Bergoglio's Agenda For 2014?
Revolution, What Else?
by Thomas A. Droleskey
Brevity might be the byword for this site in 2014. This commentary, however, will not be an example of brevity.
I do, though want to "cut to the chase" (no not our beagle, thank you), so to speak, to explain that there is little need to be "shocked" by anything that Jorge Mario Bergoglio does this year as he has made his agenda very clear from the moment he stepped onto the balcony of the Basilica of Saint Peter on Wednesday, March 13, 2013, and refused to wear the papal mozzetta and asked for the "blessing" of the people gathered below him in the Piazza di Santo Pietro and then demonstrated his "liberated" liturgical style, which was a trademark of his time as the conciliar "archbishop" of Buenos Aires, Argentina, in the succeeding days.
Bergoglio has used his daily sessions of the Ding Dong School Of Apostasy at the Casa Santa Marta to reveal his agenda for the future of conciliarism.
Bergoglio used his first "encyclical letter," Lumen Fidei, July 5, 2013, to make it clear that personal "experience," not "doctrine," is the foundation of one's faith in God, a Modernist proposition that had been dissected and condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907. (See Incompetent To Teach Squat About The Catholic Faith, part one, Incompetent To Teach Squat About The Catholic Faith, part two, Incompetent To Teach Squat About The Catholic Faith, part three.)
Bergoglio spread the joy of conciliarism with sacrilegious liturgies and false doctrines aplenty whilst cavorting upon the Copacabana Beach in Rio di Janiero during the travesty that was World Youth Day 2013 (see Francis The Anti-Apostle, Francis The Syncretist, Francis The Sillonist, Francis The Apostate: From Revolution To Anarchy, Francis The Pied Piper of Antichrist, Francis Says ¡Viva la Revolución!, part one, Francis Says ¡Viva la Revolución!, part two, Francis Says ¡Viva la Revolución!, part three).
Bergoglio has made headlines by making what appears to be outlandish statements in various interviews to journalists, staring with those who accompanied him on the
airplane taking him back from Rio de Janiero, Brazil, to Rome, on
Monday, July 29, 2013 ( Francis Says ¡Viva la Revolución!, part three), and including, at least up to now, with three others: "Father" Antonio Spadaro, S.J. (see Francis: Apostle of Antichrist, part one, Francis: Apostle of Antichrist, part two and Francis: Apostle of Antichrist, part three), Eugenio Scalfari (Nothing Random About This, part one, Nothing Random About This, part two, Nothing Random About This, part three, Nothing Random About This, part four, Nothing Random About This, part five.), and Andrea Tornielli (see Memo From Patrolman Ed Nicholson To Jorge Mario Bergoglio: SHUT UP!, part one and Memo From Patrolman Ed Nicholson to Jorge Mario Bergoglio: SHUT UP!, part two). The supposedly outlandish statements were, of course, nothing other than standard-issue conciliarspeak that many of us heard decades ago pass through the lips of Jesuit revolutionaries.
Bergoglio used his first "apostolic exhortation," Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013, to outline his program for the further elimination of the vestiges of recognizable Catholicism from every nook and cranny of his counterfeit church of conciliarism, an agenda that had been discussed a month beforehand in two identical lectures given by his chief Commissar and ideologist, Oscar Andres Maradiaga Rodriguez (see Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part one, Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part two, Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part three and Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part four). (For the seven part series on Evangelii Gaudium, please see Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part one, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part two, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part three, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part four, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part five, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part six and Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part seven).
What is Bergoglio's agenda for 2014?
The same that it was in 2013.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio's agenda is the same as the one that had begun under the supervision of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII on October 28, 1958, and that has been advanced by each of the four men between Roncalli's death on June 3, 1963, and Bergoglio's "election" on March 13, 2013.
What is this agenda?
Revolution, what else?
Sure, each conciliar "pontiff" or "Petrine Minister" has had his own unique style. Each has had various sorts of emphasis. Each, however, was a Modernist revolutionary committed to very false precept that undergirds the conciliar revolution and is enshrined liturgically in the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service.
Each conciliar "pontiff" has, for instance, used the "World Day of Peace" message to emphasize various Modernist/Judeo-Masonic themes ("religious liberty," false ecumenism, environmentalism) by which "peace" could be realized among nations without a due submission of men to the sweet yoke of the Social Reign of Christ the King as it must be exercised by His Catholic Church.
The conciliar "popes" have been issuing "World Day of
Peace" messages since Montini/Paul VI's first such message on January
1, 1968. None of the eleven "World Day of Peace" messages issued by
Giovanni Montini/Paul VI (no, I don't have the time to insert the hyperlink again) mentioned the Mother of God or the Blessed
Virgin Mary or her Most Holy Rosary or her Fatima Message or the
Immaculate Heart of Mary as having anything to do with the establishment
of true peace within souls as the precondition for peace among men. Not
one mention of Our Lady. Not one. (See Paul VI , 1968-1978)
Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II did mention "Mary" briefly
in his January 1, 1979 "World Day of Peace" message. Wojtyla/John Paul
II had another brief reference to "Mary" and "Joseph" in his January 1,
1987 message, which means that there were no references to Our Lady or
her Most Holy Rosary or her Fatima Message or the Immaculate Heart of
Mary in 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1986. Our Lady had to
wait seven more years before she was mentioned briefly by Wojtyla/John
Paul II at the end of his January 1, 1994, "World Day of Peace" message.
She received a bit more attention in the 1995 message issued by
Wojtyla/John Paul II, albeit without any reference to her Most Holy
Rosary or her Fatima Message or devotion to her Immaculate Heart.
Wojtyla/John Paul II would make no further reference to Our Lady in the
remaining "world day of peace" messages between 1995 and 2005. Three of
twenty-seven messages made reference to Our Lady. None made any
reference to her Most Holy Rosary or her Fatima Message. True,
Wojtyla/John Paul II had a personal devotion to the Rosary, which he
helped to deconstruct with his "luminous mysteries" in 2002. He
nevertheless did not see fit to mention the Rosary or Our Lady's Fatima
Message--with its emphasis on devotion to the Immaculate Heart of
Mary--in any of his "world day of peace" messages.
(See John Paul II, 1979-2005.)
What about the supposedly "traditional" Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, the man who some are claiming delusionally was "forced" to resign as the head of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, by the "ultra-progressives" in the Vatican? Hold your
horses. Ratzinger/Benedict has referred to Our Lady briefly in his first
three "world day of peace" messages (2006, 2007, 2008), not doing so
last year and this, although he did invoke Our Lady in his "homily" for
January 1, 2010. He has, of course, not mentioned the Rosary or Our
Lady's Fatima Message in any of eight "world day of peace" messages,
including the one he issued on January 1, 2010, If You Want to Cultivate Peace, Protect Creation and his call for Assisi III in his "World Day of Peace" message the next year, 2011 (see (See Another Year of the Same Conciliar Apostasy, Part One, Another Year of the Same Conciliar Apostasy, Part Two, Another Year of the Same Conciliar Apostasy, Part Three, Not Interested in Assisi III, Night and Day, Processing Along The Path To Antichrist and Outcome Based Conciliar Math: Assisi I + Assisi II + Assisi III = A-P-O-S-T-A-S-Y).
Jorge Mario Bergoglio's first "World Day of Peace" message, which was issued on December 8, 2013, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, also did not mention Our Lady's Fatima Peace Plan, focusing on the Judeo-Masonic theme of "fraternity" (no, I am not wasting any more of my good Catholic time parsing Bergoglio's errors on such matters as they are merely reiterations of what his predecessors have promoted for fifty-five years before him) that had been adopted a century ago by The Sillon in France, an adoption that prompted Pope Saint Pius X to condemn this falsehood in the strongest terms possible:
The same applies to the notion of Fraternity which they found on the love of
common interest or, beyond all philosophies and religions, on the mere notion of
humanity, thus embracing with an equal love and tolerance all human beings and
their miseries, whether these are intellectual, moral, or physical and temporal. But Catholic doctrine tells us that the primary duty of charity does not lie in
the toleration of false ideas, however sincere they may be, nor in the
theoretical or practical indifference towards the errors and vices in which we
see our brethren plunged, but in the zeal for their intellectual and moral
improvement as well as for their material well-being. Catholic doctrine further
tells us that love for our neighbor flows from our love for God, Who is Father
to all, and goal of the whole human family; and in Jesus Christ whose members we
are, to the point that in doing good to others we are doing good to Jesus Christ
Himself. Any other kind of love is sheer illusion, sterile and fleeting.
Indeed, we have the human experience of pagan and secular societies of ages past
to show that concern for common interests or affinities of nature weigh very
little against the passions and wild desires of the heart. No, Venerable
Brethren, there is no genuine fraternity outside Christian charity. Through the
love of God and His Son Jesus Christ Our Saviour, Christian charity embraces all
men, comforts all, and leads all to the same faith and same heavenly happiness.
By separating fraternity from Christian charity thus understood, Democracy, far
from being a progress, would mean a disastrous step backwards for civilization.
If, as We desire with all Our heart, the highest possible peak of well being for
society and its members is to be attained through fraternity or, as it is also
called, universal solidarity, all minds must be united in the knowledge of
Truth, all wills united in morality, and all hearts in the love of God and His
Son Jesus Christ. But this union is attainable only by Catholic charity, and
that is why Catholic charity alone can lead the people in the march of progress
towards the ideal civilization.
Finally, at the root of all their fallacies on social questions, lie the false
hopes of Sillonists on human dignity. According to them, Man will be a man truly
worthy of the name only when he has acquired a strong, enlightened, and
independent consciousness, able to do without a master, obeying only himself,
and able to assume the most demanding responsibilities without faltering. Such
are the big words by which human pride is exalted, like a dream carrying Man
away without light, without guidance, and without help into the realm of
illusion in which he will be destroyed by his errors and passions whilst
awaiting the glorious day of his full consciousness. And that great day, when
will it come? Unless human nature can be changed, which is not within the power
of the Sillonists, will that day ever come? Did the Saints who brought human
dignity to its highest point, possess that kind of dignity? And what of the
lowly of this earth who are unable to raise so high but are content to plow
their furrow modestly at the level where Providence placed them? They who are
diligently discharging their duties with Christian humility, obedience, and
patience, are they not also worthy of being called men? Will not Our Lord take
them one day out of their obscurity and place them in heaven amongst the princes
of His people? (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)
Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went
astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might
have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to
convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to
comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to
them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up
the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity
independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst
His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He
could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of
the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little
ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of
heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. He was as strong
as he was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and
teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is
sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body.
Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal
happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons
and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is
possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way
of the Cross. These are teachings that it would be wrong to
apply only to one's personal life in order to win eternal salvation;
these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus
Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent
humanitarianism. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)
You see, Pope Saint Pius X was a Catholic.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not as is a Modernist revolutionary.
It is that simple.
No one should be in the least bit shocked by anything that Jorge Mario Bergoglio does in this new year of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, 2014. Why be shocked, my friends, after his most recent blasphemy uttered against Our Lady (see (Blasphemer, All Bergoglio Has Done Is to Change The Volume of the "Music", Mr. Timothy Duff's Francis, The Historic Blasphemer and my own Bergoglio: Condemned by Pope Pius IX).
Bergoglio blasphemes Our Blessed Lord and Saviour constantly. So much that even I, who have tried to keep up with his barrage of words and actions in the pat nearly ten months, missed this whopper that I heard with my own ears on several occasions while enduring the abominable farce that is the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service: that Our Lord did not actually multiply the loaves and the fishes as recounted in Saint Luke's Gospel; He merely encouraged those who were present to "share" with others what they had intended to keep for themselves. Here is what Bergoglio said seven months ago now during his Angelus address on the Novus Ordo feast of Corpus Christi, June 2, 2013:
Good morning! Last Thursday we
celebrated the Feast of Corpus Christi, which, in
Italy and in other countries has been moved to this
Sunday. It is the Feast of the Eucharist, the sacrament
of the Body and Blood of Christ.
The Gospel presents to us the account of
the miracle of the Multiplication of the Loaves (Lk
9:11-17); I would like to reflect on one aspect of it
that never fails to impress me and makes me think. We
are on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, daylight is
fading. Jesus is concerned for the people who have spent
so many hours with him: there are thousands of them and
they are hungry. What should he do? The disciples also
pose the problem and tell Jesus: “send the crowd away”
so that they can go and find provisions in the villages
close by. But Jesus says: “You give them something to
eat” (v. 13). The disciples are discomfited and answer
him: “we have no more than five loaves and two fish”, as
if to say, barely enough for ourselves.
Jesus well knows what to do, but he
wishes to involve his disciples, he wants to teach them.
The disciples’ attitude is the human one that seeks the
most realistic solution which does not create too many
problems: dismiss the crowd, they say, let each person
organize himself as best he can, moreover you have
already done so much for them: you have preached, you
have healed the sick.... Send the crowd away!
Jesus’ outlook is very different; it is
dictated by his union with the Father and his compassion
for the people, that mercifulness of Jesus for us all.
Jesus senses our problems, he senses our weaknesses, he
senses our needs. Looking at those five loaves, Jesus
thinks: this is Providence! From this small amount, God
can make it suffice for everyone. Jesus trusts in the
heavenly Father without reserve; he knows that for him
everything is possible. Thus he tells his disciples to
have the people sit down in groups of 50 — this is not
merely coincidental, for it means that they are no
longer a crowd but become communities nourished by God’s
bread. Jesus then takes those loaves and fish, looks up
to heaven, recites the blessing — the reference to the
Eucharist is clear — and breaks them and gives them to
the disciples who distribute them... and the loaves and
fish do not run out, they do not run out! This is the
miracle: rather than a multiplication it is a sharing,
inspired by faith and prayer. Everyone eats and some is
left over: it is the sign of Jesus, the Bread of God for
The disciples witnessed the message but
failed to understand it. Like the crowd they are swept
up by enthusiasm for what has occurred. Once again they
follow human logic rather than God’s, which is that of
service, love and faith. The Feast of Corpus Christi asks us to convert to faith in Providence, so that we
may share the little we are and have, and never to
withdraw into ourselves. Let us ask our Mother Mary to
help us in this conversion, in order to follow truly and
more closely the Jesus whom we adore in the Eucharist.
So may it be. (Angelus, 2 June 2013.)
How can anyone believe that a man who speaks such as this is a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter?
Jorge Mario Bergoglio's blasphemous heresy, however, is boiler-plate conciliarism. His own "preacher," Father Raniero Cantalamessa, O.F.M., Cap., who prayed over him along with a bunch of Protestant Pentecostalist "ministers" in Buenos Aires, Argentina, eight years ago now, said the exact same thing in 2006 while serving the "orthodox" and "traditional" Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who did not reprove him in the slightest, of course:
For several Sundays, the Gospel has been taken from Jesus' discourse on
the bread of life in the synagogue of Capernaum, to which the Evangelist
John refers. This Sunday's passage comes from the multiplication of
loaves and fishes, which is an introduction to the Eucharistic
It is no accident that the presentation of the Eucharist begins with
the account of the multiplication of loaves. What is stated with it is
that, in man, the religious dimension cannot be separated from the
material dimension. Provision cannot be made for man's spiritual and
eternal needs without being concerned, at the same time, about his
earthly and material needs.
It was precisely the latter which for an instant was the temptation
of the apostles. In another passage of the Gospel one reads that they
suggested to Jesus that he dismiss the crowd so that it would find
something to eat in neighboring villages.
But Jesus answered: "You give them something to eat!" (Matthew
14:16). With this, Jesus is not asking his disciples to perform
miracles. He is asking that they do what they can. To place in common
and share what each one has. In arithmetic, multiplication and division
are two opposite operations, but in this case they are the same. There
is no "multiplication" without "partition" (or sharing)! (Zenit, July 28, 2006.)
Revolutionaries think alike, they act alike and, yes, at times they even sound alike. You can indeed lose your mind when revolutionaries are thousands of a kind.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Raniero are merely propagators the Modernist "spin" on Our Blessed Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ's multiplication of the loaves and the fishes, that
the "real" miracle was not any actual multiplication of the loaves and
the fishes but a prayer from Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ
that inspired the people in the crowd to share with others what they had
brought but were keeping for themselves? That construct can certainly
be applied quite reasonably to the passage above.
Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ did not ask His disciples to perform miracles. He performed the miracle of actually multiplying the loaves and fishes.
What Patristic evidence can Bergoglio or Cantalamessa produce to justify any implication that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ did not actually
miraculously multiply loaves and fishes, feeding five thousand and four
thousand people, respectively, on two different occasions in His Public
Ministry to proof His Sacred Divinity?
Bergoglio and Cantalamessa, however, have to reckon with the entire patrimony of the Catholic Church, which upholds without any deviation whatsoever that Our Blessed
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ actually did multiply loaves and fishes
to feed the multitudes who heard Him preach and were hungry because they
did not have enough to eat.
But he must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just
cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers
have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down
by St. Augustine -- not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires;
a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these
times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought
make the danger of error most real and proximate. Neither should those
passages be neglected which the Fathers have understood in an
allegorical or figurative sense, more especially when such
interpretation is justified by the literal, and when it rests on the
authority of many. For this method of interpretation has been received
by the Church from the Apostles, and has been approved by her own
practice, as the holy Liturgy attests; although it is true that the holy
Fathers did not thereby pretend directly to demonstrate dogmas of
faith, but used it as a means of promoting virtue and piety, such as, by
their own experience, they knew to be most valuable. The authority of
other Catholic interpreters is not so great; but the study of Scripture
has always continued to advance in the Church, and, therefore, these
commentaries also have their own honorable place, and are serviceable in
many ways for the refutation of assailants and the explanation of
difficulties. But it is most unbecoming to pass by, in ignorance or
contempt, the excellent work which Catholics have left in abundance, and
to have recourse to the works of non-Catholics -- and to seek in them,
to the detriment of sound doctrine and often to the peril of faith, the
explanation of passages on which Catholics long ago have successfully
employed their talent and their labor. For although the studies of
non-Catholics, used with prudence, may sometimes be of use to the
Catholic student, he should, nevertheless, bear well in mind -- as the
Fathers also teach in numerous passages-- that the sense of Holy
Scripture can nowhere be found incorrupt out side of the Church, and
cannot be expected to be found in writers who, being without the true
faith, only gnaw the bark of the Sacred Scripture, and never attain its
pith. (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, November 18, 1893.)
Contempt for the miracles of Our Lord, including His own bodily Resurrection from the dead, is just part of the rationalism of Modernists, which is why most of them scoff at the Gospel according to Saint John, whose feast's octave day is today, January 3, 2014, in the unreformed calendar of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, as it contained accounts of numerous miracles, including the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, and includes Our Lord's Eucharistic Discourse. Pope Saint Pius X approved the issuance of Lamentabili Sane, July 1, 1907, that condemned those who dismissed the miracles as recorded in Saint John's Gospel:
17. The fourth Gospel exaggerated miracles not only in order that the
extraordinary might stand out but also in order that it might become
more suitable for showing forth the work and glory of the Word
Incarnate (Lamentabili Sane, July 1, 1907.)
Pope Saint Pius X, writing in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, noted the following just two months and five days after the issuance of Lamentabili Sane:
And if it be objected that in the visible world
there are some things which appertain to faith, such as the human life
of Christ, the Modernists reply by denying this. For though such things
come within the category of phenomena, still in as far as they are lived
by faith and in the way already described have been by faith
transfigured and disfigured, they have been removed from the world of
sense and transferred into material for the divine. Hence should it be
further asked whether Christ has wrought real miracles, and made real
prophecies, whether He rose truly from the dead and ascended into
Heaven, the answer of agnostic science will be in the negative and the
answer of faith in the affirmative yet there will not be, on that
account, any conflict between them. For it will be denied by the
philosopher as a philosopher speaking to philosophers and considering
Christ only in historical reality; and it will be affirmed by the
believer as a believer speaking to believers and considering the life of
Christ as lived again by the faith and in the faith. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
This passage is particularly
pertinent as it applies not only to Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Raniero Cantalamessa's
denial that that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ actually multiplied the loaves and fishes as recorded in each of the four
Gospels. The passage applies also to the incredible inconsistency which
can see the then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger personally "consecrated" a
"priest," "Father" Bruno Forte, as the conciliar "archbishop" of
Chieti-Vasto, Italy, ten years after he had written an article placing
into question the actual, bodily Resurrection of Our Blessed Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ from the dead on Easter Sunday while at the same
time he, "Cardinal" Ratzinger, who had written that there is a
resurrection of persons, not bodies, was helping to prepare a
document for the Spanish "bishops" of conciliarism that criticized
theologians who put the Resurrection into question. Contradiction is, of
course, no problem in the minds of those whose minds are shaped by
Hegelianism and its Catholic offshoots, including Chardinianism. Ratzinger, himself, of course, used obscurity to deny Our Lord's Resurrection in Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week: From the Entrance Into Jerusalem to the Empty Tomb (see Coloring Everything He Says and Does, part two):
Pope Saint Pius X reiterated these points a little over two months later. Writing in Praestantia Scripturae, November 18, 1907, the sainted pontiff declared:
Wherefore we again and most earnestly exhort the ordinaries of the
dioceses and the heads of religious congregations to use the utmost
vigilance over teachers, and first of all in the seminaries; and should
they find any of them imbued with the errors of the modernists and eager
for what is new and noxious, or lacking in docility to the
prescriptions of the Apostolic See, in whatsoever way published, let
them absolutely forbid the teaching office to such; so, too, let them
exclude from sacred orders those young men who give the very faintest
reason for doubt that they favor condemned doctrines and pernicious
novelties. We exhort them also to take diligent care to put an end to
those books and other writings, now growing exceedingly numerous, which
contain opinions or tendencies of the kind condemned in the encyclical
letters and decree above mentioned; let them see to it that these
publications are removed from Catholic publishing houses, and especially
from the hands of students and the clergy. By doing this they will at
the same time be promoting real and solid education, which should always
be a subject of the greatest solicitude for those who exercise sacred
authority. (Pope Saint Pius X, Praestantia Scripturae, November 18, 1907.)
Although the appendix below, extracted from an article in 2005 written in my waning days in what I know to be now the false ecclesiology of the "resist while recognize" movement, lists other common Modernist deconstructions of Sacred Scripture, suffice it for the moment to note that Pope Saint Pius X's exhortation that publications containing condemned doctrines and pernicious novelties were to be "removed from Catholic publishing houses, and especially from the hands of students and the clergy" stands as an admonition to anyone who permits himself to be deluded into thinking that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is doing the work of God when he is doing the work of the devil himself. He is an insidious figure of Antichrist, which is why he is so willing to associate his false church with those who promote the sin of Sodom with ready abandon (see Vatican hires world's leading pro-homosexual corporations as advisors).
This is why, ladies and gentlemen, it is so important
to have nothing whatsoever to do with the counterfeit church of
conciliarism. It is indeed a counterfeit religion, one that was born in a revolution and has been advanced by revolutionaries of different stripes (Girondists and Jacobins, Mensheviks and Bolsheviks) with one common goal: to make war upon the Catholic Faith as It has been revealed by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to His Holy Church Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication.
We must embrace the fullness of the Catholic Faith without
compromise to conciliarism or its false shepherds. We must try to save
our souls in the catacombs by consecrating ourselves to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through Our Lady's
Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.. We must spend
as much time as our states-in-life permit before her Divine Son's Real
Presence if this is at all possible where one lives.. And we must protect ourselves and our family members from the
efforts of Modernity in the world and Modernism in the conciliar church
to take us away from the sure path that is Tradition, which has been
handed down to us by the Apostles themselves and is to be kept unchanged
until Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Second Coming in
glory on the Last Day at the General Judgment of the Living and the
May we beg Our Lady's help to recognize the errors that
confront us and stay firm in our embrace of the fullness of the truths
of the Faith, hoping and praying that we will die in a state of
Sanctifying Grace and thus be able to enjoy the victory of the martyrs
themselves in the presence of the glory of the Beatific Vision, in the
company of the Communion of Saints, headed by herself, the Queen of the Angels
and Saints,, remembering that the best path to Heaven
after the Mass is Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary.
The final victory belongs to the Immaculate
Heart of Mary. May it be our privilege to plant a few seeds for this
great triumph and the ushering in of the Reign of Mary and the
restoration of the Social Reign of Christ the King.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Our Lady of Guadalupe, 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.
A List of Commonly Heard Modernist Heresies in Conciliar Churches (extracted from a 2005 article)
1) The Creation accounts in the Book of Genesis are
merely allegorical, combining various "oral legends" from Eastern
traditions. They are not literally true. This canard is taught in
colleges and universities (a New Testament course I took at Saint John's
University in Queens, New York, in February of 1970 taught this as a
"fact" beyond question). This canard thus makes its way back down the
Catholic "food chain" from colleges and universities and seminaries to
Catholic high schools and religious education programs. Students of mine
at a prominent Catholic high school on Long Island in 2002-2003 told me
that they had been taught this in their religion classes. They had been
taught also that there was no devil.
2) The Flood never occurred. (See my related article, Unintelligent Evolutionary Forces, for the way in which secular anthropological and scientific research has proved that the Flood did occur.)
3) The parting of the Red Sea occurred as a result of natural forces, not by the direct intervention of God Himself.
4) It is impossible to "prove" from Scripture that
Our Lord was conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in Our Lady's
virginal and immaculate womb and thus born as a result of a virginal
5) Our Lord did not know that He was both God and Man
until after the Resurrection. He did not know what His mission was
until He underwent His Passion and Death.
6) Our Lord never performed any miracles. Our Lord,
for example, did not multiply the loaves and the fishes. He merely
inspired the people to share what they had with them but were hoarding
for themselves. This is a particularly popular canard that gets itself
repeated from the pulpit and in classrooms hither and yon.
7) The Gospels do not contain historically accurate
accounts of Our Lord's Passion. This bit of heresy was espoused by the
Bishop of San Jose, California, the Most Reverend Patrick McGrath,
shortly after Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, prompting Father Daniel Cooper of the Society of Saint Pius X to denounce formally Bishop McGrath's heresy.
8) Our Lord never rose from the dead. One Scripture
professor at a major East Coast seminary taught in his class, according
to a priest who spoke about this publicly from the pulpit in his parish
in 1981, "You would have seen nothing if you placed a video camera in
front of Jesus's tomb. He did not rise from the dead. It never
happened." The pastor of a parish in that same diocese kept repeating
"He did not rise, He did not rise" to a woman who cornered him on the
issue in the late-1990s during an "adult education" course. This is
heresy. Plain and simple. This is a denial of an article contained in
the Creed itself. The priest is still in good standing and has the
confidence of his bishop.
8) The Gospels were not written by the men whose
names they carry. They were written by the "Christian community" in the
latter part of the the First Century, reflecting back on what "Jesus
might have said had He been in their own circumstances." This was the
gist of what was taught in a New Testament course at Holy Apostles
Seminary by the late Archbishop of Hartford, Connecticut, John Francis
Whealon, when I was a student of his in 1982-1983. Archbishop Whealon's
embrace of the non-existent proof for this claim was dealt with by the
late Father William Heidt, O.S.B., in his class on Hermeneutics: "It is
critical for those who want to de-mythologize the Bible to place the
writing of the first three Gospels in the latter part of First and the
early part of the Second Centuries. Doing so makes it possible for them
to say that Our Lord never said or did anything, that it was simply the
"community" that tried to deal with their own problems by imagining what
He might have said." Father Heidt suffered mightily for his fidelity to
the truth of Sacred Scripture and thus his fidelity to the integrity of
the Deposit of Faith. A book, written by a French priest named Michel
Tresmontaine (the spelling of the last name may be off quite
considerably), that I was asked to review in 1997 asserted, quite to the
contrary of contemporary Scripture "scholars," that the Gospel of Saint
Matthew may very well have been written as early as the end of the
fourth decade of the First Century, that is, within seven years of Our
Lord's Ascension to the Father's right hand in glory and the descent of
the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles and our dear Blessed Mother on
9) The Acts of the Apostles does not contain historically reliable information.
10) Saint Paul is not the author of the Epistle to
the Hebrews. This particular claim, made repeatedly by so-called
Scripture scholars and enshrined in the Novus Ordo lectionary
by a refusal to list Saint Paul as the author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, was the subject of a brief discourse by the late Father John A.
Hardon, S.J., during a day of recollection in the City of New York in
August of 1978: "Make no mistake about it: Saint Paul was the author of
the Letter to the Hebrews. Do you hear me? Do I make myself clear? Let
me repeat myself: Saint Paul is the author of the Letter to the
There are many, many other examples, obviously. These
merely scratch the surface of the heresies that are mouthed from the
pulpit and even find their way into diocesan and archdiocesan
newspapers. And these particular examples are the fruit of the efforts
by episcopal conferences such as the one in England, Wales and Scotland
to "warn" Catholics about taking the Bible "too literally." The
influence of so-called contemporary Catholic Biblical exegesis on the
lives of ordinary Catholics has been devastatingly harmful. Even the
aforementioned Archbishop Whealon, who was impressed with such alleged
exegesis, said the following after two semesters of his reviewing the
New Testament through the lens of the methodologies of the exegetes:
"Forget about everything I have taught you. Just preach the Gospel." In
other words, the faithful do not need to hear about the"Q" source for
the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke). They need to learn how to
keep the Word of God in cooperation with the graces won for the by the
shedding of Our Lord's Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy
Unfortunately, however, the dissemination of the
"research" of alleged "Biblical exegetes" is indeed preached to the
people as, if you will, Gospel truth. Evolution is Gospel truth. The
denial of the historicity of the very words and miracles of Our Lord is
Gospel truth. Everything except the received teaching that has been
handed down to us from the Apostles is considered to be Gospel truth.
Presented in the context of a liturgy that knows no fixed, immutable
bounds and thus puts into question the immutability of God while
containing not one prayer reminding the faithful of the possibility that
they could go to Hell for all eternity, the fruit of what is alleged to
be contemporary "Scriptural research" is nothing but rotten.