“Why does he feel like speaking heresy when he does it every day?”
With a great deal of emphasis and a roll of the eyes, this is what a a young lady who is thirteen years old and is in our general acquaintance, shall we say, said yesterday, Whit Tuesday, May 26, 2015 (the date on which the feast of Saint Philip Neri with a commemoration of Pope Saint Eleuetherius is celebrated most years except when completely impeded by one of the first three days of the Octave of Pentecost), as I was walking out the door to run my usual assortment of errands for the family in a car that is need of repairs at this time.
Although a very good post at Novus Ordo Watch Wire has revealed that the Argentine Apostate actually said "“I feel like saying something that may sound … heretical” in his videotaped message that was played at a Protestant jamboree on Satuday, May 23, 2015, the Vigil of Pentecost, Lucy made quite an apt observation based on the original report of what the false "pontiff" said. Obviously, Jorge Mario Bergoglio always feels like speaking heretically or saying something “controversial,” as this most wicked of demons just loves to throw out his verbal bombs in order to “make a mess.”
As noted five months ago now, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is juvenile delinquent who is never happier than when making the “Pharisees” within the ranks, including those within the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber at this time of apostasy and betrayal, cringe as they scramble to defend the indefensible. Every day does not seem to bring some new outrageous statement from the Argentine Apostate as one can be certain that this will be the case. The Freemasonic Deist libertine Benjamin Franklin’s famous adage can be amended as follows: Nothing is certain except death, taxes and Jorge’s daily dose(s) of apostasy.
Jorge, though, is far from alone in the promotion of his conciliar apostasy. Having unleashed the pent-up energy of his fellow ultra-progessive Jacobin/Bolshevik Modernist revolutionaries, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is smiling broadly as these fellow revolutionaries proceed to “make a mess” with his full “papal blessing.”
One of Jorge’s fellow lay Jesuit revolutionaries, “Father” Gian Luigi Brena, wrote the following recently in La Civilta Cattolica about what the conciliar revolution has wrought insofar as “discovering” that “mercy” takes precedence over “clear-cut” moral laws that do not take account of the unique circumstances of those involved.
It is a dense article that starts off by asking how doctrine and mercy can be reconciled and concludes that mercy is doctrine and what is more, it is “the very essence of the Gospel”, as Pope Francis has said on more than one occasion. The article in question was written by Fr. Gian Luigi Brena and introduces the next issue of Italian Jesuit periodical La Civiltà Cattolica, touching on subjects relating to the Synod on the Family.
The author recalls that “for Jesus, mercy counts more than sacrifice and that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. Hence, the most important thing is to interiorize the Lord’s style, which is also illustrated in the parables of the Good Samaritan and the merciful father.” ("Mercy is doctrine”.)
Brief Comment Number One:
The prodigal son in the parable of the Good Samaritan was sorry for his sins. He wanted only to make reparation for them by working as a hired hand for his father, who had given him the portion of his, the father’s estate, before squandering it on profligate living. He had quit his sins, and he was ashamed of having committed them. His father chose to restore him to his rightful place in the household after he expressed his sorrow and had said that he had amended his life. The father did not reaffirm him in his sins nor did he give him more money to go, and sin some more after being restored to his rightful place in the family.
In like manner, God restores us to friendship with Him when a penitent confesses his Mortal Sins by kind and number and vows to amend his life. Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ does not reaffirm hardened sinners in their lives of their sin so that He can show a concept of “mercy” through the ministration of true priest acting in His Holy Name and by His sacred authority as an alter Christus that will simply make such sinners “feel good” about much they are “loved” without worrying about silly “rules” such as amending their lives.
This is the talk of Antichrist, and it is the sort of talk we hear from Jorge’s lips directly almost all of the time.
To the next passage from the Vatican Insider report about Father Brensa’s La Civilta
According to the author, mercy allows people to “hold on firmly to faith in the truth”. “If we,” he explains, “judge humans according to a rule, we inevitably divide them between righteous and sinners; then, all that is left to do is to invite the latter to convert by complying with the rule and that’s basically that. This way the tension is taken to the extreme but incompatibility is not absolute. Throughout the tradition, the contrast between doctrine and people’s needs in given situations has never been clear-cut. The possibility of a reconciliation has been left open, given that when it comes to human experience, the truth cannot generally be determined by laws with no exceptions, as is the case in a purely theoretical dimension. The application of moral precepts therefore does allow for adaptation to given circumstances, especially if these involve a change in the matter in question.” ” ("Mercy is doctrine”.)
Brief Comment Number Two:
Let’s cut to the chase here.
This is nothing other than situational ethics, a false moral philosophy of moral relativism, that was developed and popularized by the likes of Protestants Rudolph Bultmann and Joseph Fletcher, who was an Episcoplian “priest” before becoming an atheist, and adapted for use in Catholic circles by the such luminaries of the adversary as Father Joseph Fuchs, S.J. Father Bernard Haring, C.SS.R., Father Karl Rahner, S.J, and Father Richard McCormick, S.J. Situational ethics rests on the old sophisms of the Sophists themselves in Athens: that man is the measure of all things. It is thus the case that no moral principle is said to be absolute as each person faces a variety of supposed “individual” choices that are said to be contingent upon the peculiar circumstances in which the choices are to be made. No one set of principles or laws applies in all situations as morality is dependent upon the intentions of the individual and the supposedly extenuating circumstances that are known within the depths of his conscience. “Love” is said to be the ultimate law.
The late Father Richard McCormick, who taught at Georgetown University for many years until his death in 2000, developed what can be called the “twin forks” (Long Islanders are familiar with the term that refers to the north and south forks of our beloved homeland), of heretical situational ethics that masqueraded itself until the names of “proportionalism” and the “fundamental option.
The false moral theology of the fundamental option contends that an otherwise objectively evil act can be rendered licit to pursue according to the "weight" of extenuating circumstances of the person involved as one's "option is for God." which contends that one is never guilty of any kind of truly serious, no less mortal, sin unless his "option" is said to be against God. A sinner is just "fine" with God as long as he does not opt to turn away from Him. It is no accident that this heresy was propagated in the 1970s by a Jesuit priest, McCormick, and it certainly does not matter to lay Jesuits such as Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis and Gian Luigi Brena that the "theology of the fundamental option" was condemned even by the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith in Persona Humana on December 29, 1975 (see Persona Humana, which drops its fair share of poisons by speaking of sodomy in subjective rather than objective terms, something that Randy Engel herself noted in "Open Letter to Pope Francis" that Persona Humana, which was issued under the authority of a practitioner of perversity, Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul the Sick, gave credence to the lie that homosexuals are born that way.")
Readers of this site should know, however, that every sin involves a turning away from God as we seek creatures, starting with our own sinful temptations, and that Mortal Sins involve a casting out of the very inner life of the Most Blessed Trinity that is found in baptized souls who are in states of Sanctifying Grace. The theology of the "fundamental option" ("seeking God with a good will") is destructive of individual souls and thus of nations. Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis sees none of this. None of this whatsoever.
The other of Father McCormick’s twin forks of his false moral philosophy was, as mentioned just above, proportionalism, which is an inversion and corruption of the true Catholic principle of proportionality, which teaches that the pursuit of end that is naturally good in and of itself must not be outweighed by the foreseen evil to be done. Thus it is that a morally good end in the objective order of things can be rendered unjust to pursue if a judgment is made that the amount of the foreseen evil to be done, say, in the prosecution of a just war will cause greater evils than the one the war is being waged to eradicate.
This is different than McCormick's the heresy of proportionalism (heretics use Catholic sounding phrases so as to connect themselves in the minds of Catholics as understanding Catholic principles), which asserts that a preponderance of "good intentions" and of the "relative exigencies of the moment" can make a moral act that is naturally evil capable of being pursued justly on the part of one who believes the weight of the evidence in his case justifies a subjective violation of an objective moral law to do good. Thus, proportionalism can be used by a woman to justify the killing of her preborn child. After all, more good will be done in her life by killing the child than if she permitted him to interfere unduly with her life's goals. Indeed, it can be used to justify almost every moral evil imaginable. Subjectivity and not love of God by a faithful obedience to the Holy Commandments that He has entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church for their infallible explication and eternal safekpeeing and that are inscribed by His very hand on the flesh of our hearts.
Readers of this site may recall that Father Richard McCormick was part of a group of "theologians" who sought to provide the Kennedys cover in support of the chemical and surgical execution of preborn babies as early as 1964:
For faithful Roman Catholics, the thought of yet another pro-choice Kennedy positioned to campaign for the unlimited right to abortion is discouraging. Yet if Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of Catholics John F. Kennedy and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, is appointed to fill the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Clinton, abortion-rights advocates will have just such a champion.
Ms. Kennedy was so concerned to assure pro-abortion leaders in New York, Britain's Guardian newspaper reported on Dec. 18, that on the same day Ms. Kennedy telephoned New York Gov. David Patterson to declare interest in the Senate seat, "one of her first calls was to an abortion rights group, indicating she will be strongly pro-choice."
Within the first week of her candidacy, Ms. Kennedy promised to work for several causes, including same-sex marriage and abortion rights. In responding to a series of 15 questions posed by the New York Times on Dec. 21, Ms. Kennedy said that, while she believes "young women facing unwanted pregnancies should have the advice of caring adults," she would oppose legislation that would require minors to notify a parent before obtaining an abortion. On the crucial question of whether she supports any state or federal restrictions on late-term abortions, Ms. Kennedy chose to say only that she "supports Roe v. Wade, which prohibits third trimester abortions except when the life or health of the mother is at risk." Presumably Ms. Kennedy knows that this effectively means an unlimited right to abortion -- including late-stage abortion -- because the "health of the mother" can be so broadly defined that it includes the psychological distress that can accompany an unintended pregnancy.
Ms. Kennedy's commitment to abortion rights is shared by other prominent family members, including Kerry Kennedy Cuomo and Maryland's former Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. Some may recall the 2000 Democratic Convention when Caroline and her uncle, Sen. Ted Kennedy, addressed the convention to reassure all those gathered that the Democratic Party would continue to provide women with the right to choose abortion -- even into the ninth month. At that convention, the party's nominee, Al Gore, formerly a pro-life advocate, pledged his opposition to parental notification and embraced partial-birth abortion. Several of those in attendance, including former President Bill Clinton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson, had been pro-life at one time. But by 2000 nearly every delegate in the convention hall was on the pro-choice side -- and those who weren't simply kept quiet about it.
Caroline Kennedy knows that any Kennedy desiring higher office in the Democratic Party must now carry the torch of abortion rights throughout any race. But this was not always the case. Despite Ms. Kennedy's description of Barack Obama, in a New York Times op-ed, as a "man like my father," there is no evidence that JFK was pro-choice like Mr. Obama. Abortion-rights issues were in the fledgling stage at the state level in New York and California in the early 1960s. They were not a national concern.
Even Ted Kennedy, who gets a 100% pro-choice rating from the abortion-rights group Naral, was at one time pro-life. In fact, in 1971, a full year after New York had legalized abortion, the Massachusetts senator was still championing the rights of the unborn. In a letter to a constituent dated Aug. 3, 1971, he wrote: "When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family, and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception."
But that all changed in the early '70s, when Democratic politicians first figured out that the powerful abortion lobby could fill their campaign coffers (and attract new liberal voters). Politicians also began to realize that, despite the Catholic Church's teachings to the contrary, its bishops and priests had ended their public role of responding negatively to those who promoted a pro-choice agenda.
In some cases, church leaders actually started providing "cover" for Catholic pro-choice politicians who wanted to vote in favor of abortion rights. At a meeting at the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport, Mass., on a hot summer day in 1964, the Kennedy family and its advisers and allies were coached by leading theologians and Catholic college professors on how to accept and promote abortion with a "clear conscience."
The former Jesuit priest Albert Jonsen, emeritus professor of ethics at the University of Washington, recalls the meeting in his book "The Birth of Bioethics" (Oxford, 2003). He writes about how he joined with the Rev. Joseph Fuchs, a Catholic moral theologian; the Rev. Robert Drinan, then dean of Boston College Law School; and three academic theologians, the Revs. Giles Milhaven, Richard McCormick and Charles Curran, to enable the Kennedy family to redefine support for abortion.
Mr. Jonsen writes that the Hyannisport colloquium was influenced by the position of another Jesuit, the Rev. John Courtney Murray, a position that "distinguished between the moral aspects of an issue and the feasibility of enacting legislation about that issue." It was the consensus at the Hyannisport conclave that Catholic politicians "might tolerate legislation that would permit abortion under certain circumstances if political efforts to repress this moral error led to greater perils to social peace and order."
Father Milhaven later recalled the Hyannisport meeting during a 1984 breakfast briefing of Catholics for a Free Choice: "The theologians worked for a day and a half among ourselves at a nearby hotel. In the evening we answered questions from the Kennedys and the Shrivers. Though the theologians disagreed on many a point, they all concurred on certain basics . . . and that was that a Catholic politician could in good conscience vote in favor of abortion." ( See WSJ.com - Opinion: How Support for Abortion Became Kennedy Dogma. David Paterson, a pro-abortion Catholic, ultimately chose another pro-abortion Catholic, Kirsten Gillibrand, who has been the junior senator of the State of New York since January 26, 2009. For a review of David Paterson's moral corruption, see Little Caesars All (Pizza! Pizza!)
In perfect conformity with the "thought," such as it may be, of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Gian Luigi Brena believes, in essence, that "anything goes." All objectively immoral actions can be justified because of mitigating circumstances in the name of "love," and the only real "sinners" in the world today are those who are not "loving" by discharging a Spiritual of Mercy to admonish the sinner for love of God and for love of a sinner's soul that has been redeemed by the shedding of every single drop of the Most Precious Blood of Christ the King during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross.
This is how Gian Luigi Brena can justify a "change" in the teaching on the immorality of the transplantation of vital organs of a human being:
Fr. Brena mentioned organ transplants as an example: these were once considered morally unacceptable only to then be seen as a worthy practice.
“The rules remain reasonable and valid,” the Jesuit periodical writes “but these cannot always be the decision criterion in every single case in which action plays a concrete and decisive role. And since not all cases can be predicted, the responsibility for deciding what is to be done in each circumstance must ultimately be entrusted to the consciences of those directly involved. The principle of individual conscience as a criterion that is closely linked to people’s sense of responsibility is also part of tradition,” Brena says.
The author recalls that some “general” historical circumstances have also changed. While the validity of moral rules was one “traditionally seen as the norm and the general rule prevailed,” given that “exceptions” were rare in a uniform and for the most part static society, “in modern times, particularly this century, things have changed”.
“This has led to the belief that when it comes to human matters, the individuality of each person and their unique situations has an influence on an essentially collective context. The singularity of people therefore starts taking priority over the generality of doctrine. A similar change in focus also characterized one of the fundamental directions taken in the Second Vatican Council: there was a move from an attitude of condemnation toward modern-day deviations from traditional doctrine, to an attitude of dialogue with people, which focused on highlighting their strengths. The pastoral mission calls for people to be accepted and welcomed above all in flesh and blood.” ("Mercy is doctrine”.)
So much for the work of Dr. Paul Byrne to fight against the medical industry's manufactured, profit-making myth of "brain death" that has seen him hold conferences around the world as he still helps family members to keep brain-damaged relatives alive by providing them with advice that his fully in consonance with the teaching of the Catholic Church, not the falsehoods of Modernist proponents of a thinly-disguised situtional ethics (see No Room In The Inn For Jahi McMath, Every Once In A While, Dr. Paul Byrne on Brain Death, Stories That Speak For Themselves, Headless Corpses?, First-Hand Evidence Of Fraud, Why Should Death Of Any Kind Get In The Way?, Grand Illusion, Every Once In A While, Canada's Death Panels: A Foretaste of ObamaCare, Someone Was Killed To Keep "J.R." Alive, Trying To Find Ever New And Inventive Ways To Snatch Bodies, Dispensing With The Pretense of "Brain Death", Good Rule Of Thumb: Reject What Conciliarists Promote, To Avoid Suffering In The Name Of Compassion, Just Obey God, Death To Us All, Choosing To Live In States Of Apoplexy, ObamaDeathCare and a new article of Dr. Byrne's, Jahi is alive
Lest one believe that Gian Luigi Brena is speaking only for himself not for his “pope,” he is speaking not only for his fellow lay Jesuit, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, but also for the other “pope” who is living inside of the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:
1971: "In theses 10-12, the difficult problem of the relationship between language and thought is debated, which in post-conciliar discussions was the immediate departure point of the dispute.
The identity of the Christian substance as such, the Christian 'thing' was not directly ... censured, but it was pointed out that no formula, no matter how valid and indispensable it may have been in its time, can fully express the thought mentioned in it and declare it unequivocally forever, since language is constantly in movement and the content of its meaning changes. (Fr. Ratzinger: Dogmatic formulas must always change.)
1990: The text [of the document Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation] also presents the various types of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms - perhaps for the first time with this clarity - that there are decisions of the magisterium that cannot be the last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. The nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times influenced, may need further correction.
In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last century [19th century] about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time [on evolutionism]. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from falling into the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they became obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at their proper time.
(Joseph Ratzinger, "Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation," published with the title "Rinnovato dialogo fra Magistero e Teologia," in L'Osservatore Romano, June 27, 1990, p. 6, cited at Card. Ratzinger: The teachings of the Popes against Modernism are obsolete)
It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.
On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005.)
The very foundation of what Ratzinger/Benedict came to term as the "heremeneutic of continuity" is both philosophically absurd and stands as dogmatically condemned, representing also, of course utter blaspehmy against the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, by not only "hiding" a "discovery" of the impermnance of dogmatic formulations but had actually permitted direct condemnations of this very proposition by a dogmatic council and various true popes.
Vast is the damage caused by the conciliar revolutionaries.
Untold numbers of souls have been fed error after error, believing that the apostasies that have been advanced, the blasphemies that have been uttered and the sacrileges that have been committed by the doctrinal, liturgical and moral revolutionaries of the counterfeit church of conciliarism represented the official teaching of the Catholic Church.
A whole host of now elderly Catholics who had been taught the truths of the true Faith in their youth permitted to have their sensus Catholicus by the ceaseless diet of liturgical change that accustomed them into thinking that everything about the Catholic Faith was subject for change, including her doctrines and pastoral praxis, resenting bitterly anyone of their own age group who dares to remind them that they have been deceived into thinking that errors condemned by our true popes and true general councils are not acceptable because a "pope" has said so.
Three entire generations of Catholics have been "educated" by priests and presbyters, religious sisters and lay teachers into believing that they are the moral automatons and that a "loving God" accepts them and others who are steeped in one unrepentant sin after another "just as they are." Sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance are endorsed with ready abandon after having first had their natural resistance to such sins broken down by the rot of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments from even their pre-Kindergarten years.
I encountered increasingly more and more of these miseducated young Catholics as the years of my college teaching career progressed. They were aghast to hear a Catholic teach them that what they thought was Catholicism was the antithesis of the Catholic Faith, something that should have convinced me that the conciliar officials had expelled themselves from the bosom of the Catholic Church:
Time and space do not permit a full recitation of the empirical evidence demonstrating how conciliarism has offended God and harmed souls. A few examples from my own personal experience, some of which have been cited on this site before, as well as those told to me by others, who had learned of them firsthand themselves, will suffice for the moment.
There was the student at Nassau Community College in the Spring 1983 Semester who, despite having been through thirteen years of Catholic education, was mystified as to the identify of Judas Iscariot when I mentioned him in a class lecture.
There was the student at the C. W. Post Campus of Long Island University in the Fall 1995 Semester who, despite having been through thirteen years of Catholic education, had never heard of Original Sin and Adam and Eve's Fall from Grace in the Garden of Eden.
There are the countless numbers of fallen away Catholics, just ordinary people who are being led by the current of events rather than by the truths of the true Faith, we meet in the days of our extensive travels who told us that they were told by "priests" that one religion is a good as another.
There are the vocations directors, both of dioceses and religious communities, I dealt with in the 1970s who told me that the call to the priesthood comes from the "community," not from a bishop or a religious superior as a representative of God Himself, and that a man's ordination to the priesthood is ratified by the "applause of the community."
There was the priest in the Diocese of Rockville Centre who said from the pulpit at a Novus Ordo daily Mass during Lent of 1994 who said the following: "All you have to do is to believe in a few articles of the Creed. Everything else is up for grabs."
There are the countless numbers of students who told me that they had been taught that Our Lord is present only symbolically, not actually, in the Blessed Sacrament. (We will leave aside the fact that Our Lord is not present in the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service because of its inherent invalidity.)
There was the priest, Monsignor Frederick Schaefer, now deceased, who told me in the Confessional at Saint Brigid's Church in Westbury, New York, in the Fall of 1980 that one cannot sin unless one's "fundamental option is against God."
There was the priest in the Diocese of Rockville Centre, who shall remain nameless, who said from the pulpit of a North Shore parish in the Spring of 1981 that his Scripture professor at Immaculate Conception Seminary in Huntington, New York, had said that one would have seen "nothing" if a video camera had been placed in front of Our Lord's tomb from the time it was sealed until after Easter Sunday, denying the Resurrection.
There was the priest in the Diocese of Rockville Centre who told a lay woman about sixteen years ago ago that "He did not rise, He did not rise" when questioned about his belief in the actual, bodily Resurrection of Our Lord after an "adult education" course he had given.
There was the priest at Holy Apostles Seminary, a Father Anderson, who in 1981 denied the Perpetual Virginity of Our Lady, prompting the late Father John Joseph Jackie Boy Sullivan, then sixty-five years of age, to beat him up with his fists.
There was the priest in the Diocese of Rockville Centre who said from the pulpit at Saint Dominic's Church in Oyster Bay, New York, in 1988 that "moral standards" are established "by the community."
There was the priest in the Diocese of Allentown, whose name I do not recall, who said on the Feast of the Assumption in 1980 the following: "Where are we going? We're all going to Heaven, of course!"
There is the priest in the Diocese of Rockville Centre, Monsignor Frank Gaeta, who wrote a tract of Lenten "reflections" in 1994 in which he stated the following: "Make no mistake about it. Judas Iscariot is in Heaven." He finished that reflection with the following invocation, "St. Judas, pray for us."
There are the countless number of parishes that have demonstrated themselves to be "open" to those who are engaged in continuous, unrepentant acts of perversity in violation o the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.
There are the countless number of horror stories that have been told to me by parents about how their children have been spiritually molested by means of graphic classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.
There is the former student of mine from Saint Francis College in Brooklyn, New York, during the 1985-1986 academic year who told me six years ago that his then twelve year-old son was told in a "Catholic" school in Staten Island, New York, that "Jesus is a sinner."
There are the priests I have heard with my own ears voicing their support for contraception and abortion, making excuses also for pro-abortion Catholics in public life.
There was the former student of mine from Saint John's University in Jamaica, New York, who told me the heartbreaking story in 1988 that a Vincentian priest told her that it was "her decision" as to whether or not to kill her preborn baby. She told her husband of that counsel and they "decided" to kill their child, coming to regret it later.
There are the times when I have had to investigate conciliar "bishops" for their betrayals of the Faith, including those who sat by as what was said to be Eucharistic Adoration was denied to Catholics by their own "priests," and for their own perverse immorality, none of which mattered to conciliar Rome until the filing of lawsuits and the taking of depositions was about to begin. Men known for tolerating the grossest spiritual abuses of the young were kept in power by conciliar Rome to commit the grossest of physical abuses of the young.
There are the countless times I have witnessed the sort of "ecumenical" gatherings that have placed the true Faith on a level of equality with false religions.
There are the countless numbers of sacrileges I have witnessed at the abominable Novus Ordo liturgical service. Liturgical "dance." Improvised prayers, many of which are permitted by the General Instruction to the Roman Missal, especially during what is known in the new order of things as the "Penitential Rite." The proliferation of the laity in the sanctuary. What are believed to be consecrated Hosts strewn about churches as a result of the sacrilege of Communion in the hand.
This litany could go on ad infinitum. Those who want to close their eyes to the significance of this empirical evidence must convince themselves (and others) that these things are aberrations of the past fifty years and not the actual, inevitable consequences of the ethos engendered by conciliarism and the abominations and novelties, both of the "approved" and "unapproved" varieties, that exist in the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Although the situation gets worse and worse with each passing year and decade, we are assured by these omniscient enablers that all will be fine soon enough one day. It is thus rash, they assert, to draw any negative conclusions about conciliarism as a result of these empirical facts leaving aside, at least for the moment, the deeper theological issues that prove the counterfeit nature of conciliarism and the illegitimacy of its false shepherds.
Mind you, this says nothing of the countless millions of souls who were so scandalized by the abominations of conciliarism that they quit the practice of the Faith altogether or decided to join some Protestant sect or one or the churches belonging to Orthodoxy.
Any person who has a modicum of intellectual honesty will realize that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has let loose the legions of Hell against any semblance of recognizable Catholicism and Catholic teaching that might remain within the structures of his counterfeit church. Bergoglio is the embodiment of the very things that I encountered just in the Diocese of Rockville Centre during the nefarious reign of the late John Raymond McGann as its conciliar ordinary and chief persecutor of “conservative,” no less traditionally-minded, priests and presbyters. The only difference now is that Jorge has unmasked the great façade that covered the underlying rot of false doctrines, corrupt moral teaching, sacramentally barren liturgical rites and pastoral practices that would bring tears of joy to the likes of the Druids.
The hour is late, both figuratively and (in my case after having suffered through more internet outages on Wednesday night into early Thursday morning that interrupted the completion of this article followed in short order by a dealing with a car in need of having its front end suspension rebuilt because of wear and tear; penance is better than ever in 2015--Deo gratias!) literally.
Just keep praying to Our Lady of Fatima in these troubling times through her Most Holy Rosary and by offering up the penances, sufferings, misunderstandings and calumnies of the present moment through her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart for the greater honor and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity and in reparation for our own many sins and those of the whole world. That same Immaculate Heart will triumph in the end as Our Lady told Jacinta and Francisco Marto and Lucia dos Santos, and it will be a miraculous triumph that will vanquish the forces of Antichrist in the world of Modernity and the counterfeit church of conciliarism.
Our Lady of Fatima, 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 Mary Magdalene de Pazzi, pray for us.