As has been noted so many times in the past on this site, revolutions always eat their own. Always. Inevitably. Inexorably.
To wit, the most recent Girondist/Menshevik conciliar revolutionaries to have sat in the conciliar presidential seat, Karol Josef Wojtyla/“Saint John Paul II” and Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, have had their support of the dogmatically condemned and philosophically absurd of dogmatic evolutionism (which Wojtyla/John Paul II termed as “living tradition” and Ratzinger/Benedict called “the hermeneutic of continuity”) used against them by “Pope Francis,” who is a Jacobin/Bolshevik revolutionary in the mode of Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paulus Infirmorum Inveniantur, in recent years.
There is a delightful irony in this as both Wojtyla/John Paul II and Ratzinger/Benedict used their own variations of dogmatic evolutionism to dismiss the condemnations of liberal principles by Popes Gregory XVI and Pius IX and the condemnations of Modernist principles, including dogmatic evolutionism by the [First] Vatican Council and Pope Saint Pius X.
Indeed, Ratzinger particularly noted the supposed necessity of examining past dogmatic statements, especially those on Modernism by Pope Saint Pius X and those issued against Modernist Scriptural exegesis by the Pontifical Biblical Commission during the latter’s reign, in light of the historical circumstances which, the now nonagenarian antipope emeritus contended, that produced those statements, which must be subject to further modifications once circumstances change. In other words, dogmatic statements are never the “final word” as it is impossible to express truth adequately in a permanent way given the limitations of human language and the specific circumstances that may have contributed to a specific dogmatic formulation.
Here once again, therefore, one can see how Joseph Alois Ratzinger phrased his support of dogmatic evolutionism as a priest, the prefect of the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and as a supposed Successor of Saint Peter:
1971: "In theses 10-12, the difficult problem of the relationship between language and thought is debated, which in post-conciliar discussions was the immediate departure point of the dispute.
The identity of the Christian substance as such, the Christian 'thing' was not directly ... censured, but it was pointed out that no formula, no matter how valid and indispensable it may have been in its time, can fully express the thought mentioned in it and declare it unequivocally forever, since language is constantly in movement and the content of its meaning changes." (Fr. Ratzinger: Dogmatic formulas must always change.)
1990: "The text [of the document Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation] also presents the various types of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms - perhaps for the first time with this clarity - that there are decisions of the magisterium that cannot be the last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. The nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times influenced, may need further correction.
In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last century [19th century] about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time [on evolutionism]. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from falling into the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they became obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at their proper time."
(Joseph Ratzinger, "Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation," published with the title "Rinnovato dialogo fra Magistero e Teologia," in L'Osservatore Romano, June 27, 1990, p. 6, cited at Card. Ratzinger: The teachings of the Popes against Modernism are obsolete)
Secondly, it was necessary to give a new definition to the relationship between the Church and the modern State that would make room impartially for citizens of various religions and ideologies, merely assuming responsibility for an orderly and tolerant coexistence among them and for the freedom to practise their own religion.
Thirdly, linked more generally to this was the problem of religious tolerance - a question that required a new definition of the relationship between the Christian faith and the world religions. In particular, before the recent crimes of the Nazi regime and, in general, with a retrospective look at a long and difficult history, it was necessary to evaluate and define in a new way the relationship between the Church and the faith of Israel.
These are all subjects of great importance - they were the great themes of the second part of the Council - on which it is impossible to reflect more broadly in this context. It is clear that in all these sectors, which all together form a single problem, some kind of discontinuity might emerge. Indeed, a discontinuity had been revealed but in which, after the various distinctions between concrete historical situations and their requirements had been made, the continuity of principles proved not to have been abandoned. It is easy to miss this fact at a first glance.
It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.
On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change.
Basic decisions, therefore, continue to be well-grounded, whereas the way they are applied to new contexts can change. Thus, for example, if religious freedom were to be considered an expression of the human inability to discover the truth and thus become a canonization of relativism, then this social and historical necessity is raised inappropriately to the metaphysical level and thus stripped of its true meaning. Consequently, it cannot be accepted by those who believe that the human person is capable of knowing the truth about God and, on the basis of the inner dignity of the truth, is bound to this knowledge.
It is quite different, on the other hand, to perceive religious freedom as a need that derives from human coexistence, or indeed, as an intrinsic consequence of the truth that cannot be externally imposed but that the person must adopt only through the process of conviction.
The Second Vatican Council, recognizing and making its own an essential principle of the modern State with the Decree on Religious Freedom,has recovered the deepest patrimony of the Church. By so doing she can be conscious of being in full harmony with the teaching of Jesus himself (cf. Mt 22: 21), as well as with the Church of the martyrs of all time. The ancient Church naturally prayed for the emperors and political leaders out of duty (cf. I Tm 2: 2); but while she prayed for the emperors, she refused to worship them and thereby clearly rejected the religion of the State.
The martyrs of the early Church died for their faith in that God who was revealed in Jesus Christ, and for this very reason they also died for freedom of conscience and the freedom to profess one's own faith - a profession that no State can impose but which, instead, can only be claimed with God's grace in freedom of conscience. A missionary Church known for proclaiming her message to all peoples must necessarily work for the freedom of the faith. She desires to transmit the gift of the truth that exists for one and all. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005.)
What was that Pope Pius XII wrote in Humani Generis about how the "new theologians" deny that the true meaning of doctrines may be known and understood with metaphysical certitude?
Let me remind you:
34. It is not surprising that these new opinions endanger the two philosophical sciences which by their very nature are closely connected with the doctrine of faith, that is, theodicy and ethics; they hold that the function of these two sciences is not to prove with certitude anything about God or any other transcendental being, but rather to show that the truths which faith teaches about a personal God and about His precepts, are perfectly consistent with the necessities of life and are therefore to be accepted by all, in order to avoid despair and to attain eternal salvation. All these opinions and affirmations are openly contrary to the documents of Our Predecessors Leo XIII and Pius X, and cannot be reconciled with the decrees of the Vatican Council. It would indeed be unnecessary to deplore these aberrations from the truth, if all, even in the field of philosophy, directed their attention with the proper reverence to the Teaching Authority of the Church, which by divine institution has the mission not only to guard and interpret the deposit of divinely revealed truth, but also to keep watch over the philosophical sciences themselves, in order that Catholic dogmas may suffer no harm because of erroneous opinions. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)
For the likes of men such as the conciliar revolutionaries to be correct, the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity not only hid the true meaning of doctrines for over nineteen hundred years, He permitted true popes and the Fathers of Holy Mother Church's twenty true general councils to condemn propositions that have, we are supposed to believe, only recently been "discovered" as having been true. Blasphemous and heretical.
Like Martin Luther before them, neither Wojtyla/John Paul II nor Ratzinger/Benedict XVI could see the teleology of their own false beliefs, namely, that it would be just as easy for one of their antipapal successors to make short work of their own pronouncements as they, Wojtyla/John Paul II and Ratzinger/Benedict, did of much of Holy Mother Church’s condemnations of their own false, Modernist presuppositions.
Thus it is that Ratzinger/Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, while still on the books, is being taken apart brick by brick, shall we say, as “Pope Francis” has waged unremitting warfare against the Franciscan Friars and Sisters of the Immaculate while appointing many “bishops” who are decidedly unfriendly to the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition.
Moreover, the illusion of the “reform of the reform” that so many in the fantasy world of semi-traditionalism within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism believed was going to be made possible by their great “restorer of tradition,” Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who had no intention of such a thing, mind you, has been exploded once and for all by the Argentine Apostate:
The direction traced by the Council was in line with the principle of respect for healthy tradition and legitimate progress (cf. sc, 23), in the liturgical books promulgated by Blessed Paul vi, well received by the very Bishops who were present at the Council, and now in universal use for almost 50 years in the Roman Rite. The practical application, supervised by the Episcopal Conferences of the respective Countries, is still ongoing, because reforming the liturgical books does not suffice to renew mentality. The books reformed in accordance with the decrees of Vatican ii introduced a process that demands time, faithful reception, practical obedience, wise implementation in celebrations, firstly, on the part of the ordained ministers, but also of other ministers, of cantors and all those who take part in the liturgy. In truth, we know, that the liturgical education of Pastors and faithful is a challenge to be faced ever anew. Paul vi himself, a year before his death, said to the Cardinals gathered in the Consistory: “The time has now come to definitively leave aside divisive elements, which are equally pernicious in both senses, and to apply fully, in accordance with the correct criteria that inspired it, the reform approved by Us in the application of the wishes of the Council”.
And today, there is still work to be done in this direction, in particular by rediscovering the reasons for the decisions taken with regard to the liturgical reform, by overcoming unfounded and superficial readings, a partial reception, and practices that disfigure it. It is not a matter of rethinking the reform by reviewing the choices in its regard, but of knowing better the underlying reasons, through historical documentation, as well as of internalizing its inspirational principles and of observing the discipline that governs it. After this magisterium, after this long journey, We can affirm with certainty and with magisterial authority that the liturgical reform is irreversible. (Jorge's Intellectually Dishonest Defense of the Indefensible.)
Although several articles have been written on this subject—and a book to be published later in the year will review the entire matter of the hijacked Liturgical Movement, suffice it to say for now that everything about the conciliar liturgical “renewal” is a “process” wrought by the principles of dogmatic evolutionism as applied to the Sacred Liturgy. The ultimate result is pantheistic self-worship, and that is just what Bergoglio has done by making a mockery of what passes for the Catholic liturgy, whether in Argentina or as “Pope Francis.”
More to the point of this particular commentary, however, however Jorge Mario Bergoglio has torn up Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio, November 24, 1981, which, although couched in terms of personalism, itself condemned by Pope Pius XII in 1944, reiterated the inadmissibility of divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to the reception of what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service, in one of his “paradigm shifts” that have been possible by Amoris Laetitia, March 19, 2016.
Yes, even “Saint John Paul II’s” “teachings” have a shelf-life in the Modernist world of theological relativism that is the counterfeit church of conciliarism whem “circumstances” dictate an “adjustment” based on how people live rather than how they ought to live in accord with the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio, though, has not confined his own application of dogmatic evolutionism to Girondist/Menshevik revolutionaries such as Wojtyla/John Paul II and Ratzinger/Benedict. No, even a pure Jacobin/Bolshevik conciliar revolutionary named Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI’s own “teaching” on artificial contraception is being steamrollered by Bergoglio and his anointed “theologians.”
There is yet more delightful irony in this, obviously, as Montini endorsed the very false concept of Personalism that had been condemned by our last true pope thus far, Pope Pius XII, in 1944, as he put his own “papal” imprimatur on the inversion of the ends proper to Holy Matrimony, thus opening the way for a wide range of considerations, including those of a “psychological” nature, to justify periodic abstinence by married couples to avoid the conception of children “naturally.”
Montini/Paul the Sick’s Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968, which was a revolutionary document (see today’s companion study, which was published on this site on July 25, 2011, for a detailed explanation) introduced a subjectivist element into the marital bond that has wound up providing Jorge Mario Bergoglio with the very weapon that he needed to give conciliar “clergymen” the green light to let Catholics use artificial contraception without any qualm of conscience whatsoever.
This is what I wrote in part four of my series on Amoris Laetitia in 2016:
Amoris Laetitia is merely making explicit what was implicit in Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI’s revolutionary Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968, that gave formal sanction to the inversion of the ends proper to marriage while at the same time calling for what the population controllers themselves had long advocated: “responsible parenthood,” a phrase that would be used also by Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II as a means to endorse “natural family planning,” a subject that was addressed at length on this site nearly five years ago and about which not word needs to be taken away or added.
Well, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is using his theological surrogates to make it clear that the “historical circumstances” justifying his beloved Montini’s reiteration of the Catholic Church’s prohibition of artificial contraception have changed, thus making its use morally licit, if not mandatory in some situations, by married couples.
Vaticanologist Sandro Magister wrote the following report on how this is being done:
Goodbye, “Humanae Vitae.” Half a century later, the encyclical against artificial methods of birth control that marked the most dramatic moment of the pontificate of Paul VI, rejected by entire episcopates, contested by countless theologians, disobeyed by myriads of faithful, is now giving way to a radical reinterpretation, to a “paradigm shift” undoubtedly desired and encouraged by Pope Francis himself.
Paradox would have it that Paul VI should be the pope whom Jorge Mario Bergoglio admires and praises the most. And precisely - his own words - for the “prophetic brilliance” with which he wrote that encyclical and for his “courage in standing up against the majority, in defending moral discipline, in applying a cultural brake, in opposing neo-Malthusianism present and future.”
But the reality is that “everything depends on how ‘Humanae Vitae’ is interpreted,” as Pope Francis never fails to comment. Because “the question is not that of changing doctrine, but of digging deep and making sure that pastoral practice takes into account the situations and what persons are able to do.”
His wish becomes command. An authoritative guise has now been given to the new interpretive paradigm of “Humanae Vitae,” with an explicit go-ahead for artificial contraception, by one of the pope’s most respected theologians, Maurizio Chiodi, professor of moral theology at the Theological Faculty of Northern Italy and a newly appointed member of the Pontifical Academy for Life, already the author of a book published in 2006, “Etica della vita,” that upheld the legitimacy of artificial procreation.
The authoritativeness of his position is confirmed by two connected facts.
The first is the context in which Chiodi laid down the new interpretation of “Humanae Vitae”: a conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University on December 14, in the course of a round of meetings dedicated to that encyclical at the fiftieth anniversary of its publication, organized by the university’s faculty of moral theology, directed by the Argentine Jesuit Humberto Miguel Yáñez, a protege of Bergoglio’s.
A detailed account of this conference was provided by the American journalist Diane Montagna on LifeSite News on January 8, followed by lively reactionsfrom defenders of the contested encyclical:
But now there’s more. On Sunday, January 28 Chiodi’s conference was prominently featured by the newspaper of the Italian episcopal conference, “Avvenire,” in the monthly supplement “Noi, Famiglia & Vita,” introduced with a commentary entitled “From pope Montini to Francis, development in fidelity,” which states:
“It is a position [that of Chiodi] that authoritatively takes its place in the debate underway, and that must not be understood as an overrun or critique of ‘Humanae Vitae,’ a text that is and remains the fruit of a prophetic and courageous decision for the time and historical situation in which pope Montini conceived of it, not without torment and not without having clarified that this was a matter of a magisterium that was neither infallible nor irreformable. In this perspective, the theologian’s reflection is to be understood as a proposal that is intended to represent the development of a tradition. And a tradition, in order to be alive and to continue to speak to the women and men of our time, must not be fossilized but rendered dynamic, which means to be in keeping with a society that is changing. Fr. Chiodi has the courage to define the problem that is raised by some theologians and experts on pastoral practice. Are natural methods really to be understood as the only means possible for family planning?”
The commentary, as can be seen, ends with a question mark. Which is, however, entirely rhetorical. The ideas Chiodi presents in his conference, in fact, are not hypothetical, but affirmative. There are circumstances - he maintains - that not only allow but “require” other methods, not natural, for birth control.
The complete text of Chiodi’s conference republished in “Avvenire” - with a few edits that do not substantially alter it with respect to the one delivered at the Gregorian - is on this other page of Settimo Cielo:
After discussing again “the subjective responsibility of conscience and the essential relationship between norm and discernment” in the vein of the postsynodal exhortation from Pope Francis, Chiodi poses “the question of whether natural methods can / should be the only form of responsible procreation.”
And these are the conclusions at which he arrives:
“That to which the practice of ‘natural methods of fertility’ attests is the responsorial character of procreation: these too say that to procreate is not to create. The method, however, attests to more than it can guarantee on its own. It reveals a sense that transcends it. If the responsibility of procreating is that to which these ‘methods’ refer, then one can understand how in situations in which these are impossible or impracticable other forms of responsibility must be found: these ‘circumstances,’ for responsibility, require other methods of birth control. In these cases, ‘technological’ intervention does not deny the responsibility of the procreating relationship, just as moreover a conjugal relationship that observes natural methods is not automatically responsible.
“The insistence of the magisterium on natural methods therefore cannot be interpreted as a norm that is an end in itself, nor as mere conformity with the laws of biology, because the norm refers to the good of conjugal responsibility and the physical laws (physis) of infertility are inscribed upon a body of flesh and in human relations that cannot be reduced to biological laws.
“Technology, in certain circumstances, can allow the preservation of the responsible quality of the sexual act. So this cannot be rejected a priori, when the birth of a child is at stake, because this too is a form of acting and as such requires discernment on the basis of moral criteria that cannot be reduced to a syllogistic-deductive application of the norm.”
For the benefit of the reader, this is how “Avvenire” summarizes, in the center of the page, Chiodi’s reinterpretation of “Humanae Vitae”:
“If there are situations in which natural methods are impossible or impracticable, other ways must be found, because responsible procreation cannot ignore what technology has to offer.”
It is helpful to add that on January 27, the day before the republication of this conference by Chiodi, Monsignor Vincenzo Paglia, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life and grand chancellor of the John Paul II Institute, also said in an interview with the newspaper of the Italian episcopal conference, alluding to “Humanae Vitae,” that “further exploration on the front of responsibility in procreation” must be made, because “the norms are there to enliven human beings, not to operate robots,” and therefore “they require a process of evaluation that must take into account the whole of the concrete circumstances and of the relations in which the person finds himself.”
And even before Chiodi gave his conference at the Gregorian, Bishop Luigi Bettazzi, 94, one of the very few bishops still living who took part in Vatican Council II, had said to “Avvenire” on October 29, 2017 that fifty years after “Humanae Vitae” “the time has come to rethink the question,” because “it is not the doctrines that change, but it is we ourselves, with the passing of the years, who are able to understand their meaning better and better, interpreting them in the light of the signs of the times.”
Moreover, since last spring a study commission set up at the Vatican has already been working to reconstruct the genesis of “Humanae Vitae” from the historical and documentary point of view.
Its members are the Monsignors Gilfredo Marengo and Pierangelo Sequeri of the John Paul II Institute, Angelo Maffeis of the Paul VI Institute in Brescia, and the historian Philippe Chenaux of the Pontifical Lateran University.
Marengo and Paglia have denied that the work of the commission has to do with the contents of “Humanae Vitae,” much less with a reinterpretation of them.
But it is all too clear that the revisitation of the tumultuous path of the that encyclical’s preparation - in which already back then the circles in favor of artificial contraception were stronger and more pressing than those against, espoused by Paul VI - can only benefit the paradigm shift that is underway. (Francis Libealizes The Pill.)
Father Charles Curran, who is still alive at the age of eighty-three and teaches at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas, was one of the most prominent dissenters from Humanae Vitae, fifty years ago. This moral relativist has lived long enough to find a “pope” who has vindicated his entire career’s work in behalf of situation ethics.
“Pope Francis” is himself a moral relativist despite all of the sophistry he employs to deny that this is the case, and he does not care one little bit that “the pill” is an abortifacient as the time will come before too long, perhaps with a Bergoglio clone in the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s presidential aluminum folding chair, that surgical baby-killing itself will be justified in light of the “concrete circumstances” in which women find themselves. It is only a matter of time that the late Father Richard McCormick’s moral theory of proportionalism, which contends that a variety of extenuating circumstances can make an objectively evil act licit, if not necessary, to be pursue, will be endorsed at a conference held at the Jesuit-run Pontifical University of Saint Gregory, the Gregorianum.
Revolutions always eat their own. Always.
Truly Responsible Parenthood
Once again, you see, the blame for this “paradigm shift” rests entirely on the shoulders of Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul VI as he endorsed the concept of “responsible parenthood” that had been promoted by the likes of Margaret Sanger (who died on September 3, 1966) for fifty years prior to the “Second” Vatican Council.
Truly responsible Catholic parenthood is founded in a love for God's Holy Will and by training however many or few children in the truths of the Catholic Faith, which require parents to eschew worldliness and to arm them with the supernatural and natural means to live in a "popular culture" devoted to the glorification of the very thing that caused Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to suffer in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death and that caused those Seven Swords of Sorrow to be pierced through and through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, that is, sin. That's truly responsible Catholic parenthood. Not that which is represented by "Paul the Sick" and Humanae Vitae, and that remains the foundation of the revolution against the family that Jorge Mario Bergoglio and friends have been using to undermine the indissolubility and fecundity of marriage as they "accompany" fornicators and sodomites on their respective paths to eternal perdition.
The Origins of the "Natural Family Planning: Slogan and Mentality
Thus it is that the phrase "natural family planning," which refers to a concept that was foreign to the mind of the Catholic Church at any time in her history, as was noted at length two days ago, has become so commonly accepted as a part of popular discourse as to be used by Catholics all across and up and down the vast expanse of ecclesiastical divide, therefore signifying that "family planning" without use of contraception is part of the patrimony of the Holy Faith, if not part of the Sacred Deposit of Fait Itself.
As Mrs. Randy Engel explained six and one-half years ago now, "In any war, words are weapons." Mrs. Engel, whose study of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI's "birth control commission" has been at least six months in the making and will make a very important contribution when published to dispel once and for all the thought that the phrase has any relationship whatsoever to Catholic teaching, wrote the following about the origin of the phrase "natural family planning" in her great study about the pro-family planning work of a conciliar revolutionary, the late "Bishop" James T. McHugh, The McHugh Chronicles:
From the quotes of Rev. Daly and Rev. Rice cited at the beginning of this chapter, we can obtain a clearer understanding of the anti-child nature of so-called “family planning.” But where did the term “natural family planning” (NFP) originate? And how did it become part of the Catholic lexicon on marriage and family life?
As far as this writer can determine (from an NFP source present at the scene of the crime), credit for the term “natural family planning” or “NFP” goes to a pro-abort bureaucrat by the name of Dr. Philip Corfman, who made the suggestion at one of the grant-seeking expeditions of NFP leaders at the Agency for International Development (USAID) within the State Department in the early 1970s.
By adopting the “language of the enemy,” the NFP Movement also adopted the anti-baby ideology of the enemy. This was its first grave error. The second was to begin to feed from the government’s anti-life Title X trough. And the third and final error was to cooperate with compulsory programs of population control, but this was still some time in the future. (25) (www.newengelpublishing.com; you may order this book, whose chapters were published originally, if I recall correctly, in The Wanderer in the late-1980s, from Mrs. Engel's website.)
The use of the phrase "natural family planning" has thus ceded ground to the "population control" movement to such an extent that the acceptance of "family planning" by "moral" means has become so widespread amongst Catholics today Catholics who reject it and the ideology it represents are considered to be suspect of having defected from the Holy Faith.
It was not only the work of Dietrich von Hildebrand, whose Sign of Contradiction, published in 1969, gave him an opportunity to defend Humanae Vitae as a supporter of the "pope" while putting into wider circulation his condemned teaching that inverted the ends of marriage, that helped to give rise to the "natural family planning" mentality that is so widely accepted in Catholic circles today. Father John C. Ford, S.J., who opposed the von Hildebrand/Doms teaching on marriage and is considered to be largely responsible for convincing Montini/Paul VI to hold the line against contraception despite the majority report of the "Pontifical" Commission of Population Family and Birth Rate, did so in his own way in 1964 in a book he coauthored with Father Gerald Kelly, S.J., Contemporary Moral Theology, Volume 2, believing that God's moral law did not oblige parents to have more children than was necessary to preserve the human race:
There may be difficulty in determining the exact limit for various countries; but certainly today in the United States a family of four children would be sufficient to satisfy the duty. (Fathers John C. Ford, S.J., and Gerald Kelly, S.J., Contemporary Moral Problems, Volume 2, The Newman Press, 1964, p. 423.)
This was not the mind of Pope Pius XII, which is why Fathers Ford and Kelly, who wrote cautiously about the matter while our last true pope was alive, simply waited. And, yes, once again, I am not manufacturing any kind of "straw men." As hard as Father Ford worked against contraception and fought against those who supported it (he is considered to be largely responsible for convincing Montini/Paul VI to hold the line against contraception despite the majority report of the "Pontifical" Commission for Population Family and Birth Rate), he was on the "cutting edge" of theological thought in the 1950s. He just had to wait until the death of Pope Pius XII. Father Ford's own protege, Dr. Germain Grisez, has noted this as so in a glowing tribute to him that is filled with very interesting factual details of the work of the "papal" "birth control" commission:
Though Ford never publicly criticized Pius XII or the Roman Curia, he shared the dissatisfaction then common among theologians with the overly cautious attitude of the Holy See toward innovations of any sort. He also thought Pius XII had attempted to settle some difficult moral questions without adequate study and reflection. Thus, Ford was pleased by the more open approach of the new pontificate and looked forward to the coming Council in the hope that it would pave the way for needed renewal in the Church, not least in moral theology. (John C. Ford, S.J.)
What was that I was saying six and one-half years ago about undercurrents in at least some of those old 1940s and 1950s theology manuals?
The "Second" Vatican Council and the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service did not materialize out of thin air. The groundwork had been prepared, proximately speaking, over the course of many decades, including by means of the liturgical changes of the 1950s that were meant, even though Pope Pius XII did not realize it as he accepted the false representations made to him about those changes by Fathers Annibale Bugnini, C.M., Ferdinando Antonelli, O.F.M., to lead to what Montini/Paul VI himself called the "contemporary mentality" when promulgating the Novus Ordo missal on April 3, 1969 (see Missale Romanum). Theologians bided their time. They got the "opening" that they had been hoping for with the "election" of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII on October 28, 1958.
Father Ford, as bravely as he worked against contraception and abortion, was in the forefront of theological thought that resulted in what is called today "natural family planning," a term that he lived long enough to see used and which he himself endorsed according to the "teaching" of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI. He helped to pave the way for the "contemporary mentality" of family limitation by "natural" means that has hoodwinked Catholics all up and down the vast expanse of the ecclesiological divide as the adversary once again uses those who think they are opposing him to his bidding for him.
Father Ford took a view of marriage and the family, although decidedly different than that of Dietrich von Hildebrand and Father Herbert Doms, that is contrary to Catholic teaching.
The McHugh Chronicles conveys the thoroughly Catholic teaching of Dr. Herbert Ratner, who died in 1997, on marriage on the family:
Man proposes, but God disposes! While this truism applies to all human efforts, it appears to be particularly so in the matter of the procreation of children. God’s Master Plan for marriage and family life is revealed in Nature, in Holy Scripture and in the magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church.
In his literary masterpiece, The Natural Institution of The Family (Marriage: An Office of Nature), Dr. Herbert Ratner (whom this writer never tires of quoting) reminds us that:
There are two revelations: one found in the Book of Scriptures and the other in the Book of Nature; one communicated through the words of the Son (and His Vicar on earth), the other through nature from a lexicon written by the Father.... These teachings, with the help of grace, confirm, fortify, enrich and transform the teachings of Nature to help make good the promise of Nature. (1)
In the matter of reproduction, Ratner notes, each and every living species has a mode of reproduction which is characteristic of that species, and man is no exception. “... the mode of reproduction characteristic of man is a life long monogamy as exemplified by the traditional family,” writes Ratner. (2)
“Man is a relatively sterile animal,” Ratner continues, “therefore children are a gift biologically as well as theologically.”(3) This relative sterility is also why “couples flock to birth control clinics in their twenties and to sterility clinics in their thirties,” he continues. (4)
Noting that “Children mature parents more than parents mature children,” Ratner makes a persuasive case for young couples to have their children early in marriage when the sexual urge is at its peak and when Mother Nature, genetically and physically, favors youthful child-bearing and child-rearing.(5) Breast-feeding provides the nursing mother with a normative spacing of two years before other offspring come along. Such is God’s plan for the human family!
Dr. Ratner raises his voice against the small family system (one or two children at most), where family size is deliberately restricted for the sake of possessions and advantage. He warns that the adoption of such a norm would be a tragedy for society and for the family. From three (Ratner) to five (Sir James Spence, one of the greatest English physicians of this century) children appear to be the minimum family size necessary for the optimum rearing of children.(5)
Ratner is critical of the many so-called Catholic marriage and family life programs which “stand under indictment for neglecting to inculcate in couples the gift, the pleasures and the value of children.” Young couples need to be reminded of Soren Kierkegaard’s admonition: “The trouble with life is that we understand it backwards but have to live it forwards.” There is no worse regret in life, says Ratner, than the married woman who discovers toward the end of life that she should have had a child or more children. (6)
The tendency of “secularized prudence” (enshrined in the “planned-parenthood” philosophy) is to be “overly concerned with the price to be paid not the value received,” Ratner says. “True prudence approaches judgement-making with a trust in the providential order and includes hope in the final decision.” He reminds us that “The choicest gift one can bequeath to a child is not material possessions but another brother and sister,” and “the large family is the best prevention against loneliness which is so all-pervasive in modern society.” (7) (Randy Engel, The McHugh Chronicles.)
It is easy to become captive to the phrases of the day. I did so as a "conservative" Catholic when viewing "natural family planning" favorably, not breaking free from this captivity until around 2000. Bishop Cahal Daly, who was consecrated a bishop in 1967 and became the conciliar "archbishop" of Armagh in 1990 and died in 2009, wrote the following about the whole mentality of "family planning":
In Morals, Law and Life, the Rev. Cahal B. Daly, M.D., D.D., takes a hard look at the “guilt-assuaging and moral-satisfaction-suggesting stimuli” which characterizes such euphemisms as the “planned family” or “wanted babies” or “planned babies.” (14)
It is important to realize just what is being done by the use of these phrases. They are being pervasively redefined, that is to say, the usual meaning of the phrases is being subtly changed so that the moral and emotional approval elicited by the words may be attached to a new form of behavior that it is desired to recommend. (15)
Under these new definitions, Daly explains, only habitual contraceptors or family planners can be called “voluntary” or “responsible” parents, and only babies from families of habitual contraceptors or family planners can be called “wanted” or “planned” babies. “Conversely, babies born to non-contraceptors or non-family planners are “accidental” or “unintended” pregnancies” and children born of such unions must be considered “accidental” or “unintended” babies. Hence, in Alice-in-Wonderland fashion, “wanted babies” are babies of couples who habitually do not want babies and use contraceptives regularly to avoid them and who, on a carefully restricted basis, occasionally suspend their contraception and cease to “unwant” for an occasion or two, a child.(16)
Such terms as “family planning,” says Daly, betrays the child, for a baby is not “a product” to be planned or manufactured or disposed of when found to be “defective,” but “a gift” from God to be loved and welcomed for his own sake all through life. (17) (Randy Engel, The McHugh Chronicles.)
The irony is clear as those Catholic theologians who were pushing for "family planning" in the 1950s were doing so even though Pope Pius XII had condemned the very mentality that is at the root of what it is known and practiced as "natural family planning."
Monsignor George A. Kelly (1916-2004) was a priest of the Archdiocese of New York and a co-founder of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars. I knew very well from personal contacts and professional conferences over the decades. Monsignor Kelly wrote the following in a chapter on "birth control and the rhythm method" in The Catholic Marriage Manual, explaining that the conditions listed by Pope Pius XII for the use of the rhythm method wereexceptions, not the norm, to married life:
Holy Father's statement on rhythm: Who may practice the rhythm method? A clear answer was given by Pope Pius XII in 1951 in an address to the Italian Catholic Union of Midwives. His Holiness pointed out that married couples are obliged to procreate and to help conserve the human race. In the Pontiffs words: "Matrimony obliges to a state of life which, while carrying with it certain rights, also imposes a fulfillment of positive work connected with that state of life." This means that rhythm is not to be used indiscriminately. The small-family or no-family state of mind is not necessarily good simply because contraceptives are not used. (Monsignor George A. Kelly, The Catholic Marriage Manual, published by Random House in 1958, pp. 55-56.)
It is only because most young Catholics today have been exposed to the "birth control mentality" in the world and to the counterfeit church of conciliarism's propagation of the ideology of "natural family planning" in reaction to that contraceptive mentality that the "planning" of families is now considered to be a "norm" that is almost beyond question, which is why even many traditionally minded engaged Catholic couples jump at the opportunity to "learn" about a method to avoid conception that is to be used in truly exceptional circumstances.
The Inversion of the Ends of Marriage Becomes Enshrined in the Conciliar Code of Canon Law
Here is the relevant provision from the counterfeit church of conciliarism's 1983 Code of Canon Law that gave "canonical" sanction to the "teaching" of the "Second" Vatican Council and "Pope Paul VI" inverting the ends proper to Holy Matrimony, thus paving the way to "Catholic contraception":
Can. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized. Canon 1055.1.
As is so frequently the case, the conciliar revolutionaries have to boast of the "novelties" that their beloved revolution against the Catholic Faith have been enshrined into the law, the liturgy and the pastoral life of their false religious sect. This is what Francesco "Cardinal" Coccopalmerio of the "Pontifical" Council on Legislative Texts did on January 22, 2013, as he celebrated the thirtieth anniversary of the revolutionary 1983 Code of Canon Law:
The schedule for a Study Day titled “The Code: A Reform Desired and Requested by the Council” was unveiled Tuesday to journalists in the Vatican Press Office. It will take place on 25 January, in the Pius X Hall, Rome, marking the 30th anniversary of the promulgation of the Code of Canon Law.
The study day has been organized by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts and the International Institute of Canon Law and Comparative Studies of Religion in Lugano, Switzerland and is sponsored by the Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) Vatican Foundation and the John Paul II Foundation. Participating in the conference were Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Bishop Juan Ignacio Arrieta, secretary of that dicastery, and Msgr. Giuseppe Antonio Scotti, president of the Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) Vatican Foundation.
Cardinal Coccopalmerio began his address with the recollection that Blessed John XXIII, in his speech convening Vatican Council II in 1959, explained that the Council’s legal scope was to bring about the awaited revision of the 1917 Code. “In his broad perspective, the Pope saw clearly that the revision of the Code had to be guided by the new ecclesiology that emerged from an ecumenical and a global summit such as the Council.” Blessed John Paul II, under whose pontificate the Code was promulgated, also repeated that “the council’s ecclesiological structure clearly required a renewed formulation of its laws”.
“As John Paul II emphasized at the beginning of the Apostolic Constitution ‘Sacrae disciplinae leges’, the reason for the close relationship between Vatican Council II and the Code of Canon Law was that the 1983 Code was the culmination of Vatican II … in two ways: on the one hand, it embraces the Council, solemnly reproposing fundamental institutions and major innovations and, on the other, establishing positive norms for implementing the Council.”
The president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts then cited various examples of the strong bond between Vatican Council II and the Code of Canon Law.
The first is the “doctrine regarding the episcopate and the relationship between the episcopate and the primate, that is, episcopal collegiality. This is not entirely new doctrine in the deep consciousness of the Church but rather a happy discovery. The Code firstly, in canons 330–341, represents this clearly, and secondly, in canons 342–348, accompanies it with the positive view that constitutes the structure of the Synod of Bishops, allowing effective implementation of the structure of episcopal collegiality.”
A second example is the “Council’s teaching on the laity and therefore on the appropriate and active mission of the lay faithful in the life of the Church. Once again, this is not absolutely new but more a rediscovery … through a series of regulations … regarding the diocesan pastoral council or … the parochial pastoral council. They are structures that allow the faithful laity to effectively participate in the pastoral decisions of the bishop or the pastor. This innovation is also the eloquent voice of the faithful relationship between Council and Code.”
“A third example may come from the conception of the parish as presented by the Council and implemented by the Code. Ultimately, the Council conceives of the parish as a community of believers, not as a structure or a territory. This represents an important innovation with respect to the previous point of view. The Code receives this concept, particularly in canon 515, and sanctions it with the positive regulations of the following canons.”
A final example of doctrine and innovation provided by the Council in the area of ecumenism “resides in the conciliar documents ‘Lumen gentium’, ‘Orientalium Ecclesiarum’, and ‘Unitatis redintegratio’, which show the doctrine of ecclesial communion as still imperfect yet real and existent between the Catholic Church and other Churches or non-Catholic communities. This is also a fact of incalculable value and scope already found in the Council and then later in the Code (cf. canon 844), with the possibility of welcoming non-Catholic Christians, even if under specific conditions, into the sacraments of the Catholic Church.
“In conclusion,” finished the cardinal, “we can affirm that the happy union between Vatican Council II and the Code of Canon Law has produced fruits of renewal in the life of the Church in many areas and on many levels." (Study day on reform of Code of Canon Law.)
Well, there you have it, direct the mouth of a conciliar revolutionary, who even said that the "new ecclesiology" was the brainchild of the first of the current line of antipopes, Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII. Each of conciliarism's heresies and errors have brought this false religious sect to the point of internal schism and to the point of endless caricature by extending invitations to the likes of Dr. Paul Ehrlich, a sworn enemy of the binding precepts o the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.
Alas, those binding precepts have been undermined long before the emergence of Jorge Mario Bergoglio on the balcony of the Basilica of Saint Peter on Wednesday, March 13, 2013. Bergoglio is simply putting the final touches on this apostasy by showing himself to the world to be what he has been throughout his career as a lay Jesuit revolutionary: A Man of Sin.
Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton's analysis, written in 1960, of Pope Saint Pius X's The Oath Against Modernism demonstrates very clearly that tthe “Second” Vatican Council and its afermath have produced “humanitarian,” “non-religious” “popes" whose names and words are interchangeable. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is really saying nothing different than Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul the Sick, Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II or Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:
In this conclusion to the Sacrorum antistitum, St. Pius X expressly recognizes the fact that the Modernists and their sympathizers, the anti-anti-Modernists, were actually working, in agreement with the most-bitter enemies of the Catholic Church, for the destruction of the Catholic faith. It is interesting and highly important to note exactly what St. Pius X said. He definitely did not claim that these men were working directly to destroy the Church as a society. It is quite obvious that, given the intimate connection between the Church and the faith, a connection so close and perfect that the Church itself may be defined as the congregatio fidelium, the repudiation of the Catholic faith would inevitably lead to the dissolution of the Church. Yet, for the Modernists and for those who co-operated in their work, the immediate object of attack was always the faith itself. These individuals were perfectly willing that the Catholic Church should continue to exist as a religious society, as long as it did not insist upon the acceptance of that message which, all during the course of the previous centuries of its existence, it had proposed as a message supernaturally revealed by the Lord and Creator of heaven and earth. They were willing and even anxious to retain their membership in the Catholic Church, as long as they were not obliged to accept on the authority of divine faith such unfashionable dogmas as, for example, the truth that there is truly no salvation outside of the Church.
What these men were really working for was the transformation of the Catholic Church into an essentially non-doctrinal religious body. They considered that their era would be willing to accept the Church as a kind of humanitarian institution, vaguely religious, tastefully patriotic, and eminently cultural. And they definitely intended to tailor the Church to fit the needs and the tastes of their own era.
It must be understood, of course, that the Modernists and the men who aided their efforts did not expect the Catholic Church to repudiate its age-old formulas of belief. They did not want the Church to reject or to abandon the ancient creeds, or even any of those formularies in which the necessity of the faith and the necessity of the Church are so firmly and decisively stated. What they sought was a declaration on the part of the Church's magisteriumto the effect that these old formulas did not, during the first decade of the twentieth century, carry the same meaning for the believing Catholic that they had carried when these formulas had first been drawn up. Or, in other words, they sought to force or to delude the teaching authority of Christ's Church into coming out with the fatally erroneous proposition that what is accepted by divine faith in this century is objectively something different from what was believed in the Catholic Church on the authority of God revealing in previous times.
Thus the basic objective of Modernism was to reject the fact that, when he sets forth Catholic dogma, the Catholic teacher is acting precisely as an ambassador of Christ. The Modernists were men who were never quite able to grasp or to accept the truth that the teaching of the Catholic Church is, as the First Vatican Council designated the content of the Constitution Dei Films, actually "the salutary doctrine of Christ," and not merely some kind of doctrine, which has developed out of that teaching. And, in the final analysis, the position of the Modernists constituted the ultimate repudiation of the Catholic faith. If the teaching proposed by the Church as dogma is not actually and really the doctrine supernaturally revealed by God through Jesus Christ Our Lord, through the Prophets of the Old Testament who were His heralds, or through the Apostles who were His witnesses, then there could be nothing more pitifully inane than the work of the Catholic magisterium. (Sacrosanctum Antistitum: The Background of The Oath Against Modernism.)
The following passage, contained in the quotation from Monsignor Fenton's article of fifty-seven years ago, is an exact description of the conciliar "popes" and their stooges:
What these men were really working for was the transformation of the Catholic Church into an essentially non-doctrinal religious body. They considered that their era would be willing to accept the Church as a kind of humanitarian institution, vaguely religious, tastefully patriotic, and eminently cultural. And they definitely intended to tailor the Church to fit the needs and the tastes of their own era. (Sacrosanctum Antistitum: The Background of The Oath Against Modernism.)
Behold the non-doctrinal religious body that is nothing other than a kind of humanitarian institution, vagely religious and pantheistic, a veritable tool of Judeo-Masonic global naturalism.
Pope Saint Pius X warned us about such a false church:
We fear that worse is to come: the end result of this developing promiscuousness, the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion (for Sillonism, so the leaders have said, is a religion) more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men become brothers and comrades at last in the "Kingdom of God". - "We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind."
And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon?Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)
The “gospel” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism and its social program for secular salvation is the very embodiment of such a false church, and it stands condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:
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.)
Let those who want to see the truth do so. The counterfeit church of conciliarism has never been, is not now nor can ever be the Catholic Church:
What part of the following papal statements about the Catholic Church's freedom from error and heresy is hard to understand or to accept?
In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies Itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, It makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)
Not least among the blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy. (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925.)
For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)
The Catholic Church is incapable of being touched by any kind of error, no less heresy, no, not even in her Universal Ordinary Magisterium.
Yes, revolutions eat their own, and the Modernist revolution is using its embrace of dogmatic evolutionism to do away with what is thought to be semblances of “Catholic” teaching by supposedly “conservative” “popes,” thus making the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s transformation into an ape of the heretical and schismatic Anglican sect clearer and clearer for those yet unconvinced of this fact to see and to accept.
It's one or the other. Catholicism or conciliarism. It cannot be both.
Invoking the intercession of Saint John Bosco, Father and Teacher of the young, on his feast day today, January 31, 2018, may we ask him to beg the conversion of the conciliar revolutionaries to the true Faith before they die, asking Saint John Bosco as well to help us to make reparation for our own many sins by giving everything do and everything we suffer to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, especially by our fidelity to Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary.
May Saint John Bosco help us to remain faithful to the Catholic Church without once making any further concessions to conciliarism or its false shepherds who are so willing to endorse evil in the name of “compassion.”
We need to beg Our Lady, to whom Saint John Bosco was so tenderly devoted under her title as the Help of Christians, to send us the graces won for us by her Divine Son by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross so that we can be courageous enough to eschew all human respect for the love and honor and glory of God, recognizing that the Catholic Church and none of her true popes can ever give us anything that places in doubt the integrity of her immutable teaching on Faith, Worship and Morals.
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Our Lady, Help of Christians, pray for us!
Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, 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 John Bosco, pray for us.
Saint Dominic Savio, pray for us.
Saint Maria Domenica Mazzarello, pray for us.