Jorge and the Company He Chooses to Keep

  • Posted January 8, 2019

from Christ or Chaos

Believe it or not, I have come to find writing about Jorge Mario Bergoglio and the counterfeit church to be particularly distasteful. Although I am trying to concentrate on the compilation and publication of anthologies of various articles that have appeared on this website in the past nearly fifteen years, there are times when it is necessary to overcome a distaste for all things conciliar to compose a brief commentary about the extent to which the rot of an heretical sect is being exposed for the world to see. The saddest part of all about the nature and extent of this rot is that the Catholic Church, not her counterfeit ape, is being blamed for the actions of morally, doctrinally and liturgical corrupt laymen masquerading as members of the Catholic hierarchy and clergy.

This, alas, is what must come to pass in these latter times when the world in which we live has reverted to open worship of pagan idols and the open practice of barbarism that characterized the world prior to the missionary activity undertaken by the Apostles on Pentecost Sunday and that was carried on by countless missionaries in the First and into the Second Millennia. The very means of human salvation, Holy Mother Church, that tamed savages and eradicated paganism is under attack once again by the savage barbarians and supposedly “civilized” and “enlightened” pagans of Modernity. This attack is being enabled by men who appear to members of Holy Mother Church’s hierarchy but who are, of course, wolves in shepherds’ clothing and part of a false church whose mission to preach everything that is opposed to that which has been revealed to us by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and has been handed down to us by the Apostles and their true successors.

Two-faced phony and fraud that he is, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has both decried the presence of homosexuals in his clergy and served as the chief enabler of homosexual predators therein. Indeed, Senor Jorge has turned a blind eye to sodomite activity within the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River. The Argentine Apostate has even protected the retired head of his council on Legislative Texts, Francesco Coccopalmerio, who, reports say, not only permitted but presided over a sodomite “party” fueled by cocaine in 2017 at the extraterritorial offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

ROME, October 10, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, a close collaborator of Pope Francis, was present at the homosexual drug-fuelled partyraided by the Vatican police in the summer of 2017 at which his secretary, Monsignor Luigi Capozzi, was arrested.

A highly-placed Vatican source with direct knowledge, who must remain anonymous for fear of reprisal, tells LifeSite that the Pope himself knows of Coccopalmerio’s presence at the party. The party took place in an apartment in the building of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).

Coccopalmerio was head of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts until his retirement in April.

The same Vatican source spoke in more depth in a private meeting this summer with a group of priests, three of whom spoke to LifeSite about it.

One of these priests told LifeSite that according to the Vatican source, Cardinal Coccopalmerio, 80, was not only an attendee. The source said “in fact, that he ‘was presiding’ over it when the Vatican Gendarmes broke in, and that they instructed him to absent himself before they started making arrests,” according to the priest.

Another priest who was at the private meeting said the Vatican source “stated clearly to me and a number of others that, when the police raided the apartment and arrested Capozzi, Cardinal Coccopalmerio was actually present at the orgy.” He was then told by the police to leave “immediately.” This priest added that the source “gave us to understand that Coccopalmerio is a practicing homosexual.”

A third priest told LifeSite that he “heard in an informal conversation in the presence of other priests from a high-ranking cleric within the Roman Curia” that at the reported ‘homosexual orgy’ “said Cardinal was present and quickly whisked away by Vatican police.”

As LifeSiteNews reported earlier, Pope Francis himself insisted that Monsignor Capozzi be given that apartment in the CDF building, instead of the secretary of the then-prefect for the CDF, Cardinal Gerhard Müller.

Coccopalmerio has spoken in the past about the “positive realities” that can be found in homosexual relationships. Prior to working in the Vatican he was an auxiliary bishop of Milan under Cardinal Carlo Martini. He said in a 2014 interview with Rossoporpora: “If I meet a homosexual couple, I notice immediately that their relationship is illicit: the doctrine says this, which I reaffirm with absolute certainty. However, if I stop at the doctrine, I don’t look anymore at the persons. But if I see that the two persons truly love each other, do acts of charity to those in need, for example … then I can also say that, although the relationship remains illicit, positive elements also emerge in the two persons. Instead of closing our eyes to such positive realities, I emphasize them. It is to be objective and objectively recognize the positive [parts] of a certain relationship, of itself illicit.”

The cardinal’s reduction of moral truth to a vague notional status (an “ideal”), with no necessary bearing on conduct, is the same as Pope Francis’ approach in his post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia.

Accordingly, Coccopalmerio is a strong supporter of Amoris Laetitia. He wrote a booklet titled The eighth Chapter of the post-synodal apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia praising the more lenient attitude toward “remarried divorcees.” Holy Communion, insisted the cardinal, “must be given” to them.

Benjamin Leven, a German theologian and editor of the German Catholic journal Herder Korrespondenz, explains in the October 2018 issue of that journal that, according to his own sources, it was Cardinal Coccopalmerio who approached the Pope in favor of the child abuser Don Mauro Inzoli in order to have him partially reinstated as priest. As Leven puts it, in this incident Coccopalmerio played here “not a good role.” This cardinal, Leven continues, is known in Rome for generally opposing the removal of culprit priests from the priesthood, which for him is a sort of “death penalty.”

In light of these new revelations, the fact that the roof of St. Joseph the Carpenter Church, Coccopalmerio’s own titular Church in Rome, collapsed in August 2018 might gain further significance. (Vatican “Cardinal” Was at Drug-Fueled Sodomite Party and Jorge Knows.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio knew what his pal Francesco Coccopalmerio had done but this not not deter him from sending Coccopalmerio to Kazkhstain to represent the conciliar Vatican at an “interreligious” conference on October 11, 2018, the Feast of the Divine Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (see Bergoglio Sents Corrupt Coccopalmerio to Represent Conciliar Vatican at Interfaith Jam Session thus sending a signal that, despite all his many protestations about the “gay lobby” within the Vatican, he is a fellow-traveler with perverted clergymen. There is just no other conclusion that can be drawn, especially since he has turned the Casa Santa Marta in the Rainbow Hotel for his appointees in conciliar hierarchy whose perverted behavior comes to light after their victims bring it out into the open. One of the latest perverts to take refuge in the Casa Santa Marta is Jorge’s pal Gustavo Zanchetta, whom “Pope Francis” chose personally to head the Diocese of Orono in Argentina just months after his own “election” as the successor of Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI as the universal public face of apostasy:

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina — The Vatican has confirmed that an Argentine bishop, who resigned suddenly in 2017 for stated health reasons and then landed a top administrative job at the Holy See, is under preliminary investigation after priests accused him of sexual abuse and other misconduct.

The case could become yet another problem for Pope Francis, who is already battling to gain trust from the Catholic flock over his handling of sex abuse and sexual misconduct, stemming in particular from the scandal of ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick.

In a statement to The Associated Press, Vatican spokesman Alessandro Gisotti stressed that the allegations against Argentine Bishop Gustavo Zanchetta only emerged in recent months, nearly a year after Francis created the new position for him as “assessor” of the Holy See’s office of financial administration.

At the time of his resignation, Zanchetta had only asked Francis to let him leave the northern Argentine diocese of Oran because he had difficult relations with its priests and was “unable to govern the clergy,” Gisotti said. Pending the preliminary investigation into allegations of sexual abuse underway in Argentina, the 54-year-old Zanchetta will abstain from work at the Vatican, he said.

Francis’ standing would take another hit if he personally intervened to help out a bishop from his native Argentina — finding a job for him during a Vatican hiring hold-down — and the man later turned out to have credible allegations of misconduct against him.

Zanchetta’s hasty departure from Oran on July 29, 2017 was mired in mystery. He didn’t celebrate a farewell Mass, as might be expected, and he issued a cryptic statement saying he had been suffering a “health problem” for some time, had just returned from the Vatican where he presented his resignation to Francis, and needed to leave immediately for treatment.

A statement issued the same day from his vicar general said Zanchetta had already left Oran, a deeply conservative and poor diocese near Argentina’s northern border with Bolivia that Zanchetta had run since Francis made him a bishop in 2013 in one of his first Argentine episcopal appointments. Zanchetta, the vicar said at the time, would be staying in Corrientes — several hundred kilometers (miles) away — as a guest of the archbishop until Francis accepted his resignation.

Often such procedures can take months, but the Vatican announced Francis had accepted it three days later, on Aug. 1.

Zanchetta then disappeared from view until Dec. 19, 2017, when the Vatican announced that he had been named assessor of APSA, the office that manages the Vatican’s vast real estate and other financial holdings. The appointment immediately raised eyebrows, but Zanchetta appeared nevertheless to have settled in well at APSA, and Gisotti said Francis appointed him because he had an established capacity for administrative management.

It wasn’t immediately clear what Zanchetta’s health problems were at the time of his resignation, but by all indications there were grave problems with his leadership and divisions within the diocesan clergy.

“The reason for his resignation is linked to his difficulty in handling relations with the diocesan clergy, some of which were very tense,” Gisotti said. “At the time of his resignation there were accusations against him of authoritarianism, but there were no accusations of sexual abuse against him.”

Zanchetta spent a period of time in Spain before joining APSA.

The allegations were leveled internally in recent months, Gisotti said, and last week the provincial newspaper in Salta, El Tribuno, reported that three priests had brought accusations against him to the Vatican’s ambassador, or nuncio, in Buenos Aires. The newspaper said the priests had lodged accusations of abuse of power, economic abuse and sexual abuse inside the seminary.

It wasn’t immediately clear how Zanchetta responded to the accusations.

The current bishop of Oran, which is in Salta province, is still gathering evidence and testimony and will forward it to the Vatican, Gisotti said. If the allegations are deemed credible, the case will be forwarded to Francis’ special commission for bishops — an ad hoc group of canon lawyers who have been examining allegations of misconduct against bishops.

The issue of sexual abuse within seminaries has risen to the forefront in the scandal over McCarrick, the retired archbishop of Washington. Francis removed McCarrick as a cardinal in July after a U.S. church investigation determined that an allegation that he fondled an altar boy in the 1970s was credible. After the allegation became public, several former seminarians came forward to report they had been abused or harassed by McCarrick and pressured to sleep with him.

Francis became implicated in the McCarrick scandal after a former Vatican ambassador accused him of knowing of McCarrick’s penchant for seminarians, and rehabilitating him anyway from sanctions imposed by Pope Benedict XVI. Francis hasn’t responded.

Zanchetta had opened his own seminary in Oran in 2016 with six seminarians. According to El Tribuno, the St. John XXIII seminary is due to close soon.

The diocese hasn’t responded to questions about Zanchetta’s departure or the status of the investigation against him. It has, however, issued a statement responding to media reports that the priests who lodged complaints against Zanchetta had suffered retaliation. The new bishop of Oran said the priests had been transferred to respond to the pastoral needs of the faithful.

“Knowing the gravity of all types of abuse, the bishop is available to anyone who would like to present a complaint to begin the corresponding procedure for canonical justice, while recalling the right of all victims of abuse to seek ordinary justice,” via civil authorities, the statement said. (Jorge Chooses to Keep Gustavo Zanchetta at Casa Santa Marta.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio sure does choose to keep some “rich” company at his side, doesn’t he? Ah, but such choices are ancillary proofs of the fact that thecounterfeit church of conciliarism is corrupt to the core. This corruption is so evident that even some members of the conciliar college of cardinals are starting to speak, albeit with a guarantee of anonymity, about the man who preaches “mercy” but who is in fact is a vindictive liar and hyprocrite:

September 22, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Today, the German magazine Der Spiegel, one of the most influential political magazines in Europe, published a report on the failures of the papacy of Francis. LifeSiteNews already summed up the parts of this report about the involvement of Pope Francis in a cover-up of abuse cases in Argentina. But the Spiegel authors also make a report from their conversations with unnamed prelates in the Vatican who spoke quite critically about Pope Francis.

According to the magazine, one cardinal not only called the Pope effectively a liar, but he also said: “From the beginning, I did not believe one word of his.” The Spiegel’s own comments on this papacy, as we shall see, are no less strong.

One of the high-ranking interlocutors told the journalistic team that, in the Vatican there reigns “a climate of fear and of uncertainty.” “Francis is very good at getting things in motion,” a German prelate is quoted as saying, “but when, in the end, there is only wavering, that for sure does not help.” Examples of such waverings are to be found, as the Spiegel says, in Pope Francis’ handling of the debate about Communion for Protestant spouses of Catholics. One German cardinal tells the magazine about lies, intrigues, “and a Holy Father who, unlike anyone before him, puts into doubt the truth of the Faith.”

Marie Collins, herself a prominent abuse victim and advocate for victims, speaks about the Pope’s and the Vatican’s handling of abuse cases thus: “beautiful words in the public and [then] opposite actions behind closed doors.”

The Spiegel comments that the Pope might very well ignore the “indications of crimes within his own inner circle” because “he is interested, for reasons of power politics, in keeping one or another cardinal or bishop in his office.” So, in the German magazine’s eyes, “Francis [thereby] makes himself vulnerable.” He fights for years “against global capitalism, but took – like his predecessors – sums of millions from the now-rejected Cardinal McCarrick which he himself had received from donors.” Additionally, “the Pope praises the value of the traditional family, but then surrounds himself with counselors and collaborators who live the opposite – in a more or less obvious concubinage with representatives of either sex.”

“Is the Pope still master of the situation?” asks the Spiegel. It points out that “criticism [of this papacy] meanwhile comes from a circle much larger than that of globally connected arch-conservatives.” One of the problems of this Pope, according to the magazine, is that “he is silent in delicate matters” such as the dubia of the four cardinals concerning his post-apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, but also concerning the petition of 30,000 women who have recently requested that he answer the questions arising from the Viganò report. He does not answer these women, he is mute, and “he, rather, leaves the accusation unchallenged that he has known, since June 2013, about the doings of the child-abuser McCarrick.”

When speaking about one of the Pope’s close collaborators, Cardinal Reinhard Marx, and his own Archdiocese of Munich, the Spiegel points to the crisis of Faith in Bavaria. “A part of the problem in the Archdiocese, however, is homemade,” it explains. The credibility of the Church there, it adds, is being undermined by the facts that “a high-ranking clergyman of Munich shamelessly places his concubine right in the first pew, and that also in this city, there is indignation about openly homosexual pastors and about an unpredictable Pope.”

 “From the beginning, I did not believe one word of his.” These are the trenchant words of a cardinal within the walls of the Vatican: “He preaches mercy, but is in truth an icecold, sly Machiavellian, and, what is worse – he lies.” (“Cardinal Says Bergoglio is Machiavallian and a Liar.)

This is not really news.

No, Bergoglio’s ice-cold ways were cited in a report that was published on Rorate Caeli in the immediate aftermath of the lay Jesuit’s “election” as “Pope Francis” on March 13, 2013:

Of all the unthinkable candidates, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is perhaps the worst. Not because he openly professes doctrines against the faith and morals, but because, judging from his work as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, faith and moral seem to have been irrelevant to him.

A sworn enemy of the Traditional Mass, he has only allowed imitations of it in the hands of declared enemies of the ancient liturgy. He has persecuted every single priest who made an effort to wear a cassock, preach with firmness, or that was simply interested in Summorum Pontificum.

Famous for his inconsistency (at times, for the unintelligibility of his addresses and homilies), accustomed to the use of coarse, demagogical, and ambiguous expressions, it cannot be said that his magisterium is heterodox, but rather non-existent for how confusing it is.

His entourage in the Buenos Aires Curia, with the exception of a few clerics, has not been characterized by the virtue of their actions. Several are under grave suspicion of moral misbehavior.

He has not missed any occasion for holding acts in which he lent his Cathedral to Protestants, Muslims, Jews, and even to partisan groups in the name of an impossible and unnecessary interreligious dialogue. He is famous for his meetings with protestants in the Luna Park arena where, together with preacher of the Pontifical House, Raniero Cantalamessa, he was “blessed” by Protestant ministers, in a common act of worship in which he, in practice, accepted the validity of the “powers” of the TV-pastors.

This election is incomprehensible: he is not a polyglot, he has no Curial experience, he does not shine for his sanctity, he is loose in doctrine and liturgy, he has not fought against abortion and only very weakly against homosexual “marriage” [approved with practically no opposition from the episcopate], he has no manners to honor the Pontifical Throne. He has never fought for anything else than to remain in positions of power.

It really cannot be what Benedict wanted for the Church. And he does not seem to have any of the conditions required to continue his work.

May God help His Church. One can never dismiss, as humanly hard as it may seem, the possibility of a conversion… and, nonetheless, the future terrifies us. (RORATE CÆLI: The Horror!A Buenos Aires journalist describes Bergoglio.)

This is what I wrote at the time in Francis the Talking Apostate:

Do not believe the mainstream media’s reports about Bergoglio as being a “conservative” on doctrine. He is not. His opposition, for example, to “marriage” for those engaged in perverse sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments is coupled with a “respect” for individual homosexuals, meaning that it is permissible to identify oneself by virtue of being inclined to the commission of sins against nature. This is absurd as no one is to identify himself by his tendency to commit a particular sin. What defines us as human beings is that we bear the Divine impress on our immortal souls, and what defines us as Catholics is that we have been incorporated in the Mystical Body of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ that is the Catholic Church at the moment of our Baptism.

Then again, absurdity and contradiction are part and parcel of who Jorge Mario Bergoglio is, a total creature of concilairism, ordained as a member of the Society of Jesus on December 13, 1969, although it is unclear to me at this point whether the invalid conciliar rite of presbyteral installation was used. Paradox and absurdity are part and parcel of who is man is. How can you expect otherwise? He is trained according to the Hegelian methodology advanced by the likes of Von Balthasar and De Lubac that Ratzinger just spent the past eight years advancing under the banner of the “hermeneutic of continuity.”

What is my evidence for this?

Well, how about Bergoglio’s own words, contained in an interview published by Communion and Liberation’s 30 Days magazine?

I will provide Francis, The Talking Apostate’s own words and then provide a few very brief words of commentary:

Excerpt One:

BERGOGLIO: Staying, remaining faithful implies an outgoing. Precisely if one remains in the Lord one goes out of oneself. Paradoxically precisely because one remains, precisely if one is faithful one changes. One does not remain faithful, like the traditionalists or the fundamentalists, to the letter. Fidelity is always a change, a blossoming, a growth. The Lord brings about a change in those who are faithful to Him. That is Catholic doctrine. Saint Vincent of Lerins makes the comparison between the biologic development of the person, between the person who grows, and the Tradition which, in handing on the depositum fidei from one age to another, grows and consolidates with the passage of time: «Ut annis scilicet consolidetur, dilatetur tempore, sublimetur aetate». (30Giorni | What I would have said at the Consistory (Interview with Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio by Sefania Falasca)

Brief Comment:

Paradox and contradiction worthy of His Apostateness, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Antipope Emeritus. “One does not remain faithful, like the traditionalists or the fundamentalists, to the letter”?

Boy, have they got an apostate on their hands, a man who is as free with the teaching of saints such as Saint Vincent Lerins as the man who defeated him at the 2005 conciliar conclave. This is what Saint Vincent Lerins actually taught about Catholic Tradition:

“Do not be misled by various and passing doctrines. In the Catholic Church Herself we must be careful to hold what has been believed everywhere, always and by all; for that alone is truly and properly Catholic.” (Saint Vincent of Lerins, quoted in Tumultuous Times by Frs. Francisco and Dominic Radecki, CMRI, p. 279.)

“But he appears so humble and simple,” some might say.

I say, so what? Humility and simplicity without the Catholic Faith mean nothing. And Francis, The Talking Apostate hath not the Catholic Faith.

Excerpt Two:

Q. Is this what you would have said at the Consistory?

BERGOGLIO: Yes. I would have spoken about these three key points.

Q. Nothing else?

BERGOGLIO: Nothing else… No, perhaps I would have mentioned two things of which there is need in this moment, there is more need: mercy, mercy and apostolic courage.

Q. What do they mean to you?

BERGOGLIO: To me apostolic courage is disseminating. Disseminating the Word. Giving it to that man and to that woman for whom it was bestowed. Giving them the beauty of the Gospel, the amazement of the encounter with Jesus… and leaving it to the Holy Spirit to do the rest. It is the Lord, says the Gospel, who makes the seed spring and bear fruit.

Q. In short, it is the Holy Spirit who performs the mission.

BERGOGLIO: The early theologians said: the soul is a kind of sailing boat, the Holy Spirit is the wind that blows in the sail, to send it on its way, the impulses and the force of the wind are the gifts of the Spirit. Without His drive, without His grace, we don’t go ahead. The Holy Spirit lets us enter the mystery of God and saves us from the danger of a gnostic Church and from the danger of a self-referential Church, leading us to the mission.

That means also overthrowing all your functionalist solutions, your consolidated plans and pastoral systems …

BERGOGLIO: I didn’t say that pastoral systems are useless. On the contrary. In itself everything that leads by the paths of God is good. I have told my priests: «Do everything you should, you know your duties as ministers, take your responsibilities and then leave the door open». Our sociologists of religion tell us that the influence of a parish has a radius of six hundred meters. In Buenos Aires there are about two thousand meters between one parish and the next. So I then told the priests: «If you can, rent a garage and, if you find some willing layman, let him go there! Let him be with those people a bit, do a little catechesis and even give communion if they ask him». A parish priest said to me: «But Father, if we do this the people then won’t come to church». «But why?» I asked him: «Do they come to mass now?» «No», he answered. And so! Coming out of oneself is also coming out from the fenced garden of one’s own convictions, considered irremovable, if they risk becoming an obstacle, if they close the horizon that is also of God.

This is valid also for lay people…  (30Giorni | What I would have said at the Consistory (Interview with Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio by Sefania Falasca)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio had laid out his own plan for removing the remaining remnants of anything recognizably Catholic long, long before he walked out on the balcony of the Basilica of Saint Peter on March 13, 2013. Indeed, it is because he was so committed to his Jacobin/Bolshevik brand of conciliarism (the Bologna School) that the aging revolutionary named Cardinal Carlo Maria Marini, S.J., recommended that votes for him should go to “Cardinal” Bergoglio in the conclave held fourteen years ago to replace Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II. Few remembered these facts when the Argentine Apostate, who had appeared befuddled upon walking onto the balcony but knew exactly what he intended to signal by refusing the traditional protocol, itself symbolic of the fact that he is not a true Successor of Saint Peter, was elected nearly six years ago. However, a review of these facts might be helpful to remind readers that Bergoglio did not come out of nowhere:

ROME – A cardinal has broken his vow of secrecy and released his diary describing the conclave that elected Pope Benedict XVI (search), revealing in an exceedingly rare account that a cardinal from Argentina was the main challenger and almost blocked Benedict’s election.

Excerpts of the diary, published Friday, show Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger led in each of the four ballots cast in the Sistine Chapel during the mystery-shrouded April 18-19 conclave. But, in a surprise, Cardinal Jorge Maria Bergoglio (search), a Jesuit, was in second place the whole time.

Most accounts of the conclave have said retired Milan archbishop Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini (search) was the main challenger to Ratzinger, who became Benedict XVI after his election, and that a Third World pope was never realistically in the running.

While Bergoglio never threatened Ratzinger’s lead — and made clear he didn’t want the job, according to the diary published in the respected Italian foreign affairs magazine Limes — his runner-up status could signal the next conclave might elect a pope from Latin America, home to half the world’s 1 billion Roman Catholics.

The diary of the anonymous cardinal is also significant because it shows that Ratzinger didn’t garner a huge margin — he had 84 of the 115 votes in the final ballot, seven more than the required two-thirds majority.

His two immediate predecessors, Pope John Paul II and Pope John Paul I, are believed to have garnered 99 and 98 votes respectively, and that was when there were only 111 voting cardinals.

“It does seem that somebody wants to indicate that the conclave was a more complex process than was being depicted and that Benedict’s mandate was not a slam dunk,” said David Gibson, a former Vatican Radio journalist who is writing a biography of Benedict.

Finally, the diary includes a few surprises, including a vote in the final ballot for Cardinal Bernard Law, forced to resign as Boston archbishop because of the church sex abuse scandal.

And it offers other colorful insights of what went on behind the scenes during the two days the 115 red-hatted princes of the church were sequestered in the Sistine Chapel and the Vatican’s Santa Marta hotel to select the 265th leader of the Catholic Church.

Because the hotel prohibits smoking, Portuguese Cardinal Jose Policarpo da Crux would sneak outside for an after-dinner cigar, the diary says. And Cardinal Walter Kasper shunned the minibuses that shuttled cardinals to the Sistine Chapel, preferring to walk by the Vatican gardens instead.

“Sunday, April 17: In the afternoon I took over my room at the Casa Santa Marta. I put down my bags and tried to open the blinds because the room was dark. I wasn’t able to. One of my fellow brothers asked a nun working there, thinking it was a technical problem. She explained they were sealed. Closure of the conclave…” the diary begins.

The published diary entries were interspersed with commentary from Vatican journalist Lucio Brunelli, who says he obtained the diary through a trusted source he had known for years. He told The Associated Press he spoke in Italian to his source — a hint the cardinal in question was Italian.

Brunelli says he couldn’t identify the author because of the vow of secrecy each cardinal took before entering the conclave. Punishment for violating the vow is excommunication.

In Buenos Aires, a spokesman for the archdiocese, Enzo Paoletta, said Bergoglio had no comment on the report.

Nothing official is ever recorded from conclaves and the ballots are burned in the Sistine Chapel stove — ashes that signal to the world through white smoke or black whether a pope has been elected.

As a result, the diary’s tallies — which Brunelli said he confirmed through other cardinals — are unusual, although previously tallies have leaked out piecemeal.

According to the diary, Ratzinger won 47 votes and Bergoglio 10 on the first round of balloting, while Martini got nine and some 30 others got a few votes.

In round two, Ratzinger edged up to 65 and Bergoglio 35.

By the third ballot, Ratzinger had 72 votes, just five shy of the two-thirds majority needed to win. But Bergoglio got 40, just over the threshold needed to stall the conclave if his supporters wanted to.

However, the diary says Bergoglio made it clear he might not have accepted the job. The cardinal recalls watching Bergoglio cast his ballot: “The suffering face, as if he were begging: ‘God don’t do this to me.”‘

Marco Politi, Vatican correspondent for La Repubblica, said if the diary showed anything, it’s that outsiders really have no idea what happens during a conclave, since so many of the media’s preconceived ideas were proved wrong.

“To know more, we have to wait for other tears in the secret,” he wrote Friday.

Gibson speculated the diary’s author was Italian and wanted to set the record straight that Ratzinger, a German, didn’t have as significant a margin as some had suggested.

“Outside of Italy, Catholics and churchmen have a very kind of mystical view of the Vatican and especially the conclave,” Gibson said.

“The Italians have always had a more kind of political view of the process … for them it’s their election, and they’re much more comfortable with it, as a human as well as a divine process.” (“Cardinal” Spills Secrets from Conclave.)

Thus, you see, the recent description of Bergoglio as a Machiavellian liar is nothing new. Indeed, it was just a few months after Bergoglio’s election that the following description of him by a Count Becala was published in connection with “Pope Francis’s” crackdown on the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate:

Introduction:

“Msgr.” Bergoglio is a cold and authoritarian man, in the service of a part of a certain modernist ideology. Now he is a “pope.” A change in mentality perhaps, even if our degree of respect for him changes, given the loftiness of his office?

Let us look at the story of the excellent periodical “Página Católica”. During the times of his being “archbishop” of Buenos Aires he disbanded the holy Order of nuns that was founded in the 18th century by Mother Antula, María Antonia de Paz y Figueroa, the Congregation of the Daughters of the Divine Savior, that had various colleges and constructed a House of Exercises in Buenos Aires, a jewel of colonial architecture and a placed blessed with so much graces.

Now, coming from the “Holy See”, follows another act of despotism towards another Congregation, the Franciscans of the Immaculata with the same ferocity.

Reading the story demonstrates that there isn’t any line added because it is sufficient for any Catholic heart to understand and repudiate such a horrible spectacle of ecclesiastical tyranny against the Faith, to holy vocations, and good customs.

Lamentably, it is not possible to reproduce the interviews given to the nuns thrown out on the streets by “Msgr.” Bergoglio. But the can be found by opening the webpage of http://pagina-catolica.blogspot.com/2013/07/frailes-de-la-inmaculada-y-un-drama.html

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a destroyer, but he is, at the very least, doing a service to those who are intellectually honest by simply tearing the mask off of the great façade that has been the fact that the leaders of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have been antipopes and enemies of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and of the souls for whom he shed every single drop of His Most Blessed Precious Blood to redeem.

As has been noted many times on this site, personal sin of one sort of another usually plays a major role in the rise and institutionalization of heresies and schisms, including sins against the First and Second Commandments that constitute of loss of the Holy Faith and/or an open embrace of false religions. Not all Modernists are homosexuals nor are all homosexuals Modernists. However, Modernism has made possible what the acceptance of sodomy in the name of “mercy,” and this is something that even supposed “conservatives” such as Walter “Cardinal” Brandmuller do not understand or accept as they are Modernists of one stripe or another in their own right.

It is with this in mind that one must view “Cardinal” Brandmuller’s recent statement that homosexuality, not “clericalism,” is the root cause of the clerical abuse problem within what he thinks, quite mistakenly, of course, is the Catholic Church:

A German cardinal on Friday provoked anger and controversy when he claimed the Catholic church was not responsible for sexual abuse by its clerics, and instead sought to pin the blame on homosexuality.

“What has happened in the church is no different from what is happening in society as a whole,” Cardinal Walter Brandmüller said. “The real scandal is that the Catholic church hasn’t distinguished itself from the rest of society.”

A study commissioned by the German Bishops Conference and published last year found that more than 3,600 children were sexually abused by Catholic clergy in Germany between 1946 and 2014.

But Cardinal Brandmüller claimed that only a “vanishingly small number” of clergy had committed abuses. He said the real problem was homosexuality and claimed it is “statistically proven” that there is a link between homosexuality and abuse.

Society “forgets or covers up the fact that 80 per cent of cases of sexual assault in the church involved male youths not children,” he told Germany’s DPA news agency in an interview a few days ahead of his 90th birthday.

Cardinal Brandmüller’s outburst comes days after the Pope urged Catholic bishops in the US to confront the “sins and crimes” of sexual abuse by the clergy and “the efforts made to deny or conceal them”.

“Everything we do risks being tainted by self-referentiality, self-preservation and defensiveness, and thus doomed from the start,” Pope Francis wrote in a letter to American bishops ahead of a spiritual retreat to reflect on the issue.

“As we know, the mentality that would cover things up, far from helping to resolve conflicts, enabled them to fester and cause even greater harm to the network of relationships that today we are called to heal and restore.”

Cardinal Brandmüller has been one of Pope Francis’ most outspoken critics within the Catholic church, and is one of four cardinals who have repeatedly challenged the Pope’s teachings on love and family life.

The cardinal’s comments were swiftly condemned on social media and 

“What a shameful way for the Catholic Church to relativise guilt and defame homosexuals. Disgraceful,” Ulf Poschardt, the editor of Welt newspaper, wrote on Twitter. (https:Brandmuller Says Homosexuality to Blame for Clerical Abuse, Not Catholic Church.)

Well, Walter “Cardinal” Brandmuller is right about the sodomite infestation being respsonsbile for clerical abuse. He is also correct when stating that the Catholic Chruch is not to blame for that abuse, although he does not realize that he is correct because the Catholic Church is not and can never be the counterfeit church of conciliarism

Otherwise, ignoring the ingorance of the supposedly “enlightened editor” of Welt newspapery, I hope that the few people who read this commentary will be able to see that there is a method to my including Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s interview with 30 Days just above.

Why is that?

Simple, good readers.

Let me reprise a quotation cited earlier in this commentary:

BERGOGLIO: The early theologians said: the soul is a kind of sailing boat, the Holy Spirit is the wind that blows in the sail, to send it on its way, the impulses and the force of the wind are the gifts of the Spirit. Without His drive, without His grace, we don’t go ahead. The Holy Spirit lets us enter the mystery of God and saves us from the danger of a gnostic Church and from the danger of a self-referential Church, leading us to the mission.

That means also overthrowing all your functionalist solutions, your consolidated plans and pastoral systems …

“Pope Francis,” for all his blasphemous talk about a supposed “God of surprises,” is boringly predictable. He hates the Catholic Church. He hates her hierarchical structure, although he uses his nonexistent authority to rule by intimidation, and he hates her doctrines, the true liturgy of the Roman Rite, and her claim to be the only true religion in the world. He hates it all.

Jorge remains now what he has been throughout his career as a lay Jesuit revolutionary. His letter to the conciliar “bishops” of the United States of America reference in the article about Walter “Cardinal” Brandmuller is simply yet another manifestation of the hatred he has for the true Catholic Church and his willingness to blame everything but sodomy for the crisis of clerical abuse within his false religious sect.

This having been noted, though, “Cardinal” Brandmuller does not realize that it is all well and good speak about sodomy as a root cause of predatory clergy and to oppose Amoris Laetitia. However, he himself accepts the overthrow of the ends proper to Holy Matrimony as they are enshrined in Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968, and in the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s 1983 Code of Canon Law.

Moreover, “Cardinal” Brandmuller accepts the new ecclesiology, dogmatic evolutionism (under Ratzinger/Benedict’s “hermeneutic of continuity”), false ecumenism, interreligious dialogue and prayer services, religious liberty, separation of church and state, episcopal collegiality and is a supporter of “Pope Benedict XVI’s” writings that are filled with heresy and outright denials of the historicity and reliability of certain passages contained in Sacred Scripture. It is not possible to defend the integrity of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments when one accepts their corruption by means of placing the “good of the spouses” above that of the procreation and education of children, and it is not possible to defend the Catholic Faith by accepting precepts and propositions at variance therewith, starting with offenses against the nature of dogmatic truth and the First and Second Commandments. It is impossible for the Catholic Church to be tainted with slightest trace of error, and those who accept conciliarism’s errors are not members of the Catholic Church even though they may not realize this is true.

Dom Prosper Gueranger wrote this about God the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Truth, in his reflection on Thursday in Whitsun Week in The Liturgical Year:

The divine Spirit has been sent to secure unity to the bride of Christ; and we have seen have faithfully He fulfils His mission by giving to the members of the Church to be one, as He Himself is one. But the bride of a God, who is, as He calls Himself, the truth, must be in the truth, and can have no fellowship with error. Jesus entrusted His teachings to her care, and has instructed her in the person of the apostles. He said to them: ‘All things whatsoever I have heard of My Father, I have made known to you.’ And yet, if left unaided, how can the Church preserve free from all change, during the long ages of her existence, that word which Jesus has not written, that truth which He came from came from heaven to teach her? Experiences proves that everything changes here below; that written documents are open to false interpretations; and that unwritten traditions are frequently so altered in the course of time, as to defy recognition.

Here again we have a proof of our Lord’s watchful love. In order to realize the wish He had to see us one, as He and His Father are one, He sent us His Spirit; and in order to keep us in the truth, He sent us this same Spirit who is called the Spirit of truth. ‘When the Spirit of truth is come,’ said He, ‘He will teach you all truth.’ And what is the truth which this Spirit will teach us? ‘He will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.’

So that nothing of what the divine Word spoke to men is to be lost. The beauty of His bride is to be based on truth, for ‘beauty’ is the splendour of truth.’ Her fidelity to her Jesus shall be of the most perfect kind; for if He be the truth, how could she ever be out of the truth? Jesus had said: ‘I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you for ever; and He shall be in you.’ It is by the Holy Ghost, then, that the Church is ever to possess the truth, and that nothing can rob her of it; for this Spirit, who is sent by the Father and the Son, will abide unceasingly with and in her.

The magnificent theory of St. Augustine comes most appropriately here. According to his teaching–which, after all, is but the explanation of the texts just cited–the Holy Ghost is the principle of the Church’s life; and He, being the Spirit of truth, preserves and directs her in the truth, so that both her teaching and her practice cannot be other than expressions of the truth. He makes Himself responsible for her words, just as our spirit is responsible for what our tongue utters. Hence it is that the Church, by her union with the Holy Ghost, is so identified with truth, that the apostle did not hesitate to call her ‘the pillar and ground of the truth’. The Christian, therefore, may well rest on the Church in all that regards faith. He knows that the Church is never alone; that she is always with the holy Spirit who lives within her; that her word is not her own, but the word of the Spirit, which is the word of Jesus.

Now, this word of Jesus is preserved in the Church by the Holy Ghost, and in two ways. He guards it as contained in the four Gospels, which the evangelists wrote under His inspiration. It is by His watchful care that these holy writings have been kept free from all changes during the past ages. The same is to be said of the other books of the new Testament, which were also written under the guidance of the same Spirit. Those of the old Testament are equally the result of the inspiration of the Holy Ghost: and, although they do not give us the words spoken by our Saviour during His mortal life, yet do they speak of Him, and foretell His coming, and contain, moreover, the primitive revelations made by God to mankind. The Books of sacred Writ are replete with mysteries, the interpretation of which is communicated to the Church by the Holy Ghost.

The other channel of Jesus’ word is tradition. It was impossible for everything to be written; and even before the Gospels were composed, the Church was in existence. Tradition, like the written word itself, is from God; but unless the Spirit of truth watch over and protect it, how can it remain pure and intact? He therefore fixes it in the memory of the Church, He preserves it from any change: it is His mission; and thanks to the fidelity wherewith He fulfils His mission, the Church remains in possession of the whole treasure left her by her Spouse.

But it is not enough that the Church possesses the word, written and traditional: she must also have the understanding of that word, in order that she may explain it to her children. Truth came down from heaven that it might be communicated to men; for it is their light, and without it they would be in darkness, knowing not whither they are going. The Spirit of truth could not, therefore, be satisfied if the word of Jesus were kept as a hidden treasure; no, He will have it thrown open to men, that they may thence draw life to their souls. Consequently, the Church will have to be infallible in her teaching; for how can she be deceived herself, or deceive others, seeing it is the Spirit of truth who guides her in al things and speaks by her mouth? He is her soul; and we have already had St. Augustine telling us that wen the tongue speaks, the soul is responsible.

The infallibility of our holy mother the Church is the direct and immediate result of her having the spirit of truth abiding within her. It is the promise of the presence of the holy Spirit.The man who does not acknowledge the Church to be infallible, should, if he is consistent, admit that the Son of God has not been able to fulfil His promise, and that the Spirit of truth is a Spirit of error. But he that reasons thus, has strayed fro the path of life; he thought he was denying a prerogative to the Church, whereas, in reality, he was refused to believe God Himself. It is this that constitutes the sin of heresy. Want of due reflection may hide the awful conclusion; but the conclusion is strictly implied in his principle. The heretic is at variance with the Holy Ghost, because he is at variance with the Church; he may become once more a living member, by humbly returning to the bride of Christ; but at present he is dead, for the soul is not animating him. Let us again give ear to the great St. Augustine: ‘It sometimes happens,’ he says, ‘that a member–say a hand, or a finger, or foot–is cut from the human body; tell me, does the soul follow the member that is thus severed? As long as it was in the body, it lived; now that it is cut off, it is dead. In the same manner, a Christian is a Catholic so long as he lives in the body (of the Church); cut off, he is a heretic; the Spirit follows not a member that is cut off.

Glory, then, be to the holy Spirit, who has conferred upon the bride the ‘splendour of truth!’ With regard to ourselves: could we, without incurring the greatest of dangers, put limits to the docility with which we receive the teachings which come to us simultaneously from ‘the Spirit and the bride,’ who are so indissolubly united? Whether the Church imitates what we are to believe, by showing us her own practice, or by simply expressing her sentiments, or by solemnly pronouncing a definition on the subject, we must receive her word with submission of heart. Her practice is ever in harmony with the truth, ad it is the Holy Ghost, her life-giving principle, that keeps it so; the utterance of her sentiments is but an aspiration of the same Spirit, who never leaves her; and as to the definitions she decrees, it is not she alone that decrees them, but the Holy Ghost who decrees them in and by her. If it be the visible head of the Church who utters the definition, we know that Jesus prayed that peer’s faith might never fail, that He obtained it from the Father, and that He gave the Holy Ghost the mission of perpetuating the precious prerogative granted to Peter. If it be the sovereign Pontiff and bishops, assembled in council, who proclaim what is the faith on any given subject, it is the Holy Ghost who speaks by this collective judgment, make truth triumph, and puts error to flight. It tis this divine Spirit that has given to the bride to crush all heresies beneath her feet; it is He that, in all ages, has raised up within her learned men, who have confuted error whensoever or wheresoever it was broached.

So that our beloved mother the Church is gifted with infallibility; she is true, always and in all things; and she is indebted to Him who proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son. But there is another glory which she owes to Him. The bride of the thrice holy God could not but be holy. She is so; and it is from the Spirit of holiness that receives her holiness. Truth and holiness are inseparably united in God. Hence it is hat our Saviour, who has willed us to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect, and, creatures as we are, would have us take the infinite good as our model, prayed that we might be sanctified in the truth. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Paschal Time Book III: Volume 9, pp. 393-399.)  

In other words, the counterfeit church of conciliarism is not and can never be the Catholic Church. The counterfeit church of conciliarism is Antichrist’s church of lies and sin.

Here is how the Catholic Church has referred to novelty over the centuries:

These firings, therefore, with all diligence and care having been formulated by us, we define that it be permitted to no one to bring forward, or to write, or to compose, or to think, or to teach a different faith. Whosoever shall presume to compose a different faith, or to propose, or teach, or hand to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles or Jews, or from any heresy, any different Creed; or to introduce a new voice or invention of speech to subvert these things which now have been determined by us, all these, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laymen: let them be anathematized. (Constantinople III).

These and many other serious things, which at present would take too long to list, but which you know well, cause Our intense grief. It is not enough for Us to deplore these innumerable evils unless We strive to uproot them. We take refuge in your faith and call upon your concern for the salvation of the Catholic flock. Your singular prudence and diligent spirit give Us courage and console Us, afflicted as We are with so many trials. We must raise Our voice and attempt all things lest a wild boar from the woods should destroy the vineyard or wolves kill the flock. It is Our duty to lead the flock only to the food which is healthfulIn these evil and dangerous times, the shepherds must never neglect their duty; they must never be so overcome by fear that they abandon the sheep. Let them never neglect the flock and become sluggish from idleness and apathy. Therefore, united in spirit, let us promote our common cause, or more truly the cause of God; let our vigilance be one and our effort united against the common enemies.

Indeed you will accomplish this perfectly if, as the duty of your office demands, you attend to yourselves and to doctrine and meditate on these words: “the universal Church is affected by any and every novelty” and the admonition of Pope Agatho: “nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning.” Therefore may the unity which is built upon the See of Peter as on a sure foundation stand firm. May it be for all a wall and a security, a safe port, and a treasury of countless blessings. To check the audacity of those who attempt to infringe upon the rights of this Holy See or to sever the union of the churches with the See of Peter, instill in your people a zealous confidence in the papacy and sincere veneration for it. As St. Cyprian wrote: “He who abandons the See of Peter on which the Church was founded, falsely believes himself to be a part of the Church . . . .

But for the other painful causes We are concerned about, you should recall that certain societies and assemblages seem to draw up a battle line together with the followers of every false religion and cult. They feign piety for religion; but they are driven by a passion for promoting novelties and sedition everywhere. They preach liberty of every sort; they stir up disturbances in sacred and civil affairs, and pluck authority to pieces.(Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

7. It is with no less deceit, venerable brothers, that other enemies of divine revelation, with reckless and sacrilegious effrontery, want to import the doctrine of human progress into the Catholic religion. They extol it with the highest praise, as if religion itself were not of God but the work of men, or a philosophical discovery which can be perfected by human means. The charge which Tertullian justly made against the philosophers of his own time “who brought forward a Stoic and a Platonic and a Dialectical Christianity” can very aptly apply to those men who rave so pitiably. Our holy religion was not invented by human reason, but was most mercifully revealed by God; therefore, one can quite easily understand that religion itself acquires all its power from the authority of God who made the revelation, and that it can never be arrived at or perfected by human reason. In order not to be deceived and go astray in a matter of such great importance, human reason should indeed carefully investigate the fact of divine revelation. Having done this, one would be definitely convinced that God has spoken and therefore would show Him rational obedience, as the Apostle very wisely teaches. For who can possibly not know that all faith should be given to the words of God and that it is in the fullest agreement with reason itself to accept and strongly support doctrines which it has determined to have been revealed by God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived? (Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus, November 9, 1846.)

As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that, where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which it can be found without even a light tarnish of error. Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834.)

In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies Itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, It makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which  it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)

For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.) 

Pope Saint Pius X went to great lengths in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, to decry the novelties of Modernism, starting in its very first paragraph:

One of the primary obligations assigned by Christ to the office divinely committed to Us of feeding the Lord’s flock is that of guarding with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith delivered to the saints, rejecting the profane novelties of words and the gainsaying of knowledge falsely so called. There has never been a time when this watchfulness of the supreme pastor was not necessary to the Catholic body, for owing to the efforts of the enemy of the human race, there have never been lacking “men speaking perverse things,”1 “vain talkers and seducers,”2 “erring and driving into error.”3 It must, however, be confessed that these latter days have witnessed a notable increase in the number of the enemies of the Cross of Christ, who, by arts entirely new and full of deceit, are striving to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, as far as in them lies, utterly to subvert the very Kingdom of Christ. Wherefore We may no longer keep silence, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be set down to lack of diligence in the discharge of Our office. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Pope Saint Pius X went on to quote Pope Gregory IX’s own condemnation of novelties:

The Modernists completely invert the parts, and of them may be applied the words which another of Our predecessors Gregory IX, addressed to some theologians of his time: “Some among you, puffed up like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the meaning of the sacred text…to the philosophical teaching of the rationalists, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science…these men, led away by various and strange doctrines, turn the head into the tail and force the queen to serve the handmaid.” (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Our last true pope to have been canonized instituted a “Council of Vigilance” that he wanted established in every diocese to guard against every use of language that endorsed the precise thing that the conciliar “popes” have praised from their own very lips and in the writings that they have issued in their names, namely, a desire to adapt doctrine to serve the alleged “needs” of “modern men”:

55. But of what avail, Venerable Brethren, will be all Our commands and prescriptions if they be not dutifully and firmly carried out? In order that this may be done it has seemed expedient to us to extend to all dioceses the regulations which the Bishops of Umbria, with great wisdom, laid down for theirs many years ago. “In order,” they say, ”to extirpate the errors already propagated and to prevent their further diffusion, and to remove those teachers of impiety through whom the pernicious effects of such diffusion are being perpetuated, this sacred Assembly, following the example of St. Charles Borromeo, has decided to establish in each of the dioceses a Council consisting of approved members of both branches of the clergy, which shall be charged with the task of noting the existence of errors and the devices by which new ones are introduced and propagated, and to inform the Bishop of the whole, so that he may take counsel with them as to the best means for suppressing the evil at the outset and preventing it spreading for the ruin of souls or, worse still, gaining strength and growth.” We decree, therefore, that in every diocese a council of this kind, which We are pleased to name the “Council of Vigilance,” be instituted without delay. The priests called to form part in it shall be chosen somewhat after the manner above prescribed for the censors, and they shall meet every two months on an appointed day in the presence of the Bishop. They shall be bound to secrecy as to their deliberations and decisions, and in their functions shall be included the following: they shall watch most carefully for every trace and sign of Modernism both in publications and in teaching, and to preserve the clergy and the young from it they shall take all prudent, prompt, and efficacious measures. Let them combat novelties of words, remembering the admonitions of Leo XIII: “It is impossible to approve in Catholic publications a style inspired by unsound novelty which seems to deride the piety of the faithful and dwells on the introduction of a new order of Christian life, on new directions of the Church, on new aspirations of the modern soul, on a new social vocation of the clergy, on a new Christian civilization, and many other things of the same kind.” Language of the kind here indicated is not to be tolerated either in books or in lectures. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Why is it that so many “conservative” and “traditionally-minded” Catholics within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism tolerate the constant references that their false “popes” have made to “the introduction of a new order of Christian life,” “new directions of the Church,” “new aspirations of the modern soul,” “a new social vocation of the clergy,” and “a new Christian civilization”?

Do not be concerned about who sees the truth about the state of the Church Militant in this time of apostasy and betrayal. Family members may not see the truth. Former friends and acquaintances may not see the truth. We cannot ask why such people insist that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is the Catholic Church when it is in fact Antichrist’s Church of Lies and Sin. We must simply be grateful to Our Lady for sending us the graces that we need to see the true state of the Church Militant. We must beseech her daily, especially through Most Holy Rosary, entrusting all of the crosses of the present moment as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son, Christ the King, through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, which will triumph in the end.

Seeing the truth does not make us one whit better than anyone else who does not. It is more than possible to see the truth and to lose one’s soul by being arrogantly self-righteous about having done so. We must be meek and humble of heart if we seek to take refuge in the Sacred Heart of Jesus, praying fervently for the conversion of all those who propagate the lies and errors of the present moment.

The intentions all of hearts and souls are laid bare only on the Last Day at the General Judgment of the living and the dead. It is enough for us now to plant at least a few seeds for the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary by the fulfillment of her Fatima Message by a true pope with all of the world’s true bishops without looking for results.

With complete confidence that Our Lady will use our prayers and sacrifices and acts of reparation to help souls here and now even though we may never know this in eternity, please God we persevere in state of Sanctifying Grace, that is, as we prepare ourselves today, the Octave Day of Corpus Christi and the Commemoration of Saint Barnabas, for the Feast of the Most Sacred Heart of Our Lord Jesus Christ tomorrow.

Vivat Christus RexViva Cristo Rey!

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

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.