Saint John Chrysostom Says to "Pope Francis": "To this Table then let there draw nigh no Judas Iscariot, no Simon Magus."

It is necessary to put my commentary about the lying fraudster named Anthony Fauci on ice for a day or two in order to deal, if ever so briefly as Jorge Mario Bergoglio provided Catholics with whoppers of heresy and blasphemy in his Angelus address of Sunday, June 6, 2021, which was the Feast of Corpus Christi in some countries in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, including Italy. Although nothing is really new about what “Pope Francis” said as, per usual, he was merely repeating what he has said before, the fact that he used the Feast of Corpus Christi to do so is nevertheless appalling and revealing.

I will comment on each of these blasphemies and heresies herein.

The first passage from yesterday's Angelus address includngs Jorge Mario Bergoglio's umpteenth iteration of of his “God is in the bread” heresy concerning the Holy Eucharist:

And thus, with simplicity, Jesus gives us the greatest sacrament. His is a humble gesture of giving, a gesture of sharing. At the culmination of his life, he does not distribute an abundance of bread to feed the multitudes, but he splits himself apart at the Passover supper with the disciples. In this way Jesus shows us that the aim of life lies in self-giving, that the greatest thing is to serve. And today once more we find the greatness of God in a piece of Bread, in a fragility that overflows with love, overflows with sharing. Fragility is precisely the word I would like to underscore. Jesus becomes fragile like the bread that is broken and crumbled. But his strength lies precisely therein, in his fragility. In the Eucharist fragility is strength: the strength of the love that becomes small so it can be welcomed and not feared; the strength of the love that is broken and shared so as to nourish and give life; the strength of the love that is split apart so as to join us in unity. (Angelus, 6 June 2021.)



Like Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes in the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation (a term that Lutheran “theologians,” not unsurprisingly, reject), not the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation. Luther contended that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in a consecrated host, which retains the substance of bread and wine that remained unchanged at the consecration. “God is not present in a little piece of bread” as the act of a consecration by a true priest at a true offering of the Holy Mass makes Our Lord present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the consecrated host, which retains only the accidents of bread and wine, not the substance of their elements. A consecrated host is ontologically different than before its consecration as the miracle of Transubstantiation has taken place.

Although various Church councils condemned Eucharistic heresies in the past (those of John Wycliffe and John Hus were condemned by), it was as early as the Eleventh Century that Pope Saint Gregory VII required the following oath of belief in Catholic teaching about the Holy Eucharist to be taken by Berengarius of Tours in 1079, a year after he had promised the Holy Father that he,  had preached against the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, would retract his false teaching:

355 I, Berengarius, in my heart believe and with my lips confess that through the mystery of the sacred prayer and the words of our Redeemer the bread and wine which are placed on the altar are substantially changed into the true and proper and living flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, our Lord, and that after consecration it is the true body of Christ which was born of the Virgin and which, offered for the salvation of the world, was suspended on the Cross, and which sitteth at the right hand of the Father, and the true blood of Christ, which was poured out from His side not only through the sign and power of the sacrament, but in its property of nature and in truth of substance, as here briefly in a few words is contained and I have read and you understand. Thus I believe, nor will I teach contrary to this belief. So help me God and these holy Gospels of God. (Henry Denzinger, Enchirdion Symbolorum, thirteenth edition, translated into English by Roy Deferrari and published in 1955 as The Sources of Catholic Dogma--referred to as "Denziger," by B. Herder Book Company of St. Louis, Missouri, and London, England, No. 355, p. 144.)

Similarly, Pope Martin V, presiding over the Eighth Session Council of Constance, issued the Bull Inter Cunctus and In Eminentis on February 22, 1415, to condemn the errors of John Wycliffe about the Holy Eucharist:

[Sentence condemning various articles of John Wyclif]

We learn from the writings and deeds of the holy fathers that the catholic faith without which (as the Apostle says) it is impossible to please God , has often been attacked by false followers of the same faith, or rather by perverse assailants, and by those who, desirous of the world’s glory, are led on by proud curiosity to know more than they should; and that it has been defended against such persons by the church’s faithful spiritual knights armed with the shield of faith. Indeed these kinds of wars were prefigured in the physical wars of the Israelite people against idolatrous nations. Therefore in these spiritual wars the holy catholic church, illuminated in the truth of faith by the rays of light from above and remaining ever spotless through the Lord’s providence and with the help of the patronage of the saints, has triumphed most gloriously over the darkness of error as over profligate enemies. In our times, however, that old and jealous foe has stirred up new conflicts so that the approved ones of this age may be made manifest. Their leader and prince was that pseudo-christian John Wyclif. He stubbornly asserted and taught many articles against the christian religion and the catholic faith while he was alive. We have decided that forty-five of the articles should be set out on this page as follows.

1. The material substance of bread, and similarly the material substance of wine, remain in the sacrament of the altar.

2. The accidents of bread do not remain without their subject in the said sacrament.

3. Christ is not identically and really present in the said sacrament in his own bodily persona. (Council  of Constance, Eigth Session, February 22, 1415.)

This is clear.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio stands as condemned as John Wycliffe, and he also stands condemned and anathematized by the Council of Trent for his stubbornly repeated heresy that Our Lord “is in the bread.” There is only the appearance of bread after consecration. There is no bread left. The host is transubstantiated entirely into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ:

In the first place, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes, that, in the august sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things. For neither are these things mutually repugnant,-that our Saviour Himself always sitteth at the right hand of the Father in heaven, according to the natural mode of existing, and that, nevertheless, He be, in many other places, sacramentally present to us in his own substance, by a manner of existing, which, though we can scarcely express it in words, yet can we, by the understanding illuminated by faith, conceive, and we ought most firmly to believe, to be possible unto God: for thus all our forefathers, as many as were in the true Church of Christ, who have treated of this most holy Sacrament, have most openly professed, that our Redeemer instituted this so admirable a sacrament at the last supper, when, after the blessing of the bread and wine, He testified, in express and clear words, that He gave them His own very Body, and His own Blood; words which,-recorded by the holy Evangelists, and afterwards repeated by Saint Paul, whereas they carry with them that proper and most manifest meaning in which they were understood by the Fathers,-it is indeed a crime the most unworthy that they should be wrested, by certain contentions and wicked men, to fictitious and imaginary tropes, whereby the verity of the flesh and blood of Christ is denied, contrary to the universal sense of the Church, which, as the pillar and ground of truth, has detested, as satanical, these inventions devised by impious men; she recognising, with a mind ever grateful and unforgetting, this most excellent benefit of Christ. (The Council of Trent.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is certainly a man who continues to author fictitious and imaginary tropes in these latter days. Perhaps he can call his religious cult “The Church of Latter Day Fictitious and Imaginary Tropes.” He is a liar. He is a blasphemer. He is a heretic.

Chapters III and IV of the Council of Trent’s decree on the Holy Eucharist, respectively, explains the nature of the Holy Eucharist and defines the doctrine of Transubstantiation as its Fathers were guided to do by the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost:


On the excellency of the most holy Eucharist over the rest of the Sacraments.

The most holy Eucharist has indeed this in common with the rest of the sacraments, that it is a symbol of a sacred thing, and is a visible form of an invisible grace; but there is found in the Eucharist this excellent and peculiar thing, that the other sacraments have then first the power of sanctifying when one uses them, whereas in the Eucharist, before being used, there is the Author Himself of sanctity. For the apostles had not as yet received the Eucharist from the hand of the Lord, when nevertheless Himself affirmed with truth that to be His own body which He presented (to them). And this faith has ever been in the Church of God, that, immediately after the consecration, the veritable Body of our Lord, and His veritable Blood, together with His soul and divinity, are under the species of bread and wine; but the Body indeed under the species of bread, and the Blood under the species of wine, by the force of the words; but the body itself under the species of wine, and the blood under the species of bread, and the soul under both, by the force of that natural connexion and concomitancy whereby the parts of Christ our Lord, who hath now risen from the dead, to die no more, are united together; and the divinity, furthermore, on account of the admirable hypostatical union thereof with His body and soul. Wherefore it is most true, that as much is contained under either species as under both; for Christ whole and entire is under the species of bread, and under any part whatsoever of that species; likewise the whole (Christ) is under the species of wine, and under the parts thereof.


On Transubstantiation.

And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation. (The Council of Trent.)

The doctrine of Transubstantiation is very clear.

Yet it is that heretics such as Jorge Mario Bergoglio must find not-so-subtle ways to use the power of words to directly undermine Catholic doctrine on the Holy Eucharist so that It can be reduced to a naturalistic level of “fragility” having nothing to do with the actual doctrine of Transubstantiation, which the late William “Cardinal” Levada, a direct disciple of Joseph Alois Ratzinger, disparaged as follows in 2005 to the Father Eugene Heidt, who is also deceased, as reported by the late John Vennari in Catholic Family News:

Archbishop Levada, while Ordinary of Oregon, also had run-ins with Father Eugene Heidt, a feisty traditional priest. Levada eventually illicitly “suspended” Father Heidt for his no-compromise adherence to Tradition. Before the “suspension”, during a meeting with the Archbishop, Father Heidt complained that the Archbishop’s Pastoral Letter on the Eucharist contained no mention of Transubstantiation. Levada replied that Transubstantiation is a “long and difficult term” and that “we don’t use it any more”.

This is a mockery to the infallible Council of Trent, that committed the Church to this precise scholastic definition, hallowed by long usage. Even Pope Paul VI’s 1965 Mysterium Fidei reiterated that the parish priest is duty-bound to speak of “Transubstantiation.” (#54) Levada’s approach is also an insult to “modern man” to whom post-Conciliar churchmen constantly claim to be appealing. It implies that modern man is too stupid to comprehend a term that 2nd grade Catholic school children grasped only fifty years ago. (John Vennari,  Invincible or Inculpable, Catholic Family News, June 2005.)

“Long and difficult term”?

As a friend of ours once said, as she looked down at the floor, about a man who used psychology to destroy the very fabric of the Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, “I hope it’s hot down there!”

Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his band of fellow heretics stand anathematized by the Council of Trent:

CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that, after the consecration is completed, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable sacrament of the Eucharist, but (are there) only during the use, whilst it is being taken, and not either before or after; and that, in the hosts, or consecrated particles, which are reserved or which remain after communion, the true Body of the Lord remaineth not; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, either that the principal fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or, that other effects do not result therefrom; let him be anathema. (The Council of Trent.)

This leads me to ask a question of anyone out there who reads my articles and is not yet convinced that the See of Peter is filled by an arch-heretic named Jorge Mario Bergoglio: “How can anyone say that this man is the pope?”

Unfortunately, though, yesterday’s Angelus address contained two more bits of blasphemous heresy as “Pope Francis” once again contended that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ extended “mercy” to Judas Iscariot:

And there is another strength that stands out in the fragility of the Eucharist: the strength to love those who make mistakes. It is on the night he is betrayed that Jesus gives us the Bread of Life. He gives us the greatest gift while in his heart he feels the deepest abyss: the disciple who eats with Him, who dips the morsel in the same plate, is betraying Him. And betrayal is the worst suffering for one who loves.  And what does Jesus do? He reacts to the evil with a greater good. He responds to Judas’ ‘no’ with the ‘yes’ of mercy. He does not punish the sinner, but rather gives His life for him; He pays for him. When we receive the Eucharist, Jesus does the same with us: he knows us; he knows we are sinners; he knows we make many mistakes, but he does not give up on joining his life to ours. He knows that we need it, because the Eucharist is not the reward of saints, but the Bread of sinners. This is why he exhorts us: “Do not be afraid! Take and eat”. (Angelus, 6 June 2021.)

Liar, liar, pants on fire, Jorge.

Anathema to you, Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Before dealing with the “bread of sinners” heresy, it is very important to discuss Bergoglio’s umpteenth betrayal of Judas Iscariot as a beneficiary of Our Lord’s mercy, starting with the words of Saint John Chrysostom that are contained in the readings for the Divine Office for Monday within the Octave of Corpus Christi:

Let us hear, all of us, both Priests and laymen, let us hear What Food it is whereof we are made worthy let us hear, I say, and let us quake. The Lord satisfieth us with His Own holy Flesh, setting Himself slain before us. What excuse therefore shall we have, if, being so fed as we are, we sin as we do If, eating of the Lamb, we are still wolves If, pastured as the sheep of the flock, we raven like lions This mysterious Sacrament forbiddeth unto us not outrage only, but any the least enmity it is the Mystery of peace. Upon the Jews God laid it to make year by year by solemn festivals a yearly commemoration of His mercies unto them, but upon thee to do this in remembrance of His love to thee, day by day. To this Table then let there draw nigh no Judas Iscariot, no Simon Magus. These men fell through covetousness let us fly that bottomless pit. (Saint John Chrysostom, as found in Matins, The Divine Office, Monday within the Octave of Corpus Christi.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio says that the Judases are welcomed because they are “fragile.” 




This is what Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ said of Judas after He had foretold of His betrayal at the Last Supper:

[21] And whilst they were eating, he said: Amen I say to you, that one of you is about to betray me. [22] And they being very much troubled, began every one to say: Is it I, Lord? [23] But he answering, said: He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, he shall betray me. [24] The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed: it were better for him, if that man had not been born. [25] And Judas that betrayed him, answering, said: Is it I, Rabbi? He saith to him: Thou hast said it. (Matthew 26: 21-25.)

This is an unambiguous declaration of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man that it would have been better for Judas had he never been born, meaning that the crime of betrayal and blasphemy was so enormous that a man of so little faith in Him would be led naturally to despair and suicide, whereupon he would spend the rest of eternity in the lowest depths of hell.

Father George Leo Haydock’s commentary on the Gospel passage cited just above showed that Our Lord was not “smiling” upon Judas when He spoke at the Last Supper:

The motives for this great sorrow in the disciples: 1st, because they saw their innocent and dear Master was so soon to be taken from them, and delivered up to a most cruel and ignominious death; 2d, because each of them was afraid lest, through human frailty, he might fall into so great a crime; for they all were convinced, that what he said must necessarily come to pass: and lastly, that there could be found one among them so wretchedly perverse, as to deliver Jesus into the hands of his enemies. Hence afraid of themselves, and not daring to affix a suspicion on any individual, they began every one to say: Is it I, Lord, on whom so atrocious a crime is to fall? ... It is extremely probable that Christ made this prediction three times: 1st, at the commencement of supper; (Matthew xxvi. 21.) 2d, after washing the feet; (John xiii. 18.) 3d, after the institution of the blessed Eucharist. (Luke xxii. 21.) Thus Pope Benedict XIV. Sandinus, &c.

Ver. 23. He that dippeth. He that is associated to me, that eateth bread with me, shall lift up his heel against me, according to the prophecy of the psalmist, cited by St. John, xiii. 18. --- Jesus Christ does not here manifest the traitor; he only aggravates the enormity and malice of the crime.

Ver. 25. Is it I, Rabbi? After the other disciples had put their questions, and after our Saviour had finished speaking, Judas at length ventures to inquire of himself. With his usual hypocrisy, he wishes to cloke his wicked designs by asking a similar question with the rest. (Origen) --- It is remarkable that Judas did not ask, is it I, Lord? but, is it I, Rabbi? to which our Saviour replied, thou hast said it: which answer might have been spoken in so low a tone of voice, as not perfectly to be heard by all the company. (Rabanus) --- Hence it was that Peter beckoned to St. John, to learn more positively the person. Here St. Chrysostom justly remarks the patience and reserve of our Lord, who by his great meekness and self-possession, under the extremes of ingratitude, injustice, and blasphemy, shews how we ought to bear with the malice of others, and forget all personal injuries. (Haydock Commentary.)

Even more definitive proof of Judas’s damnation can be found these words of Our Lord spoken at the Last Supper and contained in the Gospel according to Saint John wherein the traitor is described as the son of perdition who is the only one of the Apostles who will be lost:

12 While I was with them, I kept them in thy name. Those whom thou gavest me, I have kept: and none of them hath perished, but the son of perdition, that the Scripture may be fulfilled. (John 17:12)

Father Haydock’s commentary on this passage makes short work of Judas Bergoglio’s praise of a man who committed the sin of blasphemy against the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, by despairing of forgiveness and for expressing His sorrow to the Jews, not to Our Lord Himself:

Ver. 12. While I was with them, I kept them in thy name.[5] He still speaks, says St. Chrysostom, as man, and after a human manner, by mentioning the advantage they seemed to enjoy, as long as he conversed visibly with them on earth, not that his invisible presence should be less beneficial to them. --- And none of them hath perished, except the son of perdition, the wretched Judas, whose fall was foretold in the Scriptures. (Psalm cviii.) He hath perished, that is, now is about being lost, by his own fault, says St. Chrysostom on this place. And St. Augustine on Psalm cxxxviii. How did the devil enter into the heart of Judas? he could not have entered, had not he given him place. (Witham) --- That the Scripture may be fulfilled: this does not any ways shew, that it was the will of God that Judas should be lost; but only that what happened to Judas was conformable to the prophecies, and not occasioned by them. Who will doubt, says St. Augustine, (lib. de Unit. Eccl. chap. ix.) but that Judas might, if he pleased, have abstained from betraying Christ. But God foretold it, because he foresaw clearly the future perversity of his disposition. (Calmet) --- See above, (xiii. 18.) one of the principal passages of Scripture relative to the treachery of Judas, in which the traitor's crime had been predicted. (Haydock Commentary: Haydock Commentary.)

Yet it is that the “hope,” if not the certainty, of Judas’s salvation is near and dear to the heart of the conciliar revolutionaries, perhaps because he is their model of betraying Our Lord’s Sacred Deposit of Faith just as surely as Judas Iscariot betrayed Our Lord to the high priests for thirty pieces of silver. 

Unlike Saint Peter, our first pope, who wept over his triple denials of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as he hovered near the hall when the Divine Judge was being judged by Caiphas  and the other Jewish priests and then sought mercy from Him, Judas Iscariot despaired of being forgiven by the One with Whom He had spent three years while enriching himself from that which was collected to support the apostolate.

Our Lady herself ceased to convince with Judas not to betray her Divine Son before he had done so after she concluded that the execrable traitor had resolved to commit his act of high treason against the King of Kings.

423. The demons, in despair of ever being able to influence Judas, went to the Pharisees. By many suggestions and arguments they sought to dissuade them from persecuting Christ, our Lord and Savior. But the same happened with them as with Judas, and for the same reasons; they could not be diverted from their purpose, nor from the wicked deed which they had planned. Although some of the scribes, from motives of human prudence, were led to reconsider whether what they had resolved was advisable, yet since they were not assisted by divine grace they were soon again overcome by their hatred and envy of the Savior. Hence resulted the further efforts of Lucifer with the wife of Pilate and with Pilate himself. The former, as is recorded in the Gospels, they incited to womanly pity so she might urge Pilate to beware of condemning that just man (Mt. 27:19). By these suggestions and by others which they themselves made to Pilate they induced him to resort to so many different schemes in order to evade passing the sentence of death upon the innocent Savior; of these I shall speak in their proper place (597, 611, 635, 638). Since Lucifer and his satellites were entirely frustrated in their efforts they again changed their purpose, and in their fury now resolved to induce the Pharisees, executioners, and their helpers to heap the most atrocious cruelties upon the Lord, and by the excess of torment to overcome the invincible patience of the Redeemer. All these machinations of the devil the Lord permitted so the high ends of the Redemption would be attained; however, He did not allow the executioners to execute on the sacred Person of the Savior some of the more indecent atrocities to which they were incited by the demons (579).

 424. On the Wednesday following his triumphal entry into Jerusalem Christ our Lord remained in Bethany without going to Jerusalem, and on this day the Pharisees and scribes met at the house of Caiphas in order to plan the death of the Savior of the world (Mk. 14:1). The welcome which the Redeemer had met with among the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and which had followed so shortly upon the resurrection of Lazarus and the many other miracles of those days, had excited their envy to the highest pitch; besides, they had already resolved to take away his life under the false pretext of the public good, as Caiphas had prophesied so contrary to his intention (Jn. 11:49). The demon, who saw them thus determined, suggested to some of them not to execute their design on the feast of the Pasch lest the people who venerated Christ as the Messiah or a great prophet cause a disturbance. Lucifer sought by this delay an opportunity to hinder the death of the Lord altogether. Yet since Judas was now entirely in the clutches of his avarice and hatred, and altogether deprived of any saving grace, he came to the meeting of the priests in great disturbance and terror of mind, and began to negotiate with them concerning the betrayal of his Master. He closed the deal by accepting thirty pieces of silver, contenting himself with such a price for Him who contained within Himself all the treasures of heaven. In order not to lose their opportunity the priests put up with the inconvenience of its being so near the Pasch. All this was so disposed by divine Providence directing these events.

 425. At the same time happened what our Savior is recorded as saying in St. Matthew (26:2): You know that after two days shall be the Pasch, and the Son of man shall be delivered up to be crucified. Judas was not present when these words were uttered by Christ, but in the fury of his treason he returned to the Apostles and perfidiously began to inquire of his companions, and even of the Lord and his Blessed Mother, where they intended to go from Bethany and what the Master was to do on the following few days. All this was merely a treacherous preparation of the perfidious disciple for the betrayal of his Master to the chief Pharisees. By these pretenses and concealments Judas, as a hypocrite, sought to palliate his premeditated treachery. But both the Savior and his most blessed Mother well understood the purpose of his feverish activity, for the holy Angels immediately reported to them his shameful contract to which he had bound himself for thirty pieces of silver. On that very day, when the traitor approached the great Lady to ask Her where the Lord proposed to partake of the Pasch, She answered him with ineffable meekness: “Who can penetrate, O Judas, the secret judgments of the Most High?” With that She ceased to warn him against committing the sin, but both She and the Lord tolerated his presence until he himself despaired of his remedy and eternal salvation. But this meekest Dove, now certain of the irreparable ruin of Judas and the delivery of her most holy Son into the hands of his enemies, broke out in most tender lamentations in the presence of the Angels, for they were the only ones with whom She could confer about her heartrending sorrow. In their presence She permitted the sea of her sorrow to overflow, and She gave expression of words of greatest wisdom and affection. She excited the wonder of these holy Angels, who saw such an exalted and new perfection practiced by a mere creature in the midst of most bitter sorrows and tribulations. (New English Edition of The Mystical City of God, The Transfixion: Book 6, Chapter VIII.)

Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ merely tolerated Judas’s presence until this wretch despaired of “his remedy and eternal salvation.” Judas had ruined himself irreparably. He was never the recipient of Our Lord’s ineffable mercy. To assert otherwise is both blasphemous and heretical. As I have noted on so many other occasions before, of course, it is no wonder that men such as Jorge Mario Bergoglio have such an identification with and sympathy for Judas Iscariot as he is their own “patron saint,” noting the singular difference that Bergoglio’s sin is that of presumption, which is the other of the two unforgivable sins against the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost.

Insofar as the Holy Eucharist being the “bread of sinners” and not a “reward of the saints,” it is sufficient to note that Bergoglio, by saying this, is communicating to anyone who would deny what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service—and, presuming priests ordained by bishops whose line of consecration is not polluted by the conciliar “popes” or “bishops,” really is the Holy Eucharist in the Eastern rites—because of their public support for the surgical execution of children and/or for the public scandal given by being notoriously divorced and civilly “remarried” without the fig leaf of a conciliar decree of martial nullity is trying to enforce an unrealistic and entirely merciless standard that unjust discriminates against “fragile” people who just happen to have made a fully conscious decision to, quote Martin Luther, “sin, and sin boldly” without the slightest qualm of conscience.

Once again, the Thirteenth Session of the Council of Trent had something to say about this:


On the preparation to be given that one may worthily receive the sacred Eucharist.

If it is unbeseeming for any one to approach to any of the sacred functions, unless he approach holily; assuredly, the more the holiness and divinity of this heavenly sacrament are understood by a Christian, the more diligently ought he to give heed that he approach not to receive it but with great reverence and holiness, especially as we read in the Apostle those words full of terror; He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself. Wherefore, he who would communicate, ought to recall to mind the precept of the Apostle; Let a man prove himself. Now ecclesiastical usage declares that necessary proof to be, that no one, conscious to himself of mortal sin, how contrite soever he may seem to himself, ought to approach to the sacred Eucharist without previous sacramental confession. This the holy Synod hath decreed is to be invariably observed by all Christians, even by those priests on whom it may be incumbent by their office to celebrate, provided the opportunity of a confessor do not fail them; but if, in an urgent necessity, a priest should celebrate without previous confession, let him confess as soon as possible. (The Council of Trent.)

To be sure, each of us is a sinner. Our Lord did indeed institute the Holy Eucharist to be administered unto sinners for their spiritual nourishment and fortification so that they will grow in virtue and holiness and thus overcome their sins and sinful tendencies by making the grace of the holy sacrament efficacious in their lives. Our Lord did not institute the Holy Eucharist so that sinners could continue sinning wantonly and unrepentantly, and He did not institute this Sacrament that is the source and the summit of true Charity to be abused in the name of a “fragility” that is meant to convey, no matter how sneakily, the old heresy of Luther, namely, that men are so “fragile,” so thoroughly “corrupted” by Original Sin that it is impossible for men to stop sinning. This is, apart from being a denial of the doctrine of Original Sin on Luther’s part (Bergoglio adheres to something approaching a Rousseauean belief in “human goodness”), a direct denial by Bergoglio of the efficacious power of the Most Blessed Sacrament.

Saint Thomas Aquinas’s Prayer before Holy Communion contains a precise summary of how we are to prepare ourselves for the reception of Holy Communion:

Almighty and everlasting God, behold, I am about to approach the Sacrament of Thine only-begotten Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ. I approach as one who is sick to the Physician of life, as one unclean to the Well-spring of mercy and goodness, as one blind to the Light of eternal brightness, as one poor and needy to the Lord of Heaven and earth.

Wherefore I beseech Thee, of Thine infinite goodness, to heal my sickness, to wash away my filth, to enlighten my blindness, to enrich my poverty, and to clothe my nakedness, that I may receive the Bread of Angels, the King of kings, the Lord of lords with such reverence and humility, with such contrition and devotion, with such purity and faith, with such purpose and intention, as may conduce to the salvation of my soul.

Grant, I beseech Thee, that I may receive not only the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, but also the grace and virtue of this Sacrament. O most indulgent and merciful God, grant me so to receive the Body of Thine only-begotten Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, which He took of the Virgin Mary, that I may be found worthy to be incorporated with His Mystical Body and numbered among His members. O most loving Father, grant that I may one day contemplate for ever, face to face, Thy beloved Son, Whom now on my pilgrimage I am about to receive under a veil, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

No one who is conscious of Mortal Sin on his immortal soul can present himself to receive Holy Communion. Those who do so make an offering of their Holy Communion to the devil himself. This is a Catholic truth that one will never hear pass from the lips of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who, whether wittingly or not, is an agent of Antichrist in almost all that he says and does, noting that even broken clocks can be right twice a day but also making the distinction that broken clocks are right more frequently than is Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his band of fellow Jacobin/Bolshevik revolutionaries.

Canon XI of the Council of Trent’s Decree on the Holy Eucharist anathematized Bergoglio and his henchmen as follows:

CANON XI.-lf any one saith, that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; let him be anathema. And for fear lest so great a sacrament may be received unworthily, and so unto death and condemnation, this holy Synod ordains and declares, that sacramental confession, when a confessor may be had, is of necessity to be made beforehand, by those whose conscience is burthened with mortal sin, how contrite even soever they may think themselves. But if any one shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to assert, or even in public disputation to defend the contrary, he shall be thereupon excommunicated. (Angelus, 6 June 2021.)

Bergoglio had better abjure his errors before he dies lest he wants to hear the following words taunt him for all eternity in hell: “I hope it’s hot down there!”

Finally, Bergoglio closed his Angelus address yesterday by blaspheming the Holy Eucharist as a “remedy for rigidity,” meaning that It is a “remedy” for those who persist in the Faith of our fathers, the true Catholic Faith:

Each time we receive the Bread of Life, Jesus comes to give new meaning to our fragilities. He reminds us that in his eyes we are more precious than we think. He tells us he is pleased if we share our fragilities with him. He repeats to us that his mercy is not afraid of our miseries. And above all he heals us with love from those fragilities that we cannot heal on our own. What fragilities? Let’s think. That of feeling resentment toward those who have done us harm – we cannot heal from this on our own; that of distancing ourselves from others and closing off within ourselves – we cannot heal from that on our own; that of feeling sorry for ourselves and lamenting without finding peace; from this too, we cannot heal on our own. It is He who heals us with his presence, with His bread, with the Eucharist. The Eucharist is an effective medicine for these closures. The Bread of Life, indeed, heals rigidity and transforms it into docility. The Eucharist heals because it joins with Jesus: it makes us assimilate his way of living, his ability to break himself apart and give himself to brothers and sisters, to respond to evil with good. He gives us the courage to go outside of ourselves and bend down with love toward the fragility of others. As God does with us. This is the logic of the Eucharist: we receive Jesus who loves us and heals our fragilities in order to love others and help them in their fragilities; and this lasts our entire life. Today in the Liturgy of the Hours we prayed a hymn: four verses that are the summary of Jesus’ entire life. And thus they tell us that as Jesus was born, he became our travelling companion in life. Then, at the supper he gave himself as food. Then, on the cross, in his death, he became the price: he paid for us. And now, as he reigns in Heaven he is our reward; we go to seek the One who awaits us [cf. Hymn at Lauds on Corpus Christi, Verbum Supernum Prodiens]. (Angelus, 6 June 2021.)

In other words, those who “rigidly” adhere to the belief that God is immutable and that His true Church has always taught infallibly in His Holy Name without any shadow of change or alteration as it has explicated all that is contained within the Sacred Deposit of Faith can be “cured” by a reception of the Holy Eucharist.

As to the rest of the paragraph quoted just above, I am reminded of what a conciliar presbyter in the Diocese of Brooklyn wrote in the Fall of 2000 after a news report of mine about the Diocese of Saint Petersburg’s ending what purported to be Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration was published in The Wanderer. The presbyter (who once took us on a tour of the wreckovated church where he was  stationed and told us, “As you can see, they’ve been here”) wrote a column in The Wanderer that those who contend, directly or implicitly, that Our Lord is as present in the “gathered assembly” just as much as He is present in the Holy Eucharist ought to establish a Hollywood Squares tic-tac-toe board so that multiple numbers of people can adore themselves.

In truth, of course, the Novus Ordo service is all about community “awareness,” not the worship of God, as it begins with the priest or presbyter addressing the people “The Lord be with you” after he makes the Sign of Cross. The presider is even able to offer a few words of introduction before he continues with the “Penitential Rite,” which can be improvised as he sees fit or has been directed to use as decided by the parish "liturgical committee” that works “collegially” with the “president of the assembly” to “plan” the “liturgy” on a weekly basis.

The only saving grace in all this is that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is not present in the Novus Ordo liturgical service. However, Bergoglio’s words are meant to undermine belief in the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation and thus efface a true belief in Our Lord’s Real Presence under the appearance, not the substance, of the Eucharistic species. Jorge Mario Bergoglio knows precisely what he is doing.

For an antidote to Bergoglio’s blasphemies and heresies, perhaps it is good to consider a reflection on the Most Holy Eucharist that was written by Saint John Chrysostom and is contained in the readings for Matins for Monday within the Octave of Corpus Christi:

In this mysterious Sacrament Christ doth mingle Himself with all and each of His faithful ones. They are His children, and He nurseth them Himself, and giveth them not over unto another, herein again assuring us that the Flesh He hath taken unto Himself is ours. We then, who have been deemed meet to be treated with such love and such honour, let us be wakeful See ye not how eagerly the sucklings seize on the breasts, how readily they fix their mouths on the paps Let us, with like eagerness, draw nigh to that Table, and suck at that spiritual Cup. Yea, let us prize that gracious Food as the suckling doth its mother's breast, and hold it the great woe of life to be cut off from that Banquet. Here there are set before us no works of man's power He That worked at that Last Supper, the Same worketh the same here still. As for us Priests, we hold the place of His ministers, but He Which halloweth and changeth is He. Hither let there draw nigh no Judas, nor covetous one this is no Table for him. But he which is Christ's disciple, let him come for the Lord saith "I will keep the Passover with My disciples," Matth. xxvi. 18. This is that Passover Table, and it is all Christ's what is wrought there is not some of it Christ's work, and some of it man's work, but it is all His work and not another's.

Whither let there draw nigh none brutal, none cruel, none merciless in good sooth, none unclean. I speak to all that take that Holy Communion, and to you also, O ye that do administer the same To you now I turn my speech, to warn you with how great care that Gift is to be given. No slight vengeance is that which awaiteth you if ye admit for a partaker at the Lord's Table the sinner whose guiltiness ye know. At your hands will his blood be required. If a man be a General, a Governor, a crowned Monarch, yet if he come there unworthily, forbid him thou hast greater power than he. To this end hath God exalted you to the honour ye hold, that ye may judge in such matters. This office is your dignity, this is your strength, this is all your crown, this, and not the going about in white robes and glittering vestments. And thou, O layman when thou seest the Priest making the oblation, think not that He Which is then the real Worker is such a Priest as thou seest, but know of a surety that it is Christ's Hand Which is stretched out, albeit unseen by thee.

Let us hear, all of us, both Priests and laymen, let us hear What Food it is whereof we are made worthy let us hear, I say, and let us quake. The Lord satisfieth us with His Own holy Flesh, setting Himself slain before us. What excuse therefore shall we have, if, being so fed as we are, we sin as we do If, eating of the Lamb, we are still wolves If, pastured as the sheep of the flock, we raven like lions This mysterious Sacrament forbiddeth unto us not outrage only, but any the least enmity it is the Mystery of peace. Upon the Jews God laid it to make year by year by solemn festivals a yearly commemoration of His mercies unto them, but upon thee to do this in remembrance of His love to thee, day by day. To this Table then let there draw nigh no Judas Iscariot, no Simon Magus. These men fell through covetousness let us fly that bottomless pit. (Saint John Chrysostom, as found in Matins, The Divine Office, Monday within the Octave of Corpus Christi.)

Please feel free to send that to Senor Jorge at the Casa Santa Marta. Then again, he would probably dismiss Saint John Chrysostom as an example of “rigidity.”

Pray to Our Lady daily for a true pope to be restored on the Throne of Saint Peter.

Although such a restoration may not occur in our lifetime, we can plant the seeds for it by our patient endurance of the crosses that are sent our way, including whatever estrangement from our friends and relatives for recognizing the conciliar apostasy for what it is, as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary as we pray with fervor as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Most Blessed Sacrament, 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.