Although this commentary was going to continue part one's discussion of the results of the American presidential election on Tuesday, November 8, 2016, the title of this current series can be applied with equal relevance to the battle between the “false opposites” of the Girondists/Mensheviks and the Jacobins/Bolsheviks within the counterfeit church of conciliarism. There is a lot of “sobering up” that needs to be done by those who think that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a heretical “pope” and that the likes Raymond Leo Burke and Walter Brandmuller, are the “defenders” of the Catholic Faith. Such a belief is delusional. Indeed, it is nothing other than fantasy.
That is, one of the chief goals of the adversary is inspire men to be at loggerheads with each other in order to foment suspicion, resentment, hatred and violence. The devil thrives on conflict as he knows that a world in constant conflict will be one where no one can ever be at peace, whether with themselves or with others. Although this lying serpent has been deceiving men since he tempted Eve to disobey God in the Garden of Eden, the conflicts that have arisen as a result of the Protestant Revolution and the subsequent rise of Judeo-Masonry, replete with all of its multifaceted and interrelated sets of errors.
Indeed, the errors of Modernity, which, of course, gave rise to the error of Modernism, must lead to conflict among men as each error becomes a “salvific” belief system whose adherents consider those who believe in a competing set (or sets) of errors to be impediments to the realization of whatever is judged to be the “common good” as defined by their own particular secular religions. The nature of this conflicts is such that there will always arise conflicts within secular philosophies and ideologies as none have an absolutely authoritative interpreter as to what must be held to be a “true believer.
To wit, Vladimir Lenin became the chief interpreter of Marxian Communism in the years leading up to the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. Moscow thus became the seat of Marxist-Leninist “orthodoxy” that was meant to govern all Communist parties and socialist movements in the world. Lenin enforced this orthodoxy by constant bloodletting, although his eventual successor, Joseph Stalin, had become the world’s foremost mass killer by the time of his death on March 5, 1953. Stalin believed that no Communist doctrine as defined by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, thus considering Mao Zedong’s interpretation of Marxism-Leninism to be heterodox. In other words, Moscow was the “Rome” of the international Communist movement, the seat of the Marxist “faith,” if you will, and Beijing became the seat of Martin Luther (Mao).
Obviously, the same thing had happened with Luther himself as his revolution against the Primacy of the Successor of Saint Peter by stating his belief in an “invisible” body of believers who were equal to each other in their ability to interpret Sacred Scripture paved the way for others to break from him. To dispense with the Principle of Unity that is the papacy is turn everyone into his or her pope or popessa. If no one is the pope, then everyone is the pope. Luther did not realize that he had started a process that would result ultimately in the triumph of irreligion as the lowest common denominator for men and their societies. The devil knew this, of course, and so did his Talmudic minions, who took full advantage of Luther’s revolution for their own nefarious ends.
This is why there is constant conflict within such philosophies or ideologies of “conservatism,” beset at present with various rival factions (constitutionalists/federalists, “social conservatives,” “economic conservatives”), “populism,” “nationalism,” “libertarianism,” “liberalism,” “pragmatism,” “socialism,” “environmentalism,” “feminism,” “Zionism,” etc. Although President-election Donald John Trump is essentially non-ideological, he is surrounded by representatives of different strands of almost every ideology whose adherents are attempting to steer his nascent administration along the pathways of their own “true beliefs.”
Erroneous beliefs cannot unite men or effect peace in the world. Errors must always lead to conflicts among men, who come to believe that they can combat what they believe are more terrible errors by adhering to a “correct” view of their own errors.
This has application not only to the political situation in the United States of America throughout its history, including at the present time, but to the situation within the counterfeit church of conciliarism, which remains, of course, The Most Dangerous, Destructive and Corrupt Force On Earth, as four conciliar “cardinals”—Raymond Leo Burke, Walter Brandmuller, Carlo Caffarra, and Joachim Meisner have published a letter they wrote to the man they believe to be “Pope Francis.” The purpose of the letter was to raise four specific questions to the putative “pontiff” to ask him to “clarify” various points about, March 19, 2016. (For a review of this abomination, please see Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men: A Brief Overview, Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men: Another Brief Overview, Jorge's Exhortaion of Self-Justification Before Men, part three, The Conciliar Chair of Disunity and Division, Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part four, Inspector Jorge Wants to See Documents, Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part five, , Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part seven, Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part eight, Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part nine, Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part ten, THE END!. )
Although there is a very fine post at Novus Ordo Watch Wire on this intervention on the part of the four conciliar “cardinals,” which might lead to a an actual schism, there are a few other aspects to this new dog and pony show that bear a bit of consideration.
First, there was no need for any kind of “clarification” from Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who did not reply to the dubia that had been posed to him by the four “cardinals,” as he made it clear two months ago that the interpretation made by the “bishops” of his native Buenos Aires, Argentina, was the only correct one:
Bp. Sergio Alfredo Fenoy
Delegate to the Buenos Aires Pastoral Region
I hereby acknowledge having received the document “Basic criteria for the application of Amoris Laetitia chapter VIII” from the Buenos Aires Pastoral Region. Thank you very much for sending it; and I congratulate you for the work done, a true example of accompaniment to the priests… and we all know how this closeness between the bishop and his clergy is necessary. The “closest” neighbor to the bishop is the priest, and for us bishops the commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves begins precisely with our priests.
The document is very good and fully expresses the meaning of Amoris Laetitia chapter VIII. There are no other interpretations. And I am sure that it will do much good. May the Lord reward them for this effort of pastoral charity.
And it is precisely this pastoral charity that moves us to seek out those who are most distant, and once we have found them, to begin a journey of acceptance, accompaniment, discernment, and integration into the ecclesial community. We know this is exhausting, it is a pastoral “melee” that is not content with programmatic, organizational, or legal mediation, but it is necessary. Simply embrace, accompany, discern, integrate. Of these four pastoral attitudes, the least cultivated and practiced is discernment; and I consider the formation in personal and communal discernment in our seminaries and presbyteries to be an urgent task.
Finally I would like to remind you that Amoris Laetitia was the result of the work and prayer of the whole Church, with the mediation of two Synods and the Pope. Therefore I recommend a complete catechesis of the Exhortation, which will certainly assist in the growth, consolidation, and sanctification of the family.
Once again I thank you for the work done and I encourage you to continue forward, in the diverse communities of the diocese, with the study and catechesis of Amoris Laetitia. (As found at: Novus Ordo Watch.)
Although many “conservatives” in the conciliar structures who have never understood the plain fact that their “Pope Francis” cooked the books on this matter early in his false “pontificate” tried to deny the authenticity of their “pontiff’s” letter to the “bishops” of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires that confirmed their interpretation of Amoris Laetitia as the only one possible, officials in the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River acknowledged the letter’s authenticity on September 12, 2016:
(Vatican Radio) Pope Francis has written a letter to the bishops of the Buenos Aires region of Argentina, praising them for their document which spells out ways in which priests should apply the teachings of his apostolic exhortation ‘Amoris Laetitia’.
Pope was responding to a document by the bishops entitled ‘Basic criteria for the application of chapter 8 of ‘Amoris Laetitia’ which details ways of ‘accompanying, discerning and integrating weakness’ for Catholics living in irregular family situations. That chapter focuses on the need to support and integrate divorcees into the life of the Church, specifying that “in certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments”.
In his letter the Pope underlines the urgency of formation of priests for the practice of discernment, stressing that this is central to the task of accompanying families in difficulty. He calls for in-depth catechesis on the exhortation which he says will “certainly help the growth, consolidation and holiness of family life”.
Expressing his appreciation for the ‘pastoral charity’ contained in the bishops’ document, Pope Francis insists “there are no other interpretations” of the apostolic exhortation which he wrote at the conclusion of the two synods on the family in 2014 and 2015. (Vatican Says Jorge's Letter Buenos Aires "Bishops" Is Authentic.)
What Jorge Mario Bergoglio considers as merely “irregular situations" sinful acts that have been condemned repeatedly by the authority of the Catholic Church and, as noted above, they make a mockery of the martyrdom of numerous saints and the zealous work for souls by such missionaries as Saint Francis Solano and Saint Anthony Mary Claret.
“Conservatives” and “traditionally-minded” Catholics find themselves facing a heresy that they can no longer seek to explain away by having recourse to Wojtyla/John Paul II’s “living tradition” and/or Ratzinger/Benedict’s “hermeneutic of continuity.”
While it is good that more than a handful of Catholics may now take a hard look at the fact that a heretic cannot sit on Throne of Saint Peter, most, however, will either accept their “pope’s” mercy to those who have not even bothered even with the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s vastly streamline nullity process that has itself undermined the indissolubility of ratified and consummated marriages or they will shrug their shoulders as they have since the “Second” Vatican Council at photographs such as this one:
The "Restorer of Tradition" giving a "joint blessing" with Archlayman of Canterbury
Oh, just incidentally, you understand, how did the Anglican sect that Ratzinger, following the leads of Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Montini/Paul VI and Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II, legitimized by means of his words and deeds start?
Yes, the adulterous and bigamous Henry VIII started the "Church of England." The Protestant Revolution was all about justifying lust and divorce. It is the same for the conciliar revolutionaries.
Like examples could be given ad nauseam, ad infinitum. Others, of course, can be found in numerous articles on this site and elsewhere in cyberspace, not to mention a compendium, necessarily dated now by the rush of subsequent events but nevertheless a handy reference guide, entitled No Space Between Ratzinger and Bergoglio: So Close in Apostasy, So Far From Catholic Truth.
Where has been the outrage about offenses given to the Most Blessed Trinity by the conciliar "popes" as they have violated the First and Second Commandments repeatedly?
Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI did exactly what Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II before him had done. Jorge Mario Bergoglio's final, crushing blows to the immutable precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments did not come out of nowhere, and those within the “hierarchy” and the laity of the conciliar structures who are understandably and justifiably outraged by these latest developments really have no one else to blame as they have been active apologists for false doctrines (false ecumenism, inter-religious "prayer services," esteeming the symbols of false religions, reaffirmg adherents of false religions in their false beliefs) that violate the First and Second Commandments.
Second, the four "cardinals" attempted to defend Catholic doctrine by citing nothing other than two encyclicals and three apostolic exhortations that had been issued by "Saint John Paul II." This is very important to understand as the one encyclical letter, Veritatis Splendor, August 6, 1993, and Familiaris Consortio, November 22, 1981, were based on the heresy of personalism that inverts the ends proper to marriage. One cannot call one heretic, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, to account by using the work of another heretic, Karol Joseph Wojtyla/John Paul II, as it is impossible to "correct" one heresy by using heretical presuppositions that were condemned as follows by Pope Pius XII on April 1, 1944, and again on October 29, 1951:
Certain publications concerning the purposes of matrimony, and their interrelationship and order, have come forth within these last years which either assert that the primary purpose of matrimony is not the generation of offspring, or that the secondary purposes are not subordinate to the primary purpose, but are independent of it.
In these works, different primary purposes of marriage are designated by other writers, as for example: the complement and personal perfection of the spouses through a complete mutual participation in life and action; mutual love and union of spouses to be nurtured and perfected the psychic and bodily surrender of one’s own person; and many other such things.
In the same writings a sense is sometimes attributed to words in the current documents of the Church (as for example, primary, secondary purpose), which does not agree with these words according to the common usage by theologians.
This revolutionary way of thinking and speaking aims to foster errors and uncertainties, to avoid which the Eminent and Very Fathers of this supreme Sacred Congregation, charged with the guarding of faith and morals, in a plenary session on Wednesday, the 29th of March, 1944, when the question was proposed to them: “Whether the opinion of certain writers can be admitted, who either deny that the primary purpose of matrimony is the generation of children and raising offspring, or teach that the secondary purposes are not essentially subordinate to the primary purpose, but are equally first and independent,” have decreed that the answer must be: In the negative. (As found in 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. 2295, pp. 624-625.)
"Personal values" and the need to respect such are a theme which, over the last twenty years or so, has been considered more and more by writers. In many of their works, even the specifically sexual act has its place assigned, that of serving the "person" of the married couple. The proper and most profound sense of the exercise of conjugal rights would consist in this, that the union of bodies is the expression and the realization of personal and affective union.
Articles, chapters, entire books, conferences, especially dealing with the "technique" of love, are composed to spread these ideas, to illustrate them with advice to the newly married as a guide in matrimony, in order that they may not neglect, through stupidity or a false sense of shame or unfounded scruples, that which God, Who also created natural inclinations, offers them. If from their complete reciprocal gift of husband and wife there results a new life, it is a result which remains outside, or, at the most, on the border of "personal values"; a result which is not denied, but neither is it desired as the center of marital relations.
According to these theories, your dedication for the welfare of the still hidden life in the womb of the mother, and your assisting its happy birth, would only have but a minor and secondary importance.
Now, if this relative evaluation were merely to place the emphasis on the personal values of husband and wife rather than on that of the offspring, it would be possible, strictly speaking, to put such a problem aside. But, however, it is a matter of a grave inversion of the order of values and of the ends imposed by the Creator Himself. We find Ourselves faced with the propagation of a number of ideas and sentiments directly opposed to the clarity, profundity, and seriousness of Christian thought. Here, once again, the need for your apostolate. It may happen that you receive the confidences of the mother and wife and are questioned on the more secret desires and intimacies of married life. How, then, will you be able, aware of your mission, to give weight to truth and right order in the appreciation and action of the married couple, if you yourselves are not furnished with the strength of character needed to uphold what you know to be true and just?
The primary end of marriage
Now, the truth is that matrimony, as an institution of nature, in virtue of the Creator's will, has not as a primary and intimate end the personal perfection of the married couple but the procreation and upbringing of a new life. The other ends, inasmuch as they are intended by nature, are not equally primary, much less superior to the primary end, but are essentially subordinated to it. This is true of every marriage, even if no offspring result, just as of every eye it can be said that it is destined and formed to see, even if, in abnormal cases arising from special internal or external conditions, it will never be possible to achieve visual perception.
It was precisely to end the uncertainties and deviations which threatened to diffuse errors regarding the scale of values of the purposes of matrimony and of their reciprocal relations, that a few years ago (March 10, 1944), We Ourselves drew up a declaration on the order of those ends, pointing out what the very internal structure of the natural disposition reveals. We showed what has been handed down by Christian tradition, what the Supreme Pontiffs have repeatedly taught, and what was then in due measure promulgated by the Code of Canon Law. Not long afterwards, to correct opposing opinions, the Holy See, by a public decree, proclaimed that it could not admit the opinion of some recent authors who denied that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of the offspring, or teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinated to the primary end, but are on an equal footing and independent of it.
Would this lead, perhaps, to Our denying or diminishing what is good and just in personal values resulting from matrimony and its realization? Certainly not, because the Creator has designed that for the procreation of a new life human beings made of flesh and blood, gifted with soul and heart, shall be called upon as men and not as animals deprived of reason to be the authors of their posterity. It is for this end that the Lord desires the union of husband and wife. Indeed, the Holy Scripture says of God that He created man to His image and He created him male and female, and willed—as is repeatedly affirmed in Holy Writ—that "a man shall leave mother and father, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh".
All this is therefore true and desired by God. But, on the other hand, it must not be divorced completely from the primary function of matrimony—the procreation of offspring. Not only the common work of external life, but even all personal enrichment—spiritual and intellectual—all that in married love as such is most spiritual and profound, has been placed by the will of the Creator and of nature at the service of posterity. The perfect married life, of its very nature, also signifies the total devotion of parents to the well-being of their children, and married love in its power and tenderness is itself a condition of the sincerest care of the offspring and the guarantee of its realization.
To reduce the common life of husband and wife and the conjugal act to a mere organic function for the transmission of seed would be but to convert the domestic hearth, the family sanctuary, into a biological laboratory. Therefore, in Our allocution of September 29, 1949, to the International Congress of Catholic Doctors, We expressly excluded artificial insemination in marriage. The conjugal act, in its natural structure, is a personal action, a simultaneous and immediate cooperation of husband and wife, which by the very nature of the agents and the propriety of the act, is the expression of the reciprocal gift, which, according to Holy Writ, effects the union "in one flesh".
That is much more than the union of two genes, which can be effected even by artificial means, that is, without the natural action of husband and wife. The conjugal act, ordained and desired by nature, is a personal cooperation, to which husband and wife, when contracting marriage, exchange the right.
Therefore, when this act in its natural form is from the beginning perpetually impossible, the object of the matrimonial contract is essentially vitiated. This is what we said on that occasion: "Let it not be forgotten: only the procreation of a new life according to the will and the design of the Creator carries with it in a stupendous degree of perfection the intended ends. It is at the same time in conformity with the spiritual and bodily nature and the dignity of the married couple, in conformity with the happy and normal development of the child".
Advise the fiancée or the young married woman who comes to seek your advice about the values of matrimonial life that these personal values, both in the sphere of the body and the senses and in the sphere of the spirit, are truly genuine, but that the Creator has placed them not in the first, but in the second degree of the scale of values. (Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951.)
This was a ringing condemnation of the very philosophical and theological foundations of the indiscriminate, institutionalized teaching and practice of "natural family planning" in the lives of Catholic married couples. It was also yet another papal condemnation of conciliarism's view of marriage.
One cannot overemphasize the importance of Pope Pius XII's condemnation of the very personalist ideology that is at the root of what is called today "natural family planning" as it came just a little over seven years and one-half years after the Holy Office's condemnation of the work, which was identical to that of Dietrich von Hildebrand's, of Father Herbert Doms, who had inverted the end of marriage. The condemnation of Father Doms' work was alluded to in a passage from the October 29, 1951, address just cited above. Here it is once again for the sake of emphasis:
It was precisely to end the uncertainties and deviations which threatened to diffuse errors regarding the scale of values of the purposes of matrimony and of their reciprocal relations, that a few years ago (March 10, 1944), We Ourselves drew up a declaration on the order of those ends, pointing out what the very internal structure of the natural disposition reveals. We showed what has been handed down by Christian tradition, what the Supreme Pontiffs have repeatedly taught, and what was then in due measure promulgated by the Code of Canon Law. Not long afterwards, to correct opposing opinions, the Holy See, by a public decree, proclaimed that it could not admit the opinion of some recent authors who denied that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of the offspring, or teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinated to the primary end, but are on an equal footing and independent of it. (Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951.)
The four "cardinals" are attempting to defend Catholic doctrine on the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and Catholic moral teaching about the illict nature of the use of that which is proper to the married state alone by unmarried people by using the writing of a man who helped to undermine and thus negate Catholic teaching, "Saint John Paul II." He subscribed to an error that had been condemned by Pope Pius XII in no uncertain terms. For "Saint John Paul II" to have been correct, therefore, the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost must have failed our last true pope thus far by letting him issue a condemnation of something that actually had the blessing of Heaven. This is as impossible as it is blasphemous. God lives outside of time and space, and He is immutable in His teaching. (Please see Dr. Janet Smith's The Universality of the Natural Law and the Irreducibility of Personalism for an apologia in defense of Wojtyla/John Paul II's use of personalism in Veritatis Splendor, which was cited repeatedly by the four "cardinals" in their letter to Bergoglio.)
Thus it is that the effort by the four "cardinals" is bound to produce nothing other than another false confict between two sets of revolutionaries who have differences on certain matters while accept the overall foundation of the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes" as a legitimate work of the Catholic Church. Many people are being drawn into this false conflict, which the adversary has designed to keep people from recognizing that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is only more open and honest in his profession of heresy than his predecessors had been in most instances, noting, of course, that even those predecessors were pretty blatant. The difference is that "conservatives" (and I used to be one) made excuses for Wojtyla/John Paul II and "traditionalists" simply ingored almost everything that Ratztinger/Benedict said and did that was contrary to the Catholic Faith.
The truth is, of course, only thing that Bergoglio did in Amoris Laetitia was to apply the condemned Modernist precept of dogmatic evolutionism to the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and to each of the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments concerning conjugal morality, starting with his contention that the indissolubility of a ratified and consummated marriage should not be presented as a “duty” or by “repeating doctrine.” The Argentine Apostate believes that doctrine repels Catholics and that the beauty of its truths have no capacity to convince them to adhere to it for love of God and for the sake of their own sanctification and salvation.
Yet is that Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI did precisely what is disparaged by “Pope Francis.” They saw it as their duty to defend and to teach the doctrine of marital indissolubility:
41. In the great confusion of opinions, however, which day by day is spreading more and more widely, it should further be known that no power can dissolve the bond of Christian marriage whenever this has been ratified and consummated; and that, of a consequence, those husbands and wives are guilty of a manifest crime who plan, for whatever reason, to be united in a second marriage before the first one has been ended by death. When, indeed, matters have come to such a pitch that it seems impossible for them to live together any longer, then the Church allows them to live apart, and strives at the same time to soften the evils of this separation by such remedies and helps as are suited to their condition; yet she never ceases to endeavor to bring about a reconciliation, and never despairs of doing so. But these are extreme cases; and they would seldom exist if men and women entered into the married state with proper dispositions, not influenced by passion, but entertaining right ideas of the duties of marriage and of its noble purpose; neither would they anticipate their marriage by a series of sins drawing down upon them the wrath of God.
42. To sum up all in a few words, there would be a calm and quiet constancy in marriage if married people would gather strength and life from the virtue of religion alone, which imparts to us resolution and fortitude; for religion would enable them to bear tranquilly and even gladly the trials of their state, such as, for instance, the faults that they discover in one another, the difference of temper and character, the weight of a mother's cares, the wearing anxiety about the education of children, reverses of fortune, and the sorrows of life.
43. Care also must be taken that they do not easily enter into marriage with those who are not Catholics; for, when minds do not agree as to the observances of religion, it is scarcely possible to hope for agreement in other things. Other reasons also proving that persons should turn with dread from such marriages are chiefly these: that they give occasion to forbidden association and communion in religious matters; endanger the faith of the Catholic partner; are a hindrance to the proper education of the children; and often lead to a mixing up of truth and falsehood, and to the belief that all religions are equally good.
44. Lastly, since We well know that none should be excluded from Our charity, We commend, venerable brothers, to your fidelity and piety those unhappy persons who, carried away by the heat of passion, and being utterly indifferent to their salvation, live wickedly together without the bond of lawful marriage. Let your utmost care be exercised in bringing such persons back to their duty; and, both by your own efforts and by those of good men who will consent to help you, strive by every means that they may see how wrongly they have acted; that they may do penance; and that they may be induced to enter into a lawful marriage according to the Catholic rite. (Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, February 10, 1880.)
32. In the first place Christ Himself lays stress on the indissolubility and firmness of the marriage bond when He says: "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder," and: "Everyone that putteth away his wife and marrieth another committeth adultery, and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery."
33. And St. Augustine clearly places what he calls the blessing of matrimony in this indissolubility when he says: "In the sacrament it is provided that the marriage bond should not be broken, and that a husband or wife, if separated, should not be joined to another even for the sake of offspring."
34. And this inviolable stability, although not in the same perfect measure in every case, belongs to every true marriage, for the word of the Lord: "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder," must of necessity include all true marriages without exception, since it was spoken of the marriage of our first parents, the prototype of every future marriage. Therefore although before Christ the sublimeness and the severity of the primeval law was so tempered that Moses permitted to the chosen people of God on account of the hardness of their hearts that a bill of divorce might be given in certain circumstances, nevertheless, Christ, by virtue of His supreme legislative power, recalled this concession of greater liberty and restored the primeval law in its integrity by those words which must never be forgotten, "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder." Wherefore, Our predecessor Pius VI of happy memory, writing to the Bishop of Agria, most wisely said: "Hence it is clear that marriage even in the state of nature, and certainly long before it was raised to the dignity of a sacrament, was divinely instituted in such a way that it should carry with it a perpetual and indissoluble bond which cannot therefore be dissolved by any civil law. Therefore although the sacramental element may be absent from a marriage as is the case among unbelievers, still in such a marriage, inasmuch as it is a true marriage there must remain and indeed there does remain that perpetual bond which by divine right is so bound up with matrimony from its first institution that it is not subject to any civil power. And so, whatever marriage is said to be contracted, either it is so contracted that it is really a true marriage, in which case it carries with it that enduring bond which by divine right is inherent in every true marriage; or it is thought to be contracted without that perpetual bond, and in that case there is no marriage, but an illicit union opposed of its very nature to the divine law, which therefore cannot be entered into or maintained."
35. And if this stability seems to be open to exception, however rare the exception may be, as in the case of certain natural marriages between unbelievers, or amongst Christians in the case of those marriages which though valid have not been consummated, that exception does not depend on the will of men nor on that of any merely human power, but on divine law, of which the only guardian and interpreter is the Church of Christ. However, not even this power can ever affect for any cause whatsoever a Christian marriage which is valid and has been consummated, for as it is plain that here the marriage contract has its full completion, so, by the will of God, there is also the greatest firmness and indissolubility which may not be destroyed by any human authority.
36. If we wish with all reverence to inquire into the intimate reason of this divine decree, Venerable Brethren, we shall easily see it in the mystical signification of Christian marriage which is fully and perfectly verified in consummated marriage between Christians. For, as the Apostle says in his Epistle to the Ephesians, the marriage of Christians recalls that most perfect union which exists between Christ and the Church: "Sacramentum hoc magnum est, ego autem dico, in Christo et in ecclesia;" which union, as long as Christ shall live and the Church through Him, can never be dissolved by any separation. And this St. Augustine clearly declares in these words: "This is safeguarded in Christ and the Church, which, living with Christ who lives for ever may never be divorced from Him. The observance of this sacrament is such in the City of God . . . that is, in the Church of Christ, that when for the sake of begetting children, women marry or are taken to wife, it is wrong to leave a wife that is sterile in order to take another by whom children may be hand. Anyone doing this is guilty of adultery, just as if he married another, guilty not by the law of the day, according to which when one's partner is put away another may be taken, which the Lord allowed in the law of Moses because of the hardness of the hearts of the people of Israel; but by the law of the Gospel."
37. Indeed, how many and how important are the benefits which flow from the indissolubility of matrimony cannot escape anyone who gives even a brief consideration either to the good of the married parties and the offspring or to the welfare of human society. First of all, both husband and wife possess a positive guarantee of the endurance of this stability which that generous yielding of their persons and the intimate fellowship of their hearts by their nature strongly require, since true love never falls away. Besides, a strong bulwark is set up in defense of a loyal chastity against incitements to infidelity, should any be encountered either from within or from without; any anxious fear lest in adversity or old age the other spouse would prove unfaithful is precluded and in its place there reigns a calm sense of security. Moreover, the dignity of both man and wife is maintained and mutual aid is most satisfactorily assured, while through the indissoluble bond, always enduring, the spouses are warned continuously that not for the sake of perishable things nor that they may serve their passions, but that they may procure one for the other high and lasting good have they entered into the nuptial partnership, to be dissolved only by death. In the training and education of children, which must extend over a period of many years, it plays a great part, since the grave and long enduring burdens of this office are best borne by the united efforts of the parents. Nor do lesser benefits accrue to human society as a whole. For experience has taught that unassailable stability in matrimony is a fruitful source of virtuous life and of habits of integrity. Where this order of things obtains, the happiness and well being of the nation is safely guarded; what the families and individuals are, so also is the State, for a body is determined by its parts. Wherefore, both for the private good of husband, wife and children, as likewise for the public good of human society, they indeed deserve well who strenuously defend the inviolable stability of matrimony.
38. But considering the benefits of the Sacrament, besides the firmness and indissolubility, there are also much higher emoluments as the word "sacrament" itself very aptly indicates; for to Christians this is not a meaningless and empty name. Christ the Lord, the Institutor and "Perfecter" of the holy sacraments, by raising the matrimony of His faithful to the dignity of a true sacrament of the New Law, made it a sign and source of that peculiar internal grace by which "it perfects natural love, it confirms an indissoluble union, and sanctifies both man and wife." (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)
Why is it that the four "cardinals" ignored Arcanum and Casti Connubii? They, too, have fallen into the trap of relying solely upon conciliar sources to oppose the logical consquences those sources must produce over the course of time
Trying to oppose heresy by using other heresies is insanity, but this is what the four "cardinals" are doing at this time as their cheerleaders applaud them for what they believe to be an exercise in "courage" that is in direct violation of Catholic teaching concerning the obedience that is due a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter.
Yes, violate the First and Second Commandments, good readers, and everything else will follow thereafter, including the Third Commandment (promulgation of a sacrilegious liturgy and other sacramentally invalid rites), the Fourth Commandment (separation of church and state, religious liberty) and the Fifth Commandment (conciliar "popes" have decried the death penalty and Bergoglio has said that there is no such thing as a just war). Why should any particular respect be given to the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments when the honor and glory and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity have been undermined and mocked with complete impunity?
The veritable “house of cards” that has been constructed out of the constant erosion of the sensus Catholicus by the documents of the “Second” Vatican Council and the “magisterium” of the postconciliar “popes” has fallen down by the septuagenarian juvenile delinquent from South America, a man who delights, absolutely delights, in “making a mess” as he springs “surprises” that he dares so blasphemously to represent as coming from God when they are nothing other than the phantasms of his heretical imagination.
No, this did not all begin with Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his agenda of sin that has many Catholics in the conciliar structures who follow these developments to the point of wondering how to deal with a supposed “pope” who preaches heresy.
No matter what euphemism has been used in the past to disguise conciliarism's warfare upon the very nature of dogmatic truth, which is nothing other than a warfare upon the very nature of God Himself, the Catholic Church has condemned dogmatic evolutionism in no uncertain terms. Although the appendix below provides a review of some of these condemnations, here is an excerpt from Pope Saint Pius X's Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:
Hence it is quite impossible [the Modernists assert] to maintain that they [dogmatic statements] absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion.
It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: 'These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts.' On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ''Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason'; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ''The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.' Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: 'Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries -- but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.' (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
It is well past time for the "conservatives" and "traditionally-minded" Cahtolics in the conciliar structures to "sober up" to the reality expressed by the Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton in the American Ecclesiastical Review:
It is definitely the business of the writer in the field of sacred theology to benefit the Church by what he writes. It is likewise the duty of the teacher of this science to help the Church by his teaching. The man who uses the shoddy tricks of minimism to oppose or to ignore the doctrinal decisions made by the Sovereign Pontiff and set down in his "Acta" is, in the last analysis, stultifying his position as a theologian. (The doctrinal Authority of Papal allocutions.)
Are there any further questions about the binding nature of what a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter places in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis?
Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton denounced "the shoddy tricks of minimism to ignore the doctrinal decisions made by the Sovereign Pontiff and set down his his 'Acta'."
Although "Cardinal" Burke may not realize it, those who seek to "resist" the decisions of a true pope once they are published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis continue to propagate a falsehood that had been condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794.
The same shoddy tricks of minimism that were being used by the likes of Father John Courtney Murray, S.J., and the "new theologians," including Father Joseph Ratzinger, in the 1950s that prompted Pope Pius XII to issue Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, have been employed for the past forty years or more by those seeking to claim the absolutely nonexistent ability to ignore and/or refute the teaching of men they have recognized to be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter. I know. I contributed to that literature for a while. I was wrong. So are those who continue to persist in their willful, stubborn rejection of the binding nature of all that is contained in the Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church even though if not declared infallible in a solemn manner.
Unfortunately for those who believe this, the One responsible for the formulation of dogma is the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, under Whose infallible protection popes teach the truths of the Catholic at all times, yes, even when not proclaiming something solemnly ex cathedra. Catholics are bound to obey everything proposed by a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter without any degree of dissent, reservation or qualification. Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton proved that this is so in his scholary treatises cited above.
As this is indeed the case, therefore, Catholics such as Raymond Leo "Cardinal" Burke and his three compatriots who recognize Jorge Mario Bergoglio to be "Pope Francis" must accept everything he chooses to have published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis as binding upon their consciences without any public crticism whatsoever, including the following two passages from Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013:
247. We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked, for “the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29). The Church, which shares with Jews an important part of the sacred Scriptures, looks upon the people of the covenant and their faith as one of the sacred roots of her own Christian identity (cf. Rom 11:16-18). As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God (cf. 1 Thes 1:9). With them, we believe in the one God who acts in history, and with them we accept his revealed word.
248. Dialogue and friendship with the children of Israel are part of the life of Jesus’ disciples. The friendship which has grown between us makes us bitterly and sincerely regret the terrible persecutions which they have endured, and continue to endure, especially those that have involved Christians.
249. God continues to work among the people of the Old Covenant and to bring forth treasures of wisdom which flow from their encounter with his word. For this reason, the Church also is enriched when she receives the values of Judaism. While it is true that certain Christian beliefs are unacceptable to Judaism, and that the Church cannot refrain from proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Messiah, there exists as well a rich complementarity which allows us to read the texts of the Hebrew Scriptures together and to help one another to mine the riches of God’s word. We can also share many ethical convictions and a common concern for justice and the development of peoples. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013.)
"Pope Francis" chose to have this "apostolic exhortation" published in the December, 2013, edition of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
Here are the three passages as found in the Italian language (not Latin, by the way!) in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis as it is published in its conciliar captivity:
247. Uno sguardo molto speciale si rivolge al popolo ebreo, la cui Alleanza con Dio non è mai stata revocata, perché “i doni e la chiamata di Dio sono irrevocabili” (Rm 11, 29). La Chiesa, che condivide con l’Ebraismo una parte importante delle Sacre Scritture, considera il popolo dell’Alleanza e la sua fede come una radice sacra della propria identità cristiana (cfr Rm 11, 16-18). Come cristiani non possiamo considerare l’Ebraismo come una religione estranea, né includiamo gliebrei tra quanti sono chiamati ad abbandonare gli idoli per convertirsi al vero Dio (cfr 1 Ts 1, 9). Crediamo insieme con loro nell’unico Dio che agisce nella storia, e accogliamo con loro la comune Parola rivelata.
248. Il dialogo e l’amicizia con i figli d’Israele sono parte della vita dei discepoli di Gesù. L’affetto che si è sviluppato ci porta sinceramene ed amaramente a dispiacerci per le terribili persecuzioni di cui furono e sono oggetto, particolarmente per quelle che coinvolgono o hanno coinvolto cristiani.
249. Dio continua ad operare nel popolo dell’Antica Alleanza e fa nascere tesori di saggezza che scaturiscono dal suo incontro con la Parola divina. Per questo anche la Chiesa si arricchisce quando raccoglie i valori dell’Ebraismo. Sebbene alcune convinzioni cristiane siano inaccettabili per l’Ebraismo, e la Chiesa non possa rinunciare ad annunciare Gesù come Signore e Messia, esiste una ricca complementarietà che ci permette di leggere insieme i testi della Bibbia ebraica e aiutarci vicendevolmente a scerare le ricchezze della Parola, come pure di condividere molte convinzioni etiche e la comune preoccupazione per la giustizia e lo sviluppo dei popoli. (Data presso San Pietro, alla chiusura dell’Anno della fede, il 24 novembre, Solennità i i. S. Gesù Cristo Re dell’Universo, dell’anno 2013, primo del mio Pontificato. Acta Apostolicae Sedis, December, 2013.)
If one professes belief that a particular claimant to the Throne of Saint Peter is legitimate and is indeed the Vicar of Christ on earth, a matter about which no Catholic is free to err or to profess indifference, then one must accept as binding upon his conscience and beyond all criticism even Evangelii Gaudium as part of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church without complaint, reservation or qulification of any kind.
Well, "Cardinal" Burke, is the Mosaic Covenant still valid?
Has it never been revoked?
You must agree with your "pope's" statement as you have not criticized him at all for having made it and caused it to be published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
Why the silence on this point of doctrine?
Obviously, Jorge Mario Bergoglio's "teaching" on the Jews is heretical, and it is in this and in so many other ways that he shows himself to be a perfect disciple of the falsehoods promulgated by the authority of his predecessors since the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958. Jorge Mario Bergolio lacks the Catholic Faith, He has openly denied Catholic doctrine on this subject with great boldness. Although he style is more vulgar, visceral profane that those who have perceded him, he is, of course, merely following those before him who have denied, whether implicitly or explicitly, the Catholic truth about the Old Covenant that was summarized so clearly by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943:
28.That He completed His work on the gibbet of the Cross is the unanimous teaching of the holy Fathers who assert that the Church was born from the side of our Savior on the Cross like a new Eve, mother of all the living.  "And it is now," says the great St. Ambrose, speaking of the pierced side of Christ, "that it is built, it is now that it is formed, it is now that is .... molded, it is now that it is created . . . Now it is that arises a spiritual house, a holy priesthood."  One who reverently examines this venerable teaching will easily discover the reasons on which it is based.
29.And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area -- He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the house of Israel  -the Law and the Gospel were together in force;  but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees,  fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross,  establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race.  "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom." 
30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death,  in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers;  and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head in His Church. "For it was through His triumph on the Cross," according to the teaching of the Angelic and Common Doctor, "that He won power and dominion over the gentiles";  by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces, which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His mortal members it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God's anger was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been united to this Mystical Body. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)
Pope Pius XII's Mystici Corporis was inserted into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis in 1943. Although it was nothing new whatsoever, Pope Pius XII reaffirmed an irreformable teaching that is part of the Sacred Deposit of Faith. The fact that Jorge Mario Bergoglio chose to insert a contrary teaching into the Acta Apostlicae Sedis shows that he is, in perfect communion of mind and heart with his predecessors, a heretic who is outside of the bosom of the Catholic Church, an imposter on the Throne of Saint Peter.
Although the apologists of the schismatic "resist while recognize" movement keep making caricatures of themselves by engaging in the same kind of minimism that was condemned by Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton fifity-nine years ago now in his treatise on the binding authority of papal allocutions, the fact remains that, yes, despite their best efforts to refuse to admit the reality that is plainly before their eyes, The Chair is Still Empty.
Indeed, the apologists of the "resist while recognize" movement keep expanding the scope of that minimism to reduce into meanginlessness Jorge Mario Bergoglio's claim to the papacy as if human salvation had nothing to do with the identity of the Roman Pontiff and/or that one can can "ignore" a true Sovereign Pontiff with absolute impunity yet save his soul.
This is not so.
Pope Leo XIII chose to insert two apostolical letters into the Acta Apostlicae Sedis in 1885 and 1888, respectively, that condemned all efforts on the part of writers to arrogate unto themselves public criticisms of bishops who had been duly appointed by and are submissive to a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, no less criticism of the pope himself:
To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor. In this subordination and dependence lie the order and life of the Church; in it is to be found the indispensable condition of well-being and good government. On the contrary, if it should happen that those who have no right to do so should attribute authority to themselves, if they presume to become judges and teachers, if inferiors in the government of the universal Church attempt or try to exert an influence different from that of the supreme authority, there follows a reversal of the true order, many minds are thrown into confusion, and souls leave the right path . . . .
On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. He has the charge of the universal welfare of the Church, to which is subordinate any particular need, and all others who are subject to this order must second the action of the supreme director and serve the end which he has in view. Since the Church is one and her head is one, so, too, her government is one, and all must conform to this.
When these principles are forgotten there is noticed among Catholics a diminution of respect, of veneration, and of confidence in the one given them for a guide; then there is a loosening of that bond of love and submission which ought to bind all the faithful to their pastors, the faithful and the pastors to the Supreme Pastor, the bond in which is principally to be found security and common salvation.
In the same way, by forgetting or neglecting these principles, the door is opened wide to divisions and dissensions among Catholics, to the grave detriment of union which is the distinctive mark of the faithful of Christ, and which, in every age, but particularly today by reason of the combined forces of the enemy, should be of supreme and universal interest, in favor of which every feeling of personal preference or individual advantage ought to be laid aside.
That obligation, if it is generally incumbent on all, is, you may indeed say, especially pressing upon journalists. If they have not been imbued with the docile and submissive spirit so necessary to each Catholic, they would assist in spreading more widely those deplorable matters and in making them more burdensome. The task pertaining to them in all the things that concern religion and that are closely connected to the action of the Church in human society is this: to be subject completely in mind and will, just as all the other faithful are, to their own bishops and to the Roman Pontiff; to follow and make known their teachings; to be fully and willingly subservient to their influence; and to reverence their precepts and assure that they are respected. He who would act otherwise in such a way that he would serve the aims and interests of those whose spirit and intentions We have reproved in this letter would fail the noble mission he has undertaken. So doing, in vain would he boast of attending to the good of the Church and helping her cause, no less than someone who would strive to weaken or diminish Catholic truth, or indeed someone who would show himself to be her overly fearful friend. (Pope Leo XIII, Epistola Tua, June 17, 1885.)
Not only must those be held to fail in their duty who openly and brazenly repudiate the authority of their leaders, but those, too, who give evidence of a hostile and contrary disposition by their clever tergiversations and their oblique and devious dealings. The true and sincere virtue of obedience is not satisfied with words; it consists above all in submission of mind and heart.
But since We are here dealing with the lapse of a newspaper, it is absolutely necessary for Us once more to enjoin upon the editors of Catholic journals to respect as sacred laws the teaching and the ordinances mentioned above and never to deviate from them. Moreover, let them be well persuaded and let this be engraved in their minds, that if they dare to violate these prescriptions and abandon themselves to their personal appreciations, whether in prejudging questions which the Holy See has not yet pronounced on, or in wounding the authority of the Bishops by arrogating to themselves an authority which can never be theirs, let them be convinced that it is all in vain for them to pretend to keep the honor of the name of Catholic and to serve the interests of the very holy and very noble cause which they have undertaken to defend and to render glorious.
Now, We, exceedingly desirous that any who have strayed return to soundness of mind and that deference to the sacred Bishops inhere deeply in the hearts of all men, in the Lord We bestow an Apostolic Blessing upon you, Venerable Brother, and to all your clergy and people, as a token of Our fatherly good will and charity. (Pope Leo XIII, Est Sane Molestum, December 17, 1888. The complete text may be found at: Est Sane Molestum, December 17, 1888. See also Pope Leo XIII Quashes Popular “Resist-And-Recognize Position.)
According to the explication provided by Monsignor Fenton, this is all binding up the consciences of every Catholic around the world and cannot be questioned by any serious Catholic who loves the Holy Faith.
Yet it is that those in the "resist while recognize" movement continue to refuse to admit that these apostolic letters even exist or that they are applicable to their own false view of papal infalliblity and the due submission we must give to a true Roman Pontiff. No amount of ignoring them, however, can make them or their authority go away. The letter written by "Cardinal" Burke and the three other "cardinals (Brandmuller, Meisner, Caffarra) will wind up creating a new set of false conflicts designed to keep Cathoics from recognizing a truth that even a conciiar "cardinal", the late Mario Francesco Pompedda, who had been head of the conciliar Apostolic Signatura, expressed as "Saint John Paul II" was dying of Stage III Parkinson's disease in February of 2005:
It is true that the canonical doctrine states that the see would be vacant in the case of heresy. ... But in regard to all else, I think what is applicable is what judgment regulates human acts. And the act of will, namely a resignation or capacity to govern or not govern, is a human act. (Cardinal Says Pope Could Govern Even If Unable to Speak, Zenit, February 8, 2005.)
It does not take one with a doctorate in sacred theology to see that Jorge Mario Bergoglio and each of his predecessors have been heretics. It simply takes the courage to recognize the truth of the state of the Church Militant in this time of apostasy and betrayal as we are reminded once again by the words of Pope Pius XI that were cited at the beginning of this commentary:
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.)
Raymond Leo "Cardinal" Burke, some believe, is studying whether Jorge Mario Bergoglio is indeed the "pope," although it is unclear that he believes "Pope Benedict XVI's" resignation is valid.
Well, poor "Cardinal" Burke, who is neither a priest or a bishop, can study all he wants. The fact remains that, despite a few differences around the margin on some matters of substance, there is no difference the likes of Karol Josef Wotyla/John Paul II and Joseph Alois Ratzinger when compared with Jorge Mario Bergoglio other than in matters of style and presentation. This is the point I tried to hammer home in No Space Between Ratzinger and Bergoglio: So Close in Apostasy, So Far From Catholic Truth, which I invite you to send to "Cardinal" Burke in his office at the Knights of Malta in Rome. Those who believe that Joseph Ratzinger is still "Pope Francis" are simply accepting a more "refined" and supposedly "intellectual" heretic to be their "pope" as opposed to the vulgar, profane and visceral Argentine Apostate.
May we cling to Our Lady, especially through her Most Holy Rosary, to cling to the truth in these terrible times without any degree of doubt about the simple fact that a heretic cannot be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter and that it is necessary to separate ourselves from the false church of conciliarism with its false litugical rites and blasphemous, heretical "teachings" and pastoral practices.
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saint Gregory Thaumatgurgas, pray for us.