Well, it’s time to shift from the farce of naturalism (and it is nothing other than a farce) to the farce that is Amoris Laetitia, which was issued on Saturday, March 19, 2016, the Feast of Saint Joseph and the Commemoration of Saturday in Passion Week, by the presiding antipope, Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
As has been noted in the previous seven parts of this series, Amoris Laetitia is but a not-so-subtle celebration of sin and moral relativism in the name of a false, heretical concept of “mercy.”
The Argentine Apostate made it clear in Paragraphs 186 and 199 of Amoris Laetitia that no “scandalous distinctions and divisions” could be made among those who approach to receive what they think is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the Most Blessed Sacrament in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service. This means that no one is to be excluded. Not those who are divorced and civilly “remarried” without a conciliar decree of marital nullity. Not those who are cohabiting while unmarried. Not those who are engaged in perverse sins against nature. Not those who are using contraception. Not those who are either killing babies or are public officials who support the execution of the innocent preborn. Not those who have killed their own babies and are unrepentant about doing so. Not those who have engaged a “surrogate mother” to bring a child conceived artificially to birth. Those who “create” “scandalous divisions and distinctions” need to undergo what the false “pontiff” calls “missionary conversion”:
186. The Eucharist demands that we be members of the one body of the Church. Those who approach the Body and Blood of Christ may not wound that same Body by creating scandalous distinctions and divisions among its members. This is what it means to “discern” the body of the Lord, to acknowledge it with faith and charity both in the sacramental signs and in the community; those who fail to do so eat and drink judgement against themselves (cf. v. 29). The celebration of the Eucharist thus becomes a constant summons for everyone “to examine himself or herself ”(v. 28), to open the doors of the family to greater fellowship with the underprivileged, and in this way to receive the sacrament of that eucharistic love which makes us one body. We must not forget that “the ‘mysticism’ of the sacrament has a social character”.207 When those who receive it turn a blind eye to the poor and suffering, or consent to various forms of division, contempt and inequality, the Eucharist is received unworthily. On the other hand, families who are properly disposed and receive the Eucharist regularly, reinforce their desire for fraternity, their social consciousness and their commitment to those in need.
201. “This effort calls for missionary conversion by everyone in the Church, that is, one that is not content to proclaim a merely theoretical message without connection to people’s real problems”.229 Pastoral care for families “needs to make it clear that the Gospel of the family responds to the deepest expectations of the human person: a response to each one’s dignity and fulfilment in reciprocity, communion and fruitfulness. This consists not merely in presenting a set of rules, but in proposing values that are clearly needed today, even in the most secularized of countries”.230 The Synod Fathers also “highlighted the fact that evangelization needs unambiguously to denounce cultural, social, political and economic factors – such as the excessive importance given to market logic – that prevent authentic family life and lead to discrimination, poverty, exclusion, and violence. Consequently, dialogue and cooperation need to be fostered with societal structures and encouragement given to lay people who are involved, as Christians, in the cultural and socio-political fields”.231 (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Amoris Laetita, March 19, 2016.)
These passages serve to prepare readers for the coup de grace that Bergoglio delivered to discredit and to undermine the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church in Paragraphs 291 to 310 of what some have aptly called his ode to the adversary, Amoris Laetitia.
“Pope Francis” believes that the denial of what purports to be Holy Communion to those who are living in sin, a phrase that he rejections as being “unmerciful” and without any sense of “nuance” (a word that was one of the now-infamous Bernard “Cardinal” Law’s ways to cloud the clarity of Catholic teaching on Faith and Morals), constitutes the “creation” of “distinctions” and “divisions” that are “sins” against “equality.” Bergoglio believes that those who “create” such distinctions are the ones who partake of the Eucharist unworthily, thereby turning the following words of Saint Paul the Apostle in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians on their head:
For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.  Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.  But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.  For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.  Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep. (1 Cor. 11:17-34.)
The meaning of this is quite clear.
Bishop Richard Challoner commented as follows in his English translation of the Douay-Rheims Bible:
 Guilty of the body: not discerning the body. This demonstrates the real presence of the body and blood of Christ, even to the unworthy communicant; who otherwise could not be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, or justly condemned for not discerning the Lord's body. (Bishop Richard Challoner Commentary, Douay-Rheims Bible.)
Father George Haydock commented similarly:
The real presence in the sacrament is also proved by the enormity of the crime, in its profanation. See St. Chrysostom, hom. de non contem. ec. and hom. lx. and lxi. ad pop. Antioch. where he shews that the unworthy receiver imitates the Jews in crucifying Jesus, and trampling under foot his sacred blood. Hence the dreadful punishments we read of in verses 27 and 30. ((Haydock Commentary.)
It is interesting that Jorge Mario Bergoglio cites verses 26-29 of Saint Paul the Apostle’s First Epistle to the Corinthians but omits a reference to verse 30, which Father Haydock explained as follows:
Ver. 30-32. Therefore in punishment of the sin of receiving unworthily, many are infirm, visited with infirmities, even that bring death, which is meant by those words, many sleep. But it is a mercy of God, when he only punishes by sickness, or a corporal death, and does not permit us to perish for ever, or be condemned with this wicked world. To avoid this, let a man prove himself, examine the state of his conscience, especially before he receives the holy sacrament, confess his sins, and be absolved by those to whom Christ left the power of forgiving sins in his name, and by his authority. If we judge ourselves in this manner, we shall not be judged, that is, condemned. (Haydock Commentary.)
Leave it to a figure of Antichrist to twist the clear meaning of the words of Saint Paul the Apostle to condemn those who are in a state of Sanctifying Grace while looking with an indulgent “kindness” upon those who are not.
Believing Catholics know that Saint Paul the Apostle condemned those who dare to receive Holy Communion unworthily, that is, those who are in a state of Mortal Sin. Saint Paul’s admonition applies directly to the very people whose sins against Holy Purity are justified by “Pope Francis” by various means, including what he calls “gradualness,” in Amoris Laetitia. It is nothing other than the work of a figure of Antichrist to twist the words of Saint Paul in verse twenty-seven of Saint Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians to make them apply to those would deny Holy Communion to the very sort of unrepentant sinners condemned by the Apostle to the Gentiles.
The Argentine Apostate believes that unrepentant sinners are worthy to partake of what purports to be the Holy Eucharist while those who call sin by its proper name and seek to protect the Sacred Species from sacrilegious reception are said to be creating “distinctions” and “divisions,” thus rendering themselves unworthy. This kind of theological filth can only have one author, the devil himself. His concept of "missionary conversion" refers to a Stalnist or Maoist style "re-education" of "reprogramming" of Catholics who still cling to what he believes are Pharisaical standards that simply cannot be realized by people in contemporary circumstances.
Bergoglio disparages the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as nothing other than a "set of rules" that can break the backs and disspirit the souls of those who are living in ways that do not conform to the "fullness" of what he believes is but a mere "ideal," a falsehood that he repeated throughout the text of Amoris Laetitia and that denies the efficacy of the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Most Precious Blood to effect the conversion of those steeped in sin. This hideous little man does not view moral sins as grave matter. He views them as "expressions of love" that are show tenderness and compassion. No one, though, loves another by enabling him in his sins. No one loves himself by exusing away his own sins and justifying them before men. No one can love God and persist in a life of sin as Our Lord Himself taught us to quit our sins, each of which caused Him to suffer unspeakable horrors during His Passion Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday and that caused those Swords of Sorrow to be pierced through and through the Immaculate Heart of His Most Blessed Mother.
Amoris Latitia is a farce from beginning to end as it is peppered with all manner of code words designed to condition the reader to accept the admission of public sinners to what purports to be Holy Communion as described in the document's twenty explosive paragraphs, 291-310. Anyone with a modicum of common sense who has forced himself to read this work of blasphemous heresy can see that this is so.
Additionally, however, we have the witness of one of the chief revolutionaries, "Archbishop" Bruno Forte, who was personally "consecrated" by none other than Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger twelve years ago despite the fact that Bruno the Theologica Brute had published a book denying the fact of Our Lord's Bodily Resurrection from the dead on Easter Sunday. Then again, maybe that's why Ratzinger consecrated him as the now retired "Pope Benedict XVI" believes in the resurrection of persons, not bodies.
Courtesy of Novus Ordo Watch Wire, here is a translation of Bruno Forte's boast as to how the "merciful" "Pope Francis" desired to use code words so as to accomplish what he desired: to admit public sinners, including those engaged in perverse sins against nature, to the conciliar church's bogus sacramental rites, including what purports to be Holy Communion:
“It's not a new doctrine, but a merciful application of the ‘old wine’, which, as you know, is always the best.” Thus spoke Mgr. Bruno Forte, archbishop of the diocese of Chieti-Vasto, during a meeting at Rossetti Theatre, on Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris laetitia”, which marked a crucial step with regard to the family, “between crisis and desire”. Crisis, for what the same Archbishop Forte noted was a decrease in marriages and an increase in cohabitation, but also the desire for the family that would be the “womb and school of humanity”. Present at the meeting were Don Nicola Del Bianco, Director of Office for the Family of the Archdiocese of Chieti-Vasto, and the married couple Maria Antoinetta and Franco Silvestri, who gave testimony of their own life, as a family, and as collaboraters of the Office for the Family.
In Mgr. Forte’s reflection, the causes of the “crisis of the family” ranged from a lack of jobs to housing problems, from migration, to the difficulties relating to “material and human misery”. In this context, the meaning of Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation is: “Do not judge, but reach all with the gaze of mercy, but without giving up the truth of God. It is easy to say ‘this family has failed’, but it is more difficult to help it not to fail. No one should feel excluded from the Church”.
This approach, naturally, also has direct “practical” repercussions with regard to the guidelines given to pastors and the ecclesial community. Archbishop Forte in fact gave a special “behind-the-scenes” look at [what Francis said at] the Synod: “If we speak explicitly of Communion for the divorced-and-remarried — Archbishop Forte said, quoting Pope Francis joking(*) — we don’t know what a mess [casino] will result. So let’s not mention it directly. Make sure the premises are there, and I will draw the conclusions”. “Typical for a Jesuit”, Archbishop Forte joked, attributing to this guideline a wisdom that has allowed for the maturing necessary that resulted in “Amoris laetitia”, which, as stated by Monsignor Bruno Forte, does not represent new doctrine but rather a “merciful application” of what has always been [believed].
After the presentation of the exhortation came a “blueprint for the family” in the testimony of the Silvestri spouses, [their] four children plus seven foster children: “We raised our family with great sacrifices, because we did not want to delegate to anyone the upbringing of our children, but of course we also had the distraction of work [to deal with]. It was a difficult choice, but the Lord helped us. We are not better than others, we simply took into account the most important person, the one to whom we said yes: our Lord. And the fact that we have the Lord at the center of our lives has given us the strength to go on”. The “basis”, then, on which we solidly built the “practice” of forgiveness is the key words “thank you, sorry, excuse me”, as mentioned by Pope Francis, the importance of prayer, as well as family time and time alone together as a couple.
At the end of the testimony, there was a chance for remarks and questions from the large audience that attended the meeting.
(*) Translator’s Note: The “joke” is merely in Francis’ colloquial use of the term casino, which literally translates as “brothel”. (“Nessuno si deve sentire escluso dalla Chiesa”, Zonalocale.it, May 3, 2016; our translation; underlining added.) (As found at: Through the Back Door.)
The great deceiver of mankind is the prince of darkness and the master of lies. He is a proud creature who refused to submit himself to his Creator and fomented a rebellion against Him while recruiting other angels to join with him in making an irrevocable choice to serve him rather than the One Who had created them out of nothing. Full of conceit, the devil must boast of his deceitful accomplishments, and he inspires those who do his bidding, whether wittingly or unwittingly, to be as equally conceited as he is, which is why they most boast of how they have use deceit to reaffirm souls in their sins.
This is exactly what “Archbishop” Bruno Forte did when explaining that it was “Pope Francis’s” intention all along to admit unrepentant sinners to the conciliar “sacraments” without demanding that they quit their sins. Forte believes that such a method was merely the work of a clever Jesuitical mind. In truth, of course, Bergoglio intended to deceive gullible “conservatives” within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism that Amoris Laetitia represented no change in doctrine even though it is precisely that.
Bruno Forte’s boast, though, is not entirely surprising as Bergoglio knew full well what he wanted to accomplish when he walked out on the Balcony of the Basilica of Saint Peter on Wednesday, March 13, 2013, and he even told the world during last year’s “synod of bishops” what he wanted to accomplish, prompting me to comment as follows at the time:
Even though various revolutionaries, starting with Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself, who are assembled in the hideous, monstrous and all-around ugly and vile Paul the VI Audience Hall claim that “doctrine” is not up for debate, the opposite is true. After all, none other an “Pope Francis” himself has repeatedly urged an “openness” to the “Holy Spirit,” which is not-so-subtle code language for finding a “merciful” way to misinterpret the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law in order to sooth the consciences of those living in sin. Bergoglio has made this “openness” an integral part of his whole false “pontificated,” and has done so twice thus far in the space of the past two days alone:
The Synod, as we know, is a journey undertaken together in the spirit of collegiality and synodality, on which participants bravely adopt parrhesia, pastoral zeal and doctrinal wisdom, frankness, and always keep before our eyes the good of the Church, of families and the suprema lex, the Salus animarum.
I should mention that the Synod is neither a convention, nor a parlor, nor a parliament or senate, where people make deals and reach compromises. The Synod is rather an Ecclesial expression, i.e., the Church that journeys together to read reality with the eyes of faith and with the heart of God; it is the Church that interrogates herself with regard to her fidelity to the deposit of faith, which does not represent for the Church a museum to view, nor even something merely to safeguard, but is a living source from which the Church shall drink, to satisfy the thirst of, and illuminate, the deposit of life.
The Synod moves necessarily within the bosom of the Church and of the holy people of God, to which we belong in the quality of shepherds – which is to say, as servants. The Synod also is a protected space in which the Church experiences the action of the Holy Spirit. In the Synod, the Spirit speaks by means of every person’s tongue, who lets himself be guided by the God who always surprises, the God who reveals himself to little ones, who hides from the knowing and intelligent; the God who created the law and the Sabbath for man and not vice versa; by the God, who leaves the 99 sheep to look for the one lost sheep; the God who is always greater than our logic and our calculations.
Let us remember, however, that the Synod will be a space for the action of the Holy Spirit only if we participants vest ourselves with apostolic courage, evangelical humility and trusting prayer: with that apostolic courage, which refuses to be intimidated in the face of the temptations of the world – temptations that tend to extinguish the light of truth in the hearts of men, replacing it with small and temporary lights; nor even before the petrification of some hearts, which, despite good intentions, drive people away from God; apostolic courage to bring life and not to make of our Christian life a museum of memories; evangelical humility that knows how to empty itself of conventions and prejudices in order to listen to brother bishops and be filled with God – humility that leads neither to finger-pointing nor to judging others, but to hands outstretched to help people up without ever feeling oneself superior to them.
Confident prayer that trusts in God is the action of the heart when it opens to God, when our humors are silenced in order to listen to the gentle voice of God, which speaks in silence. Without listening to God, all our words are only words that are meet no need and serve no end. Without letting ourselves be guided the Spirit, all our decisions will be but decorations that, instead of exalting the Gospel, cover it and hide it.
Dear brothers, as I have said, the Synod is not a parliament in which to reach a consensus or a common accord there is recourse to negotiation, to deal-making, or to compromise: indeed, the only method of the Synod is to open up to the Holy Spirit with apostolic courage, with evangelical humility and confident, trusting prayer, that it might be He, who guides us, enlightens us and makes us put before our eyes, with our personal opinions, but with faith in God, fidelity to the Magisterium, the good of the Church and the Salus animarum.
In fine, I would like to thank: His Eminence Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, Secretary General of the Synod; His Excellency, Archbishop Fabio Fabene, Undersecretary; and with them I thank the Rapporteur, His Eminence Cardinal Peter Erdő and the Special Secretary, His Excellency Archbishop Bruno Forte; the Presidents-delegate, writers, consultors, translators and all those who worked with true fidelity and total dedication to the Church. Thank you so much! (full text of remarks at Synod opening.)
“Pope Francis” believes that the Sacred Deposit of Faith does not consist of a “museum of memories” that must be safeguarded by what he thinks is the Catholic Church. No, the Sacred Deposit of Faith is a starting point from which to “reference” the concrete situations in which people live today. One cannot contend that he intends to maintain the doctrine of the indissolubility of a ratified and consummated marriage by looking for ways to circumvent it as one blasphemously contends the effort to do so is the work of the “Holy Spirit” and is proof of the “God who surprises.” This is the work of evil spirits, not the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity. Jorge’s “god” is not the true God of Divine Revelation. He is immutable. So are His doctrines. Anyone who thinks that this kind of heretical, blasphemous denial of the very nature of God and His Revelation is going to “defend doctrine” is either insane or just completely intellectually dishonest. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not a Catholic. He is not a member of the Catholic Church.
Pope Saint Pius X, quoting the words of Pope Gregory IX, explained the pride of heretics as follows:
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 text...to 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.)
Pope Saint Pius X had described each of the conciliar “popes” with prophetic clarity. Bergoglio’s five predecessors have simply made it more possible for him to be so bold as to make certain what they tried to obfuscate with contradiction, paradox and ambiguity: that a false, ephemeral sense of “love” is all that matters, not doctrine. This can be termed as the “theology” of Burt Bacharach and Hal David (“What the world needs now is love, sweet love”).
Berogoglio’s revolution against the Catholic Faith is really nothing new. Everything that he believes is textbook Modernism, and it is has been condemned word-for-word by one true pope after another, including by Pope Pius IX in The Syllabus of Errors, December 9, 1864, Pope Saint Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, July 1, 1907, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, Praestantia Scripturae, November 18, 1907, The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910, and Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.
A good summary of Bergoglio’s revolutionary goals—and those of his false church—was provided by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907:
It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in the ecclesiastical seminaries. They wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live. They desire the reform of theology: rational theology is to have modern philosophy for its foundation, and positive theology is to be founded on the history of dogma. As for history, it must be written and taught only according to their methods and modern principles. Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to be harmonized with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas are to be inserted except those that have been reformed and are within the capacity of the people. Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to be reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head. They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity and authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized The Roman Congregations and especially the index and the Holy Office, must be likewise modified The ecclesiastical authority must alter its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political organizations it must adapt itself to them in order to penetrate them with its spirit. With regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, and are to be more encouraged in practice. They ask that the clergy should return to their primitive humility and poverty, and that in their ideas and action they should admit the principles of Modernism; and there are some who, gladly listening to the teaching of their Protestant masters, would desire the suppression of the celibacy of the clergy. What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed by them and according to their principles? (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, No. 38)
There is not one part of this passage that does not apply entirely to the agenda of the counterfeit church of conciliarism as exemplified so well in the person of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who is the first conciliar “pope” to have been trained in the milieu of conciliarism’s false Modernist precepts, each of which is based upon a number of condemned heresies and errors.
Paragraphs 201 and 202 of Amoris Laetitia, for example, make it clear that priests need to have first-hand experience of family life in order to be an “understanding” pastor who will make “allowances” for the “different” kinds of families that exist today:
202. “The main contribution to the pastoral care of families is offered by the parish, which is the family of families, where small communities, ecclesial movements and associations live in harmony”.232 Along with a pastoral outreach aimed specifically at families, this shows the need for “a more adequate formation... of priests, deacons, men and women religious, catechists and other pastoral workers”.233 In the replies given to the worldwide consultation, it became clear that ordained ministers often lack the training needed to deal with the complex problems currently facing families. The experience of the broad oriental tradition of a married clergy could also be drawn upon.
203. Seminarians should receive a more extensive interdisciplinary, and not merely doctrinal, formation in the areas of engagement and marriage. Their training does not always allow them to explore their own psychological and affective background and experiences. Some come from troubled families, with absent parents and a lack of emotional stability. There is a need to ensure that the formation process can enable them to attain the maturity and psychological balance needed for their future ministry. Family bonds are essential for reinforcing healthy self-esteem. It is important for families to be part of the seminary process and priestly life, since they help to reaffirm these and to keep them well grounded in reality. It is helpful for seminarians to combine time in the seminary with time spent in parishes. There they can have greater contact with the concrete realities of family life, since in their future ministry they will largely be dealing with families. “The presence of lay people, families and especially the presence of women in priestly formation, promotes an appreciation of the diversity and complementarity of the different vocations in the Church”.234 (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Amoris Laetita, March 19, 2016.)
Bergoglio likes to believe that he is subtle. He is not. His goals are patently obvious.
He really does not believe that those who deny their biological fatherhood as priests or their biological motherhood as consecrated religious in order to serve the many are incapable of truly understanding the problems of families. As Modernist, he believes that religious beliefs and practices stem from “experience,” something that was discussed in part seven of this series last week, and thus it is that he believes that seminarians must be placed in the midst of families during their process of conciliar deformation to better “experience” the “reality” of life at the concrete pastoral level. This would permit them, he believes, to throw away “rules” and “commandments” that used as “stones” to throw at those families whose particular “situations” are “irregular” but nevertheless pleasing to God all the same. “Pope Francis” is hoping to break down a strict adherence to “impersonal” doctrines among the current crop of conciliar seminarians so that they can permit their “hearts” to be “moved” to recognize that “rules” must be applied with great leeway.
The Argentine Apostate’s assertion in this regard is both disingenuously condescending as seminarians do not need to spend time with families as part of their process of presbyteral deformation. You see, seminarians happen to come from families, and some of them might just remember a bit of what it was grow up in the midst of their own families.
Yes, I am using sarcasm, but I am using it to demonstrate once again that Jorge Mario Bergoglio uses straw men of his own making in order to advance his revolutionary agenda, which is premised in this instance upon the belief that a presumed priest’s grace of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, which conforms his immortal soul with an indelible seal to the Priesthood and Victimhood of the High Priest Himself, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, is insufficient to help him to guide married couples as he lacks the personal experience of having his own family.
Go tell that to Pope Leo XIII when he wrote Arcanum and to Pope Pius XI when he wrote Casti Connubii, December 31, 1931. Come to think about it, though, perhaps Bergoglio is indeed saying that these stodgy men were “stubbornly rigid” by clinging to a set of “unrealistic rules” that are used as “stones” to throw at people. Bergoglio believes that things might have been different with our true popes if they had undergone the sort of “deformation” that he wants of his own seminarians in order to strip them of any attachment to such “rules” that do not have any “existential” meaning in the actual lives of families.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes that one can only learn by “experience,” a concept that is purely Modernistic and, quite indeed, calls to mind the experiential basis of knowledge advanced, although in very different ways, by the father of modern liberalism, John Locke, in his Essay on Human Understanding and by the a forerunner of the French Revolution, the naturalist by the name of Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
Locke believed that every child was born as a tabula rasa (a blank slate) who must learn from a structured set of experiences by habit. Locke rejected the existence of a natural moral law, the Natural Law, which inheres in the souls of men and is knowable by reason, favoring instead the concept of "natural rights" that have become the foundation of modern states, devoid as they are of any reference to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. Thus it is that children had to learn thing by experience by those who had more experience.
Rousseau, however, believed that "true education," which he believes had been "corrupted" by order and structure, must be undertaken on a experiential basis without regard to structure. This is because Rousseau believed each person to be completely free of all orde, whether natural or superatural, something that Father Denis Fahey, C.SS.P., explained in The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World:
Rousseau carries on the revolution against the order of the world begun by Luther. Luther’s revolt was that of our individuality and sense-life against the exigencies of the supernatural order instituted by God. It was an attempt to remain attached to Christ, while rejecting the order established by Christ for our return to God. Rousseau’s revolt was against the order of natural morality, by the exaltation of the primacy of our sense-life.
The little world of each one of us, our individuality, is a divine person, supremely free and sovereignly independent of all order, natural and supernatural. he state of Liberty or of sovereign independence is the primitive state of man, and the nature of man demands the restoration of that state of liberty. It is to satisfy this-called exigency that ‘Father of modern thought’ invented the famous myth of the Social Contract.
The Social Contract gives birth to a form of association in which each one, while forming a union with all the others, obeys only himself and remains as free as before. Each one is subject to the whole, but he is not subject to any man, there is no man above him. He is absorbed in the common Ego begotten in the pact, so that obeying the law, he obeys only himself. Each citizen votes in order, that by the addition of the number of votes, the general will, expressed by the vote of the majority, is, so to say, a manifestation of the ‘deity’ immanent in the multitude. The People are God (no wonder we have gotten used to writing the word with a capital letter). The law imposed by this ‘deity’ does not need to be just in order to exact obedience. In fact, the majority vote makes or creates right and justice. An adverse majority vote can not only overthrow the directions and commands of the Heads of the Mystical Body on earth, the Pope and the Bishops, but can even deprive the Ten Commandments of all binding force.
To the triumph of those ideals in the modern world, the Masonic denial of original sin and the Rousseauist dogma of the natural goodness of man have contributed not a little. The dogma of natural goodness signifies that man lived originally in a purely natural paradise of happiness and goodness and that, even in our present degraded state, all our instinctive movements are good. We do not need grace, for nature can do for what grace does. In addition, Rousseau holds that this state of happiness and goodness, of perfect justice and innocence, of exemption from servile work and suffering, is natural to man, that is, essentially demanded by our nature. Not only then is original sin nonexistent, not only do we not come into the world as fallen sons of the first Adam, bearing in us the wounds of our fallen nature, is radically anti-natural. Suffering and pain have been introduced by society, civilization and private property. Hence we must get rid of all these and set up a new form of society. We can bet back the state of the Garden of Eden by the efforts of our own nature, without the help of grace. For Rousseau, the introduction of the present form of society, and of private property constitute the real Fall. The setting up of a republic based on his principles will act as a sort of democratic grace which will restore in its entirety our lost heritage. In a world where the clear teaching of the faith of Christ about the supernatural order of the Life of Grace has become obscured, but were men are still vaguely conscious that human nature was once happy, Rousseau’s appeal acts like an urge of homesickness. We need not be astonished, then, apart from the question of Masonic-Revolutionary organization and propaganda, at the sort of delirious enthusiasm which takes possession of men at the thought of a renewal of society. Nor need we wonder that men work for the overthrow of existing government and existing order, in the belief that they are not legitimate forms of society. A State not constructed according to Rosseauist-Masonic principles is not a State ruled by laws. It is a monstrous tyranny, and must be overthrown in the name of "Progress" and of the "onward march of democracy.’ All these influences must be borne in mind as we behold, since 1789, the triumph in one country after another or Rousseauist-Masonic democracy. (Father Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World.)
As I explained in an article last year, “global infantilism” prevails at this time. Most people want to be reaffirmed in their own lives of sin and selfishness, and a whole vast array of the world’s religious and civic leaders, starting with Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis and including his ideological soulmate, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro themselves, of course, play to this global infantilism to massive applause. To even stand up in opposition to the prevailing evils of the day is to engage in “hatred” and “bigotry." This why Bergoglio wants "experience" to be the "teacher" of seminarians so that they can rely on sentimentality and not on the clarity of what he believes to be "cold" and "impersonal" doctrines or rules.
The final two paragraphs of Amoris Laetitia to be examined in this segment before moving on to the much-discussed Paragraphs 291-310 and thus the end of this drudgery concern the false “pontiff’s” praise of mixed marriages as an important component of the conciliar program of false ecumenism:
247. “Issues involving mixed marriages require particular attention. Marriages between Catholics and other baptized persons ‘have their own particular nature, but they contain numerous elements that could well be made good use of and developed, both for their intrinsic value and for the contribution that they can make to the ecumenical movement’. For this purpose, ‘an effort should be made to establish cordial cooperation between the Catholic and the non-Catholic ministers from the time that preparations begin for the marriage and the wedding ceremony’ (Familiaris Consortio, 78). With regard to sharing in the Eucharist, ‘the decision as to whether the non-Catholic party of the marriage may be admitted to Eucharistic communion is to be made in keeping with the general norms existing in the matter, both for Eastern Christians and for other Christians, taking into account the particular situation of the reception of the sacrament of matrimony by two baptized Christians. Although the spouses in a mixed marriage share the sacraments of baptism and matrimony, eucharistic sharing can only be exceptional and in each case according to the stated norms’ (Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, 25 March 1993, 159-160)”.
248. “Marriages involving disparity of cult represent a privileged place for interreligious dialogue in everyday life… They involve special difficulties regarding both the Christian identity of the family and the religious upbringing of the children… The number of households with married couples with disparity of cult, on the rise in mission territories, and even in countries of long Christian tradition, urgently requires providing a differentiated pastoral care according to various social and cultural contexts. In some countries where freedom of religion does not exist, the Christian spouse is obliged to convert to another religion in order to marry, and, therefore, cannot celebrate a canonical marriage involving disparity of cult or baptize the children. We must therefore reiterate the necessity that the religious freedom of all be respected”.272 “Attention needs to be given to the persons who enter such marriages, not only in the period before the wedding. Unique challenges face couples and families in which one partner is Catholic and the other is a non-believer. In such cases, bearing witness to the ability of the Gospel to immerse itself in these situations will make possible the upbringing of their children in the Christian faith”.2
249. “Particular problems arise when persons in a complex marital situation wish to be baptized. These persons contracted a stable marriage at a time when at least one of them did not know the Christian faith. In such cases, bishops are called to exercise a pastoral discernment which is commensurate with their spiritual good”.274 (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Amoris Laetita, March 19, 2016.)
What can one say?
The world wrought by the revolutions of Modernity and Modernism has sown nothing but confusion in the minds of those who have been shaped, whether wittingly or unwittingly, by its nefarious consequences. Confusion is not of God, as the late Father Maximilian Mary Kolbe noted in a letter of spiritual direction to one of the brothers of the Conventual Franciscans:
So if anything stirs up confusion in your mind--all the more if, as you write, it leads you to negligence--then certainly this does not come from God. (Father Anselm W. Romb, O.F.M. Conv., ed., The Kolbe Reader, Franciscan Marytown Press, Libertyville, Illinois, 1987, p. 145.)
The rotten fruit of the confusion and disorder of Modernity, especially by means of pluralism and religious indifferentism and religious "freedom," are everywhere to behold. It is awash in the lives of the people we meet on a daily basis.
To wit, Sharon told me a story eight years ago when we were living in Connecticut of woman she met in her brother’s laundromat near the original Stew Leonard’s in Norwalk. The woman, who is a little younger than me, told Sharon that she was baptized a Catholic but that her father abandoned her mother, who then married a Greek Orthodox man, which is the false religion she has practiced to this day. The woman is married to a Russian Orthodox man. "Mixed marriages are such a blessing in this country," the woman told Sharon. "We would not know how to get along with others if we didn't learn to appreciate our differences and to live in peace with each other." Sharon gave her a Green Scapular and told her to visit with His Excellency Bishop Robert F. McKenna, O.P., at Our Lady of the Rosary Chapel in Monroe, Connecticut.
"Where do you begin with people?" Sharon asked rhetorically when she returned from the laundromat (in a borrowed vehicle as our Trail Blazer is undergoing massive repairs to its front end) as I was writing the article posted yesterday. "Where do you begin? This poor woman is a victim of one revolution after another. And she's watching Whoppi Goldberg on some television program to get 'information' about the world. Where do you begin?" As Sharon knew, of course, the Green Scapular is not a bad place to start. The woman at the laundromat in Norwalk, Connecticut, in 208 gave voice to almost everything that Bergoglio expressed in Paragraphs 245 and 246 of Amoris Laetitia.
This brief vignette, which was played out so repeatedly as we encountered lost souls in our travels around the nation during the ten years we lived in our motor home (which was sold over five years ago now), demonstrates the confusion of a world lost in a sea of abject naturalism and religious indifferentism that are but the products of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King that was engineered by the devil as a result of the Protestant Revolt and then institutionalized by the rise of Judeo-Masonry. The horrible legacy of confusion produced by mixed marriages and by broken families continues to take its toll on the souls of so many millions of people, who muddle their ways through life without ever knowing the joy that could be theirs by embracing the Catholic Faith and by being totally consecrated to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of His Most Blessed Mother.
Pope Pius XII, writing in Sertum Laetitiae, November 1, 1939, warned the bishops of the United States of America about these dangers, implying that some of them had grown very complacent to the dangers posed by a pluralistic society:
We desire, however, that this Our praise be salutary. The consideration of the good which has been done must not lead to slackening which might degenerate into sluggishness; it must not issue in a vainglorious pleasure which flatters the mind; it should stimulate renewed energies so that evils may be avoided and those enterprises which are useful, prudent and worthy of praise may more surely and more solidly mature. The Christian, if he does honor to the name he bears, is always an apostle; it is not permitted to the Soldier of Christ that he quit the battlefield, because only death puts an end to his military service.
You well know where it is necessary that you exercise a more discerning vigilance and what program of action should be marked out for priests and faithful in order that the religion of Christ may overcome the obstacles in its path and be a luminous guide to the minds of men, govern their morals and, for the sole purpose of salvation, permeate the marrow and the arteries of human society. The progress of exterior and material possessions, even though it is to be considered of no little account, because of the manifold and appreciable utility which it gives to life, is nonetheless not enough for man who is born for higher and brighter destinies. Created indeed to the image and likeness of God, he seeks God with a yearning that will not be repressed and always groans and weeps if he places the object of his love where Supreme Truth and the Infinite Good cannot be found.
Not with the conquest of material space does one approach to God, separation from Whom is death, conversion to Whom is life, to be established in Whom is glory; but under the guidance of Christ with the fullness of sincere faith, with unsullied conscience and upright will, with holy works, with the achievement and the employment of that genuine liberty whose sacred rules are found proclaimed in the Gospel. If, instead, the Commandments of God are spurned, not only is it impossible to attain that happiness which has place beyond the brief span of time which is allotted to earthly existence, but the very basis upon which rests true civilization is shaken and naught is to be expected but ruins over which belated tears must be shed. How, in fact, can the public weal and the glory of civilized life have any guarantee of stability when right is subverted and virtue despised and decried? Is not God the Source and the Giver of law? Is He not the inspiration and the reward of virtue with none like unto Him among lawgivers (Cf. Job xxxvi:22)? This, according to the admission of all reasonable men, is everywhere the bitter and prolific root of evils: the refusal to recognize the Divine Majesty, the neglect of the moral law, the origin of which is from Heaven, or that regrettable inconstancy which makes its victims waver between the lawful and the forbidden, between justice and iniquity.
Thence arise immoderate and blind egoists, that thirst for pleasure, the vice of drunkenness, immodest and costly styles in dress, the prevalence of crime even among minors, the lust for power, neglect of the poor, base craving for ill-gotten wealth, the flight from the land, levity in entering into marriage, divorce, the break-up of the family, the cooling of mutual affection between parents and children, birth control, the enfeeblement of the race, the weakening of respect for authority, or obsequiousness, or rebellion, neglect of duty towards one's country and towards mankind.
We raise Our voice in strong, albeit paternal, complaint that in so many schools of your land Christ often is despised or ignored, the explanation of the universe and mankind is forced within the narrow limits of materialism or of rationalism, and new educational systems are sought after which cannot but produce a sorrowful harvest in the intellectual and moral life of the nation.
Likewise, just as home life, when the law of Christ is observed, flowers in true felicity, so, when the Gospel is cast aside, does it perish miserably and become desolated by vice: "He that seeketh the law, shall be filled with it: and he that dealeth deceitfully, shall meet with a stumbling block therein" (Ecclesiasticus xxxii: 19). What can there be on earth more serene and joyful than the Christian family? Taking its origin at the Altar of the Lord, where love has been proclaimed a holy and indissoluble bond, the Christian family in the same love nourished by supernal grace is consolidated and receives increase.
There is "marriage honorable in all, and the [nuptial] bed undefiled" (Cf. Hebrews xiii: 4). Tranquil walls resound with no quarreling voices nor do they witness the secret martyrdom which comes when hidden infidelity is laid bare; unquestioning trust turns aside the slings of suspicion; sorrow is assuaged and joy is heightened by mutual affection. Within those sacred precincts children are considered not heavy burdens but sweet pledges of love; no reprehensible motive of convenience, no seeking after sterile pleasure, brings about the frustration of the gift of life nor causes to fall into disuse the sweet names of brother and sister. With what solicitude do the parents take care that the children not only grow in physical vigor but also that, following in the footsteps of their forbears whose memory is often recalled to them, they may shine with the light which profession of the pure faith and moral goodness impart to them. Moved by the numerous benefits received, such children consider it their paramount duty to honor their parents, to be attentive to their desires, to be the staff of their old age, to rejoice their gray hairs with an affection which, unquenched by death, will be made more glorious and more complete in the mansion of Heaven. The members of the Christian family, neither querulous in adversity nor ungrateful in prosperity, are ever filled with confidence in God to Whose sway they yield willing obedience, in Whose will they acquiesce and upon Whose help they wait not in vain.
That the family may be established and maintained according to the wise teachings of the Gospel, therefore, the faithful should be frequently exhorted by those who have the directive and teaching functions in the churches, and these are to strive with unremitting care to present to the Lord a perfect people. For the same reason it is also supremely necessary to see to it that the dogma of the unity and indissolubility of matrimony is known in all its religious importance and sacredly respected by those who are to marry.
That this capital point of Catholic doctrine is of great value for the solidity of the family structure, for the progress and prosperity of civil society for the healthy life of the people and for civilization that its light may not be false, is a fact recognized even by no small number of men who, though estranged from the Faith, are entitled to respect for their political acumen. Oh! If only your country had come to know from the experience of others rather than from examples at home of the accumulation of ills which derive from the plague of divorce; let reverence for religion, let fidelity towards the great American people counsel energetic action that this disease, alas so widespread, may be cured by extirpation.
The consequences of this evil have been thus described by Pope Leo XIII, in words whose truth is incisive: "Because of divorce, the nuptial contract becomes subject to fickle whim; affection is weakened; pernicious incentives are given to conjugal infidelity; the care and education of offspring are harmed; easy opportunity is afforded for the breaking up of homes; the seeds of discord are sown among families; the dignity of woman is lessened and brought down and she runs the risk of being deserted after she has served her husband as an instrument of pleasure. And since it is true that for the ruination of the family and the undermining of the State nothing is so powerful as the corruption of morals, it is easy to see that divorce is of the greatest harm to the prosperity of families and of states" (Encyclical Letter Arcanum).
With regard to those marriages in which one or the other party does not accept the Catholic teaching or has not been baptized, We are certain that you observe exactly the prescriptions of the Code of Canon Law. Such marriages, in fact, as is clear to you from wide experience, are rarely happy and usually occasion grave loss to the Catholic Church. A very efficacious means for driving out such grave evils is that individual Catholics receive a thorough training in the Divine truths and that the people be shown clearly the road which leads to salvation.
Therefore, We exhort the priests to provide that their own knowledge of things Divine and human be wide and deep; that they be not content with the intellectual knowledge acquired in youth; that they examine with careful scrutiny the Law of the Lord, Whose oracles are purer than silver; that they continually relish and enjoy the chaste charms of Sacred Scripture; that with the passing of the years they study more deeply the history of the Church, its dogmas, its Sacraments, its laws, its scriptures, its liturgy, its language, so that they may advance in grace, in culture and wisdom.
Let them cultivate also the study of letters and of the profane sciences, especially those which are more closely connected with religion, in order that they may be able to impart with clarity and eloquence the teaching of grace and salvation which is capable of bending even learned intellects to the light burden and yoke of the Gospel of Christ. (Pope Pius XII, Sertum Laetitiae, November 1, 1939.)
Let it not be said that Pope Pius XII was uncritical in his praise of Catholic life in the United States of America at the very beginning of his pontificate in 1939. He saw the problems that had been prophesied by his predecessors, choosing his language of admonition carefully while delivering a powerful admonition to the American bishops to combat with spiritual weapons the dangers that had arisen in their midst, dangers that were the direct result of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and of Our Lady, she who is our Immaculate Queen.
Pope Gregory XVI, who was much more direct and blunt in his condemnations of the very principles underlying Modernity, put the matter this way in Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832:
The Apostolic See has always ensured that the canons forbidding the marriages of Catholics with heretics have been observed religiously. Occasionally such marriages have been tolerated in order to avoid more serious scandals. But, even then, the Roman Pontiffs saw to it that the faithful were taught how deformed these marriages are and what spiritual dangers they present. A Catholic man or woman would be guilty of a great crime if he presumed to violate the canonical sanctions in this matter. And if the Roman Pontiffs themselves very reluctantly relaxed this same canonical prohibition in some serious cases, they always added to their dispensation a formal condition: that the Catholic party must not be perverted, but rather must make every effort to withdraw the non-Catholic party from error and that the offspring of both sexes must be educated entirely in the Catholic religion.
Therefore, guided by the example of Our predecessors, We are grieved to hear reports from your dioceses which indicate that some of the people committed to your care freely encourage mixed marriages. Furthermore, they are promoting opinions contrary to the Catholic faith: namely, they dare to affirm that a Catholic may freely and legally contract marriage with a heterodox party, not only without asking for a dispensation (which must be obtained from the Apostolic See in each individual case), but also without agreeing to the necessary obligations, especially the duty to educate all the offspring in the Catholic religion. Indeed it has even come to the point that these same persons insist that mixed marriages ought to be approved when the heretical partner is a divorced person whose former spouse is still alive. To this end they issue serious threats of punishments in order to induce priests to announce mixed marriages in the churches and, afterwards, to defend the act by which these marriages were contracted or, at least, to grant the contracting parties what they call dimissory letters. Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.
Some circumstances, however, lighten Our grief which arises from this matter: namely, the constancy of most of the Bavarian people in holding fast to the Catholic faith, their sincere obedience to ecclesiastical authority, and the steadfastness of nearly all of their clergy in carrying out their ministry according to the canons. We know that, although you may not all hold the same opinion in this business of mixed marriages, all of you are resolved to hearken to the Apostolic See and, with its guidance, to protect the flocks entrusted to you, not even fearing to encounter dangers in order to safeguard the sheep.
Through these letters We hope to strengthen your fraternity so that in the matter under consideration you may continue to preach the unchangeable Catholic teachings and to safeguard the observance of the canons. Since Our opinion has been made known to you, We hope it will result in a more perfect agreement between all of you and the Holy See. We hope that Our dear son in Christ, Louis, the illustrious king of Bavaria, when he understands the present problem, may assist Us and you with his patronage because of his grandfather's zeal for the Catholic religion which Louis has inherited. If he toes, the evils which threaten the Catholic cause from this source may be prevented and our most holy religion may be restored and protected throughout Bavaria. Then Catholic clergy may enjoy complete liberty in carrying out their ministry, just as was provided for in the agreement entered into with the Apostolic See in 1817.
Next let Us start with the things which concern the faith which, as We mentioned above, some are endangering in order to introduce greater freedom for mixed marriages. You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that very article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation. The words of that celebrated disciple of the apostles, martyred St. Ignatius, in his letter to the Philadelphians are relevant to this matter: "Be not deceived, my brother; if anyone follows a schismatic, he will not attain the inheritance of the kingdom of God." Moreover, St. Augustine and the other African bishops who met in the Council of Cirta in the year 412 explained the same thing at greater length: "Whoever has separated himself from the Catholic Church, no matter how laudably he lives, will not have eternal life, but has earned the anger of God because of this one crime: that he abandoned his union with Christ." Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that this indeed is the teaching of the Catholic Church. He says: "The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved." Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran IV, these things are written: "There is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is saved." Finally the same dogma is also expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin churches use, but also that which the Greek Orthodox Church uses and that which other Eastern Catholics use. We did not mention these selected testimonies because We thought you were ignorant of that article of faith and in need of Our instruction. Far be it from Us to have such an absurd and insulting suspicion about you. But We are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from reinforcing this truth with many testimonies.
Strive to eradicate these slithering errors with all your strength. Inspire the populace of Bavaria to keep the Catholic faith and unity as the only way of salvation with an ever more ardent zeal, and, thus, to avoid every danger of forsaking it. Once the Bavarian faithful understands this necessity of maintaining Catholic unity, admonitions and warnings to them against joining in marriage with heretics will certainly not be in vain. If on occasion some grave cause should suggest such a mixed marriage, they will then apply for a dispensation from the Church and observe the conditions We mentioned above. You and their parents and others who have care of them are responsible for teaching them what the judgment of the canons is in this matter. They must be warned lest they should dare to break these canons and, thus, jeopardize their souls. Hence if the circumstances suggest it, it may be necessary to remind them of that wellknown precept of the natural and divine law, which commands us to avoid not only sins but the near occasion of sin as well. Remind them also of the other precept of the same law which enjoins parents to rear their children in the discipline and admonitions of the Lord (Eph 6.4). Therefore, they must instruct them in the true worship of God, which is unique to the Catholic religion. Hence, exhort your faithful to weigh seriously how great an offense they commit against the supreme Deity and how cruelly they act toward themselves and their future children when, by rashly contracting a mixed marriage, they may expose themselves and their children to the danger of perversion. So that the gravity of such danger may appear more clearly, recall for them those salutary admonitions of the Apostles, of the Fathers, and of the canons, which warn that familiar association with heretics is to be shunned.
But it may happen that these warnings and admonitions go unheeded and that some Catholic man or woman is unwilling to give up his perverse intention of entering upon a mixed marriage. If a dispensation is not requested or not obtained from the Church or if the necessary conditions or a certain one of them is not fulfilled, then it will be the duty of the priest to abstain not only from honoring the marriage itself with his presence, but also from announcing the marriage and from granting dimissory letters. You must admonish the priests and demand that they abstain from every such act. For one who has the care of souls and who acts differently, especially in the circumstances prevalent in Bavaria, would seem in some way to approve these illicit marriages by his actions. His works would encourage the liberty of those souls, a liberty which is pernicious to their salvation and even to the cause of faith. (Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832.)
Rather than warn against "mixed marriages," which are the result of the Protestant Revolution (certainly not a "reformation" as its apologists like to call it) and the rise of Judeo-Masonry, Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s predecessor, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, actually approved them as "laboratories" of "unity" in advancement of "ecumenical dialogue,” using language almost identical to his, Bergoglio’s, in Amoris Laetitia:
Benedict, noted, however, that Christian churches would become "more credible before the world" if they met "contemporary charitable challenges" together, and promoted marriage and family life across denominational boundaries.
"In today's world, in which international and inter-cultural relations are multiplying, it happens increasingly often that young people from different traditions, religions or Christian denominations decide to start a family," Benedict XVI told the meeting.
Present were Polish Christian leaders from the Autocephallous Orthodox, Evangelical Augsburg, Reformed and Methodist churches, as well as Baptists, Polish-Catholics and Old Catholic Mariavites.
"Thanks to the spread of ecumenical dialogue on a larger scale, the decision can lead to the formation of a practical laboratory of unity. For this to happen, there is a need for mutual goodwill, understanding and maturity in faith of both parties, and also of the communities from which they come," said Benedict. (Benedict tells Poles he backs stronger inter-church relations | Ekklesia; see also Issues & Reflections.)
How is it possible to explain to that woman in the laundromat that the very situation in which she grew up as a child and in which she now lives as a grown woman is the product of diabolical forces when the man perceived to be the "pope" at the time had praised such situations as "laboratories" of "unity"? Mixed marriages are the result of the existence of the pluralistic spirit of religious indifferentism, which is itself engendered by the heresy of "religious liberty" that was championed at every possible opportunity by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI when he was the presiding universal public face of apostasy between April 19, 2005, and February 28, 2013, and is being championed at this time by Bergoglio himself.
Amoris Laetitia is a complete rejection of the teaching and pastoral praxis of the Catholic Church, and it could have been issued just as easily the Anglican archlayman known as Justin Welby at a Lambeth Conference. This is why it is so important for Catholics to understand the conciliar church is but a counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church and that its potentates and their decrees are as powerless as those of non-Catholic religious sects to bind the consciences of anyone at any time for any reason.
True popes have condemned the very things praised in Amoris Laetitia, a document that could never be issued by a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter. This horrible document is the work of a figure of Antichrist, not of a true and legitimate Vicar of Christ on earth.
We are in the month of Our Lady, the month of May. Today is, at least in some fully traditional chapels, the Octave Day of the Ascension of Our Lord and the Commemoration of Saints Nereus, Achelleus, Domatilla and Pancras.
Saints Nereus and Achelleus were ready to die for the Holy Faith because they had convinced Domatilla to consecrate herself entirely to God as a virgin, a state that Bergoglio believes can be used an excuse for “selfishness.” Even these martyrs stand as a rebuke to the Argentine Apostate, who does not believe that human beings can live “happy” and “fulfilled” lives without satisfying their passions in one form or another, and Saint Pancras stands as a rebuke to each of the conciliar “popes,” including Bergoglio, because he refused to offer sacrifice to false gods. The conciliar “popes” have gone out of their way to praise false religions and to state that their own false rites are pleasing to God. The lives of the martyrs speak to the contrary:
The brothers Nereus and Achilleus were eunuchs of Flavia Domitilla and were baptized by St. Peter at the same time as she herself and her mother Plautilla. Because they persuaded Domitilla to consecrate her virginity to God, they were accused of being Christians by Aurelian, who had been betrothed to her, and were sent to the island of Ponza. Soon afterwards, they were scourged in an effort to make them sacrifice to idols, and were taken to Terracina, where, after they had overcome the torture of the rack and flaming torches, they were beheaded. Their bodies were taken to Rome by their disciple Auspicius and buried on the Ardeatine Way. As for Flavia Domitilla, who had received the sacred veil of a virgin from Pope St. Clement, she also was deported to the island of Ponza, and after a long imprisonment was taken to Terracina. There, by the judge's orders, her dwelling was set on fire, and she won a glorious death, along with the virgins Theodora and Euphrosyna, her foster-sisters, on May 7, under Emperor Trajan. Their bodies were buried by the Deacon Caesarius. Pancras, born of a noble Phrygian family, was baptized in Rome at the age of fourteen. Under the Emperors Diocletian and Maximian, he was arrested; and when he firmly refused to sacrifice to the gods, he was beheaded and so won the glorious crown of martyrdom. His body was buried secretly on the Via Aurelia by the matron Octavilla. (Matins, The Divine Office, May 12.)
Just a little bit of a contrast with Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his crew of revolutionaries.
We must remember that Our Lady is our sure refuge in the midst of the revolutions that shaped the world in which we live and have done so much damage to so many souls, including our own (as few of us have been immune to the ravages of the pestilences of Modernity and Modernism). We must make sure to pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permit, offering up all of our trials and tribulations of the moment to the Most Sacred Heart of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.
Father Maximilian Mary Kolbe explained in "A Letter of Spiritual Direction to Brother Matthew" how much we must rely upon Our Lady:
"But if anything under any pretext, even that of a more elevated devotion, leads you away from our Lady, consider it as a sinister trap, even though it appears to you as the holiest of practices.
In her and through her we shall surely reach the Heart of Jesus, but without her (in the sense I explained above) everything is only a satanic illusion intended to lead souls to ruin. A fine illustration of this is the vision that our Father St. Francis had of the two ladders, one red and the other white, by which the friars were climbing to heaven.
[The Little Flowers of St. Francis, chapter 7: "How Bro. Leo saw a terrible vision in a dream." He saw the friars trying to reach paradise by means of a red ladder at the top of which was Jesus awaited them; but all of them, after mounting a few rungs, kept falling back to the ground. Then St. Francis encouraged the friars to climb up to heaven using a white ladder, on the top of which the most Blessed Virgin awaited them. "Without any trouble they entered into the eternal kingdom."
May the Immaculate always keep you closer and closer to her Immaculate Heart!
P. S. No matter what you find written in any wa yand anywhere, be sure that whoever belongs to the Immaculate will not be lost. The more he belongs to her the more will he belong to Jesus and to the Father. (Father Anselm W. Romb, O.F.M. Conv., ed., The Kolbe Reader, Franciscan Marytown Press, Libertyville, Illinois, 1987, pp. 145-146.)
We must belong to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through His own Most Blessed Mother’s Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart during these times when civil and doctrinal and liturgical revolutionaries hold such sway with so many. Our Lady will enfold us under her loving mantle of her Brown Scapular as we make no concessions to conciliarism or the nonexistent legitimacy of the false shepherds who spread error in the name of the Catholic Church and who dishonor her by refusing to exhort one and all to go to her Divine Son through her Immaculate Heart, especially by means of her being tenderly devoted to the faithful, daily recitation of her Most Holy Rosary.
Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saints Nereus, Achelleus, Domatilla, and Pancras, pray for us.