Otto von Bergoglio’s Kulturkampf (or Jorge Mario Zedong’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution), part three

The boldness with which Jorge Mario Bergoglio is displaying now by shedding all pretense of anything even remotely resembling Catholicism might help a few people to recognize the simple truth that neither he nor the religious sect he heads has anything to do with the Catholic Faith, points that have made repeatedly on this website since the Argentine Apostate dispensed with protocol and having the people pray for him rather than his imparting a putative blessing upon them on March 13, 2013. A summary of Senor Jorge’s destructive work can be found in  Jorge Mario Bergoglio: Ten Years of Antichrist's Viceroy and Spokesman for a summary.

The entirety of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s stage act of “Pope Francis” over the course of the past nearly one hundred twenty-eight months was meant to set the stage for the overthrow of the last remaining vestiges of anything recognizably Catholic in almost all matters of Faith, Worship, and Morals. Bergoglio has been particularly intent on transforming what purports to be Catholic moral theology into a totally experientially based subjectivism that is the very fulfillment of that which was condemned in 1952 by Pope Pius XII as follows:

The new ethic (adapted to circumstances), say its authors, is eminently “individual.” In this determination of conscience, each individual finds himself in direct relationship with God and decides before Him, without the slightest trace of intervention by any law, any authority, any community, any cult or religion. Here there is simply the “I” of man and the “I” of the personal God, not the God of the law, but of God the Father, with whom man must unite himself in filial love. Viewed thus, the decision of conscience is a personal “risk,” according to one’s own knowledge and evaluation, in all sincerity before God. These two things, right intention and sincere response, are what God considers! He is not concerned with the action. Hence the answer may be to exchange that Catholic faith for other principles, to seek divorce, to interrupt gestation, to refuse obedience to competent authority in the family, the Church, the State, and so forth.

All this would be perfectly fitting for man’s status as one who has come “of age” and, in the Christian order, it would be in harmony with the relation of sonship which, according to the teaching of Christ, makes us pray to God as “Our Father.”

This personal view of things spares man the necessity of having to ask himself, at every instant, whether the decision to be taken corresponds with the paragraphs of the law or to the canons of abstract standards and rules. It preserves man from the hypocrisy of pharisaical fidelity to laws; it preserves him both from pathological scruples as well at from the flippancy or lack of conscience, because it puts the responsibility before God on the Christian personally. Thus speak those who preach the “new morality.”

It is Alien to the Faith and Catholic Principles

8. Stated thus expressly, the new ethic is so foreign to the faith and to Catholic principles that even a child, if he knows his catechism, will be aware of it and will feel it. It is not difficult to recognize how this new moral system derives from existentialism which either prescinds from God or simply denies Him, and, in any case, leaves man to himself. It is possible that present-day conditions may have led men to attempt to transplant this “new morality” into Catholic soil, in order to make the hardships of Christian life more bearable for the faithful. In fact, millions of them are being called upon today, and in an extraordinary degree, to practice firmness, patience, constancy, and the spirit of sacrifice, if they wish to preserve their faith intact. For they suffer the blows of fate, or are placed in surroundings which put within their reach everything which their passionate heart yearns for or desires. Such an attempt can never succeed.

The Fundamental Obligations of the Moral Law

9. It will be asked, how the moral law, which is universal, can be sufficient, and even have binding force, in an individual case, which, in the concrete, is always unique and “happens only once.” It can be sufficient and binding, and it actually is because precisely by reason of its universality, the moral law includes necessarily and “intentionally” all particular cases in which its meaning is verified. In very many cases it does so with such convincing logic that even the conscience of the simple faithful sees immediately, and with full certitude, the decision to be taken.

10. This is especially true of the negative obligations of the moral law, namely those which oblige us not to do something, or to set something else aside. Yet it is not true only of these obligations. The fundamental obligations of the moral law are based on the essence and the nature of man, and on his essential relationships, and thus they have force wherever we find man. The fundamental obligations of the Christian law, in the degree in which they are superior to those of the natural law, are based on the essence of the supernatural order established by the Divine Redeemer. From the essential relationships between man and God, between man and man, between husband and wife, between parents and children; from the essential community relationships found in the family, in the Church, and in the State, it follows, among other things, that hatred of God, blasphemy, idolatry, abandoning the true faith, denial of the faith, perjury, murder, bearing false witness, calumny, adultery and fornication, the abuse of marriage, the solitary sin, stealing and robbery, taking away the necessities of life, depriving workers of their just wage (James 5:4), monopolizing vital foodstuffs and unjustifiably increasing prices, fraudulent bankruptcy, unjust maneuvering in speculation—all this is gravely forbidden by the divine Lawmaker. No examination is necessary. No matter what the situation of the individual may be, there is no other course open to him but to obey.

11. For the rest, against “situation ethics,” We set up three considerations, or maxims. The first: We grant that God wants, first and always, a right intention. But this is not enough. He also wants the good work. A second principle is that it is not permitted to do evil in order that good may result (Rom 3:8). Now this new ethic, perhaps without being aware of it, acts according to the principle that the end justifies the means. A Christian cannot be unaware of the fact that he must sacrifice everything, even his life, in order to save his soul. Of this we are reminded by all the martyrs. Martyrs are very numerous, even in our time. The mother of the Maccabees, along with her sons; Saints Perpetua and Felicitas, notwithstanding their newborn children; Maria Goretti, and thousands of others, men and women, whom the Church venerates—did they, in the face of the “situation” in which they found themselves, uselessly or even mistakenly incur a bloody death? No, certainly not, and in their blood they are the most explicit witnesses to the truth against the “new morality.” (Pope Pius XII, Address “Soyez Les Bienvenues” (1952) – Novus Ordo Watch.)

Pope Pius XII’s clear reiteration of the very nature of Catholic moral theology stands in contrast to Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s Ad Theologiam Promovendam, November 1, 2023, which is a specific endorsement of everything condemned by the Catholic Church and her moral theologians from time immemorial. Ad Theologiam Promovendam is a thoroughly apostate document from beginning to end, and it will be binding upon all Catholics once it is inserted into “Pope Francis’s” Acta Apostolici Sedis.

How is this so?

Let me provide you with a brief reminder before making short work of Ad Theologiam Promovendam.

As there is no need to repeat the many exhaustive points made in Pope Saint Pius X: "Whoever is Holy Does Not Dissent from the Pope" concerning the nature of the papacy and papal infallibility, I believe that it is useful to review similar arguments made by Father Joseph Salaverri, S.J., in Sacrae Theologiae Summa, which was translated from Latin into English by Father Kenneth Baker, S.J., and  published in the English language by Keep the Faith, Inc., eight years ago.

First, Father Salvaerri quoted the [First] Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith’s declaration that a Catholic is duty bound to believe everything taught by the Catholic Church even in her ordinary and universal teaching office:

645 Scholium 2 Is there one or are there two ways in which the Pope exercises infallibility? In the Constitution on the Catholic faith of Vatican Council I there is this definition: "All those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith that are contained in the word of God, written or handed down, and which by the Church, either in solemn judgment or through her ordinary and universal teaching office, are proposed for belief as having been divinely revealed": D 3011.

From this definition of the Vatican it is inferred that the teaching Church or the College of Bishops constituted under the Pope can exercise infallibility in two ways -- one extraordinary and the other ordinary: in the extraordinary way, when in an Ecumenical Council it defines something with a solemn judgment; in the ordinary way when, dispersed throughout the world, the Bishops propose some doctrine to be held absolutely by all the faithful. Joachim Salaverri, S.J., and Michaele Nicolau, S.J., Sacrae Theologiae Summa 1B—On the Church of Christ and On Holy Scripture. Translated from the Latin by Father Kenneth Baker, S.J., and published by Keep the Faith, Inc., in 2015, p. 235.) 

In other words, Catholics are not free to reject the teaching of Holy Mother Church’s universal ordinary magisterium, which is infallible in and of itself, something that many within the “resist while recognize” movement either fail to understand or obstinately reject and dispute even though the matter is not in dispute. As Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, the editor of the American Ecclesiastical Review between 1943 and 1963 explained:

It is definitely the business of the writer in the field of sacred theology to benefit the Church by what he writes.  It is likewise the duty of the teacher of this science to help the Church by his teaching.  The man who uses the shoddy tricks of minimism to oppose or to ignore the doctrinal decisions made by the Sovereign Pontiff and set down in his "Acta" is, in the last analysis, stultifying his position as a theologian. (The doctrinal Authority of Papal allocutions.)

Are there any further questions about the binding nature of what a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter places in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis?

Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton denounced "the shoddy tricks of minimism to ignore the doctrinal decisions made by the Sovereign Pontiff and set down his his 'Acta'."

The same shoddy tricks of minimism that were being used by the likes of Father John Courtney Murray, S.J., and the "new theologians," including Father Joseph Ratzinger, in the 1950s that prompted Pope Pius XII to issue Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, have been employed for the past fifty years or more have been used during that same time frame with ever-increasing boldness by those seeking to claim the absolutely nonexistent ability to ignore and/or refute the teaching of men they have recognized to be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter. I know. I contributed to that literature for a while. I was wrong. So are those who continue to persist in their willful, stubborn rejection of the binding nature of all that is contained in the Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church even though if not declared infallible in a solemn manner.

Father Joseph Salaverri, S.J., elaborated on how the Roman Pontiff exercises his infallibility:

646 Now this is the question: In how many ways does the Roman Pontiff exercise his infallibility? 1) It is certain that he exercises infallibility in an extraordinary way or when he defines something ex cathedra with a solemn judgment. For, the Code of Canon Law 1323 [1917], after 1 quotes the definition of the Vatican that we cited in the previous number, and then it adds 2: "It is proper both to an Ecumenical Council and to the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra to pronounce a solemn judgment of this kind." 

647 Therefore there is a further question, whether the Supreme Pontiff exercises his infallibility also in an ordinary way, or not? It seems to us that the response to this question must be 2) in the affirmative. For, according to Vatican Council I, the Roman Pontiff "possesses the infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed": D 3074. With this judgment the Fathers suppose the general principle against the error, which they intend to condemn, of the Gallicans who said: "the Pope is inferior to the Church also in questions of faith": see Msi 49,673;52,1230.  Therefore, according to the Vatican, the Pope in no way is inferior to the Church in his power of teaching. But the Church is endowed with infallibility which she exercises in extraordinary and ordinary ways: D 3011. Therefore it must be conceded to the Roman Pontiff that he exercises his infallibility in these same ways (see Msi 52,1193). Joachim Salaverri, S.J., and Michaele Nicolau, S.J., Sacrae Theologiae Summa 1B—On the Church of Christ and On Holy Scripture. Translated from the Latin by Father Kenneth Baker, S.J., and published by Keep the Faith, Inc., in 2015, pp. 235-236.) 


Today’s Gallicans in the “resist while recognize” movement, which “Bishop” Joseph Strickland has now joined even though he criticizes the “path” of the Gallicanist Society of Saint Pius X, believe that they can write scathing articles against the man they believe to be the Sovereign Pontiff and can urge the faithful to write their “respectful letters” to Rome and sign those never-ending petition drives, which itself speaks volumes about both Gallicanist and Americanist spirits at work within the circles of semi-traditionalism. The false ecclesiology of the “resist while recognize” movement is opposed to Catholic teaching and has done as much, if not more, harm to the: sensus Catholicus than have the conciliar “popes” themselves. One cannot oppose the false teaching of the conciliar “popes” without admitting that a true pope cannot give us false teaching on matters of Faith and Morals or that, worse yet, he is not in se the guarantor of Catholic orthodoxy. If one truly believes that that a particular claimant to the papacy is not a guarantor of Catholic orthodoxy then one either does not believe in the Catholic Faith or the claimant himself is simply not a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter.

Father Salaverii explained that Holy Mother Church is infallible, which means that she cannot issue decrees or documents that are in any way defective or erroneous:

693. We deduce the infallibility of the Church concerning the primary object: 1) from the decrees of Vatican Council I; 2) from the definition of Papal Infallibility; 3) from further definitions, which were prepared on this matter by the same Vatican Council.

  1. That the object of infallibility is per se revealed truths was defined by Vatican Council I: D [Denizger] 3011, 3020, 3069-3070.
  2. The thesis on the direct and primary object of infallibility is considered implicitly in the definition of pontifical infallibility, since the Council says that its object is “doctrine concerning faith or morals”: De 3074.

For the Secretary, Bishop Grasser, in the name of the Committee for the Faith, while explaining to the Fathers the definition of the Council, said “In this definition it deals in #4 with the object of infallibility, which was promised in order to guard and interpret whole deposit of faith. Therefore as a whole it is easily made clear that the object of infallibility is the doctrine concerning faith or morals. Now, in the very word of God itself is contained also without doubt that infallibility t least to those things which per se constitute the deposit of faith, namely in order to define the dogmas of faith, and what comes to the same thing, to condemn heresies. . . The present definition enunciates the object of infallibility only in a general way, when it says, namely, that it is doctrine concerning faith and morals… In this object, so stated in a general way, the infallibility of the Pontiff extends neither less nor more broadly than the infallibility of the Church extends in her definitions of doctrines concerning faith and morals. Hence, just as no one denies that is heretical to deny the infallibility of the Church in defining dogmas of faith, in virtue of this decree of the Vatican it will be no less heretical to deny the infallibility of the Supreme Pontiff in the definitions of the dogmas of faith. Joachim Salaverri, S.J., and Michaele Nicolau, S.J., Sacrae Theologiae Summa 1B—On the Church of Christ and On Holy Scripture. Translated from the Latin by Father Kenneth Baker, S.J., and published by Keep the Faith, Inc., in 2015, p. 255.) 

Father Salaverri explained in a later section noted that Holy Mother Church’s infallibility extends to the decrees issued by Sacred Congregations of the Roman Curial, including those made by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, to dogmatic fact, to disciplinary decrees, to the canonization of saints, to liturgical decrees, and even in the realm of speculative truths connected with the Sacred Deposit of Faith. These decrees and decisions are owed both external and internal assent by every Catholic without exception.

Father Salaverri noted that the Jansenists claimed that they withhold internal assent while maintaining only an “obediential silence” to the condemnations of Cornelius Jansen’s propositions by Popes Innocent X and Alexander VII and confirmed by Pope Clement XI in 1705, meaning that no one is morally free to reject any proposed for belief a true and legitimate Sovereign Pontiff and/or issued under his authority and with his formal approval by the Roman Congregations. No Catholic is “free” to sift the teaching of one they recognize as a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, and no amount of saying “the pope is the pope” can excuse one from not recognizing that anyone who can issue Ad Theologiam Promovendam is simply not a Catholic and that the sect he heads is but a subsidiary of the One World Ecumenical Church which exists de facto, although not de jure, at this time:

Promoting theology in the future cannot be limited to abstractly re-proposing formulas and schemes of the past. Called to prophetically interpret the present and glimpse new itineraries for the future in the light of Revelation, theology will have to confront profound cultural transformations, aware that: “What we are living through is not simply an era of change, but a change of epoch” (Address to the Roman Curia, Dec. 21, 2013). (Unofficial English translation by Andrew Stine of Ad Theologiam Promovendam, November 1, 2023: Unofficial Full English Translation Of Francis’ Revolutionary Motu Proprio Ad Theologiam Promovendam.)

Interjection Number One:

The work of the Catholic Church is to uphold everything contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith. She can never fail in this work as she is guided infallibly by the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, Who is immutable and does not “shift with the wind” according to the alleged “needs” of “the people.

Moreover, Pope Pius XI explained in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929, that the natural moral law, which is knowable, although imperfectly, by human reason alone, belongs wholly to the Catholic Church as its infallible interpreter and explicator:

The Church does not say that morality belongs purely, in the sense of exclusively, to her; but that it belongs wholly to her. She has never maintained that outside her fold and apart from her teaching, man cannot arrive at any moral truth; she has on the contrary more than once condemned this opinion because it has appeared under more forms than one. She does however say, has said, and will ever say, that because of her institution by Jesus Christ, because of the Holy Ghost sent her in His name by the Father, she alone possesses what she has had immediately from God and can never lose, the whole of moral truth, omnem veritatem, in which all individual moral truths are included, as well those which man may learn by the help of reason, as those which form part of revelation or which may be deduced from it  (Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

Yet it is that Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes that such a cogent summary of Catholic truth is nothing other than a “desk theology” that requires a “paradigm shift” and a “courageous cultural revolution” to base what purports to be “moral theology” according the “concreteness of” man’s “existential situations”:

3. After almost five years, the time has come to revise these norms, to make them more suitable for the mission that our time imposes on theology. A synodal, missionary and “outgoing” Church can only be matched by an “outgoing” theology. As I wrote in my Letter to the Grand Chancellor of the Catholic University of Argentina, addressing professors and students of theology, “Do not settle for a desk theology. Let your place of reflection be the frontiers. […] Good theologians, like good pastors, also smell of the people and the street and, by their reflection, pour oil and wine on the wounds of men.” Openness to the world, to man in the concreteness of his existential situation, with its problems, wounds, challenges, and potential, cannot, however, be reduced to a “tactical” attitude, extrinsically adapting now-crystallized content to new situations, but must urge theology to an epistemological and methodological rethinking, as indicated in the Proem of the apostolic constitution Veritatis gaudium.

4. Theological reflection is therefore called to a turning point, to a paradigm shift, to a “courageous cultural revolution” (Encyclical Letter Laudato si’, 114) that commits it, first and foremost, to be a fundamentally contextual theology, capable of reading and interpreting the Gospel in the conditions in which men and women daily live, in different geographical, social and cultural environments, and having as its archetype the Incarnation of the eternal Logos, its entering into the culture, worldview, and religious tradition of a people. From here, theology cannot but develop into a culture of dialogue and encounter between different traditions and different knowledge, between different Christian denominations and different religions, openly confronting everyone, believers and non-believers alike. Indeed, the need for dialogue is intrinsic to human beings and to the whole of creation, and it is the particular task of theology to discover “the Trinitarian imprint that makes the cosmos in which we live ‘a web of relationships’ in which ‘it is proper to every living being to tend toward another thing'” (Apostolic Constitution Veritatis gaudium, Proem, 4a). (Unofficial English translation by Andrew Stine of Ad Theologiam Promovendam, November 1, 2023: Unofficial Full English Translation Of Francis’ Revolutionary Motu Proprio Ad Theologiam Promovendam.)

Interjection Number Two:

The Catholic Church never endorses “revolutions” as the first revolutionary was Lucifer himself, who inspires all revolutions with their subsequent attacks upon Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, His Holy Church, and everything to do with supernatural and natural truth, usually accompanied by the shedding of much innocent blood.

According to Jorge Mario Bergoglio, therefore, there is no such thing as objective moral truth. The morality of human acts depend upon subjective considerations, including those of the geographical and cultural environments in which people live, something that makes a mockery of the universal nature of both Divine Revelation and the Natural Law while dealing death blows to the very nature of God Himself, to the very nature of man, and to the very nature of the Catholic Church up to the dawning of the conciliar Age of Aquarius with the “election” of Angelo Cardinal Roncalli as “Pope John XXIII” on October 28, 1958, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude.

Pope Saint Pius X explained how Modernists base their entire belief system upon the lived experiences of the “believer,” not in immutable nature of God and of His Divine Revelation:

26. To conclude this whole question of faith and its various branches, we have still to consider, Venerable Brethren, what the Modernists have to say about the development of the one and the other. First of all they lay down the general principle that in a living religion everything is subject to change, and must in fact be changed. In this way they pass to what is practically their principal doctrine, namely, evolution. To the laws of evolution everything is subject under penalty of death — dogma, Church, worship, the Books we revere as sacred, even faith itself. The enunciation of this principle will not be a matter of surprise to anyone who bears in mind what the Modernists have had to say about each of these subjects. Having laid down this law of evolution, the Modernists themselves teach us how it operates. And first, with regard to faith. The primitive form of faith, they tell us, was rudimentary and common to all men alike, for it had its origin in human nature and human life. Vital evolution brought with it progress, not by the accretion of new and purely adventitious forms from without, but by an increasing perfusion of the religious sense into the conscience. The progress was of two kinds: negative, by the elimination of all extraneous elements, such, for example, as those derived from the family or nationality; and positive, by that intellectual and moral refining of man, by means of which the idea of the divine became fuller and clearer, while the religious sense became more acute. For the progress of faith the same causes are to be assigned as those which are adduced above to explain its origin. But to them must be added those extraordinary men whom we call prophets — of whom Christ was the greatest — both because in their lives and their words there was something mysterious which faith attributed to the divinity, and because it fell to their lot to have new and original experiences fully in harmony with the religious needs of their time. The progress of dogma is due chiefly to the fact that obstacles to the faith have to be surmounted, enemies have to be vanquished, and objections have to be refuted. Add to this a perpetual striving to penetrate ever more profoundly into those things which are contained in the mysteries of faith. Thus, putting aside other examples, it is found to have happened in the case of Christ: in Him that divine something which faith recognized in Him was slowly and gradually expanded in such a way that He was at last held to be God. The chief stimulus of the evolution of worship consists in the need of accommodation to the manners and customs of peoples, as well as the need of availing itself of the value which certain acts have acquired by usage. Finally, evolution in the Church itself is fed by the need of adapting itself to historical conditions and of harmonizing itself with existing forms of society. Such is their view with regard to each. And here, before proceeding further, We wish to draw attention to this whole theory of necessities or needs, for beyond all that we have seen, it is, as it were, the base and foundation of that famous method which they describe as historical.

27. Although evolution is urged on by needs or necessities, yet, if controlled by these alone, it would easily overstep the boundaries of tradition, and thus, separated from its primitive vital principle, would make for ruin instead of progress. Hence, by those who study more closely the ideas of the Modernists, evolution is described as a resultant from the conflict of two forces, one of them tending towards progress, the other towards conservation. The conserving force exists in the Church and is found in tradition; tradition is represented by religious authority, and this both by right and in fact. By right, for it is in the very nature of authority to protect tradition: and in fact, since authority, raised as it is above the contingencies of life, feels hardly, or not at all, the spurs of progress. The progressive force, on the contrary, which responds to the inner needs, lies in the individual consciences and works in them — especially in such of them as are in more close and intimate contact with life. Already we observe, Venerable Brethren, the introduction of that most pernicious doctrine which would make of the laity the factor of progress in the Church. Now it is by a species of covenant and compromise between these two forces of conservation and progress, that is to say between authority and individual consciences, that changes and advances take place. The individual consciences, or some of them, act on the collective conscience, which brings pressure to bear on the depositories of authority to make terms and to keep to them. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Thus stands condemned the entire foundation and purpose of Ad Theologiam Promovendam, replete with its penchant for abusing the language by the use of wholly invented words such as “transdisciplinarity," which even the Microsoft Word auto spellcheck does not recognize as a legitimate word.

The morality of human acts does not depend upon the lived experiences of men but on the nature and end of the act and the circumstances in which it is committed.

The late Father John Anthony Hardon, S.J., summarized Catholic teaching on this matter as follows:

The factors in human conduct that determine whether it is good or bad. There are three such determinants of morality, namely the object, the end, and the circumstances.

By object is meant what the free will chooses to do--in thought, word, or deed-or chooses not to do. Be end is meant the purpose for which the act is willed, which may be the act itself (as one of loving God) or some other purpose for which a person acts (as reading to learn). In either case, the end is the motive or the reason why an action is performed. By circumstances are meant all the elements that surround a human action and affect its morality without belonging to its essence. A convenient listing of these circumstances is to ask: who? where? how? how much? by what means? how often?

Some circumstances so affect the morality of an action as to change its species, as stealing a consecrated object becomes sacrilege and lying under oath is perjury. Other circumstances change the degree of goodness or badness of an act. In bad acts they are called aggravating circumstances, as the amount of money a person steals.

To be morally good, a human act must agree with the norm of morality on all three counts: in its nature, its motive, and its circumstances. Departure from any of these makes the action morally wrong. (As found at Determinants of Morality.)

Human beings must conform their lives to the law of God, and He does not command the impossible.

There is no such thing as a “new morality,” which is only a euphemism to provide theological cover for the old immorality, especially in matters pertaining to the Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Commandments, something that is made clear in the following two passages from Ad Theologiam Promovendam:

5. This relational dimension connotes and defines, from the epistemic point of view, the status of theology, which is urged not to close itself in self-referentiality, which leads to isolation and insignificance, but to grasp itself as embedded in a web of relationships, first and foremost with other disciplines and other knowledge. This is the approach of transdisciplinarity, that is, interdisciplinarity in a strong sense, as distinct from multidisciplinarity, understood as interdisciplinarity in a weak sense. The latter certainly promotes a better understanding of the object of study by considering it from multiple points of view, which nevertheless remain complementary and separate. Instead, transdisciplinarity should be thought of “as the placement and fermentation of all knowledge within the space of Light and Life offered by the Wisdom that emanates from God’s Revelation” (Apostolic Constitution Veritatis gaudium, Proem, 4c). Hence the arduous task for theology to be able to make use of new categories elaborated by other knowledges, in order to penetrate and communicate the truths of faith and transmit the teaching of Jesus in today’s languages, with originality and critical awareness.

6. Dialogue with other knowledge evidently presupposes dialogue within the ecclesial community and an awareness of the essential synodal and communal dimension of doing theology: the theologian cannot but live fraternity and communion in the first person, at the service of evangelization and in order to reach the hearts of all. As I said to theologians in the Address to the Members of the International Theological Commission, November 24, 2022: “Ecclesial synodality therefore commits theologians to do theology in a synodal form, promoting among themselves the capacity to listen, dialogue, discern and integrate the multiplicity and variety of instances and inputs.” It is therefore important that there are places, including institutional ones, in which to live and experience theological collegiality and fraternity. (Unofficial English translation by Andrew Stine of Ad Theologiam Promovendam, November 1, 2023: Unofficial Full English Translation Of Francis’ Revolutionary Motu Proprio Ad Theologiam Promovendam.)

Interjection Number Three:

The Apostles and the Catholic missionaries of the First Millennium who followed their example faithfully transmitted the Gospel of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ with but a single voice to people of varied backgrounds, languages, and cultural traditions. They were able to Catholic pagan and barbaric peoples because they taught the objective truths of the Holy Faith, not because they adapted those truths to accommodate cultural traditions such as idol worship, polygamy, immodesty of attire and indecency of speech in order to gain human acceptance at the price of fidelity to the Divine Redeemer’s Sacred Deposit of Faith.

Moreover, Bergoglio’s effort to claim that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His Revelation remains the starting point of this “cultural revolution” is blasphemous and it calls to mind the Sillonist view of theologian condemned by Pope Saint Pius X as follows in Notre Charge Apostolique:

We wish to draw your attention, Venerable Brethren, to this distortion of the Gospel and to the sacred character of Our Lord Jesus Christ, God and man, prevailing within the Sillon and elsewhere. As soon as the social question is being approached, it is the fashion in some quarters to first put aside the divinity of Jesus Christ, and then to mention only His unlimited clemency, His compassion for all human miseries, and His pressing exhortations to the love of our neighbor and to the brotherhood of men. True, Jesus has loved us with an immense, infinite love, and He came on earth to suffer and die so that, gathered around Him in justice and love, motivated by the same sentiments of mutual charity, all men might live in peace and happiness. But for the realization of this temporal and eternal happiness, He has laid down with supreme authority the condition that we must belong to His Flock, that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practice virtue, and that we must accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors. Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. He was as strong as he was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross. These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one’s personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Ad Theologiam Promovendam is a direct attack upon Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as it makes it appear that gratuitous references to Him are enough to justify a “cultural revolution” that will be used to justify contraception, sterilization, surgical abortion, euthanasia, suicide, sodomy, “transgenderism,” and even outright polygamy (the current Orwellian term that is in vogue today is “polyamorous”) and bestiality.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s “synodal method” is nothing new as it is merely an ape of the path chosen by the heretical and schismatic Anglican sect that has been so “successful” as to result in perhaps as few as five percent of baptized Anglicans bother to show up at their false worship service each Sunday (see Faith Survey | Christianity in the UK). The “synod path” is the path to sin and licentiousness. It is the path to hell.

The next passage from Ad Theologiam Promovendam refers to “charity” as the foundation of Catholic theology:

7. Finally, the necessary attention to the scientific status of theology should not obscure its sapiential dimension, as already clearly stated by St. Thomas Aquinas (cf. Summa theologiae I, q. 1, a. 6). Therefore, Blessed Antonio Rosmini considered theology a sublime expression of “intellectual charity,” while calling for the critical reason of all knowledge to be oriented to the Idea of Wisdom. Now the Idea of Wisdom inwardly holds Truth and Charity together in a “solid circle,” so that it is impossible to know truth without practicing charity: “because the one is in the other and neither of the two is found outside the other. Hence he who has this Truth has Charity with it that fulfills it, and he who has this Charity has Truth fulfilled” (cf. Of the Author’s Studies, nn.100-111). Scientific reason must expand its boundaries in the direction of wisdom, lest it dehumanize and impoverish itself. By this route, theology can contribute to the current debate of “rethinking thinking,” showing itself to be a true critical knowledge insofar as it is sapiential knowledge, not abstract and ideological, but spiritual, elaborated on its knees, pregnant with adoration and prayer; a transcendent knowledge and, at the same time, attentive to the voice of the people, thus “popular” theology, mercifully addressed to the open wounds of humanity and creation and within the folds of human history, to which it prophesies the hope of ultimate fulfillment. (Unofficial English translation by Andrew Stine of Ad Theologiam Promovendam, November 1, 2023: Unofficial Full English Translation Of Francis’ Revolutionary Motu Proprio Ad Theologiam Promovendam.)

Interjection Number Four:

Here is what Saint Paul the Apostle said about “popular theology” in his Second Epistle to Saint Timothy:

[1] I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: [2] Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine[3] For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: [4] And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. [5] But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober. (2 Tim. 4: 1-15.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is drunk with falsehoods, and his false concept of “charity,” which views Catholic truth as nothing more than an ideologically based “desktop theology” that is “self-referential” (nobody, not even me, is more self-referential than Jorge Mario Bergoglio), has been dealt with by Saint John the Evangelist as follows:

[21] Dearly beloved, if our heart do not reprehend us, we have confidence towards God: [22]And whatsoever we shall ask, we shall receive of him: because we keep his commandments, and do those things which are pleasing in his sight. [23] And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ: and love one another, as he hath given commandment unto us. [24] And he that keepeth his commandments, abideth in him, and he in him. And in this we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. (1 John 3: 21-24.)

[1] Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God. And every one that loveth him who begot, loveth him also who is born of him. [2] In this we know that we love the children of God: when we love God, and keep his commandments. [3] For this is the charity of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not heavy[4] For whatsoever is born of God, overcometh the world: and this is the victory which overcometh the world, our faith. [5] Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? (1 John 5: 1-5.)

Perhaps even more to the point is the teaching of the Divine Master Himself, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ:

[19] He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20] For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5: 19-20.)

Bergoglio’s hatred of those who keep the Ten Commandments is just one of many things he has in common with an Augustinian monk named Father Martin Luther who he, the Argentine Apostate, believes is a “witness” to Our Lord:

“[The commandments] only purpose is to show man his impotence to do good and to teach him to despair of himself” (ref: Denifle’s Luther et Lutheranisme, Etude Faite d’apres les sources. Translation by J. Paquier (Paris, A. Picard, 1912-13), Volume III, p. 364).

We must remove the Decalogue out of sight and heart” (ref. De Wette 4, 188)

“If we allow them – the Commandments – any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all evil, heresies and blasphemies” (ref. Comm. ad Galat, p.310).

“It is more important to guard against good works than against sin.” (ref. Trischreden, Wittenberg Edition, Vol. VI., p. 160).  (As found at: The Thirty-Three Most Ridiculous Things Martin Luther Ever Wrote.)

This is pretty much an exact representation of what Jorge Mario Bergoglio has said repeatedly, including by implication in Ad Theologian Promovendam, which makes not one reference to the Ten Commandments.

As the words of Holy Writ quoted above prove beyond any question, the false beliefs of Bergoglio and the man he admires as a “witness” of a generic Christian “faith” are mortal enemies of Our Lord and of His true Church, thus making them mortal enemies of the souls for whom Our Divine Redeemed shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday to redeem.

Pope Pius XI, writing to condemn German national socialism, which arose, of course, as the direct consequence of Martin Luther’s overthrowing of the Social Reign of Christ the King in various of the German states five hundred six years ago, explained that we are bound to the “conscientious observation of the Ten Commandments”:

29. It is on faith in God, preserved pure and stainless, that man's morality is based. All efforts to remove from under morality and the moral order the granite foundation of faith and to substitute for it the shifting sands of human regulations, sooner or later lead these individuals or societies to moral degradation. The fool who has said in his heart "there is no God" goes straight to moral corruption (Psalms xiii. 1), and the number of these fools who today are out to sever morality from religion, is legion. They either do not see or refuse to see that the banishment of confessional Christianity, i.e., the clear and precise notion of Christianity, from teaching and education, from the organization of social and political life, spells spiritual spoliation and degradation. No coercive power of the State, no purely human ideal, however noble and lofty it be, will ever be able to make shift of the supreme and decisive impulses generated by faith in God and Christ. If the man, who is called to the hard sacrifice of his own ego to the common good, loses the support of the eternal and the divine, that comforting and consoling faith in a God who rewards all good and punishes all evil, then the result of the majority will be, not the acceptance, but the refusal of their duty. The conscientious observation of the ten commandments of God and the precepts of the Church (which are nothing but practical specifications of rules of the Gospels) is for every one an unrivaled school of personal discipline, moral education and formation of character, a school that is exacting, but not to excess. A merciful God, who as Legislator, says -- Thou must! -- also gives by His grace the power to will and to do. To let forces of moral formation of such efficacy lie fallow, or to exclude them positively from public education, would spell religious under-feeding of a nation. To hand over the moral law to man's subjective opinion, which changes with the times, instead of anchoring it in the holy will of the eternal God and His commandments, is to open wide every door to the forces of destruction. The resulting dereliction of the eternal principles of an objective morality, which educates conscience and ennobles every department and organization of life, is a sin against the destiny of a nation, a sin whose bitter fruit will poison future generations

30. Such is the rush of present-day life that it severs from the divine foundation of Revelation, not only morality, but also the theoretical and practical rights. We are especially referring to what is called the natural law, written by the Creator's hand on the tablet of the heart (Rom. ii. 14) and which reason, not blinded by sin or passion, can easily read. It is in the light of the commands of this natural law, that all positive law, whoever be the lawgiver, can be gauged in its moral content, and hence, in the authority it wields over conscience. Human laws in flagrant contradiction with the natural law are vitiated with a taint which no force, no power can mend. In the light of this principle one must judge the axiom, that "right is common utility," a proposition which may be given a correct significance, it means that what is morally indefensible, can never contribute to the good of the people. But ancient paganism acknowledged that the axiom, to be entirely true, must be reversed and be made to say: "Nothing can be useful, if it is not at the same time morally good" (Cicero, De Off. ii. 30). Emancipated from this oral rule, the principle would in international law carry a perpetual state of war between nations; for it ignores in national life, by confusion of right and utility, the basic fact that man as a person possesses rights he holds from God, and which any collectivity must protect against denial, suppression or neglect. To overlook this truth is to forget that the real common good ultimately takes its measure from man's nature, which balances personal rights and social obligations, and from the purpose of society, established for the benefit of human nature. Society, was intended by the Creator for the full development of individual possibilities, and for the social benefits, which by a give and take process, every one can claim for his own sake and that of others. Higher and more general values, which collectivity alone can provide, also derive from the Creator for the good of man, and for the full development, natural and supernatural, and the realization of his perfection. To neglect this order is to shake the pillars on which society rests, and to compromise social tranquillity, security and existence. (Pope Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937.)

It is important to highlight the following sentences from the the first paragraph quoted above:

If the man, who is called to the hard sacrifice of his own ego to the common good, loses the support of the eternal and the divine, that comforting and consoling faith in a God who rewards all good and punishes all evil, then the result of the majority will be, not the acceptance, but the refusal of their duty. The conscientious observation of the ten commandments of God and the precepts of the Church (which are nothing but practical specifications of rules of the Gospels) is for every one an unrivaled school of personal discipline, moral education and formation of character, a school that is exacting, but not to excess. A merciful God, who as Legislator, says -- Thou must! -- also gives by His grace the power to will and to do. (Pope Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937.)

Bergoglio believes that the Ten Commandments are a "burden" to men by preventing them from going "forward," and he does not believe that God makes it possible for men to do what He has taught them, thus blaspheming God as a deceiver.

Pope Pius XI reminded us that there is a God who actually rewards the good and punishes all evil, and that the "conscientious observatoin of the ten commandments and the precepts of the Church (which are nothing but the practical specifications of rules of the Gospels) is for every one an unrivaled school of personal discipline, moral education and formation of character, a school that is exacting, but not to excess. A merciful God, who as Legisltor, says --Thou must! -- also give by His grace the power to will do so so."

The Argentine Apostate does not believe that it is possible to keep the Ten Commandments perfectly nor does he believe that it is necessary to do so. All that matters to him is "going forward," which he is doing very rapidly by throwing himself headlong into hell at the moment of his Particular Judgment if he does not repent of his errors and abjure them publicy before he dies.

Then again, it must be kept in mind that conciliarism is founded on the violation of each of the Ten Commandments, starting with the First and Second.

The capstone of Ad Theologiam Promovendam is found in its paragraph eight in which the Blaspheming Argentine dares to claim that there is something called the “Christian face of God” that is not the basis for the way in which others view theology and morality:

8. It is a matter of the pastoral “stamp” that theology as a whole, and not only in one of its particular spheres, must assume: without opposing theory and practice, theological reflection is urged to develop with an inductive method, which starts from the different contexts and concrete situations in which peoples are inserted, allowing itself to be seriously challenged by reality, in order to become discernment of the “signs of the times” in the proclamation of the salvific event of the God-agape, communicated in Jesus Christ. Therefore, it is necessary that the knowledge of people’s common sense, which is in fact a theological place in which so many images of God dwell, often not corresponding to the Christian face of God, only and always love, be privileged first of all. Theology is at the service of the Church’s evangelization and transmission of faith, so that faith becomes culture, that is, the wise ethos of God’s people, a proposal of human and humanizing beauty for all.

9. Faced with this renewed mission of theology, the Pontifical Academy of Theology is called to develop, in its constant attention to the scientific nature of theological reflection, transdisciplinary dialogue with other scientific, philosophical, humanistic and artistic knowledge, with believers and non-believers, with men and women of different Christian denominations and different religions. This will be able to happen by creating an academic community of shared faith and study that weaves a network of relationships with other formative, educational and cultural institutions and is able to penetrate, with originality and a spirit of imagination, into the existential places of the elaboration of knowledge, professions and Christian communities.  (Unofficial English translation by Andrew Stine of Ad Theologiam Promovendam, November 1, 2023: Unofficial Full English Translation Of Francis’ Revolutionary Motu Proprio Ad Theologiam Promovendam.)

Final Interjection:

There is only one image of God: the Most Blessed Trinity, and countless millions of Catholics have shed their blood to defend God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost against blaspheming heretics such as Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who wants Catholics to respect and to actually learn something about “theology” from those whose gods are nothing other than devils in full violation of the following words of the First Commandment and Psalm 95:

I am the LORD thy God: thou shalt not have strange Gods before me.

For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils: but the Lord made the heavens. (Psalm 95: 5)

Every strange god has a place at the table of the conciliar revolutionaries.

Moreover, it is important to note that Pope Leo XIII condemned any and all signs of universal toleration or marks of respect for false religions and to express a fraternity with them:

Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)

The examples of Saints Benedict of Nursia, the founder of Western Monasticism, and of Saint Boniface, the Apostle to Germany, to be see if they engaged in a “dialogue” with pagan idols or if they gave any marks of respect to temples of false worship, each of which is in the grip of the devil:

The castle called Cassino is situated upon the side of a high mountain which riseth in the air about three miles so that it seemed to touch the very heavens. On Monte Cassino stood an old temple where Apollo was worshiped by the foolish country people, according to the custom of the ancient heathen. Round about it, likewise grew groves, in which even until that time, the mad multitude of infidels offered their idolatrous sacrifices. The man of God, coming to that place, broke down the idol, overthrew the altar, burnt the groves and of the temple made a chapel of St. Martin; and where the profane altar had stood, he built a chapel of St. John and, by continual preaching converted many of the people thereabout.

But the old enemy, not bearing this silently, did present himself in the sight of the Father and with great cries complained of the violence he suffered, in so much that the brethren heard him, though they could see nothing. For, as the venerable Father told his disciples, the wicked fiend represented himself to his sight all on fire and, with flaming mouth and flashing eyes, seemed to rage against him. And they all heard what he said, for first he called him by name, and when the make of God would make no answer, he fell to reviling him. And whereas before he cried, "Benedict, Benedict," and saw he could get no answer, then he cried, "Maledict, not Benedict, what hast thou to do with me, and why dost thou persecute me?" (Pope Saint Gregory the Great, The Life of Saint Benedict, republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1995, pp. 24-25.)

Then it was that this holy man saw that the time, ordained by God's providence, had come for him to found a family of religious men and to mold them to the perfection of the Gospels. He began under most favorable auspices. "For in those parts he had gathered together a great many in the service of God, so that by the assistance of Our Lord Jesus Christ he built there 12 monasteries, in each of which he put 12 monks with their Superiors, and retained a few with himself whom he thought to instruct further".

But while things started very favorably, as We said, and yielded rich and salutary results, promising still greater in the future, Our saint with the greatest grief of soul, saw a storm breaking over the growing harvest, which an envious spirit had provoked and desires of earthly gain had stirred up. Since Benedict was prompted by divine and not human counsel, and feared lest the envy which had been aroused mainly against himself should wrongfully recoil on his followers, "he let envy take its course, and after he had disposed of the oratories and other buildings -- leaving in them a competent number of brethren with superiors -- he took with him a few monks and went to another place". Trusting in God and relying on His ever present help, he went south and arrived at a fort "called Cassino situated on the side of a high mountain . . .; on this stood an old temple where Apollo was worshipped by the foolish country people, according to the custom of the ancient heathens. Around it likewise grew groves, in which even till that time the mad multitude of infidels used to offer their idolatrous sacrifices. The man of God coming to that place broke the idol, overthrew the altar, burned the groves, and of the temple of Apollo made a chapel of St. Martin. Where the profane altar had stood he built a chapel of St. John; and by continual preaching he converted many of the people thereabout".

Cassino, as all know, was the chief dwelling place and the main theater of the Holy Patriarch's virtue and sanctity. From the summit of this mountain, while practically on all sides ignorance and the darkness of vice kept trying to overshadow and envelop everything, a new light shone, kindled by the teaching and civilization of old and further enriched by the precepts of Christianity; it illumined the wandering peoples and nations, recalled them to truth and directed them along the right path. Thus indeed it may be rightly asserted that the holy monastery built there was a haven and shelter of highest learning and of all the virtues, and in those very troubled times was, "as it were, a pillar of the Church and a bulwark of the faith". (Pope Pius XII, Fulgens Radiatur, March 21, 1947.)

Yes, Saint Benedict sought to convert pagans to the true Faith. We have seen just above that Jorge Mario Bergoglio forbids Catholics to make converts and that he has told Protestant “ministers” that he has no intention of converting them. Such is the stuff of Antichrist, not of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

There are also the examples of Saints Boniface, who mocked the false gods worshipped by Germanic tribes, and Saint Francis Xavier, who praised children in the Indian city of Goa for their zeal in smashing pagan idols (see Saint Francis Xavier: A Catholic Fundamentalist Who Gave No Quarter to False Religions):

When by the grace and favor of God this very important task was done, Boniface did not allow himself his well-earned rest. In spite of the fact that he was already burdened by so many cares, and was feeling now his advanced age and realizing that his health was almost broken by so many labors, he prepared himself eagerly for a new and no less difficult enterprise. He turned his attention again to Friesland, that Friesland which had been the first goal of his apostolic travels, where he had later on labored so much. Especially in the northern regions this land was still enveloped in the darkness of pagan error. Zeal that was still youthful led him there to bring forth new sons to Jesus Christ and to bring Christian civilization to new peoples. For he earnestly desired “that in leaving this world he might receive his reward there where he had first begun his preaching and entered upon his meritorious career.” Feeling that his mortal life was drawing to a close, he confided his presentiment to his dear disciple, Bishop Lullus, and asserted that he did not want to await death in idleness. “I yearn to finish the road before me; I cannot call myself back from the path I have chosen. Now the day and hour of my death is at hand. For now I leave the prison of the body and go to my eternal reward. My dear son, . . . insist in turning the people from the paths of error, finish the construction of the basilica already begun at Fulda and there bring my body which has aged with the passage of many years.

When he and his little band had taken departure from the others, “he traveled through all Friesland, ceaselessly preaching the word of God, banishing pagan rites and extirpating immoral heathen customs. With tremendous energy he built churches and overthrew the idols of the templesHe baptized thousands of men, women and children.” After he had arrived in the northern regions of Friesland and was about to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation to a large number of newly baptized converts, a furious mob of pagans suddenly attacked and threatened to kill them with deadly spears and swords. Then the holy prelate serenely advanced and “forbade his followers to resist, saying, ‘Cease fighting, my children, for we are truly taught by Scripture not to return evil for evil, but rather good. The day we have long desired is now at hand; the hour of our death has come of its own accord. Take strength in the Lord, . . . be courageous and do not be afraid of those who kill the body, for they cannot slay an immortal soul. Rejoice in the Lord, fix the anchor of hope in God, Who will immediately give you an eternal reward and a place in the heavenly court with the angelic choirs’.” All were encouraged by these words to embrace martyrdom. They prayed and turned their eyes and hearts to heaven where they hoped to receive soon an eternal reward, and then fell beneath the onslaught of their enemies, who stained with blood the bodies of those who fell in the happy combat of the saints.” At the moment of this martyrdom, Boniface, who was to be beheaded by the sword, “placed the sacred book of the Gospels upon his head as the sword threatened, that he might receive the deadly stroke under it and claim its protection in death, whose reading he loved in life. (Pope Pius XII, Ecclesiae Fastos, June 5, 1954.)

An now deceased and most apostate son of Germany, one who was the very antithesis of the spirit of Saint Boniface, wrote the following about those who destroyed pagan temples:

In the relationship with paganism quite different and varied developments took place. The mission as a whole was not consistent. There were in fact Christian hotheads and fanatics who destroyed temples, who were unable to see paganism as anything other than idolatry that had to be radically eliminated. People saw points in common with philosophy, but not in pagan religion, which was seen as corrupt. (Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, p. 373.)

Was Saint Boniface guilty of being one of these “Christian hotheads and fanatics who destroyed temples,” men “who were unable to see paganism as anything other than idolatry that had to be radically eliminated”?

The late Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI not only blasphemed God as he denied the nature of dogmatic truth and esteemed the symbols and the “values” of false religions. He blasphemed the work and the memory of the very saint who evangelized his own German ancestors, the man who is the very patron saint of Germany, his homeland.

Catholicism or conciliarism. It’s one or the other. There is no middle ground. The Catholic Church cannot produce men in her official capacities who speak these things so promiscuously and without any word of correction for the sake of the honor and glory and majesty of God and for the good of the souls for whom Our Lord shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross

Can this change?

Of course not, and neither can Catholic moral theology, which is not any kind of subject to determine in conjunction with non-Catholics, whose unconditional conversion to Catholicism must be sought with urgency.

The “cultural revolution” to which Jorge Mario Bergoglio is committed is simply the result of the revolution against the Faith begun under the antipapal presidency of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII and has progressed, whether rapidly as during the Montininian years or with the appearance of slowness during the Wojtyla/Ratzinger years, to the point of a complete untethering of Catholic theology from anything to do with Catholicism.

Whether priests or presbyters within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism will finally come to recognize that nothing of what is coming from within the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River at this time is the work of the Catholic Church and thus come to reassess whether they can continue to hide their heads in the sand, keep their mouths shut and to protest loudly about how “obedient” they are by maintaining a cowardly silence in the face of apostasy and, even worse yet, leading the faithful to believe that they can ignore the teaching of a man they consider is a true and legitimate Successors of Saint Peter, remains to be seen.

I tend to doubt that many such men will come to recognize the truth and act thereon with alacrity for the good of their own souls and of the flocks who look to them as their shepherds, something that calls to mind the apocryphal anecdote of an Anglican “priest” who keep threatening to convert to Catholicism if the Lambeth Conference “did one more thing” to water down Christianity and accommodate the world that goes something like this:

Indeed, the high degree of tolerance that Anglo-Catholics have exhibited in the face of progressivists has been parodied in a number of ways, including in the following set of conversations between and Anglican "priest" and his wife before and after a decennial Lambeth Committee meeting:

Before the Lambeth Committee meeting:

Anglican "priest:" If the liberals do one more thing, just more thing, I'm converting to Catholicism."

Wife: "Well, you said that when the liberals gave you women priests."

Anglican "priest." It's different now. No more. I've reached my limit. No more compromises."

After the Lambeth Committee meeting:

Wife: "What did they do this time?"

Anglican "priest:" I'd rather not say."

Wife: "Was it really that bad?"

Anglican "priest:" “Yes, about the worst."

Wife: "What did they do?"

Anglican priest: "Instituted a feast in honor of the adversary. (Long pause). I tell you, if they do one more thing I'm converting to Catholicism, do you hear me?" (As found in Any Day Now.)

It is only by the graces that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ sends us through the loving hands of His Most Blessed Mother, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, that any of us have been able to accept the truth of our current ecclesiastical situation and to abide by it no matter differences with family members and/or the loss of friendships of longstanding. Importantly, as I have noted many times before, the fact that Our Lady has sent us those graces from her Divine Son should keep us very humble as it is easy to “go back” under pressures of one kind or another as we try to bear ourselves with preserving charity towards all those who disagree with us as pray for a good reconciliation with one and all in Heaven, please God we and they die in a State of Sanctifying Grace.

We know that the final victory belongs to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and to this end we must pray her Most Holy Rosary with great fervor every day and offer up all the sufferings of the moment to the throne of the Most Blessed Trinity as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through that same Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

To quote Pope Saint Pius X, “Let us pray for the Restoration that is to come.”

Our Lady, Queen of the Most Holy Rosary and of All Saints, 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.

Blessed Martin de Porres, pray for us.

All the Saints, pray for us.