More Hateful of Catholicism Than Martin Luther Himself

There are very few developments in the world or in its adjacency, the counterfeit church of conciliarism, that are in any way surprising.

Although there are still a few times when I find it necessary to respond to Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s unspeakable blasphemies against Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His Most Blessed Mother, or to comment about Planned Barrenhood’s murderous ways, most of what we are witnessing now both in world and in the false church that arose from the Sillonist mind of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII and his Modernist cohorts who had been waiting in the wings for the death of Pope Pius XII is nothing else than the manifestation of the perfection of the inherently degenerate principles underlying each.

The world of Modernity, which had its earliest inceptions in certain phases of the Renaissance and came to birth as a result of the tidal waves unleashed by Father Martin Luther’s revolution against the Divine Plan that God Himself had instituted to effect man’s return to Him through His Catholic Church, is based upon the false premise that the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb of His Most Blessed Mother is a matter of complete indifference to social life and mores. The world is in the mess that it is in precisely because Father Martin Luther, O.S.A., overthrew the Social Reign of Christ the King, thereby making possible the triumph of the “Rights of Man” over those of God Himself.

The “Rights of Man” have, of course, led to the tyranny of men by the new high priests and priestesses of politics, law, education, medicine, junk science, psychology, banking, industry, technology, the mainslime media, entertainment and sports. Mass number of people “adore” various one or more of these high priests and priestesses. That which is evil is considered good. Those who denounce evil for what it is are called “haters.” This tyranny of man, unleashed in a torrent of bloodshed with the French Revolution, itself the legacy of the bloodshed inaugurated by Luther’s own revolution, sustains itself with an unquenchable bloodlust and a vengeful hatred of all truth, whether supernatural or natural.

As has been noted so many times in the past on this site, the world of Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Modernity has given rise to a multiplicity of “false opposites,” each of which is premised on the anti-Incarnational lie that it is possible for men of “good will” to “improve” the state of men and their nations by means of various ideologies or philosophies that accept only a “generic” concept of God that ignores what He has revealed to men or, worse yet, makes warfare upon God and those who believe all that He has revealed to us exclusively through His Catholic Church.

The following passage from Pope Leo XIII’s Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884, summarized the essence of this Judeo-Masonic ethos very succinctly:

But the naturalists go much further; for, having, in the highest things, entered upon a wholly erroneous course, they are carried headlong to extremes, either by reason of the weakness of human nature, or because God inflicts upon them the just punishment of their pride. Hence it happens that they no longer consider as certain and permanent those things which are fully understood by the natural light of reason, such as certainly are -- the existence of God, the immaterial nature of the human soul, and its immortality. The sect of the Freemasons, by a similar course of error, is exposed to these same dangers; for, although in a general way they may profess the existence of God, they themselves are witnesses that they do not all maintain this truth with the full assent of the mind or with a firm conviction. Neither do they conceal that this question about God is the greatest source and cause of discords among them; in fact, it is certain that a considerable contention about this same subject has existed among them very lately. But, indeed, the sect allows great liberty to its votaries, so that to each side is given the right to defend its own opinion, either that there is a God, or that there is none; and those who obstinately contend that there is no God are as easily initiated as those who contend that God exists, though, like the pantheists, they have false notions concerning Him: all which is nothing else than taking away the reality, while retaining some absurd representation of the divine nature.

When this greatest fundamental truth has been overturned or weakened, it follows that those truths, also, which are known by the teaching of nature must begin to fall -- namely, that all things were made by the free will of God the Creator; that the world is governed by Providence; that souls do not die; that to this life of men upon the earth there will succeed another and an everlasting life.

When these truths are done away with, which are as the principles of nature and important for knowledge and for practical use, it is easy to see what will become of both public and private morality. We say nothing of those more heavenly virtues, which no one can exercise or even acquire without a special gift and grace of God; of which necessarily no trace can be found in those who reject as unknown the redemption of mankind, the grace of God, the sacraments, and the happiness to be obtained in heaven. We speak now of the duties which have their origin in natural probity. That God is the Creator of the world and its provident Ruler; that the eternal law commands the natural order to be maintained, and forbids that it be disturbed; that the last end of men is a destiny far above human things and beyond this sojourning upon the earth: these are the sources and these the principles of all justice and morality.

If these be taken away, as the naturalists and Freemasons desire, there will immediately be no knowledge as to what constitutes justice and injustice, or upon what principle morality is founded. And, in truth, the teaching of morality which alone finds favor with the sect of Freemasons, and in which they contend that youth should be instructed, is that which they call "civil," and "independent," and "free," namely, that which does not contain any religious belief. But, how insufficient such teaching is, how wanting in soundness, and how easily moved by every impulse of passion, is sufficiently proved by its sad fruits, which have already begun to appear. For, wherever, by removing Christian education, this teaching has begun more completely to rule, there goodness and integrity of morals have begun quickly to perish, monstrous and shameful opinions have grown up, and the audacity of evil deeds has risen to a high degree. All this is commonly complained of and deplored; and not a few of those who by no means wish to do so are compelled by abundant evidence to give not infrequently the same testimony.

Moreover, human nature was stained by original sin, and is therefore more disposed to vice than to virtue. For a virtuous life it is absolutely necessary to restrain the disorderly movements of the soul, and to make the passions obedient to reason. In this conflict human things must very often be despised, and the greatest labors and hardships must be undergone, in order that reason may always hold its sway. But the naturalists and Freemasons, having no faith in those things which we have learned by the revelation of God, deny that our first parents sinned, and consequently think that free will is not at all weakened and inclined to evil. On the contrary, exaggerating rather the power and the excellence of nature, and placing therein alone the principle and rule of justice, they cannot even imagine that there is any need at all of a constant struggle and a perfect steadfastness to overcome the violence and rule of our passions.

Wherefore we see that men are publicly tempted by the many allurements of pleasure; that there are journals and pamphlets with neither moderation nor shame; that stage-plays are remarkable for license; that designs for works of art are shamelessly sought in the laws of a so-called verism; that the contrivances of a soft and delicate life are most carefully devised; and that all the blandishments of pleasure are diligently sought out by which virtue may be lulled to sleep. Wickedly, also, but at the same time quite consistently, do those act who do away with the expectation of the joys of heaven, and bring down all happiness to the level of mortality, and, as it were, sink it in the earth. Of what We have said the following fact, astonishing not so much in itself as in its open expression, may serve as a confirmation. For, since generally no one is accustomed to obey crafty and clever men so submissively as those whose soul is weakened and broken down by the domination of the passions, there have been in the sect of the Freemasons some who have plainly determined and proposed that, artfully and of set purpose, the multitude should be satiated with a boundless license of vice, as, when this had been done, it would easily come under their power and authority for any acts of daring.

What refers to domestic life in the teaching of the naturalists is almost all contained in the following declarations: that marriage belongs to the genus of commercial contracts, which can rightly be revoked by the will of those who made them, and that the civil rulers of the State have power over the matrimonial bond; that in the education of youth nothing is to be taught in the matter of religion as of certain and fixed opinion; and each one must be left at liberty to follow, when he comes of age, whatever he may prefer. To these things the Freemasons fully assent; and not only assent, but have long endeavored to make them into a law and institution. For in many countries, and those nominally Catholic, it is enacted that no marriages shall be considered lawful except those contracted by the civil rite; in other places the law permits divorce; and in others every effort is used to make it lawful as soon as may be. Thus, the time is quickly coming when marriages will be turned into another kind of contract -- that is into changeable and uncertain unions which fancy may join together, and which the same when changed may disunite. (Pope Leo XIII, Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884.)

This is a perfect description of the Judeo-Masonic world in which we live. No amount of the insane babbling of naturalists is ever going to “fix” that which is premised upon one falsehood after another. There is no getting the Humpty Dumpty Protestant and Judeo-Masonic of naturalism back together again as it is of, for and by the devil himself. The battle of the “false opposites” of the “left” and the “right” only result in one thing: more naturalism, which means more statism and more pressure to accept evil or face the might of caesar’s wrath.

Pope Leo XIII’s description of Judeo-Masonry can be applied also to the very foundational principles of conciliarism. Just as Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro is the ultimate End Product of Americanism, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is the end product of conciliarism. He is a caricature of each of the false Modernist principles that have their proximate roots in the very ethos of Judeo-Masonry that was described so perfectly by Pope Leo XIII.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is no more the source of the heresies of concilairism anymore than Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro or Hillary Rodham Clinton are the “problems” facing the United States of America today.

Bergoglio is merely in a position to have a bully pulpit from which to show us what conciliarism looks like once it had become possible after years of the sacramental barrenness, theological brainwashing and pastoral “conditioning” to remove the mask that had been used to hide the true face of conciliarism that he is showing the world, just as statists such as Obama/Soetoro have been able to rise to power as a direct result of the religiously indifferentist and Pelagian principles that flowed so naturally from Martin Luther’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King began on October 31, 1517.

Father Frederick Faber explained the Pelagian influence of the modern world in the following passage from The Precious Blood:

All devotions have their characteristics; all of them have their own theological meanings. We must say something, therefore, upon the characteristics of the devotion to the Precious Blood. In reality the whole Treatise has more or less illustrated this matter. But something still remains to be said, and something will bear to be repeated. We will take the last first. Devotion to the Precious Blood is the devotional expression of the prominent and characteristic teaching of St. Paul. St. Paul is the apostle of redeeming grace. A devout study of his epistles would be our deliverance from most of the errors of the day. He is truly the apostle of all ages. To each age doubtless he seems to have a special mission. Certainly his mission to our is very special. The very air we breathe is Pelagian. Our heresies are only novel shapes of an old Pelagianism. The spirit of the world is eminently Pelagian. Hence it comes to pass that wrong theories among us are always constructed round a nuclear of Pelagianism; and Pelagianism is just the heresy which is least able to breathe in the atmosphere of St. Paul. It is the age of the natural as opposed to the supernatural, of the acquired as opposed to the infused, of the active as opposed to the passive. This is what I said in an earlier chapter, and here repeat. Now, this exclusive fondness for the natural is on the whole very captivating. It takes with the young, because it saves thought. It does not explain difficulties; but it lessens the number of difficulties to be explained. It takes with the idle; it dispenses from slowness and research. It takes with the unimaginative, because it withdraws just the very element in religion which teases them. It takes with the worldly, because it subtracts the enthusiasm from piety and the sacrifice from spirituality. It takes with the controversial, because it is a short road and a shallow ford. It forms a school of thought which, while it admits that we have an abundance of grace, intimates that we are not much better for it. It merges privileges in responsibilities, and makes the sovereignty of God odious by representing it as insidious. All this whole spirit, with all its ramifications, perishes in the sweet fires of devotion to the Precious Blood.

The time is also one of libertinage; and a time of libertinage is always, with a kind of practical logic, one of infidelity. Whatever brings out God's side in creation, and magnifies his incessant supernatural operation in it, is the controversy which infidelity can least withstand. Now, the devotion to the Precious Blood does this in a very remarkable way. It shows that the true significance in every thing is to be found in the scheme of redemption, apart from which it is useless to discuss the problems of creation. (Father Frederick Faber, The Precious Blood, written in 1860, republished by TAN Books and Publishers, pp. 258-259.)

This is why it is so important to keep focused on the root causes of our problems rather than getting lost in the “trees” of particular developments, each of which is simply a tool used by the adversary to keep people agitated and thus distracted from seeing the fact that both Modernity and Modernism have been veritable “Humpty Dumpties” tottering on their respective walls before falling over into a gazillion pieces.

It is thus remarkable to watch the sideshow that has emerged concerning Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s attack on the indissolubility of ratified and consummated marriages represented by the Motu Proprios he issued on Monday, September 7, 2015, after circumventing the usual vetting process that takes place within the Vatican Walls, thus angering some of his brother apostates in the curia and many “conservative” or semi-traditional “bishops,” priests/presbyters and members of the laity within the ranks of his false church. After all, Bergoglio has been telling us for thirty months now what he has intended to do.  How can anyone be in the least bit surprised or shocked is so surprising that he has actually done what he intended to do as “Pope Francis” what he had been doing for fifteen years as the conciliar “archbishop” of Buenos Aires, Argentina?

Please, spare me the shock and outrage.

Where was the shock and outrage during the false “pontificate” of the supposed “restorer of tradition,” Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, said in Cologne,  Germany, on August 19, 2005, that he did not believe in the “ecumenism of the return”?

We all know there are numerous models of unity and you know that the Catholic Church also has as her goal the full visible unity of the disciples of Christ, as defined by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council in its various Documents (cf. Lumen Gentium, nn. 8, 13; Unitatis Redintegratio, nn. 2, 4, etc.). This unity, we are convinced, indeed subsists in the Catholic Church, without the possibility of ever being lost (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 4); the Church in fact has not totally disappeared from the world.

"On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return:  that is, to deny and to reject one's own faith history. Absolutely not!

"It does not mean uniformity in all expressions of theology and spirituality, in liturgical forms and in discipline. Unity in multiplicity, and multiplicity in unity:  in my Homily for the Solemnity of Sts Peter and Paul on 29 June last, I insisted that full unity and true catholicity in the original sense of the word go together. As a necessary condition for the achievement of this coexistence, the commitment to unity must be constantly purified and renewed; it must constantly grow and mature." (Ecumenical meeting at the Archbishopric of Cologne English)


Where was the shock and outrage when “Pope Benedict XVI” personally esteemed the symbols of five false religions (Mohammedanism, Talmudism, Jainism, Hinduism, and Buddhism) at the John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington, District of Columbia, on Thursday, August 17, 2005?


Where was the shock and outrage when Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, following the example of his “canonized” predecessor, Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II, entered into various Talmudic synagogues, including one in Rome itself on January 18, 2010, as he, the supposed Vicar of Christ on earth, permitted himself to be treated as an inferior and listened patiently to a Talmudic hymn that spoke of the “coming of the Messias” as though He had never come in the first place?

Where was the shock and outrage when Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI praised the results of separation of Church and State in Portugal one hundred one years after Pope Saint Pius X had condemned such a separation in the country that Our Lady favored with her apparitions in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal, between May 13, 1917, and October 13, 1917?

From a wise vision of life and of the world, the just ordering of society follows. Situated within history, the Church is open to cooperating with anyone who does not marginalize or reduce to the private sphere the essential consideration of the human meaning of life. The point at issue is not an ethical confrontation between a secular and a religious system, so much as a question about the meaning that we give to our freedom. What matters is the value attributed to the problem of meaning and its implication in public life. By separating Church and State, the Republican revolution which took place 100 years ago in Portugal, opened up a new area of freedom for the Church, to which the two concordats of 1940 and 2004 would give shape, in cultural settings and ecclesial perspectives profoundly marked by rapid change. For the most part, the sufferings caused by these transformations have been faced with courage. Living amid a plurality of value systems and ethical outlooks requires a journey to the core of one’s being and to the nucleus of Christianity so as to reinforce the quality of one’s witness to the point of sanctity, and to find mission paths that lead even to the radical choice of martyrdom. (Official Reception at Lisbon Portela International Airport, Tuesday, May 11, 2010.)

Apostasy. "By separating Church and State, the Republican revolution which took place 100 years ago in Portugal, opened up a new area of freedom for the Church"? Pluralism strengthens sanctity within the soul? Guess again.

Pope Saint Pius X specifically condemned the very separation of Church and State in Portugal that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI praised on May 11, 2010:

2. Whilst the new rulers of Portugal were affording such numerous and awful examples of the abuse of power, you know with what patience and moderation this Apostolic See has acted towards them. We thought that We ought most carefully to avoid any action that could even have the appearance of hostility to the Republic. For We clung to the hope that its rulers would one day take saner counsels and would at length repair, by some new agreement, the injuries inflicted on the Church. In this, however, We have been altogether disappointed, for they have now crowned their evil work by the promulgation of a vicious and pernicious Decree for the Separation of Church and State. But now the duty imposed upon Us by our Apostolic charge will not allow Us to remain passive and silent when so serious a wound has been inflicted upon the rights and dignity of the Catholic religion. Therefore do We now address you, Venerable Brethren, in this letter and denounce to all Christendom the heinousness of this deed.

3. At the outset, the absurd and monstrous character of the decree of which We speak is plain from the fact that it proclaims and enacts that the Republic shall have no religion, as if men individually and any association or nation did not depend upon Him who is the Maker and Preserver of all things; and then from the fact that it liberates Portugal from the observance of the Catholic religion, that religion, We say, which has ever been that nation's greatest safeguard and glory, and has been professed almost unanimously by its people. So let us take it that it has been their pleasure to sever that close alliance between Church and State, confirmed though it was by the solemn faith of treaties. Once this divorce was effected, it would at least have been logical to pay no further attention to the Church, and to leave her the enjoyment of the common liberty and rights which belong to every citizen and every respectable community of peoples. Quite otherwise, however, have things fallen out. This decree bears indeed the name of Separation, but it enacts in reality the reduction of the Church to utter want by the spoliation of her property, and to servitude to the State by oppression in all that touches her sacred power and spirit. (Pope Saint Pius X, Iamdudum, May 24, 1911.)

"Gay marriage" and the surgical execution of children were already "legal" in Portugal when Ratzinger/Benedict XVI visited in 2010. Some “new area of freedom for the Church,” eh?

Where was the shock and outrage when Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI gave a “joint blessing” with the layman, Rowan Williams, then posing as the Anglican “archbishop” of Canterbury in Westminster Cathedral, Westminster, England, on Friday, September 17, 2010?

Like examples could be given ad nauseam, ad infinitum. Others, of course, can be found in numerous articles on this site and elsewhere in cyberspace, not to mention a compendium, necessarily dated now by the rush of subsequent events but nevertheless a handy reference guide, entitled No Space Between Ratzinger and Bergoglio: So Close in Apostasy, So Far From Catholic Truth.

The point of the brief recitation given above, which has been confined solely to Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s immediate predecessor as the universal public face of apostasy, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who did exactly what Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II before him had done, is to indicate that it the Argentine Apostate’s final, crushing blows to the immutable precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments did not come out of nowhere, and those within the “hierarchy” of the conciliar structures who are understandably and justifiably outraged by these latest developments really have no one else to blame as they have been active apologists for false doctrines that violate the First and Second Commandments.

Violate the First and Second Commandments, good readers, and everything else will follow thereafter.

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 septuagenarian 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.

Moreover, the supposed defenders of the sanctity and inviolability of marriage have permitted and promoted programs providing explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments that have undermined the innocence and purity of young Catholics. These programs, which are sometimes connected with the so-called “theology of the body” that originated with the “cathechesis” provided by “Saint John Paul II” in various general audience talks in 1981 and 1982, have served to further enforce rather than to counter the culture of indecency to which most parents have exposed their children by means of television programming, motion pictures, “music,” DVDs, video games and by giving their children unrestricted access to the internet.

Perhaps even more importantly, of course, the “conservatives” within the hierarchy of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have endorsed the inversion of the ends of Holy Matrimony as taught first by Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI and have promoted so-called “natural family planning” that is nothing other than a means for married couples who simply do not want children to avoid having them without having recourse to pills and chemicals. Although effected by natural means, this frustration of the primary end of marriage, the procreation and education of children, is still nevertheless a form of contraception as it is rooted in avoiding rather than welcoming children without the justifications outlined by Pope Pius XII in his Address to Italian Midwives.

The “personalist” view of marriage that had been condemned personally by Pope Pius XII in 1944 after it had been promoted by Father Herbert Doms and Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand also played a fundamental role in Montini/Paul the Sick’s decision to “liberalize” the grounds by which Catholic married couples could obtain a decree of nullity from a diocesan marriage tribunal. Although attempting to maintain the Catholic doctrine that favors the presumption of the validity of a marriage bond until proved with mortal certainty to the contrary, Montini/Paul VI’s “liberalization” merely gave lip service to that presumption as it included the same sort of “psychological” grounds that had been included as justification for the use “natural family planning.”

Leaving aside the relatively few cases of ratum et nonconsummatum, which are reserved to the Apostolic See alone, a valid, ratified and consummated marriage is indissoluble. A legitimate decree of marital nullity is a finding, reached after investigations and interviews, that the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony was not exchanged at the time of a marriage ceremony given the existence of one or more impediments. A book written in 1959 and published by Sheed and Ward outlined some of the legitimate reasons for decrees of nullity as contained in the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law that was promulgated by Pope Benedict XV in 1917 (see F. J. Sheed, Nullity of Marriage. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1959).

Montini/Paul VI’s “natural family planning” and his “liberalization” of the grounds for a decree of marital nullity destabilized Catholic married and family life every bit as much as had the false and heretical Anglican sect’s Lambeth resolution of 1930 that endorsed the use of contraceptives by married couples who felt a “morally sound reason” for doing so. Montini/Paul VI effectively helped to increase incidences of marital infidelity and divorce. That Montini/Paul VI is considered to this day by many within the conciliar structures to have been a “defender of marriage” is nothing other than a joke.

There are some Catholics among this group who have later come to accept the true state of the Church Militant in this time of apostasy and betrayal must conduct themselves according to the counsel offered under priestly seal by a true priest. Mr. Michael Creighton analyzed some of the situations wherein the traditional clergy can be of assistance (see Modern Problems of Marriage) . In many cases, however, those who acted upon a decree of nullity in good faith to marry again but later came to accept the papal vacancy that has existed since the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958 must simply live in a Josephite manner. Just as some of the conciliar “canonizations,” such as that of Padre Pio and of Father Maximilian Kolbe, whose apostolic work in behalf of the City of Mary Immaculate and his firm opposition to all forms naturalism and to false ecumenism itself is why he had been imprisoned by the Nazis in Auschwitz in the first place, would have to be ratified by a true pope, so is it the case that most of those Catholics who have left the conciliar church after having received conciliar decrees of nullity will have to await a papal restoration for a determination of their cases if they live long enough to see such a restoration. Love of God and of his truth comes first. Nothing else.

A caveat must be offered at this point, however.

Although it is easy to demagogue the matter, as some have in cyberspace have done, there are many thousands of Catholics who are still within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism who have sought decrees of marital nullity after they had been advised to do so by men they supposed to be their pastors or chancery officials. These Catholics have tried to act in good faith by following the rules of what they believe, albeit erroneously, to be the Catholic Church without engaging in adultery or having undergone a civil divorce in order to remarry illicitly, and some of them still conduct themselves within those structures as married Catholics even after having initiated a civil divorce, sometimes at the suggestion of a pastor or a chancery official, or having been victimized by a civil divorce until such time as a decree of nullity is issued. Jorge Mario Bergoglio, of course, has thrown such Catholics under the bus, treating their fidelity to what they believe mistakenly to be the rules of the Catholic Church as nothing other a vestige of the “Pelagian” past that is best forgotten. As was noted a few weeks ago, Bergolio and his fellow servants of Antichrist make a mockery of those Catholics who have stayed within the confines of the conciliar "Code of Canon Law," including those, such as the late Genevieve Gleason, who conducted themselves properly as married persons long after their spouses had obtained a "civil divorce" (see ).

Jorge Mario Bergoglio cares nothing for such Catholics, no matter how few or many in number they may be in comparison to the large preponderance of nullity cases in the conciliar church, whose cases would have withstood scrutiny under the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law. He is all about rewarding soothing the consciences of those who sought to live lives of sin. Indeed, Bergoglio would have granted the lecherous, adulterous, bigamous drunkard King Henry VIII a decree of marital nullity, and he would have been more than happy to have made up some false pretext for doing so, something that is easy to deduce when one considers the fact that the Argentine Apostate circumvented the entire “quality control system,” if you will, within the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River in order to issue his “papal” fiats last week.

Even though it was relatively easy to know precisely what Bergoglio has had in his dirty little apostate mind to accomplish next month at his “synod of bishops,” his two Motu Proprios of last week should leave no doubt the simple fact that, as I noted in April of 2014, Jorge has been cookin’the books for the past thirty months now to make it possible for Catholics who have no intention of quitting their lives of wanton sin to receive what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service. I dare say that he would find some grounds to justify welcoming so-called “polyamorous” (the euphemism for polygamous) “relationships.” Everything goes for this wretched reprobate, everything, that is, except Catholicism.

Just take a look at the following passage from “Pope Francis’s” Motu Proprio to see how far he has been willing to go to make a mockery of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony:

Art. 14 § 1 . The circumstances which may allow the handling of the case of nullity of the marriage by means of the process shorter according to cann. 1683-1687, for instance include: the lack of faith that can generate the simulation of consent or the error that determines the will, the brevity of married life, procured abortion to prevent procreation, the stubborn persistence in a extramarital affair at the time of the wedding or at a time immediately following, the malicious concealment of infertility or a serious or contagious disease of children born from a previous relationship or incarceration, the cause of marriage completely foreign to married life or substantial the unplanned pregnancy of the woman, the physical violence inflicted to extort the consent, the lack of use of reason proved by medical documents, etc. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus, August 15, 2015.)

How can either brevity of married life or having a procured abortion signify the lack of the reception of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony?

Also, please tell me what is an “unplanned pregnancy”?

Does Jorge Mario Bergoglio believe that unmarried Catholics who engage in fornication or married Catholics should “plan” the conception of a child?

It’s a fair question, a very fair question.

These are bogus conditions.

How many women are going to kill their babies so as to get one of Bergoglio’s “quickie” decrees of nullity?

Do not laugh.

Please, do not laugh.

The so-called International Theological Commission’s The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized, April 19, 2007, on reaffirming women, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, in the most erroneous belief that the souls of aborted babies go to Heaven.  It was documented eight years ago that at least two women killed their babies after listening to a conciliar "bishop" in the United States of America give a talk on this subject in which he said that all aborted babies go to Heaven. Please spare me the sophistry that the report of the International Theological Commission was not a "magisterial" act of the Catholic Church. The man who endorsed the International Theological Commission’s findings, the now retired Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, said as long ago as the early 1980s that he did not "like" the Church's teaching on Limbo, which was reaffirmed by Pope Saint Pius X as follows: “Children who die without being baptized go to limbo, where they don't enjoy God, but don't suffer either because whilst carrying the original sin...they don't deserve paradise but neither do they deserve hell or purgatory.”

What Ratzinger did not “like,” of course, he jettisoned, and this is exactly what Jorge has done with a nullity process, which was already replete with fallacious grounds that did not exist in the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law, that he believed was too “legalistic” and “restrictive.”

Additionally, the passage from the Motu Proprio applicable to the Latin Rite within the counterfeit church of conciliarism more or less admits that the outrageous grounds found therein are not meant to be exclusive of other possible grounds. In other words, the devil knows that anything goes, and in Bergoglio’s false religious sect what has been going, going, gone since October 28, 1958, is Catholic Faith and Morals, Worship, and pastoral practice. Jorge has left a lot to the imagination and diabolical ingenuity of those of his conciliar “bishops” who want to “run” with this passage as he himself would do if he found himself as a diocesan “ordinary” within his false religious sect.

It is no wonder that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has not objected to the renaming of a piazza in Rome, Italy, in honor of the arch-heretic Martin Luther, whose diabolically-inspired revolution was all about lust and divorce:

The Vatican has given its backing to a central Rome square being named after Martin Luther, a church reformer excommunicated by the pope nearly 500 years ago.

A German Catholic priest and theologian, Luther was a key figure in the Protestant Reformation and sparked considerable controversy by challenging the authority of the Catholic church. He denounced the corruption he saw among clergy in Rome and believed salvation came through faith alone -- views that did not sit well with Pope Leo X.

Luther was excommunicated in 1521 and was never allowed to return to the Catholic church, but now the Vatican’s views have changed.

Next month a hilltop square in Rome is due to be named Piazza Martin Lutero, in memory of Luther’s achievements. The site chosen is the Oppian Hill, a park area that overlooks the Colosseum.

The move has been six years in a making, following a request made by the Seventh-day Adventists, a Protestant denomination, Italian daily La Repubblica said. The original plan was to inaugurate the square in time for the 500th anniversary of Luther’s historic trip to Rome in 2010. City officials were not able to discuss the process behind naming the square or the reason for the holdup.

Despite Luther being thrown out of the Catholic church during his lifetime, the Vatican reacted positively to news of the square’s upcoming inauguration. “It’s a decision taken by Rome city hall which is favorable to Catholics in that it’s in line with the path of dialogue started with the ecumenical council,” said the Rev. Ciro Benedettini, deputy director of the Vatican press office, referring to a gathering of churchmen to rule on faith matters.

The move contrasts sharply from views held by Luther around the time of his visit to Rome, when it was said he repeated the saying, “If there is a hell, Rome is built over it.”

Dialogue between Lutherans -- a Protestant denomination that follows Luther’s teachings -- and the Catholic church was cemented in a document signed by bishops of the two churches in 2013. Pope Francis has also shown an openness to different churches, earlier this year supporting the need for a more unified Christian voice in Europe.

But within Italy there are very few Protestants; just 435,000 Italian citizens identify as Protestant, according to research published in 2012 by the Center for Studies on New Religions. Catholicism continues to be the dominant religion, with 97.9 percent of Italy’s 60 million residents having been baptized Catholic as of 2009. (Vatican backs plan to name Rome square for Martin Luther.)

Luther's revolution, based on the lie that one is "saved" once one makes a profession of "faith" on his lips and in his heart in the Holy Name of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blesed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, unleashed a tidal wave of sin that he did not intend but which was only the inevitable result of untethering baptized Catholics from the teaching authority of the Church that Our Lord Himself founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope: 

The assumption that Protestantism brought a higher and purer moral life to the nations that came under its influence does not need elaborate refutation. It is a fact of uncontroverted history that "public morality did at once deteriorate to an appalling degree wherever Protestantism was introduced. Not to mention robberies of church goods, brutal treatment meted out to the clergy, secular and regular, who remained faithful, and the horrors of so many wars of religion," we have the express testimony of [Martin] Luther himself and several other leaders of the revolt, such as [Martin] Bucer and [Philip] Melancthon, as to the evil effects of their teaching; and this testimony is confirmed by contemporaries. Luther's own avowals on this matter are numberless. Thus he writes:

"There is not one of our Evangelicals, who is not seven times worse than before he belonged to us, stealing the goods of others, lying, deceiving, eating, getting drunk, and indulging in every vice, as if he had not received the Holy Word. If we have been delivered from one spirit of evil, seven others worse than the first have come to take its place."

And again:

Men who live under the Gospel are more uncharitable, more irascible, more greedy, more avaricious than they were before as Papists."

Even Erasmus, who had at first favoured Luther's movement, was soon disillusioned. Thus he writes:

"The New Gospel has at least the advantage of showing us a new race of men, haughty, impudent, cunning, blasphemous . . . quarrellers, seditious, furious, to whom I have, to say truth, so great an antipathy that if I knew a place in the world free of them, I would not hesitate to take refuge therein." 

That these evil effects of Protestantism were not merely temporary--the accidental results of the excitement and confusion which are peculiar to a stage of transition (although they were no doubt intensified thereby)--is shown from present-day statistics. The condition of domestic morality is usually best indicated by the statistics of divorce, and of illegitimate births, and by the proportion of legitimate children to the number of marriages; while statistics of general criminality, where they can be had, would convey a fair idea of the individual and public morality in any given place. According to these tests Protestant countries are at the present day much inferior to Catholic countries in domestic and public morality. (Father Edward Cahill, S.J., The Framework of a Christian State, first published in 1932, republished by Roman Catholic Books, pp. 102-104.)

Father Cahill wrote this in 1932 about the contemporary state of things in the Irish Free Republic.

Similarly, the evil effects of conciliarism have not been merely temporary, the accidental results of the excitement and confusion which have been peculiar to a stage of “transition.” The evil effects of conciliarism are the result of its very false premises, which Jorge Mario Bergoglio is simply taking to its logical conclusions that will unleash an “officially sanctioned” celebration of unrepentant sinners in the name of “mercy” that has long been the case on an “unofficial” basis at the “ground level” of various dioceses and parishes within the conciliar structures for decades now.

Unlike Luther, who did not intend for the consequences that flowed logically from his revolution to occur, Bergoglio intends to endorse wanton behavior in the name of “love,” whether “expressed” naturally or perversely, and to help those whose marriages “fall apart” when “love fails.”

As has been noted on this site many times in the past, the only type of love that “fails” in a ratified and consummated marriage is a love of God as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His true Church.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is even more hateful of Catholicism than Martin Luther, which is truly remarkable if one considers the following passage from Monsignor Patrick O’Hare’s The Facts About Luther:

"Anointed," as Luther was, "to preach the Gospel of peace," and commissioned to communicate to all the knowledge which uplifts, sanctifies and saves, it is certainly pertinent to ask what was his attitude towards the ministry of the divine word, and in what manner did he show by speech and behavior the heavenly sanctions of law: divine, international and social?

As we draw near this man and carefully examine his career, we find that in an evil moment he abandoned the spirit of discipline, became a pursuer of novelty, and put on the ways and manners of the "wolf in sheep's clothing" whose teeth and claws rent asunder the seamless garment of divine knowledge which should have been kept whole for the instruction and the comfort of all who were to seek the law at his lips. His words lost their savor and influence for good, and only foulness and mocking blasphemy filled his mouth, to deceive the ignorant and lead them into error, license and rebellion against both Church and state. Out of the abundance of a corrupt heart this fallen priest, who had departed from the divine source of that knowledge, which is unto peace, shamelessly advanced theories and principles which cut at the root of all order, authority and obedience, and inaugurated an antagonism and a disregard for the sanctity of law such as the world had not seen since pagan times. His Gospel was not that of the Apostles, who issued from the upper room of Jerusalem in the power of those "parted tongues, as it were of fire." His doctrine, stripped of its cunning and deceit, was nothing else, to use the words of St. James describing false teaching, but "earthly, sensual, devilish"; so much so, that men of good sense could no longer safely "seek the law at his mouth" and honestly recognize him as "the angel of the Lord of Hosts" sent with instructions for the good of the flock and the peace of the nations. Opposed to all law, order and restraint, he could not but disgrace his ministry, proclaim his own shame, and prove to every wise and discerning follower of the true Gospel of peace, the groundlessness of his boastful claims to be in any proper sense a benefactor of society, an upholder of constituted authority and a promoter of the best interests of humanity.

Luther, like many another framer of religious and political heresy, may have begun his course blindly and with little serious reflection. He may never have stopped to estimate the lamentable and disastrous results to which his heretofore unheard-of-propaganda would inevitably lead. He may not have directly intended the ruin, desolation and misery which his seditious preaching effected in all directions. "But," as Verres aptly says, "if a man standing on one of the snowcapped giants of the Alps were to roll down a little stone, knowing what consequences would follow, he would be answerable for the desolation caused by the avalanche in the valley below. Luther put into motion not one little stone, but rock after rock, and he must have been shortsighted indeed--or his blind hatred made him so--if he was unable to estimate beforehand what effect his inflammatory appeals to the masses of the people and his wild denunciations of law and order would have." He should, as a matter of course, have weighed well and thoroughly the merits or demerits of his "new gospel" before he announced it to an undiscriminating public, and wittingly or unwittingly unbarred the floodgates of confusion and unrest. Deliberation, however, was a process little known to this man of many moods and violent temper. To secure victory in his quarrel with the Church absorbed his attention to the exclusion of all else, and, although he may not have reflected in time on the effects of his revolutionary teachings, he is nonetheless largely responsible for the religious, political and social upheaval of his day which his wild and passionate harangues fomented and precipitated. Nothing short of a miracle could have prevented his reckless, persistent and unsparing denunciations of authority and its representatives from undermining the supports by which order and discipline in Church and state were upheld. As events proved, his wild words, flung about in reckless profusion, fell into souls full of the fermenting passions of time and turned Germany into a land of misery, darkness and disorder. (Monsignor Patrick F. O'Hare. The Facts About Luther, published originally in Cincinnati, Ohio, by Frederick Pustet Company in 1916, reprinted in 1987 by TAN Books and Publishers, pp. 215-217.)

Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII started the process of throwing the stone down the Alps, so to speak, to bury Catholic doctrine in favor of Modernism. This was fully intentional.

Similarly, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is simply making sure that the avalanche started by Roncalli/John XXIII is so deep that it is impossible for any trace of Catholic doctrine to arise from under the weight of his revolutionary “initiatives.”

Those who want to see that this is so will see it. Others will not.

For our part, of course, we must console the good God as the consecrated slaves of His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, praying as many Rosaries this day and every day as is possible given our state-in-life.

We must remember that the Catholic Church is the spotless, virginal mystical spouse of her Invisible Head, Divine Founder and Mystical Bridegroom, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and that she enjoys a perpetual immunity  from error and heresy. Once a person figures this out and accepts it, of course, then it becomes relatively easy to come to the conclusion that counterfeit church of conciliarism is not the Catholic Church and that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is no more “Pope Francis” than Mike Huckabee.

Today is, of course, the Feast of the Seven Dolors of the Blessed Virgin Mary in September. This is a wonderful day to pray the Rosary of Our Lady’s Seven Dolors and to pray the beautiful prayers found in The Servite Manual: BEHOLD THY MOTHER: A Collection of Devotions Chiefly in Honor of OUR LADY OF SORROWS, which was published originally in 1947 by the Servite Fathers and republished by Refuge of Sinners Publishing, Inc., with permission secured by the Gauvin and Sentman families, who funded the printing of the first two hundred copies. The republished books, which are very beautifully printed with a larger print size than the original while retaining the same pagination, are available for $10.00 plus shipping from: Although not listed  on the Refuge of Sinners Publishing, inquiries may be made of this firm at Joyful Catholic, as to how to order copies, which I am informed cost $15.99 plus shippingBehold Thy Mother, A Servite Manual of Prayers that every reader of this site should have and use on a daily basis for spiritual fortification in this time of apostasy and betrayal.

A blessed Feast of the Seven Dolors of the Blessed Virgin Mary to you all!

Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and the hour of our death Amen

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of the 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.

Saint Nicomedes, pray for us.

Appendix A

A Compendium of Luther's Principal Heresies and Errors

(1) That Our Blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ did not create a visible, hierarchical Church.

(2) That there is no authority given by Our Lord to the Pope and his bishops and priests to govern and to sanctify the faithful.

(3) That each believer has an immediate and personal relationship with the Savior as soon as he makes a profession of faith on his lips and in his heart, therefore being perpetually justified before God.

(4) Having been justified by faith alone, a believer has no need of an intermediary from a non-existent hierarchical priesthood to forgive him his sins. He is forgiven by God immediately when he asks forgiveness.

(5) This state of justification is not earned by good works. While good works are laudable, especially to help unbelievers convert, they do not impute unto salvation. Salvation is the result of the profession of faith that justifies the sinner.

(6) That grace is merely, in the words of Martin Luther, the snowflakes that cover up the "dung heap" that is man.

(7) That there is only one source of Divine Revelation, Sacred Scripture.

(8) That each individual is his own interpreter of Sacred Scripture.

(9) That there is a strict separation of Church and State. Princes, to draw from Luther himself, may be Christians but it is not as a Christian that they ought to rule.

These lies have permutated in thousands of different directions. However, they have sewn the fabric of the modern state and popular culture for nearly half a millennium, serving as a good deal of the foundation of conciliarism itself and its own devastation of souls.


Here below are explanations of these lies and their multifaceted implications for the world in which we live:

(1-2) The contention that Our Lord did not create a visible, hierarchical church vitiates the need for a hierarchical, sacerdotal priesthood for the administration of the sacraments. It is a rejection of the entirety of the history of Christianity prior to the Sixteenth Century. It is a denial of the lesson taught us by Our Lord by means of His submission to His own creatures, Saint Joseph and the Blessed Mother, in the Holy Family of Nazareth that each of us is to live our entire lives under authority, starting with the authority of the Vicar of Christ and those bishops who are in full communion with him. The rejection of the visible, hierarchical church is founded on the prideful belief that we are able to govern ourselves without being directed by anyone else on earth. This contention would lead in due course to the rejection of any and all religious belief as necessary for individuals and for societies. Luther and Calvin paved the way for Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the French Revolution that followed so closely the latter's deification of man.

(3-6) Baptism is merely symbolic of the Christian's desire to be associated with the Savior in the amorphous body known as the Church. What is determinative of the believer's relationship with Christ is his profession of faith. As the believer remains a reprobate sinner, all he can do is to seek forgiveness by confessing his sins privately to God. This gives the Protestant of the Lutheran strain the presumptuous sense that there is almost nothing he can do to lose his salvation once he has made his profession of faith in the Lord Jesus. There is thus no belief that a person can scale the heights of personal sanctity by means of sanctifying grace. It is impossible, as Luther projected from his own unwillingness to cooperate with sanctifying grace to overcome his battles with lust, for the believer to be anything other than a dung heap. Thus a Protestant can sin freely without for once considering that he has killed the life of sanctifying grace in his soul, thereby darkening his intellect and weakening the will and inclining himself all the more to sin-and all the more a vessel of disorder and injustice in the larger life of society.

(7-8) The rejection of a visible, hierarchical Church and the rejection of Apostolic Tradition as a source of Divine Revelation protected by that Church leads in both instances to theological relativism. Without an authoritative guide to interpret Divine Revelation, including Sacred Scripture, individual believers can come to mutually contradictory conclusions about the meaning of passages, the precise thing that has given rise to literally thousands of Protestant sects. And if a believer can reduce the Bible, which he believes is the sole source of Divine Revelation, to the level of individual interpretation, then there is nothing to prevent anyone from doing the same with all written documents, including the documents of a nation's founding. If the plain words of Scripture can be deconstructed of their meaning, it is easy to do so, say, with the words of a governmental constitution. Theological relativism paved the way for moral relativism. Moral relativism paved the way for the triumph of positivism and deconstructionism as normative in the realm of theology and that of law and popular culture.

(9) The overthrow of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ as it was exercised by His true Church in the Middle Ages by the Protestant concept of the separation of Church and State is what gave rise to royal absolutism in Europe in the immediate aftermath of Luther's handiwork. Indeed, as I have noted any number of times before, it is arguably the case that the conditions that bred resentment on the part of colonists in English America prior to 1776 might never have developed if England had remained a Catholic nation. The monarchy would have been subject in the Eighteenth Century to same constraints as it had in the Tenth or Eleventh Centuries, namely, that kings and queens would have continued to understand that the Church reserved unto herself the right to interpose herself in the event that rulers had done things-or proposed to do things-that were contrary to the binding precepts of the Divine positive law and the natural law and/or were injurious of the cause of the sanctification and salvation of the souls of their subjects. The overthrow of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ deposited power first of all in the hands of monarchs eager to be rid of the "interference" of the Church and ultimately in the hands of whoever happened to hold the reins of governmental power in the modern "democratic" state. Despotism has been the result in both cases.

Appendix B

From Pope Leo X's Exsurge Domini

Despite all of this, however, men such as Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Joseph Alois Ratzinger have seen fit to praise the horrible, lecherous drunkard named Martin Luther. This places them slightly at odds with Pope Leo X, Luther's contemporary:

Therefore we can, without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation as one whose faith is notoriously suspect and in fact a true heretic with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and censures. Yet, with the advice of our brothers, imitating the mercy of almighty God who does not wish the death of a sinner but rather that he be converted and live, and forgetting all the injuries inflicted on us and the Apostolic See, we have decided to use all the compassion we are capable of. It is our hope, so far as in us lies, that he will experience a change of heart by taking the road of mildness we have proposed, return, and turn away from his errors. We will receive him kindly as the prodigal son returning to the embrace of the Church.

Therefore let Martin himself and all those adhering to him, and those who shelter and support him, through the merciful heart of our God and the sprinkling of the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ by which and through whom the redemption of the human race and the upbuilding of holy mother Church was accomplished, know that from our heart we exhort and beseech that he cease to disturb the peace, unity, and truth of the Church for which the Savior prayed so earnestly to the Father. Let him abstain from his pernicious errors that he may come back to us. If they really will obey, and certify to us by legal documents that they have obeyed, they will find in us the affection of a father's love, the opening of the font of the effects of paternal charity, and opening of the font of mercy and clemency.

We enjoin, however, on Martin that in the meantime he cease from all preaching or the office of preacher.

{And even though the love of righteousness and virtue did not take him away from sin and the hope of forgiveness did not lead him to penance, perhaps the terror of the pain of punishment may move him. Thus we beseech and remind this Martin, his supporters and accomplices of his holy orders and the described punishment. We ask him earnestly that he and his supporters, adherents and accomplices desist within sixty days (which we wish to have divided into three times twenty days, counting from the publication of this bull at the places mentioned below) from preaching, both expounding their views and denouncing others, from publishing books and pamphlets concerning some or all of their errors. Furthermore, all writings which contain some or all of his errors are to be burned. Furthermore, this Martin is to recant perpetually such errors and views. He is to inform us of such recantation through an open document, sealed by two prelates, which we should receive within another sixty days. Or he should personally, with safe conduct, inform us of his recantation by coming to Rome. We would prefer this latter way in order that no doubt remain of his sincere obedience.

If, however, this Martin, his supporters, adherents and accomplices, much to our regret, should stubbornly not comply with the mentioned stipulations within the mentioned period, we shall, following the teaching of the holy Apostle Paul, who teaches us to avoid a heretic after having admonished him for a first and a second time, condemn this Martin, his supporters, adherents and accomplices as barren vines which are not in Christ, preaching an offensive doctrine contrary to the Christian faith and offend the divine majesty, to the damage and shame of the entire Christian Church, and diminish the keys of the Church as stubborn and public heretics.} . . . (Pope Leo X in Exsurge Domini, June 15, 1520.)

Did God permit Pope Leo X to be in error about all of this? Was he, like the popes of the Nineteenth Century, the "prisoner" of subjective considerations that render Exsurge Domini to be "obsolete in the particulars in which it contains"?

Given the fact that a Catholic understands the answer to both of these questions is a resounding NO!, how can any thought of praising Martin Luther enter into a Catholic's mind, no less pass from his lips as an adherent of Lutheranism is reaffirmed in his false religion and is not exhorted to convert?