"Passing" Blasphemies Have Eternal Consequences

A post at Novus Ordo Watch alerted me to yet another blasphemy that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has uttered against Our Lady, she who was conceived without any stain of Original or Actual Sin. Bergoglio’s most recent blasphemy against the August Queen of Heaven and the very Mother of God occurred when he was addressing Vatican employees on December 22, 2022, after having earlier given his annual scold to the members of the conciliar curia within the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River.

Although the Argentine Apostate had warned the curia of demons within the Vatican, his address to Vatican workers a short time thereafter once again proved the simple fact that he is the biggest blasphemer with the Vatican and, quite indeed, the rest of the world, of them all. Here is Senor Jorge’s “passing” blasphemy that very cagily denied the doctrinal effects of Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception by claiming that she had labor pains even though it is the constant teaching of Holy Mother Church that she gave birth to Our Lord miraculously without any pains whatsoever:

We must not forget, because the long pandemic period has left marks. Not only material, economic consequences; it also left marks in people's lives, in relationships, in the serenity of families. And that is why today I wish you above all serenity: serenity for each of you and your families. Serenity does not mean that all is well, that there are no problems, difficulties, no, it does not mean that. The Holy Family of Jesus, Joseph and Mary shows us this. We can imagine, when they arrived in Bethlehem, Our Lady was beginning to feel the pains, Joseph did not know where to go, he knocked on so many doors, but there was no place... Yet in the heart of Mary and Joseph there was an underlying serenity, which came from God, came from knowing that they were in His will, that they were seeking it together, in prayer and mutual love. This I wish for you: that each of you has faith in God and that in families there is the simplicity of relying on his help, praying to him and thanking him. (DeepL Translate and English translation of Vatican website at: Greetings from the Employees of the Holy See and the SCV Governorate.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio knows exactly what he is doing. He loves to pass off a little drop of poison that he knows will go undetected as such by most of his Catholic listeners, most of whom can no longer recognize blasphemy or heresy when it is before their very eyes and ears because that which is false has been represented as true by the conciliar revolutionaries for over sixty years. However, every “passing” blasphemy has eternal consequences, which, barring conversion back to the Catholic Faith for which we must pray daily, will face just as surely as will the dying Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict will face very soon after a lifelong career of blasphemy, sacrilege, and heresy barring his own deathbed conversion to a Faith that he rejected early in his seminary studies.

The miraculous nature in which Our Lady gave birth to her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, was described in great detail to the Venerable Mary of Agreda as recorded in The Mystical City of God:

475. Most holy Mary remained in this ecstasy and beatific vision for over an hour immediately preceding her divine delivery. At the moment when She issued from it and regained the use of her senses She felt and saw the body of the infant God begin to move in her virginal womb; how, releasing and freeing Himself from the place which in the course of nature He had occupied for nine months, He now prepared to issue forth from that sacred bridal chamber. This movement not only did not cause any pain or hardship, as happens with the other daughters of Adam and Eve in their childbirths (Gen. 3:16), but filled Her with incomparable joy and delight, causing in her soul and in her virginal body such exalted and divine effects that they exceed all thoughts of men. Her body became so spiritualized with the beauty of heaven that She seemed no more a human and earthly creature. Her countenance emitted rays of light like a sun incarnadined, and shone in indescribable earnestness and majesty, all inflamed with fervent love. She was kneeling in the manger, her eyes raised to heaven, her hands joined and folded at her breast, her soul rapt in the Divinity, and She herself was entirely deified. In this position, and at the end of the heavenly rapture, the most exalted Lady gave to the world the Onlybegotten of the Father and her own, our Savior JESUS, true God and man, at the hour of midnight, on a Sunday, in the year of the creation of the world five thousand one hundred and ninety-nine (5199), which is the date given in the Roman Church, and which date has been manifested to me as the true and certain one.

476. There are other wonderful circumstances and particulars which all the faithful assume to have miraculously accompanied this most divine Nativity; but since the only witnesses were the Queen of heaven and her courtiers, not all can be known in particular, except only those which the Lord himself manifests in his holy Church to all or to some particular souls in diverse ways. As I think there is some divergence of opinion in this matter, which is most sublime and venerable, as soon as I had manifested to my superiors and directors what had been made known to me, they commanded me under obedience to consult anew the divine oracle and ask the Empress of heaven, my Mother and Teacher, and the holy Angels who assist me, for information on some particulars necessary for a clearer statement of the most sacred parturition of Mary, the Mother of JESUS, our Redeemer. In order to comply with this command I returned for a better understanding of these same happenings, and it was then expounded to me in the following manner. 

477. At the end of the beatific vision and rapture of the Mother ever Virgin, which I have described above (473), was born the Sun of justice, clean, most beautiful, refulgent and pure, the Son of the eternal Father and of Mary most holy, leaving Her untouched in her virginal integrity and purity, and making Her more divinized and consecrated; for He did not divide, but penetrated the virginal chamber as the rays of the sun penetrate the crystal shrine, lighting it up in prismatic beauty. Before the explanation of the miraculous manner in which this was executed, I say the Infant God was born pure and disengaged, without the covering called secundina, surrounded by which other children are commonly born and in which they are enveloped in the wombs of their mothers. I will not detain myself in explaining the cause and origin of the error which is contrary to this statement. It is enough to know and suppose that in the generation and birth of the incarnate Word the arm of the Almighty selected and made use of all that substantially and unavoidably belonged to natural human generation, so the Word would be made true man, truly calling Himself conceived, engendered and born as the Son of the substance of his Mother ever Virgin. Regarding the other circumstances which are not essential but accidental to generation and birth we must disconnect our ideas of Christ our Lord and most holy Mary, not only from all that are in any way related or consequent upon any sin, original or actual, but also from many others which are not necessary for the essential reality of the generation or birth and which imply some impurity or superfluity that could in any way lessen or impair the dignity of Mary as the Queen of heaven and as true Mother of Christ our Lord; for many such imperfections of sin or nature were not necessary either for the true humanity of Christ, or for his office of Redeemer or Teacher, and whatever was not necessary for these three ends, and whatever by its absence would redound to the greater dignity of Christ and his Mother, must be denied of both. Neither were the miracles necessary for such a birth given sparingly by the Author of nature and grace in favor of Her who was his worthy Mother, prepared, adorned, and made increasingly beautiful for this purpose, for the divine right hand enriched Her at all times with gifts and graces, and reached the utmost limits of his omnipotence possible in regard to a mere creature.

478. Conformable to this truth the fact She was a Virgin in conceiving and giving Him birth, remaining ever Virgin by the operation of the Holy Ghost, did not derogate from her being a true Mother. Though She could have lost her virginity in a natural manner without incurring any fault, yet in that case the Mother of God would also be without this singular prerogative of virginity; hence we must say the divine power of her most holy Son preserved it for Her so She would not be without it. Likewise the divine Child could have been born with this covering or cuticle in which others are born, yet this was not necessary in order to be born a natural Son of the Blessed Mother; hence He could choose not to take it forth with Him from the virginal and maternal womb, just as He chose not to pay to nature other penal tributes of impurity which other human beings do pay at their coming into the light. It was not just for the incarnate Word to be subject to all the laws of the sons of Adam; rather it was consequent upon his miraculous birth for Him to be exempt and free from all that could be caused by the corruption or uncleanness of matter. Thus also this covering, or secundina, was not to fall a prey to corruption outside of the virginal womb, because it had been so closely connected and attached to his most holy body, and because it was composed of the blood and substance of his Mother. In like manner it was not advisable to keep and preserve it outside of Her, nor was it appropriate to give it the same privileges and importance as his divine body in coming forth from the body of his most holy Mother, as I will yet explain. The wonder which would have to be wrought to dispose of that sacred covering outside of the womb could be wrought much more appropriately within.

479. The infant God therefore was brought forth from the virginal chamber unencumbered by any corporeal or material substance foreign to Himself, but came forth glorious and transfigured, for the divine and infinite wisdom decreed and ordained that the glory of his most holy soul should in his Nativity overflow and communicate itself to his body, participating in the gifts of glory in the same way as happened afterwards in his Transfiguration on mount Tabor in the presence of the Apostles (Mt. 17:2). This miracle was not necessary in order to penetrate the virginal enclosure and leave unimpaired her virginal integrity, for without this transfiguration God could have brought this about by other miracles. That the Child was born leaving his Mother a Virgin is certain, as the holy Doctors say who know of no other mystery in this Nativity. It was the will of God for the most blessed Virgin to look upon the body of her Son, the Godman, for this first time in a glorified state for two reasons. The first was so by this divine vision the most prudent Mother would conceive the highest reverence with which to treat her Son, true God and true man. Though She was already informed of his twofold nature, the Lord nevertheless ordained that by ocular demonstration She would be filled with new graces corresponding to the greatness of her most holy Son which was thus manifested to Her in a visible manner. The second reason was to reward by this wonder the fidelity and holiness of the divine Mother, for her most pure and chaste eyes which had turned away from all earthly things for love of her most holy Son were to see Him at his very birth in this glory, and thus be rejoiced and rewarded for her loyalty and beautiful love.

480. The sacred evangelist Luke (2:7) tells us the Virgin Mother, having brought forth her firstborn Son, wrapped Him in swaddling clothes and placed Him in a manger. He does not say She received Him in her arms from her virginal womb, for this did not pertain to the purpose of his narrative; however, the two sovereign princes, St. Michael and St. Gabriel, were the assistants of the Virgin on this occasion. They stood by at a proper distance in human corporeal forms at the moment when the incarnate Word, penetrating the virginal chamber by divine power, issued forth to the light, and they received Him in their hands with ineffable reverence. In the same manner as a priest exhibits the sacred host to the people for adoration, so these two celestial ministers presented to the divine Mother her glorious and refulgent Son. All this happened in a short space of time. In the same moment in which the holy Angels thus presented the divine Child to his Mother, both Son and Mother looked upon each other, and in this look She wounded with love the sweet Infant and was at the same time exalted and transformed in Him. From the arms of the holy Princes the Prince of heaven spoke to his happy Mother and said to Her: “Mother, become like unto Me, since for the human existence thou hast given me, I desire from today to give thee another more exalted existence in grace, assimilating thy existence as a mere creature to the likeness of Me, who am God and Man.” The most prudent Mother answered: Trahe me post Te, curremus in odorem unguentorum tuorum (Cant. 1:3); draw me after Thee, Lord, and we will run after Thee in the odor of thy ointments. In the same way many of the hidden mysteries of the Canticles were fulfilled, and other sayings which passed between the Infant God and the Virgin Mother which had been recorded there, as for instance: My Beloved to me, and I to Him, and his turning is towards me (Ib. 2:16; 7:10); behold thou art fair, my friend, and thy eyes are dove’s eyes; behold, my beloved, for thou art fair (Ib. 1:14-15); and many other sacramental words, which to mention would unduly prolong this chapter.(New English Edition of the The Mystical City of God, The Book Four: The Incarnation, Chapter Ten.) 

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a liar and a deceiver.

He is not a Catholic, and anyone who thinks him to be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter at this late date is to be pitied.

For present purposes, therefore, and mindful that some of this material was used recently in This is Phenomenal Even by Bergoglio’s Endless Array of Double Standards, I want to remind the readers of this little-viewed and ill-regarded website of the fact that blasphemy against Our Lady has become standard fare within conciliar circles, and none other than the aforementioned Antipope Emeritus Ratzinger/Benedict XVI gave approval sixteen years ago for a motion picture, The Nativity Story, that portrayed Our Lady as a rebellious and unruly teenaged girl to have its world premiere in the Paul VI Audience Hall on the Sunday, November 26, 2006.

This is what a review that had been sent out by a Catholic couple in the Milwaukee, Wisconsin, area after they had seen The Nativity Story on December 2, 2006:

On December 2, 2006, on the First Saturday of December, we went to the local movie theater to watch the movie “The Nativity.  Based on previous reviews of this movie that we had heard, and the fact that the Vatican2 held a premier showing of this movie, we were expecting a movie that at the very least held to Catholic beliefs.  However, from the very beginning of the movie we soon realized our high expectations had to be thrown into the trash, for as the movie progressed, we became more and more disappointed.  The overall conclusion of this movie is that it is not a catholic movie at all, but at best, a Protestant movie directed by men who did not even follow the Biblical account of the birth of Christ. At worst, it is a vile anti-Christian movie created by people who hate Christ and His Church and whose main motive was to defame the name of the Blessed Mother and warp the story of the Birth of Jesus.

As mentioned before this movie discredits our Catholic beliefs, beliefs that are so essential to our Faith that if we do not believe in them, the Church no longer considers us Catholic. What beliefs are these that have been maligned? It is those beliefs which we hold sacred: the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth.

In one of the very first scenes of the movie, Mary is shown with her friends, sowing a field of what looks to be corn.  These friends of Mary give sideways glances and smiles to each other after looking at a group of boys that are nearby.  Then one of these girls runs to tackle one of the boys and what ensues appears to be a pile up of youths in the cornfield with Mary sort of participating in on the outer edges of this entanglement.  Then from the house emerges Mary’s mother looking stern and upset.  She calls to Mary and shakes her head “No.”   The fact that Mary looks to have been participating in some kind of impropriety and had to be corrected by her mother is beyond belief but this is only one occurrence of “sinning” on the part of Mary.  For throughout the first part of the movie, Mary is depicted as any normal 14 year old given to sullen, sulky moods.  This movie shows her to be unhappy with the future marriage that is being arranged for her by her parents (which we know to be historically incorrect).  She walks out of her house in defiance when her father tells her that she is now betrothed to Joseph. These scenes call into question the dogma of the Immaculate Conception issued by Pope Pius IX in 1854. 

It also was implied in the betrothal scene that Mary and Joseph planned on a large family as Mary’s parents indicated that they were to live as husband and wife in every way for one year except for that one act that would produce a family.  Joseph began building the home for Mary and their future children indicating Joseph was planning on having many children.    This is in line with the Protestant viewpoint that Mary and Joseph had many children after Jesus and counters the Catholic Church as it has always taught that both Mary and Joseph took vows of virginity and mutually consented to live as virgins in the married state.

The scene of Annunciation was not anything that a catholic would contemplate while saying the rosary.  They depicted Mary reclining under a tree in the middle of the day while others were around her working.  What is supposed to be the “Archangel Gabriel” is first shown as a hawk and then as a man with an Afro-like hairstyle and white robe looking as if he could be a son of Cheech or Chong. The “angel” had no mystical or holy appearance and he is shown at quite a distance from Mary.  The portrayal makes you wonder if he’s truly Heaven sent.

The Visitation was portrayed as an excuse to run away from her “intended”, Joseph. A way out all of it- as if the whole idea of the coming of Our Lord and the idea of marriage was too much for her. The Magnificat was left out of this scene; however it was partially narrated at the end of the movie omitting the first half of this beautiful prayer:

“ My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my savior; Because he has regarded the lowliness of his handmaid; for, behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed; because he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name; And his mercy is from generation to generation on those who fear him...”

You can be certain, upon looking at these omitted words, just why they were omitted and the intentions of the creators of this vile cinematography!

The birth of Saint John was very degrading.   This scene is about two minutes long, depicting Elizabeth holding her upper body up off a chair by holding onto ropes, screaming from pain while two women are ready to receive the child. She delivers, while Mary, with a horrified look on her face, stands by watching.   This scene is not suitable for children to watch.

During Mary’s absence at Elizabeth’s, Saint Joseph was portrayed as being upset that Mary left.  Also were included, implications that Joseph did not expect Mary to come back, as in one scene where he was deep in thought pondering his future with Mary holding his carpenter tools – then suddenly with a look of frustration and anger, he throws his tools to the ground.  Saintly behavior for sure!

When Mary had returned to Nazareth, Joseph was excited to see her. However, on lifting her from the wagon he discovered that she was heavy with child and walked away upset.  Mary tried to convince her parents and Joseph that she was not pregnant due to another man but that “an angel” appeared to her and told her she was going to have a baby.  There was no evidence of any of the three believing Mary.  It was implied that Joseph was ready to stone Mary until he had a vision through a dream (with that “angel” again) that Mary was telling the truth.

The traveling of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem was the best of all scenes in the movie.  But even during this trip there was an occurrence that was disturbing.  While Mary and Joseph were walking through a market of a town, a palm reading woman offered Mary a small piece of cheese or bread which Mary accepted but then this sorceress read Mary’s palm and claimed she was going to have a son. Mary accepted this prophecy with a smile and Joseph shook the woman’s hand, thanked her and then they continued their journey.  The implication was that Joseph and Mary had no objection to fortunetellers.

The scene of the Nativity was extremely heretical. Besides this grave evil, again we find it necessary to say that this movie should not be viewed by children.  Mary was shown to be in labor while she was in the town of Bethlehem.  Joseph rushed around carrying Mary in a frantic state trying to find a room for her as she groaned and breathed heavily as if she had taken Lamaze lessons.  The worst of the worst occurs once they arrive at the stable with Joseph kneeling ready to deliver the baby.  He partially lifts Mary’s dress putting his hands between her legs ready to receive the child.   Mary is laboring, her face sweating and in extreme pain with all of the normal actions of a woman in a delivery room and then she gives birth.  Joseph raises Jesus in the air showing the baby covered with blood and Joseph laughs for joy totally discrediting belief in the Virgin Birth. There is no sign of worship or adoration by either Mary or Joseph. 

Therefore this was not only a Protestant view of the Nativity but also indirectly an act of disbelief in the Divinity of Jesus. There was no indication that Mary and Joseph believed Jesus to be God. 

Meanwhile, the Archangel Gabriel (yes, that same “angel”) appears to one shepherd to inform him of the birth.  There are no other angels that appear as stated in St. Luke’s Gospel “And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying glory to god and the highest on earth peace among men of good will.”


One by one, the shepherds seem to be leaving their sheep in a “zombie-like trance” and seen walking NOT RUNNING toward the star as it would seem natural to do considering they received this great news from a heavenly vision of great beauty!  There was no joy exhibited in this scene by these shepherds.  It only looked as if these guys were told to walk to this cave and stare at something…  When the shepherds arrive at the stable Mary is seen reclining and holding the child; he is not lying in the manger.  None of the shepherds worship or adore the child and they arrived simultaneously with the three Kings. Who neither appear to be worshipping him.  Then there is this GREAT pause in the movie as we look on at this living Nativity Scene. Some kind of cold, blue lighting is glaring on Baby Jesus that causes him to keep his eyes closed.  Surely they could have done better than this!

This was to be the culmination of the greatest act of love – God becoming Man to die for us!  And yet this movie could not convey even a hint of this profound act of God. 

 And so it is, with all of these facts exposed for your examination, we refute and condemn this movie, “The Nativity.”

Since these cinematographers (who incidentally were the same ones that produced “The Lord of the Rings Trilogy” and had well within their grasp the ability and capability to make a work that would honor Our Lady and Our Lord instead of dishonor them) offended and blasphemed in a seemingly intentional way the Immaculate Heart of Mary in not just one way but ALL FIVE ways that Our Lady had mentioned in her apparitions to Sr Lucia of Fatima, we sincerely hope and pray that our small effort to undo this travesty will help those of you who read this to know the truth and join us in making reparation for this movie by  following the directives of the Queen of Heaven:

Look, my daughter, at my Heart, surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You at least try to console me and say that I promise to assist, at the hour of death, with the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, shall confess, receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary, and keep me company for fifteen minutes nwhile meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary, with the intention of making reparation to me.’”]`

It is easy for blasphemers to scoff at and/or to endorse blasphemy and, as horrible as a blasphemer as Joseph Alois Ratzinger has been throughout his seventy-one years of priestly apostasy of warring about the nature of dogmatic truth, which has been a warfare on the nature of God Himself and blasphemy against the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, Jorge Mario Bergoglio puts Ratzinger to shame for the many ways he has blasphemed Our Lady in the past nine years, nine months, sixteen days.

Here are a few reminders of Bergoglio’s wanton blasphemies against Our Lady. [My own contemporaneous commentaries are singly indented. Bergoglio’s words and the refutation of them by Pope Pius IX and Saint Alphonsus de Ligouri are doubly indented.]:

In the Gospel, we have just heard the greeting of the angel to Mary: Rejoice, full of grace. The Lord is with you. Rejoice, Mary, rejoice. Upon hearing this greeting, Mary was confused and asked herself what it could mean. She did not fully understand what was happening. But she knew that the angel came from God and so she said yes. Mary is the Mother of Yes. Yes to God’s dream, yes to God’s care, yes to God’s will.

It was a yes that, as we know, was not easy to live. A yes that bestowed no privileges or distinctions. Simeon told her in his prophecy: “a sword will pierce your heart” (Lk 2:35), and indeed it did. That is why we love her so much. We find in her a true Mother, one who helps us to keep faith and hope alive in the midst of complicated situations. Pondering Simeon’s prophecy, we would do well to reflect briefly on three difficult moments in Mary’s life.

1. The first moment: the birth of Jesus. There was no room for them. They had no house, no dwelling to receive her Son. There was no place where she could give birth. They had no family close by; they were alone. The only place available was a stall of animals. Surely she remembered the words of the angel: “Rejoice, Mary, the Lord is with you”. She might well have asked herself: “Where is he now?”.

2. The second moment: the flight to Egypt. They had to leave, to go into exile. Not only was there no room for them, no family nearby, but their lives were also in danger. They had to depart to a foreign land. They were persecuted migrants, on account of the envy and greed of the King. There too she might well have asked: “What happened to all those things promised by the angel?”

3. The third moment: Jesus’ death on the cross. There can be no more difficult experience for a mother than to witness the death of her child. It is heartrending. We see Mary there, at the foot of the cross, like every mother, strong, faithful, staying with her child even to his death, death on the cross. There too she might well have asked: “What happened to all those things promised to me by the angel? Then we see her encouraging and supporting the disciples. (Jorge Blasphemes Our Lady once again.)

The English translation of Bergoglio’s “homily” rendered Saint Gabriel’s words to Our Lady at the Annunciation as “Rejoice, full of grace. The Lord is with you” not “Hail, full of grace,” which he used in the Spanish text that he used in Caacupe, Paraguay, nine days ago (“Alégrate, llena de gracia. El Señor está contigo”). Omitted in both versions, however, are the words that follow Saint Gabriel’s angelic salutation to Our Lady, “blessed are thou amongst women. Here is the text as found in the Latin Vulgate that was translated by Saint Jerome himself: “et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit have gratia plena Dominus tecum benedicta tu in mulieribus.” (Luke 2: 26.)

I do not believe that this omission was accidental as Bergoglio heretically blasphemed Our Lady when he said that the Fiat to the holy will of God (not the “dream” of God as He is omniscient, knowing all things to the end of time) “bestowed no privileges or distinctions” upon her.

Well, let us start with one privilege and distinction given to no other woman: Our Lady became the Mother of God at the moment of the Annunciation. No special privilege or distinction, Jorge? (See Appendix D below for Father Adolf Tanqueray's defense of the Divine Materinity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and its privileges, which Father Tanqueray summarized as follows: "From the dignity of the Divine Maternity proceed all the privileges granted to the Blessed Virgin, her most perfect sanctity, and her supernatural relations with creatures.")



Blaspheming heretic.

Obviously, Our Lady had been prepared for the moment of the Annunciation upon which our very salvation rested by her having been preserved from all stain of Original and Actual Sin from the first moment of her Immaculate Conception in the womb of our Good Saint Anne.

Pope Pius IX explained the doctrinal effects of her Immaculate Conception that had clothed her with Perfect Integrity of body and soul when he solemnly defined the doctrine of her Immaculate Conception in Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854:

Mary Compared with Eve

Hence, it is the clear and unanimous opinion of the Fathers that the most glorious Virgin, for whom "he who is mighty has done great things," was resplendent with such an abundance of heavenly gifts, with such a fullness of grace and with such innocence, that she is an unspeakable miracle of God -- indeed, the crown of all miracles and truly the Mother of God; that she approaches as near to God himself as is possible for a created being; and that she is above all men and angels in glory. Hence, to demonstrate the original innocence and sanctity of the Mother of God, not only did they frequently compare her to Eve while yet a virgin, while yet innocence, while yet incorrupt, while not yet deceived by the deadly snares of the most treacherous serpent; but they have also exalted her above Eve with a wonderful variety of expressions. Eve listened to the serpent with lamentable consequences; she fell from original innocence and became his slave. The most Blessed Virgin, on the contrary, ever increased her original gift, and not only never lent an ear to the serpent, but by divinely given power she utterly destroyed the force and dominion of the evil one.

Biblical Figures

Accordingly, the Fathers have never ceased to call the Mother of God the lily among thorns, the land entirely intact, the Virgin undefiled, immaculate, ever blessed, and free from all contagion of sin, she from whom was formed the new Adam, the flawless, brightest, and most beautiful paradise of innocence, immortality and delights planted by God himself and protected against all the snares of the poisonous serpent, the incorruptible wood that the worm of sin had never corrupted, the fountain ever clear and sealed with the power of the Holy Spirit, the most holy temple, the treasure of immortality, the one and only daughter of life -- not of death -- the plant not of anger but of grace, through the singular providence of God growing ever green contrary to the common law, coming as it does from a corrupted and tainted root.

Explicit Affirmation . . .

As if these splendid eulogies and tributes were not sufficient, the Fathers proclaimed with particular and definite statements that when one treats of sin, the holy Virgin Mary is not even to be mentioned; for to her more grace was given than was necessary to conquer sin completely. They also declared that the most glorious Virgin was Reparatrix of the first parents, the giver of life to posterity; that she was chosen before the ages, prepared for himself by the Most High, foretold by God when he said to the serpent, "I will put enmities between you and the woman."-unmistakable evidence that she was crushed the poisonous head of the serpent. And hence they affirmed that the Blessed Virgin was, through grace, entirely free from every stain of sin, and from all corruption of body, soul and mind; that she was always united with God and joined to him by an eternal covenant; that she was never in darkness but always in light; and that, therefore, she was entirely a fit habitation for Christ, not because of the state of her body, but because of her original grace.

. . . Of a Super Eminent Sanctity

To these praises they have added very noble words. Speaking of the conception of the Virgin, they testified that nature yielded to grace and, unable to go on, stood trembling. The Virgin Mother of God would not be conceived by Anna before grace would bear its fruits; it was proper that she be conceived as the first-born, by whom "the first-born of every creature" would be conceived. They testified, too, that the flesh of the Virgin, although derived from Adam, did not contract the stains of Adam, and that on this account the most Blessed Virgin was the tabernacle created by God himself and formed by the Holy Spirit, truly a work in royal purple, adorned and woven with gold, which that new Beseleel made. They affirmed that the same Virgin is, and is deservedly, the first and especial work of God, escaping the fiery arrows the the evil one; that she is beautiful by nature and entirely free from all stain; that at her Immaculate Conception she came into the world all radiant like the dawn. For it was certainly not fitting that this vessel of election should be wounded by the common injuries, since she, differing so much from the others, had only nature in common with them, not sin. In fact, it was quite fitting that, as the Only-Begotten has a Father in heaven, whom the Seraphim extol as thrice holy, so he should have a Mother on earth who would never be without the splendor of holiness.

This doctrine so filled the minds and souls of our ancestors in the faith that a singular and truly marvelous style of speech came into vogue among them. They have frequently addressed the Mother of God as immaculate, as immaculate in every respect; innocent, and verily most innocent; spotless, and entirely spotless; holy and removed from every stain of sin; all pure, all stainless, the very model of purity and innocence; more beautiful than beauty, more lovely than loveliness; more holy than holiness, singularly holy and most pure in soul and body; the one who surpassed all integrity and virginity; the only one who has become the dwelling place of all the graces of the most Holy Spirit. God alone excepted, Mary is more excellent than all, and by nature fair and beautiful, and more holy than the Cherubim and Seraphim. To praise her all the tongues of heaven and earth do not suffice.

Everyone is cognizant that this style of speech has passed almost spontaneously into the books of the most holy liturgy and the Offices of the Church, in which they occur so often and abundantly. In them, the Mother of God is invoked and praised as the one spotless and most beautiful dove, as a rose ever blooming, as perfectly pure, ever immaculate, and ever blessed. She is celebrated as innocence never sullied and as the second Eve who brought forth the Emmanuel.  (Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854.)

What style of speech did Jorge Mario Bergoglio choose to use nine days ago?

Indeed, did Bergoglio's style of speech make it appear as though Our Lady "never lent an ear to the serpent" when he spoke as follows on December 20, 2013?

“The Gospel does not tell us anything: if she spoke a word or not… She was silent, but in her heart, how many things told the Lord! ‘You, that day, this and the other that we read, you had told me that he would be great, you had told me that you would have given him the throne of David, his forefather, that he would have reigned forever and now I see him there!’ Our Lady was human! And perhaps she even had the desire to say: ‘Lies! I was deceived!’ John Paul II would say this, speaking about Our Lady in that moment. But she, with her silence, hid the mystery that she did not understand and with this silence allowed for this mystery to grow and blossom in hope.” (Ever Talkative Apostate: Silence guards one's relationship with God.)

Our Lady did not understand, Jorge?



Does Bergoglio's style of speech make it appear that the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, the fairest flower of our race, was "never in darkness but always in light"?

Here is a brief list of three of other privileges granted to the august Mother of God, the very fairest flower of the human race who had been chosen by God to be the New Eve and the Ark of the New Covenant, the very Singular Vessel of Honor in whose Virginal and Immaculate Womb His Co-Eternal and Co-Equal Divine Son, the Eternal Word Himself through Whom all things were made, was made Incarnate by the working of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost:

  1. Our Lady’s Perpetual Virginity, a doctrine denied both by Gerhard Ludwig Muller, the prefect of the misnamed conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and by the man whose works he has been assigned the task of collecting for publication, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.
  2. Our Lady is the Queen of Heaven and of Earth. Not a "special privilege or distinction, Jorge?
  3. Our Lady is the Mediatrix of All Graces, something signified by the Miraculous Medal that she herself told Saint Catherine Laboure, a spiritual daughter of Saint Vincent de Paul, the founder of the Congregation of the Mission whose feast was commemorated yesterday, Sunday, June 19, 2015, the Eighth Sunday after Pentecost, and by the fact that the unreformed Roman Missal permits a commemoration of Our Lady under this title on May 31, which is the Feast of the Queenship of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
  4. Our Lady is the Co-Redemptrix, something that Pope Leo XIII taught in Iucunda Semper Expectatione, September 8,1894:

The recourse we have to Mary in prayer follows upon the office she continuously fills by the side of the throne of God as Mediatrix of Divine grace; being by worthiness and by merit most acceptable to Him, and, therefore, surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven. Now, this merciful office of hers, perhaps, appears in no other form of prayer so manifestly as it does in the Rosary. For in the Rosary all the part that Mary took as our co-Redemptress comes to us, as it were, set forth, and in such wise as though the facts were even then taking place; and this with much profit to our piety, whether in the contemplation of the succeeding sacred mysteries, or in the prayers which we speak and repeat with the lips. First come the Joyful Mysteries. The Eternal Son of God stoops to mankind, putting on its nature; but with the assent of Mary, who conceives Him by the Holy Ghost. Then St. John the Baptist, by a singular privilege, is sanctified in his mother's womb and favored with special graces that he might prepare the way of the Lord; and this comes to pass by the greeting of Mary who had been inspired to visit her cousin. At last the expected of nations comes to light, Christ the Savior. The Virgin bears Him. And when the Shepherds and the wise men, first-fruits of the Christian faith, come with longing to His cradle, they find there the young Child, with Mary, His Mother. Then, that He might before men offer Himself as a victim to His Heavenly Father, He desires to be taken to the Temple; and by the hands of Mary He is there presented to the Lord. It is Mary who, in the mysterious losing of her Son, seeks Him sorrowing, and finds Him again with joy. And the same truth is told again in the sorrowful mysteries.

In the Garden of Gethsemane, where Jesus is in an agony; in the judgment-hall, where He is scourged, crowned with thorns, condemned to death, not there do we find Mary. But she knew beforehand all these agonies; she knew and saw them. When she professed herself the handmaid of the Lord for the mother's office, and when, at the foot of the altar, she offered up her whole self with her Child Jesus -- then and thereafter she took her part in the laborious expiation made by her Son for the sins of the world. It is certain, therefore, that she suffered in the very depths of her soul with His most bitter sufferings and with His torments. Moreover, it was before the eyes of Mary that was to be finished the Divine Sacrifice for which she had borne and brought up the Victim. As we contemplate Him in the last and most piteous of those Mysteries, there stood by the Cross of Jesus His Mother, who, in a miracle of charity, so that she might receive us as her sons, offered generously to Divine Justice her own Son, and died in her heart with Him, stabbed with the sword of sorrow. (Pope Leo XII, Iucnda Semper Expectatione, September 8, 1894.)

This is, of course, all quite foreign to the naturalistic and Modernist mind of the blaspheming heretic named Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

No special privileges?

Well, anyone who wants to have the heavenly assistance of the Mother God nunc, et in hora mortis ought to rise immediately to defend her honor, not to exculpate the hideous blaspheming heretic from Argentina.

With respect to Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s most recent blasphemy against Our Lady, suffice it to say that she was preserved from a painful childbirth because she had not contracted the debt of Original Sin. Painful childbirth is one of the punishments for Original Sin. Thus, her preservation from a painful childbirth is a doctrinal effect of her Immaculate Conception.

Father Adolph Tanquery’s A Manual of Dogmatic Theology described the other doctrinal effects of Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception that both Ratzinger/Benedict and Bergoglio have either dismissed or denied altogether:

829. State of the Question.

a. The idea is explained in the Bull Ineffabilis in which Pius IX defined that "the doctrine which maintains that the Most Blessed Virgin, at the first instant of her conception was preserved immune from all stain of original sin by a singular grace and privilege of the Almighty God in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, has been revealed by God, and therefore must be certainly and unalterably believed by all the faithful". In this definition there are three points to be considered in some detail:

1) The blessed Virgin was preserved from the blemish of original sin, but not from the debt, remote at least, because as a natural descendant from Adam she would have to contract that debt; and thus she differs from Christ Who was entirely immune from debt. But she was free from the actual infection of original sin and hence was adorned with sanctifying grace from the first moment since there is no medium between the state of sin and the state of grace..

2) This privilege was granted to the Blessed Virgin at the first moment of her conception, that is, at the instant in which her rational soul was infused into her body.

3) This privilege was conferred on the Blessed Virgin not by her own right as it was conferred on Christ, but from the gratuitous concession of God and, indeed, because of the foreseen merits of Christ.

b. Errors. The Protestants, the Jansenists in Holland, the Old Catholics and the Modernists attack this truth.

830. Thesis: In the first instant of her conception, in view of the merits of Christ, the Blessed Virgin was preserved from all stain of original sin. This thesis is de fide from the Bull Ineffabilis already quoted.

A. This thesis is not proved by Scripture alone, but with the help of Tradition.

1. In the Protoevangelium it is foretold that: "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she (in Hebrew it) shall crush thy head".

In this text it is stated that there will be a particular future hatred between the devil or sin, and the woman or the Blessed Virgin; and that she, together with her Son, will gain a complete victory over the devil and over sin. For although the pronoun "it," in the Hebrew text, refers directly to the seed of the woman, namely Christ, it must also be referred indirectly to His mother, in order that the antithesis, enuntiated in the first part, may be complete. But such a complete victory there would not be if the Blessed Virgin, at the first moment of her conception, had been stained with sin

2. In the angelic salutation this proof is implicitly contained: "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee". Herein fullness of grace is attributed to Mary, which, in order that it be perfect, must reach to the first instant of conception.

831 B. Proof from Tradition.

From the history of dogma. In this history we find three periods.

1. In the first the Immaculate Conception has been implicitly set forth in the dogma of her divine Maternity and of her most perfect Purity.

2. In the second period controversy has arisen in the Latin Church..

3. In the third period the dogma appears more clearly revealed and his solemnly defined.

The first period: the period of implicit faith. In the patristic age the dogma was implicitly declared. This is evident from the places in which Mary is compared to Eve by Sts. Justin, Irenaeus, Ephrem, etc.; in fact mary is called more perfect than Eve; she is said to be endowed with greater grace. But all of these statements would not be true if Mary had been marked with original sin. Furthermore, many of the Fathers assert with certainty that the Blessed Virgin is the purest, is completely immaculate at all times, is unimpaired, that she was pure at ever moment, that sin never had dominion over her; even more, she is called super-holy, super-innocent, in all ways at all times pure from all stain; holier than the saints, more elegant and spotless than celestial minds, alone holy, alone innocent, alone immaculate, alone, always untouched, alone always blessed. But these terms implicitly embrace the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin.

The second period, the period of controversy--From the twelfth to the sixteenth century this truth was at times beclouded in the Latin Church chief because of the difficulty of examining all the documents of Tradition. None the less:.

a. Belief in the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin grew with the years among the Pastors, among the faithful, and among the theologians..

b. The Feast of the Conception, already celebrated during the seventh century in the Greek Church and in the Western Church first in Sicily and at Naples, was accepted by the Greeks; in the ninth century it was celebrated in Ireland; from here it spread into England, into Normandy, through almost all of France, thence into Germany, and in a short time throughout the universal Church. The object of this feast was the sanctification of Mary in the womb, not at any moment whatsoever, but at the very infusion of the soul--this fact is apparent from the different titles of the Feast (the Conception of Blessed Ann, the Prophecy of the God-bearing's Conception, etc.) and from the homilies of the Fathers, from the declaration of Sixtus IV in 1482 and of other Pontiffs..

c. In many constitutions Pontiffs forbade anyone to dare to speak, to preach, to discuss, to dispute in opposition to this pious doctrine: thus, for example, Sixtus IV, Alexander VII. When the Council of Trent issued its decree concerning original sin, it solemnly declared: "It is not its intention to include in this decree, which deals with original sin, the Blessed and Immaculate Virgin Mary, the Mother of God.

The third period, the period of Catholic faith--Finally, after the Bishops, Churchmen, Regular Orders, and Emperors and Kings had over a long time earnestly requested the Holy See to declare the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary a dogma of Catholic faith, Pius IX, having asked the Bishops of the Catholic world for their thoughts and feelings about the definition of this subject,  in accordance with his supreme and infallible authority defined the doctrine solemnly.

832. C. Proof from Reason.

On the part of Christ, it was entirely fitting that His mother be immune from all stain of sin that she might be a worthy mother of His Holiness; it was fitting also that the Savior be triumphant over sin by a preventive Redemption even at the instant of animation, and, especially, at the first moment of His Mother who was His future Co-Redemptrix in the work of Redemption.

On the part of the Holy Trinity, it was proper that a creature so intimately united with the Holy Trinity never be associated with anything displeasing to the Trinity.

833. Corollaries.

1. The Blessed Virgin experienced no stirring of concupiscence since concupiscence is the result of original sin: wherefore the fomes of sin was fettered in the Virgin from the beginning, rather let us say it was entirely extinct.

2. The Blessed Virgin committed no actual sin, mortal or venial, as is plainly evident from the statement of the Council of Trent: "If anyone says that a man once justified can sin no more... or on the contrary that he can during his whole life avoid all sins, even those that are venial, except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard to the Blessed Virgin, let him be anathema." (A. Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Desclee, 1959, pp. 97-102.)

Our Lady had perfect integrity of soul and body. She had no disorderly inclinations or movements within her heart and soul. That both Ratzinger/Benedict and Bergoglio have seen fit to make short work of these truths demonstrates yet again that neither is a member of the Catholic Church as their drops poisons, some small and others very large, they have dropped into their writings and utterances have expelled them from her maternal bosom:

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

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

With reference to its object, faith cannot be greater for some truths than for others. Nor can it be less with regard to the number of truths to be believed. For we must all believe the very same thing, both as to the object of faith as well as to the number of truths. All are equal in this because everyone must believe all the truths of faith--both those which God Himself has directly revealed, as well as those he has revealed through His Church. Thus, I must believe as much as you and you as much as I, and all other Christians similarly. He who does not believe all these mysteries is not Catholic and therefore will never enter Paradise. (Saint Francis de Sales, The Sermons of Saint Francis de Sales for Lent Given in 1622, republished by TAN Books and Publishers for the Visitation Monastery of Frederick, Maryland, in 1987, pp. 34-37.)

Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: ‘This is the Catholic Faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved’ (Athanasian Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim ‘Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,’ only let him endeavor to be in reality what he calls himself.

Besides, the Church demands from those who have devoted themselves to furthering her interests, something very different from the dwelling upon profitless questions; she demands that they should devote the whole of their energy to preserve the faith intact and unsullied by any breath of error, and follow most closely him whom Christ has appointed to be the guardian and interpreter of the truth. There are to be found today, and in no small numbers, men, of whom the Apostle says that: "having itching ears, they will not endure sound doctrine: but according to their own desires they will heap up to themselves teachers, and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables" (II Tim. iv. 34). Infatuated and carried away by a lofty idea of the human intellect, by which God's good gift has certainly made incredible progress in the study of nature, confident in their own judgment, and contemptuous of the authority of the Church, they have reached such a degree of rashness as not to hesitate to measure by the standard of their own mind even the hidden things of God and all that God has revealed to men. Hence arose the monstrous errors of "Modernism," which Our Predecessor rightly declared to be "the synthesis of all heresies," and solemnly condemned. We hereby renew that condemnation in all its fulness, Venerable Brethren, and as the plague is not yet entirely stamped out, but lurks here and there in hidden places, We exhort all to be carefully here and there in hidden places, We exhort all to be carefully on their guard against any contagion of the evil, to which we may apply the words Job used in other circumstances: "It is a fire that devoureth even to destruction, and rooteth up all things that spring" (Job xxxi. 12). Nor do We merely desire that Catholics should shrink from the errors of Modernism, but also from the tendencies or what is called the spirit of Modernism. Those who are infected by that spirit develop a keen dislike for all that savours of antiquity and become eager searchers after novelties in everything: in the way in which they carry out religious functions, in the ruling of Catholic institutions, and even in private exercises of piety. Therefore it is Our will that the law of our forefathers should still be held sacred: "Let there be no innovation; keep to what has been handed down." In matters of faith that must be inviolably adhered to as the law; it may however also serve as a guide even in matters subject to change, but even in such cases the rule would hold: "Old things, but in a new way."  (Pope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, November 1, 1914.)

Works of blasphemy have nothing to do with the Catholic Faith, but they have everything to with the counterfeit church of conciliarism, which is a sect built upon the adversary’s lies and deceptions.

Lucifer has chosen Jorge Mario Bergoglio to be a particularly potent instrument to destroy the truth about Our Lady, and the sad reality for him is that he will have to accept without complaint the adversary's "thankfulness and reward" for his bold efforts of proclaiming blasphemy to be true. Only his conversion back to the true Faith from which he defected in his youth and his public abjuration and desire to do penance for his criminal speech against the Mother God can save him.

Alas, Bergoglio is convinced that he is that latter-day "prophet" who is be persecuted by the "Pharisees." His pride knows no limits. His blasphemy knows no limits. There is only one word to describe "Pope Francis": Blasphemer. His own words display him to be, whether wittingly or unwittingly, a tool of the devil himself.

We are now in the fifth day of Christmas joy!

The triumph of Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart will be made manifest in God's good time, at which point it's curtains for blasphemies such as Jorge Mario Bergoglio, which could be why he is working very furiously to do the bidding of the "spirit" who speaks to and moves him, a spirit who is from Hell, not Heaven.

Viva Cristo ReyVivat Christus Rex!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now? 

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

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.

Saint Thomas a Becket, pray for us.