Procinctu Press | THE BLOG

Bergoglio blasphemes the Immaculate: A Review of Sundry Examples

from Novus Ordo Watch

Yesterday, Dec. 8, Vatican News published a story entitled: “Pope entrusts sinners to Mary in prayer for Immaculate Conception”.

Clearly, it was time for Jorge Bergoglio (aka “Pope Francis”) to put on his Marian face again, for every so often this blaspheming apostate has to feign pious devotion to the Mother of God and other saints in order to help him keep the charade of being the Pope of the Catholic Church alive.

Are these words too harsh? By no means. The Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary is a good opportunity to review some instances where Francis has publicly attacked, denied, or otherwise dishonored the Immaculate Mother of God.

Example 1: Audience of September 11, 2013

We begin with his General Audience of Sep. 11, 2013. Francis compared the Catholic Church with the Blessed Mother — nothing wrong with that — but he put forward premises which, once they are connected, inevitably lead to the heretical and blasphemous conclusion that the Virgin Mary was not free from every stain of sin.

In order to give the full context of what he said, we will quote the entire relevant paragraph, underlining the portions that corroborate our thesis:

First of all a mother generates life, she carries her child in her womb for 9 months and then delivers him to life, giving birth to him. The Church is like this: she bears us in the faith, through the work of the Holy Spirit who makes her fertile, like the Virgin Mary. The Church and the Virgin Mary are mothers, both of them; what is said of the Church can be said also of Our Lady and what is said of Our Lady can also be said of the Church! Certainly faith is a personal act: “I believe”, I personally respond to God who makes himself known and wants to enter into friendship with me (cf. Lumen Fidei, n. 39). But the faith I receive from others, within a family, within a community that teaches me to say “I believe”, “we believe”. A Christian is not an island! We do not become Christians in a laboratory, we do not become Christians alone and by our own effort, since the faith is a gift, it is a gift from God given to us in the Church and through the Church. And the Church gives us the life of faith in Baptism: that is the moment in which she gives birth to us as children of God, the moment she gives us the life of God, she engenders us as a mother would. If you go to the Baptistery of St John Lateran, beside the Pope’s Cathedral, inside it there is an inscription in Latin which reads more or less: “Here is born a people of divine lineage, generated by the Holy Spirit who makes these waters life-giving; Mother Church gives birth to her children within these waves”. This makes us understand something important: our taking part in the Church is not an exterior or formal fact, it is not filling out a form they give us; it is an interior and vital act; one does not belong to the Church as one belongs to a society, to a party or to any other organization. The bond is vital, like the bond you have with your mother, because, as St Augustine says, “The Church is truly the mother of Christians” (De moribus Ecclesiae, I, 30, 62-63: PL 32, 1336). Let us ask ourselves: how do I see the Church? As I am grateful to my parents for giving me life, am I grateful to the Church for generating me in the faith through Baptism? How many Christians remember the date of their Baptism? I would like to ask you here, but each of you respond in you heart: how many of you remember the date of your Baptism? A few people raise their hands, but many others do not remember! But the date of your Baptism is the day of our birth in the Church, the date on which our mother Church gave us life! And now I leave you with some homework. When you go home today, go and find out what the date of your Baptism is, and then celebrate it, thank the Lord for this gift. Are you going to do it? Do we love the Church as we love our mothers, also taking into account her defects? All mothers have defects, we all have defects, but when we speak of our mother’s defects we gloss over them, we love her as she is. And the Church also has her defects: but we love her just as a mother. Do we help her to be more beautiful, more authentic, more in harmony with the Lord? I leave you with these questions, but don’t forget your homework: go find the date of your Baptism, carry it in your heart and celebrate it.

(Antipope Francis, General, Sep. 11, 2013; italics given; underlining added.)

It doesn’t take a genius to put two and two together here: First Bergoglio tells us that what is said of the Church can also be said of Our Lady, and then he asserts that the Church has defects we must gloss over. The implication is obvious and inescapable — and it is heresy.

It is heresy not only against the Immaculate Conception (see Pope Pius IX, Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus) but also against the Church, for God’s own Revelation tells us that God’s Church is “a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but … holy, and without blemish” (Eph 5:27). Besides, in the ancient Apostles’ Creed, we profess our belief in “the holy Catholic Church” (Denz. 1), and Pope Pius XI referred to her as “the immaculate spouse of Christ, and … perfect teacher” (Encyclical Divini Illius Magistri, n. 101). Quotations to the same effect could be multiplied, but these suffice.

Thus far our first example of Francis’ diabolically clever attack against the Mother of God, subtly undermining belief in her Immaculate Conception. A most egregious and direct attack on Mary Most Pure, however, came later the same year.

Example 2: Homily of December 20, 2013

The next example comes from a homily he preached at his daily worship meal at the Casa Santa Marta on Dec. 20, 2013, right before Christmas. Vatican Radio presented a summary with copious quotations:

The Mother of Jesus was the perfect icon of silence. From the proclamation of her exceptional maternity at Calvary. The Pope said he thinks about “how many times she remained quiet and how many times she did not say that which she felt in order to guard the mystery of her relationship with her Son,” up until the most raw silence “at the foot of the cross”.

“The Gospel does not tell us anything: if she spoke a word or not… She was silent, but in her heart, how many things [she] told the Lord! ‘You, that day, this and the other that we read, you had told me that he would be great, you had told me that you would have given him the throne of David, his forefather, that he would have reigned forever and now I see him there!’ Our Lady was human! And perhaps she even had the desire to say: ‘Lies! I was deceived!’ John Paul II would say this, speaking about Our Lady in that moment. But she, with her silence, hid the mystery that she did not understand and with this silence allowed for this mystery to grow and blossom in hope.”

(“Pope: Silence Guards one’s Relationship with God”Vatican Radio, Dec. 20, 2013; underlining added.)

What revolting blasphemy! Jorge Bergoglio is a son of Satan, a child from hell!

Interestingly enough, the report of this scandalous and blasphemous homily published by the Vatican’s own newspaper, Osservatore Romano, chose to omit this portion: “Our Lady was human! And perhaps she even had the desire to say: ‘Lies! I was deceived!’” Why might that be?

Having been sinless throughout her entire life, it was of course wholly impossible for the Blessed Virgin Mary to have had the least voluntary thought or desire contrary to God’s Law, and accusing or even suspecting God of deceiving her would certainly fall into that category.

Likewise, it is utterly unthinkable that the Mother of Sorrows, who “has been associated by Jesus Christ in the work of redemption” (Pope Pius X, Encyclical Ad Diem Illum, n. 14), could have doubted that Calvary was the fulfillment of the mission of her Divine Son:

We must never forget that our Lady was a willing victim. Never was a murmur heard to fall from her lips. There was never a murmur in her heart. Her will was as perfectly at one with the Will of the Divine Victim dying upon the Cross, as it is possible for the will of the creature to be attuned in suffering to the Will of the Creator. She consented as freely, as fully on Calvary to the Passion of Christ, as at Nazareth she had consented to His Incarnation. During the three hours of the first Good Friday, our Lady never wavered. ‘Be it done unto me according to Thy Word’ still expressed all that she would say. Everything was left by her to God. For us men and for our salvation she offered her Son without reserve, and thus was granted to her that which shall be hers for ever, her special place, by itself apart, in the work of man’s Redemption.

(O. R. Vassall-Phillips, The Mother of Christ; Or, the Blessed Virgin Mary in Catholic Tradition, Theology, and Devotion, 2nd ed. [London: Burns Oates & Washbourne LTD, 1922], pp. 121-122)

This is Catholicism, and not Bergoglio’s sickening drivel!

Francis’ idea of what the Blessed Virgin “perhaps desired to say” is eerily reminiscent of what Eve said to God after being called upon to give a reason for why she had eaten of the forbidden fruit: “The serpent deceived me, and I did eat” (Gen 3:13). But the Blessed Mother is the New Eve, that is, the Counter-Eve, the reverse of Eve, inasmuch as, unlike Eve, Mary was perfectly obedient to God, so much so that Eve’s “No” to God by eating the forbidden fruit was counteracted by Mary’s “Fiat Mihi” — “Let it be done unto me” (Lk 1:38). In fact, the name Eva (Latin for Eve) beautifully reverses as Ave, as in “Ave Maria” (Lk 1:28).

To say, therefore, that the Blessed Virgin could have even so much as entertained the thought of God having lied to her, when the devil is the Father of Lies (Jn 8:44) and God is the Source of all Truth (Jn 14:6), is beyond sickening. It is essentially putting in the mind of the Most Pure Mother of God what was in the mind of Eve when she doubted God’s Word and succumbed to the lies of the devil, thus committing the first sin (see Gen 3:1-6).

Example 3: Act of Dedication of July 10, 2015

Our next case in point is connected to Francis’ trip to Bolivia in the summer of 2015, when Socialist President Evo Morales gave Bergoglio a Marxist crucifix — Christ nailed to a hammer and sickle, the symbols of Communism — as a welcome gift. Francis happily received it and later clarified that he was not at all offended by it. Long-time readers may recall the outrage and controversy over Francis’ comments upon seeing the thing:

Nevertheless, Francis found a way to one-up the Communist head-of-state: He dedicated a pendant Morales had given him, which likewise included a depiction of Christ crucified on hammer and sickle, to the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Vatican’s press office released the following remarks by Francis, including a prayer of dedication:

The President of the Nation, in a gesture of cordiality, was kind enough to offer me two honours on behalf of the people of Bolivia. I give thanks for the affection of the Bolivian people and I give thanks for the President’s kind gesture, and I would like to leave these two honours to the Patroness of Bolivia, the Mother of this noble Nation, that she may always remember her people, and that from Bolivia, from this Shrine where I would like them to remain, may she also remember the Successor of Peter and the whole Church, and from Bolivia may she care for them.

[Turning in prayer to the Virgin]

Mother of the Saviour, Our Mother, you, Queen of Bolivia, from the height of your Shrine in Copacabana, attend to the prayers and the needs of your children, especially the poor and abandoned, and protect them.

Receive as a gift from the heart of Bolivia and my filial affection the symbols of affection and closeness that — on behalf of the Bolivian people — Mr President Evo Morales Ayma presented to me with cordial and generous affection, on the occasion of this Apostolic Journey, which I entrusted to your solicitous intercession.

I ask that these honours, which I leave here in Bolivia at your feet, and which recall the nobility of the flight of the Condor in the skies of the Andes and the commemorated sacrifice of Father Luis Espinal, SJ, may be emblems of the everlasting love and persevering gratitude of the Bolivian people for your solicitous and intense tenderness. At this moment, Mother, I place in your heart my prayers for all the many petitions of your children, which I have received in these days: I beg you to hear them; give them your encouragement and protection, and manifest to the whole of Bolivia your tenderness as woman and Mother of God, who lives and reigns for ever and ever. Amen.

(Antipope Francis, Remarks on the Occasion of the Presentation of Two Decorative Honors to Our Lady of, July 10, 2015)

Francis’ prayer may sound devout and sincere, but here the prophet Isaias’ warning comes to mind, quoted by our Blessed Lord: “This people honoureth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me” (Mt 15:8; cf. Is 29:13). Far indeed, for what Francis here refers to as a great honor that recalls “the commemorated sacrifice of Father Luis Espinal, SJ” is a most disgusting insult to Jesus Christ our Lord, to His Sacred Passion and Death, and to His infinite Love. And with this sickening dedication, the same insult was extended also to the Blessed Mother herself. Now none other than the “Pope” has associated her and her Divine Son with the cruel and murderous scourge of Socialism and Communism, two systems condemned by Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI (see, for example, the papal encyclicals Quod Apostolici MunerisRerum Novarum, and Divini Redemptoris), among others.

Example 4: Christmas Greetings of December 21, 2018

The final example of Francis’ attacks on the Virgin Mother of God we will look at is found in his Christmas greetings to Vatican City employees given on Dec. 21, 2018. The Argentinian apostate said:

Our Lady and Saint Joseph are full of joy: they look at the Child Jesus and they are happy because, after a thousand worries, they have accepted this gift of God, with so much faith and so much love. They are “overflowing” with holiness and therefore with joy. And you will tell me: of course! They are Our Lady and Saint Joseph! Yes, but let us not think it was easy for them: saints are not born, they become thus, and this is true for them too.

(Antipope Francis, Christmas Greetings to, Dec. 21, 2018; underlining added.)

The fact that Francis suggests that it wasn’t until after some kind of interior struggle that Holy Mary and St. Joseph (finally) “accepted this gift of God”, is troubling and blasphemous enough. This alone would probably suffice to accuse him of heresy. But he goes much further. He explicitly says that it was not easy for them to be joyful at the Birth of Christ because this required holiness that they had not received from birth but had to acquire over time!

Needless to say, it is most certainly generally true that saints are not born but made over time, with penance and prayer, enabled and aided by the grace of God (cf. Mt 11:30). However, the Blessed Virgin Mary is an exception in that she was perfectly holy from the very beginning of her existence due to her special fullness of grace (see Lk 1:28) given her by God as a singular privilege — and this is a dogma defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854.

So, not only was the Blessed Virgin Mary born a saint, she was conceived one, too. In other words, she has always been a saint, even from the very first moment of her existence. There was never an instant in which she existed without this fullness of grace; at no point was she ever under the dominion of the devil. This was already hinted at right after the fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden: “I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel” (Gen 3:15).

But Francis has stated before that to him, “full of grace” does not mean “full of virtue” or holiness, but “full of beauty, gratuitousness” — whatever that is supposed to mean.

Before we conclude, we must note that it is certainly true that Francis has also said beautiful and orthodox things about the Blessed Mother and her Immaculate Conception. Of course he has — that’s precisely how the most insidious heretics like him operate.

Being a dangerous Modernist, Bergoglio is two-faced: He will affirm in one sentence what he denies in the next. The apostate from Buenos Aires is like the heretic Nestorius, who “expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed” (Pope Pius VI, Apostolic Constitution Auctorem Fidei, preamble; cf. Pope St. Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi, nn. 4, 18).

Let no one, therefore, deceive you by appealing to Francis’ orthodox passages, claiming that they demonstrate him to be a Catholic. They do not.

They merely show that what we have here is a heretic of the most noxious sort.

Pope Gregory XVI condemns Innovators who would “Renew” the Church

from Novus Ordo Watch

Vatican II condemned in 1833…

The ideas of the Vatican II revolution weren’t new in the 1960s. In the post-Reformation period, various errors along the lines of Liberalism and Modernism had already infected sundry innovators who were trying to introduce these novelties into the Church. The errors manifested themselves in revolutionary movements to bring the Church “up to date”, introducing vernacular tongues into the sacred liturgy, changing the Mass to correspond more to the demands of modern man, adapting Church discipline to modernity, etc.

The Holy See, of course, always sternly and competently condemned these errors and defended the Immaculate Bride of Christ from the snares of the innovators. One of the greatest documents defending the Church against the “renewal” proposed by the Liberals of the time is the encyclical Quo Graviora of Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846), published in 1833, which we highly recommend you read in full, but from which we shall provide only a brief excerpt for purposes of this post.

The Holy Father instructed his bishops as follows:

You know, venerable brothers, on what erroneous principles the abovementioned men and their followers depend and where that desire which moves them to begin effecting a revolution in the Church has its origin. We do not think it superfluous to clarify many of those things and to explain them here. A false idea has for a long time grown stronger and spread widely through these regions. This idea is spread by an impious and absurd system of indifference toward religious matters which claims that the Christian religion can become perfect in time. While the patrons of such a false idea are afraid to adapt the shaky possibility of perfection to the truths of faith, they establish it in the external administration and discipline of the Church. Moreover, in order to bring about faith in their error, they wrongfully and deceitfully usurp the authority of Catholic theologians. These theologians propound here and there a distinction between the teaching and the discipline of the Church which underlies this change, that it will always stand firm and never be harmed by any alteration. Once this is established, they state categorically that there are many things in the discipline of the Church in the present day, in its government, and in the form of its external worship which are not suited to the character of our time. These things, they say, should be changed, as they are harmful for the growth and prosperity of the Catholic religion, before the teaching of faith and morals suffers any harm from it. Therefore, showing a zeal for religion and showing themselves as an example of piety, they force reforms, conceive of changes, and pretend to renew the Church.

Truly such reformers use these principles. In addition, they disclose and propose them in many pamphlets…. While these men were shamefully straying in their thoughts, they proposed to fall upon the errors condemned by the Church in proposition 78 of the constitution Auctorem fidei (published by Our predecessor, Pius VI on August 28, 1794). They also attacked the pure doctrine which they say they want to keep safe and sound; either they do not understand the situation or craftily pretend not to understand it. While they contend that the entire exterior form of the Church can be changed indiscriminately, do they not subject to change even those items of discipline which have their basis in divine law and which are linked with the doctrine of faith in a close bond? Does not the law of the believer thus produce the law of the doer? Moreover, do they not try to make the Church human by taking away from the infallible and divine authority, by which divine will it is governed? And does it not produce the same effect to think that the present discipline of the Church rests on failures, obscurities, and other inconveniences of this kind? And to feign that this discipline contains many things which are not useless but which are against the safety of the Catholic religion? Why is it that private individuals appropriate for themselves the right which is proper only for the pope?

(Pope Gregory XVI, Encyclical Quo Graviora, nn. 4-5; underlining added.)

The underlined portions are typical errors spread by the Vatican II religion today and/or adhered to by a great number of people who believe themselves to be Roman Catholics. Yet, Holy Mother Church had long and frequently condemned these things as incompatible with and injurious to the true Faith. So much for that “hermeneutic of continuity”!

For example, in 1907, Pope Saint Pius X, quoting his predecessor Leo XIII, warned: “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” (Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi, n. 55; underlining added). Is this not essentially a condemnation of the entire Vatican II religion in its very foundations?

Many people do not realize that a lot of the Church’s disciplines and laws are so closely bound up with divine revelation and the truths of the Faith that to change them would be tantamount to changing the Faith itself. This is why Pope Gregory speaks of the “law of the believer” producing “the law of the doer.” It is natural for a man to act as he believes, and to believe as he acts. Should there temporarily be a difference between the two, resulting in what is today often called “cognitive dissonance”, it will resolve itself before long, either by the person changing what he believes to agree with his actions, or by changing his actions to agree with his beliefs.

This is where the New Church has been so successful in destroying the true Faith in millions upon millions: They have changed the disciplines (for example, and most especially, the Holy Mass) to agree with the New Faith, and by making people act in accordance with the new beliefs, they have ensured that they will, before long, also change what they believe, gradually and without even so much as noticing it.

Perfect cases in point: Mass facing the people. Communion in the hand. Reducing the Holy Mass from the August Sacrifice of the Altar to a communal meal. Talking and dancing in church. Absurd clown liturgies. Using churches for profane events. Marriage “annulments” handed out so lightly and numerously that they are now the de facto “Catholic” equivalent to secular divorce, having harmed thousands of families, esp. children. And so forth. The list is endless.

Who today in the Vatican II Church is still a Catholic in what he believes and professes? The message the changes since Vatican II have been sending is essentially: God is not to be taken seriously; the Catholic Church is not to be taken seriously. Everything changes with the times, including religious things. And that’s precisely the message that people understood, and they imbibed it deeply and acted accordingly.

In short, the Novus Ordo Church has made itself irrelevant, and that is exactly what it is today and why no one in the secular world really takes it seriously. All the crocodile tears now being shed about “abuses” and desired “continuity” with the past and lost influence with the secular governments of the world, are not going to change the fact that this Vatican II Revolution was begun by and imposed from the top. Never forget this. It all began with Angelo Roncalli, “Pope” John XXIII. And it went downhill from there.

All of this was no accident, however; it was by design. It had been planned by those whom the true Popes had always warned us about as conspiring against the very Body of Christ: the Freemasons. Is it any wonder that ever since the beginning of the Vatican II Church, Freemasonry was no longer considered a threat to the church?

For a clearer picture, be sure to read the 1993 essay “Freemasons and the Conciliar Church” (PDF), made available exclusively on this web site with the gracious permission of the author. Also, see our 2013 post “Freemasons Support ‘Pope’ Francis” for additional information.

Other Important Papal Condemnations of Modern Errors

Book Recommendations

Sodom and Gomorrah in St. Stephen’s Cathedral

from Novus Ordo Watch

Drag queen Wurst performs in St. Stephen’s Cathedral at the invitation of “Card.” Schonborn

It’s that time of the year again: “Cardinal” Christoph Schönborn, the pretend-Archbishop of Vienna, Austria, has once again invited representatives of the sodomite lobby and their abettors to desecrate the Cathedral of St. Stephen (Stephansdom) with “artistic performances” under the pretext of raising money for people who suffer from AIDS or are infected with HIV. He hosted this “charity” event together with his sidekick, the cathedral rector “Fr.” Anton “Toni” Faber, who is notorious for conferring blessings on “gay” couples on St. Valentine’s Day.

This latest abomination took place on Saturday, Nov. 30, 2019, the eve of World AIDS Day. One of the star performers was Thomas Neuwirth, the famous Austrian drag queen (transvestite) better known by his blasphemous pseudonym Conchita Wurst. The following video clips summarize what transpired in the cathedral, which, it bears repeating, is not a multipurpose event hall but an edifice built for, and consecrated exclusively to, the worship of the Most Holy Trinity:

As is evident in these videos, Schonborn was seated in the front pew, right next to Gery Keszler, organizer of the “Long Night of Solidarity” (Lange Nacht der Solidarität), of which the concert inside St. Stephen’s was the main event.

Keszler is himself an open sodomite. Last year, Keszler revealed in a public discussion that Schonborn had given him and his homosexual partner a blessing in private on Aug. 15, 2018. Schonborn never disputed the testimony and now invited Keszler back into his cathedral. That is a tacit admission that the claim is true, for keeping silence when one has an obligation to speak, implies consent.

Having a blast before going to hell: Schonborn, left, with Keszler (center) and singer Dorretta Carter

The Archdiocese of Vienna reported on this “charity event” on its web site, quoting Schonborn as saying during the Nov. 30 jamboree: “God wants no one to feel excluded; he wants all to feel safe.” To emphasize that he was turning St. Stephen’s Cathedral into a “safe space” for sexual perverts and those who support them, he added: “I want you to know that in this cathedral we are all at home” (our translation).

Unfortunately for Mr. Schonborn, God’s own Revelation regarding inclusion and exclusion says something different:

Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.

(1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

Blessed are they that wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb: that they may have a right to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city. Without [i.e. outside] are dogs, and sorcerers, and unchaste, and murderers, and servers of idols, and every one that loveth and maketh a lie.

(Apocalypse 22:14-15)

Of course, the Modernists have never let Divine Revelation get in the way of their heresies, so the Scriptural truth isn’t going to bother Schonborn or Faber very much.

Some people will object that there is nothing wrong with raising money to help AIDS victims. That may be true, but the end does not justify the means, and the means to do it was evil: the desecration of a Catholic cathedral and the celebration of unnatural vice. One is never permitted to commit or promote mortal sin — not for any reason!

“Archbishop” Carlo Maria Viganò, the former Vatican nuncio to the United States who is still in hiding after a series of public missives against “Pope” Francis, released a letter in which he condemned the profanation of Vienna’s glorious cathedral:

Once again Vienna, the glorious capital that was able to resist the advance of the Ottoman Horde with the weapons of light and faith, suffers — dismayed and scandalized — yet another homoerotic and blasphemous provocation. Gay activists, transvestites and transsexuals perform on the Cathedra of St. Stephen, when instead they should receive from the Catholic Church the proclamation of Christ’s liberating Truth and the gift of his saving Love, freely offered to all those who, from the depths of their wounds and repentance, dare to acknowledge their need for salvation.

(Carlo Maria Viganò, Letter to Alexander Tschugguel et al., Nov. 30, 2019; in “Archbishop Vigano Condemns Vienna Cathedral Pro-LGBT Concert as ‘Blasphemous’”Edward Pentin, Dec. 1, 2019; translation by Diane Montagna.)

Vigano continued with an interesting choice of words, saying: “I join with all my heart the little flock, who are perhaps without a Shepherd but are called to gather in the Heart of the Immaculata to implore from her, through the reparative prayer of the Holy Rosary, God’s forgiveness for the offenses and outrages that have been perpetrated” (underlining added).

Is Viganò hinting that Francis might not be the Pope (anymore)? If Vigano ever comes to that conclusion, it would make him the second Novus Ordo bishop to do so (that we know of), the first one being Fr. René Gracida.

As for Schonborn, this is nothing unusual for him. Quite possibly a Freemason, he has a long history of anti-Catholicism. He is known for his continued support of sexual perversion and for his repeated facilitation of blasphemy and sacrilege. The following posts make clear what kind of a man he is:

Schonborn, by the way, is a member of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Destruction of the Faith. He is the man Francis chose to explain his exhortation Amoris Laetitia to the public on Apr. 8, 2016. Schonborn is also one of the chief theologians behind the so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church, first published in 1992.

In other words: Schonborn is a man after Francis’ heart.

Watch out, he may just become his successor.

Image source: (screenshots)
Licenses: fair use

What will make the Antichrist so Deceptive?

from Novus Ordo Watch

Although the person of the Antichrist is perhaps not yet in our world, it is clear that the mystery of iniquity that will culminate in his arrival has been at work ever since the fall of Lucifer, and has never been more active than in our own day.

In his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, St. Paul the Apostle warned: “For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way” (2 Th 2:7). Although this interpretation is not required as a matter of Catholic doctrine, according to the research done into the Church Fathers and subsequent theologians by Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, “he who now holdeth” that will “be taken out of the way” towards the end of time is none other than the Pope — not any particular Pope but the Pope as such.

In other words, the Antichrist movement is being held at bay for an appointed time by the restraining force of the Papacy, just as our Blessed Lord was untouchable and invincible until He decided that He should be overcome for a short while by His enemies as a condition of His ultimate victory: “Therefore doth the Father love me: because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No man taketh it away from me: but I lay it down of myself, and I have power to lay it down: and I have power to take it up again. This commandment have I received of my Father” (Jn 10:17-18; cf. Jn 7:30).

Holy Mother Church, modeling her Divine Lord in all things, must pass through her own Mystical Passion: “From the outset it should be noted that the society established by the Redeemer of the human race resembles its divine Founder who was persecuted, calumniated and tortured by those very men whom He had undertaken to save” (Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 3).

Just as Jesus Christ was persecuted from the very beginning (see Mt 2:13), so His Vicar has always been the object of the devil’s hatred, especially since the inception of the Masonic sects and anti-Catholic secret societies, regarding whose plots against the Church the Popes warned incessantly. It almost stands to reason, therefore, that before the Church can enter into her own glorious triumph, her visible head, Christ’s Vicar, too, must undergo his own apparent defeat. But, as with the One he represents, this will not take place until the appointed time and only because God so wills it.

Hence Pope Pius IX could declare:

Now you know well that the most deadly foes of the Catholic religion have always waged a fierce war, but without success, against this Chair; they are by no means ignorant of the fact that religion itself can never totter and fall while this Chair remains intact, the Chair which rests on the rock which the proud gates of hell cannot overthrow and in which there is the whole and perfect solidity of the Christian religion.

(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Inter Multiplices, n. 7)

Note well that in this the Church’s Mystical Passion, the Pope is the victim of the persecution and not its chief executor, as the apologists of the false opposition would have you believe.

On May 19, 1861, Fr. Frederick Faber of the Oratory of St. Philip Neri, a convert from Anglicanism, preached a sermon on Holy Mother Church for the Feast of Pentecost. In it he touched upon the deceptions that would accompany the Antichrist and his wicked works, which would be so great as to deceive, if possible, even the elect (see Mt 24:24). Fr. Faber explained what it would be that would render the infernal deceit so powerful and convincing:

We must beware then of dangers from within. We must be upon our guard even against catholic books, periodicals, journals, and pamphlets, however specious they may be. Our Blessed Redeemer said of the false prophets of the last days (St. Matt. xxiv. 24.) that they should “deceive, if possible, even the elect.” Now we must remember, that if all the manifestly good men were on one side, and all the manifestly bad men on the other, there would be no danger of any one, least of all, the elect, being deceived by lying wonders. It is the good men, good once, we must hope good still, who are to do the work of Antichrist, and so sadly to crucify afresh the Lord whom they do more than profess to love. Bear in mind this feature of the last days, that their deceitfulness arises from good men being on the wrong side.

(Rev. Frederick William Faber, Devotion to the Church, 2nd ed. [London: Richardson and Son, 1861], p. 27. Available in hardcopy here.)

This is a most valuable and salutary lesson: We will see “good people” — people who truly love God and mean to work for His glory, people who are quite possibly in the state of sanctifying grace — unwittingly but no less truly do the work of the Antichrist. In one way or another, their words and deeds will serve to attack God’s Kingdom on earth and contribute to the ruin of souls. Despite their noblest of intentions, what they do will objectively help bring about the tyrannical reign of Antichrist and all its spiritual destruction.

This concept is not new. We saw it when the Church was just beginning to be born: “But the author of life you killed, whom God hath raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses. And now, brethren, I know that you did it through ignorance, as did also your rulers” (Acts 3:15,17; cf. Lk 23:34; Jn 16:2).

The lesson to be learned here is that we must not attach ourselves to human beings, no matter how highly we may think of them, because they can (and many will) fail. In other words, there will be no excuse to refuse to abandon one’s theological errors on the grounds that some Novus Ordo cardinal, bishop, priest, or layman holds it who is “such a holy and pious man”. It is with good reason that Sacred Scripture counsels: “It is good to trust in the Lord, rather than to trust in princes” (Ps 117:9); “Put not your trust in princes” (Ps 145:2). The Pope would be the only one a Catholic could always safely attach himself to, since he has the divine guarantees and promises; but of course his absence is precisely the cause of the current darkness.

Oftentimes people will try to brush all the known facts about the current ecclesiastical nightmare aside and say that God “would never allow it to happen” that we should be without a true Pope for decades and that so many should be so greatly deceived. And yet He has told us that He would, and why: “And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: that all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity” (2 Thess 2:10-11). Could the phrase operation of error describe anything more fittingly than the Vatican II Sect?

When Simon Peter, shortly before becoming the first Pope, similarly protested that God not let anything evil befall his Lord and Master, Christ rebuked him sharply: “Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men” (Mt 16:23). When it comes to God and divine revelation, we are always dealing with mystery. Whether it be the inner workings of the Most Holy Trinity, the creation of all things from nothing, the miraculous parting of the Red Sea, the Incarnation and Hypostatic Union of God the Son, the Divine Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Transfiguration, Transubstantiation, Christ’s Redemptive Sacrifice on the Cross, His holy Ascension, the birth and spread of His Mystical Body the Church, the conversion of St. Paul, we are always dealing with incredible mystery. Why should it be any different for the arrival of the prophesied Antichrist, the end times, and the consummation of the world?

The following links provide further important information pertinent to this topic:

God had told us beforehand about the mess we would be in. As we patiently suffer through the Church’s darkest hour at this time, let us never forget that this eclipse of the Papacy is nothing short of the divine pledge of her future restoration.

Pacha Papa: Francis announces he may update Catechism to include ‘Ecological Sins’

from Novus Ordo Watch

After leaving the so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church untouched for over a whole year, it looks like it’s time for another major update. At least that’s an idea Francis is entertaining these days, and he’s not afraid to say so out loud.

As more and more real sins are becoming obsolete under the false Francis magisterium, new “sins” have to be made up to fill the void. The last update to the Novus Ordo Catechism made the state’s use of the death penalty into a mortal sin; the next addition could introduce the concept of “ecocide” — the killing of the environment.

No, this isn’t fake news. You couldn’t make this stuff up if you got paid to!

Today, Nov. 15, the man whose real name is Jorge Bergoglio gave a speech to as many as 600 participants in the 20th World Congress of Penal Law. In it he compared conservative politicians to Nazis, but that’s not even our topic now. Regarding his pet project of integral ecology, under the heading of “the juridical-penal protection of the environment,” the false pope proclaimed:

An elementary sense of justice would imply that some behaviors, of which the corporations are usually responsible, do not go unpunished. In particular, those that can be considered as “ecocide”: the massive contamination of air, land and water resources, the large-scale destruction of flora and fauna, and any action capable of producing an ecological disaster or destroying an ecosystem. We are thinking that we have to introduce into the Catechism of the Catholic Church sins against ecology, “ecological sin” against the common home, because it is a duty.

(Antipope Francis, Discourse to Participants in the 20th World Congress of Penal, Nov. 15, 2019; translation pieced together from various sources.)

The whole address can be viewed here:

Some initial Novus Ordo news reports covering this include the following:

But Francis wasn’t done yet. He proceeded to quote a definition of “ecological sin” suggested by the “bishops” who attended the Amazon Synod last month, to wit:

We propose to define ecological sin as an action or omission against God, against our neighbor, the community and the environment. It is a sin against the future generations and is manifested in acts and habits of contamination and destruction of the harmony of the environment, a transgression of the principle of inter-dependence and rupture of the solidarity networks between creatures (Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 340-344) and against the virtue of justice.

(Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazonian Region, “Amazonia: New Ways for the Church and for an Integral Ecology”, n. 82; Zenit translation.)

Bergoglio went on to speak of ecocide as “the loss, damage or destruction of ecosystems of a specific territory, so that its enjoyment for part of the inhabitants has been or may be severely affected” and demanded that it be recognized as “a fifth category of crimes against peace … by the international community.”

Notice how elastic and vague these definitions are. Of course it is morally wrong for someone to poison a river that a community draws its drinking water from, for example. But what, for instance, should count as an “act or omission” that is destructive of “environmental harmony”?

If such Bergoglian ideas should prevail, confessions will get a lot more interesting in Novus Ordo parishes: “Bless me, Father, for I ruptured the solidarity network between creatures…” — “What do you mean?” — “Well, I disturbed an ant colony, supported the construction of an airport on forested land, and removed two trees from my backyard so I could expand my garage to park my second SUV.” Just think of the penance people will get for whoppers like that!

Francis’ ecological pseudo-morality will leave a lot of confessors scratching their heads. Is driving an SUV a mortal sin only if the vehicle has a combustion engine? Would an electric motor make it venial? Do hybrids render the sin doubtful? The possibilities for theological conundrums are endless!

However, there is good news too: Since most Novus Ordos don’t go to confession to begin with and a great number of their “priests” don’t really care to hear confessions anyway, this shouldn’t disturb the current ecclesial environment too much. Not that most of them could give valid absolution, anyway.

While one may laugh at this, Francis means serious business: He wants international courts to classify grave sins against ecology as “crimes against peace.” Consequently, whatever he and his henchmen decide is a grave enough ecological sin will then be tantamount to an act of war. That, in turn, means that the people responsible are… terrorists! It is not difficult to see where all this is going once you really think about it.

The traditional Catholic definition of sin, by the way, is a lot less complex. Personal or actual (as opposed to original) sin is defined quite simply thus: “Actual or personal sin is a positive act contrary to the law of God” (Very Rev. Francis J. Connell, Outlines of Moral Theology [Milwaukee, WI: Bruce Publishing, 1958], p. 49). For there to be genuine ecological sin, therefore, any harm done to the environment would have to amount to the transgression of a divine law. Considering that God Almighty gave man “dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth” (Gen 1:26), there is going to be a lot of room for interpretation, to say the least. Perhaps Greta Thunberg could advise.

The definition of ecological sin as “a sin against the future generations” could be an attempt to introduce a new kind of original sin, one that is inherited, as it were, by subsequent generations. Considering that, according to Francis, sins against ecology tend to be committed by “corporations”, there is perhaps also being attempted a notion of collective guilt. Indeed, in the past the papal impostor has accused mankind in general of being guilty of such great evils as “climate change.”

Francis has been busy laying the groundwork for a whole “theology” of ecology lately. Just the other day he claimed that there exists a “covenant between man, animals, plants and even the inanimate realities that make our common home beautiful and colorful.” Got that? We all have a covenant with rocks, dirt, and seashells! And if that covenant is broken, the result is sin, and you can bet your bottom dollar that for that kind of a covenantal rupture, Francis will not offer easy annulments, appeal to the “concrete complexity of one’s limits”, or other mitigating circumstances. In fact, on several occasions he has demanded nothing short of conversion to an ecologically sound lifestyle. For that sort of thing, proselytism is suddenly permitted!

So, what will happen to the Catechism of the Vatican II Sect now? Although Francis has not definitively committed himself yet, it is very likely that he will indeed update it to include “ecological sins”. He’s already got the footnote he needs to source it: his own talk given today. That will be the source, unless of course he issues the much-anticipated “Apostolic exhortation” on the Amazon Synod first, in which case he will use that.

But hey, what can he do? He can’t help himself. As the god of surprises continues to speak through him as his oracle, what is to be done other than update the bogus ordo Catechism one more time? While he’s at it, he may want to delete such hopelessly obsolete concepts as fornication, adultery, and idolatry from the same Catechism, since we now know, thanks to his ever-moving tongue, that the former two are simply imperfect ways of expressing conjugal fidelity, and the latter is wiped away by simply positing non-idolatrous intentions. That this holds true only for literal idolatry and not the metaphorical kind — as Francis demonstrated in the very same speech today, denouncing “market idolatry” — goes without saying.

Once Francis issues the latest edition of the Conciliar Catechism, one may surmise that the pagan god Pan that is displayed on the current cover will then be removed — and perhaps be replaced by Pachamama.

In the face of all this latest nonsense from the occupied Vatican, we recall one pertinent passage from Sacred Scripture:

Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things. Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

(Romans 1:21-25)

It’s time to exit the theological hell hole that is the Vatican II Sect and become a real Catholic, wouldn’t you say?

By the way: In his lengthy discourse regarding international penal law and “some behaviors” that ought to “not go unpunished”, Francis did not mention the crime of abortion — infanticide.

Looks like he limited himself to what he really cares about.

Official “Catholic” Same-Sex “Wedding” in Austria

from Novus Ordo Watch

[UPDATE 14-NOV-19: Follow-Up to Homo “Wedding”: Diocese explains what happened

It was bound to happen before long: Two lesbian women have “married” each other in a “Catholic wedding” at St. Margarethen Church in Wolfsberg, Austria, which belongs to the diocese of Gurk in the state of Carinthia.

Gloria TV has published a news blurb on this with numerous photos documenting the abomination:

The spiritual criminal who officiated the ceremony was “Fr.” Michael Kopp, who is himself not exactly the epitome of masculinity at least visually. Kopp is from the neighboring diocese of Graz-Seckau, where he is — get this! — the head of the diocesan family office. Until the end of 2018, Kopp had held the same position in the Gurk diocese, and the town of Wolfsberg is his place of birth, according to a diocesan report.

So, now we have the first “official Catholic wedding” of two homo-perverted women. Think about what this means: Not only is unnatural sexual attraction being tolerated here, it is being celebrated and approved; and not only is it celebrated and approved, it is being raised, putatively, to the status of a sacrament! In addition to the horrendous evil of unnatural vice, then, this is also — and this is so much worse — a blasphemy and a sacrilege of such colossal proportions that one shudders to ponder the judgment God is preparing for these people when he calls them from this life, if they do not properly repent in time.

In Austria the diocese of Gurk is currently vacant, that is, there is no Novus Ordo bishop running the show for the time being, as its former long-time ordinary, Mr. Alois Schwarz, was transferred to St. Polten last year and a successor has not yet been appointed. “Pope” Francis has sent “Bp.” Werner Freistetter to play Apostolic Administrator there in the meantime.

As for Kopp’s current diocese of Graz-Seckau, the “bishop” there is Mr. Wilhelm Krautwaschl, another recent Francis appointee. Considering what we know about the man’s own “pastoral outreach” to sodomites, Kopp will have nothing to fear from his boss.

By the way: As evil and abominable as a “gay wedding” before a Catholic altar is, the recent offering to the Mother Earth goddess Pachamama on the High Altar at St. Peter’s Basilica was so much worse.

Image source: (screenshot)
License: fair use