FEAR or FAITH? FRIGHT or FLIGHT?
Welcome Eagles to the New Crusade!
Will thou help defend the Fortress of Faith?

TradCatKnight- MOST VIEWED & FOLLOWED Traditional Catholic APOSTOLATE Worldwide!
As Seen on: Gloria.tv, SpiritDaily, Shoebat, Canon212, VeteransToday, Beforeitsnews & many other notable websites
BOOKMARK us & check in DAILY for the latest Endtimes News!
Welcome to my Nest. #EagleoftheFortress
SPREAD WORD TO YOUR FRIENDS & FAMILY!

Friday, April 21, 2017

Judas Bergoglio

Judas Bergoglio
We must earnestly pray for conversions of those still either teaching Vatican II or simply following it.
Note: Not an endorsement for sedevacantism



Judas Bergoglio believes in almost nothing of the Catholic Faith as It has been revealed to us by Our Lord as He taught It to His Apostles and as the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, has protected in Its infallible transmission from Pentecost Sunday to the present day. Bergoglio believes that Holy Mother Church has erred, which is a heretical denial of the Holy Integrity and of her Divine Constitution that was explained so succinctly by Pope Leo XIII in A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902:


Just as Christianity cannot penetrate into the soul without making it better, so it cannot enter into public life without establishing order. With the idea of a God Who governs all, Who is infinitely Wise, Good, and Just, the idea of duty seizes upon the consciences of men. It assuages sorrow, it calms hatred, it engenders heroes. If it has transformed pagan society--and that transformation was a veritable resurrection--for barbarism disappeared in proportion as Christianity extended its sway, so, after the terrible shocks which unbelief has given to the world in our days, it will be able to put that world again on the true road, and bring back to order the States and peoples of modern times. But the return of Christianity will not be efficacious and complete if it does not restore the world to a sincere love of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. 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. Legitimate dispenser of the teachings of the Gospel it does not reveal itself only as the consoler and Redeemer of souls, but It is still more the internal source of justice and charity, and the propagator as well as the guardian of true liberty, and of that equality which alone is possible here below. In applying the doctrine of its Divine Founder, It maintains a wise equilibrium and marks the true limits between the rights and privileges of society. The equality which it proclaims does not destroy the distinction between the different social classes. It keeps them intact, as nature itself demands, in order to oppose the anarchy of reason emancipated from Faith, and abandoned to its own devices. The liberty which it gives in no wise conflicts with the rights of truth, because those rights are superior to the demands of liberty. Not does it infringe upon the rights of justice, because those rights are superior to the claims of mere numbers or power. Nor does it assail the rights of God because they are superior to the rights of humanity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)
To believe as Bergoglio believes is to deny the very nature of Holy Mother Church's Divine Constitution.
Then again, Judas Bergoglio uses every available opportunity to deny the Holy Faith outright or to plant insidious seeds of doubt by employing ambiguity about the supposed “impossibility” of knowing what his supposed “holy spirit” wants of Catholics in contemporary circumstances, a falsehood that contends God is mutable and adapts Himself to the supposed “needs” of men at various times in salvation history.
This, of course, is pure Modernism. It is what each of the conciliar “popes” have taught, although they have used different slogans (“living tradition,” “hermeneutic of continuity,” “letting the ‘holy spirit’ out of a cage”) during their respective turns as the universal public face of apostasy to make the heresy of “dogmatic evolutionism” the general norm in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.
An unpredictable “holy spirit” has led those Catholics in the counterfeit church of conciliarism who pay attention to such things to believe that everything concerning faith and morals is “up for grabs.” The principal instrument of catechizing such a belief at the “retail” level in formerly Catholic parishes, of course, has been the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service, which was designed by Fathers Annibale Bugnini, C.M., and Ferdinando Antonellli, O.F.M., to be the singular vessel of perdition if you will, to accustom Catholics to a ceaseless regime of unpredictability.
The late Monsignor Klaus Gamber, who was not a traditionalist, said almost precisely this in The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, noting that he believed the conciliar church to be the Catholic Church recognizing a new liturgy was necessary to accustom people to a new faith:
The "traditionalist" priest will always stand in front of the altar, as has been commonly done in the Eastern Church and in the Western Church throughout history. They are priests offering a sacrifice who, together with the faithful, face God.
The other priests function as presiders over a Eucharistic meal, and from their seats, or from behind the altar facing the people, which has become a table, they direct their gaze towards the assembled faithful. They are, apparently, not troubled in the least by the fact that their backs on turned on the former High Altar and on the tabernacle--the altar at which, only a few years ago, the holy sacrifice of the Mass was offered and on which the eyes of the praying faithful had been focused.
In the years before the reform, no Catholic could have imagined that the Roman Church, founded on the Rock of Peter, would undergo such changes and at the same time cause such confusion among its members.
Of course, it is true that there have been progressives, particularly during the Age of Enlightenment, who, in part because of erroneous interpretations of history, in part because of "modern" theological views, pressed for changes in the liturgy as it was then practiced. In the past, the Church's teaching Magisterium has carefully guarded against such developments and has always been able to control the emergence of radical ideas.
Now, all this has fundamentally changed. Today, those who out of a sense of personal belief hold firm to what until recently had been strictly prescribed by the Roman Church are treated with condescension by many of their own brothers. They face problems if they continue to nurture the very rite in which they were brought up and to which they have been consecrated. That theirs was a decision made as a matter of conscience and that their conscience is being sorely tested is of little consequence to those who oppose them.
On the other side, the progressives who see little or no value in tradition can do almost no wrong, and are usually given the benefit of the doubt, even they defend opinions which clearly contradict Catholic teaching.
To add to this spiritual confusion, we are also dealing with the satiated state of mind of modern man who, living in our consumer society, approaches anything that is holy with a complete lack of understanding and has no appreciation of the concept of religion, let alone of his own sinful state. For them God, if they believe in Him at all, exists only as their "friend."
At this critical juncture, the traditional Roman rite, more than one thousand years old and until now the heart of the Church, was destroyed. A closer examination reveals that the Roman rite was not perfect and that some elements of value had atrophied over the centuries. Yet, through all the periods of unrest that again and again shook the Church to her foundations, the Roman rite always remained the rock, the secure home of faith and piety . . . .
Liturgy and faith are interdependent. That is why a new rite was created, a rite that in many ways reflects the bias of the new (modernist) theology. The traditional liturgy simply could not be allowed to exist in its established form because it was permeated with the truths of the traditional faith and the ancient forms of piety. For this reason alone, much was abolished and the new rites, prayers and hymns were introduced, as were the new readings from Scripture, which conveniently left out those passages that did not square with the teachings of modern theology--for example, references to a God who judges and punishes.
At the same time, the priests and the faithful are told that the new liturgy created after the Second Vatican Council is identifical in essence with the liturgy that has been in use in the Catholic Church up to this point, and that the only changes introduced involved reviving some earlier liturgical forms and removing a few duplications, but above all getting rid of elements of no particular interest.
Most priests accepted these assurances about the continuity of liturgical forms of worship and accepted the new rite with the same unquestioning obedience with which they had accepted the minor ritual changes introduced by Rome from time to time in the past, changes beginning with the reform of the Divine Office and the liturgical chant introduced by Pope Saint Pius X.
Following this strategy, the groups pushing for reform were able to take advantage of and at the same time abuse the sense of obedience among the older priests, and the common good will of the majority of the faithful, while, in many cases, they themselves refused to obey.
The pastoral benefits that so many idealists had hoped the new liturgy would bring did not materialize. Our churches emptied in spite of the new liturgy (or because of it?), and the faithful continue to fall away from the Church in droves.
Although our young people have been literally seduced into supporting the new forms of liturgical worship, they have, in fact, become more and more alienated from the faith. They are drawn to religious sects--Christian and non-Christian ones--because fewer and fewer priests teach them the riches of our Catholic faith and the tenets of Christian morality. As for older people, the radical changes made to the traditional liturgy have taken from them the sense of security in their religious home.
Today, many among us wonder: Is this the Spring people had hoped would emerge from the Second Vatican Council? Instead of a genuine renewal in our Church, we have seen only novelties. Instead of our religious life entering a period of new invigoration, as has happened in the past, what we see now is a form of Christianity that has turned towards the world.
We are now involved in a liturgy in which God is no longer the center of our attention. Today, the eyes of our faithful are no longer focused on God's Son having become Man hanging before us on the cross, or on the pictures of His saints, but on the human community assembled for a commemorative meal. The assembly of people is sitting there, face to face with the "presider," expecting from him, in according with the "modern" spirit of the Church, not so much a transfer of God's grace, but primarily some good ideas and advice on how to deal with daily life and its challenges.
There are few people left who speak of the Holy Mass as the Sacrifice of the New Covenant which we offer to God the Father through Jesus Christ, or of the sacramental union with Christ that we experience when we receive Holy Communion. Today, we are dealing with the "Eucharistic feast," and with the "holy bread"to be shared among us as a sign of our brotherhood with Jesus.
The real destruction of the traditional Mass, of the traditional Roman rite with a history of more than one thousand years, is the wholesale destruction of the faith on which it was based, a faith that had been the source of our piety and of our courage to bear witness to Christ and His Church, the inspiration of countless Catholics over so many centuries. Will someone, some day, be able to say the same thing about the new Mass? (Monsignor Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Rite.)
Unfortunately, Monsignor Gamber believed that an absolute return to the integrity of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition before it was attacked by Bugnini and Antonelli in the 1950s was probably not desirable. He believed in what has been called "the reform of the reform." That having been noted as a matter of intellectual honesty, Gamber's analysis of the actual state of the so-called liturgical "renewal" was founded on a rejection of the claim that the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service was a continuation of Tradition. It is not. The Novus Ordo  has devastated the Catholic Faith and is responsible for giving rise to the "restoration" of one formerly and properly abandoned practice of antiquity after another, thus creating the very conditions in which Catholics have come to believe in the "egalitarian" spirit of a false liturgy that was inspired by the devil himself in the mode of the liturgies used by the Protestant revolutionaries into whose prideful ears he whispered nearly five hundred years ago now.
Perhaps it is good to review the following sentences quoted above from The Reform of the Roman Liturgy to see how perfectly they describe the condescending treatment that Jorge Mario Bergoglio accords believing Catholics who are attached to the structures of his counterfeit church of concilairism while he himself presides over some of the grossest liturgical sacrileges that the world has even seen, sacrileges that would have made even the pagans of Ancient Rome, Green and Egypt blush with shame:
Today, those who out of a sense of personal belief hold firm to what until recently had been strictly prescribed by the Roman Church are treated with condescension by many of their own brothers. They face problems if they continue to nurture the very rite in which they were brought up and to which they have been consecrated. That theirs was a decision made as a matter of conscience and that their conscience is being sorely tested is of little consequence to those who oppose them.
On the other side, the progressives who see little or no value in tradition can do almost no wrong, and are usually given the benefit of the doubt, even they defend opinions which clearly contradict Catholic teaching. (Monsignor Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Rite.)
This describes the lay Judas from Argentina perfectly.
In truth, of course, the spiritual and moral devastation that has been wrought by the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic liturgical service could not have been as successful as it has turned out to be had not the rites of episcopal consecration and presbyteral ordination been replaced by invalid concoctions that were designed of their nature to deprive unsuspecting Catholics of true offerings of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered by priests ordained by validly consecrated bishops. The destruction of the nature of the Holy Mass as the unbloody re-presentation or perpetuation of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour’s bloody Sacrifice of Himself to His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal God the Father on the wood of the Holy Cross in atonement for human sins had to accompanied by a destruction of any belief that a man presumed to a Catholic priest is a sacerdos, that is, one who offers a sacrifice in the name of Holy Mother Church.
One must remember, however, that the whole art and architecture of many of the newer conciliar church buildings, including the Taj Mahony on the Hollywood Freeway in Los Angeles, California, is designed to convey the false belief that the common priesthood that each of us in the laity has by means of our baptism is equal, if not superior, to the ministerial priesthood of the ordained priest. Leaving aside the inconvenient little truth that the counterfeit church of conciliarism has a paucity of true priests, the egalitarian view of what many conciliar revolutionaries call "priesthood" without the use of the definitive article "the" is pretty standard fare in chancery offices and parishes throughout the counterfeit church of concilairism.
To be sure, there have been some conciliar bishops who recognized that at least some of their confreres did not believe in the sacerdotal priesthood of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
I was visiting the late Bishop James S. Sullivan of Fargo, North Dakota, in May of 1990 about nine months after having left his formal employ as his director of communications to return to college teaching. Another man at the dinner table at Passages restaurant at the Radisson restaurant in Fargo (which had, believe it or not, the best French onion soup of any restaurant in the country) was attempting to interest conciliar bishops in the work of the Serra Club to foster vocations to the conciliar priesthood. This fellow, who died in 2010 at the age of ninety, could not figure out why Bishop Kenneth Untener of Saginaw, Michigan, who died on March 27, 2004, was not interested in recruiting seminarians. "Bishop" Sullivan had a rare moment of public candor when the man from the Serra Club asked this question in all earnestness.
"Dan," Bishop Sullivan said to the man, "what you have to understand is that 'Bishop' Untener does not believe in the priesthood." Bishop Sullivan then resumed eating his French onion soup.
"Bishop Untener, who was a product of the late John Cardinal Dearden's factory of apostasy in Detroit, Michigan (where "Call to Action" was born to present an organized force opposed to the binding truths contained in the Deposit Faith), was not alone in life and he is not alone in death. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is giving active voice to what Untener believed, although he is doing so mostly by omission as he uses various rhetorical tricks to disparage priests and presbyters who are “locked into” their sanctuaries.
As has been noted so frequently this site over the years, the counterfeit church of conciliarism is founded in a warfare against the immutable nature of dogmatic truth, which is nothing other than warfare against the very immutable nature of the Most Blessed Trinity. The destruction of belief in the Real Presence of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and of the sacrificial nature of the Holy Mass and the Holy Priesthood constitutes the logical result of this incessant warfare against the nature of dogmatic truth, which has, quite logically, become an open revolt against the nature of moral truths and even of the very existence of the Natural Law itself.
Indeed, Jorge Mario Bergoglio used his “Chrism Mass” homily on the morning of Maundy Thursday, April 13, 2017, to discuss the priest as servant, not as the sacredos who offers sacrifice in the Name of Holy Mother Church. The lay Judas from Argentina used the occasion to exhort his priests and presbyters not to be “rigid” about truth:
The integrity of the truth cannot be rigid. (hBergoglio Deconstructs the Priesthood During "Chrism Mass.)
This is why he wants to shape young conciliar presbyters in his old revolutionary mold as “street priests” who go out of their sanctuaries to work with those he believes are at the “existential peripheries” of life. Bergoglio believes that the Catholic priesthood has been focused on the administration of the Sacraments rather than on the “service to the poor,” heedless of the fact that the poorest of the poor are the unbaptized and those who souls are held captive to the devil by means of Original Sin. Priests are called to sanctify and to save souls, and those among them who are called to perform the Corporal Works of Mercy must place First Things first as the mere performance of charitable works divorced from personal sanctification and the fulfillment of one’s duties at altars of sacrifices is not profitable to one who presumes himself to be a sharer in the royal priesthood of the Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Alas, Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not really believe in the sacerdotal nature of the Catholic priesthood. After all, why should he believe in it as he has been schooled in a revolutionary school of heretical thought that has animated him through his career as a lay Jesuit, perhaps never more so than in the past few years as he masquerades around the globe as “Pope Francis”?
Quite contrary to Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s contention that “the integrity of truth cannot be rigid,” every dogmatic truth, including that about the Holy Priesthood, is very rigid. It is immutable, and it was expressed by the Council Fathers of the Council of Trent in terms that the lay Argentine Judas finds personally repulsive precisely because they do not permit room for his “spirit” to breathe as he will:
CHAPTER IX.
Preliminary Remark on the following Canons.
And because that many errors are at this time disseminated and many things are taught and maintained by divers persons, in opposition to this ancient faith, which is based on the sacred Gospel, the traditions of the Apostles, and the doctrine of the holy Fathers; the sacred and holy Synod, after many and grave deliberations maturely had touching these matters, has resolved, with the unanimous consent of all the Fathers, to condemn, and to eliminate from holy Church, by means of the canons subjoined, whatsoever is opposed to this most pure faith and sacred doctrine.
ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.
CANON I.--If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacriflce is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.
CANON II.--If any one saith, that by those words, Do this for the commemoration of me (Luke xxii. 19), Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other priests should offer His own body and blood; let him be anathema.
CANON III.--If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema. (The Twenty-Second Session
The Council of Trent was a dogmatic council of the Catholic Church. Its Fathers were guided in their work by the infallible protection and guidance of the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost. The pronouncements in Chapter IX of the Twenty-second Session of the Council of Trent on September 17, 1562, with the approval of Pope Pius IV are dogmatic. They are statements of the truths that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church for their eternal safekeeping and infallible explication.
Our Lord instituted the Holy Priesthood and the Holy Eucharist on Maundy Thursday at the Last Supper as He entered into the events of His Passion and Death to redeem us by the shedding of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross. The first Mass was the bloody Sacrifice offered by the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man in His Most Blessed Mother's Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of God the Holy Ghost to His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal Father in Spirit and in Truth.
Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was both Priest and Victim as He hung atop the dung heap known as Calvary or Golgotha on the gibbet of the Holy Cross as He made atonement for our sins. He has been since that the time Chief Priest and Victim and each and every valid offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which is the unbloody re-presentation of His Sacrifice of the Cross, as an alter Christus acting in persona Christi makes Him present, Body and Blood and Soul and Divinity, under the appearances of bread and wine in the Holy Eucharist. Each Mass is a propiatory offering for our sins those of the whole world.
The Council of Trent further decreed the following on July 15, 1563 in its Twenty-third Session:
CHAPTER I.
On the institution of the Priesthood of the New Law.
Sacrifice and priesthood are, by the ordinance of God, in such wise conjoined, as that both have existed in every law. Whereas, therefore, in the New Testament, the Catholic Church has received, from the institution of Christ, the holy visible sacrifice of the Eucharist; it must needs also be confessed, that there is, in that Church, a new, visible, and external priesthood, into which the old has been translated. And the sacred Scriptures show, and the tradition of the Catholic Church has always taught, that this priesthood was instituted by the same Lord our Saviour, and that to the apostles, and their successors in the priesthood, was the power delivered of consecrating, offering, and administering His Body and Blood, as also of forgiving and of retaining sins.
CHAPTER II.
On the Seven Orders.
And whereas the ministry of so holy a priesthood is a divine thing; to the end that it might be exercised in a more worthy manner, and with greater veneration, it was suitable that, in the most well-ordered settlement of the church, there should be several and diverse orders of ministers, to minister to the priesthood, by virtue of their office; orders so distributed as that those already marked with the clerical tonsure should ascend through the lesser to the greater orders. For the sacred Scriptures make open mention not only of priests, but also of deacons; and teach, in words the most weighty, what things are especially to be attended to in the Ordination thereof; and, from the very beginning of the church, the names of the following orders, and the ministrations proper to each one of them, are known to have been in use; to wit those of subdeacon, acolyth, exorcist, lector, and door-keeper; though these were not of equal rank: for the subdeavonship is classed amongst the greater orders by the Fathers and sacred Councils, wherein also we very often read of the other inferior orders.
CHAPTER III.
That Order is truly and properly a Sacrament.
Whereas, by the testimony of Scripture, by Apostolic tradition, and the unanimous consent of the Fathers, it is clear that grace is conferred by sacred ordination, which is performed by words and outward signs, no one ought to doubt that Order is truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of holy Church. For the apostle says; I admonish thee that thou stir up the grace of God, which is in thee by the imposition of my hands. For God has not given us the spirit of fear, but of power and of love of sobriety.
CHAPTER IV
On the Ecclesiastical hierarchy, and on Ordination.
But, forasmuch as in the sacrament of Order, as also in Baptism and Confirmation, a character is imprinted, which can neither be effaced nor taken away; the holy Synod with reason condemns the opinion of those, who assert that the priests of the New Testament have only a temporary power; and that those who have once been rightly ordained, can again become laymen, if they do not exercise the ministry of the word of God. And if any one affirm, that all Christians indiscrimately are priests of the New Testament, or that they are all mutually endowed with an equal spiritual power, he clearly does nothing but confound the ecclesiastical hierarchy, which is as an army set in array; as if, contrary to the doctrine of blessed Paul, all were apostles, all prophets, all evangelists, all pastors, all doctors. Wherefore, the holy Synod declares that, besides the other ecclesiastical degrees, bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles, principally belong to this hierarchical order; that they are placed, as the same apostle says, by the Holy Ghost, to rule the Church of God; that they are superior to priests; administer the sacrament of Confirmation; ordain the ministers of the Church; and that they can perform very many other things; over which functions others of an inferior order have no power. Furthermore, the sacred and holy Synod teaches, that, in the ordination of bishops, priests, and of the other orders, neither the consent, nor vocation, nor authority, whether of the people, or of any civil power or magistrate whatsoever, is required in such wise as that, without this, the ordination is invalid: yea rather doth It decree, that all those who, being only called and instituted by the people, or by the civil power and magistrate, ascend to the exercise of these ministrations, and those who of their own rashness assume them to themselves, are not ministers of the church, but are to be looked upon as thieves and robbers, who have not entered by the door. These are the things which it hath seemed good to the sacred Synod to teach the faithful in Christ, in general terms, touching the sacrament of Order. But It hath resolved to condemn whatsoever things are contrary thereunto, in express and specific canons, in the manner following; in order that all men, with the help of Christ, using the rule of faith, may, in the midst of the darkness of so many errors, more easily be able to recognise and to hold Catholic truth.
ON THE SACRAMENT OF ORDER.
CANON I.--If any one saith, that there is not in the New Testament a visible and external priesthood; or that there is not any power of consecrating and offering the true body and blood of the Lord, and of forgiving and retaining sins; but only an office and bare ministry of preaching the Gospel, or, that those who do not preach are not priests at all; let him be anathema.
CANON II.--If any one saith, that, besides the priesthood, there are not in the Catholic Church other orders, both greater and minor, by which, as by certain steps, advance is made unto the priesthood; let him be anathema.
CANON III.--If any one saith, that order, or sacred ordination, is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord; or, that it is a kind of human figment devised by men unskilled in ecclesiastical matters; or, that it is only a kind of rite for choosing ministers of the word of God and of the sacraments; let him be anathema.
CANON IV.--If any one saith, that, by sacred ordination, the Holy Ghost is not given; and that vainly therefore do the bishops say, Receive ye the Holy Ghost; or, that a character is not imprinted by that ordination; or, that he who has once been a priest, can again become a layman; let him be anathema.
CANON V.--If any one saith, that the sacred unction which the Church uses in holy ordination, is not only not required, but is to be despised and is pernicious, as likewise are the other ceremonies of Order; let him be anathema.
CANON VI.--If any one saith, that, in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy by divine ordination instituted, consisting of bishops, priests, and ministers; let him be anathema.
CANON VII.--If any one saith, that bishops are not superior to priests; or, that they have not the power of confirming and ordaining; or, that the power which they possess is common to them and to priests; or, that orders, conferred by them, without the consent, or vocation of the people, or of the secular power, are invalid; or, that those who have neither been rightly ordained, nor sent, by ecclesiastical and canonical power, but come from elsewhere, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments; let him be anathema.
CANON VIII.--If any one saith, that the bishops, who are assumed by authority of the Roman Pontiff, are not legitimate and true bishops, but are a human figment; let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, Twenty-third Session.)
Conciliar presbyters are merely “presiders” over what passes for Catholic liturgical celebrations who share the “sanctuary” with a veritable potpourri of members of the laity (lectors, “Eucharistic ministers,” “leaders of song,” etc.). The ambiance of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic liturgical service conveys, all protestations to the contrary in conciliar documents to the contrary notwithstanding, that the conciliar presbyter is but a mere functionary in a community celebration, not an alter Christus at whose hands God Himself is made incarnate under the appearances of bread and wine by the working of God the Holy Ghost, Who has sealed his immortal soul with the indelible seal of sacerdotal priesthood of the Chief Priest and Victim of every Mass, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Indeed, it is pretty standard fare in the many of the quarters of the counterfeit church of conciliarism to believe that the Holy Priesthood has nothing to do with sacrifice and is simply an exercise of an office that takes its call from the "community". I heard variations of anathematized themes about the nature of the Holy Priesthood when I was exploring the possibility of a vocation to the conciliar presbyterate in the 1970s as I was pursuing my doctorate at the then named Graduate School of Public Affairs of the State University of New York at Albany and after I had begun my full-time teaching career in the Fall of 1976 at Mohawk Valley Community College in Utica, New York. One vocations director told me that the "applause of the community" was what ratified and signified a man's ordination to the priesthood. This man really did not believe that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ personally had instituted a sacerdotal, hierarchical priesthood or that the Holy Mass was the unbloody re-presentation of Our Lord's Sacrifice of Himself to the Father in Spirit and in Truth on the wood of the Holy Cross.
Pope Pius XII categorically condemned such a view of the priesthood:
The Church is a society, and as such requires an authority and hierarchy of her own. Though it is true that all the members of the Mystical Body partake of the same blessings and pursue the same objective, they do not all enjoy the same powers, nor are they all qualified to perform the same acts. The divine Redeemer has willed, as a matter of fact, that His Kingdom should be built and solidly supported, as it were, on a holy order, which resembles in some sort the heavenly hierarchy.
Only to the apostles, and thenceforth to those on whom their successors have imposed hands, is granted the power of the priesthood, in virtue of which they represent the person of Jesus Christ before their people, acting at the same time as representatives of their people before God. This priesthood is not transmitted by heredity or human descent. It does not emanate from the Christian community. It is not a delegation from the people. Prior to acting as representative of the community before the throne of God, the priest is the ambassador of the divine Redeemer. He is God's vice-gerent in the midst of his flock precisely because Jesus Christ is Head of that body of which Christians are the members. The power entrusted to him, therefore, bears no natural resemblance to anything human. It is entirely supernatural. It comes from God. "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. . . he that heareth you heareth me. . . go ye into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature; he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."
That is why the visible, external priesthood of Jesus Christ is not handed down indiscriminately to all members of the Church in general, but is conferred on designated men, through what may be called the spiritual generation of holy orders.
This latter, one of the seven sacraments, not only imparts the grace appropriate to the clerical function and state of life, but imparts an indelible "character" besides, indicating the sacred ministers' conformity to Jesus Christ the Priest and qualifying them to perform those official acts of religion by which men are sanctified and God is duly glorified in keeping with the divine laws and regulations.  (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947.) 
It could not be clearer that the de facto beliefs of many within the counterfeit church of conciliarism, including Bergoglio himself, about the Holy Priesthood and the nature of Holy Mass have been condemned and anathematized by the authority of the Catholic Church. Pope Pius XII specifically condemned these conciliar pretensions as follows:
The fact, however, that the faithful participate in the eucharistic sacrifice does not mean that they also are endowed with priestly power. It is very necessary that you make this quite clear to your flocks.
For there are today, Venerable Brethren, those who, approximating to errors long since condemned teach that in the New Testament by the word "priesthood" is meant only that priesthood which applies to all who have been baptized; and hold that the command by which Christ gave power to His apostles at the Last Supper to do what He Himself had done, applies directly to the entire Christian Church, and that thence, and thence only, arises the hierarchical priesthood. Hence they assert that the people are possessed of a true priestly power, while the priest only acts in virtue of an office committed to him by the community. Wherefore, they look on the eucharistic sacrifice as a "concelebration," in the literal meaning of that term, and consider it more fitting that priests should "concelebrate" with the people present than that they should offer the sacrifice privately when the people are absent.
It is superfluous to explain how captious errors of this sort completely contradict the truths which we have just stated above, when treating of the place of the priest in the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947.)
Over and above the apostasies that have the "official," de jure approval of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, you see, there are these "unofficial" apostasies that have grown out of the conciliar spirit and have been given great breathing room as a result of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo service and all of its many mutations.
The Novus Ordo was evil from its inception, and it has produced blasphemy and sacrilege and profanity and apostasy in its demonic wake. Catholics who believed such apostasies as those propagated by Bergoglio and his kith and kin in the conciliar church were very rare sixty years ago. They are to be found in large numbers today the Vatican and chancery offices and in pulpits of parishes in conciliar captivity and in conciliar elementary and secondary schools and colleges and universities and convents and seminaries and theological and liturgical "update" programs. That the proliferation of such apostasies has occurred in the wake of the "Second" Vatican Council and the promulgation of the Novus Ordo service is no accident whatsoever.
Bergoglio and his pals in the counterfeit church of conciliarism could, of course, seek to justify their outright rejection of the solemn decrees of the Council of Trent that were used as the doctrinal foundation of Pope Pius XII's Mediator Dei by claiming that "there are decisions of the magisterium that cannot be the last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. The nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times influenced, may need further correction." Why not use the words of a Judas priest,  Joseph Ratzinger, that  that certain teachings are obsolete in the "particulars" that they contain to claim that the very nature of the priesthood itself can be deconstructed according to the s "hermeneutic of continuity"? Who is to say that the decrees of the Council of Trent cannot be subjected to the same Hegelian treatment as that given to the Catholic Church's teaching against religious liberty and separation of Church and State and Pope Pius IX's The Syllabus of Errors and Pope Saint Pius X's Pascendi Dominci Gregis?
Certainly not Jorge Mario Bergoglio, whose “homily” in the Basilica of Saint Peter for the conciliar “Chrism Mass” contained nothing about the royal dignity of the Priesthood of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. There was not one reference to Holy Mass or to the Sacraments anywhere in the text of the apostate’s “homily.” Similarly, there was not one reference to personal sanctification or to Sanctifying Grace. Bergoglio’s concept of “priesthood,” such at it is, is purely naturalistic, and it cannot be anything other than this as it is based upon a rejection of the immutability of what the Holy Priesthood is and why Our Lord instituted It for the greater honor and glory of God and for our own sanctification and salvation.
Remember these words of Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:
Hence it is quite impossible [the Modernists assert] to maintain that they [dogmatic statements] absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion.
It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: 'These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts.' On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ''Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason'; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ''The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.' Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: 'Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries -- but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.' (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

This now Easter Thursday.
Our Lord spent the time between His Resurrection from the dead on Easter Sunday and His Ascension into Heaven forty days thereafter (Ascension Thursday this year falls on May 25, 2017) preparing His Apostles to discharge their duties as other Christs who had been given the fullness of His Holy Priesthood, the episcopacy, at the Last Supper. God the Holy Ghost gave them the infallible enlightenment on all things pertaining to the Holy Faith when He descended in tongues of flame in the same Upper Room in Jerusalem where they had received the unmerited gift of the fullness of the Holy Priesthood, and they understood that there was no shadow of change in God. Hence it is that there can never be any kind of change in what Holy Mother Church teaches about the Holy Priesthood and the nature of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.


Appendix
The Catholic Church's Condemnation of the Evolution of Dogma
  • For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward


    • not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence,
    • but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
  • Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth.
The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either: the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.
Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false. . . .
3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.
And so in the performance of our supreme pastoral office, we beseech for the love of Jesus Christ and we command, by the authority of him who is also our God and saviour, all faithful Christians, especially those in authority or who have the duty of teaching, that they contribute their zeal and labour to the warding off and elimination of these errors from the church and to the spreading of the light of the pure faith.
But since it is not enough to avoid the contamination of heresy unless those errors are carefully shunned which approach it in greater or less degree, we warn all of their duty to observe the constitutions and decrees in which such wrong opinions, though not expressly mentioned in this document, have been banned and forbidden by this holy see. (Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session III, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason, April 24, 1870. SESSION 3 : 24 April 1.)
Hence it is quite impossible [the Modernists assert] to maintain that they [dogmatic statements] absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion.
It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: 'These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts.' On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ''Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason'; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ''The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.' Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: 'Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries -- but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.' (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. . . .

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.