Make That 224 Cardinals--And Two White Cassocks--To Go, Please

It was in December of 1994 that an article published in The New York Times Magazine about the openness of the notorious Joseph “Cardinal” Bernardin and the infamous Godfied “Cardinal” Daneels to administering what purports to be Holy Communion to divorced and civilly “remarried” Catholics who lack a [worthless] conciliar decree of nullity prompted me to write an article entitled “Make That Two Red Hats to Go.” Well, in light of the fact that “Archbishop” Theodore Edgar McCarrick has become the first member of the conciliar college of non-cardinals to lose his purloined red hat, this current commentary bears the title “Make That 224 Red Hats to Go, Please.”

That is, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who has arranged for the implementation of the vision from hell that had been advanced by Joseph Louis Bernardin and Godfried Daneels, has mustered up all of his “courage” to knock off the red had of a non-voting octogenarian “cardinal” whose career as a serial abuser of young men, seminarians and priests is legendary. Boy, isn’t that a profile in conciliar courage?

Sure, the Argentine Apostate has huffed and puffed when he threatened to take away the purloined red hat of Raymond Leo Burke because of the latter’s pathetic efforts to “correct” him, Bergoglio, after the “errors” (not heresies, mind you) in Amoris Laetitia, March 19, 2016, but the man posing a “Pope Francis” decided not to do so, well, at least for the time being. The easier target was “Uncle Teddy” McCarrick, whose true title is that of Father Theodore Edgar McCarrick.

Believing Catholics, including those of us who have come to realize, albeit late in time, that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is not the Catholic Church and that its doctrines, liturgical rites, pastoral practices and constant indemnification of hardened sinners in their lives of perdition are hideous in the sight of the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Holy Trinity. There is not one of the remaining two hundred twenty-four remaining faux cardinals who is not tainted by acceptance of one or more, if not the totality, of the heresies, errors, sacrileges and blasphemies that pass for the “official” teaching of a false religious sect.

The fact remains, however, that those who offend God in matters of Faith and Worship wind up undermining whatever feeble efforts they may make now and again to retard social evils as those social evils have increased exponentially in the past five decades now precisely because of their ways in which the false doctrines and novel, condemned pastoral practices of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have undermined the integrity of the Holy Faith. Offenses against God are, of course, greater sins in the hierarchy of evils than offenses against creatures. The more that one offends God in matters of Faith and Worship is the more that evil will spread in the world.

The conciliar "popes" and their "bishops" have violated the First Commandment by placing strange gods before them whenever they have gone into places of false worship and treated the ministers of false religions as having a mission from from the true God of Divine Revelation to sanctify and save souls while appearing as an equal, if not an inferior, to those ministers, thereby conveying in a de facto manner the impression that the "pope" is simply one true religious leader among so many others in the world. 

The conciliar "popes" and their "bishops" have violated the Second Commandment by daring to use the Holy Name of God and the Holy Name of Jesus in connection with the "mission" and "traditions" of Protestant sects and by praising non-Christian religions as possessing "teachings" that can be of benefit to the building of the "better world." Not to be overlooked, of course, are the many times that the Holy Name of the Divine Redeemer and His Sign of the Cross have been omitted from meetings with the leaders of non-Christian sects. This is especially the case with adherents of the blasphemous Talmud. The obsequiousness of the conciliar "popes" and "bishops" in this regard has been such as to remove crucifixes so as to avoid "offending" their guests whenever they have appeared in ecumenical events in once Catholic churches and facilities.

It is beyond the power of any human being on the face of this earth to make it "pleasing" to God to esteem the symbols of false religions, each of which is from the devil, or to term places of false worship as "sacred" or to place false religions on a level of equality with Catholic Church.

The false "popes" and their "bishops" have violated the Third Commandment by permitting Catholics attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism to satisfy their Sunday obligation by attending a staging of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service on Saturday afternoon or evening and to attend such a staging on the afternoon or evening before one of the few Holy Days of Obligation that have not been moved or whose obligation has not been eliminated as a result of a certain feast falling on a Monday or a Saturday. This has contributed mightily to the descralization of Sundays as Catholics of all ages get their "obligation" out of the way on Saturday afternoons or evenings in order to have Sundays "free" for the "really important" things in life (football, baseball, golf, boating, sleeping in, watching the Sunday morning and afternoon interview programs, etc.).

The Third Commandment has been violated, of course, by the very insidious, sacrilegious nature of the sacramentally barren Novus Ordo service in se, a subject that has been explored on this site hundreds of times. It has been through that abominable liturgical service that the apostasies, blasphemies and sacrileges of conciliarism have robbed the lion's share of Catholics in the conciliar structures of their sensus Catholicus, accustoming them to ceaseless liturgical change in order for them to accept changes in doctrine and pastoral praxis from which they would have otherwise recoiled and rejected entirely out-of-hand.

Even the late Monsignor Klaus Gamber, who was not a traditionalist, admitted in his The Reform of the Roman Liturgy that the Novus Ordo service as a change of the liturgical rite because it enshrined and meant to teach a different faith that the Faith of our Fathers:

Not only is the Novus Ordo Missae of 1969 a change of the liturgical rite, but that change also involved a rearrangement of the liturgical year, including changes in the assignment of feast days for the saints. To add or drop one or the other of these feast days, as had been done before, certainly does not constitute a change of the rite, per se. But the countless innovations introduced as part of liturgical reform have left hardly any of the traditional liturgical forms intact . . .

At this critical juncture, the traditional Roman rite, more than one thousand years old and until now the heart of the Church, was destroyed. A closer examination reveals that the Roman rite was not perfect, and that some elements of value had atrophied over the centuries. Yet, through all the periods of the unrest that again and again shook the Church to her foundations, the Roman rite always remained the rock, the secure home of faith and piety. . . .

Was all this really done because of a pastoral concern about the souls of the faithful, or did it not rather represent a radical breach with the traditional rite, to prevent the further use of traditional liturgical texts and thus to make the celebration of the "Tridentime Mass" impossible--because it no loner reflected the new spirit moving through the Church?

Indeed, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the prohibition of the traditional rite was announced at the same time as the introduction of the new liturgical texts; and that a dispensation to continue celebrating the Mass according to the traditional rite was granted only to older priests.

Obviously, the reformers wanted a completely new liturgy, a liturgy that differed from the traditional one in spirit as well as in form; and in no way a liturgy that represented what the Council Fathers had envisioned, i.e., a liturgy that would meet the pastoral needs of the faithful.

Liturgy and faith are interdependent. That is why a new rite was created, a rite that in many ways reflects the bias of the new (modernist) theology. The traditional liturgy simply could not be allowed to exist in its established form because it was permeated with the truths of the traditional faith and the ancient forms of piety. For this reason alone, much was abolished and new rites, prayers and hymns were introduced, as were the new readings from Scripture, which conveniently left out those passages that did not square with the teachings of modern theology--for example, references to a God who judges and punishes.

At the same time, the priests and the faithful are told that the new liturgy created after the Second Vatican Council is identical in essence with the liturgy that has been in use in the Catholic Church up to this point, and that the only changes introduced involved reviving some earlier liturgical forms and removing a few duplications, but above all getting rid of elements of no particular interest.

Most priests accepted these assurances about the continuity of liturgical forms of worship and accepted the new rite with the same unquestioning obedience with which they had accepted the minor ritual changes introduced by Rome from time to time in the past, changes beginning with the reform of the Divine Office and of the liturgical chant introduced by Pope St. Pius X.

Following this strategy, the groups pushing for reform were able to take advantage of and at the same time abuse the sense of obedience among the older priests, and the common good will of the majority of the faithful, while, in many cases, they themselves refused to obey. . . .

The real destruction of the traditional Mass, of the traditional Roman rite with a history of more than one thousand years, is the wholesale destruction of the faith on which it was based, a faith that had been the source of our piety and of our courage to bear witness to Christ and His Church, the inspiration of countless Catholics over many centuries. Will someone, some day, be able to say the same thing about the new Mass? (Monsignor Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, p. 39, p. 99, pp. 100-102.) 

The conciliar “popes: and their “bishops” have been unwilling to face the reality that the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service has been and continues to be a means to evangelize in behalf of the false religion of ecumenism, especially as it relates to false ecumenism and to a de facto acceptance of the falsehood known as “universal salvation.”

None of the remaining two hundred twenty-four faux cardinals in the counterfeit church of conciliarism do not understand or are unwilling to admit that the Novus Ordo liturgical service is itself responsible for the loss of the Faith on the part of countless millions upon millions of Catholics worldwide, a point that has been made on this site repeatedly .

Each of the two hundred twenty-four “cardinals” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have followed the examples of their equally false “popes” by violating the Fourth Commandment in a variety of ways, including endorsing the separation of Church and State, a thesis termed absolutely false by Pope Saint Pius X in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906, thereby eviscerating the doctrine of the Social Reign of Christ the King, and they have undermined the authority of parents to be the principal educators of their children by mandating classroom instruction, much of which is graphic and seeks to mainstream immorality in the name of "compassion" and "dignity," in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments in full violation of the following prohibition placed upon such instruction by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929:

65. Another very grave danger is that naturalism which nowadays invades the field of education in that most delicate matter of purity of morals. Far too common is the error of those who with dangerous assurance and under an ugly term propagate a so-called sex-education, falsely imagining they can forearm youths against the dangers of sensuality by means purely natural, such as a foolhardy initiation and precautionary instruction for all indiscriminately, even in public; and, worse still, by exposing them at an early age to the occasions, in order to accustom them, so it is argued, and as it were to harden them against such dangers.

66. Such persons grievously err in refusing to recognize the inborn weakness of human nature, and the law of which the Apostle speaks, fighting against the law of the mind; and also in ignoring the experience of facts, from which it is clear that, particularly in young people, evil practices are the effect not so much of ignorance of intellect as of weakness of a will exposed to dangerous occasions, and unsupported by the means of grace.

67. In this extremely delicate matter, if, all things considered, some private instruction is found necessary and opportune, from those who hold from God the commission to teach and who have the grace of state, every precaution must be taken. Such precautions are well known in traditional Christian education, and are adequately described by Antoniano cited above, when he says:

Such is our misery and inclination to sin, that often in the very things considered to be remedies against sin, we find occasions for and inducements to sin itself. Hence it is of the highest importance that a good father, while discussing with his son a matter so delicate, should be well on his guard and not descend to details, nor refer to the various ways in which this infernal hydra destroys with its poison so large a portion of the world; otherwise it may happen that instead of extinguishing this fire, he unwittingly stirs or kindles it in the simple and tender heart of the child. Speaking generally, during the period of childhood it suffices to employ those remedies which produce the double effect of opening the door to the virtue of purity and closing the door upon vice.  (Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

How do children learn to grow in purity? By being taught to love God with their whole hearts, minds, bodies, souls, and strength. By eliminating, as far as is humanly possible, the incentives to sin as found in popular culture (eliminating the television as a starting point, of course), refusing to expose children to the near occasions of sin represented by immodestly dressed relatives or friends, refusing to permit them to associate with playmates whose innocence and purity have been undermined by the culture and by "education" programs that serve in public schools to be instruments of promoting sin and that serve in conciliar schools as the means of justifying it. By keeping our children close to the Sacraments, which means, of course, getting them out of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, and making sure that the family Rosary is prayed every day with fervor and devotion.

Do we need "theft instruction" in order to keep our children from stealing?

Do children, who are naturally curious, have to learn about the various forms of thievery available to them in order to know that it is wrong to violate the Seventh Commandment?

Might such "theft instruction" actually serve as an incentive to the mischievous to steal?

The conciliar "popes" and their "bishops" have indeed undermined the Natural Law right of parents to educate their children as they have countenanced the undermining of the innocence and purity of the young.

The conciliar "popes" have dared to undermine the Fifth Commandment in a number of ways, principally by making it appear as though the imposition of the death penalty by the civil state upon malefactors found guilty after due process of law of heinous crimes is an offense against both justice and the "dignity of the human person." A true pope can no more make it appear as though the death penalty is opposed to the Fifth Commandment than he could proclaim that there are four natures and six souls in the Person of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. He hath not the power to do such a thing.

Yes, for the conciliar "popes" and their "bishops" to be correct about the death penalty, then a true pope, Pope Saint Pius V would have had to have been wrong when he wrote that it should be imposed by the civil state equally upon clerics caught in perverse sins against nature as upon laymen caught in such sins:

That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, causes us most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal

Quite opportunely the Fifth Lateran Council [1512-1517] issued this decree: "Let any member of the clergy caught in that vice against nature . . . be removed from the clerical order or forced to do penance in a monastery" (chap. 4, X, V, 31). So that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity by taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, we determine that they should be handed over to the severity of the secular authority, which enforces civil law

Therefore, wishing to pursue with the greatest rigor that which we have decreed since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss. (Pope Saint Pius V, Horrendum illud scelus, August 30, 1568.)

Are the Ten Commandments that God revealed to Moses and that have been entrusted exclusively to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church subject to change or alteration of any type?

Can a true pope change any of those Ten Commandments?

Can a true pope change, for example, the Fifth Commandment's absolute prohibition against the direct, intentional taking of an innocent human life?

Can a true pope change the Sixth Commandment's prohibition against adultery?

Can a true pope change the Seventh Commandment's prohibition against stealing?

Can a true pope change the Eighth Commandment's prohibition against bearing false witness against thy neighbor?

Can a true pope change the Ninth Commandment to teach us that it is permissible to covet thy neighbor's wife?

Can a true pope change the Tenth Commandment to teach us that it is permissible to covet thy neighbor's goods?

Why is it, therefore, that most Catholics believe that a true pope can do what he wants with the First and Second Commandments?

What true pope has dared to enter into a mosque, taking off his shoes and assuming the Mohammedan prayer position to pray in the direction of Mecca?

What true pope has dared to venerate the Koran or the symbols of Buddhism or Jainism or Hinduism or, in the case of Senor Jorge Mario Bergoglio, read from the blasphemous Talmud along with his rabbinical pals?

What true pope has dared to tell Catholics not to seek the conversion of non-Catholics or has dared to tell Protestants and Jews that he is not interested in converting them?

What true pope after Saint Peter and the subsequent destruction of the second Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D. has dared to entered into a Talmudic synagogue and to be treated as an inferior to a rabbi as he treats this false religion as a perfectly valid means of sanctification and salvation?

"Well," some people continue to say, "he's the 'pope.' He can do whatever he wants, you know."


Can a true pope declare that there are eight persons in the Divine Godhead?

Can a true pope declare that there are many "true" religions in the world?

Can a true pope declare that one is free to believe or to disbelieve in the doctrine of Transubstantiation?

Can a true pope declare that one is free to disbelieve in the doctrine of Purgatory?

"Ah," some conciliarists might object, "a true pope would never declare such things."

Yes. Precisely. And this is why it is beyond the power of a true pope to "change" the First Commandment by placing strange gods before him by going into places of false worship and treating the ministers of false religions as having a mission from the true God of Divine Revelation to sanctify and save souls while appearing as an equal, if not an inferior, to those minister, thereby conveying in a de facto manner the impression that the "pope" is simply one true religious leader among so many others in the world.

No true pope can change the laws of God.

It is beyond the authority of any human being on the face of this earth to make it "pleasing" to God to esteem the symbols of false religions, each of which is form the devil, or to term places of false worship as "sacred" or to place false religions on a level of equality with Catholic Church.

It is beyond the authority of any human being on the face of this earth to turn the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass into a pagan spectacle of community self-congratulations.

It is beyond the authority of any human being on the face of this earth to endorse pantheism by striving to “save the planet” while so much as stating that a “merciful” God would never send anyone to hell for all eternity.

It is the beyond authority of any human being to contradict that plain teaching of the Catholic Church that condemned “religious liberty” and “separation of Church and State.”

It is beyond the authority of any human being to endorse socialism or any of its variants, including Marxian Communism, and to treat papal condemnations of such godless ideologies as though they never existed or had lost their binding force.

It is beyond the authority of any human being to claim that the death penalty is inherently unjust and can never be imposed under any circumstances.

It is beyond the authority of any human being to claim that there can any kind of “path” to make it appear that adultery, fornication, sodomy (and its related vices) and human self-mutilation must be understood in light of the “circumstances” in which people live with supposed “elements of true love.”

It is beyond the authority of any human being to claim that dogmatic truth can be understood in different ways at different times given the alleged “impossibility” of human language, which is said to be subject to the specific conditions of the moment, to express it adequately.

It is beyond the authority of any human being to claim that the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity,

Yet it is that the conciliar “popes” and their “cardinals” have spoken and acted in ways that are beyond the authority of mere mortal beings to act.

Each of the remaining two hundred twenty-four remaining “cardinals” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have been tainted to a greater or lesser extent by saying the precise things that have been listed above, noting, of course, that there are Jacobin/Mensheviks among them who take a more “moderate” view of the conciliar revolution. Even these Jacobins/Mensheviks, however, base their defense of, for example, the Sixth and Ninth Commandments upon Karol Josef Wojtyla’s personalist view of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony that inverts the ends proper to marriage even though this teaching was personally condemned by Pope Pius XII on April 1, 1944, a condemnation he reiterated in his address to Italian midwives on the nature of their profession on October 29, 1951 (please see the appendix below, which was taken from an article several years ago).

Would that they [the Modernists[ had but displayed less zeal and energy in propagating it! But such is their activity and such their unwearying labor on behalf of their cause, that one cannot but be pained to see them waste such energy in endeavoring to ruin the Church when they might have been of such service to her had their efforts been better directed. Their artifices to delude men's minds are of two kinds, the first to remove obstacles from their path, the second to devise and apply actively and patiently every resource that can serve their purpose. They recognize that the three chief difficulties which stand in their way are the scholastic method of philosophy, the authority and tradition of the Fathers, and the magisterium of the Church, and on these they wage unrelenting war. Against scholastic philosophy and theology they use the weapons of ridicule and contempt. Whether it is ignorance or fear, or both, that inspires this conduct in them, certain it is that the passion for novelty is always united in them with hatred of scholasticism, and there is no surer sign that a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the scholastic method. Let the Modernists and their admirers remember the proposition condemned by Pius IX: "The method and principles which have served the ancient doctors of scholasticism when treating of theology no longer correspond with the exigencies of our time or the progress of science." They exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those "who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind...or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church"; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: "We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by everyone of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church." Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: "I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.''  (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

“So the fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following closely in the footsteps of their predecessors, made this solemn profession: ‘The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true Faith. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ Who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” (Matt. 16:18), should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied, and its teaching kept holy.’ ...for they fully realized that this See of St. Peter always remains untainted by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior made to the prince of his disciples, ‘I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and do thou, when once thou has turned again, strengthen thy brethren’ (Luke 22:32).” (On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff, a decree of the Vatican Council, 1870; a fuller rendition of the quotation cited by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis.)

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.)

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

Most baptized Catholics today do not understand that what they think is the Catholic Church is but her counterfeit ape that has been responsible for one apostasy and sacrilege and blasphemy after another. They do not understand that their "popes" have expelled from themselves from the Catholic Church by virtue of holding privately and articulating most publicly beliefs contrary to the Catholic Faith long before their "elevation" as putative "pontiffs." Most baptized Catholics do not understand this because they have become accustomed to the novelties and innovations and apostasies and blasphemies and sacrileges that have been perpetrated by the conciliar officials in the name of the Catholic Church without realizing that those aberrations have been condemned by the Catholic Church and that to embrace any one of them causes a person to fall from the Catholic Faith in Its entirety, as Pope Leo XIII made clear in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896:

The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).

The need of this divinely instituted means for the preservation of unity, about which we speak is urged by St. Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians. In this he first admonishes them to preserve with every care concord of minds: "Solicitous to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. iv., 3, et seq.). And as souls cannot be perfectly united in charity unless minds agree in faith, he wishes all to hold the same faith: "One Lord, one faith," and this so perfectly one as to prevent all danger of error: "that henceforth we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive" (Eph. iv., 14): and this he teaches is to be observed, not for a time only - "but until we all meet in the unity of faith...unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ" (13). But, in what has Christ placed the primary principle, and the means of preserving this unity? In that - "He gave some Apostles - and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" (11-12). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.) 

God cannot contradict Himself.

As has been noted in numerous articles on this site, conciliarism, both in its spirit and its praxis, contradicts the Catholic Church in endless numbers of ways. This evidence is clear and it is denied only by those who use the Modernist method of conditioning dogmatic statements in the past on the historical circumstances in which they were made, making a mockery of the work of God the Holy Ghost in guiding the Church infallibly by inspiring the Fathers of the Church's authentic dogmatic councils and our true popes to issue statements in the precise language that they did so that they "that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men" so that, as The Oath Against Modernism teaches us, "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."

The removal of Theodore Edgar McCarrick’s purloined cardinalate is but a prop that is being used by the adversary to distract Catholics from the reality that each of the remaining twenty twenty-for remaining “cardinals” wear their red hats illicitly as they serve a man in a white cassock who masquerades as a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter.

We must be willing to suffer all manner of attacks and insults from our fellow Catholics, including our own relatives, friends and former acquaintances, for embracing the truth that the counterfeit church is a false religious organization that illicitly occupies the churches, parishes, rectories, schools, convents, colleges, universities and seminarians of the Catholic Church. This is a time of chastisement, and we must suffer for our own sins, mindful that nothing we suffer in this passing, mortal vale of tears is the equal of what one of our least Venial Sins caused Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to suffer in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday and that caused the Sword of Sorrow to pierce the Immaculate Heart of His Most Blessed Mother. We must suffer. We must suffer well, and we must suffer without any thought of human consolation.

Our Lady herself made this same point to Venerable Mary of Agreda as recorded in The New English Edition of The Mystical City of God:

446. Consider, O soul, how detestable this fault would make thee in the sight of the Lord, of myself, and of the angels and saints, for we are all witnesses of the love and fidelity He has shown thee as a generous, loving and faithful Spouse. Strive then with all thy heart to avoid offending Him either in great or in small things; do not force Him to relinquish thee and deliver thee over to the beastly disorders of sin, for thou knowest this would be a greater misfortune and punishment than if He would surrender thee to the fury of the elements, or to the wrath of all the wild animals, or even to the rage of the demons.If all these were to execute their anger upon thee, and if the world were to heap upon thee all its punishments and insults, all would do thee less damage than one venial sin against the God whom thou art obliged to serve and love in all things and through all things. Any punishment of this life is less dreadful than sin, for it ends with mortal life, while the guilt of sin, and its concomitant pain and chastisement, may be eternal.


447. In this life any punishment or tribulation fills mortals with fear and dread merely because it affects the senses and brings them in close touch with it through them, but the guilt of sin does not affect them nor fill them with dread. Men are entirely taken up by that which is visible, and hence they do not look upon the ultimate consequence of sin, which is the eternal punishment of hell. Being absorbed and united with sin itself is so grave, and the human heart so sluggish, that it allows itself to become intoxicated with sin and does not feel shame because the inferno of sinis not felt by the senses; and when it could see and sense it by faith, it allows faith to remain idle and dead as if it did not possess it. O most unhappy blindness of mortals! O apathy and negligence, which keeps so many souls capable of reason and glory deceitfully oppressed! There are no words or reasonings sufficient to describe this terrible and tremendous danger. My daughter, hasten away and flee with holy fear such an unhappy state, and deliver thyself up to all the labors and torments of life, which soon pass, rather than incur such a danger, for nothing will be lacking to thee if thou dost not lose God. To be convinced there are no small faults for thee and for thy state is a powerful means of saving thyself; fear greatly the small things, for in despising small faults the Most High knows the human heart invites other greater ones. That is not a blameless love which does not avoid all displeasure of the beloved. (Venerable Mary of Agreda, The New English Edition of The Mystical City of God, Volume I: The Conception, Book 2, Chapter III.)

Who are we to complain about being misunderstood or rejected by others. 

If God is for us, who can be against is?

What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who is against us? [32] He that spared not even his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how hath he not also, with him, given us all things? [33] Who shall accuse against the elect of God? God that justifieth. [34] Who is he that shall condemn? Christ Jesus that died, yea that is risen also again; who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. [35] Who then shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation? or distress? or famine? or nakedness? or danger? or persecution? or the sword?

[36] (As it is written: For thy sake we are put to death all the day long. We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.) [37] But in all these things we overcome, because of him that hath loved us. [38] For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor might, [39] Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8: 31-39.)

The sufferings which come upon us as a result of our embracing and persevering in the truth no matter the opposition that might arise or the isolation that might result therefrom are as nothing in comparison to the glories of Heaven.

We are sinners. We deserve to suffer.

Amplifying on what Our Lady herself told to the Venerable Mary of Agreda, Saint Anthony Mary Claret wrote the following in The Golden Key to Heaven about the horror of Venial Sin and the patience we must have in bearing suffering as the price to make satisfaction for it:

The Insults and Pains which Jesus Suffered

Composition of Place – Imagine you see Jesus at the tribunals and palaces of Annas, Caiphas, Herod and Pilate. Note the patience with which He bore horrible insults and atrocious pains.

Prayer of Petition – O my Jesus, grant me the grace I need in order to bear with silence and humility the degradation and pains that I must undergo in this world.

First Point

There has not been and will never be a man who has suffered or had to suffer such great wrongs and degradations as Jesus Christ suffered. It is not possible to combine in a single meditation all the degradations to which Jesus Christ submitted. Therefore we will only consider some of them. These alone, my soul, will be enough to make you ashamed of your pride.

The first kind of degradation was the false charges and calumnies – there is nothing more keenly would a man of noble and sincere heart than piling up false charges against him of things he would not even dream of doing. Enter, O my soul, into the tribunal of Annas and Caiphas and hear the outrageous crimes that are charged against Jesus.

The witnesses are lined up and here are the charges they make: They say He is a lover of wine that He likes to eat with publicans and sinners; that He is ruled by an intolerable pride, going so far as to claim to be Divine; that He would destroy the temple in Jerusalem; that He spread impious doctrine and is introducing the people to idolatry; the He is a sorcerer and works prodigies with the help of the devil, with whom He has a secret compact; the He is a seducer and astutely plots the ruin  of the chosen people … They charge Jesus with all these crimes in the tribunals of the High Priest and of Pilate. These charges are circulated among the people and are spread in the neighborhoods and public squares of Jerusalem.

The second kind of degradation was the scoffing and mockery – The wickedness of calling Jesus a blasphemer and criminal was not enough. It was also necessary to call Him a senseless fool. See Him in Herod's presence. Because He makes no answer to repeated questions but in His Infinite Wisdom keeps silent, men call Him a fool, at the prompting of the king and courtiers, and, like a fool He is covered with a white robe, and amid the mockery and laughter of insolent people they lead Him through the public streets to Pilate.

After this insult another follows of which I would not know whether to call it more savage or more contemptuously insulting, this time in the palace of the Roman Prefect. Incited to do so by the Jews, the soldiers decide to make sport of Jesus in a way no one but the devil could suggest. They throw a purple robe over His shoulders. Then they place a reed in His hand. Weaving together a crown out of rough sharp thorns, they press it down on His head in order to make fun of Him as a make-believe king.

Their mockery does not stop here. To ridicule Him more, they bend their knees to Him in mock reverence; then the spew their filthy spittle into His Face and give Him a cruel beating. While the Heavens darken at the sight of this and the angels are bitterly weeping, a countless throng pauses to look at the unusual spectacle, and add to the injury and mockery in their festive way by their applause.

The third kind of injury that was done to Jesus was the passage of the death sentence with all its bad implications – Pilate, who was perfectly aware of Jesus' uprightness and innocence, in order to deliver Him, place Him before the people, who had gathered beneath the balcony of his palace. They were there to choose a man sentenced to die whom Pilate would do the favor of sparing in honor of the Pasch.

They were to choose between Jesus and Barabbas. And who would believe it? Against Pilate's expectations the choice fell on Barabbas, as all the people cried out that Barabbas should go free and Jesus should be condemned. Now how is it that people want Jesus to be condemned and Barabbas released? Who is Barabbas? He is a criminal found guilty of sedition and murder.

And ought he be released and Jesus condemned?

“Indeed, that is what we wish. Let Barabbas live and let Jesus die!” What evil has Jesus done? … Now if Jesus must die, what kind of death should He be sentenced to? It would be very harsh to put Him to the sword.

Even so, He must die the most bitter kind of death and at the same time the one most disgraceful. He must die nailed to a Cross – the way the most infamous, the most wicked criminals are accustomed to suffer death. And He must die in between two criminals, so that all may know that He surpassed everyone in wickedness. This was what the people wished and was the sentence Pilate gave Him.

Thus Jesus was led to His death on the Cross amid the festive joy of the high priests, amid the blasphemous insults of the scribes and pharisees, and amid the harsh mockeries of an immense throng. It was exactly then that was fulfilled the prediction of the Prophet who, in the person of Jesus Christ, testified “I am a worm and no man; the reproach of men, and the outcast of the people.” (Ps. 21:7).

Pause a little, my soul, and answer the questions that I am going to ask. First, I ask: Did the Eternal Father give an unjust sentence when He decreed such great, such shocking degradations for His Only-Begotten Son? No, my soul, certainly not, Jesus had taken on Himself the liability for our sins by His own choice, and our sins called for this payment …

Secondly, I ask: Would the Eternal Father do you an wrong to allow against you insults and disgraces as great as the ones that He willed for His Only

 Son to undergo? No, for sin deserves as much; and rightly do you come to realize this from the outrages and insults done to Jesus, and rightly does your conscience accuse you of being guilty of many sins.

Thirdly, I ask: If you believe that sin is something that deserves such ill treatment, knowing as you do that you have sinned, would your pride not be intolerable if you refused to bear even a slight contempt? What could be the ingratitude if you were unwilling to suffer a git of offensive treatment for love of Jesus after He has suffered such great wrongs and such extraordinary offenses for love of you?

Affective Acts

(1)Admiration of the humility of Jesus – O my beloved Jesus, my Redeemer, what astonishing wonders are put before my eyes by Thy humility! Thou, Who art Infinite Wisdom and govern Heaven and earth, are declared a dull-witted fool !  Thou art mocked as a make-believe king and people spit Thy Face as though Thou were the vilest man in the world ! Thou, Who are Holiness Itself, from whom come all gifts and Heavenly Graces are counted a hypocrite and a lover of wine!

Thou art charged with being a seducer and blasphemer; Thou art called a Samaritan and a sorcerer, and are counted worse than a murderer and an assassin ! All this Thou suffer, and suffer it with awesome silence without the least complaint, with a meekness beyond comparison, without bitterness and with full resignation, without any regret that Heaven decreed this … Oh, what humility! Oh, the reticence of my Jesus! This is truly a sacrifice which, of itself, is enough to give the hearts of all men a lesson of humility...

(2)Shame – But this humility of Thine, oh, how hateful it makes my pride appear in Thy sight. O my Jesus! I, a lowly little mortal with a mind so very ignorant, so darkened – I want to be counted wise and prudent; while Jesus, Who is Wisdom Itself, is led in the garment of a fool through the public streets to be the laughing- stock of all the people! I, a sinner, want to be counted blameless, while the blameless Jesus is being counted as a seducer, a blasphemer and a sorcerer!

I, poor in every virtue and full of evil ways, endeavor to win preference above all other; while Jesus, Who is Holiness Itself, is ranked below Barabbas and sentenced to die on the disreputable Cross! Oh, how hateful, how abominable my intolerable pride must seem in my Redeemer's eyes! O my Jesus, have mercy on me and grant that in my mind I may have an entirely different outlook, and in my will my sentiments shall be quite contrary to what they have been up to now.

Second Point

There has not been a man in the world who has borne degradations and outrages as Jesus bore them. The royal Prophet describes the truly awesome humility with which Jesus bore insult and outrage, and he uses these words: “I, as a deaf man, heard not: and as a dumb man not opening his mouth.” (Ps. 37:1,4). Ponder these brief words, my soul, and wonder at the immense humility that is hidden beneath the awesome silence.

(1)Jesus was blameless – and could never be charged with anything that was not upright, and He could never be rightly rebuked, The crimes with which men charged Him were evil inventions of His enemies. If Jesus had chosen to speak, in a moment He could have made His innocence very obvious to everyone. He could have silenced His enemies before all the people and could have covered them with shame and embarrassment.

(2)Jesus is All-Powerful – One work of His was enough to cause bolts of fire to shoot down from the clouds upon all His enemies and hurl them all into the abyss of hell. With just a word He could have caused all men to know His Divinity and He could have caused all Jerusalem to adore Him as the long awaited Messias.

(3)Jesus was Infinite Wisdom – He knew that His enemies would become abusive on the occasion of His silence, and that they would not rest until they had seen Him die a disreputable death on a Cross. He knew that from His silence His beloved Mother and the Apostles would suffer extremely …

 He knew that when He would hold His peace as He did, men would make it an occasion to discredit the miracles He had worked, to condemn His teaching as erroneous and to vent their rage against His newly founded Church. He knew all this. Nevertheless these considerations were not not powerful enough arguments to draw one word from His mouth to prove His innocence. He wanted to keep silent, and to keep silent up to His last breath.

O, Jesus, my wonderful Jesus, how astonishing and how eloquent is this silence of Thine! How sublime is this lesson of Thine! But alas! How few there are who imitate it! Where are those souls who, when they suffer insult and reproach and outrage, know how to join Jesus in keeping silent? There may indeed be men who know how to adapt themselves to other difficulties and mortifications, above all if they are undertaken through their own decision. But to be quiet when people disparage us, to love our cross of insult and calumny, to avoid explaining away unjust accusations against us – Ah! This is a burden few backs would carry ! But meantime it will always be an undeniable truth that Jesus Christ's example is the only road to holiness, and one who does not imitate Him will never be very worthy in His sight and will have no hope of reaching perfection at any time.

Affective Acts

(1)Esteem and appreciation for contempt – Oh how wonderful is Thy teaching, my Jesus! How far it outmatches all the wisdom of the world ! In suffering unkind criticism, contempt, and ill treatment, Thou found only the beauty and desirablility of these things. When with a single word Thou could draw on Thyself as much honor as there was contempt that Thou received, Thou preferred contempt rather than honor. So far removed were Thy affections from being set on honor, that Thou showed a desire for the humiliations.

Now why should I not have the same sentiments that Thou had and why should I not love what Thou loved? Indeed, my Jesus, in the future I will regard contempt as something that overthrows my fiercest enemy, which is pride, as something that opens for me the entrance into the Heart of Jesus, as something  that ought to form the loveliest part of my glory in paradise.

(2)Contrition and resolution – Ah, how blind I have been in the past, my Jesus!  I have desired to be able to love Thee as Thou art loved by the Seraphim in Heaven and especially I have wanted to be able to show Thee my love by offering Thee a sacrifice that Thou would like and accept. And what other sacrifice could be more agreeable to Thee but that of forsaking my high rating of self, by bearing humiliation and insult in silence? And why have I not conducted myself in that way?

Ah, the most beautiful moment of my life was not when my heart was penetrated with a tender, sentimental affection for God and felt carried away with love for His Infinite Goodness. No, rather the loveliest instant was when my actions were unfairly interpreted and discredited, and the most beautiful occasion of offering God a perfect sacrifice was when people downright despised me and ceremoniously mocked me.

I was wrong, then, O my Jesus; I was wrong in grieving when I should have rejoiced, and in running from what I should have sought, and in grumbling when I should have kept quiet. Now that I know my mistake, what should I do, O my Jesus? I should do just what Thou did when the hour approached for Thee to suffer disgrace. “That the world may know that I love the Father: ...Arise, let us go hence.” (Johm 14:31). This is how Thou spoke when, full of fervor, Thou submitted Thyself to Thy enemies from whom Thou could hope for nothing but ill treatment and slanderous insult. When an occasion comes to me to suffer contempt and humiliation, I, likewise, will life up my heart, saying: That Heaven may know that I love Jesus, come, my soul, let us proceed to embrace these things gladly for love of Him... (Saint Anthony Mary Claret, The Golden Key to Heaven: An Explanation of the Spiritual Exercises of Saint Ignatius, Immaculate Heart Publications, Madrid, Spain, 1955, pp. 257-266.)

Relying upon Our Lady’s maternal protection and power before the Throne of God, especially as we meditate upon the mysteries contained in her Most Holy Rosary that she gave to the very saint whose feast we celebrate today, Saint Dominic de Guzman, may we face the difficulties of the moment with the confident assurance—but without any presumption—of her own loving help now in this life and, we pray, at the very hour of our death.

Viva Cristo ReyVivat Christus Rex!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

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.

Saint Dominic of Silos, pray for us.

Saint Hyacinth, O.P., pray for us.

Saint Ceslaus, O.P., pray for us.

Saint Albert the Great, O.P., pray for us.

Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., pray for us.

Saint Raymond of Pennafort, O.P., pray for us.

Saint Catherine of Siena, O.P., pray for us.

Saint Vincent Ferrer, O.P., pray for us.

Saint Antoninus, O.P., pray for us.

Saint Peter Martyr, O.P., pray for us.

Pope Saint Pius V, O.P., pray for us.

Saint Rose of Lima, pray for us.

Blessed Martin de Porres, O.P., pray for us.

Blessed Jacobus de Voragine, O.P., pray for us.

Blessed Jane de Aza, pray for us.

Blessed Alan de la Roche, pray for us.

Blessed Reginald, pray for us.

All ye Saints and Blesseds of the Order of Preachers, pray for us.


Pope Pius XII’s Condemnation of the Personalist View of Marriage

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.)

"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 10, 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.)

This was a ringing condemnation of the very philosophical and theological foundations of the indiscriminate, institutionalized teaching and practice of "natural family planning" in the lives of Catholic married couples. It was also yet another papal condemnation of conciliarism's view of marriage. 

One cannot overemphasize the importance of Pope Pius XII's condemnation of the very personalist ideology that is at the root of what is called today "natural family planning" as it came just a little over seven years and one-half years after the Holy Office's condemnation of the work, which was identical to that of Dietrich von Hildebrand's, of Father Herbert Doms, who had inverted the end of marriage. The condemnation of Father Doms' work was alluded to in a passage from the October 29, 1951, address just cited above. Here it is once again for the sake of emphasis:

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 10, 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. (Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951.)

Any "cardinal" who attempts to defend Catholic doctrine on the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and Catholic moral teaching about the illict nature of the use of that which is proper to the married state alone by unmarried people by using the writing of a man who helped to undermine and thus negate Catholic teaching, "Saint John Paul II." He subscribed to an error that had been condemned by Pope Pius XII in no uncertain terms. For "Saint John Paul II" to have been correct, therefore, the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost must have failed our last true pope thus far by letting him issue a condemnation of something that actually had the blessing of Heaven. This is as impossible as it is blasphemous. God lives outside of time and space, and He is immutable in His teaching.  (Please see Dr. Janet Smith's The Universality of the Natural Law and the Irreducibility of Personalism for an apologia in defense of Wojtyla/John Paul II's use of personalism in Veritatis Splendor, which was cited repeatedly by the four "cardinals" who wrote to Bergoglio about Amoris Laetitia.)