Live by the Hermeneutic of Continuity, Die by the Hermeneutic of Continuity, part one

The charade called the “synod on synodality,” which has been showcased as a chance to “listen” to the “people” rather than to obey the eternal laws of God, began today, Sunday, October 1, 2023, the Eighteenth Sunday after Pentecost and the Commemoration of Saint Remigius. This charade has been convened to denigrate the gravity of sins against Holy Purity, especially those that are perversely opposed to nature, so that those living lives of hardened sin may approach what purports to be “Holy Communion” during the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical abomination with clear consciences.

As noted in several different commentaries within the past year, the books are cooked, the fix is in, the results are rigged. Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his handpicked crew who are nothing other than merchants of vice and iniquity will pretend to “listen” intently to the “anguish” of those who believe they are being discriminated against because of a persistence in lives of fornication, adultery, or sodomy and/or have played God with their own bodies by undergoing chemical treatments and surgical procedures in the vain attempt to change the gender God gave them whilst they were still in their mothers’ wombs. The real action of these “synods,” of course, takes outside of the Vatican as Senor Jorge and his like-minded enablers of a plethora of sins gather at venues such as the Gregorianum, which is precisely the method that their predecessors in the conciliar revolution held their “unofficial” conferences, which frequently involved “consultations” with non-Catholic “observers,” used during the “Second” Vatican Council to sandbag the “fuddy duddy” revanchists who thought that the council’s open sessions themselves actually meant something.

A Protestant “observer” at the “Second” Vatican Council explained how this methodology worked sixty years ago:

Lectures by Karl Rahner, Yves Congar, and other progressives have been scheduled in a hall not far from St. Peters for the month of November. The Secretary General this morning said that he had asked whether these lectures were to be regarded as official or at least as authorized. He answered with a good, round unequivocal NO. Middle-of-the-road men such as he do not yet feel at home with the trailblazers. (Douglas Horton, Vatican Diary: 1965: A Protestant Observes the Fourth Session of Vatican Council II. Philadelphia and Boston: United Church Press, 1966, p. 144.) 

Ah, yes, the trailblazers. Karl Rahner and Joseph Ratzinger were joined at the hip during the "Second" Vatican Council, seeking indeed to blaze a trail for others to follow, a trail that Ratzinger continues to blaze as Benedict XVI.

The Protestant Douglas Horton had written the following the role of the "periti," in whose ranks was counted one Father Joseph Ratzinger, in changing the schema of the "Second" Vatican Council in its first session:

One fear that had crept into my mind was scotched by this morning's discussion. I had thought that possibly the bishops were such busy men that they would not have kept up with modern scholarship and that in consequence they might adopt the proposed schema without thinking much about it. The expert consultants, many of them from divinity schools of the world, are of course familiar enough with the problem, but they have no votes. I had heard one of the bishops call the gallery in which these periti (or experts) sit, "the rebels' roost"--and I feared that we might not find many rebels among the bishops themselves. My apprehensions were proved groundless. (Douglas Horton, Vatican Diary: 1962: A Protestant Observes the First Session of Vatican Council II. Philadelphia and Boston: United Church Press, 1964, p. 114.) 

Consider also the Protestant Mr. Horton's "observation" concerning the "council's" rejection of "traditio:"

So the day is over. As I look back upon it, I see it as one of the great moments of the council. Consider that one hundred years ago in the eightieth article of the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX, the Roman church declared, "If anyone says that the Pope can and should be reconciled and make terms with progress, with liberalism and modernist civilization, let him be anathema." Today that same church, through this council, has opened the way for a declaration which begins, "In this present age there is an increasing awareness among men of the dignity of the human person. This dignity demands that man in his activity may enjoy his own judgment and freedom, so that he is impelled not by coercion but by consciousness of his own duties. this demand for freedom in human society should be applied most particularly to religious matters. The church, attentively considering these human longings, intends to show how much they are in agreement with truth and justice."

The giant called Rome, who has so long been asleep in the arms of the lady Traditio, is beginning to open his eyes. ((Douglas Horton, Vatican Diary: 1965: A Protestant Observes the Fourth Session of Vatican Council II. Philadelphia and Boston: United Church Press, 1966, p. 44.)

There is no mystery as to what the outcome the conciliar sect’s 2023 and 2024 “synods will be any more than there was concerning the outcome of the “synodal process” in 2014 and 2015 that resulted in the issuance of Amoris Laetitia by Jorge Mario Bergoglio on March 19, 2016, the Solemnity of Saint Joseph. The fix is in, the books are cooked, the system is rigged.

The only “interesting” part of charade involves watching all the predictable histrionics from “conservative” Catholics within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism as well as the rending of garments and the gnashing of the teeth from those within the resist while recognize segments of the conciliar sect who will keep dumbing down the nature of the papacy and the reverence and obedience owed a true pope to the point of making the office little more than a honorific that can be dismissed with impunity whenever it suits their fancy. So much harm has been done to authentic Catholic ecclesiology that I, for one, believe that it will be only after a direct intervention by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ that this damage will begin to be undone.

The “conservatives,” for their part, will make constant reference to the Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II’s “teaching” on marriage the family to oppose the Bergogolian “paradigm shift” that redefines the very nature of marriage and the family in the name of “inclusivity” and “mercy” even though Wojtyla/John Paul II’s “teaching” was nothing other than a seamless continuation of his predecessor, Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI, which was based on a heretical inversion of the ends proper to Holy Matrimony that made possible Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s own “paradigm shift” taking place at this time in favor sodomites, fornicators, mutants, and adulterers that will one day result in the endorsement of contraception in all circumstances according to the malformed consciences of those intent denying the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of Holy Matrimony.

As is ever the case with such efforts of those who are convinced that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is the Catholic Church, the “conservatives” readily mix truth with error by citing several works issued by Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI and Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II. To try to defend the Catholic teaching on the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony by citing the work of the second and the fourth in the current line of antipopes is somewhat akin to defend the inviolability of innocent human life by citing the speeches of the late Mario Matthew Cuomo.

What do I mean?

Well, it is really very simple.

Simply put, therefore, Montini and Wojtyla helped to undermine the Catholic teaching on the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony by inverting the ends proper to it and to make it possible to use “natural” means to avoid the conception of children that have nothing at all to do with the strict conditions laid down by Pope Pius XII in his Address to Italian Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951. The entire fabric of the conciliar teaching on the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony is built on the quicksand of revolutionary precepts that made it possible for Jorge Mario Bergoglio to embrace an almost unrestricted celebration of every manner of impurity imaginable in the name of “love” and “mercy.”

“Conservative” critics of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and the Jacobin/Bolshevik nature of his entire false magisterium, have taken no note of the clear difference between the Catholic Church's Code of Canon Law on the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and that “canon law” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism:  

856. The primary object of marriage is the procreation and education of offspring; the secondary purpose is mutual assistance and the remedy of concupiscence. (This can be found on page 205 of the following link, which is the 1917 Code of Canon Law in English:  1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law.)

Can.  1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized. (Canon 1055.1.)

The entire fabric of the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s teaching on the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is built on the fabric of the inversion of the ends of marriage that was condemned personally by Pope Pius XII on March 29, 1944, a condemnation that he cited and reiterated in the strongest terms possible in his aforementioned Address to Italian Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The primary end of marriage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet it is that Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI not only defended the very errors condemned by Pope Pius XII and the Holy Office in 1944, he used them as a means to justify what became known as “natural family planning,” thereby ceding ground to the contraceptive mentality that Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968, aimed to oppose.

Humanae Vitae was not, however, an orthodox statement of the Catholic Faith. It is, much like everything else in the false "pontificate" of Paul VI, a revolutionary document that inverted the ends proper to marriage as the phenomenology of philosopher Dietrich von Hildebrand and the theology of Father Herbert Doms were used to assert that the "unitive" end of marriage was primary. 

Humanae Vitae was also a revolutionary document in that it continued Paul VI's acceptance of a nonexistent "population crisis" as the foundation for expanding the conditions to use "natural" methods to avoid conceiving children. The hideous false "pontiff," who appointed and promoted all manner of lavender types as "bishops" throughout the conciliar structures, wrote the following in Populorum Progressio, March 26, 1967, that laid the groundwork for the further inversion of the ends of marriage to be found in Humanae Vitae by means of an more expansive view of the reasons that married couples could avoid children than provided in Pope Pius XII's Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession in that wonderful year of 1951:

37. There is no denying that the accelerated rate of population growth brings many added difficulties to the problems of development where the size of the population grows more rapidly than the quantity of available resources to such a degree that things seem to have reached an impasse. In such circumstances people are inclined to apply drastic remedies to reduce the birth rate.

There is no doubt that public authorities can intervene in this matter, within the bounds of their competence. They can instruct citizens on this subject and adopt appropriate measures, so long as these are in conformity with the dictates of the moral law and the rightful freedom of married couples is preserved completely intact. When the inalienable right of marriage and of procreation is taken away, so is human dignity.

Finally, it is for parents to take a thorough look at the matter and decide upon the number of their children. This is an obligation they take upon themselves, before their children already born, and before the community to which they belong—following the dictates of their own consciences informed by God's law authentically interpreted, and bolstered by their trust in Him. (39) (Giovanni Montini/Paul VI, Populorum Progressio, March 26, 1967.)

Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI was a Marxist sympathizer, if not a Marxist himself. Indeed, Father Michael Roach, who taught Church History at Mount Saint Mary's Seminary in Emmitsburg, Maryland, said in a class lecture in the Fall of 1981 that he had been with the then rector of the seminary, Monsignor Harry Flynn, who would later denounce Father Paul Marx, O.S.B., as an "anti-Semite" (see Disconnects), in his capacity as the conciliar "archbishop" of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota, at the time of the death of Montini/Paul VI on August 6, 1978. According to Father Roach, the then Monsignor Flynn, a priest of the Diocese of Albany, New York, said, "Ah, yes, Paul VI. A marvelous man. A Marxist, but a marvelous man nonetheless."

The point is this: Giovanni Montini/Paul VI, who betrayed the identity of Catholic priests behind the Iron Curtain when serving at the Vatican's Secretariat of State under Pope Pius XII, accepted the Malthusian myth of "overpopulation" and "depleted resources" to assert that it is parents who decide how many children they are to welcome into the world. Wrong. God decides this, not parents. God can see to it that children are conceived despite the more careful "precautions" taken against their conception, something that is as true of the use of what is called today "natural family planning" as it is of artificial contraception. God decides this matter. No one else. God is alone the Sovereign over the sanctity and the fecundity of marriage. No one else.

Pope Pius XI, writing in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930, stated this quite explicitly:

10. Now when We come to explain, Venerable Brethren, what are the blessings that God has attached to true matrimony, and how great they are, there occur to Us the words of that illustrious Doctor of the Church whom We commemorated recently in Our Encyclical Ad salutem on the occasion of the fifteenth centenary of his death:[9] "These," says St. Augustine, "are all the blessings of matrimony on account of which matrimony itself is a blessing; offspring, conjugal faith and the sacrament."[10] And how under these three heads is contained a splendid summary of the whole doctrine of Christian marriage, the holy Doctor himself expressly declares when he said: "By conjugal faith it is provided that there should be no carnal intercourse outside the marriage bond with another man or woman; with regard to offspring, that children should be begotten of love, tenderly cared for and educated in a religious atmosphere; finally, in its sacramental aspect that the marriage bond should not be broken and that a husband or wife, if separated, should not be joined to another even for the sake of offspring. This we regard as the law of marriage by which the fruitfulness of nature is adorned and the evil of incontinence is restrained."[11]

11. Thus amongst the blessings of marriage, the child holds the first place. And indeed the Creator of the human race Himself, Who in His goodness wishes to use men as His helpers in the propagation of life, taught this when, instituting marriage in Paradise, He said to our first parents, and through them to all future spouses: "Increase and multiply, and fill the earth."[12] As St. Augustine admirably deduces from the words of the holy Apostle Saint Paul to Timothy[13] when he says: "The Apostle himself is therefore a witness that marriage is for the sake of generation: 'I wish,' he says, 'young girls to marry.' And, as if someone said to him, 'Why?,' he immediately adds: 'To bear children, to be mothers of families'."[14]

12. How great a boon of God this is, and how great a blessing of matrimony is clear from a consideration of man's dignity and of his sublime end. For man surpasses all other visible creatures by the superiority of his rational nature alone. Besides, God wishes men to be born not only that they should live and fill the earth, but much more that they may be worshippers of God, that they may know Him and love Him and finally enjoy Him for ever in heaven; and this end, since man is raised by God in a marvelous way to the supernatural order, surpasses all that eye hath seen, and ear heard, and all that hath entered into the heart of man.[15] From which it is easily seen how great a gift of divine goodness and how remarkable a fruit of marriage are children born by the omnipotent power of God through the cooperation of those bound in wedlock.

13. But Christian parents must also understand that they are destined not only to propagate and preserve the human race on earth, indeed not only to educate any kind of worshippers of the true God, but children who are to become members of the Church of Christ, to raise up fellow-citizens of the Saints, and members of God's household,[16] that the worshippers of God and Our Savior may daily increase.

14. For although Christian spouses even if sanctified themselves cannot transmit sanctification to their progeny, nay, although the very natural process of generating life has become the way of death by which original sin is passed on to posterity, nevertheless, they share to some extent in the blessings of that primeval marriage of Paradise, since it is theirs to offer their offspring to the Church in order that by this most fruitful Mother of the children of God they may be regenerated through the laver of Baptism unto supernatural justice and finally be made living members of Christ, partakers of immortal life, and heirs of that eternal glory to which we all aspire from our inmost heart.

15. If a true Christian mother weigh well these things, she will indeed understand with a sense of deep consolation that of her the words of Our Savior were spoken: "A woman . . . when she hath brought forth the child remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world";[17] and proving herself superior to all the pains and cares and solicitudes of her maternal office with a more just and holy joy than that of the Roman matron, the mother of the Gracchi, she will rejoice in the Lord crowned as it were with the glory of her offspring. Both husband and wife, however, receiving these children with joy and gratitude from the hand of God, will regard them as a talent committed to their charge by God, not only to be employed for their own advantage or for that of an earthly commonwealth, but to be restored to God with interest on the day of reckoning. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

God decides how many or how few children a Catholic married couple will have. No one else. Men may try to the thwart the natural end of marriage. They may be able to be "successful," as they count "success," perhaps even more often than not. No human means of deliberately frustrating the natural end of marriage is infallible, and no carefully planned use of the gift proper to the married state in those times during a month when a woman is more apt it to be infertile than others will avoid the conception of a new child in all instances. God is the Sovereign of the fecundity of marriage.

As a Modernist and a socialist who was, as noted earlier, at the very least sympathetic to Marxism, Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul VI, however, thought and spoke in naturalistic terms that were tinged with vestigial after-effects of the Holy Faith. He accepted the myths of "progress" and "world peace" represented by the United Masonic Nations Organization, about which Pope Pius XII, although at first supportive of the organization, began to sour in the 1950s, and accepted the myths of "overpopulation." It was for this reason that he continued the work of the aforementioned "Pontifical Commission for the Study of Population, Family and Births so that its members could study the biological operation of the "birth control pill" to determine if it could be used morally to prevent the conception of children, especially in areas of endemic poverty,. A member of that commission, Archbishop Albino Luciani of Venice, Italy, the future "John Paul I," is said to have voted to endorse "the pill," which, apart from the denying the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage, is a chemical abortifacient, because of his concerns for "the poor."

Montini/Paul VI was open to "the pill" to deal with the nonexistent problem of overpopulation. Unable to endorse its use, though, he used Humanae Vitae to expand the conditions outlined by Pope Pius XII in his Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession in 1951 to invert the ends of marriage, an inversion that would be institutionalized later by the "personalist phenomenologist" named Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and the hideously disgusting "theology of the body" that he explicated over the course of years in his "general audience" talks in the early-1980s (talks he was giving at the time he was shot by Mehmet Ali Agca on Wednesday, May 13, 1981, by the way), thus paving the way for the propagation and acceptance of the cottage industry that became known as "natural family planning" as the expected norm for married couples, who must be "educated" in matters that violate modesty of speech and detract from the sanctity of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Montini/Paul VI further undermined the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony by radically expanding the grounds on which a ratified and consummated marriage could be declared null, thus providing his true son in all things heretical and sacrilegious, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the ability to expand such grounds to the point of absurdity. Indeed, the Argentine Apostate has made procured abortion a grounds for obtaining a conciliar decree of nullity, which the conciliar authorities themselves describe as a “morally certain decision” by a diocesan marriage tribunal that a true marriage had never existed. How does a procured abortion prove such a thing? It does not.

Supposed “defenders” of Catholic doctrine concerning marriage and the family do not see or simply cannot admit that the nature of the errors about Holy Matrimony that were embraced and propagated by Montini and Wojtyla were bound to produce Bergoglio’s “case-by-case, internal forum” policy for those Catholics who are divorced and have “remarried” in civil ceremonies in order to make it possible for them to receive what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service. The nature of error is such that it leads to future errors that were not intended by its progenitors, including the acceptance of the “blessing” of sodomite “unions” and the utter monstrosity that is “transgenderism.”

There is quite an irony in this, of course, as “conservatives” within the conciliar structures are so focused on the likes Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Victor Manuel Fernandez, James Martin, Blase Cupich, Robert McElroy, Wilton Gregory, and Joseph Tobin that it is impossible for them to see the “forest” of heresy and error that was propagated by the “Second” Vatican Council that has served as the fountainhead of the multiplicity of errors that have been taught by each of the postconciliar “popes.”

To wit, admitting that Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s false teaching on the Sixth and Ninth Commandments in Amoris Laetitia is very clear, there has been nothing unclear about his mockery of the First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Commandments. Indeed, there has been nothing unclear at all about the mockery of those Commandments by Montini/Paul VI, Wojtyla/John Paul II, and Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.

Use the “hermeneutic of continuity” to jettison the immutable teaching contained within the Sacred Deposit of Faith as revealed by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, defined as necessary by our true popes and general councils, and defended ceaselessly against heretics of all stripes to endorse dogmatic evolutionism, a new ecclesiology, a false ecumenism, interreligious "prayer" services, religious liberty, separation of the Church and State, and to invert the ends proper to Holy Matrimony? Well, do not be surprised if future generations dispense with the prescriptions of their own immediately predecessors just as easily as those predecessors had dispensed with over one thousand nine hundred years of received teaching by the sleights of hand called “living tradition” or the “hermeneutic of continuity.”

One cannot build a defense of Catholic doctrine upon an admixture of error and truth. The “teaching” of the “Second” Vatican Council and the encyclical letters or exhortations of Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI and Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II can never be used to as a defense of any part of the Catholic Faith, including Catholic doctrine on marriage and its indissolubility. Men who have had a contempt for the very nature of dogmatic truth and have used that contempt to undermine almost every element of Catholic teaching are deserving of contempt from believing Catholics, not respect.

Trying to oppose heresy by using other the work of heretics (Montini, Wojtyla) is insanity, but that is what will be seeing on the part of “conservatives” as the “synod on synodality” takes place over the course of this month of October in the year of Our Lord 2023.

Yes, violate the First and Second Commandments, good readers, and everything else will follow thereafter, including the Third Commandment (promulgation of a sacrilegious liturgy and other sacramentally invalid rites), the Fourth Commandment (separation of church and state, religious liberty) and the Fifth Commandment (conciliar "popes" have decried the death penalty and Bergoglio has said that there is no such thing as a just war). Why should any particular respect be given to the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments when the honor and glory and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity have been undermined and mocked with complete impunity?

The veritable “house of cards” that has been constructed out of the constant erosion of the sensus Catholicus by the documents of the “Second” Vatican Council and the “magisterium” of the postconciliar “popes” has fallen down by the octogenarian juvenile delinquent from South America, a man who delights, absolutely delights, in “making a mess” as he springs “surprises” that he dares so blasphemously to represent as coming from God when they are nothing other than the phantasms of his heretical imagination.

No, this did not all begin with Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his agenda of sin that has many Catholics in the conciliar structures who follow these developments to the point of wondering how to deal with a supposed “pope” who preaches heresy. Obviously, such a "pope" is no pope at all, and Bergoglio's heresies, including those contained in Amoris Laetitia, are just a "papal" stamp-of-approval on what he has believed and taught throughout the course of his career as a lay Jesuit revolutionary.

Fall from the Faith in one thing, fall from it entirely. It is really that simple.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s “new way of being church” is nothing than an left-handed admission that he believes the Catholic Church failed in its mission to show “mercy” to hardened sinners when, in fact, she was reaffirming the binding precepts of the Divine Law and the Natural to discharge the Spiritual Works of Mercy, among which are the instruction of the ignorant and the admonishment of sinners, so that those on the path to eternal perdition might be called to correction and thus know eternal salvation by reforming their lives after being reconciled unto God in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance.

The whole goal of the “synod on synodality” is to make impurity, indecency, immodesty, and perversity appear to be entirely “normal” “lifestyles” that Catholics, especially the clergy within the conciliar sect, must accept not only with docility but in a spirit of “loving” enthusiasm, which is why the second part of this two-part commentary will discuss Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s longstanding “preferential option” for perversity, especially within the ranks of the conciliar clergy.

We must remain steadfast in our own efforts against sin in our lives, forgiving others as we are forgiven in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance, being earnest about making reparation for our sins and those of the whole world as the consecrated slaves of Our Lord through His Most Blessed Mother's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, considering it our privilege to be insulted and calumniated and subjected to detraction from others prior to the just Judgment of God that will be rendered on our souls at the moment of our deaths and that will be revealed for one and all to see on the Last Day at the General Judgment of the Living and the Dead. Yes, we who caused Our Lord to suffer unspeakable horrors in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death and who wound His Mystical Body today, we who have thrust those Seven Swords of Sorrow through His Most Blessed Mother's Immaculate Heart, we--each of us--must be willing to suffer and to suffer well everything that happens to us as the means to glorify God and to make reparation for our own sins and those of the whole world as the slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

We are dealing with forces at present that are preternatural. We are not going to "will" ourselves out of the apostasies of the moment. While a given article here and there might help one or two souls now and again, we have to recognize that any and all efforts, whether spoken or written, to combat the apostasies of the day, will come to nothing if they are not undergirded by the rock solid foundation of assisting at the daily offering of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, offered by priests who make no concessions to conciliarism or to its false shepherds, profound Eucharistic piety, and deep, tender devotion to the Mother of God by means of Total Consecration to her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart and by the reverent praying of as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit. .

Our efforts to form our own families so as to keep them unspotted by the world and unspotted by the apostasies of conciliarism will come to nothing if we fail to remember the promises of Sacred Heart of Jesus revealed to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque and thus fail to keep the Nine First Fridays.

Our efforts to seek the restoration of the Social Reign of Christ the King are fruitless if we do not keep the Five First Saturdays, spending at least fifteen minutes in prayer before the Blessed Sacrament as we truly meditate upon the mysteries contained in Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary.

Our efforts to convince others that the "modern church" is not the Catholic Church will be less effective if we do not accuse ourselves on a regular (weekly) basis in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance, resolving after we have received Absolution from an alter Christus acting in persona Christi to live more penitentially, giving all of our sufferings and those of the Church Militant on earth to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

We must, however, be people,unlike many of the conciliar revolutionaries, who are on fire for our love of the Rosary, which Our Lady stressed in Fatima is a principal means after Holy Mass itself to save our own souls and to help to convert other poor sinners and thus to save them from the fires of Hell that she had shown to Jacinta, Francisco and Lucia on July 13, 1917. Our Lady told Francisco that he would have to pray many Rosaries to get to Heaven. Francisco Marto, mind you! And we must convince more and more of our friends and acquaintances to pray the Rosary. Our Lady wants this. So does her Divine Son.

Consider these words of Saint Louis Grignion de Montfort, contained in The Secret of the Rosary:

Later on, when these trials were over, thanks to the mercy of God, our Lady told Blessed Alan[de la Roche] to revive the former Confraternity of the Holy Rosary. Blessed Alan was one of the Dominican Fathers at the monastery at Dinan, in Brittany. He was an eminent theologian and a famous preacher. Our Lady chose him because, since the Confraternity had originally been started in that province, it was fitting that a Dominican from the same province should have the honour of re-establishing it.

Blessed Alan began this great work in 1460, after a special warning from our Lord. This is how he received that urgent message, as he himself tells it:

One day when he was offering Mass, our Lord, who wished to spur him on to preach the holy Rosary, spoke to him in the Sacred Host. "How can you crucify me again so soon?" Jesus said. "What did you say, Lord?" asked Blessed Alan, horrified. "You crucified me once before by your sins," answered Jesus, "and I would willingly be crucified again rather than have my Father offended by the sins you used to commit. You are crucifying me again now because you have all the learning and understanding that you need to preach my Mother's Rosary, and you are not doing it. If you only did that, you could teach many souls the right path and lead them away from sin. But you are not doing it, and so you yourself are guilty of the sins that they commit."

This terrible reproach made Blessed Alan solemnly resolve to preach the Rosary unceasingly.

Our Lady also said to him one day to inspire him to preach the Rosary more and more, "You were a great sinner in your youth, but I obtained the grace of your conversion from my Son. Had such a thing been possible, I would have liked to have gone through all kinds of suffering to save you, because converted sinners are a glory to me. And I would have done that also to make you worthy of preaching my Rosary far and wide."

Saint Dominic appeared to Blessed Alan as well and told him of the great results of his ministry: he had preached the Rosary unceasingly, his sermons had borne great fruit and many people had been converted during his missions.

He said to Blessed Alan, "See what wonderful results I have had through preaching the Rosary. You and all who love our Lady ought to do the same so that, by means of this holy practice of the Rosary, you may draw all people to the real science of the virtues."

Briefly, then, this is the history of how Saint Dominic established the holy Rosary and of how Blessed Alan de la Roche restored it.

From the time Saint Dominic established the devotion to the holy Rosary up to the time when Blessed Alan de la Roche reestablished it in 1460, it has always been called the Psalter of Jesus and Mary. This is because it has the same number of Hail Marys as there are psalms in the Book of the Psalms of David. Since simple and uneducated people are not able to say the Psalms of David, the Rosary is held to be just as fruitful for them as David's Psalter is for others. 

Ever since Blessed Alan de la Roche re-established this devotion, the voice of the people, which is the voice of God, gave it the name of the Rosary, which means "crown of roses." That is to say that every time people say the Rosary devoutly they place on the heads of Jesus and Mary 153 white roses and sixteen red roses. Being heavenly flowers, these roses will never fade or lose their beauty.

Our Lady has approved and confirmed this name of the Rosary; she has revealed to several people that each time they say a Hail Mary they are giving her a beautiful rose, and that each complete Rosary makes her a crown of roses.

So the complete Rosary is a large crown of roses and each chaplet of five decades is a little wreath of flowers or a little crown of heavenly roses which we place on the heads of Jesus and Mary. The rose is the queen of flowers, and so the Rosary is the rose of devotions and the most important one. (The Secret of the Rosary.)

You see, the practice of praying the Rosary was lost between the time of the Fourteenth and the Fifteenth Centuries. Our Lady gave the Rosary to Saint Dominic, who used it to crush the Albigenses heresy. She told Father Alan de la Roche to re-establish the Confraternity of the Holy Rosary in the year 1460, just 101 years before the Battle of Lepanto.

We are in a figurative Battle of Lepanto at present, dealing with preternatural forces that appear to vastly outnumber those who have chosen, despite their own sins and failings, to remain faithful to the authentic patrimony of the Catholic Church and have rejected such abominations as the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service and the "luminous mysteries" (how do the 150 Psalms fit into the number 200?) and the new ecclesiology and ecumenism and religious liberty and separation of Church and State.

Many of those who have come to see the truth of the state of the Church Militant in this time of apostasy and betrayal are  hated by their own former friends and colleagues and, in all too many instances, by many of members of our own families.

None of this matters if we care to unite ourselves to the Mercies of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary, giving each Rosary we pray to the Sacred Heart through the Immaculate Heart of Mary as her consecrated slaves.

We need only be faithful to the practice of the daily praying of the Most Holy Rosary. Our Lady will bring about results that we may not see until eternity, please God we persist until our dying breaths in states of Sanctifying Grace. Everyone--and I mean everyone--has time to pray at least one set of the mysteries of Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary each and every day without fail. It is the devil who wants us to make a million excuses as to why we can't find time to pray the Rosary on a daily basis, no less to speak about with love publicly and to invite all others to join you in its prayer recitation.

Although we should note with sadness the ceaseless (and ceaselessly clumsy and transparent) efforts of the conciliar revolutionaries to deconstruct Our Lady's Fatima Message and to defend the new world order, we must never be discouraged or disconsolate. Never. We are Catholics, not brooding or sappy sentimentalists. The final victory belongs to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. We can plant the seeds for this victory by our daily fidelity to Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary.

What better time to be devoted anew to the true Fatima Message of the true religion than this month of October, the month of the Holy Rosary and of the Holy Angels?

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

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.

Our Holy Guardian Angels, pray for us.