Nothing New Under Jorge's Sun

It was twenty years ago this month that an article in The New York Times Magazine about the openness of the notorious Joseph “Cardinal” Bernardin and the infamous Godfied “Cardinal” Daneels to administering what purports to be Holy Communion to divorced and civilly “remarried” Catholics who lack a [worthless] conciliar decree of nullity prompted me to write an article entitled “Make That Two Red Hats to Go.”

It was forty-seven months ago that I wrote  after the now-retired conciliar “bishop” of Albany, New York, Howard Hubbard. permitted Governor Andrew Mark Cuomo, a notorious supporter of the chemical and surgical assassination of innocent preborn children and of “marriage” for those engaged in the sin of Sodomy, and his concubine, Sandra Lee, a convert to the false religion of “Jehovah’s Witnesses” (old Henny Young line with a violin under his chin, “Somebody asked me if I was a Jehovah’s Witness. I told them, I didn’t even see the accident”) from the false religion of Seventh Day Adventism, to receive what purported to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service prior to the Figlio di Sfachim’s first inauguration on January 1, 2011, the Feast of the Circumcision of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Here is how the retired agent of Antichrist in Albany, New York, Howard Hubbard, who was installed appointed as a “bishop” by Giovanni Antonio Enrico Mario Montini/Paul VI and installed on March 27, 1977, when he was thirty-eight years of age, defended his decision to welcome Cuomo the Younger, who is civilly divorced from Kerry Kennedy, a daughter of the late United States Senator Robert Francis Kennedy (D-NY), and his concubine to the conciliar communion line:

ALBANY -- Albany Bishop Howard Hubbard says it is "unfair and imprudent" to conclude that Gov. Andrew Cuomo and his girlfriend, Sandra Lee, shouldn't receive communion simply because they're living together.

Hubbard was responding to opinions expressed by Catholic canon law expert Edward Peters, who last month on his blog stated that the couple was engaging in what church law defines as "public concubinage" by sharing Lee's Westchester County home.

Peters wrote last month about Hubbard's warm welcome to the couple at Mass at Albany's Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception on Jan. 2, the day after Cuomo's inauguration. He claimed that Hubbard had committed a "dereliction of pastoral duty."

Without referring to Peters, Hubbard responded Wednesday by telling any critics to, in effect, mind their own business.

"There are norms of the church governing the sacraments, which Catholics are expected to observe," Hubbard wrote in a brief statement. "However, it is unfair and imprudent to make a pastoral judgment about a particular situation without knowing all the facts.

"As a matter of pastoral practice we would not comment publicly on anything which should be addressed privately, regardless if the person is a public figure or a private citizen," Hubbard wrote in conclusion.

John Dwyer, a former Jesuit who taught theology at St. Bernard's School of Theology and Ministry, said Hubbard's statement was "the perfect response, really solid."

Dwyer, who lives outside of Tannersville in the Catskills, said modern religious thought has come to the conclusion that communion should be denied only to those living in mortal sin -- a state that requires "a serious, grievous matter," sufficient reflection by the sinner, and the "full consent" of his will.

"Cuomo comes from a day and age when living with your girlfriend isn't a serious, grievous matter ... or something that's seen as a serious violation of God's will," Dwyer said.

Peters, who teaches at Detroit's Sacred Heart Major Seminary, serves as a consultant to the highest Vatican court, the Apostolic Signatura. His opinions were picked up by a conservative news service and reported around the state on Wednesday.

The back and forth over Cuomo's good standing as a Catholic is the latest in a long series of conflicts between church and state. Numerous Catholic politicians who support abortion rights -- including Vice President Joe Biden and the late U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy -- have been criticized for receiving communion despite their advocacy for a practice viewed as anathema by the Vatican. Indeed, Peters' initial blog post on Cuomo's appearance at Hubbard's Mass noted the governor's pro-choice stance as an additional affront to church law.

After an appearance Wednesday morning on Long Island, Cuomo commented on the matter in a style similar to Hubbard's.

"My religion is a private matter," he told reporters, "and it's not something I discuss in the political arena." (Bishop: None of your business.)

Howard Hubbard, who was a very active supporter of the lavender agenda in the Diocese of Albany (see Straight Guy with the Catholic Eye), was lambasted by many “conservative” Catholics in 2011 for his “pastorally prudent” approach to Andrew Mark Cuomo and his concubine, Sandra Lee. Yet it is that Hubbard’s pastoral praxis is identical to that of his fellow American, albeit South American, conciliar non-bishop, Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

It is thus the case that there is nothing “new” in Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s recent interview with his friend Elisabetta Pique of La Nacion, an Argentine newspaper, as he has his made his views on false “mercy” before many times before in the past twenty-one months now. Indeed, there is nothing new in Jorge’s “sun” as it is in the same galaxy of like-minded figures of Antichrist such as the late Joseph “Cardinal” Bernardin, who was a true bishop, the late John Cardinal Dearden, Howard Hubbard, Roger “Cardinal” Mahony, Blase Cupich and, among so many others, Godfried Daneels.

Time permits me to examine just two brief segments from the second part of Jorge’s interview with Elisabetta Pique of La Nacion. The first answer demonstrates Bergoglio’s concern for “conversion,” although one will see that he was not speaking about converting non-Catholics:

The recent extraordinary synod of bishops on the family allowed two different visions of the Church to surface, one sector open to debate and the other one refusing to hear anything about it. Is this the case, what do you think?

- I wouldn´t say that´s quite so... True enough, if you wish to simplify in order to explain things, we might say that there were a few more on this side, or on the other side. What we benefitted from was the synodal process, which is no parliamentarian process but rather a protected space where the Holy Spirit may endeavour. Two clear qualities are needed: courage to speak and humbleness to listen. And that worked very well. There are, indeed, positions more inclined this way or that way, but in the pursuit of truth. You could ask me "are there any that are completely stubborn and won´t move from their positions?". Yes, there surely are. But that is not my concern. It´s a question of praying for the Holy Spirit to convert them, if any. The prevailing feeling was a brotherly one, trying to find a way to tackle the family´s pastoral issues. The family is so beaten up, young people don´t get married. What´s the problem? When they finally come to get married, having already moved in together, we think it´s enough to offer them three talks to get them ready for marriage. But it´s not enough because the great majority are unaware of the meaning of a lifetime commitment. Benedict said it twice in his last year, that we should take this into account in order to grant nullity, each person´s faith at the time of getting married. Was it something general, though understanding perfectly well what marriage is about, understanding it enough to convey it to another person? That´s something we need to look into in depth, to analyse how we can help... (Argentine Motor Mouth Modernist Babbles On Yet Again.)

Very Brief Comment:

Jorge’s “Dear Abby”/”Ann Landers” view of marriage, which just happens to be a one of the seven sacraments (oh, Jorge, a ratified and consummated marriage is indissoluble—just for your information, pal) has been handled many times before on this site. Bergoglio may have time to babble on and on and on with whatever reporter knocks on his door at the Casa Santa Marta. Some of us have lives to live.

What is truly laughable, though, is that  Bergoglio, who eschewed “proselytism” yet again to Elisabetta Pique (meaning that Saint Peter was not being faithful to the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity on Pentecost Sunday when he, the first pope, preached to the Jews and converted three thousand of them), spoke about the necessity of praying to “convert” the “stubborn” “bishops” who would not “move” from “their” positions” concerning the admission of the divorced and civilly “remarried” to the conciliar ape of the sacraments. That kind of conversion is “necessary,” Jorge believes, not seeking the conversion of non-Catholics:

Thank you for listening to me. Thank you for coming here today. Thank you for all that you bear in your heart. Jesus loves you very much. Saint Cajetan loves you very much. He only asks one thing of you: that you come together! That you go out and seek and find one in greater need! But not alone - with Jesus, with Saint Cajetan! Am I going to go out to convince someone to become a Catholic? No, no, no! You are going to meet with him, he is your brother! That's enough! And you are going to help him, the rest Jesus does, the Holy Spirit does it. Remember well: with Saint Cajetan, we the needy go to meet with those who are in greater need. And, hopefully, Jesus will direct your way so that you will meet with one in greater need. (Francis the Insane Dreamer, Rebel and Miscreant's Message for the Feast of Saint Cajetan.)

Behold Jorge the Hypocrite, who postures and preens for his journalist friends and admirers in order to have himself betrayed in a favorable light to everyone in the world. This is as insidious as “Saint John XXIII’s efforts to assure that his corpulent corpse would be preserved so as to give the appearance of being incorrupt. (See Vatican’s Secret & Deadly Project.) After all, Jorge told Elisabetta Pique something that he has said in other interviews as to how he would like to be remembered after death. “He was a good guy.” And that, I suppose, is what passes for the ultimate measure of “papal sanctity” in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

The second segment to be highlighted in this brief article concerns Bergoglio’s continued blasphemy against God the Holy Ghost, Who he believes is being impeded from “moving forward” by the “semi-Pelagians,” and showing once again to be a complete naturalist who does not have any idea what constitutes genuine holiness in a soul, starting with Fear of God, which is one of the Seven Gifts a Catholic receives from the God the Holy Ghost in the Sacrament of Confirmation.

Q.- Some people fear that the traditional doctrine shall collapse...

A.- You know, some people are always afraid because they don´t read things properly, or they read some news in a newspaper, an article, and they don´t read what the synod decided, what was published. What was worthwhile about the synod? The post synodal connection and the Pope`s address. That is definitive, but it will eventually become relative and provisional, turning into a "guideline" for the next synod. I think some fathers made a mistake when they talked to the media. We decided that each one of us would grant as many interviews as he liked, with total freedom, no censorship was imposed. We chose transparency. Why did we choose briefings or not? For two reasons: in the first place because written presentations were handed over first and we might find something in them, or nothing at all, or they changed things and thus were not the real thing. In the second place, to protect that person. And this is what really matters to me. If this were a Parliament, we would have to account to our principal, i.e. the local church. But this is not a Parliament and this man must be free to speak up without having to keep anything to himself, though nobody needs to know that he said this or the other. Disclosing what was said is OK, that´s why in the briefing we explained that we had said this, that or the other. Different bishops who had different approaches, but we will all move on together. We had to protect our work so that the Holy Spirit might move forward. I am not afraid.

Q. Afraid of What?

A.- Afraid of following this trail, the road of the synod. I am not afraid because it is the road that God has asked us to follow. More so, the Pope is the ultimate guarantor, the Pope is there to care for the process. We must move forward. In my last address I said something interesting, I pointed out that we had not addressed any part of the doctrine of the Church concerning marriage. In the case of divorcees who have remarried, we posed the question, what do we do with them? What door can we allow them to open? This was a pastoral concern: will we allow them to go to Communion? Communion alone is no solution. The solution is integration. They have not been excommunicated, true. But they cannot be godfathers to any child being baptized, mass readings are not for divorcees, they cannot give communion, they cannot teach Sunday school, there are about seven things that they cannot do, I have the list over there. Come on! If I disclose any of this it will seem that they have been excommunicated in fact! Thus, let us open the doors a bit more. Why can’t they be godfathers and godmothers? "No, no, no, what testimony will they be giving their godson?". The testimony of a man and a woman saying "my dear, I made a mistake, I was wrong here, but I believe our Lord loves me, I want to follow God, I was not defeated by sin, I want to move on". Anything more Christian than that? And what if one of the political crooks among us, corrupt people, ate chosen to be somebody´s godfather. If they are properly wedded by the Church, would we accept them? What kind of testimony will they give to their godson? A testimony of corruption? Things need to change, our standards need to change. ... (Argentine Motor Mouth Modernist Babbles On Yet Again.)

Another relatively brief comment:

Things need to change?

“Our standards need to change”?

Truth is unchanging, including the truth that is supposed to be the official doctrine even in the counterfeit of conciliarism concerning the simple fact that Catholics who divorce and remarry civilly without a conciliar decree of nullity—or who marry a divorced person without such a decree—commits adultery and thus excommunicate themselves from the bosom of the Catholic Church.

There are plenty of people in the conciliar structures without decrees of nullity who understand that it is wrong for them to have any kind of romantic interest or even close friendship with a person of the opposite gender as he is not free to be married in the conciliar church. Such people do not want to excommunicate themselves from the Church, understanding that Our Lord really meant it when He taught that he who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio, is concerned for those who have defied what is canon law even according to the conciliar church’s 1983 code, replete as it is with all manner of outrages against truth, and who believe that they have been “victimized” by a “closed-minded” religion intent on enforcing a set of “rules” and “standards.” Bergoglio feeds into and off of this attitude of victimology, making himself appear to be the “understanding” “pope” who believes that is time to “move on” and let God the Holy Ghost “lead.” Jorge’s “holy spirit,” though, is nothing other than a projection of his revolutionary fantasies.

Bergoglio has no sense of the abhorrence of one Mortal Sin, thus showing himself to have no understanding of the effects that Mortal Sin have upon the soul and how the gates of Heaven are closed to one who commits it until and unless he is absolved in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance by a true priest, having first made a perfect Act of Contrition, which would include the measures necessary to amend one’s life and to remove oneself from all near occasions of sin.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio has given us plenty of evidence to demonstrate that his false religion believes that truth is an obstacle to the good of souls, believing that one can never take the risk of “offending” a sinner by telling him to quit his sins as to do so would be to “judge” him and make him feel “unwelcomed.” This is, of course, a thoroughly self-serving belief that is contrary to the very words of the Divine Redeemer. It is a belief that is contradicted by the work of countless numbers of saints who strove to lead Catholics out of immoral relationships.

Here is an account of the work done by Saint Anthony Mary Claret to deal with Catholics in Cuba who were living in sin:

Here he was met by disturbing news. In this town of pilgrimage [Cobre] where the island's most famous shrine was located, his missionaries had found hardly a dozen legitimately married couples! He praised their diligence in having substantially raised this figure prior to his arrival but--even so! This shocking situation required a strong hand--the hand of a patient but uncompromising prelate. The unhappy fact was that the Spanish-descended Cubans rarely condescended to marry their Negro and mulatto concubines, even when their half-caste progeny might number as many as nine or ten. Rightly suspecting that this intolerable state of affairs might prove typical, he attacked the problem vigorously. A committee was appointed to study each case individually. On its recommendations, he let it be known, all such unions must be regularized or, where impediments existed, dissolved!

It was a most trying undertaking, fraught with complications, both tragic and absurd. Persons who expressed their willingness, even eagerness, to legalize their unions were frequently not free to receive the Sacrament of marriage. Others, without the excuse of impediments under Church law were sometimes overcome with indignation to hear that they were expected to make wives of their colored concubines. There were emphatic affirmations that Spain prohibited mixed marriages, a fallacy the archbishop had no need to consider. In all her colonial history Spain had never forced any such regulation. However, for any who persisted in this persuasion in spite of Padre Claret's assurances, his command was clear. They must immediately terminate their illicit unions. It would be a painful problem--the provision for their innocent children--but it would have to be faced. Although he praised God that many of these easy-going folk accepted their prelate's reprimands contritely and docilely obeyed his injunctions to amend their lives, Cobre had certainly given him a first-hand acquaintance with the repugnant moral deterioration that had engulfed a traditionally Christian nation. (Fanchon Royer, The Life of St. Anthony Mary Claret, published originally by Farrar, Straus and Cudahy in 1957 an republished in 1985 by TAN Books and Publishers, pp. 130-131.)

Saint Anthony Mary Claret did not accept sophistries used to disguise moral relativism. Quite unlike Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis the Possessed, Saint Anthony Mary Claret preached Catholic doctrinal truth to the people of Cobre, Cuba, knowing that this truth possesses the inherent power to attract and to covert an unprejudiced soul who is willing to cooperate with the graces sent to them by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces.

Countless are the examples of Catholic bishops and priests, many of them raised to the altars of Holy Mother Church, who worked to reform the morals of the people who had been entrusted to their pastoral care.

Another Spaniard, Saint Francis Solano, for example, preached a sermon in the public square in Lima, Peru, in 1610 during which he prophesied of the great earthquake that God would visit upon Lima to chastise the people there for their ingratitude and immorality:

By the time Francis had reached the market, the theme of his sermon was clear. God was love, yet man was constantly thwarting that love. Many times this was because of thoughtlessness, but there were also countless times when it was because of sheer selfishness, and even malice. Well, atonement for sin must be made by means of penance.

"Unless you do penance, you shall likewise," Our Lord had said to his disciples.

"I will say these words, too," Francis thought. "Oh, Heavenly Father, may they help some souls tonight to turn away from sin!"

Naturally many at the market were astonished when they saw the Father Guardian of Saint Mary of the Angels making his way through their midst. Since his return from Trujillo he had appeared in the streets only rarely, and certainly never in the evenings. Then in a little while there was even more astonishment. Father Francis had come not to buy for his friars, or even to beg. He had come to preach!

At first, however, since business was brisk, not much heed was paid to his words. Merchants vied with one another in calling out the merits of their wares while customers argued noisily for a lower price. Beggars whined for alms. Babies cried. Dogs barked. Donkeys brayed. Older children ran in and out of the crowd intent upon their games. Music was everywhere--weird tunes played by Indian musicians on their wooden flutes, gay Spanish rhythms played on guitar and tambourine. At the various food students succulent rounds of meat sizzled and sputtered as they turned over slow fires. Then suddenly a thunderous voice rang about above the noisy and carefree scene:

"For all that is in the world is the concupiscence of the flesh, and the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life, which is not of the Father but is in the world."

It was as though a bombshell had fallen. At once the hubbub died away, and hundreds of Lima's startled citizens turned to where a grey-clad friar, cross in hand, had mounted an elevation in the center of the marketplace and now stood gazing down upon them with eyes of burning coals. But before anyone could wonder about the text from Saint John's first epistle, Francis began to explain the meaning of concupiscence: that, because of Original Sin, it is the tendency within each person to do evil instead of good; that this hidden warfare will end only when we have drawn our last breath.

"If we were to die tonight, would good or evil be the victor within our hearts" he cried. "Oh, my friends! Think about this question. Think hard!

Within just a few minutes Lima's marketplace was as hushed and solemn as a cathedral. All eyes were riveted upon the Father Guardian and all ears were filled with his words as he described God's destruction of the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrha because of the sins committed within them.

"Who is to say that here in Lima we do not deserve a like fate?" he demanded in ringing tones. "Look into your hearts now, my children. Are they clean? Are they pure? Are they filled with love of God?"

As the minutes passed and twilight deepened into darkness, the giant torches of the marketplace cast their flickering radiance over a moving scene. As usual, crowds of people were on hand, but now no one was interested in buying or selling. Instead, faces were bewildered, agonized and fearful. Tears were streaming from many eyes as Francis' words continued to pour out in torrents, urging repentance while there was still time.

"Can we say that we shall ever see tomorrow?" he cried, fervently brandishing his missionary cross. "Can we say that this night is not the last we shall have in which to return to God's friendship?"

As these and still more terrifying thoughts struck home one after another, the speaker stretched out both arms, bowed his head, and in heartrending tones began the Fifth Psalm. At once the crowd was filled with fresh sorrow and made the contrite phrases their own:

"Have mercy on me, O God, according to Thy great mercy.

"And according to the multitude of Thy tender mercies, blot out my iniquity.

"Wash me yet more from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.

"For I know my iniquity, and my sins is always before me.

"To Thee only have I sinned, and have done evil before Thee: that Thou mayest be justified in Thy words, and mayest overcome when Thou art judged . . ."

Soon wave upon wave of sound was filling the torch lit marketplace as priest and people prayed together. Then Francis preached again, doing his est to implant a greater sorrow for sin and an even firmer purpose of amendment in the hearts of his hearers. Finally, looking neither to right nor left, he prepared to depart for Saint Mary of the Angels. But on all sides men and women pressed about him, sobbing and begging for his blessing.

"Father, please pray for me!" cried one young girl. "I've deserved to go to Hell a thousand times!"

"Last year, I robbed a poor widow of ten pounds of gold!" declared a swarthy-faced Spaniard. "May God forgive me!"

"'I'm worse than anyone," moaned a wild-eyed black man. "Tonight, I was going to kill a man . . . and for money!"

So it was that first one, then another, cried out his fault and expressed a desire to go to Confession at once. But Francis had to refuse all such requests. Yes, he was a priest. It was his privilege and duty to administer the Sacraments. But he was also a religious, and bound by rule to various observances. One of them was that he must be in his cell at Saint Mary of the Angels by a certain hour each night.

"There are other priests in the city who can help you, though," he said kindly. "Go them now, my children. And may the Holy Virgin bring you back to her Son without delay." (Mary Fabyan Windeatt, Saint Francis of Solano: Wonderworker of the New World and Apostle of Argentina and Peru, published originally by Sheed and Ward in 1946 and republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1994, pp. 167-172.)

This is just a slight contrast with the approach taken by Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who doubts the ability of the truths of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, when preached with conviction for love of Christ the King and for the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross to redeem, to touch hearts and to reform lives in an instant.

The false compassion of Jorge Mario Bergoglio is of the devil, not of Our Lord Himself, who did happen to say the following to his friend, Saint Mary Magdalene, when she was caught in adultery:

Go, and now sin no more (John 8: 11)

This is just a slight contrast with the approach taken by Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who doubts the ability of the truths of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, when preached with conviction for love of Christ the King and for the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross to redeem, to touch hearts and to reform lives in an instant.

The false compassion of Jorge Mario Bergoglio is of the devil, not of Our Lord Himself.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s desire to "move foward" makes a mockery of the following words of Saint Paul the Apostle in his Epistle to the Romans to consign to the Orwellian memory Pope Pius XI’s condemnation in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930, of “new species of unions:”

To begin at the very source of these evils, their basic principle lies in this, that matrimony is repeatedly declared to be not instituted by the Author of nature nor raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a true sacrament, but invented by man. Some confidently assert that they have found no evidence of the existence of matrimony in nature or in her laws, but regard it merely as the means of producing life and of gratifying in one way or another a vehement impulse; on the other hand, others recognize that certain beginnings or, as it were, seeds of true wedlock are found in the nature of man since, unless men were bound together by some form of permanent tie, the dignity of husband and wife or the natural end of propagating and rearing the offspring would not receive satisfactory provision. At the same time they maintain that in all beyond this germinal idea matrimony, through various concurrent causes, is invented solely by the mind of man, established solely by his will.

How grievously all these err and how shamelessly they leave the ways of honesty is already evident from what we have set forth here regarding the origin and nature of wedlock, its purposes and the good inherent in it. The evil of this teaching is plainly seen from the consequences which its advocates deduce from it, namely, that the laws, institutions and customs by which wedlock is governed, since they take their origin solely from the will of man, are subject entirely to him, hence can and must be founded, changed and abrogated according to human caprice and the shifting circumstances of human affairs; that the generative power which is grounded in nature itself is more sacred and has wider range than matrimony -- hence it may be exercised both outside as well as within the confines of wedlock, and though the purpose of matrimony be set aside, as though to suggest that the license of a base fornicating woman should enjoy the same rights as the chaste motherhood of a lawfully wedded wife.

Armed with these principles, some men go so far as to concoct new species of unions, suited, as they say, to the present temper of men and the times, which various new forms of matrimony they presume to label "temporary," "experimental," and "companionate." These offer all the indulgence of matrimony and its rights without, however, the indissoluble bond, and without offspring, unless later the parties alter their cohabitation into a matrimony in the full sense of the law.

Indeed there are some who desire and insist that these practices be legitimatized by the law or, at least, excused by their general acceptance among the people. They do not seem even to suspect that these proposals partake of nothing of the modern "culture" in which they glory so much, but are simply hateful abominations which beyond all question reduce our truly cultured nations to the barbarous standards of savage peoples. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

Any questions?


Enough said.

There is never anything really new under the "sun" of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a Modernist who comes from the Galaxy of Antichrist and is headed for all eternity in Hell if he does not abjure his errors and convert, yes, convert, back to the Catholic Faith from which he strayed in his youth. He has been waiting for over sixty years now to have a chance to "correct" the "errors" of the Catholic "past." Shame on those who fall for the self-indulgent tricks of a narcissist who projects his own falsehoods onto the very mind of God Himself.

Remember to pray Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary with attentiveness, devotion and fervor during this season of Advent.

We have much reparation to make to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary for our own sins and those of the whole world, including, of course, the sins of apostates such as the conciliar revolutionaries, including Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his fellow travelers.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Pope Saint Melchiades, pray for us.