of pure subjectivity:
For let us return for a moment, Venerable Brethren, to that most disastrous doctrine of agnosticism. By it every avenue that leads the intellect to God is barred, but the Modernists would seek to open others available for sentiment and action. Vain efforts! For, after all, what is sentiment but the reaction of the soul on the action of the intelligence or the senses. Take away the intelligence, and man, already inclined to follow the senses, becomes their slave. Vain, too, from another point of view, for all these fantasias on the religious sentiment will never be able to destroy common sense, and common sense tells us that emotion and everything that leads the heart captive proves a hindrance instead of a help to the discovery of truth. We speak, of course, of truth in itself - as for that other purely subjective truth, the fruit of sentiment and action, if it serves its purpose for the jugglery of words, it is of no use to the man who wants to know above all things whether outside himself there is a God into whose hands he is one day to fall. True, the Modernists do call in experience to eke out their system, but what does this experience add to sentiment? Absolutely nothing beyond a certain intensity and a proportionate deepening of the conviction of the reality of the object. But these two will never make sentiment into anything but sentiment, nor deprive it of its characteristic which is to cause deception when the intelligence is not there to guide it; on the contrary, they but confirm and aggravate this characteristic, for the more intense sentiment is the more it is sentimental. In matters of religious sentiment and religious experience, you know, Venerable Brethren, how necessary is prudence and how necessary, too, the science which directs prudence. You know it from your own dealings with sounds, and especially with souls in whom sentiment predominates; you know it also from your reading of ascetical books - books for which the Modernists have but little esteem, but which testify to a science and a solidity very different from theirs, and to a refinement and subtlety of observation of which the Modernists give no evidence. Is it not really folly, or at least sovereign imprudence, to trust oneself without control to Modernist experiences? Let us for a moment put the question: if experiences have so much value in their eyes, why do they not attach equal weight to the experience that thousands upon thousands of Catholics have that the Modernists are on the wrong road? It is, perchance, that all experiences except those felt by the Modernists are false and deceptive? The vast majority of mankind holds and always will hold firmly that sentiment and experience alone, when not enlightened and guided by reason, do not lead to the knowledge of God. What remains, then, but the annihilation of all religion, - atheism? Certainly it is not the doctrine of symbolism - will save us from this. For if all the intellectual elements, as they call them, of religion are pure symbols, will not the very name of God or of divine personality be also a symbol, and if this be admitted will not the personality of God become a matter of doubt and the way opened to Pantheism? And to Pantheism that other doctrine of the divine immanence leads directly. For does it, We ask, leave God distinct from man or not? If yes, in what does it differ from Catholic doctrine, and why reject external revelation? If no, we are at once in Pantheism. Now the doctrine of immanence in the Modernist acceptation holds and professes that every phenomenon of conscience proceeds from man as man. The rigorous conclusion from this is the identity of man with God, which means Pantheism. The same conclusion follows from the distinction Modernists make between science and faith. The object of science they say is the reality of the knowable; the object of faith, on the contrary, is the reality of the unknowable. Now what makes the unknowable unknowable is its disproportion with the intelligible - a disproportion which nothing whatever, even in the doctrine of the Modernist, can suppress. Hence the unknowable remains and will eternally remain unknowable to the believer as well as to the man of science. Therefore if any religion at all is possible it can only be the religion of an unknowable reality. And why this religion might not be that universal soul of the universe, of which a rationalist speaks, is something We do see. Certainly this suffices to show superabundantly by how many roads Modernism leads to the annihilation of all religion. The first step in this direction was taken by Protestantism; the second is made by Modernism; the next will plunge headlong into atheism. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
This describes the entirety of the false religion of conciliarism that is being brought to its own logical consequences by the man calling himself “Pope Francis.” The following passages from Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013, and Amoris Laetitia, March 19, 2016, demonstrate that Bergoglio’s religion does not believe in any concept of fixed truth, supernatural or natural, and that it is indeed said to be Pharisaical to insist that truth exists independently of human acceptance of its binding force and validity:
161. It would not be right to see this call to growth exclusively or primarily in terms of doctrinal formation. It has to do with “observing” all that the Lord has shown us as the way of responding to his love. Along with the virtues, this means above all the new commandment, the first and the greatest of the commandments, and the one that best identifies us as Christ’s disciples: “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you”(Jn 15:12). Clearly, whenever the New Testament authors want to present the heart of the Christian moral message, they present the essential requirement of love for one’s neighbour: “The one who loves his neighbour has fulfilled the whole law… therefore love of neighbour is the fulfilling of the law” (Rom 13:8, 10). These are the words of Saint Paul, for whom the commandment of love not only sums up the law but constitutes its very heart and purpose: “For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, ‘you shall love your neighbour as yourself’” (Gal 5:14). To his communities Paul presents the Christian life as a journey of growth in love: “May the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all” (1 Th 3:12). Saint James likewise exhorts Christians to fulfil “the royal law according to the Scripture: You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (2:8), in order not to fall short of any commandment. . . .
194. This message is so clear and direct, so simple and eloquent, that no ecclesial interpretation has the right to relativize it. The Church’s reflection on these texts ought not to obscure or weaken their force, but urge us to accept their exhortations with courage and zeal. Why complicate something so simple? Conceptual tools exist to heighten contact with the realities they seek to explain, not to distance us from them. This is especially the case with those biblical exhortations which summon us so forcefully to brotherly love, to humble and generous service, to justice and mercy towards the poor. Jesus taught us this way of looking at others by his words and his actions. So why cloud something so clear? We should not be concerned simply about falling into doctrinal error, but about remaining faithful to this light-filled path of life and wisdom. For “defenders of orthodoxy are sometimes accused of passivity, indulgence, or culpable complicity regarding the intolerable situations of injustice and the political regimes which prolong them”. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013.)
305. For this reason, a pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in “irregular” situations, as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives. This would bespeak the closed heart of one used to hiding behind the Church’s teachings, “sitting on the chair of Moses and judging at times with superiority and superficiality difficult cases and wounded families”.349 Along these same lines, the International Theological Commission has noted that “natural law could not be presented as an already established set of rules that impose themselves a priori on the moral subject; rather, it is a source of objective inspiration for the deeply personal process of making decisions”.350 Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.351 Discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and growing in the midst of limits. By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of sanctification which give glory to God. Let us remember that “a small step, in the midst of great human limitations, can be more pleasing to God than a life which appears outwardly in order, but moves through the day without confronting great difficulties”.352 The practical pastoral care of ministers and of communities must not fail to embrace this reality (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Amoris Laetita, March 19, 2016.)
Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ did not preach some kind of ethereal “ideal” that is unattainable. It is a trick of the Modernist mind to pose some kind of conflict between the “ideal” of what is contained in the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as they have been entrusted to the infallible teaching of Holy Mother Church and the compassion of Our Lord.
Our Lord understands the weakness of us erring sinners. However, he wants us to reform now, not at some ill-determined future moment. As was quoted in an earlier part of this continuing series, Saint Alphonsus de Ligouri used a sermon to ask “Who has guaranteed you tomorrow?” None of us knows when “tomorrow” may never come for us, which is why Our Lord told the Samaritan woman that the man with whom she was living was not her husband and why he told the woman caught in adultery to sin no more. Constant vigilance is necessary in the interior life, a vigilance that Bergoglio thinks is “impossible” for people to realize in the practical order of things.
This is both blasphemous and heretical as it is based upon the assertion that Our Lord teaches one thing without providing us with the supernatural helps to reform our lives so as to conform with His teaching out of love for Him and obedience to all that He has revealed to us for our sanctification and salvation. It is also disingenuous to claim that the Catholic Church has denounced decadence without being “proactive in proposing ways to find true happiness” as there can true happiness cannot exist within the souls of men if they are not in a state of Sanctifying Grace. The Catholic Church has denounced decadence throughout her history precisely to provide her children with the path to true happiness, eternal life in Heaven, which not possible by persisting in unrepentant Mortal Sins.
How is this not clear to anyone who remains “mystified” by their supposed “pope’s” reaffirmation of hardened sinners?
Amrois Laetitia was nothing if not Jorge’s own self-justification of heretical beliefs that have shaped his entire career as a presbyter and false bishop prior to his “election” by his brother apostates on Wednesday, March 13, 2013, that brought The Jorge Show from Buenos Aires, Argentina, to the Casa Santa Marta and thus the global stage
Berogoglio’s caricaturing of straw men who seek to throw stones at sinners is one of his boilerplate ways of making any thought of championing an “ideal” that makes those steeped in sins feel shameful, and this means he is at odds with the examples from the missionary work of Saint Peter Claver provided above and the preaching and the pastoral work of a true bishop, Saint Alphonsus de Liguori.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio was trained by the very sort of revolutionaries whose false moral theology was condemned by Pope Pius XII in 1957, and it is this false moral theology, which is nothing other than Judeo-Masonic moral relativism, which itself is the product of the Protestant Revolution’s theological relativism. Modernism is, of course, the synthesis of all heresies. Amoris Latetia remains nothing other than a celebration of subjectivism, of basing a false moral teaching on what is "actually done, rather than from what should be done, and Paragraph 305 and its accompanying footnotes are just further proof of what should have been obvious a long, long, time ago to all but those who had their heads in the sand, namely, that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is a false entity which has the power to bind the consciences of no one.
As a consummate Modernist, however, Jorge Mario Bergoglio projects onto God and His Divine Revelation subjective considerations that nullify the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law and makes those who defend these precepts seem as harsh inquisitors who believe themselves to be without sin. Bergoglio consistently justifies himself by caricaturing those who hold fast to Catholic doctrine as hypocrites who have hardened hearts.
In this regard, you see, the subjectivism noted by Pope Saint Pius X as the key characteristic of Modernism had a precedent before the dawning of Protestantism in the form of Waldensianism in the latter part of the Twelfth Century.
The Waldensians were forerunners of Protestantism in rejecting the visible, hierarchical nature of the true Church and they had much of the spirit of Manicheanism by which they justified a descent into perverse pleasures according to subjective considerations. Additionally, the Waldensians claimed to be for the “poor” and that the goods held in common by all should be distributed by the ones they put of charge of their sect even though they eschewed the hierarchy of Holy Mother Church. In other words, the Waldensians were forerunners not only of Protestantism but of Communism, which Dr. George O’Brien, writing a century ago, and Father Edward Leen, S.J., writing sixty-four years ago, taught clearly was but the logical result of Protestantism.
Interestingly, the Waldensians, who identified more with the Calvinist strain of Protestantism than with Lutheranism three and one-half centuries after their sect was formed in 1170, had adherents who decided to settle in Uruguay and its neighboring country, Argentina, where they became distinguished for running “soup kitchens” for the poor. Hmm. Perhaps you can see how this attracted a lover of error such as Jorge Mario Bergoglio when he was a “street” presbyter who found a kinship with Waldensian subjectivism and its concern for sense-pleasure and for the supposed “needs” of the poor.
This is why Senor Jorge made it a point to go to the Waldensian Temple in Turin, Italy, on June 22, 2015, the Feast of Saint Paulinus of Nola, to apologize for the “persecution” he believes that the Catholic Church visited upon these heretics over the centuries:
The unity produced by the Holy Spirit does not mean uniformity. Indeed, brothers are united by one and the same origin but they are not identical to each other. This is very clear in the New Testament, where, although being called brothers, all of those who share the same faith in Jesus Christ, one intuits that not all Christian communities, to which they belonged, had the same style, nor an identical internal organization. Rather, within the same small community different charisms could be perceived (cf. 1 Cor 12-14), and even in proclaiming the Gospel there were differences and sometimes contention (cf. Acts 15:36-40). Unfortunately, it happened and continues to occur that brothers do not accept their differences and end up making war against one another. By reflecting on the history of our relations, we cannot help but be saddened by the disputes and acts of violence committed in the name of our faith, and I ask that the Lord grant us the grace to recognize ourselves all as sinners and to be able to forgive one another. It is by the initiative of God, who never resigns himself to the sin of man, that new ways open to experience our fraternity, and we cannot escape it. On behalf of the Catholic Church I ask your forgiveness. I ask your forgiveness for unchristian-like and even inhuman attitudes and conduct which, historically, we have had against you. In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, forgive us!
For this reason we are deeply grateful to the Lord in stating that relations between Catholics and Waldensians today are ever more deeply based in mutual respect and fraternal charity. There have been many occasions that have contributed to rendering these relationships more steadfast. I think, only to cite a few examples — Rev. Bernardini also did so — of the collaboration in the Italian publication of an interconfessional translation of the Bible, of the pastoral understanding of the celebration of marriage and, more recently, of the revision of a joint appeal on violence against women. Among the many occasions of cordial contact in various local contexts of shared prayer and study of Scripture, I would like to recall the ecumenical exchange of gifts that took place on Easter, in Pinerolo, from the Waldensian Church of Pinerolo and from the Diocese. The Waldensian Church offered Catholics wine for the celebration of the Easter Vigil and the Catholic Diocese offered our Waldensian brothers bread for the Easter Sunday’s Holy Supper. It is a gesture between the two Churches that goes well beyond simple courtesy and which allows a foretaste, in a certain sense — a foretaste, in a certain sense — of that unity of the eucharistic table for which we yearn. (Jorge Finds a Home With the Waldensians.)
Among the different “charisms” of the Waldensians, who number less than 50,000 worldwide, must be included a rejection of the Christology, Ecclesiology, Eschatology and Mariology taught by the Catholic Church and, as mentioned earlier, its reliance upon subjectivism as the means to practice moral vice with impunity.
Yes, one can see full well why this heretical sect, which has “ordained” women and has endorsed “marriage” between people of the same gender, is held in such high regard by Jorge Mario Bergoglio. Indeed, fornication and sodomy, sins about which the false “pope” makes light, have been practiced by Waldensians since the sect’s formation. After all, “anything goes” once one rejects the true Faith and embraces subjectivism. Sins of impurity, whether natural or unnatural, are frequently the underlying causes of heresies and the formation of heretical sects.
Unlike Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Pope Innocent III and the Fourth Lateran Council condemned the doctrines of the Albigensians and the Waldensians as follows:
We firmly believe and openly confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immense, omnipotent, unchangeable, incomprehensible, and ineffable, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; three Persons indeed but one essense, substance, or nature absolutely simple; the Father (proceeding) from no one, but the Son from the Father only, and the Holy Ghost equally from both, always without beginning and end. The Father begetting, the Son begotten, and the Holy Ghost proceeding; consubstantial and coequal, co-omnipotent and coeternal, the one principle of the universe, Creator of all things invisible and visible, spiritual and corporeal, who from the beginning of time and by His omnipotent power made from nothing creatures both spiritual and corporeal, angelic, namely, and mundane, and then human, as it were, common, composed of spirit and body. The devil and the other demons were indeed created by God good by nature but they became bad through themselves; man, however, sinned at the suggestion of the devil. This Holy Trinity in its common essence undivided and in personal properties divided, through Moses, the holy prophets, and other servants gave to the human race at the most opportune intervals of time the doctrine of salvation.
And finally, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God made flesh by the entire Trinity, conceived with the co-operation of the Holy Ghost of Mary ever Virgin, made true man, composed of a rational soul and human flesh, one Person in two natures, pointed out more clearly the way of life. Who according to His divinity is immortal and impassable, according to His humanity was made passable and mortal, suffered on the cross for the salvation of the human race, and being dead descended into hell, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. But He descended in soul, arose in flesh, and ascended equally in both; He will come at the end of the world to judge the living and the dead and will render to the reprobate and to the elect according to their works. Who all shall rise with their own bodies which they now have that they may receive according to their merits, whether good or bad, the latter eternal punishment with the devil, the former eternal glory with Christ. (Fourth Lateran Council, Against the Albigensians, Joachim, Waldensians, etc., 1215. A different translation is found at Denziger, pp. 168-169.)
Jorge Mario Bergoglio is forever apologizing for the infallible guidance provided by the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, to our true popes and the fathers of Holy Mother Church’s true general councils, which is why he must blaspheme the Holy Ghost by making Him out to be a aimless force that blows whichever way men, steeped in their sins and false beliefs, want Him to blow. How can any believing Catholic accept the claim that such a man as Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter or that the church he claims to head is anything other than a counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church?
Writing in Characters of The Inquisition, William Thomas Walsh explained how inquisitors such as Bernard Gui, the Inquisitor of Toulouse, France, understood that the Waldensians were masters of evading direct questions put to them, meaning that they, the Waldensians, questioned by Holy Mother Church’s duly-appointed inquisitors, were guided by the forces of darkness itself. Gee, who has avoided any and all personal reply to the Dubia put to him by four conciliar “cardinals” about Amoris Laetitia? Methinks that the name Jorge Mario Bergoglio should come to mind.
A careful reading of the following text from Characters of the Inquisition will reveal that the subjective spirit of the conciliar revolutionaries and their mastery of ambiguity and evasion had been exhibited over eight centuries ago in the form of the Waldensians:
The Waldenses or Poor Men of Lyons, wrote Bernard [Gui], first appeared about the year 1170, making a claim similar to that of the Manichees, that they were the true Christians and successors of Christ's apostles. They believed in Heaven and Hell, but denied that there was a Purgatory. They would take no oaths, and would obey no authority but that of God, which they claimed to receive directly, as holy and perfected men; by the same token denying the authority of the Church, the validity of her sacraments, and the priestly functions of her ministers. Every holy person, they said (including women), was a priest, and their sect alone was holy; hence they absolved one another’s sins. Yet in spite of their aversion to ecclesiastical organization and obedience, they imposed both organization and obedience on all who joined their society, “which they call a fraternity,” added Brother Bernard. The members had to promise strict obedience to thir superiors. (Some of these dissenters had a hierarchy, even a sort of Pope, of their own.) They promised to live in evangelical poverty, with no private property, and in chastity. Theoretically, at least, they owned all things in common, and lived on the alms given to them; “and he who is greater among them distributes and dispenses to any one according to his need.” They were Communists of a sort, these Waldenses, and like many radicals, held somewhat unconventional views of sexual morality. “The Waldeneses praise continency to their believers,” said Bernard, “yet they grant that one ought to satisfy a burning lust by any manner of shamefulness whatsoever, their apostles explaining this by saying it is better to marry than to burn (Medius est nubere quam uri), for it is better, they say, to satisfy lust by any act of shame whatsoever than to be tempted in the heart within; this, however, they keep very secret indeed.”(William Thomas Walsh, Characters of the Inquisition, New York, P.J. Kenedy & Sons, 1940 pp. 60-61.)
What did I say a short while ago about most heresies being caused by a desire to engage in sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, both by natural and unnatural means?
Look at Martin Luther.
Look at Henry VIII.
Look at the Waldensians and their admirer, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who seeks to “accompany” fornicators and sodomites rather than exhorting them to quit their sins. This hideous apostate seeks out heretics steeped in perversion whose worldwide following could not fill Dodger Stadium (Chavez Ravine) in Los Angeles, California, or Yankee Stadium III in The Bronx, New York, to capacity while castigating believing Catholics who take Catholic doctrine seriously and are trying, despite their own sins and failings, to save their immortal souls.
Quoting from Bernard Gui’s manual to instruct inquisitors as to how to deal with the Waldensians, William Thomas Walsh provided readers of Characters of the Inquisition with an explanation concerning how heretics such as Bergoglio are skilled in evading direct answers to questions about the Holy Faith:
Twice a year the members of this sect would quietly assemble to hold a general chapter or convention in some town where they were met by some believer, and led, as if they were merchants, to the house of a member, where they would elect officers and carry on other business. They made a great point of visiting churches and hearing sermons, and always maintained a very devout exterior. “Commonly they call themselves brothers, and say they are the Paupers of Christ or the Poor Men of Lyons.” Those who had achieved perfection never worked with their hands. Married men, on joining the sect, gave up their wives when initiated.
Considering the ease with which these self-canonized saints could pervert, the hell fire with which Saint Paul threatened fornicators into the flame of lust, Bernard felt it necessary to warn his readers that the Waldenses were the hardest of all heretics to trap and expose. He furnished the Inquisitors with an account of a typical cross-examination, based upon his own experience:
“When one of them is arrested and brought forward for questioning, he comes as if fearless, and conscious of no evil in himself, and secure. Asked if he knows why he is arrested, he answers very calmly, with a smile, 'Sir, I will gladly tell you the reason.'
He is never at a loss. When the Inquisitor asks what his faith is, he answers,
“I believe all that a good Christian ought to believe.”
“And what do you consider a good Christian?”
“He who believes as the Holy Church teaches to believe and hold.”
“What do you call the Holy Church?”
“Lord, what you say and believe to be the Holy Church.”
“I believe the Holy Church to be the Roman Church, over which the Pope presides as lord, and other prelates under him.”
“And I believe it.” answers the suspect promptly (meaning, “I believe that you believe it,” explains Bernard).
Asked about the particular articles of faith, such as the incarnation of Christ, His resurrection and ascension, he replies,
“Firmly I believe it.”
Does he believe that the bread and wine are changed in the Mass, at the words of the priest, into the body and blood of Our Lord”
“Ought I not indeed to believe that?” he demands innocently.
“I do not ask whether you ought to believe it, but do you believe it?”
“I believe whatever you and other good doctors order me to believe.”
The Inquisitor asks if the “other good doctors” are not the masters of the man's sect, and the real dictators of his opinions.
“I believe you also, willingly,” replies the prisoner, “if you teach me anything that may be good for me.”
Inquisitor: “You judge a thing to be good for you, if I teach you what those other masters teach you. But answer simply, if you believe the body of the Lord Jesus Christ to be on the altar.”
Heretic: “I believe.” (He means says Bernard, that “there is a body, and all bodies are of the Lord Jesus Christ.”)
Inquisitor: “Do you believe that there is that body of the Lord which was born of the Virgin and hung on the cross, and arose from the dead and ascended into Heaven?”
Heretic: “And you, Lord, don't you believe it?”
Inquisitor: “I believe it absolutely.”
Heretic: “And I believe it in the same way (meaning, “I want you to believe that I so believe it.”)
Urged again to answer explicitly and directly, he tries another tack. “If you wish to interpret everything I say as otherwise than plainly and simply, then I don't know what I ought to answer to you. I am a simple man, and uneducated. Please don't try to trip me up in my words.”
Inquisitor: “If you are a simple man, reply and act simply, without any cloak of words.”
Inquisitor: “Then you are willing to swear that you have never taught anything against the faith . . . ?”
Heretic: (trembling a little): “If I ought to swear, I will swear willingly.”
Inquisitor: “You are not asked whether you ought, but whether you are willing to swear.”
Heretic: “If you order me to swear, I will swear.”
Inquisitor: “I don't compel you to swear, because since you believe an oath to be unlawful, you will try to shift the blame to me for compelling you; but if you swear, I will hear.”
Heretic: “What then shall I swear, if you don't order me?”
Inquisitor: “In such a way as to dispel the suspicion that is against you, because you will be counted as a Waldensian heretic, believing and holding that every oath is unlawful and sinful.”
Heretic: “How ought I to speak when I swear?”
Inquisitor: “Swear as you know.”
Heretic: “Lord, I don't know unless you teach me!”
“Then I say to him,” wrote Bernard, forgetting for the moment to be impersonal, “If I had to swear, then, I would raise my hand and touch the holy gospel of God, and say, “I swear by this holy Gospel of God that I have never taught and believed anything that might be against the true faith that the holy Roman Church believes and holds.”
The heretic, “shuddering, and almost like a man who does not know how to form even the words,” mumbles something rather verbose which he intends to have sound like an oath, but not to have the form of an oath; or something in the way of prayer meant to simulate an oath; such as, “If God will aid me, and this holy Gospel, (to show) that I am not a heretic, or have not been one, or have said this or that.”
Inquisitor: “Well, will you swear?”
Heretic: “Didn't you hear me swear?”
Finally, when the heretic is straightened by questions, and at the end of his resources of evasion, he pretends to weep, or flatters the Inquisitor, saying that he will perform any penance to free himself from the infamous charge of which he, a simple man, is wholly innocent.
Sometimes, however, he will say he is ready to swear a simple and straightforward oath. At this point the Inquisitor must answer no doubt with a show of sternness, “If you now swear so that you may go free, take notice that one oath will not be enough for me, nor two, nor ten, nor a hundred, but I shall ask for tociens quociens, for I know that among you dispense from and allow for a certain number of oaths, when necessity compels, to set yourselves or others free. But I will require oaths without number, and especially if I have witnesses against you, your oaths will not be of any good to you, and then you will stain your conscience swearing against him, and on that account you shall not escape.”
Bernard adds, “In the anxiety of such a moment I have seen some of them confess their errors, that they might go free.”
This page from the great Inquisitor's notebook reads like a scene from a comedy; yet often a man's life, yes, and the fate of his soul, hung upon the outcome of the conversation.
Sometimes the Waldenses pretended to be simple-minded or insane, sicut David coram Achis, and they had a thousand other ways of prolonging their examination, in the hope that the Inquisitor might weary of the seemingly endless task and let them go, or that they might discredit him among the Catholic laity, “because he seemed to trouble simple men without cause, and to seek a pretext for destroying them in a too cautious examination.”(William Thomas Walsh, Characters of the Inquisition, New York, P.J. Kenedy & Sons, 1940 pp. 61-64.)
This is a very accurate summary of how the conciliar revolutionaries themselves have sought to excuse themselves when they have tried to justify their multiple departures from the Holy Faith and their embrace of aspects of practically every heresy that has arisen from the Apostolic era to the present day.
William Thomas Walsh’s description of a heretic applies to the Waldensians, to be sure, but it applies as well to the conciliar revolutionaries of the past and the present, starting with Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself:
A heretic is a professing Christian who takes the parts that he likes, and rejects what he dislikes, without considering that truth is not a subjective thing, but has an objective and eternal validity outside of him and independent of his very existence.(William Thomas Walsh, Characters of the Inquisition, New York, P.J. Kenedy & Sons, 1940 p. 95.)
Jorge Mario Bergoglio, of course, dislikes and rejects almost everything to do with the Catholic Faith, which is why he has such a great affinity for heretics such as the Waldensians, who were precursors of Protestantism and of Modernism itself.
Yes, truth exists independently of human acceptance of its binding force and validity, and the truth Jorge Mario Bergoglio and other revolutionaries are members of the Catholic Church was (drum roll, please) explained in simple terms by Saint Francis de Sales and Popes Leo XIII and Benedict XV:
With reference to its object, faith cannot be greater for some truths than for others. Nor can it be less with regard to the number of truths to be believed. For we must all believe the very same thing, both as to the object of faith as well as to the number of truths. All are equal in this because everyone must believe all the truths of faith--both those which God Himself has directly revealed, as well as those he has revealed through His Church. Thus, I must believe as much as you and you as much as I, and all other Christians similarly. He who does not believe all these mysteries is not Catholic and therefore will never enter Paradise. (Saint Francis de Sales, The Sermons of Saint Francis de Sales for Lent Given in 1622, republished by TAN Books and Publishers for the Visitation Monastery of Frederick, Maryland, in 1987, pp. 34-37.)
8. We are mindful only of what is witnessed to by Holy Writ and what is otherwise well known. Christ proves His own divinity and the divine origin of His mission by miracles; He teaches the multitudes heavenly doctrine by word of mouth; and He absolutely commands that the assent of faith should be given to His teaching, promising eternal rewards to those who believe and eternal punishment to those who do not. “If I do not the works of my Father, believe Me not” John x., 37). “If I had not done among them the works than no other man had done, they would not have sin” (Ibid. xv., 24). “But if I do (the works) though you will not believe Me, believe the works” (Ibid. x., 38). Whatsoever He commands, He commands by the same authority. He requires the assent of the mind to all truths without exception. It was thus the duty of all who heard Jesus Christ, if they wished for eternal salvation, not merely to accept His doctrine as a whole, but to assent with their entire mind to all and every point of it, since it is unlawful to withhold faith from God even in regard to one single point. (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)
The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine:they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)
Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: ‘This is the Catholic Faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved’ (Athanasian Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim ‘Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,’ only let him endeavor to be in reality what he calls himself.
Besides, the Church demands from those who have devoted themselves to furthering her interests, something very different from the dwelling upon profitless questions; she demands that they should devote the whole of their energy to preserve the faith intact and unsullied by any breath of error, and follow most closely him whom Christ has appointed to be the guardian and interpreter of the truth. There are to be found today, and in no small numbers, men, of whom the Apostle says that: "having itching ears, they will not endure sound doctrine: but according to their own desires they will heap up to themselves teachers, and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables" (II Tim. iv. 34). Infatuated and carried away by a lofty idea of the human intellect, by which God's good gift has certainly made incredible progress in the study of nature, confident in their own judgment, and contemptuous of the authority of the Church, they have reached such a degree of rashness as not to hesitate to measure by the standard of their own mind even the hidden things of God and all that God has revealed to men. Hence arose the monstrous errors of "Modernism," which Our Predecessor rightly declared to be "the synthesis of all heresies," and solemnly condemned. We hereby renew that condemnation in all its fulness, Venerable Brethren, and as the plague is not yet entirely stamped out, but lurks here and there in hidden places, We exhort all to be carefully here and there in hidden places, We exhort all to be carefully on their guard against any contagion of the evil, to which we may apply the words Job used in other circumstances: "It is a fire that devoureth even to destruction, and rooteth up all things that spring" (Job xxxi. 12). Nor do We merely desire that Catholics should shrink from the errors of Modernism, but also from the tendencies or what is called the spirit of Modernism. Those who are infected by that spirit develop a keen dislike for all that savours of antiquity and become eager searchers after novelties in everything: in the way in which they carry out religious functions, in the ruling of Catholic institutions, and even in private exercises of piety. Therefore it is Our will that the law of our forefathers should still be held sacred: "Let there be no innovation; keep to what has been handed down." In matters of faith that must be inviolably adhered to as the law; it may however also serve as a guide even in matters subject to change, but even in such cases the rule would hold: "Old things, but in a new way." (Pope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, November 1, 1914.)
The “new way” of the conciliar apostates has nothing to do with the “old things” of the Catholic Faith as they, the conciliar apostates, believe that everything about the Faith is subject to change according to the “needs” of the times.
Mindful of our own need to make reparation for our many sins, each of which has worsened the state of the Church Militant on earth and the state of the world-at-large, as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, may our daily praying of as many Rosaries as our state-in-life permits help plant seeds for the day when a true and legitimate Successor will be restored to the Throne of Saint Peter.
Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal, pray for us.Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saint Catherine Laboure, pray for us.