Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part nine

There is very little of an original nature that can be said about Jorge Mario Berrgoglio and his false religious sect.  Although this final part of my series on Amoris Laetitia covers the false pontiff’s most explosive paragraphs, Bergoglio used paragraphs 291-312 to reiterate points he had made many times before in his ode to sin and those who are steeped in it.

Bergoglio’s redundancy requires redundancy on the part of those of us who critique his endless exercises of doctrinal, liturgical, moral and pastoral destruction. It should be very evident by now that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is incapable of saying anything new. He just keeps recycling his bilge over and over and over again. Modernists like to congratulate themselves on their supposed “originality.” However, as has been pointed out before on this website, Modernnists Say Nothing Original.

To wit, consider the remarks that Bergoglio gave during his Regina Caeli address on Pentecost Sunday, May 15, 2016, that contained yet another slap at those who adhere to a “certain doctrine,” manifesting his utter contempt for the fact that one can never separate Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ from any of His doctrines, each of which He has revealed to His Catholic Church for its infallible explication and eternal safekeeping:

The day’s liturgy, Pope Francis said, “invites us to open our minds and our hearts to the gift of the Holy Spirit . . . the first and principle gift that He has obtained with His Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven.”

In the Gospel, Jesus says to His disciples, “If you love me, keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete to be with you always.” These words, the Pope said, “remind us above all that love for a person, and also for the Lord, is shown not with words but with facts.” The command to keep and observe the commandments must likewise be understood in such a way that they affect our whole life. In fact, the Pope said, “being Christians does not primarily mean pertaining to a certain culture or adhering to a certain doctrine, but rather, joining one’s very life, in every aspect, to the person of Jesus, and, through Him, to the Father.” It is precisely for this reason that Jesus promises to send the Holy Spirit: it is through the gift of the Spirit, “the love which unites the Father and the Son, and proceeds from them,” that we are able to live the very life of Jesus. 

But “the Holy Spirit also exercises a function of teaching and memory.” Pope Francis explained that the Holy Spirit does not bring a teaching different from that of Jesus, but helps make Jesus’ teaching present and active in our lives.

The Holy Father concluded his remarks with the prayer that the Blessed Virgin Mary “might obtain for us the grace of being strongly animated by the Holy Spirit, that we might bear witness to Christ with evangelical frankness, and open ourselves more and more to the fullness of His love.”  (http:/Using Pentecost As Another Occasion to Blaspheme Our Lord.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s efforts to place a dichotomy between the “person” of Our Lord and His doctrine is pure Modernisn. Pope Saint Pius X pointed this out in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:

An example may be sought in the Person of Christ. In the Person of Christ, they say, science and history encounter nothing that is not human. Therefore, in virtue of the first canon deduced from agnosticism, whatever there is in His history suggestive of the divine must be rejected. Then, according to the second canon, the historical Person of Christ was transfigured by faith; therefore everything that raises it above historical conditions must be removed. Lastly, the third canon, which lays down that the Person of Christ has been disfigured by faith, requires that everything should be excluded, deeds and words and all else, that is not in strict keeping with His character, condition, and education, and with the place and time in which He lived. A method of reasoning which is passing strange, but in it we have the Modernist criticism. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

This is an exact description of the Modernist methodology underlying Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s false beliefs that he presents in his own, yes, dogmatic way whenever he has the opportunity to speak, and it not clear that the man does not spend his sleeping hours engaged in “sleep-talking.” In other words, for Jorge Mario Bergoglio to speak is to be, and he speaks practically all of the time, which means that the insidious little pest is engaged full-time in apostasy, heresy, sacrilege and blasphemy.

Readers may recall that Bergoglio has been positing a false distinction between Our Lord and His doctrine throughout the course of his thirty-eight months, six days as the universal public face of apostasy, including his Manifesto of Apostasy, Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013:

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.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is forever attempting to posit a false dichotomy between doctrinal fidelity and charity. This effort is unspeakably insidious as true charity starts with love of God, and one cannot truly love God unless one adheres to everything that He has taught to us. To disparage the importance of doctrinal formation in order to seek to replace it with a nebulous kind of social work that is performed to "prove" how "good" and "kind" Christians can be is nothing other than to place a complete seal of approval upon the false principles of The Sillon that were condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910. It is also to make a mockery of the very words of Our Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the entire patrimony of the Catholic Church:

[11] The Jews therefore sought him on the festival day, and said: Where is he? [12] And there was much murmuring among the multitude concerning him. For some said: He is a good man. And others said: No, but he seduceth the people. [13] Yet no man spoke openly of him, for fear of the Jews. [14] Now about the midst of the feast, Jesus went up into the temple, and taught. [15] And the Jews wondered, saying: How doth this man know letters, having never learned?

[16] Jesus answered them, and said: My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. [17] If any man do the will of him; he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. [18] He that speaketh of himself, seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh the glory of him that sent him, he is true, and there is no injustice in him. [19] Did Moses not give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? [20] Why seek you to kill me? The multitude answered, and said: Thou hast a devil; who seeketh to kill thee?  (John 7: 11-20.)

Saint John the Evangelist, the only Apostle who stood at the foot of the Cross along with Our Lady and Saint Mary Magdalene, Mary of Cleophas and Salome, explained that we cannot truly love God unless we keep His Commandments:  

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God. And every one that loveth him who begot, loveth him also who is born of him. In this we know that we love the children of God: when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the charity of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not heavy. (1 John 5: 1-3)

There is no dichotomy between love of doctrinal truth and the provision of the Spiritual and Corporal Works of Mercy as to contend this is to blaspheme the infallible guidance of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, Who inspired the Fathers of Holy Mother Church's true general councils to care for nothing so much as to So the truths of the Holy Faith, condemning doctrinal errors as circumstances required them to do so.

Pope Pius XI explained in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928, that Catholics could not fall into the trap of the then nascent "ecumenical movement" to seek to make a false separation between Our Lord and the doctrines taught in His Holy Name and under His sacred authority by the Catholic Church:

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

The methodology used in Amoris Laetitia, therefore, has been condemned by true pope after true pope. Modernism is, of course, an unholy offspring of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry. It is no wonder that Modernists such as Bergoglio seek to find the “good” in “irregular” situations as they themselves are in a most irregular situation with the Most Blessed Trinity. Each of their immortal souls is in danger of losing their souls for all eternity.

Just A Bit More on Mixed Marriages

The contrast between the teaching of the Catholic Church and the apostasies of the counterfeit church of conciliarism are so clearly demarcated that no rational human being can conclude that there is the slightest degree of connection between the two. This has been demonstrated throughout the course of this series of articles, including at the end of part eight, which discussed Bergoglio’s praise of mixed marriages as a means of promoting false ecumenism. Bergoglio’s praise for mixed marriages was contrasted with the cautionary words of Pope Gregory XVI in Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832, and by Pope Pius XII in Sertum Laetitiae, November 1, 1939.

Writing fifty years before Pope Gregory XVI, Pope Pius VI issued a rescript to Cardinal de Frackenberg, the Archbishop of Mechlin (Brussels), and to the Bishops of Belgium to warn of the dangers of mixed marriages and to lay down strict conditions if they should take place:

Mixed Marriages in Belgium

From a Rescript of Pope Pius VI to Cardinal de Frackenberg, Archbishop of Mechlin, and to the Bishops of Belgium, July 13, 1782:

. . . And therefore we must not depart from that uniform opinion of our predecessors and from ecclesiastical discipline, which do not approve of marriage between parties who are both heretics, or between a Catholic on the other hand and a heretic on the other, and this much less in a case where there is need of a dispensation of some sort. . . .

Passing now to that point about the requested assistance of parish priests in mixed marriages, we say that if the above named admonition to recall the Catholic party from the unlawful marriage has been fulfilled, and nevertheless he persists in his will to contract it, and it is foresee that the marriage will inevitably follow, then the Catholic priest can lend his material presence, nevertheless in such wise that he is bound to observe the following precautions: First, that he does not assist at such a marriage in a sacred place, nor clothed in any vestment betokening a sacred function, nor will be recite over the contracting parties any prayers of the Church, and in no way shall he bless them. Secondly, that he will exact and receive from the contracting heretic a declaration in writing, in which with an oath of two witnesses, who also ought to sign their names, he obligates himself to permit his partner the free use of the Catholic religion, and to educate in it all the children who shall be born without any distinction of sex. . . . Thirdly, that the contracting Catholic make a declaration signed by himself and two witnesses, in which he promises with an oath never to apostatize form his Catholic religion, but to educate in it all his future offspring, and to procure effectively the conversion of the other contracting non-Catholic.

Fourthly, that which concerns the proclamations commandment by the imperial decree, which the bishops hold to be civil rather than sacred acts, we answer: Since they have been preordained for the future celebration of marriage and consequently contain a positive cooperation with it, a thing which certain exceeds the limits of simple tolerance, we cannot consent that these be made. . . .

It remains now to speak about one more point, concerning which, although we have not expressly interrogated, nevertheless we do not think that it should be passed over in silence, insomuch as, in practice, it could too frequently happen; namely this: Whether the contracting Catholic, afterwards, wishing to share in the sacraments, ought to be admitted to them? To this we say that as long as he shall demonstrate that he is sorry for his sinful union, this can be granted to him, provided that he shall sincerely declare before confession that he will procure the conversion of his heretical spouse, that he renews his promise of educating his children in the orthodox religion, and that he will repair the scandal that he has given to the other faithful. If these conditions obtain, we are not opposed to the Catholic party receiving the sacraments. (As found in Henry Denzinger, Enchirdion Symbolorum, thirteenth edition, translated into English by Roy Deferrari and published in 1955 as The Sources of Catholic Dogma–referred to as “Denziger,” by B. Herder Book Company of St. Louis, Missouri, and London, England, Nos.1496-1499, pp. 366-367.)

This is, of course, just a slightly different teaching that than advanced by the conciliar “popes” and is codified in the conciliar church’s Ecumenical Directory of 1993.

Paragraphs 291-297 of Amoris Laetitia

As so much of what is contained in the final substantive section of Amoris Laetitia that has been discussed before in this series, most of the comments that follow each paragraph will be mercifully brief.

291. The Synod Fathers stated that, although the Church realizes that any breach of the marriage bond “is against the will of God”, she is also “conscious of the frailty of many of her children”.311 Illumined by the gaze of Jesus Christ, “she turns with love to those who participate in her life in an incomplete manner, recognizing that the grace of God works also in their lives by giving them the courage to do good, to care for one another in love and to be of service to the community in which they live and work”.312 This approach is also confirmed by our celebration of this Jubilee Year devoted to mercy. Although she constantly holds up the call to perfection and asks for a fuller response to God, “the Church must accompany with attention and care the weakest of her children, who show signs of a wounded and troubled love, by restoring in them hope and confidence, like the beacon of a lighthouse in a port or a torch carried among the people to enlighten those who have lost their way or who are 311 Relatio Synodi 2014, 24. 312 Ibid. 25. 222 in the midst of a storm”.313 Let us not forget that the Church’s task is often like that of a field hospital. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Amoris Laetita, March 19, 2016.)

Comment Number One:

There is no such thing as participating in the life of the Catholic Church in “an incomplete manner,” and no amount of “good” that one does while in a state of Mortal Sin merits anything. Then again, Jorge Mario Bergoglio expressed the following belief at the Casa Santa Marta on May 15, 2013, the Feast of Saint John Baptist de la Salle:

(Vatican Radio) “Doing good” is a principle that unites all humanity, beyond the diversity of ideologies and religions, and creates the “culture of encounter” that is the foundation of peace: this is what Pope said at Mass this morning at the Domus Santae Martae, in the presence of employees of the Governorate of Vatican City. Cardinal Bechara Boutros Rai, Patriarch of Antioch of the Maronites, concelebrated at the Mass.  

Wednesday’s Gospel speaks to us about the disciples who prevented a person from outside their group from doing good. “They complain,” the Pope said in his homily, because they say, “If he is not one of us, he cannot do good. If he is not of our party, he cannot do good.” And Jesus corrects them: “Do not hinder him, he says, let him do good.” The disciples, Pope Francis explains, “were a little intolerant,” closed off by the idea of ​​possessing the truth, convinced that “those who do not have the truth, cannot do good.” “This was wrong . . . Jesus broadens the horizon.” Pope Francis said, “The root of this possibility of doing good – that we all have – is in creation”:   

"The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can. He must. Not can: must! Because he has this commandment within him. Instead, this ‘closing off’ that imagines that those outside, everyone, cannot do good is a wall that leads to war and also to what some people throughout history have conceived of: killing in the name of God. That we can kill in the name of God. And that, simply, is blasphemy. To say that you can kill in the name of God is blasphemy.”

“Instead,” the Pope continued, “the Lord has created us in His image and likeness, and has given us this commandment in the depths of our heart: do good and do not do evil”:

"The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

“Doing good” the Pope explained, is not a matter of faith: “It is a duty, it is an identity card that our Father has given to all of us, because He has made us in His image and likeness. And He does good, always.”

This was the final prayer of Pope Francis:

"Today is [the feast of] Santa Rita, Patron Saint of impossible things – but this seems impossible: let us ask of her this grace, this grace that all, all, all people would do good and that we would encounter one another in this work, which is a work of creation, like the creation of the Father. A work of the family, because we are all children of God, all of us, all of us! And God loves us, all of us! May Santa Rita grant us this grace, which seems almost impossible. Amen.” (Culture of encounter is the foundation of peace.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio never explained were “there” might be, but I can assure him that it will not be Heaven. “Doing good” apart from the Catholic Faith does not merit unto salvation. It is impossible to “participate” in the life of the Catholic Church in an “incomplete manner.”

Bergoglio’s belief system is premised upon the same sin of Presumption as Martin Luther’s revolution against the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man’s return to Him through the Catholic Church.

Back to Amoris Laetitia:

292. Christian marriage, as a reflection of the union between Christ and his Church, is fully realized in the union between a man and a woman who give themselves to each other in a free, faithful and exclusive love, who belong to each other until death and are open to the transmission of life, and are consecrated by the sacrament, which grants them the grace to become a domestic church and a leaven of new life for society. Some forms of union radically contradict this ideal, while others realize it in at least a partial and analogous way. The Synod Fathers stated that the Church does not disregard the constructive elements in those situations which do not yet or no longer correspond to her teaching on marriage.314

293. The Fathers also considered the specific situation of a merely civil marriage or, with due distinction, even simple cohabitation, noting that “when such unions attain a particular stability, legally recognized, are characterized by deep affection and responsibility for their offspring, and demonstrate an ability to overcome trials, 313 Ibid., 28. 314 Cf. ibid., 41, 43; Relatio Finalis 2015, 70. 223 they can provide occasions for pastoral care with a view to the eventual celebration of the sacrament of marriage”.315 On the other hand, it is a source of concern that many young people today distrust marriage and live together, putting off indefinitely the commitment of marriage, while yet others break a commitment already made and immediately assume a new one. “As members of the Church, they too need pastoral care that is merciful and helpful”.316 For the Church’s pastors are not only responsible for promoting Christian marriage, but also the “pastoral discernment of the situations of a great many who no longer live this reality. Entering into pastoral dialogue with these persons is needed to distinguish elements in their lives that can lead to a greater openness to the Gospel of marriage in its fullness”.317 In this pastoral discernment, there is a need “to identify elements that can foster evangelization and human and spiritual growth”.318

294. “The choice of a civil marriage or, in many cases, of simple cohabitation, is often not motivated by prejudice or resistance to a sacramental union, but by cultural or contingent situations”.319 In such cases, respect also can be shown for those signs of love which in some way reflect God’s own love.320 We know that there is “a continual increase in the number of those who, after having lived together for a long period, request the celebration of marriage in Church. Simply to live together is often a choice based on a general attitude opposed to anything institutional or definitive; it can also be done while awaiting more security in life (a steady job and steady income). In some countries, de facto unions are very numerous, not only because of a rejection of values concerning the family and matrimony, but primarily because celebrating a marriage is considered too expensive in the social circumstances. As a result, material poverty drives people into de facto unions”.321 Whatever the case, “all these situations require a constructive response seeking to transform them into opportunities that can lead to the full reality of marriage and family in conformity with the Gospel. These couples need to be welcomed and guided patiently and discreetly”.322 That is how Jesus treated the Samaritan woman (cf. Jn 4:1-26): he addressed her desire for true love, in order to free her from the darkness in her life and to bring her to the full joy of the Gospel. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Amoris Laetita, March 19, 2016.)

Comment Number Two:

As mentioned at the beginning of this article, Jorge Mario Bergoglio (actually, “Archbishop” Victor Manuel Fernandez, who drew extensively from Bergoglio’s own much-repeated slogans and clichés) reiterates points here that he discussed earlier in the endless text of Amoris Laetitia. One of the times that he did so was in Paragraphs 78 and 79:

78. “The light of Christ enlightens every person (cf. Jn 1:9; Gaudium et Spes, 22). Seeing things with the eyes of Christ inspires the Church’s pastoral care for the faithful who are living together, or are only married civilly, or are divorced and remarried. Following this divine pedagogy, the Church turns with love to those who participate in her life in an imperfect manner: she seeks the grace of conversion for them; she encourages them to do good, to take loving care of each other and to serve the community in which they live and work… When a couple in an irregular union attains a noteworthy stability through a public bond – and is characterized by deep affection, responsibility towards the children and the ability to overcome trials – this can be seen as an opportunity, where possible, to lead them to celebrate the sacrament of Matrimony”.78

79. “When faced with difficult situations and wounded families, it is always necessary to recall this general principle: ‘Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations’ (Familiaris Consortio, 84). The degree of responsibility is not equal in all cases and factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision. Therefore, while clearly stating the Church’s teaching, pastors are to avoid judgements that do not take into account the complexity of various situations, and they are to be attentive, by necessity, to how people experience and endure distress because of their condition”.79  (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Amoris Laetita, March 19, 2016.)

As mentioned at the beginning of this article, Jorge Mario Bergoglio (actually, “Archbishop” Victor Manuel Fernandez, who drew extensively from Bergoglio’s own much-repeated slogans and clichés) reiterates points here that he discussed earlier in the endless text of Amoris Laetitia. One of the times that he did so was in Paragraph 78:

It is quite evident that Paragraphs 292-294 are a repetition of the message that Bergoglio conveyed in Paragraphs 78-79. Indeed, the entirety of the concluding paragraphs of Amoris Laetitia repeat themes that he had stated at least once, if not more, in the heresy-filled piece of rubbish that those who have the misfortune of believing Bergoglio to be “Pope Francis” think is a “papa exhortation.”

As to the substance of the “papal” claims in Paragraphs 292-294, suffice to bring forth Pope Leo XIII to present Catholic truth concerning the wicked nature of sins against Holy Purity:

41. In the great confusion of opinions, however, which day by day is spreading more and more widely, it should further be known that no power can dissolve the bond of Christian marriage whenever this has been ratified and consummated; and that, of a consequence, those husbands and wives are guilty of a manifest crime who plan, for whatever reason, to be united in a second marriage before the first one has been ended by death. When, indeed, matters have come to such a pitch that it seems impossible for them to live together any longer, then the Church allows them to live apart, and strives at the same time to soften the evils of this separation by such remedies and helps as are suited to their condition; yet she never ceases to endeavor to bring about a reconciliation, and never despairs of doing so. But these are extreme cases; and they would seldom exist if men and women entered into the married state with proper dispositions, not influenced by passion, but entertaining right ideas of the duties of marriage and of its noble purpose; neither would they anticipate their marriage by a series of sins drawing down upon them the wrath of God.

42. To sum up all in a few words, there would be a calm and quiet constancy in marriage if married people would gather strength and life from the virtue of religion alone, which imparts to us resolution and fortitude; for religion would enable them to bear tranquilly and even gladly the trials of their state, such as, for instance, the faults that they discover in one another, the difference of temper and character, the weight of a mother's cares, the wearing anxiety about the education of children, reverses of fortune, and the sorrows of life.

43. Care also must be taken that they do not easily enter into marriage with those who are not Catholics; for, when minds do not agree as to the observances of religion, it is scarcely possible to hope for agreement in other things. Other reasons also proving that persons should turn with dread from such marriages are chiefly these: that they give occasion to forbidden association and communion in religious matters; endanger the faith of the Catholic partner; are a hindrance to the proper education of the children; and often lead to a mixing up of truth and falsehood, and to the belief that all religions are equally good.   

44. Lastly, since We well know that none should be excluded from Our charity, We commend, venerable brothers, to your fidelity and piety those unhappy persons who, carried away by the heat of passion, and being utterly indifferent to their salvation, live wickedly together without the bond of lawful marriage. Let your utmost care be exercised in bringing such persons back to their duty; and, both by your own efforts and by those of good men who will consent to help you, strive by every means that they may see how wrongly they have acted; that they may do penance; and that they may be induced to enter into a lawful marriage according to the Catholic rite. (Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, February 10, 1880.)

I could do myself a big favor and say that there is really no need to write more segments about Jorge’s exhortation of self-justification before men as the words of Pope Leo XIII in the passages from Arcanum just above condemn the Argentine Apostate and his false teaching in no uncertain terms.

Pope Leo XIII referred to those who “live wickedly together without the bond of lawful marriage. Jorge Mario Bergoglio praises those who are living together without the bond of lawful marriage for having a “noteworthy stability” if the sinful union has lasted for a certain while.

Pope Leo XIII was a true pope.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is an antipope.

Pope Leo XIII was a Catholic.  

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a heretic.

The conciliar revolutionaries are forever attempting to defy the principle of non-contradiction as they ascribe to the Modernist precept of dogmatic evolution, which was relabeled by Karol Joseph Wojtyla/John Paul II as “living tradition” and repackaged and relabeled by Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI as “hermeneutic of continuity.”

This means that that the clear reiteration of Catholic teaching by Pope Leo XII can be dismissed by the conciliar revolutionaries by having recourse to the falsehood that it is supposedly “impossible” for dogmatic truth to be expressed clearly since its formulation is conditioned by the limitations of human language and by the historical circumstances which give rise to it.   

To believe such a thing, however, is to deny that Catholic doctrines are guided in their formulation and expression by the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost. Such a blasphemous contentions means either that God the Holy Ghost is “mutable” or that He “misguided” our true popes and the fathers of Holy Mother Church’s true general councils for over nineteen centuries prior to the emergence of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII on the Balcony of Saint Peter on October 28, 1958, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude. It is to make of the Catholic Church a merely human institution that is always “moved” at the arbitrary whims of God the Holy Ghost. How anyone cannot recognize this as blasphemy and heresy escapes my limited intellect.

Oh, perhaps even more to the point is the simple fact that Holy Mother Church's doctrine of the indissolubility of a valid, ratified and consummated marriage comes straight from the lips of the Divine Redeemer Himself:

And it came to pass when Jesus had ended these words, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judea, beyond Jordan. [2] And great multitudes followed him: and he healed them there. [3] And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? [4] Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: [5] For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.  

[6] Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. [7] They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? [8] He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. [9] And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. (Matthew 1-9.)

Pope Saint Pius X explained how the Modernist/conciliarist precept of dogmatic evolutionism ruin and wreck all religion: 

Hence it is quite impossible [the Modernists assert] to maintain that they [dogmatic statements] absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion.   

It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: 'These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts.' On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ''Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason'; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ''The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.' Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: 'Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries -- but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.' (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

No one is throwing “stones” at those who insist upon living in sin. It is Jorge Mario Bergolio who is throwing stones at Our Lord, He Who is Author of all Catholic truth.

As a consummate pseudo-intellectual fraud, “Pope Francis” is not in the least bit concerned by his flagrant violation of Catholic teaching as summarized so clearly by Pope Leo XIII in Arcanum as he has no regard for the immutability of Catholic doctrine. The “heart” is what matters, not the “stones” of commandments, rules and doctrines. His “heart,” however, is as darkened as his intellect as no one truly loves another while enabling him in his sins, each of which caused the Divine Redeemer to suffer unspeakable horrors in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death and wound the souls of sinners as well as the Mystical Body of Christ on earth.

That was brief, wasn’t it?

Here are the next few paragraphs of Amoris Laetitia:

295. Along these lines, Saint John Paul II proposed the so-called “law of gradualness” in the knowledge that the human being “knows, loves and accomplishes moral good by different stages of growth”.323 This is not a “gradualness of law” but rather a gradualness in the prudential exercise of free acts on the part of subjects who are not in a position to understand, appreciate, or fully carry out the objective demands of the law. For the law is itself a gift of God which points out the way, a gift for everyone without exception; it can be followed with the help of grace, even though each human being “advances gradually with the progressive integration of the gifts of God and the demands of God’s definitive and absolute love in his or her entire personal and social life”.324

296. The Synod addressed various situations of weakness or imperfection. Here I would like to reiterate something I sought to make clear to the whole Church, lest we take the wrong path: “There are two ways of thinking which recur throughout the Church’s history: casting off and reinstating. The Church’s way, from the time of the Council of Jerusalem, has always always been the way of Jesus, the way of mercy and reinstatement… The way of the Church is not to condemn anyone for ever; it is to pour out the balm of God’s mercy on all those who ask for it with a sincere heart… For true charity is always unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous”.326 Consequently, there is a need “to avoid judgements which do not take into account the complexity of various situations” and “to be attentive, by necessity, to how people experience distress because of their condition”.327  (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Amoris Laetita, March 19, 2016.)

One of the great missionaries to Latin America, Saint Anthony Mary Claret, did not know of "law of gradualness" as expressed by the Argentine son of Italian immigrants, Jorge Mario Bergoglio: 

Here he was met by disturbing news. In this town of pilgrimage [Cobre] where the island's most famous shrine was located, his missionaries had found hardly a dozen legitimately married couples! He praised their diligence in having substantially raised this figure prior to his arrival but--even so! This shocking situation required a strong hand--the hand of a patient but uncompromising prelate. The unhappy fact was that the Spanish-descended Cubans rarely condescended to marry their Negro and mulatto concubines, even when their half-caste progeny might number as many as nine or ten. Rightly suspecting that this intolerable state of affairs might prove typical, he attacked the problem vigorously. A committee was appointed to study each case individually. On its recommendations, he let it be known, all such unions must be regularized or, where impediments existed, dissolved! 

It was a most trying undertaking, fraught with complications, both tragic and absurd. Persons who expressed their willingness, even eagerness, to legalize their unions were frequently not free to receive the Sacrament of marriage. Others, without the excuse of impediments under Church law were sometimes overcome with indignation to hear that they were expected to make wives of their colored concubines. There were emphatic affirmations that Spain prohibited mixed marriages, a fallacy the archbishop had no need to consider. In all her colonial history Spain had never forced any such regulation. However, for any who persisted in this persuasion in spite of Padre Claret's assurances, his command was clear. They must immediately terminate their illicit unions. It would be a painful problem--the provision for their innocent children--but it would have to be faced. Although he praised God that many of these easy-going folk accepted their prelate's reprimands contritely and docilely obeyed his injunctions to amend their lives, Cobre had certainly given him a first-hand acquaintance with the repugnant moral deterioration that had engulfed a traditionally Christian nation. (Fanchon Royer, The Life of St. Anthony Mary Claret, published originally by Farrar, Straus and Cudahy in 1957 an republished in 1985 by TAN Books and Publishers, pp. 130-131.)  

Saint Anthony Mary Claret did not accept sophistries used to disguise moral relativism. Quite unlike Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis the Possessed, Saint Anthony Mary Claret preached Catholic doctrinal truth to the people of Cobre, Cuba, knowing that this truth possesses the inherent power to attract and to covert an unprejudiced soul who is willing to cooperate with the graces sent to them by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces.   

Countless are the examples of Catholic bishops and priests, many of them raised to the altars of Holy Mother Church, who worked to reform the morals of the people who had been entrusted to their pastoral care.  

Another Spaniard, Saint Francis Solano, for example, preached a sermon in the public square in Lima, Peru, in 1610 during which he prophesied of the great earthquake that God would visit upon Lima to chastise the people there for their ingratitude and immorality:  

By the time Francis had reached the market, the theme of his sermon was clear. God was love, yet man was constantly thwarting that love. Many times this was because of thoughtlessness, but there were also countless times when it was because of sheer selfishness, and even malice. Well, atonement for sin must be made by means of penance.

"Unless you do penance, you shall likewise," Our Lord had said to his disciples.

"I will say these words, too," Francis thought. "Oh, Heavenly Father, may they help some souls tonight to turn away from sin!"

Naturally many at the market were astonished when they saw the Father Guardian of Saint Mary of the Angels making his way through their midst. Since his return from Trujillo he had appeared in the streets only rarely, and certainly never in the evenings. Then in a little while there was even more astonishment. Father Francis had come not to buy for his friars, or even to beg. He had come to preach!

At first, however, since business was brisk, not much heed was paid to his words. Merchants vied with one another in calling out the merits of their wares while customers argued noisily for a lower price. Beggars whined for alms. Babies cried. Dogs barked. Donkeys brayed. Older children ran in and out of the crowd intent upon their games. Music was everywhere--weird tunes played by Indian musicians on their wooden flutes, gay Spanish rhythms played on guitar and tambourine. At the various food students succulent rounds of meat sizzled and sputtered as they turned over slow fires. Then suddenly a thunderous voice rang about above the noisy and carefree scene:

"For all that is in the world is the concupiscence of the flesh, and the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life, which is not of the Father but is in the world."

It was as though a bombshell had fallen. At once the hubbub died away, and hundreds of Lima's startled citizens turned to where a grey-clad friar, cross in hand, had mounted an elevation in the center of the marketplace and now stood gazing down upon them with eyes of burning coals. But before anyone could wonder about the text from Saint John's first epistle, Francis began to explain the meaning of concupiscence: that, because of Original Sin, it is the tendency within each person to do evil instead of good; that this hidden warfare will end only when we have drawn our last breath.

"If we were to die tonight, would good or evil be the victor within our hearts" he cried. "Oh, my friends! Think about this question. Think hard!

Within just a few minutes Lima's marketplace was as hushed and solemn as a cathedral. All eyes were riveted upon the Father Guardian and all ears were filled with his words as he described God's destruction of the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrha because of the sins committed within them.

"Who is to say that here in Lima we do not deserve a like fate?" he demanded in ringing tones. "Look into your hearts now, my children. Are they clean? Are they pure? Are they filled with love of God?"

As the minutes passed and twilight deepened into darkness, the giant torches of the marketplace cast their flickering radiance over a moving scene. As usual, crowds of people were on hand, but now no one was interested in buying or selling. Instead, faces were bewildered, agonized and fearful. Tears were streaming from many eyes as Francis' words continued to pour out in torrents, urging repentance while there was still time.

"Can we say that we shall ever see tomorrow?" he cried, fervently brandishing his missionary cross. "Can we say that this night is not the last we shall have in which to return to God's friendship?"

As these and still more terrifying thoughts struck home one after another, the speaker stretched out both arms, bowed his head, and in heartrending tones began the Fifth Psalm. At once the crowd was filled with fresh sorrow and made the contrite phrases their own:

"Have mercy on me, O God, according to Thy great mercy.

"And according to the multitude of Thy tender mercies, blot out my iniquity.

"Wash me yet more from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.

"For I know my iniquity, and my sins is always before me.

"To Thee only have I sinned, and have done evil before Thee: that Thou mayest be justified in Thy words, and mayest overcome when Thou art judged . . ."

Soon wave upon wave of sound was filling the torch lit marketplace as priest and people prayed together. Then Francis preached again, doing his est to implant a greater sorrow for sin and an even firmer purpose of amendment in the hearts of his hearers. Finally, looking neither to right nor left, he prepared to depart for Saint Mary of the Angels. But on all sides men and women pressed about him, sobbing and begging for his blessing.

"Father, please pray for me!" cried one young girl. "I've deserved to go to Hell a thousand times!"

"Last year, I robbed a poor widow of ten pounds of gold!" declared a swarthy-faced Spaniard. "May God forgive me!"

"'I'm worse than anyone," moaned a wild-eyed black man. "Tonight, I was going to kill a man . . . and for money!"

So it was that first one, then another, cried out his fault and expressed a desire to go to Confession at once. But Francis had to refuse all such requests. Yes, he was a priest. It was his privilege and duty to administer the Sacraments. But he was also a religious, and bound by rule to various observances. One of them was that he must be in his cell at Saint Mary of the Angels by a certain hour each night.

"There are other priests in the city who can help you, though," he said kindly. "Go them now, my children. And may the Holy Virgin bring you back to her Son without delay." (Mary Fabyan Windeatt, Saint Francis of Solano: Wonderworker of the New World and Apostle of Argentina and Peru, published originally by Sheed and Ward in 1946 and republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1994, pp. 167-172.)

Yet another Spanish missionary to Latin America, Saint Peter Claver, S.J., a true Jesuit and a true priest, labored long and hard to save the souls of the Negro slaves who were brought to Cathagena, Columbia, was charitable in his dealings with sinners, heretics, and infidels, including Mohammedans,  in the pattern of Our Lord Himself. Saint Peter Claver, however, possessed true charity, which sought to remove hardened sinners from their sins as soon possible, and urged sinners to accept the sufferings that God sent them to remove from them the near occasions of sin and as the means to pay back the temporal debt of what they owed for their sins. Quite in contrast to the spirit of false ecumenism, he also sought—and won—the conversion of Protestants and Mohammedans.

Here is an example of how Saint Peter Claver worked with one hardened sinner in the hospital in Carthagena:

His Labors in the Hospitals

Occupied as the holy missionary was in the conversion, sanctification, and consolation of the Negroes, yet the ardor of his zeal led him also amongst heretics, Mahomedans, and Catholics who were a disgrace to their religion. To succeed in his generous designs, he had many obstacles to surmount, persecutions to suffer, and even injuries and calumnies to endure. His charity and courage, however, were more powerful than the efforts of men and devils; and God, by the miraculous success with which He crowned his combats, knew how to indemnify him for all he undertook for the promotion of His glory.

There were two remarkable hospitals in Carthagena: --St. Sebastian's, served by the religious of St. John of God; and St. Lazarus', for lepers and such as suffered from the complaint called St. Anthony's fire. After his devotedness to his Negroes – the principal objects of his care – these were the two principal theatres of his charity.

The hospital of St. Sebastian, though without any fixed revenues, was crowded, especially in war time, with such a prodigious multitude of sick, that the religious had great difficulty in procurring necessary alms and remedies for their subsistence. Father Claver, delighted with their charity, undertook to assist them, and wherever he met them offered his services with a humility and zeal which they could not fail to admire. When not engaged in his missions in the country, he went thither at least once a meek, and on reaching the hospital, he visited all the sick in succession, presenting them with his crucifix, and exhorting them to prepare for the sacrament of penance. When any of them wished to confess, he always arranged the place conveniently for them, and the reverse for himself. He particularly devoted himself to the most miserable, for whom he performed the most painful and lowly offices with incredible ardor. In time of war, when the number was greatly augmented, he did not limit himself to an ordinary care of them, but spent the entire day in the hospital, said mass, and applied himself to all that his charity could suggest, without care, for a moment, for his own bodily needs. His prodigious abstemiousness, under such fatigues and in such excessive heats, so astonished the good religious of the hospital, that they publicly declared the life of this indefatigable workman could only be sustained by miracle. He was ready for everything, swept the rooms, made the beds, changed the clothes of the sick, served the broth, prepared the meat, washed the plates, and yet did nothing but by direction either of the prior or infirmarian. When thus occupied, if he was called to console or assist the sick, he humbly asked permission, and as soon as he had discharged his ministry he resumed his interrupted work. Never had such fervor, zeal, and courage been seen there, and it was fearlessly said that he alone was worth more than forty workmen. His absence from the hospital was a cause of general desolation; but on his return, the sick knew not how to manifest their joy.

After what we have seen him do for the Negroes, we shall not be surprises to find that here the most disgusting and repulsive offices constituted his greatest delight. A hundred times he renewed the heroic acts so familiar to him in the huts of the slaves. Amongst the sick there was one so disfigured, putrid, and infectious, that the others were unable to endure the sight or smell of him, and the religious had caused him to be removed to a separate lodging. Father Claver sought him out; and after saluting him with great tenderness, seated himself in such a position that his face nearly touched the sick man's arm, from which a virulent matter was oozing. When begged to change his place, he replied that he suffered no inconvenience, and after devoutly kissing the wounds he spent two hours with him, consoling him, and inspiring him with Christian sentiments. He continued visiting him, and inspiring him daily for a long time; and on taking leave he always begged the poor man to remember him when he should be with god. One day when the invalid thought himself dying, he offered some money to the father, to have a mass said for him. Father Claver, however, desired him to keep his money, and not be uneasy, for he himself would offer the holy sacrifice for his intention. After saying mass the next day, he returned, and said, as he entered, “Be composed, brother; God loves you, and I hope we shall again see you in full health in Carthagena. But never be unmindful of Him, from whom you receive this favor, and above all, sin no more. For the rest, He will have the goodness to withdraw from you the occasion of offending Him, because He loves you.” From that moment the man's health improved; but in proportion as his wounds healed his sight failed, and he ultimately became blind. Whenever the father met him afterward in the town, he begged he would pray for him when in Heaven, and from thence-forward the man's life was a holy as it had formerly been irregular.

Such is the fruit of the calamities sent by God to His elect. In His hands, the loss of health, abused for criminal indulgence; of beauty, employed to ensnare modesty; of money, used as an instrument of guilt, are precious and profitable favors. A father truly loves his son when he deprives him of the sword with which he would commit self-destruction. It was with this solid reflection, that the holy man consoled his invalid; and, for his own consolation Almighty God seems often to have sent these trials to sinners under his care. In the same hospital, there was a blind man who suffered from a violent head-ache. Hearing Father Claver pass along the room, he eagerly called to him, and complained of his double infirmity. “Bear your blindness patiently,” answered the father, “as a grace to which your salvation is attached; and for the rest, confide in God.” At the same time he put his cloak over the man's head, and gave him the kiss of peace: his pain was instantly removed, but he always remained blind.  

His principal object amongst the poor and infirm was the cure of their souls, often much more in need of pity than their bodies; and he neglected no means whereby he might succeed. He sought out those whose shameful irregularities had obliged them to take dangerous and violent remedies. He began by procuring them a thousand little comforters, and by paying them particular attention, and when at length he found them disposes to listen to him, he powerfully depicted how wretched was the shameful satisfaction of a pleasure which was followed by such cruel evils. “If,” added he, “the remedies are so painful, what will be the chastisements prepared for such sins? The pleasure soon passes, but the pain of the body, and even of the soul, only finish with this life to commence far more terribly in eternity. It is true,” continued he, “it costs something to abstain from vices which gratify for the moment, but at least the difficulties attached to virtue are noble in the cause which produces them, sweet by the consolation which accompany them, precious by the recompenses which follow them; whereas the enjoyments of crime leave nothing but bitterness and shame.” His words animated with zeal and unction made so deep an impression, that many of these unfortunate sinners determined to embrace the religious state, and to suffer for the salvation of their souls, at least as much as they had suffered for the cure of their bodies. (John R. Slattery, The Life of St. Peter Claver, S.J.: The Apostle of the Negroes, published originally by H. L. Kilner & Co., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1893, and republished by Forgotten Books in 2015, pp. 98-102.)

Saint Peter Claver knew that it took stern measures and great bodily chastisements, including severe physical suffering, to root out one’s attachment to his sins. “Pope Francis” extols the great need reaching out to those in “irregular” situations in order to “understand” the supposed “complexity” of their lives. This is nothing other than moral relativism/situation ethics that is in direct violation to Supernatural Works of Mercy that must be rendered to habitual sinners.

As Whit Wednesday has turned into Whit Thursday, I can now report to you that this series may take another two parts to complete.

Before I conclude this part, however, I do want to bring your attention to Paragraph 297 of Amoris Laetitia wherein Jorge Mario Bergoglio wrote that “no one can be condemned forever.” Although I will return to this paragraph later today, permit me to feature it prior to contrasting the “no one can be condemned forever” with just a few pieces of Catholic refutation:

297. It is a matter of reaching out to everyone, of needing to help each person find his or her proper way of participating in the ecclesial community and thus to experience being touched by an “unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous” mercy. No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves. Naturally, if someone flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal, or wants to impose something other than what the Church teaches, he or she can in no way presume to teach or preach to others; this is a case of something which separates from the community (cf. Mt 18:17). Such a person needs to listen once more to the Gospel message and its call to conversion. Yet even for that person there can be some way of taking part in the life of community, whether in social service, prayer meetings or another way that his or her own initiative, together with the discernment of the parish priest, may suggest. As for the way of dealing with different “irregular” situations, the Synod Fathers reached a general consensus, which I support: “In considering a pastoral approach towards people who have contracted a civil marriage, who are divorced and remarried, or simply living together, the Church has the responsibility of helping them understand the divine pedagogy of grace in their lives and offering them assistance so they can reach the fullness of God’s plan for them”,328 something which is always possible by the power of the Holy Spirit. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Amoris Laetita, March 19, 2016.)

Comment Number Three:

First, Bergoglio is not limiting his “no one can be condemned forever” declaration to Catholics who are divorced and civilly “remarried” without a conciliar decree of marital nullity. Oh no. He means everyone, including fornicators, sodomites, the “transgendered,” abortionists, those who use contraception, those who have had themselves sterilized, etc. Everyone means everyone, but like every revolutionary who proselytizes in favor of a “classless” society Jorge does not mean everyone as he excludes his mythical strawmen who throw “cold stones of doctrine” at those who have “irregularities.”

Second, insofar as the heresy represented by the statement that “no one can be condemned forever,” well, what can one say?   

It is best to let Our Blessed Lord and Saviour and His Most Blessed Mother provide the refutation of this heresy:

And if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell.

Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till thou repay the last farthing. [27]You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery. [28] But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart. [29] And if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell. [30] And if thy right hand scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell.

And it hath been said, whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce.[32] But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. [33] Again you have heard that it was said to them of old, Thou shalt not forswear thyself: but thou shalt perform thy oaths to the Lord. [34] But I say to you not to swear at all, neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God: [35] Nor by the earth, for it is his footstool: nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king:

[34] Not to swear at all: It is not forbid to swear in truth, justice and judgment; to the honour of God, or our own or neighbour's just defence: but only to swear rashly, or profanely, in common discourse, and without necessity. (Matthew 5: 26-34.)

Woe to thee, Corozain, woe to thee, Bethsaida: for if in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in you, they had long ago done penance in sackcloth and ashes. [22] But I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment, than for you. [23] And thou Capharnaum, shalt thou be exalted up to heaven? thou shalt go down even unto hell. For if in Sodom had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in thee, perhaps it had remained unto this day. [24] But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee. [25] At that time Jesus answered and said: I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to the little ones. (Matthew 10: 21-25.)

But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea. [7] Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh. [8] And if thy hand, or thy foot scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee to go into life maimed or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into everlasting fire. [9] And if thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee having one eye to enter into life, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. [10] See that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 18: 6-10.)

Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. [43] I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. [44]Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? [45] Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

[46] And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting fire. (Matthew 25: 41-46.)

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

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

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

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

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

“No one can be condemned forever,” Jorge?   

You are a heretical blasphemer.

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

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

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

Ah, Jorge Mario Bergoglio really does not believe that anyone can go to Hell if they “encounter the Lord” and express some kind of sorrow, which is nothing other than recycled Lutheranism. (For an excellent commentary on Bergoglio’s religion of sentimentality and false mercy, see a 2015 commentary at  Novus Ordo Watch Wire.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon. 

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us! 

Saint Joseph, pray for us. 

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us. 

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us. 

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us. 

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.  

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

Pope Saint Peter Celestine V, pray for us.