No Black and White for Jorge Mario Bergoglio

Jorge Mario Bergoglio keeps getting in the way of completing part three of “Sober Up.”

I know. I know.

I should just ignore the man.

I know.

However, given the fact that a state of open warfare exists now between the Argentine Apostate and the three “cardinals” he inherited from Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI (Raymond Leo Burke, Walter Brandmuller, Carlo Carraffa) and one from Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II (Joachim Meisner), it is necessary to turn the attention of the fourteen or so people who still access this site to several events that have occurred in the last few days since I posted 

orge Mario Bergolio's entire person and revolutionary agenda has been described in Holy Writ: 

[3] Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, [4] Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. [5] Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things? (2 Thessalonians 2: 3-5.)

Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that Antichrist cometh, even now there are become many Antichrists: whereby we know that it is the last hour. [19] They went out from us, but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us; but that they may be manifest, that they are not all of us. [20] But you have the unction from the Holy One, and know all things. (2 John 2: 18-20.)

Bergoglio is just the latest of the conciliar “popes” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism who has proved himself to be one among of the many Antichrists referred to by Saint John the Evangelist in his Second Epistle. They are not with what the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, she who enjoys a perpetual immunity from error and heresy, has taught from time immemorial without any corruption or even the slightest taint of error. They have shown themselves to be manifest heretics as each succeeding wave of them has become bolder and bolder in their public celebration of every falsehood and error imaginable. They are truly shameless in their conceits. Moreover, the conciliar revolutionaries have not had the unction from God the Holy Ghost as they have propagated the heresy that the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity can “lead” what they assert is the Catholic Church in “new directions” that contradict articles contained within the Sacred Deposit of Faith.  

These men of sin, precursors and figures of the “man of sin” who is Antichrist himself, have devoted themselves entirely to the propagation of lies and to the celebration of sin in the name of “love,” “mercy,” and “compassion.” Although many “conservatives” and traditionally-minded Catholics who are as of yet still attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism are rending their garments and gnashing their teeth over the public celebration of adultery, fornication, perversity, cross-dressing and the bodily mutation known as “gender change,” the truth of the matter is that the conciliar revolution has long championed the cause of the sin of heresy, starting with the “new ecclesiology” that came to the forefront with the issuance of Lumen Gentium, November 21, 1964, that contained the following heretical proposition that became the basis for “inter-religious dialogue,” “inter-religious ‘prayer’ meetings” and a process of supposed “popes” treating the clergy of false religions as “sharing” in the “mission” that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ gave to the Apostles, the first bishops, on Ascension Thursday:

This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity. (Lumen Gentium, November 21, 1964.)

The presence of this passage in Lumen Gentium was engineered in large part by none other than a German peritus at the "Second" Vatican Council, Father Joseph Alois Ratzinger, who was acting upon a recommendation by a German Lutheran "observer" at the "Second" Vatican Council, suggested should be placed into the text of Lumen Gentium, November 21, 1964, in order to give formal recognition to the "elements" of "sanctification" that exist the "ecclesial" (Protestant) "communities" and in the Orthodox churches. In other words, the man who is considered the "great dogmatist" helped to attack the Sacred Deposit of Faith at the "Second" Vatican Council to help to give birth to the heresy that is the "new ecclesiolgy," whose principal contention was refuted prophetically by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943:

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

Yet it is that Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes that everyone is part of "the church," which is true if one is referring to the church of the adversary, who is the driving force behind his relentless effort to strip away the last bastions of anything remotely recognizable as part of Catholic Faith, Worship, and Morals. He hates Catholic doctrine with a diabolical fervor, and he is unashamed in condemning those who hold to its holy integrity. He has even been good enough to explain that it is his belief that Lumen Gentium, November 21, 1964, marked the beginning of a "rediscovery" of Our Lord and of God the Father that he contends had been "obscured" by "legalism":

ROME - Pope Francis has fired back at his critics over the document Amoris Laetita, suggesting they suffer from “a certain legalism, which can be ideological.”  The critics now include a group of four cardinals who’ve accused the pontiff of causing grave confusion and disorientation and even floated the prospect of a public correction. 


“Some- think about the responses to Amoris Laetitia- continue to not understand,” Francis said. They think it’s “black and white, even if in the flux of life you must discern.”


The pope’s comments came in a wide-ranging interview with the Italian Catholic newspaper Avvenire published on Friday, in response to a question about his Jubilee Year of Mercy and its relation with the 1960s-era Second Vatican Council.


 “The Church exists only as an instrument to communicate to men God’s merciful design,” he said, adding that during the council, the Church felt the “need to be in the world as a living sign of the Father’s love.”


The Council, particularly the document Lumen Gentium, according to Francis, moved the axis of the Christian conception “from a certain legalism, which can be ideological,” to God himself, who through the Son became human.


It’s in this context in which he talked about the responses to Amoris Laetitia by those who continue “not to understand” this point.


Although he gives no names, it’s not a stretch to imagine the pope was thinking about the dubia or “doubts” about the apostolic exhortation presented to him by four cardinals, including American Raymond Burke. (Argentine Apostate Fires Back At Critics.)


The Catholic Church was founded by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to sanctify and to save souls. The first law of the Church is the salvation of souls, and no one can save his soul if he dies in a state of final impenitence.


Actually, the Argentine Apostate has done Catholics who care about doctrinal truth, few in number though they may be after over five decades of a constant flow of Modernism passing as Catholic teaching from "popes" and "priests" and priests/presbyters, a great service by showing very plainly that his belief about an "obscured" Gospel is precisely the same as that professed by the heretic he praised in Lund, Sweden, on October 31, 2016 (see ).


Jorge Mario Bergoglio thus believes that the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, had failed to guide the Catholic Church, she who is the spotless and immaculate Mystica Spouse of her Divine Founder, Invisible Head and Mystical Bridegroom, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, throughout the course of the centuries. Much like Luther himself, you see, he believes that the truth was lost sometime after the Apostolic Era, whereupon "legalisms" began to obscure the "merciful side" of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, which he, Bergoglio, thinks cannot coexist with "black and white" concepts of doctrinal and moral truths. 


This is really nothing new. Endless are the numbers of times that Bergoglio has denounced "fundamentalists" who seek to "reduce" everything to "good or evil," and "right and wrong." Indeed, he did this when speaking before a special joint session of the Congress of the United States of America on Thursday, September 24, 2016, the Feast of Our Lady of Ransom:


All of us are quite aware of, and deeply worried by, the disturbing social and political situation of the world today.  Our world is increasingly a place of violent conflict, hatred and brutal atrocities, committed even in the name of God and of religion.  We know that no religion is immune from forms of individual delusion or ideological extremism.  This means that we must be especially attentive to every type of fundamentalism, whether religious or of any other kind.  A delicate balance is required to combat violence perpetrated in the name of a religion, an ideology or an economic system, while also safeguarding religious freedom, intellectual freedom and individual freedoms.  But there is another temptation which we must especially guard against: the simplistic reductionism which sees only good or evil; or, if you will, the righteous and sinners.  The contemporary world, with its open wounds which affect so many of our brothers and sisters, demands that we confront every form of polarization which would divide it into these two camps.  We know that in the attempt to be freed of the enemy without, we can be tempted to feed the enemy within.  To imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants and murderers is the best way to take their place.  That is something which you, as a people, reject. (Bergoglio's Address to U.S. Congress.)

This is I wrote at the time (and it does seem like many years ago now!):

This man is a devil.

Bergoglio once again refuses to accept the fact that there is one true religion, Catholicism, and that false religions of their nature are first and foremost acts of violence against the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man’s return to Him through Holy Mother Church or that many of these false religions, including Talmudism and Mohammedanism, contain exhortation to violence against “infidels” and their shrines.

“Pope Francis’s” swipe against “fundamentalism” was directed also at those Catholics who, despite their own sins and failings, adhere to the Sacred Deposit of Faith without any equivocation, qualification or reservation, those who do indeed see only good and evil as that is what God Himself wants us to see. He wants us to choose the good and reject the evil. How is it possible to do this if one is supposed to see “nuances” in clear-cut matters of moral truth?

Well, that is the point, you see, as Jorge is even yet in a secular setting attempting to propagandize in behalf of the moral opaqueness of his upcoming “synod of bishops” as he warns legislators that there is “good” in almost anything, including those things that “fundamentalist” who engages in moral “reductionism” know are evil in and of their nature. To use the term “violence” in connection with those who call evil by its proper name emboldens those within the echelons of civil power to step up their legal assaults upon those who oppose all of the prevailing evils of the day.

Bergoglio can speak all he wants about “religious freedom.” The plain truth, however, is that to tar and feather those who see “only” good and evil in the world and to make them the objects of persecution for being “bigoted,” “hateful” and “intolerant.” 

Jorge Mario Bergoglio's constant attacks on those who believe in "black and white" are being parrotted by some of the new "cardinals" to whom he gave their red hats yesterday. Consider how the former conciliar "bishop" of Dallas, Texas, Kevin Farrell, echoed his fellow heretic's rejection of "black and white":

Farrell, asked about the tensions over the divorce issue, appeared to be open toward the pope's prescription for more compassion.

"There is no situation in life that's black and white. Anybody that's lived in this world will have encountered those situations in their personal lives," Farrell said. (Jorge osted.ap.Jorge Stuffs the Ballot Box with More Jacobins/Bolesheviks.)

The then Monsignor Fulton J. Sheen explained that we must have an intolerance about sin and evil. True compassion for the erring is to exhort him to reform his life by making a good Confession of his sins if he is a Catholic, or converting to the Catholic Faifh if he is not Catholic:

America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance. It is not. It is suffering from tolerance: tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so much overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded. The man who can make up his mind in an orderly way, as a man might make up his bed, is called a bigot; but a man who cannot make up his mind, any more than he can make up for lost time, is called tolerant and broadminded. A bigoted man is one who refuses to accept a reason for anything; a broadminded man is one who will accept anything for a reason—providing it is not a good reason. It is true that there is a demand for precision, exactness, and definiteness, but it is only for precision in scientific measurement, not in logic. The breakdown that has produced this unnatural broadmindedness is mental, not moral. The evidence for this statement is threefold: the tendency to settle issues not by arguments but by words, the unqualified willingness to accept the authority of anyone on the subject of religion, and, lastly, the love of novelty….

Religion is not an open question, like the League of Nations, while science is a closed question, like the addition table. Religion has its principles, natural and revealed, which are more exacting in their logic than mathematics. But the false notion of tolerance has obscured this fact from the eyes of many who are as intolerant about the smallest details of life as they are tolerant about their relations to God. In the ordinary affairs of life, these same people would never summon a Christian Science practitioner to fix a broken windowpane; they would never call in an optician because they had broken the eye of a needle; they would never call in a florist because they hurt the palm of their hand, nor go to a carpenter to take care of their nails. They would never call in a Collector of Internal Revenue to extract the nickel swallowed by the baby. They would refuse to listen to a Kiwanis booster discussing the authenticity of a painting, or to a tree‐surgeon settling a moot question of law. And yet for the all‐important subject of religion, on which our eternal destinies hinge, on the all‐important question of the relations of man to his environment and to his God, they are willing to listen to anyone who calls himself a prophet. And so our journals are filled with articles for these “broadminded” people, in which everyone from Jack Dempsey to the chief cook of the Ritz Carlton tells about his idea of God and his view of religion. These same individuals, who would become exasperated if their child played with a wrongly colored lollipop, would not become the least bit worried if the child grew up without ever having heard the name of God….

The nature of certain things is fixed, and none more so than the nature of truth. Truth maybe contradicted a thousand times, but that only proves that it is strong enough to survive a thousand assaults. But for any one to say, ʺSome say this, some say that, therefore there is no truth,ʺ is about as logical as it would have been for Columbus, who heard some say, ʺThe earth is round,ʺ and other say, ʺThe earth is flat,ʺ to conclude: ʺTherefore there is no earth at allʺ…. 

The giggling giddiness of novelty, the sentimental restlessness of a mind unhinged, and the unnatural fear of a good dose of hard thinking, all conjoin to produce a group of sophomoric latitudinarians who think there is no difference between God as Cause and God as a ʺmental projectionʺ; who equate Christ and Buddha, St. Paul and John Dewey, and then enlarge their broad‐mindedness into a sweeping synthesis that says not only that one Christian sect is just as good as another, but even that one world‐religion is just as good as another. The great god ʺProgressʺ is then enthroned on the altars of fashion, and as the hectic worshipers are asked, ʺProgress towards what?ʺ The tolerant answer comes back, ʺMore progress.ʺ All the while sane men are wondering how there can be progress without direction and how there can be direction without a fixed point. And because they speak of a ʺfixed point,ʺ they are said to be behind the times, when really they are beyond the times mentally and spiritually.

In the face of this false broad‐mindedness, what the world needs is intolerance. The mass of people have kept up hard and fast distinctions between dollars and cents, battleships and cruisers, ʺYou owe meʺ and ʺI owe you,ʺ but they seem to have lost entirely the faculty of distinguishing between the good and the bad, the right and the wrong. The best indication of this is the frequent misuse of the terms ʺtoleranceʺ and ʺintolerance.ʺ There are some minds that believe that intolerance is always wrong, because they make ʺintoleranceʺ mean hate, narrow‐ mindedness, and bigotry. These same minds believe that tolerance is always right because, for them, it means charity, broad‐mindedness, American good nature.

What is tolerance? Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience towards evil, and a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. But what is more important than the definition is the field of its application. The important point here is this: Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons. Tolerance applies to the erring; intolerance to the error. 

Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles. About these things we must be intolerant, and for this kind of intolerance, so much needed to rouse us from sentimental gush, I make a plea. Intolerance of this kind is the foundation of all stability. The government must be intolerant about malicious propaganda, and during the World War it made an index of forbidden books to defend national stability, as the Church, who is in constant warfare with error, made her index of forbidden books to defend the permanency of Christʹs life in the souls of men. The government during the war was intolerant about the national heretics who refused to accept her principles concerning the necessity of democratic institutions, and took physical means to enforce such principles. The soldiers who went to war were intolerant about the principles they were fighting for, in the same way that a gardener must be intolerant about the weeds that grow in his garden. The Supreme Court of the United States is intolerant about any private interpretation of the first principle of the Constitution that every man is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the particular citizen who would interpret ʺlibertyʺ in even such a small way as meaning the privilege to ʺgoʺ on a red traffic‐light, would find himself very soon in a cell where there were no lights, not even the yellow — the color of the timid souls who know not whether to stop or go. Architects are as intolerant about sand as foundations for skyscrapers as doctors are intolerant about germs in their laboratories, and as all of us are intolerant of a particularly broad‐minded, ʺtolerant,ʺ and good‐natured grocer who, in making our bills, adds seven and ten to make twenty.

Now, if it is right — and it is right — for governments to be intolerant about the principles of government, and the bridge builder to be intolerant about the laws of stress and strain, and the physicist to be intolerant about the principles of gravitation, why should it not be the right of Christ, the right of His Church, and the right of thinking men to be intolerant about the truths of Christ, the doctrines of the Church, and the principles of reason? Can the truths of God be less exacting than the truths of mathematics? Can the laws of the mind be less binding than the laws of science, which are known only through the laws of the mind? Shall man, gifted with natural truth, who refuses to look with an equally tolerant eye on the mathematician who says two and two make five and the one who says two and two make four, be called a wise man, and shall God, Who refuses to look with an equally tolerant eye on all religions, be denied the name of ʺWisdom,ʺ and be called an ʺintolerantʺ God?…

Why, then, sneer at dogmas as intolerant? On all sides we hear it said today, ʺThe modern world wants a religion without dogmas,ʺ which betrays how little thinking goes with that label, for he who says he wants a religion without dogmas is stating a dogma, and a dogma that is harder to justify than many dogmas of faith. A dogma is a true thought, and a religion without dogmas is a religion without thought, or a back without a backbone. All sciences have dogmas. ʺWashington is the capital of the United Statesʺ is a dogma of geography. ʺWater is composed of two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygenʺ is a dogma of chemistry. Should we be broad‐minded and say that Washington is a sea in Switzerland? Should we be broad‐minded and say that H2O is a symbol for sulfuric acid? …

But it is anything but progress to act like mice and eat the foundations of the very roof over our heads. Intolerance about principles is the foundation of growth, and the mathematician who would deride a square for always having four sides, and in the name of progress would encourage it to throw away even only one of its sides, would soon discover that he had lost all his squares. So too with the dogmas of the Church, of science, and of reason; they are like bricks, solid things with which a man can build, not like straw, which is ʺreligious experience,ʺ fit only for burning.

A dogma, then, is the necessary consequence of the intolerance of first principles, and that science or that church which has the greatest amount of dogmas is the science or the church that has been doing the most thinking. The Catholic Church, the schoolmaster for twenty centuries, has been doing a tremendous amount of solid, hard thinking and hence has built up dogmas as a man might build a house of brick but grounded on a rock. She has seen the centuries with their passing enthusiasms and momentary loyalties pass before her, making the same mistakes, cultivating the same poses, falling into the same mental snares, so that she has become very patient and kind to the erring pupils, but very intolerant and severe concerning the false. She has been and she will always be intolerant so far as the rights of God are concerned, for heresy, error, untruth, affect not personal matters on which she may yield, but a Divine Right in which there is no yielding. Meek she is to the erring, but violent to the error. The truth is divine; the heretic is human. Due reparation made, she will admit the heretic back into the treasury of her souls, but never the heresy into the treasury of her wisdom. Right is right if nobody is right, and wrong is wrong if everybody is wrong. And in this day and age we need, as Mr. [G. K.] Chesterton tells us, ʺnot a Church that is right when the world is right, but a Church that is right when the world is wrong

The attitude of the Church in relation to the modern world on this important question may be brought home by the story of the two women in the courtroom of Solomon [see 3 Kings 3:16-28]. Both of them claimed a child. The lawful mother insisted on having the whole child or nothing, for a child is like truth — it cannot be divided without ruin. The unlawful mother, on the contrary, agreed to compromise. She was willing to divide the babe, and the babe would have died of broad‐mindedness.

(Monsignor Fulton Sheen, Old Errors and New LabelsNew York, New York, The Century Company, 1931. Although I have the book itself, this excerpt was taken from Novus Ordo Watch Wire. I just cannot transcribe anything more at this point.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio heads a false church that wants to be wrong in order to assuage the consciences of sinful, worldly men that there is no such thing as objective right as to contend such a thing is to lack “mercy” and thus make people feel bad.

The cardinal “sin” of conciliarism is thus the same as that found in the world of Judeo-Masonic naturalism: to make people feel “uncomfortable” or “guilty” about their sins. The corollary perverse commandment of conciliarism: Thou shalt make everyone feel happy and welcomed—other than those who believe in Catholic truth, including that of the Social Reign of Christ the King.

Bergoglio's moral relativism is of the sort that Pope Pius XII took the care to condemn when he address the thirtieth general congregation of the Society of Jesus fifty-nine years ago:

The more serious cause, however, was the movement in high Jesuit circles to modernize the understanding of the magisterium by enlarging the freedom of Catholics, especially scholars, to dispute its claims and assertions. Jesuit scholars had already made up their minds that the Catholic creeds and moral norms needed nuance and correction. It was for this incipient dissent that the late Pius XII chastised the Jesuits’ 30th General Congregation one year before he died (1957). What concerned Pius XII most in that admonition was the doctrinal orthodoxy of Jesuits. Information had reached him that the Society’s academics (in France and Germany) were bootlegging heterodox ideas. He had long been aware of contemporary theologians who tried “to withdraw themselves from the Sacred Teaching authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them in error” (Humani generis).

In view of what has gone on recently in Catholic higher education, Pius XII’s warnings to Jesuits have a prophetic ring to them. He spoke then of a “proud spirit of free inquiry more proper to a heterodox mentality than to a Catholic one”; he demanded that Jesuits not “tolerate complicity with people who would draw norms for action for eternal salvation from what is actually done, rather than from what should be done.” He continued, “It should be necessary to cut off as soon as possible from the body of your Society” such “unworthy and unfaithful sons.” Pius obviously was alarmed at the rise of heterodox thinking, worldly living, and just plain disobedience in Jesuit ranks, especially at attempts to place Jesuits on a par with their Superiors in those matters which pertained to Faith or Church order (The Pope Speaks, Spring 1958, pp. 447-453). (Monsignor George A. Kelly, Ph.D.,The Catholic College: Death, Judgment, Resurrection. See also the full Latin text of Pope Pius XII's address to the thirtieth general congregation of the Society of Jesus at page 806 of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis for 1957: AAS 49 [1957]. One will have to scroll down to page 806.)


Jorge Mario Bergoglio was trained by the very sort of revolutionaries whose false moral theology was condemned by Pope Pius XII in 1957, and it is this false moral theology, which is nothing other than Judeo-Masonic moral relativism, which itself is the product of the Protestant Revolution’s theological relativism. Modernism is, of course, the synthesis of all heresies. Amoris Latetia is nothing other than a celebration of subjectivism, of basing a false moral teahcing on what is "actually done, rather than from what should be done, his new "cardinals" have been given their marching orders to go and do likewise. 

Bergoglio is a natualist, which means that he is moved by sentiment. Indeed, it is very fair to state that this hideous human being is both anti-intellectual and anti-theological as well as being but a figure of Antichrist, and it was nothing other than naturalism that he preached to the new "cardinals" yesterday, Saturday, November 19, 2016, the Feast of Saint Elizabeth of Hungary and the Commemoration of Pope Saint Pontianus:

Here we find ourselves confronted with one of the very hallmarks of Jesus’ message, where its power and secret are concealed.  Here too is the source of our joy, the power of our mission and our preaching of the Good News.  My enemy is someone I must love.  In God’s heart there are no enemies.  God only has sons and daughters.  We are the ones who raise walls, build barriers and label people.  God has sons and daughters, precisely so that no one will be turned away.  God’s love has the flavour of fidelity towards everyone, for it is a visceral love, a parental love that never abandons us, even when we go astray.  Our Father does not wait for us to be good before he loves the world, he does not wait for us to be a little bit better or more perfect before he loves us; he loves us because he chose to love us, he loves us because he has made us his sons and daughters.  He loved us even when we were enemies (cf. Rom 5:10).  The Father’s unconditional love for all people was, and is, the true prerequisite for the conversion of our pitiful hearts that tend to judge, divide, oppose and condemn.  To know that God continues to love even those who reject him is a boundless source of confidence and an impetus for our mission.  No matter how sullied our hands may be, God cannot be stopped from placing in those hands the Life he wishes to bestow on us. (Bergoglio Gives Marching Orders to Conciliar Redbirds.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is an unabashed blasphemer. 

God's love for us, His rational creatures, is an act of His Divine Will, and it is His will for us to save our souls as members of His Catholic Church by persisting in a state of Sanctifying Grace until the moment we die. It is His will for us to adhere to everything taught in the Holy Name of His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal Divine Son by His One, Holy, Apostolic, and Catholic Church, and she has taught us that we must quit our sins and to do penance for them.

Bergoglio, though, would have us believe that God is pleased with men just the way they are, especially if they are living unchaste lives. As has been noted so many times before on this site, the currently reigning universal public face of apostasy does not believe it is either possible or necesssary for hardened sinners to reform their lives as it is enough to know that God loves them as they are. Although not labeled as such, this is exactly what Martin Luther Himself professed, and it flies in the face of the following truths expressed by Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, the Patron of Catholic Moral Theologians:

8. O folly of sinners! If you purchase a house, you spare no pains to get all the securities necessary to guard against the loss of your money; if you take medicine, you are careful to assure yourself that it cannot injure you; if you pass over a river, you cautiously avoid all danger of falling into it; and for a transitory enjoyment, for the gratification of revenge, for a beastly pleasure, which lasts but a moment, you risk your eternal salvation, saying: "I will go to confession after I commit this sin." And when, I ask, are you to go to confession? You say: “On tomorrow." But who promises you tomorrow? Who assures you that you shall have time for confession, and that God will not deprive you of life, as he has deprived so many others, in the act of sin? “Diem tenes,” says St. Augustine, “qui horam non tenes.” You cannot be certain of living for another hour, and you say: “I will go to confession tomorrow.” Listen to the words of St. Gregory: “He who has promised pardon to penitents, has not promised tomorrow to sinners.” (Hom. xii. in Evan). God has promised pardon to all who repent; but he has not promised to wait till tomorrow for those who insult him. Perhaps God will give you time for repentance, perhaps he will not. But, should he not give it, what shall become of your soul? In the meantime, for the sake of a miserable pleasure, you lose the grace of God, and expose yourself to the danger of being lost for ever.  

9. Would you, for such transient enjoyments, risk your money, your honour, your possessions, your liberty, and your life? No, you would not. How then does it happen that, for a miserable gratification, you lose your soul, heaven, and God? Tell me: do you believe that heaven, hell, eternity, are truths of faith? Do you believe that, if you die in sin, you are lost for ever? Oh! what temerity, what folly is it, to condemn yourself voluntarily to an eternity of torments with the hope of afterwards reversing the sentence of your condemnation! "Nemo," says St. Augustine, “sub spe salutis vultæ grotare.” No one can be found so foolish as to take poison with the hope of preventing its deadly effects by adopting the ordinary remedies. And you will condemn yourself to hell, saying that you expect to be afterwards preserved from it. Folly! which, in conformity with the divine threats, has brought, and brings every day, so many to hell. “Thou hast trusted in thy wickedness, and evil shall come upon thee, and thou shalt not know the rising thereof.” (Isa. xlvii. 10, 11.) You have sinned, trusting rashly in the divine mercy: the punishment of your guilt shall fall suddenly upon you, and you shall not know from whence it comes. What do you say? What resolution do you make? If, after this sermon, you do not firmly resolve to give yourself to God, I weep over you, and regard you as lost. ("On The Number of Sins Beyond Which God Will Not Forgive: Sermon for the First Sunday of Lent," as found in Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, The Sermons of Saint Alphonsus Liguori For All the Sundays of the Year, republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1982. The entire texs of the sermons for Quinquagesima Sunday and the First Sunday of Lent are found in the appendices below.)

Saint Alphonsus de Liguori addressed his sermon to Catholics who attended Holy Mass. Those who lived during the years of his priesthood in the Eighteenth Century were well-instructed in the Catholic Faith, which is why the great bishop and doctor could ask, “Tell me: do you believe that heaven, hell, eternity, are truths of faith? Do you believe that, if you die in sin, you are lost for ever? It is pretty difficult for non-practicing Catholics in the conciliar structures who have committed themselves to lives of unrepentant sin to answer Saint Alphonsus’s question in the affirmative when men such as Jorge Mario Bergolio and Victor Manuel Fernandez, et al., tell them that the path to Heaven is wide open for them as they, the conciliar revolutionaries, deny the existence of Hell and almost every single other truth of the Catholic Faith, sometimes in its entirety and at other times by means of obfuscation or by the invocation of the Modernist principle of dogmatic evolution.  

Although readers of this site know these things, I am sure that some readers have relatives and friends who are more open now to considering commentaries such as this one. Truth resonates. The truths contained in the writings from and about Saint Anthony Mary Claret, Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, and Saint Leonard of Port Maurice, to say nothing of the prophetic witness given by Saint Francis Solano here in the Americas, will resonate anew in the souls of those who are open to accept the fact that the Catholic Church cannot be the author of heresy or error and that men who promote heresy and error cannot hold ecclesiastical office legitimately within her.

Pope Saint Pius X's The Oath Against Modernism condemned the proposition that the truths of the Holy Faith must be adapted to "the times" rather than those who live at each epoch be conformed to those truths:

Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. . . .

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.   

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. (The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910.)

Does anyone who reads this site believe that the conciliar “popes” and their apparatchiks do not stand condemned by the very words that some of the older of those among their ranks had to swear to uphold before the advent of concilairism?

Does anyone who reads this site believe that Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not stand so condemned?

"Cardinals" Burke, Carraffa, Meisner and Brandmuller are the least of Bergoglio's problems as he is going to have huge problem when he meets Christ the King in the very face at the time of his Particular Judgment, and it will be at that time that he will discover that, yes, there is doctrial trubth and error, there is moral right and wrong.

It is the reality of the Last Day when Our Lord comes in glory at the end of time to impart the General Judgment of the living and the dead that is the theme of the Gospel at Holy Mass today, the the Last Sunday after Pentecost. The readings for Matins in today's Divine Office attest to the reality that should sober us up in a big hurry:

From the Sermon of St Basil the Great, (Archbishop of Caesarea-in-Pontus,) upon the Thirty-third Psalm:

Whenever the desire to sin cometh over thee, I would that thou couldest think of the awful and overwhelming judgment-seat of Christ. There the Judge shall sit upon a throne high and lifted up. Every creature shall stand before Him, quaking because of the glory of His presence. There are we to be led up, one by one, to give account for those things which we have done in life. Presently there will be found, by the sides of those who have in life wrought much evil, dreadful and hideous angels with faces of fire, and burning breath, appointed thereto, and showing their evil will, in appearance like the night, in their despair and hatred of mankind.

Think again of the bottomless pit, the impenetrable darkness, the lightless fire, burning, but not glowing the poisonous mass of worms, preying upon the flesh, ever feeding, and never filled, causing by their gnawing unbearable agony lastly, the greatest punishment of all, shame and confusion for ever. Have a dread of these things, and let that dread correct thee, and be as a curb to thy mind to hold it in from the hankering after sin.

This fear of the Lord the Prophet hath promised to teach. But he hath not promised to teach it to all, but only to such as will hear him not to such as have fallen far away, but to such as run to him, hungry for salvation, not to such as have no part in the promises, but to such as by baptism are born children of adoption, set at peace and oneness with the Word. Come, ye children, saith he, that is to say, Draw nigh unto me by good works, all ye who by the new birth have become the worthy children of light, hearken unto me, all ye who have the ears of your heart opened, I will teach you the fear of the Lord, even the fear of that Being of Whom we have just been speaking. (Matins, The Divine Office, Last Sunday after Pentecost.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not believe in any of this. Indeed, he laughs with scorn at such "frightful" statements of Catholic truth that are at odds with his heretical concepts about God's mercy, and he uses scorn to mock those who believe in such statements of Catholic truth. Well, I guess this is a perfect time for the Society of Saint Pius X to join up with Bergoglio and his crew on the Conciliar Titanic that is descending to the depths of hell, although the formal announcement about the Society's long march to oblivion will be made, it appears, tomorrow, November 21, 2016, the Feast of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

On this, the last Sunday after Pentecost and the Commemoration of Saint Felix of Valois, we must remain confident in the Blessed Mother’s desire to aid the cause of our own sanctification and salvation and to assist us remain steadfast in our resolution to have nothing at all to do with the conciliar revolutionaries other than praying for their conversion to the true Faith before they die.

This is a time for more Rosaries, more penance, more reading of Sacred Scripture and spiritual books. Our Lady, who was given us by her Divine Son to be our Mother as she stood so valiantly beneath His Holy Cross, stands ready to help us to save our souls despite our own best efforts to go to Hell. Why do we tarry so long in clinging to her as we beg him with humility for the graces that we need to prosper spiritually in this time of apostasy and betrayal.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady, Mother of God, 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 Felix of Valois, pray for us.