Careful reading has been given to the entire text of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s incredible exhortation of self-justification before men, Amoris Laetitia, which was signed on March 19, 2016, the Feast of Saint Joseph and the Commemoration of Saturday in Passion Week, but released on Friday, April 8, 2016. The only way that one can maintain a semblance of sanity while reading Victor Manuel Fernandez’s ghostwritten text for his mentor, Bergoglio, is to remember Pope Leo XIII’s description about the Modernist modus operandi as contained in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907:
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 Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
Unreconstructed Modernists such as Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his ghostwriter, Victor Manuel Fernandez, believe that the Catholic Church, she who is the spotless, mystical spouse of her Divine Founder, Invisible Head and Mystical Bridegroom, has erred in her pastoral application of the precepts contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith. They believe that the Catholic Church up until the “Second” Vatican Council was too closed-in-on-itself, too concerned about “stale” doctrines that, they believe, did not touch the “hearts” of the people or recognize the real-life situations and difficulties in which they found themselves. Moreover, Jacobins/Bolsheviks such as Bergoglio and Fernandez operation under the delusion that even the false “pontificates” of the Girondists/Mensheviks Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI were too “rigid” and “dogmatic.” Bergoglio’s “Petrine Ministry” is that a time of “correction” in the name of “mercy” and “openness.”
Those seeking to read Amoris Laetitia in the hopes of finding “nuggets” of Catholicism are engaged in a vain exercise as Modernists always seek to make themselves obscure enough on some points so as to make it possible for there to be multiple interpretations of their texts.
Revolutionaries foment chaos and confusion. Indeed, they thrive on what can be called “disorder by design,” that is, an effort to create a groundswell for one or more of their propositions by doing just enough to set various groups against themselves as to make any return to the “past” impossible.
Although the official text did not include the actual words spoken by Jorge Mario Bergoglio to Argentine youth at Word Youth Day in Rio de Janeiro on July 25, 2013, the false “pontiff” did say that he wanted his countrymen to go home and “make a mess,” not simply make “their voices heard”:
Let me tell you what I hope will be the outcome of World Youth Day: I hope there will be noise. Here there will be noise, I’m quite sure. Here in Rio there will be plenty of noise, no doubt about that. But I want you to make yourselves heard in your dioceses, I want the noise to go out, I want the Church to go out onto the streets, I want us to resist everything worldly, everything static, everything comfortable, everything to do with clericalism, everything that might make us closed in on ourselves. The parishes, the schools, the institutions are made for going out ... if they don’t, they become an NGO, and the Church cannot be an NGO. May the bishops and priests forgive me if some of you create a bit of confusion afterwards. That’s my advice. Thanks for whatever you can do. (Meeting with the youth from Argentina.)
Here is a Catholic News Agency report on the same address:
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Jul 25, 2013 / 12:18 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Pope Francis told a gathering of some 30,000 youth from his homeland that they are to “make a mess,” shaking up the comfort, self-satisfaction and clericalism of a Church closed in on itself.
“What do I hope for from World Youth Day? I hope for a mess ... that the Church takes to the streets. That we defend ourselves from comfort, that we defend ourselves from clericalism,” the Pope told a group of pilgrims from Argentina during this week's World Youth Day. (Pope to youth: shake things up, bring Church to the streets.)
Confusion and chaos are from the devil, who hates orderliness, especially in anything to do with what purports to be Catholicism. The adversary thrives on confusion and disorder, and he, the first revolutionary, has inspired every revolutionary to foment chaos and confusion as the means to overthrow an existing order in defiance of the laws of God and to the temporal and eternal detriment of the souls redeemed by His Divine Son’ Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the Holy Cross.
Some of the confusion contained in Amoris Laetitia is based upon blasphemous distortions of the truth, including the meaning of Our Lord’s staying behind in the Temple at the age of twelve to answer questions that were being posted to him by the scribes and elders:
18. The Gospel goes on to remind us that children are not the property of a family, but have their own lives to lead. Jesus is a model of obedience to his earthly parents, placing himself under their charge (cf. Lk 2:51), but he also shows that children’s life decisions and their Christian vocation may demand a parting for the sake of the Kingdom of God (cf. Mt 10:34-37; Lk 9:59- 62). Jesus himself, at twelve years of age, tells Mary and Joseph that he has a greater mission to accomplish apart from his earthly family (cf. Lk 2:48-50). In this way, he shows the need for other, deeper bonds even within the family: “My mother and my brethren are those who hear the word of God and do it” (Lk 8:21). All the same, in the concern he shows for children – whom the societies of the ancient Near East viewed as subjects without particular rights and even as family property – Jesus goes so far as to present them as teachers, on account of their simple trust and spontaneity towards others. “Truly I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 18:3-4). (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Amoris Laetita, March 19, 2016.)
Our Lord is the Co-Equal, Co-Eternal Son of God made Man in His Most Blessed Mother’s Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost. He stayed behind in the Temple to teach the elders and the scribes about the mission of the Messias, and He explained this to Our Lady on their way back to Nazareth (see From Nazareth We Come, In Nazareth We Must Live). Although each child has a vocation to pursue in this passing, mortal vale of tears, no child can have the mission of the God-Man and to use Our Lord’s efforts to prepare the minds and hearts of the Jews who listened to Him for the events of their very own Redemption as somehow analogous to the natural process by which children grow up to follow a religious vocation or to marry is an exercise in naturalistic thinking.
Given the pull of the world, especially today, parents have special obligation to foster religious vocations in the domestic cell of the Church that is the family. While children have free will to choose their particular vocation, parents can seek to influence their decision-making process without controlling it once they come of age. The lives of the saints are replete with examples of young children whose calling to the priesthood or to the religious life was impeded, sometimes for many years, by domineering parents. One thinks of the obstacles placed in the path of such saints as Thomas Aquinas, John Mary Vianney and Margaret Mary Alacoque, among so many, many others.
Nonetheless, however, Our Lord’s staying behind in the Temple to dispute with the doctors of the law was not an act of disobedience to show forth His future “independence.” It was to demonstrate His complete obedience to the will of His Co-Equal, Co-Eternal God the Father.
Bergoglio (by way of his complete ideological soulmate, Victor Manuel Fernandez) is trying to make it appear as though children should be left alone to pursue whatever path in life they desire without parents trying to influence them, something that comes through in later passages of Amoris Laetitia. This is an insidious effort to undermine parental authority over children that implies children are somehow wiser than their parents, who must be ready to "respect" decisions that children make for the "Kingdom of God," which, given the Modernism's reliance on subjectivism as the foundation of the "inner religious sense," can mean anything destinty that a child desires for himself, including leaving what is thought to be the Catholic Church to serve as a Protestant "missionary" or even to become a Talmudist. After all, Bergoglio believes that every "believer" works for the "Kingdom of God." Bergoglio does not believe that parents should interference with such a decision as he believes in the primacy of the individual conscience above all else, which means that parents should be "accepting" if a grown child decides to live in an "irregular situation" that does conform to the ["unattainable"] "ideal" of Catholic teaching.
It is not coincidental that the language used in Amoris Laetitia on this very important point is similar, although identical, with that used by the false “pontiff” in a “homily” on Sunday, December 27, 2015, which was the Novus Ordo Feast of the Holy Family:
At the end of that pilgrimage, Jesus returned to Nazareth and was obedient to his parents (cf. Lk 2:51). This image also contains a beautiful teaching about our families. A pilgrimage does not end when we arrive at our destination, but when we return home and resume our everyday lives, putting into practice the spiritual fruits of our experience. We know what Jesus did on that occasion. Instead of returning home with his family, he stayed in Jerusalem, in the Temple, causing great distress to Mary and Joseph who were unable to find him. For this little “escapade”, Jesus probably had to beg forgiveness of his parents. The Gospel doesn’t say this, but I believe that we can presume it. Mary’s question, moreover, contains a certain reproach, revealing the concern and anguish which she and Joseph felt. Returning home, Jesus surely remained close to them, as a sign of his complete affection and obedience. Moments like these become part of the pilgrimage of each family; the Lord transforms the moments into opportunities to grow, to ask for and to receive forgiveness, to show love and obedience. (Jorge the Blasphemer Strikes Again.)
In other words, Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes that the very Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Incarnate by the power of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb of His Most Blessed Mother had to ask for forgiveness. The Omniscient God made Flesh Who enjoyed the perfect human nature of Adam before Original Sin was “guilty” of an act that required Him to seek forgiveness from His Most Blessed Mother and His most loving foster-father, Saint Joseph.
There are countles examples in Amoris Laetitia of using the Gospels and the writings of the Doctors of the Church as justification for conciliarism's "openness" to the world as it is and to "including" those in the life of the Church who have excluded themselves by means of choosing to persist in objective states of Mortal Sin while demanding to be affirmed and accepted in such states without anyone using the words "sin" or "sinful" to describe their behavior.
Presenting Doctrine As Nothing Other Than "Abstract Ideas About God"
Anyone who has been following the nonstop ramblings of Jorge Mario Bergoglio for the past one thousand one hundred twenty-eight long and seemingly endless days knows that tis wretched pest of a human being hates Catholic doctrine. He hates everything to do with Catholic doctrine and condemns those who defend it by using all manner of pejoratives (Pharisees, legalists, Pelagians, rigid and judgmental hypocrites, narrow-minded bigots with cold hearts, etc.). Bergoglio did this two days ago, that is, on Monday, April 11, 2016, the Feast of Pope Saint Leo the Great:
Pope Francis was reflecting on the Reading from the Acts of the Apostles in which the Doctors of the Law accuse Stephen of speaking “blasphemous words against Moses and God” because they “could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke.”
They even instigated false witnesses to uphold their claims, he said.
“Their hearts, closed to God’s truth, clutch only at the truth of the Law, taking it by ‘the letter’, and do not find outlets other than in lies, false witness and death” he said.
The Pope pointed out that Jesus had already reprimanded them for this attitude, because "their fathers had killed the prophets", and they were now building monuments to those prophets.
He said that the response of the "doctors of the letter" is more cynical than hypocritical when they say that had they been in the days of their fathers, they would not have done the same. (Jorge Swats Away at More Straw Men.)
Interjection Number One:
Jorge has been stung by criticism about Amoris Laetitia. The lady doth protest a bit too much, however, as he knew that his “exhortation” would engender conflict, which is exactly what he wants so that he can beat down his straw men with his words of self-righteous indignation at the Casa Santa Marta and other venues.
One can see rather readily in this instance that Jorge Mario Bergoglio deliberately misrepresented the meaning of Saint Stephen the Protomartyr’s defense of the Catholic Faith against the Jews because he cannot bear to state the truth: that the Jews did not want to hear the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ preached to them. They were the human instruments by which our sins, having transcended time, put Our Lord to death on the wood of the Holy Cross.
Nevertheless, however, the Jews who plugged their ears against Saint Stephen the Protomartyr did not want to hear the truths of the Catholic Faith preached then any more than their Talmudic successors want it preached today. The Old Covenant had been superseded by the New and Eternal Covenant that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ had instituted at the Last Supper on Maundy Thursday and then ratified by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday.
Even though God’s definitive public pronouncement concerning the supersession of the Old Covenant by the New Covenant would be made at the time His Divine Son’s prophecy about the destruction of Jerusalem was fulfilled in 70 A.D., the Jews who were arguing with Saint Stephen were “doctors” of a dead letter, of a dead covenant.
To pose a dichotomy between Catholic doctrine and “mercy” is to say that Our Lord did not reveal each of the doctrines that are taught in His Holy Name by His infallible Catholic Church.
The Jews who desired the stoning of Saint Stephen hated the Holy Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and wanted to blot It out from public utterance, just as the Talmudists seek to do today and just as Jorge Mario Bergoglio wants to blot out any knowledge of the doctrines that Our Lord Himself has revealed to us through Holy Mother Church.
Back to the Casa Santa Marta:
Thus - the Pope said – they wash their hands of everything and judge themselves pure.
But, he continued: “The heart is closed to God's Word, it is closed to truth, and it is closed to God’s messenger who brings the prophecy so that God’s people may go forward." (Jorge Swats Away at More Straw Men.)
Interjection Number Two:
Bergoglio wants a “messy” religion, one that is full of complexity, ambiguity, doubt, confusion and uncertainty, in order to “move forward” into a “doctrine free zone” wherein the consciences of all people may be undisturbed by the purity of Faith and Morals.
Pope Gregory XVI wrote the following about the necessity of defending the untarnished Faith of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ:
As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that, where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which it can be found without even a light tarnish of error. Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, June 25, 1834.)
Pope Gregory XVI condemned everything that the conciliar “popes,” including most especially Jorge Mario Bergoglio, have believed and taught. He has open and dripping contempt for doctrine, posing a “dichotomy” between it and “mercy,” something that he has done throughout the course of the past one thousand one hundred twenty-seven days, including in the text of 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:
 The Jews therefore sought him on the festival day, and said: Where is he?  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.  Yet no man spoke openly of him, for fear of the Jews.  Now about the midst of the feast, Jesus went up into the temple, and taught.  And the Jews wondered, saying: How doth this man know letters, having never learned?
 Jesus answered them, and said: My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.  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.  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.  Did Moses not give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law?  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.
It is very interesting that Bergoglio's quote at the end of Paragraph 194 of Evangelii Gaudium cited above ("“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”) came from a conciliar document, Libertatis Nuntius, that was issued on August 6, 1984, by the so-called Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith and was signed by none other than, yes, Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger. Here is the full text of the paragraph from which Bergoglio quoted:
18. The 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. Spiritual conversion, the intensity of the love of God and neighbor, zeal for justice and peace, the Gospel meaning of the poor and of poverty, are required of everyone, and especially of pastors and those in positions of responsibility. The concern for the purity of the faith demands giving the answer of effective witness in the service of one's neighbor, the poor and the oppressed in particular, in an integral theological fashion. By the witness of their dynamic and constructive power to love, Christians will thus lay the foundations of this "civilization of love" of which the Conference of Puebla spoke, following Paul VI.  Moreover there are already many priests, religious, and lay people who are consecrated in a truly evangelical way for the creation of a just society. (Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, Libertatis Nuntius, August 6, 1984.)
The counterfeit church of conciliarism has been a “doctrine free zone” for quite some time now. We are simply witnessing the manifestation of the perfection of the inherent degeneracy of conciliarism’s heretical precepts and presuppositions.
Returning again to the Casa Santa Marta before turning attention to one final passage from Amoris Laetitia for purposes of this brief commentary:
Pope Francis said: "It hurts when I read that small passage from the Gospel of Matthew, when Judas, who has repented, goes to the priests and says: ‘I have sinned' and wants to give ... and gives them the coins. ‘Who cares! - they say to him: it’s none of our business!’ They closed their hearts before this poor, repentant man, who did not know what to do. And he went and hanged himself. And what did they do when Judas hanged himself? They spoke amongst themselves and said: 'Is he a poor man? No! These coins are the price of blood, they must not enter the temple... and they referred to this rule and to that… The doctors of the letter. "
The life of a person did not matter to them, the Pope observed, they did not care about Judas’ repentance. The Gospel, he continued, says that Judas came back repentant. But all that mattered to them “were the laws, so many words and things they had built”. (Jorge Swats Away at More Straw Men.)
Interjection Number Three:
Judas hanged himself not because of the reaction of those who gave him the thirty pieces of silver that they had promised him to betray Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. He hanged himself because he despaired of being forgiven by Our Lord, thus contrasting his own Sin of Despair with that of Saint Peter’s humble repentance of having denied Our Lord three times.
The Jewish priests had the power to forgive the sins of no one. Only Our Lord Himself can forgive sins. This is a point that Bergoglio distorts and misrepresents in order to make it appear as though that those who criticize him are doing the same as the Jews had done during the time of Our Lord’s Passion and Death and during the infancy of Holy Mother Church.
Bergoglio then went on to distort the history of what happened to Saint Joan of Arc, who was put on trial in 1431 by English ecclesiastics for “witchcraft,” a trial whose results were overturned by the Holy See, twenty-five years later, resulting in the complete vindication of the saint chosen by God Himself to free France from English occupation:
"History tells us of many people who were judged and killed, although they were innocent: judged according to the Word of God, against the Word of God. Let’s think of witch hunts or of St. Joan of Arc, and of many others who were burnt to death, condemned because according to the judges they were not in line with the Word of God” he said. (Jorge Swats Away at More Straw Men.)
Saint Joan of Arc was not burned at the sake by the authority of the Catholic Church. Her death had been decreed by the English in retribution for the successes that she had accomplished by the grace of God to drive the occupiers back across the English Channel. And it was the Holy Catholic Church that vindicated Saint Joan of Arc and reversed the results of her trial on July 7, 1456. Here is the verdict as well a description of what occurred in France thereafter:
"...And carefully considering each and all of the other points which must be considered and scrutinized in this matter; seated in judgment and with eyes fixed only upon God, by this our definitive verdict which we hand down in this rescript while seated in judgment:
We state and pronounce, decree and declare the aforesaid trial and sentence - being filled with fraud, false charges, injustice, contradiction, and manifest errors concerning both fact and law - together with the aforementioned abjuration, execution and all that resulted, to have been, to be, and will be null, without effect, void, and of no consequence.
And notwithstanding, [i.e., despite the obvious invalidity] if there is any need to do so, we, as reason demands, hereby nullify, void, and annul them [the results of the original trial] and entirely strip them of all effect, declaring that the aforesaid Joan and her family the plaintiffs did not contract or incur any mark or stain of disrepute as a result of the abovementioned matter; and [also declaring] that she is and will be freed and cleansed from the aforementioned; and if such should be necessary, also completely exonerating her." [Translated from the original language printed in DuParc's "Procès en Nullité..." vol II p. 610]
A copy of the accusations made against Joan of Arc in 1431 was then ritually torn up.
After the verdict was announced in Rouen, the Inquisitor-General set off to inform Charles VII and the Pope. As he passed through Orléans, the citizens treated him to a banquet on 27 July 1456 during celebrations in the city in honor of his court's decision. The moment was important to the people of this city, which had held Masses and processions commemorating Joan's death every year since her execution, and had sponsored a religious play in her honor since c. 1435.
The declaration of Joan of Arc's innocence and the Inquisitor-General's description of her death as a martyrdom echoed previous support for her in 1429 by many clergy such as the Archbishop of Embrun, the Inquisitor of Toulouse, several Bishops, and the prominent theologian Jean Gerson as well as by many of the laity. The annual religious play at Orléans had already been declared by the Church (in 1452) to be an event by which the faithful could earn an indulgence from the penalty of sin, as if it were a pilgrimage site connected with a saint.
The appellate verdict also foreshadowed later developments. In the 16th century Joan of Arc became an icon of the French Catholic League, although as with many other popular saints the formal beatification process was not initiated until a few centuries later, in 1869. She was declared a saint on 16 May 1920. (Saint Joan of Arc, July 7, 1456.)
Unlike what Jorge Mario Bergoglio would have Catholics believe, therefore, Saint Joan of Arc was vindicated by the authority of the Catholic Church, not persecuted thereby.
Alas, Bergoglio, whose understanding of history is colored by all manner of ideologically-tainted fables, would have us believe that the burning of Saint Joan of Arc by bought-and-paid-for English ecclesiastics was the equivalent of the burning at the stake of the heretic John Hus, whose false theology is held in high regard by Bergoglio, who has already “apologized” for what happened to this obstinate rebel:
(Vatican Radio) Pope Francis has appointed Cardinal Miloslav Vlk, Archbishop Emeritus of Prague, to be his special envoy to the July 5-6 events in Prague, marking the 600th anniversary of the death of John Hus (1369-1415).
In an address to the International Symposium on John Hus in 1999, St John Paul II said the Bohemian church reformer, who was condemned of heresy and burnt at the stake, was a "memorable figure," particularly for "his moral courage in the face of adversity and death."
"On the eve of the Great Jubilee, I feel obliged to express deep regret for the cruel death inflicted on John Hus and the resulting wound, a source of conflict and division which was thus opened in the minds and hearts of the Bohemian people,” said St John Paul II.
Hus was born in the Kingdom of Bohemia (now Czech Republic). He was ordained a priest in 1400, and preached reformation in the Church. He was a supporter of some of John Wycliffe’s teachings and was eventually excommunicated, condemned of heresy and killed. His followers came to be known as Hussites.
St John Paul II said "the effort that students can develop to reach a deeper and full understanding of historical truth” was of “crucial importance.”
“Faith has nothing to fear from the commitment of historical research, since the research is also, ultimately, reaching out to the truth that has its source in God," he continued.
"A figure like John Hus, who was a major point of contention in the past, can now become a subject of dialogue, discussion and common study" in the hope that decisive steps can "be made on the path of reconciliation and true unity in Christ," the late pope said.
Cardinal Vlk was the architect of a commission, established in 1993, to study the life, work and person of John Hus. (Jorge appoints envoy for 600th
By the way, John Hus adhered to many false propositions, including “justification by faith alone” and a rejection of the doctrine of Purgatory, paved the way for the diabolical work of Martin Luther himself a century later. The false doctrines of Hus and Luther serve as important building blocks that led to the emergence of Modernism in the late-Nineteenth and early-Twentieth Centuries, and it is those doctrines, combined with those of John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli and Thomas Cranmer, et. al, that undergird the work of the “magisterium” of the conciliar “popes.”
Karol Joseph Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI each praised heretics. Each cited non-Catholics as "experts" on various points of Faith and Morals. All that Bergoglio has done is to couple this praise with an intense hatred of Catholic doctrine and a stupendously bold villification of those who believe in Its Holy Integrity.
Jorge Mario Begoglio is ceaseless in his efforts to find fault with the Catholic Church where no fault resides. He is also ceaseless in his praise of heretics and of deeming as “witch hunts” efforts to investigate, warn and, if necessary, punish Catholics who pose a threat to the sanctification and salvation of souls by their promotion of heretical propositions. He believes that those who are concerned about “doctrine” are foolish for discarding a “worldly” attachment to concepts that are foreign to his own false concept of “tenderness”:
Pope Francis pointed out that Jesus himself ended up on the cross for having trusted in God and obeyed His Word and he reminded the faithful of Jesus’ words of tenderness when he said to the disciples on the Road to Emmaus: “Oh, how foolish you are! How slow of heart to believe all that the prophets spoke.”
He concluded saying: “Let us ask the Lord to look to the large and to the small follies of our hearts with the same tenderness, to caress us gently and to say to us: ‘Oh you foolish and slow of heart’ and begin to explain things to us.” (Jorge Swats Away at More Straw Men.)
Although Jorge Mario Bergoglio probably views Pope Saint Pius X as one of those “legalists” who lacked “tenderness,” which is one of the reasons he did not make any mention on August 20, 2014, of the centenary of the our last truly canonized pope’s death, it is nevertheless the case that Pope Saint Pius X was committed to explicating and defending the truth about Our Lord and His Sacred Deposit of Faith. Pope Saint Pius X explained that Our Lord is not at all the sort of vapid milquetoast that the Modernists portray Him to be:
Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. He was as strong as he was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross.These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one's personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)
It was in defense of the truth about Our Lord and His Holy Doctrine that Pope Saint Pius X clearly explicated the Divine Redeemer’s approach toward sin and error.
Catholicism is clear. Heresy and error demand complexity and paradox.
This is all relevant as Jorge Mario Bergoglio used the text of Amoris Laetitia to complain that “God is not a series of abstract ideas,” which implies that families have not known anything about God up to this point:
22. In this brief review, we can see that the word of God is not a series of abstract ideas but rather a source of comfort and companionship for every family that experiences difficulties or suffering. For it shows them the goal of their journey, when God “will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more” (Rev 21:4). (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Amoris Laetita, March 19, 2016.)
This means that it has been “hard” for families up until now to live with a consciousness of the Divine presence in their lives, and it is that is “burdensome” for families to try to remember points of doctrine that Bergoglio does not believe “touches” their lives.
To this I respond as follows: Catholic families have lived in the Divine presence while at the same time loving the teaching of Holy Mother Church from Apostolic times to the present day. What has happened in recent decades is that the doctrinal, liturgical and moral revolutions unleashed by the conciliar revolutionaries have robbed families of the truths of the Holy Faith, including the veneration that must be shown to Our Lady, Saint Joseph and to other saints in Catholic homes.
While the text of Amoris Laetitia contains many appeals for engaged couples and for families to pray, nowhere in the text of Amoris Laetitis is there to be found any exhortation, if I can be pardoned for using the term, to encourage families to pray Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary or to festoon homes with statues and images of the saints.
Contrast this absence with the care with which Pope Pius XI took in Ingravescentibus Malis, September 29, 1937, to encourage families to pray Our Lady Rosary’s Most Holy Rosary on bended knees within the domestic cell of the Church that is the family:
28. The fathers and mothers of families particularly must give an example to their children, especially when, at sunset, they gather together after the day's work, within the domestic walls, and recite the Holy Rosary on bended knees before the image of the Virgin, together fusing voice, faith and sentiment. This is a beautiful and salutary custom, from which certainly there cannot but be derived tranquillity and abundance of heavenly gifts for the household.
29. When very frequently We receive newly married couples in audience and address paternal words to them, We give them rosaries, We recommend these to them earnestly, and We exhort them, citing Our own example, not to let even one day pass without saying the Rosary, no matter how burdened they may be with many cares and labors. (Pope Pius XI, Ingravescentibus Malis, September 29, 1937.)
The conciliar revolution has robbed Catholic families of their devotional lives in many ways. No Catholic who has a fervent devotional life can think that God is set of “abstract ideas,” seemingly disembodied doctrines that are somehow devoid of “meaning” in the “real world.
Moreover, it was in the bosom of the family that parents taught their children the truths of the Holy Faith from a catechism (be it the Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent, the Penny Catechism, Father Joseph Dehabre’s Little Catechism of the Catholic Faith, or, among others, the Baltimore Catechism). We must know God in order to love Him as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His true Church.
Bergoglio would have us believe that it is not important to know anything God’s Divine Revelation except that He loves us. Yet is that Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s concept of God’s love is false, something that will be demonstrated yet again in this series.
Yet it is that Pope Pius XI noted in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928, that God Himself has revealed each of His doctrines to us through His Holy Church. We are not free to ignore them or to dismiss them as some kind of "abstract ideas" about Him:
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.)
These are nothing but "abstract ideas" to Jorge Mario Bergoglio, whose religion is based upon a projection of his own falsehoods upon Divine Revelation, which is the same thing as paganism.
Using the Family to Promote His Ideological Agenda
The following paragraphs of Amoris Laetitia include the false “pontiff’s” efforts to make the family serve as a vessel of his ideological agenda of statism and concern for the environment:
25. This having been said, we can appreciate the suffering created by unemployment and the lack of steady work, as reflected in the Book of Ruth, Jesus’ own parable of the labourers forced to stand idly in the town square (Mt 20:1-16), and his personal experience of meeting people suffering from poverty and hunger. Sadly, these realities are present in many countries today, where the lack of employment opportunities takes its toll on the serenity of family life.
26. Nor can we overlook the social degeneration brought about by sin, as, for example, when human beings tyrannize nature, selfishly and even brutally ravaging it. This leads to the desertification of the earth (cf. Gen 3:17-19) and those social and economic imbalances denounced by the prophets, beginning with Elijah (cf. 1 Kg 21) and culminating in Jesus’ own words against injustice (cf. Lk 12:13; 16:1-31).sub (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Amoris Laetita, March 19, 2016.)
The most pressing problem facing families today is the fact that we lack a true Successor of Saint Peter on the Throne of Saint Peter, thus subjecting most Catholic families to the ideological predilections of usurpers who have robbed them of the Real Presence of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the Most Blessed Sacrament and of the Absolution of their Mortal Sins by true priests. Families have been left to fend for themselves without the superabundance of Sanctifying and Actual Graces that Our Lord desires them to have.
This is not to disparage the reality of unemployment, which is product of global trade agreements and of planned efforts to subvert genuine national sovereignty by the promotion of illegal immigration, but it is to state that families face a spiritual poverty today lead them to celebrate the world, not to make reparation for their own sins as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.
It is also very interesting to note that the false “pope” mentioned what he believes is the tyrannizing of “nature” and the “desertification of the earth” as “sins” that are somehow contributing to the social degeneration that is the direct consequence of sins of impurity, a word that is nowhere to be found in Amoris Laetitia. There is really no more to say about Bergoglio’s pantheism than has been said in the past in Dance, Dance, Eco Jorge part one, and Dance, Dance, Eco Jorge, part two.
Additionally, Bergoglio mentioned his pantheistic concerns before he mentioned the execution of the innocent preborn, something that he equated once again with his opposition to the death penalty:
83. Here I feel it urgent to state that, if the family is the sanctuary of life, the place where life is conceived and cared for, it is a horrendous contradiction when it becomes a place where life is rejected and destroyed. So great is the value of a human life, and so inalienable the right to life of an innocent child growing in the mother’s womb, that no alleged right to one’s own body can justify a decision to terminate that life, which is an end in itself and which can never be considered the “property” of another human being. The family protects human life in all its stages, including its last. Consequently, “those who work in healthcare facilities are reminded of the moral duty of conscientious objection. Similarly, the Church not only feels the urgency to assert the right to a natural death, without aggressive treatment and euthanasia”, but likewise “firmly rejects the death penalty”.93 (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Amoris Laetita, March 19, 2016.)
The Argentine Apostate is constitutionally incapable of referring to Ten Commandments. He never once refers to the Fifth Commandment’s injunction “Thou shalt not kill,” always seeking to couch an apparent opposition to the surgical execution of the innocent preborn with the language of “human rights” rather than speak of the immutable law of God.
To make matters even worse, though, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is untiring in his efforts to make it appear that the direct, intentional taking of the life of an innocent preborn child is somehow the moral equivalent of the execution of one adjudged guilty of a heinous crime after the full administration of the due process of law.
This is, of course, nothing new. The false “pope” has done this a number of times, including when he addressed a special joint meeting of the Congress of the United States of America on Thursday, September 24, 2015, the Feast of Our Lady of Ransom:
This conviction has led me, from the beginning of my ministry, to advocate at different levels for the global abolition of the death penalty. I am convinced that this way is the best, since every life is sacred, every human person is endowed with an inalienable dignity, and society can only benefit from the rehabilitation of those convicted of crimes. Recently my brother bishops here in the United States renewed their call for the abolition of the death penalty. Not only do I support them, but I also offer encouragement to all those who are convinced that a just and necessary punishment must never exclude the dimension of hope and the goal of rehabilitation. (Bergoglio's Address to U.S. Congress.)
Bergoglio did not use the word "abortion" when address Congress, and he did not do so in the text of Amoris Laetitia. Why the subtlety when he was so direct on the death penalty, on the “rights” of those who enter nations illegally, on income inequality, on unemployent, on "climate change, and on the need for “dialogue” on everything under the sun?
The Argentine Apostate is constitutionally incapable of referring to Ten Commandments. He never once refers to the Fifth Commandment’s injunction “Thou shalt not kill,” always seeking to couch an apparent opposition to the surgical execution of the innocent preborn with the language of “human rights” rather than speak of the immutable law of God.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s “priorities” are not those of Christ the King.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio's false religion is not the one instituted by Our Divine Redeemer. Anyone who cannot see that Amoris Laetitia proves this to be so beyond any doubt is either intellectually dishonest, willfully blind or ignorant of the truth.
Lead A More Worthy Life?
Although the entire text of Amoris Laetitia includes distortions of Divine Revelation of one sort of another, the distortion contained in paragraph twenty-seven is one of the most significant as it provides a foundation for the false “pontiff’s” allegedly “merciful” treatment of sinners:
27. Christ proposed as the distinctive sign of his disciples the law of love and the gift of self for others (cf. Mt 22:39; Jn 13:34). He did so in stating a principle that fathers and mothers tend to embody in their own lives: “No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (Jn 15:13). Love also bears fruit in mercy and forgiveness. We see this in a particular way in the scene of the woman caught in adultery; in front of the Temple, the woman is surrounded by her accusers, but later, alone with Jesus, she meets not condemnation but the admonition to lead a more worthy life (cf. Jn 8:1-11).
A more worthy life?
No wonder the paragraph contains only a “confer” John 8: 1-11 as the actual text explains that Our Lord told the woman caught in adultery to “sin no more,” not lead a “more worthy life”:
1] And Jesus went unto mount Olivet.  And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came to him, and sitting down he taught them.  And the scribes and the Pharisees bring unto him a woman taken in adultery: and they set her in the midst,  And said to him: Master, this woman was even now taken in adultery.  Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such a one. But what sayest thou?
 And this they said tempting him, that they might accuse him. But Jesus bowing himself down, wrote with his finger on the ground.  When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said to them: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again stooping down, he wrote on the ground.  But they hearing this, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest. And Jesus alone remained, and the woman standing in the midst. Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee?
 Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more. (John 8: 1-11.)
Our Lord was certainly very merciful with the woman caught in adultery. He did condemn her. He did, however, tell her to “Go, and now sin no more. Not eventually. Not gradually. Not at some time in the future.
Our Divine Redeemer wants each sinner to quit his sins immediately by cooperating with the graes that He has won for us during His Pasion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces. His mercy is available to us on the condition that we are truly sorry for our sins and that we are resolved to amend our lives. Now! Not at some nebulous point in the future.
This is why a careful reading of the text of Amoris Laetitia must be made as paragraph twenty-eight sets the stage for its “grand finale,” a conclusion that enshrines “gradualness” of some possible future “conversion” to the “ideal” of what Holy Mother Church proposes for the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.
Slowly They Turn, Step by Step, Inch by Inch. . . .Into The Abyss
For present purposes, therefore, I want to focus on the following few paragraphs, admitting that I am skipping ahead quite a bit. However, there is a reason for doing so as readers will be able to see that the deliberate distortion of Our Lord’s forgiving the woman caught in adultery was meant to serve as a justification for letting hardened sinners live in states of Mortal Sin and thus to be “integrated” into parish life within the conciliar structures.
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
Bergoglio does not believe that it possible to attain to "ideal" of Catholic teaching. This is a variation of Bergoglio's false dichotomy between doctrine and mercy that would have us believe that the "ideal" cannot stand in the way of embracing its "realization" "in at least a partial and analogous" way.
Yet it is there are no “constructive elements” in anything that is sinful.
Yet is that Amoris Laetitia considers there to be such “constructive elements” in what goes by the conciliarspeak of “irregular unions. This is nothing other than the application of heretical proposition that there are “elements” of “truth and sanctification” in Protestant sects and the Orthodox churches that make them part of the “Church of Christ,” which subsists in but is not coextensive with the Catholic Church.
To use the contention found in Lumen Gentium, November 21, 1964, that the “Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church” and that elements of “true holiness” can be found in other churches in order to justify the acceptance of those living in sin—yes, I used that dreaded phrase, up to and including those living lives of unrepentant sins against nature itself, demonstrates very clearly once again that false premises lead to the enshrinement and glorification of other falsehoods over the course of time.
There is no such thing as an “isolated” error, which is why those who still exalt the false premises of the Modern civil state, including the United States of America, ought to realize once and for all that it is just as impossible to build a just social order on the premise of religious indifferentism and “religious liberty” as it is to maintain an “irreducible minima” of the Sacred Deposit of Faith after having jettisoned even one article contained therein.
Pope Pius XII’s Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943, explained very clearly that the Catholic Church is the sole Church of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, none other:
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)
By abandoning this truth of the Catholic Faith, the bishops at the “Second” Vatican Council, led by the soon-to-be “beatified” Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul the Sick showed themselves to have defected from the Catholic Faith. This one defection, among so many others, of course, this one “drop of poison” is a denial of the Divine Constitution of Holy Mother Church, which in and of itself resulted inevitably in the belief that the Church founded by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has something to “learn” from “other religions.” Once one believes such a lie, however, it is easy to come to the specious conclusion that one can find “elements of true love” in the lives of those who are persisting in what are, objectively speaking, Mortal Sins that could, if not confessed before death, lead to eternal damnation and already consign them to lives destined to strike out at anyone who dares to perform the Spiritual Works of Mercy by admonishing them to reform their lives lest they perish in flames of Hell for all eternity.
While God alone is the sole Judge of the subjective state of souls, He gave us the sensus fidei when we were baptized in order to be able to recognize sin for what it is and thus to amend our own lives when are tempted to sin or find ourselves in the near occasion of sin. This sensus fidei also provides us with the ability to perform the Spiritual Works of Mercy, which includes, of course, admonishing the sinner. “Pope Francis” and his “bishops” do not believe this. Indeed, they condemn those who do. How is this not apostasy?
Catholics believe in the Spiritual Works of Mercy, Jorge. Here is a little review for you:
- To instruct the ignorant.
- To counsel the doubtful.
- To admonish sinners.
- To bear wrongs patiently;
- To forgive offences willingly;
- To comfort the afflicted;
- To pray for the living and the dead.
Catholics also believe that there are nine ways that they can be accessories to the sins of others:
- 1. By counsel.
- 2. By command.
- 3. By consent.
- 4. By provocation.
- 5. By praise or flattery of the evil done.
- 6. By silence.
- 7. By connivance.
- 8. By partaking.
- 9. By defense of the ill done.
Conciliarism is by its very false nature uncharitable as it makes a mockery of the authentic, immutable teaching that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by making it appear that it is somehow opposed to tenderness and mercy to follow these words that Saint Paul wrote in his Second Epistle to Saint Timothy:
 I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom:  Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine.  For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:  And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.  But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober. (2 Tim. 4: 1-15.)
A physician does not "judge" anyone if he warns him what might happen if he does not stop engaging in a certain course of behavior that is deleterious to his bodily health.
Similarly, one who warns another about the state of his soul as he persists in a life of unrepentant sin is simply performing a fundamental Spiritual Work of Mercy, and those who are inclined to and/or steeped in perverse sins against nature are not to be left without being remonstrated as this is a duty of a Catholic before God and to the eternal and temporal good of the sinner.
It is one thing to sin and to be sorry and then to seek out the mercy of the Divine Redeemer in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance. It is quite another to persist in sin, no less perverse sins against nature, unrepentantly and to expect others to reaffirm him in those sins, whether explicitly by words of approval or implicitly by silence, which betokens consent. Catholics must judge the states of their own souls every night in their Examen of Conscience, and they have a duty to help others to recognize the serious states of sin into which they have plunged themselves, praying beforehand to God the Holy Ghost to fill them with wisdom and prudence so as to provide a warning in such a way that could plant a seed to get an unrepentant sinner to a true priest in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance.
Amoris Laetitia is simply a means to reaffirm sinners in their sins while making any Catholic who performs a Spiritual Work of Mercy by adominishing them to reform their lives appear to be "uncharitable," "harsh," and "judgmental."
There are no "elements of truth and goodness" to be found in Amoris Laetitia.
There are no “constructive elements” in anything that is sinful.
The following two paragraphs demonstrate this to be so:
Gradualness in pastoral care
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, 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 315 Ibid., 27. 316 Ibid., 26. 317 Ibid., 41. 318 Ibid. 319 Relatio Finalis 2015, 71. 224 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. 295. Along these lines, Saint John Paul II proposed the so-called “law of gradualness” in the knowledge that the human being “knows, loves 320 Cf. ibid. 321 Relatio Synodi 2014, 42. 322 Ibid., 43. 225 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”.
This is pure Judeo-Masonic naturalism. It is theological malpractice. It is blasphemy against all that God has revealed to us through His true Church. It is the conciliar "canonization" of moral relativism in the name of "love." It is the formal expression, one that will be inserted into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, of all that Pope Pius XII warned about when he address the Thirtieth General Convention of the Society of Jesus in 1957 (see Appendix A below for a reminder).
No one can truly love another while persisting in sin with him. Human love must reflect God’s love for us, which is an act of His Divine Will. God’s will for each human being is that we sanctify and to save our immortal souls as members of the Catholic Church.
To love another one must will his good, the ultimate expression of which is the salvation of his immoral soul.
The conciliar revolutionaries do not believe that it is either desire or possible for those who “love” each other to be told to stop sinning, thereby leading themselves and those they counsel directly into the abyss.
Here is what Pope Pius XI noted in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930, about “new species of unions" that are looked upon by Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Victor Manuel Fernandez and other like-minded conciiliar revolutionaries believe contain "constructive elements":
Armed with these principles, some men go so far as to concoct new species of unions, suited, as they say, to the present temper of men and the times, which various new forms of matrimony they presume to label "temporary," "experimental," and "companionate." These offer all the indulgence of matrimony and its rights without, however, the indissoluble bond, and without offspring, unless later the parties alter their cohabitation into a matrimony in the full sense of the law.
Indeed there are some who desire and insist that these practices be legitimatized by the law or, at least, excused by their general acceptance among the people. They do not seem even to suspect that these proposals partake of nothing of the modern "culture" in which they glory so much, but are simply hateful abominations which beyond all question reduce our truly cultured nations to the barbarous standards of savage peoples. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)
Gee, I wonder why this was not quoted in Amoris Laetitia? (No, I wonder no such thing, of course. Just a bit of satire from a displaced and never-to-return New Yorker.)
Pope Pius XI referred to the new species of unions seventy-five years, three and one-half months ago as "hateful abominations." Bergoglio believes them to contain "elements of true love." This is because Pope Pius XI was a true pope. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not. He is an apostate.
Unlike the conciliar revolutionaries, Saint Alphonsus de Liguori taught that God wants sinners to quit their sins now, not at some point the future, reminding his hearers that God does not command the impossible, meaning that all of the supernatural helps are available for a repentant Catholic to quit his sins and to seek to do penance for them, especially by making reparation for his own sins and those of the whole world as a consecrated slave of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary:
4. You say:” I cannot at present resist this passion." Behold the third delusion of the devil, by which he makes you believe that at present you have not strength to overcome certain temptations. But St. Paul tells us that God is faithful, and that he never permits us to be tempted above our strength. "And God is faithful, who will not permit you to be tempted above that which you are able." (1 Cor. x. 13.) I ask, if you are not now able to resist the temptation, how can you expect to resist it hereafter? If you yield to it, the Devil will become stronger, and you shall become weaker; and if you be not now able to extinguish this flame of passion, how can you hope to be able to extinguish it when it shall have grown more violent? You say: "God will give me his aid." But this aid God is ready to give at present if you ask it. Why then do you not implore his assistance? Perhaps you expect that, without now taking the trouble of invoking his aid, you will receive from him increased helps and graces, after you shall have multiplied the number of your sins? Perhaps you doubt the veracity of God, who has promised to give whatever we ask of him?” Ask, “he says,” and it shall be given you." (Matt. vii. 7.) God cannot violate his promises.” God is not as man, that he should lie, nor as the son of man, that he should be changed. Hath he said, then, and will he not do ?" (Num. xxiii. 19.) Have recourse to him, and he will give you the strength necessary to resist the temptation. God commands you to resist it, and you say: “I have not strength." Does God, then, command impossibilities? No; the Council of Trent has declared that ” God does not command impossibilities; but, by his commands, he admonishes you to do what you can, and to ask what you cannot do; and he assists, that you may be able to do it." (Sess. 6. c. xiii.) When you see that you have not sufficient strength to resist temptation with the ordinary assistance of God, ask of him the additional help which you require, and he will give it to you; and thus you shall be able to conquer all temptations, however violent they may be. ("The Delusions of Sinners: Sermon for Quinquagesima Sunday," as found in Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, The Sermons of Saint Alphonsus Liguori For All the Sundays of the Year, republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1982, pp. 119-120.)
Saint Alphonsus de Liguori’s sermon for the First Sunday of Lent is a discourse about the number of sins beyond which God will not grant forgiveness. The conciliar revolutionaries commit Martin Luther’s sin of Presumption by presuming that unrepentant sinners do not have to be exhort to reform their lives, that it is enough for them to know that they are loved by God and “welcomed” by what is thought to be the “Catholic community” without any mention of their spiritually suicidal behavior that is an incentive to others to follow them in leading lives of licentiousness. The founder of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer offered some sobering words concerning such a recklessly false notion of God and His forgiveness:
8. O folly of sinners! If you purchase a house, you spare no pains to get all the securities necessary to guard against the loss of your money; if you take medicine, you are careful to assure yourself that it cannot injure you; if you pass over a river, you cautiously avoid all danger of falling into it; and for a transitory enjoyment, for the gratification of revenge, for a beastly pleasure, which lasts but a moment, you risk your eternal salvation, saying: "I will go to confession after I commit this sin." And when, I ask, are you to go to confession? You say: “On tomorrow." But who promises you tomorrow? Who assures you that you shall have time for confession, and that God will not deprive you of life, as he has deprived so many others, in the act of sin? “Diem tenes,” says St. Augustine, “qui horam non tenes.” You cannot be certain of living for another hour, and you say: “I will go to confession tomorrow.” Listen to the words of St. Gregory: “He who has promised pardon to penitents, has not promised tomorrow to sinners.” (Hom. xii. in Evan). God has promised pardon to all who repent; but he has not promised to wait till tomorrow for those who insult him. Perhaps God will give you time for repentance, perhaps he will not. But, should he not give it, what shall become of your soul? In the meantime, for the sake of a miserable pleasure, you lose the grace of God, and expose yourself to the danger of being lost for ever.
9. Would you, for such transient enjoyments, risk your money, your honour, your possessions, your liberty, and your life? No, you would not. How then does it happen that, for a miserable gratification, you lose your soul, heaven, and God? Tell me: do you believe that heaven, hell, eternity, are truths of faith? Do you believe that, if you die in sin, you are lost for ever? Oh! what temerity, what folly is it, to condemn yourself voluntarily to an eternity of torments with the hope of afterwards reversing the sentence of your condemnation! "Nemo," says St. Augustine, “sub spe salutis vultæ grotare.” No one can be found so foolish as to take poison with the hope of preventing its deadly effects by adopting the ordinary remedies. And you will condemn yourself to hell, saying that you expect to be afterwards preserved from it. Folly! which, in conformity with the divine threats, has brought, and brings every day, so many to hell. “Thou hast trusted in thy wickedness, and evil shall come upon thee, and thou shalt not know the rising thereof.” (Isa. xlvii. 10, 11.) You have sinned, trusting rashly in the divine mercy: the punishment of your guilt shall fall suddenly upon you, and you shall not know from whence it comes. What do you say? What resolution do you make? If, after this sermon, you do not firmly resolve to give yourself to God, I weep over you, and regard you as lost. ("On The Number of Sins Beyond Which God Will Not Forgive: Sermon for the First Sunday of Lent," as found in Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, The Sermons of Saint Alphonsus Liguori For All the Sundays of the Year, republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1982. The entire texs of the sermons for Quinquagesima Sunday and the First Sunday of Lent are found in the appendices below.)
Saint Alphonsus de Liguori addressed his sermon to Catholics who attended Holy Mass. Those who lived during the years of his priesthood in the Eighteenth Century were well-instructed in the Catholic Faith, which is why the great bishop and doctor could ask, “Tell me: do you believe that heaven, hell, eternity, are truths of faith? Do you believe that, if you die in sin, you are lost for ever?” It is pretty difficult for non-practicing Catholics in the conciliar structures who have committed themselves to lives of unrepentant sin to answer Saint Alphonsus’s question in the affirmative when men such as Jorge Mario Bergolio and Victor Manuel Fernandez, et al., tell them that the path to Heaven is wide open for them as they, the conciliar revolutionaries, deny the existence of Hell and almost every single other truth of the Catholic Faith, sometimes in its entirety and at other times by means of obfuscation or by the invocation of the Modernist principle of dogmatic evolution.
Although readers of this site know these things, I am sure that some readers have relatives and friends who are more open now to considering commentaries such as this one. Truth resonates. The truths contained in the writings from and about Saint Anthony Mary Claret, Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, and Saint Leonard of Port Maurice, to say nothing of the prophetic witness given by Saint Francis Solano here in the Americas, will resonate anew in the souls of those who are open to accept the fact that the Catholic Church cannot be the author of heresy or error and that men who promote heresy and error cannot hold ecclesiastical office legitimately within her.
Pope Saint Pius X's The Oath Against Modernism condemned the proposition that the truths of the Holy Faith must be adapted to "the times" rather than those who live at each epoch be conformed to those truths:
Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. . . .
Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.
I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. (The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910.)
Does anyone who reads this site believe that the conciliar “popes” and their apparatchiks do not stand condemned by the very words that some of the older of those among their ranks had to swear to uphold before the advent of concilairism?
Does anyone who reads this site believe that Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not stand so condemned?
Well, there is much more of Amoris Letitia to review. The purpose of this commentary has been to demonstrate that the foundation for accepting sin in the name of “love” and “mercy” was laid early on in the text of his wretched piece of sewage. Another review will follow in a few days (and this is hardly a pleasant task!).
Some fully traditional venues today celebrate the Solemnity of Saint Joseph, Spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Patron of the Universal Church and the Protector of the Faithful that is extended over the course of an octave. We must rely upon our dear protector and friend, Saint Joseph, in these troubling times.
The following prayer, Ad Te Beate Ioseph to Saint Joseph is important to pray every day without fail:
To thee, O blessed Joseph, do we fly in our tribulation, and having implored the help of thy thrice-holy Spouse, we now also confidently seek thy protection. By that charity which united thee to the immaculate Virgin Mother of God, and by that fatherly love for the Child Jesus, we humbly beg thee to look graciously upon the inheritance which Jesus Christ hath purchased with His Blood, and in our need to help us by thy powerful intercession. Do thou, O prudent guardian of the Holy Family, watch over the chosen people of Jesus Christ. Keep us, O most loving father, from all blight of error and corruption. O most mighty protector from thy place in Heaven, graciously help us in this our conflict with the powers of darkness. And as of old, thou didst rescue the Child Jesus from the supreme peril of His life, so now defend God's Holy Church from the snares of the enemy and from all adversity. Extend to each one of us thy continual protection, that led on by thine example and strengthened by thine aid, we may lead a holy life, and die in holiness, and obtain everlasting happiness in Heaven. Amen. (The Raccolta: A Manual of Indulgences, Prayers and Devotions Enriched with Indulgences, approved by Pope Pius XII, May 30, 1951, and published in English by Benziger Brothers, New York, 1957, pp. 364-365.)
Saint Joseph lived a hidden life as the head of the Holy Family. His reward for a life of patience and ready obedience to the will of God without any kind of "gradualness" should inspire us to fly under his holy patronage with great fervor on a daily basis.
May Saint Joseph inspire us to pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits so that by meditating on the mysteries they contain we may be truly worthy to obtain what they promise by the assistance of His Most Chaste Spouse and by his own intercession for our needs, especially in tihs time of apostasy and betrayal.
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, Patron of the Church and Protector of the Faithful, 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 Pius XII Reproves the Jesuits for Teaching What Has Become Jorge's Modus Operandi
Once again, especially for those who are relatively new to this site or who may have forgotten, it was our last true pope, Pope Pius XII, who described Bergoglio’s false “belief system” when exactitude in an address that he gave to the Thirtieth General Congregation of the Society of Jesus in September of 1957:
The more serious cause, however, was the movement in high Jesuit circles to modernize the understanding of the magisterium by enlarging the freedom of Catholics, especially scholars, to dispute its claims and assertions. Jesuit scholars had already made up their minds that the Catholic creeds and moral norms needed nuance and correction. It was for this incipient dissent that the late Pius XII chastised the Jesuits’ 30th General Congregation one year before he died (1957). What concerned Pius XII most in that admonition was the doctrinal orthodoxy of Jesuits. Information had reached him that the Society’s academics (in France and Germany) were bootlegging heterodox ideas. He had long been aware of contemporary theologians who tried “to withdraw themselves from the Sacred Teaching authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them in error” (Humani generis).
In view of what has gone on recently in Catholic higher education, Pius XII’s warnings to Jesuits have a prophetic ring to them. He spoke then of a “proud spirit of free inquiry more proper to a heterodox mentality than to a Catholic one”; he demanded that Jesuits not “tolerate complicity with people who would draw norms for action for eternal salvation from what is actually done, rather than from what should be done.” He continued, “It should be necessary to cut off as soon as possible from the body of your Society” such “unworthy and unfaithful sons.” Pius obviously was alarmed at the rise of heterodox thinking, worldly living, and just plain disobedience in Jesuit ranks, especially at attempts to place Jesuits on a par with their Superiors in those matters which pertained to Faith or Church order (The Pope Speaks, Spring 1958, pp. 447-453). (Monsignor George A. Kelly, Ph.D.,The Catholic College: Death, Judgment, Resurrection. See also the full Latin text of Pope Pius XII's address to the thirtieth general congregation of the Society of Jesus at page 806 of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis for 1957: AAS 49 . One will have to scroll down to page 806.)
Jorge Mario Bergoglio was trained by the very sort of revolutionaries whose false moral theology was condemned by Pope Pius XII in 1957, and it is this false moral theology, which is nothing other than Judeo-Masonic moral relativism, which itself is the product of the Protestant Revolution’s theological relativism. Modernism is, of course, the synthesis of all heresies. Amoris Latetia is nothing other than a celebration of subjectivism, of basing a false moral teahcing on what is "actually done, rather than from what should be done."
We must follow the advice of Pope Pius XII by cutting ourselves off from any contact with Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his false church as the Argentine Apostate and his protegee, Victor Manuel Fernandez, and all those dead revolutionaries (John Dearden, Joseph Bernardin, Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul the Sick, et al..) and living revolutionaries (Godfried Danneels, Reinhard Marx, Walter Kasper, Rembert G. Weakand, Vincent Nichols, Mark Coleridge, Howard Hubbard, Matthew Clark, George Niederauer, William Levada, Roger Mahony, Donald Wuerl, et al.) and anything to do with the false doctrines, sacrilegious liturgical rites, false moral teaching and scandalous pastoral practices of the devil's own church, the counterfeit church of conciliarism.