Jorge Follows the Anglican Sect's Path of Auto-Destruction at Warp Speed

Jorge Follows the Anglican Sect's Path of Auto-Destruction at Warp Speed 

Dr. Thomas A. Droleskey

NOTE: NOT AN ENDORSEMENT FOR SEDEVACANTISM (ALTHOUGH I AM SYMPATHETIC)

False churches and religious sects carry within themselves the seeds of their own degeneration and destruction. The logic of each falsehood and error is such that a variety of falsehoods and errors must follow and multiply over the course of time. As fallen human nature seeks comfort in practices and beliefs that have gained currency with the passage of time, it takes only a generation or two for there to arise a situation when very few people, if any, have any knowledge—no less personal recollection—of truth because they have never learned it, been exposed to it or lived in accordance with it.

Thus it is that the Protestant Revolution gained acceptance rapidly in various German principalities, the Low Countries, Switzerland and parts of France as it became institutionalized over the course of time. In England, of course, the Protestant Revolution was wrought in a systematic, state-sponsored persecution, imprisonment, torture and execution of those who remained faithful to the true Church. It did not take all that long, however, for most Englishmen to come to hate and then to forget altogether their country’s deep ties to the one, true Faith, the Catholic Faith, that was deeply embedded on their soil and in the very hearts of their ancestors.

For instance, most American Protestants of European ancestry are aghast when they are informed that they have Catholic ancestors who are praying for them. They know nothing of true history. Indeed, they know very little of any kind of history as they live in the here and now, in the “moment” as is said colloquially these days.

Although I am jumping ahead of myself a little bit, no Catholic who is in the least bit intellectually honest can deny the simple fact that most Catholics alive today do not know anything about true history themselves and are veritable strangers to the truths of the true Faith. Indeed, one can go so far as to state that the truth that the Catholic Church is the one and only true church and that all false religions do the work of the devil is so foreign to the minds of most Catholics, having been exposed to a liturgical rite that exalts man and fellowship whose fungibility was designed to convince them that matters of Faith and Morals can change as regularly as the liturgy, as the egalitarianism of Protestantism that degenerated over time into social egalitarianism is so ingrained as to make any such concept of a true church repugnant to their minds. Moral licentious sanctioned by clergymen, many of whom are morally licentious in their own wicked right, must follow as a result.

Then again, moral licentiousness was at the heart of the Protestant Revolution. Martin Luther was a lecherous, self-indulgent drunkard who made up a religion that fulfilled the very prophetic warning that Saint Paul the Apostle made to Saint Timothy:

[3] For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: [4] And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. (2 Timothy 1: 3-4.)

Unrepentant sinners love nothing more than to have their itching ears tickled by others, and it is a bonus, of course, if they are reaffirmed in their lives of perdition by clergymen, whether true or false. Indeed, they crave—if not demand—approval from others, using all manner of bullying tactics to intimidate those who will not “accept them for who they are.” To paraphrase the infamous “motorist,” the late Rodney King, “Can’t we all get along?”

The theological relativism of Protestantism had to lead to the triumph of moral relativism within its ranks, especially since both Martin Luther and the equally lecherous and debauched drunkard, Henry VIII, were personally immoral and endorsed divorce and “remarriage.” This is why Luther invented a false ecclesiology, perverted the meaning of Sacred Scripture and had to deny the very existence of Sacred Tradition” as his false religious movement was designed to reaffirm himself in his own life of wanton sin.

False liturgical rites had to be invented to justify defections from the Sacred Deposit of Faith, thus depriving adherents of heretical sects of the Holy Eucharist and of the sacramental absolution of their sins in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance and leading to the widespread devolution of human behavior into all manner of wickedness, up to and including unnatural, perverted sins opposed to the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. Those steeped in sin and error come

Obviously, this is what has happened within the counterfeit church of conciliarism since the “election” of Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli/John XXIII on Tuesday, October 28, 1958, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude. Although the precise order of the degeneration that followed the errors of Martin Luther, Henry VIII and his crypto-Lutheran adviser, Thomas Cranmer, John Calvin, John Knox, John Wesley and Ullrich Zwingli, et al. has been different, it is nevertheless true that conciliarism has followed a path of degeneration that has robbed most Catholics alive today of the true Sacraments and of the sensus fidei.

Roncalli/John XXIII’s aggiornamento to the “world” has resulted in a false religion that is shaped by and caters to even Judeo-Masonic naturalist shibboleth imaginable. Conciliarism is a religion of sentimentality, and it is based on the exact fulfillment of what Pope Pius XII warned about in his address to the Thirtieth General Congregation of the Society of Jesus:

The more serious cause, however, was the movement in high Jesuit circles to modernize the understanding of the magisterium by enlarging the freedom of Catholics, especially scholars, to dispute its claims and assertions. Jesuit scholars had already made up their minds that the Catholic creeds and moral norms needed nuance and correction. It was for this incipient dissent that the late Pius XII chastised the Jesuits’ 30th General Congregation one year before he died (1957). What concerned Pius XII most in that admonition was the doctrinal orthodoxy of Jesuits. Information had reached him that the Society’s academics (in France and Germany) were bootlegging heterodox ideas. He had long been aware of contemporary theologians who tried “to withdraw themselves from the Sacred Teaching authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them in error” (Humani generis).

In view of what has gone on recently in Catholic higher education, Pius XII’s warnings to Jesuits have a prophetic ring to them. He spoke then of a “proud spirit of free inquiry more proper to a heterodox mentality than to a Catholic one”; he demanded that Jesuits not “tolerate complicity with people who would draw norms for action for eternal salvation from what is actually done, rather than from what should be done.” He continued, “It should be necessary to cut off as soon as possible from the body of your Society” such “unworthy and unfaithful sons.” Pius obviously was alarmed at the rise of heterodox thinking, worldly living, and just plain disobedience in Jesuit ranks, especially at attempts to place Jesuits on a par with their Superiors in those matters which pertained to Faith or Church order (The Pope Speaks, Spring 1958, pp. 447-453). (Monsignor George A. Kelly, Ph.D., The Catholic College: Death, Judgment, Resurrection. See also the full Latin text of Pope Pius XII's address to the thirtieth general congregation of the Society of Jesus at page 806 of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis for 1957: AAS 49 [1957]. One will have to scroll down to page 806.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who has accelerated the process of doctrinal, liturgical, moral and pastorl degeneration in the past five years in a manner that would made even the murderous Henry VIII blush with shame, was trained by the very sort of revolutionaries whose false moral theology was condemned by Pope Pius XII in 1957, and it is this false moral theology, which is nothing other than Judeo-Masonic moral relativism, which itself is the product of the Protestant Revolution’s theological relativism. Modernism is, of course, the synthesis of all heresies. Bergoglio’s whole program, enunciated nearly five years ago in Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013, and given concrete form in Amoris Latetia, March 19, 2016, is nothing other than a celebration of subjectivism, of basing a false moral teaching on what is "actually done, rather than from what should be done.”

In other words, falsehood, error and sin must be respected, if not accommodated, if it endures over a length of time, but the passage of time can never confer legitimacy to that which is illegitimate of its nature. Alas, as will be discussed below, the lords of conciliarism do indeed believe the passage of time both confers legitimacy on the illegitimate and can invalidate that which Holy Mother Church has taught to be true as being “obsolete” in light of the “changed” circumstances in which men live at different times in history.

This, as has been noted on this website so many hundreds upon hundreds of times in the past fourteen years, is an attack on the immutability of truth, which is an attack upon God, the Author of all truth, and ultimately on attack on the very existence of a God Who has definitively revealed immutable truths exclusively through His Co-Equal, Co-Eternal Divine Son’s true Church, the Catholic Church, she who alone teaches infallibly in His Holy Name. Yet it is that this is what the conciliar revolutionaries believe, which is what has made possible their praise for all non-Catholic Christian sects and for those who do not believe in the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and thus in the Holy Trinity.

Although the conciliar revolutionaries have popularized the notion that the passage of time confers legitimacy on heresy, error and sinful behavior, they were not without their predecessors in the past two hundred years even before Pope Saint Pius X cataloged, critiqued and condemned the heresies of Modernism in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.

For instance, one of the very reasons that Pope Leo XIII issued Apostolicae Curae, September 15, 1896, was to reaffirm the constant teaching of the Apostolic See that Anglican rites of priestly ordination and episcopal consecration were null and void because they were based on a rejection of Catholic teaching on the Sacrament of Holy Orders that was reflected in Holy Mother Church’s rites conferring them. His Holiness took specific note that the passage of time does not change the fact that the Anglican rites had been based on a vitiation of Catholic truth and rites. The Anglican rites destroyed the priesthood and the episcopate in the heretical sect and no amount of appeal to “historical tradition” can redeem it.

This what Pope Leo XIII wrote concerning the Anglican rite of episcopal conscration:

29. It is not relevant to examine here whether the episcopate be a completion of the priesthood, or an order distinct from it; or whether, when bestowed, as they say per saltum, on one who is not a priest, it has or has not its effect. But the episcopate undoubtedly, by the institution of Christ, most truly belongs to the Sacrament of Order and constitutes the sacerdotium in the highest degree, namely, that which by the teaching of the Holy Fathers and our liturgical customs is called the Summum sacerdotium sacri ministerii summa . So it comes to pass that, as the Sacrament of Order and the true sacerdotium of Christ were utterly eliminated from the Anglican rite, and hence the sacerdotium is in no wise conferred truly and validly in the episcopal consecration of the same rite, for the like reason, therefore, the episcopate can in no wise be truly and validly conferred by it, and this the more so because among the first duties of the episcopate is that of ordaining ministers for the Holy Eucharist and sacrifice.

30. For the full and accurate understanding of the Anglican Ordinal, besides what we have noted as to some of its parts, there is nothing more pertinent than to consider carefully the circumstances under which it was composed and publicly authorized. It would be tedious to enter into details, nor is it necessary to do so, as the history of that time is sufficiently eloquent as to the animus of the authors of the Ordinal against the Catholic Church; as to the abettors whom they associated with themselves from the heterodox sects; and as to the end they had in view. Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, between “the law of believing and the law of praying”, under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers. For this reason, in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice but, as we have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out. (Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, September 15, 1896.)

The same, obviously, is true of the intention of those on Annibale Bugnini’s Consilium that planned to eliminate as much Catholic truth and the language used to convey and protect it from manipulation by appealing to a “antiquity” for the sake of “restoring” a more “primitive,” simpler form. This is how the conciliar revolutionaries destroyed the line of Apostolic succession within their false religious sect and thus the priesthood itself. The passage of time since the conciliar rite of episcopal consecration does not mean that it has somehow become valid. That which is invalid at its inception does not become valid at a later date simply because it has been used for a long period of time. Length of usage does not change the inherent invalidity of a rite that was defective in its origins.

Pope Leo XIII went on in Apostolicae Curae to explain this precise point:

31. In this way, the native character or spirit as it is called of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself. Hence, if, vitiated in its origin, it was wholly insufficient to confer Orders, it was impossible that, in the course of time, it would become sufficient, since no change had taken place. In vain those who, from the time of Charles I, have attempted to hold some kind of sacrifice or of priesthood, have made additions to the Ordinal. In vain also has been the contention of that small section of the Anglican body formed in recent times that the said Ordinal can be understood and interpreted in a sound and orthodox sense. Such efforts, we affirm, have been, and are, made in vain, and for this reason, that any words in the Anglican Ordinal, as it now is, which lend themselves to ambiguity, cannot be taken in the same sense as they possess in the Catholic rite. For once a new rite has been initiated in which, as we have seen, the Sacrament of Order is adulterated or denied, and from which all idea of consecration and sacrifice has been rejected, the formula, “Receive the Holy Ghost”, no longer holds good, because the Spirit is infused into the soul with the grace of the Sacrament, and so the words “for the office and work of a priest or bishop”, and the like no longer hold good, but remain as words without the reality which Christ instituted.

33. With this inherent defect of “form” is joined the defect of “intention” which is equally essential to the Sacrament. The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.  (Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, September 15, 1896.)

The same holds true for the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo rite of episcopal consecration, something that Father Louis J. Campbell, the pastor of Saint Jude Shrine in Stafford, Texas, explained in a sermon he delivered seven years ago:

“Let no one lead you astray with empty words,” warns St. Paul in today’s Epistle (Eph.5:6). We must keep the faith, the faithof our fathers, handed on to us from the Apostles by saints and martyrs, the fathers and doctors of the Church, and holy popes and bishops. Now it is our turn to teach the faith, handing it on to the younger generation unchanged and untainted by heresy, lest the Church become the desolate kingdom spoken of by Our Lord in the Gospel. 

Many, “with empty words,” have tried to destroy the Catholic faith – Arius, Luther, Calvin and Cranmer, to name a few. Then came the Modernists, condemned by Pope St. Pius X, whose heresies lived on to be re-hatched at Vatican II by the liberal theologians, and canonized by the conciliar popes.

If one were to set out to destroy the Catholic faith, a good place to begin would be to tamper with the Sacraments, the Sacrament of Baptism, for instance. But every well instructed Catholic knows that the essential rite of Baptism requires the pouring of water upon the head of the person (or immersing the person in the water) while saying the words: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (or Holy Spirit).  

If the priest baptizing were to say, “I pour upon you the life-giving waters of salvation, that you may share the life of the Holy Trinity,” we would know beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Sacrament was invalid, and that the person would have to be re-baptized using the form that is required for validity. We would not have to wait for the theologians to debate the matter, or for the Holy See to issue a decree of nullity. Any Catholic in his right mind would know that the attempted Baptism was invalid. Any attempt by the “liturgical experts” to change the essentials of the Sacrament would not have been tolerated by the Catholic faithful.   

But consider some of the other sacraments. Most of us knew little of what was required, for instance, for the valid consecration of a bishop. In a ceremony rarely witnessed by most of the faithful, the Sacrament was administered in Latin amid mysterious and lengthy rites. Change the form of this Sacrament, and who would notice? Then what better way to destroy the Catholic Church than to render invalid the Sacrament of Holy Orders, since true bishops are absolutely necessary if the Church is to survive?    

The essential matter and form for the valid consecration of a bishop was determined by Pope Pius XII on November 30, 1947, in the Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 40, 1948, 5-7), a document which appears to have all the essential characteristics of infallibility. Even if it does not, it is certainly an authoritative document, which Pope Pius expected to be taken most seriously. With the laying on of hands, the consecrating bishop was to say the words of the Preface, “of which,” says the pope, “the following are essential and therefore necessary for validity: ‘Fill up in Thy priest the perfection of Thy ministry and sanctify him with the dew of Thy heavenly ointment, this thy servant decked out with the ornaments of all beauty’” (Comple in sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summum, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore sanctifica).At the end of the document Pope Pius XII states: “We teach, declare, and determine this, all persons not withstanding, no matter what special dignity they may have, and consequently we wish and order such in the Roman Pontifical... No onetherefore is allowed to infringe upon this Constitution given by us, nor should anyone dare to have the audacity to contradict it...”

Pope Pius XII’s body had hardly begun “a-mouldering in the grave” when the agents of change began working in earnest to destroy the Catholic faith. Paul VI, once the confidant and trusted friend of Pope Pius XII, had that “audacity to contradict” when he published his own decree in 1968. In vain did Pope Pius XII “teach, declare, and determine” what was required for the validity of the Sacrament of Orders. Paul VI would introduce entirely new words, requiring them for validity, words which were never used for the consecration of a bishop in the Roman Rite: “So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name” (Pontificalis Romani, June 18, 1968).

As to why Paul VI found it necessary to discard the essential words of the traditional form of consecration and replace them with entirely different words, he says “…it was judged appropriate to take from ancient sources the consecratory prayer that is found in the document called the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome, written at the beginning of the third century.”

Judged appropriate? By whom? None other than Archbishop Annibale Bugnini and his associates of the “Consilium,” who invented the Novus Ordo Mass. And who on earth was Hippolytus of Rome? He was an anti-pope of the third century who separated from Rome because of doctrinal differences and established a schismatic church, although he later returned to the Catholic Church and died a martyr. Who knows but that his “Apostolic Tradition” was drawn up for his schismatic sect? 

And whatever became of Pope Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution, Sacramentum Ordinis?  The name Sacramentum Ordinis was even given to another document by John Paul II, probably as a red herring to throw us off the track.  

What conclusion does one draw? The Catechism of the Council of Trent states: “In our Sacraments… the form is so definite that any, even a casual deviation from it renders the Sacrament null.” We would never tolerate a change in the form of the Sacrament of Baptism. Never! Can we blithely accept a total deviation in the form of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, a change which omits the part of the traditional form declared essential for validity by Pope Pius XII? I think not! Pope Pius XII changed nothing of the traditional form, but merely designated which part of the form was essential for validity. Paul VI omitted that essential part of the form and replaced it with something entirely new. Not even popes (certainly not would-be popes) can change the form of a Sacrament. Whom do we trust, Pope Pius XII who carefully guarded the traditional sacramental form handed down from ages past, or Paul VI? Paul VI, who on the flimsiest of pretexts changed the essential form of a Sacrament, thus rendering it invalid. The result is that we are left with a whole generation of pseudo-bishops attempting to govern the Church without the grace of office. A miter and a bishop’s ring do not a bishop make. And the Kingdom is brought to desolation (Lk.11:17).  

But even among traditionalists many refuse to consider the possibility of invalid sacramental rites. It’s more convenient to think that if the pope says so it’s got to be OK. But Paul VI told us the Novus Ordo Mass was OK, and look where that has brought us. The day must come when all awaken to the fact that the Church has been brought low by an apostasy more monstrous than we have been willing to admit. Only then will the true bishops emerge, a true pope will restore the hierarchy, and the Church will rise more glorious than ever. “And all mankind shall see the salvation of God” (Lk.3:6).  (Father Louis J. Campbell, "A Kingdom Brought to Desolation (Lk.11:17)," Third Sunday of Lent, March 27, 2011, Saint Jude Shrine, Stafford, Texas.)

The passage of time does not make any man in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism who believes himself to be a “bishop” or “priest” no matter his refusal to accept the truth of the matter. Although it is very difficult and humbling for such a person to admit that his orders are not valid, especially if he has been acting as a “bishop” or “priest” for many years, it must be remembered that it was equally difficult for Anglican “priests” such as Father Frederick William Faber to admit that their orders were invalid. Indeed, Father Faber, for one, struggled with the matter quite a bit as the falsehood that is Anglicanism had been existence for over three hundred years when he converted to the true Faith in 1848. We should pray to Father Faber to help those “bishops” and presbyters in the conciliar structures who know that something is wrong to do their due diligence, study the matter with great dispassion and a love of truth—and then to be unhesitating in its acceptance.

As heretics in their own right, though, the conciliar revolutionaries have been particularly adept at treating, at least in a de facto sense, Anglican and other Protestant “bishops” and lower-ranking clergymen as being perfectly valid and possessing a mission from God to serve souls or, perhaps more accurately, a mission from God to serve “creation,” militate in behalf of open borders, income equality by means of confiscation taxation and redistribution of wealth, fighting “man-made global warming,” reduce man’s “carbon footprint,” save the earth’s water supply and the rain forests while saving all animal species facing extinction.

None other than the infamous Walter “Cardinal” Kasper, who is now eighty-six years of age, explained on May 24, 2003, that it was not impossible for what he thinks is the Catholic Church to “rethink” Apostolicae Curae in light of then “Pope John Paul II’s” “living tradition,” which was the late Polish heretic’s version of the condemned and philosophically absurd Modernist of dogmatic evolutionism that his successor, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, relabeled as the “hermeneutic of continuity.” Here is that Kasper, who was instrumental in helping Jorge Mario Bergoglio to find a way to “accompany” Catholics who are divorced and civilly “remarried” (as well as practicing, unrepentant sodomites, fornicators and mutants who have undergone a “change” in their gender) on a path to receive what purports to be Holy Communion said sixteen years ago:

As I see the problem and its possible solution, it is not a question of apostolic succession in the sense of an historical chain of laying on of hands running back through the centuries to one of the apostles; this would be a very mechanical and individualistic vision, which by the way historically could hardly be proved and ascertained. The Catholic view is different from such an individualistic and mechanical approach. Its starting point is the collegium of the apostles as a whole; together they received the promise that Jesus Christ will be with them till the end of the world (Matt 28, 20). So after the death of the historical apostles they had to co-opt others who took over some of their apostolic functions. In this sense the whole of the episcopate stands in succession to the whole of the collegium of the apostles.

To stand in the apostolic succession is not a matter of an individual historical chain but of collegial membership in a collegium, which as a whole goes back to the apostles by sharing the same apostolic faith and the same apostolic mission. The laying on of hands is under this aspect a sign of co-optation in a collegium.

This has far reaching consequences for the acknowledgement of the validity of the episcopal ordination of another Church. Such acknowledgement is not a question of an uninterrupted chain but of the uninterrupted sharing of faith and mission, and as such is a question of communion in the same faith and in the same mission.

It is beyond the scope of our present context to discuss what this means for a re-evaluation of Apostolicae Curae (1896) of Pope Leo XIII, who declared Anglican orders null and void, a decision which still stands between our Churches. Without doubt this decision, as Cardinal Willebrands had already affirmed, must be understood in our new ecumenical context in which our communion in faith and mission has considerably grown. A final solution can only be found in the larger context of full communion in faith, sacramental life, and shared apostolic mission.

Before venturing further on this decisive point for the ecumenical vision, that is a renewed communio ecclesiology, I should speak first on another stumbling block or, better, the stumbling block of ecumenism: the primacy of the bishop of Rome, or as we say today, the Petrine ministry. This question was the sticking point of the separation between Canterbury and Rome in the 16th century and it is still the object of emotional controversies.

Significant progress has been achieved on this delicate issue in our Anglican/Roman Catholic dialogues, especially in the last ARCIC document The Gift of Authority (1998). The problem, however, is that what pleased Catholics in this document did not always please all Anglicans, and points which were important for Anglican self-understanding were not always repaid by Catholic affection. So we still have a reception problem and a challenge for further theological work.

It was Pope John Paul II who opened the door to future discussion on this subject. In his encyclical Ut Unum Sint (1995) he extended an invitation to a fraternal dialogue on how to exercise the Petrine ministry in a way that is more acceptable to non-Catholic Christians. It was a source of pleasure for us that among others the Anglican community officially responded to this invitation. The Pontifical Council for Christian Unity gathered the many responses, analyzed the data, and sent its conclusions to the churches that had responded. We hope in this way to have initiated a second phase of a dialogue that will be decisive for the future of the ecumenical approach.

Nobody could reasonably expect that we could from the outset reach a phase of consensus; but what we have reached is not negligible. It has become evident that a new atmosphere and a new climate exist. In our globalized world situation the biblical testimonies on Peter and the Petrine tradition of Rome are read with new eyes because in this new context the question of a ministry of universal unity, a common reference point and a common voice of the universal church, becomes urgent. Old polemical formulas stand at odds with this urgency; fraternal relations have become the norm. Extensive research has been undertaken that has highlighted the different traditions between East and West already in the first millennium, and has traced the development in understanding and in practice of the Petrine ministry throughout the centuries. As well, the historical conditionality of the dogma of the First Vatican Council (1869-70), which must be distinguished from its remaining obligatory content, has become clear. This historical development did not come to an end with the two Vatican Councils, but goes on, and so also in the future the Petrine ministry has to be exercised in line with the changing needs of the Church.

These insights have led to a re-interpretation of the dogma of the Roman primacy. This does not at all mean that there are still not enormous problems in terms of what such a ministry of unity should look like, how it should be administered, whether and to what degree it should have jurisdiction and whether under certain circumstances it could make infallible statements in order to guarantee the unity of the Church and at the same time the legitimate plurality of local churches. But there is at least a wide consensus about the common central problem, which all churches have to solve: how the three dimensions, highlighted already by the Lima documents on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (1982), namely unity through primacy, collegiality through synodality, and communality of all the faithful and their spiritual gifts, can be brought into a convincing synthesis. (A Vision of Christian Unity.)

This was and remains simply apostasy of the highest order. Apostolic succession is not "an historical chain of laying on of hands running back through the centuries to one of the apostles"? 

The perpetually binding nature of Apostolicae Cenae needs to be re-evaluated?

No member of the Catholic Church is free to assert such things and remain a Catholic in good standing (see Number 9, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

The dogmatic decrees of the [First] Vatican Council are historically conditioned?

Oh, please do not even attempt to say that Kasper was reflecting the exact view of the “Pope John Paul II” and the then Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger” concerning the "time-conditioned" nature of past dogmatic decrees and/or papal encyclical letters. Antipope Ratzinger/Benedict told us in his very words that he believes this precise thing, a proposition that has been condemned by that Vatican Council and to which he, Ratzinger, had to swear against in The Oath Against Modernism.

Ah, but this is why, you see, Walter Kasper does not believe that there is any need to seek with urgency the unconditional conversion of Anglicans to the Catholic Church, who he clearly believes have true bishops and true priests. It is simply up to the Lambeth Committee to chart its own "direction," to determine, in Kasper's words, whether Anglicans belongs more "to the churches of the first millennium -Catholic and Orthodox," which leads to the second major error in Kasper's recent remarks: that the patriarchies of the East constituted a separate "church" prior to the Greek Schism of 1054. No such "church" existed.

Lost in all of this willingness to subject immutable truths to the "historical-critical" method of Hegelian analysis is the fact that one is either a Catholic who assents to all of the truths contained in the Deposit of Faith, or he is not.

How absurd is it to ask Protestants to determine whether they belong to the Protestantism in which their sects had their origins?

The Anglican "church" has no right from God to exist. It is a false religion. Its adherents are in need to be converted unconditionally to the Catholic Church. The relatively few Anglican “ministers” who were received the ranks of the counterfeit church of conciliarism after Antipope Emeritus Ratzinger/Benedict issued Anglicanorum Coetibus on November 9, 2010, the Feast of the Dedication of the Basilica of Our Saviour (the Basilica of Saint John Lateran) from the Anglican sect were not required to make any kind of abjuration of error. All they had to do was to attest to their agreement with the conciliar church's so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church, a document that has many problems (see The New Catechism: Is it Catholic? and my own Piracy, Conciliar Style).

Then again, the Anglican sect is the exact model of apostasy that Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his fellow fiends are using to contend that the mere existence of something that is objectively false and/or mortally sinful connotes its legitimacy, especially after its existence has become “well-established” and has shown “stability” and “maturity.” Remember, Jorge Mario Bergoglio referred to the relationships of adulterers and fornicators that have achieved “stability” as worthy of respect and indicative of “love”:

293. The Fathers also considered the specific situation of a merely civil marriage or, with due distinction, even simple cohabitation, noting that “when such unions attain a particular stability, legally recognized, are characterized by deep affection and responsibility for their offspring, and demonstrate an ability to overcome trials, 313 Ibid., 28. 314 Cf. ibid., 41, 43; Relatio Finalis 2015, 70. 223 they can provide occasions for pastoral care with a view to the eventual celebration of the sacrament of marriage”.315 On the other hand, it is a source of concern that many young people today distrust marriage and live together, putting off indefinitely the commitment of marriage, while yet others break a commitment already made and immediately assume a new one. “As members of the Church, they too need pastoral care that is merciful and helpful”.316 For the Church’s pastors are not only responsible for promoting Christian marriage, but also the “pastoral discernment of the situations of a great many who no longer live this reality. Entering into pastoral dialogue with these persons is needed to distinguish elements in their lives that can lead to a greater openness to the Gospel of marriage in its fullness”.317 In this pastoral discernment, there is a need “to identify elements that can foster evangelization and human and spiritual growth”.318 (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Amoris Laetitia, March 19, 2016.)

305. For this reason, a pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in “irregular” situations, as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives. This would bespeak the closed heart of one used to hiding behind the Church’s teachings, “sitting on the chair of Moses and judging at times with superiority and superficiality difficult cases and wounded families”.349 Along these same lines, the International Theological Commission has noted that “natural law could not be presented as an already established set of rules that impose themselves a priori on the moral subject; rather, it is a source of objective inspiration for the deeply personal process of making decisions”.350 Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.351 Discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and growing in the midst of limits. By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of sanctification which give glory to God. Let us remember that “a small step, in the midst of great human limitations, can be more pleasing to God than a life which appears outwardly in order, but moves through the day without confronting great difficulties”.352 The practical pastoral care of ministers and of communities must not fail to embrace this reality (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Amoris Laetita, March 19, 2016.)

Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ did not preach some kind of ethereal “ideal” that is unattainable. It is a trick of the Modernist mind to pose some kind of conflict between the “ideal” of what is contained in the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law which has been revealed to us by God Himself and the Natural Law, which exists in the nature of things and is knowable, albeit imperfectly, by human reason as they have been entrusted to the infallible teaching of Holy Mother Church and the compassion of Our Lord.

The conciliar revolutionaries, however, believe that matters must be judged according to the fact of their existence, not according to any “imposition” of “black and white” truths that do not correspond to the “needs” of the people.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his fellow revolutionaries care nothing for the fact that their own revolution against the Catholic Church and the Sacred Deposit of Faith that has been entrusted to her eternal safekeeping and infallible explication is following the exact path of auto-destruction that was pioneered in an organized manner by the Anglican sect, which permits members of its “Anglican Communion” to decide certain doctrinal matters, such as women “priests” and “bishops,” at the national level while reserving others to its various worldwide synods and (usually) decennial Lambeth Conferences.

A synod of the so-called “Episcopal Church of the United States of America,” for instance, voted to permit the ontological impossibility of “women priests” and women “bishops” in 1976, thereby “regularizing” the situation of eleven women who had been “ordained” by three Episcopalian “bishops” in 1974.

It was fifteen years later that Barbara Harris became the first female “bishop” in the “Episcopal Church,” although it took another seventeen years (1989) for the American relative of the Anglican sect to elect its first female “bishop” as its “primate, Katharine Jefferts Schori, a baptized Catholic whose parents took her out of the Faith in 1963 to join the Episcopalian sect. A similar pattern obtained in other national conferences of Anglican/Episcopalian “bishops” in most countries around the world, although the Anglican sect in England waited until 2014 to permit women “bishops” after having permitted female “priests” in 1992.

Well, should it surprise us any that none other than the lavender-friendly Modernist who has been the conciliar “archbishop” of Vienna, Austria, since 1995, is citing “synodality” as the means to “decide” whether women could be “ordained” to the conciliar presbyterate:

VIENNA, April 6, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) -- Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, one of the closest advisors to Pope Francis, has said in an interview that ordination of women to the roles of “deacons, priests and bishops” can be decided by a Church council. The constant teaching of the Church is that ordination of women is not possible, and that the teaching is irreformable.

Speaking to Salzburger Nachrichten, Cardinal Schönborn said, “The question of ordination [of women] is a question which clearly can only be clarified by a council. That cannot be decided upon by a pope alone. That is a question too big that it could be decided from the desk of a pope.” The quotes were first translated by Maike Hickson at OnePeterFive.

When the reporter asked if Schönborn was referring to ordination of women as priests, Schönborn replied, “as deacons, priests, bishops.”

Schönborn, who was praised by Pope Francis as a “great theologian” and given the final authority on interpreting the Pope’s controversial exhortation Amoris Laetitia, has previously expressed a leaning towards ordaining women. "I can understand the malaise which women feel when they see only men concelebrate,” he said last year.

Pope Francis too has expressed a vague openness to such considerations. In a March 2016 interview with Die Zeit, the Pope was asked about the devastating lack of priests in Germany and Switzerland. “Yes that is a great problem,” he replied. “Many parishes have well-behaved women: they keep up Sunday and celebrate liturgies of the word (Wortgottesdienste), that is without the Eucharist. The problem is in fact the lack of vocations. This problem needs to be resolved by the Church.”

In August 2016, Pope Francis set up a 12-member commission to study the issue of women deacons, which included the world’s leading advocate of ordaining women deacons – Phyllis Zagano. (https://wwApostate Close to Jorge Says Women "Priests" Are Possible.)

It matters not that Karol Josef Wojtyla/“Saint” John Paul II issued an “Apostolic Letter,” Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, on Pentecost Sunday, May 22, 1994, reaffirmed the inadmissibility of women to the priesthood in the following terms:

4. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful. (Karol Joseph Wojtyla/John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, May 22, 1994. It is interesting to note that “Papa” Wojtyla issued this about five weeks after approving altar girls, which further helped to feminize the Novus Ordo “worship space”—not sanctuary, of course—that had been opened up to lector babes and “extraordinary minister” babes long before.)

Nothing is ever settled in the unsettled world of heresy, error, sacrilege, blasphemy and apostasy. Even the words of a conciliar “pope” who was raised to the conciliar sects Cranmer tables of fellowship as a “saint” matter not to the man who appointed both Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Christoph Schonborn, to the conciliar hierarchy within a year of each other (Bergoglio in 1994, Schonborn in 1995). False religions must always “move with the flow” in order not to lose “touch” the world and its own false currents. Then again, the egalitarianism of “believers” that Martin Luther preached was bound to lead to a situation where even the distinctions between men and women within both the Order of Nature (Creation) and Redemption (Grace) would be obliterated.

The Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service, however, is a means of communicating a Protestant and Masonic sense of egalitarianism, which means that lay people, especially women, must invade the preserve that is the sanctuary, wherein only men are permitted to act either as ordained priests deacons, or subdeacons or as non-ordained men serve as extensions of the hands of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, a man, Who chose twelve men, not women, to be His Apostles.

The conciliar revolutionaries do not respect the fact that the Word Who was made Flesh in His Most Blessed Mother’s Virginal and Immaculate Womb was not “bound” by the “constraints” of the time in which He lived and the constraints of the “patriarchal” Jewish religion. Christ the King is God, Omniscient and Omnipotent. He did not choose women to be present at the Last Supper to be ordained to the episcopacy, the fullness of His Holy Priesthood, because men act as the progenitors, to whom women must be subject as they, the men, themselves are subject to Him I all things.

Remember, it was two years ago that Jorge Mario Bergoglio gave worldwide permission for doing what he himself had established with in 2013 of washing the feet of women  in the Novus Ordo version of the “Mass of the Last Supper” on the evening of Maundy Thursday, thus continuing the conciliar sect’s long self-made “tradition” of sanctioning one “irregularity” after its “use” become “accepted” as the “norm” in a de facto sense. Bergoglio thus gave a green light to the ideological descendants of those conciliar “bishops” and “permits” who “abuse” the conciliar sects own prohibitions against communion-in-the-hand and altar girls, and it appears as though he is using Christoph Schonborn as his instrument to “push the envelope” so that a “discussion” of a subject that a man he “canonized” said was closed would be re-examined. After all, “women priests” are “too big for a pope,” meaning John Paul II, to decide.

Well, of course, there is nothing to “decide” about women being ordained to the priesthood. The matter is as closed to “discussion” and “debate” as is the binding nature of Apostolicae Curae and contraception, which the Anglican sect “discussed” and decided as follows at the Lambeth Conference in 1930:

Resolution 15

The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex

Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience. (Resolution 15 - The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage.)

This decision opened the floodgates of Protestant acceptance of contraception, which, of course, had been promoted for the previous fifteen years by the nymphomaniac revolutionary anti-Theist named Margaret Sanger. An organization known as the Federal Council of Churches in America (which merged in 1950 with other such organizations to form the “National Council of Churches”) endorsed contraception in 1931, prompting the following editorial to appear, amazingly enough, in The Washington Post:

The Federal Council of Churches in America some time ago appointed a committee on "marriage and the home," which has now submitted a report favoring a "careful and restrained" use of contraceptive devices to regulate the size of families. The committee seems to have a serious struggle with itself in adhering to Christian doctrine while at the same time indulging in amateurish excursions in the field of economics, legislation, medicine, and sociology. The resulting report is a mixture of religious obscurantism and modernistic materialism which departs from the ancient standards of religion and yet fails to blaze a path toward something better.

The mischief that would result from an attempt to place the stamp of church approval upon any scheme for "regulating the size of families" is evidently quite beyond the comprehension of this pseudo-scientific committee. It is impossible to reconcile the doctrine of the divine institution of marriage with any modernistic plan for the mechanical regulation of human birth. The church must either reject the plain teachings of the Bible or reject schemes for the “scientific” production of human souls. Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee’s report if carried into effect would lead to the death-knell of marriage as a holy institution, by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be “careful and restrained” is preposterous. If the churches are to become organizations for political and 'scientific' propaganda they should be honest and reject the Bible, scoff at Christ as an obsolete and unscientific teacher, and strike out boldly as champions of politics and science as substitutes for the old-time religion. ("Forgetting Religion," Editorial, The Washington Post, March 22, 1932.)

Leaving aside The Washington Post’s case of editorial amnesia, the editorial cited just above was a prophetic recognition of the harm that the widespread acceptance of contraception would to the sanctity of marriage and to society itself, although it took no recognition of Pope Pius XII’s stirring defense of the sovereignty of God over the sanctity, indissolubility and fecundity of marriage in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930. Contraception is evil in all circumstances. Period.

The leaders of the Anglican sect eighty-eight years ago believed that the authority to “decide” a matter that is part of the immutable laws of God and of nature.

Why not?

The Anglican sect’s founder, Henry VIII, set himself up as the “supreme head of the church in England,” thus “deciding” to place himself in the position of the papacy, whose very founding by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and primacy he himself had defended in a refutation of the errors of Martin Luther. It’s a relatively small thing after that to whittle away at everything else pertaining to Faith, Morals and Worship.

Make no mistake about it, good readers, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a true inheritor of the work of Henry VIII and Thomas Cranmner, desires to use “synodality” as the means whereby he preside over what the Anglican sect’s Lambeth Conference “decided” in 1930: to sanction the use of contraception the grounds of “personal conscience.”

How can I say that?

Perhaps the following might help you to understand Berogoglio’s warped mind on the matter as a  presbyter who teaches at the Pontifical University of Saint Gregory (the Gregorianum), which is run by the Modernist revolutionaries of the Society of Jesus, said that Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968, had to be “reconsidered” in light of Amoris Laetitia, March 19, 2016:

ROME, January 8, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — Responsible parenthood can obligate a married couple to use artificial birth control, a recently appointed member of the Pontifical Academy for Life has argued, basing his theory on Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation on the family, Amoris Laetitia.

Italian moral theologian Father Maurizio Chiodi said at a December 14 public lecture at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome that there are “circumstances — I refer to Amoris Laetitia, Chapter 8 — that precisely for the sake of responsibility, require contraception.”

Chapter 8 of the Pope’s 2016 document on the family has drawncontroversy because of its differing interpretations on the issue of admitting some divorced and civilly “remarried” couples to Holy Communion.

When “natural methods are impossible or unfeasible, other forms of responsibility need to be found,” argued Fr. Chiodi in his lecture entitled: Re-reading Humanae Vitae (1968) in light of Amoris Laetitia (2016).

In such circumstances, he said, “an artificial method for the regulation of births could be recognized as an act of responsibility that is carried out, not in order to radically reject the gift of a child, but because in those situations responsibility calls the couple and the family to other forms of welcome and hospitality.”

The Italian professor’s comments come as the Church this year marks the 50^th anniversary of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae, which reaffirmed the Church’s ban on contraception. In his encyclical, Paul VI called artificial contraception “intrinsically wrong,” approved natural family planning, and upheld the Church’s teaching on conjugal love and responsible parenthood.

Chiodi’s lecture was the third in a series of talks being hosted this academic year by the Gregorian University’s faculty of social sciences and moral theology. The aim of the talks is to take a new and broad lookat the encyclical “in the context of a time of change” and “more complex” situations.

Fr. Chiodi’s lecture also follows revelations that the Vatican quietly created a four-member commission with the Pope’s approval, in order to “promote a comprehensive and authoritative study” of Humanae Vitae to coincide with the anniversary. The move came after Pope Francis purged the Pontifical Academy for Life, filling it with new appointees (including Fr. Chiodi), some with dissenting views on Humanae Vitae. And they coincided with the Pope issuing on September 8 a papal decree replacing the John Paul II Institute with a new institute to carry forward the teaching of Amoris Laetitia. (Academy for Life Member Uses Amoris Laetitia to say some circumstances require contraception.)

The authors of the article just cited do not realize that the Catholic Church has never used the phrase “responsible parenthood” nor has she ever endorsed “natural family planning,” something that the Prefect of the Holy Office, Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, noted in an intervention at the “Second” Vatican Council when the subject was raised by renegade bishops:

"I am not pleased with the statement in the text that married couples may determine the number of children they are to have. Never has this been heard of in the Church. My father was a laborer, and the fear of having many children never entered my parents' minds, because they trusted in Providence. [I am amazed] that yesterday in the Council it should have been said that there was doubt whether a correct stand had been taken hitherto on the principles governing marriage. Does this not mean that the inerrancy of the Church will be called into question? Or was not the Holy Spirit with His Church in past centuries to illuminate minds on this point of doctrine?" (As found in Peter W. Miller, Substituting the Exception for the Rule; The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, by Father Ralph Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber, Tan Books and Publishers, 1967, is cited as the source of  this quotation.)

Cheer up.

“Pope Francis,” who is a true moral relativist, recently told a Carmelite sister from his own native Argentina, Sister Marth Pelloni, that contraception is necessary for there to be “responsible parenthood” among “poor rural women.” Yes, this is another instance of one of those “private” conversations that Jorge Mario Bergoglio knows will be blabbed all over the place, thereby doing exactly what he has done with Eugenio Scalfari (see Jorge "Che" Bergoglio Throws Another Molotov Cocktail):

ROME, April 4, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) — An Argentinian religious sister acclaimed for her work against the trafficking and exploitation of children has said Pope Francis told her responsible parenthood requires contraceptives in some cases.

This, despite the Church’s constant teaching that the use of artificial contraception is always intrinsically evil. 

In an interview on Tuesday with the Argentinian radio program Crónica Anunciada, Carmelite missionary sister Martha Pelloni said Pope Francis “told me three words” about the need for responsible parenthood among poor rural women: “condoms, transitory, and reversible.”

The radio interview covered poverty rates, drug trafficking and the decriminalization of abortion in Argentina.

Sr. Pelloni, who is opposed to abortion, said the Pope told her various forms of contraception could be permissible to prevent poor women from choosing abortion. She included condoms, “a diaphragm, and as a last resort, which is what we advise for rural women that we serve, because I have a foundation for the peasantry, tubal ligation.”

Pelloni argued that these methods are neither abortive nor destructive to the woman, despite the fact that tubal ligation is considered a permanent method, with reversal procedures not always proving successful.

“If there is sex education and state responsibility to care for women in poverty, we do not need to decriminalize abortion because it will not be necessary to have an abortion,” the superior of the Carmelite Missionaries said.

The Vatican has neither confirmed nor denied the Pope’s comments to Sr. Pelloni. LifeSiteNews contacted Vatican spokesman Greg Burke for comment but as of this writing has received no response. (Jorge Says Abortifaceients Are Permissible in Some Cases.)

This is what passes for “moral theology” in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

It is never permissible for married couples to use contraceptives under any circumstances.

It is never permissible to prevent the conception of children by having recourse to surgical means, admitting, of course, that sterilization of a woman that is necessitated by the presence of cancer or other serious health problem is permitted as the end in this instance to treat a disease, not to prevent the conception of a child.

Poverty is never a reason to have recourse to contraception or voluntary sterilization, which is not as “reversible” as Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes.

Moreover, it is interesting that Sister Pelloni believes in “sex education,” which is nothing other than a means to corrupt the young and to inculcate them into the ways of fornication and sodomy according to their “informed conscience” as their innocence and purity is undermined, perhaps forever, and that “state care for women in poverty” would obviate a supposed “need” for abortion.

Excuse me?

There is never a “need” to directly intend to kill an innocent being.

Never.

Yes, perhaps Sister Mary Pelloni meant to say that women would no longer feel a “need” to kill their babies if they had explicit classroom instruction in matters to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments and if the “state” to care of their needs.

However, as the process of degeneration in the Anglican sect has shown so clearly, the logic of contraception (and most contraceptives are abortifacients) leads inevitably to the surgical killing of the innocent preborn, usually starting with the pretext of a “need” for women in “desperate” circumstances. In other words, an acceptance of contraception leads to the acceptance of abortion, starting with the so-called “hard cases,” with the “passage of time.”

There may yet come a day, therefore, in the counterfeit church of conciliarism when “Pope Francis” or one of his successors as the universal public face of apostasy may come to the conclusion it is “necessary” in some “difficult” circumstances for women to have access to surgical abortion. The conciliar authorities would say something along the lines of “We are maintaining the doctrine while adapting it to the concrete reality of the situation facing women on the periphery.”

Here is a sneak peak at what such a “determination,” made “synodally,” of course, would like:

The Church of England combines principled opposition to abortion with a recognition that there can be strictly limited conditions under which it may be morally preferable to any available alternative. This is based on our view that the foetus is a human life with the potential to develop relationships, think, pray, choose and love. Women facing unwanted pregnancies realise the gravity of the decision they face: all abortions are tragedies, since they entail judging one individual’s welfare against that of another (even if one is, as yet, unborn). Every possible support, especially by church members, needs to be given to those who are pregnant in difficult circumstances and care, support and compassion must be shown to all, whether or not they continue with their pregnancy. (General Synod July 2017: Answer to question with regard to marking 50th anniversary of 1967 Abortion Act. As found at: Abortion and the Church of England)

Such a thing will not happen the counterfeit church of conciliarism?

Sure, of course not.

The conciliar officials would never elect a “pope” who put into question the nature of dogmatic truth.

The conciliar officials would never elect a “pope” who openly esteemed the symbols of false religions, enter their temples of false worship or to praise false religions as instruments of “peace” and “sanctification.”

The conciliar officials would never elect a “pope” who authorized and participated in liturgical extravaganzas of that have incorporated all manner of pagan rituals, including half-naked natives “presenting the gifts” during what is Holy Mass.

The conciliar officials would never elect a “pope” who said in, oh, say, Mainz, Germany, on November 17, 1980, to pick a place and date out of the hat, that the Mosaic Covenant remained in force and had never been superseded.

The conciliar officials would never elect a “pope” who called the United Nations that last best hope for peace and concord on earth or who said that the service of man was the principal mission of the Catholic Church:

The peoples of the earth turn to the United Nations as the last hope of concord and peace. We presume to present here, together with Our own, their tribute to honour and of hope. That is why this moment is a great one for you also. We know that you are fully aware of this. Now for the continuation of Our message. It looks entirely towards the future. The edifice which you have constructed must never collapse; it must be continually perfected and adapted to the needs which the history of the world will present. You mark a stage in the development of mankind; from now on retreat is impossible; you must go forward. (Giovanni Montini/Paul VI's Address to the United Nations, October 4, 1965. See also "Blessed" Paul The Sick.)

The conciliar officials would never elect a “pope” who said the following about a mosque in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan on, to pick another random date, May 9, 2009:

“Places of worship, like this splendid Al-Hussein Bin Talal mosque named after the revered late King, stand out like jewels across the earth’s surface. From the ancient to the modern, the magnificent to the humble, they all point to the divine, to the Transcendent One, to the Almighty. And through the centuries these sanctuaries have drawn men and women into their sacred space to pause, to pray, to acknowledge the presence of the Almighty, and to recognize that we are all his creatures.” (Speech to Muslim religious leaders, members of the Diplomatic Corps and Rectors of universities in Jordan in front of the mosque al-Hussein bin Talal in Amman.)

The conciliar officials would never elect a “pope” who would state the following about the nature of the papacy in its relation to heretical sects and schismatic churches:

Whatever relates to the unity of all Christian communities clearly forms part of the concerns of the primacy. As Bishop of Rome I am fully aware, as I have reaffirmed in the present Encyclical Letter, that Christ ardently desires the full and visible communion of all those Communities in which, by virtue of God’s faithfulness, his Spirit dwells. I am convinced that I have a particular responsibility in this regard, above all in acknowledging the ecumenical aspirations of the majority of the Christian Communities and in heeding the request made of me to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation. For a whole millennium Christians were united in “a brotherly fraternal communion of faith and sacramental life … If disagreements in belief and discipline arose among them, the Roman See acted by common consent as moderator“.

In this way the primacy exercised its office of unity. When addressing the Ecumenical Patriarch His Holiness Dimitrios I, I acknowledged my awareness that “for a great variety of reasons, and against the will of all concerned, what should have been a service sometimes manifested itself in a very different light. But … it is out of a desire to obey the will of Christ truly that I recognize that as Bishop of Rome I am called to exercise that ministry … I insistently pray the Holy Spirit to shine his light upon us, enlightening all the Pastors and theologians of our Churches, that we may seek—together, of course—the forms in which this ministry may accomplish a service of love recognized by all concerned.

This is an immense task, which we cannot refuse and which I cannot carry out by myself. Could not the real but imperfect communion existing between us persuade Church leaders and their theologians to engage with me in a patient and fraternal dialogue on this subject, a dialogue in which, leaving useless controversies behind, we could listen to one another, keeping before us only the will of Christ for his Church and allowing ourselves to be deeply moved by his plea “that they may all be one … so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (Jn 17:21)? (Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint, May 25, 1995.)

This conciliar officials would never elect a “pope” who would tell representation of heretical Protestant sects and schismatic and orthodox Orthodox churches that he, the conciliar “pope,” rejected the “ecumenism of the return” in, say, Cologne, Germany, on August 19, 2005:

We all know there are numerous models of unity and you know that the Catholic Church also has as her goal the full visible unity of the disciples of Christ, as defined by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council in its various Documents (cf. Lumen Gentium, nn. 8, 13; Unitatis Redintegratio, nn. 2, 4, etc.). This unity, we are convinced, indeed subsists in the Catholic Church, without the possibility of ever being lost (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 4); the Church in fact has not totally disappeared from the world.

On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return:  that is, to deny and to reject one's own faith history. Absolutely not!

It does not mean uniformity in all expressions of theology and spirituality, in liturgical forms and in discipline. Unity in multiplicity, and multiplicity in unity:  in my Homily for the Solemnity of Sts Peter and Paul on 29 June last, I insisted that full unity and true catholicity in the original sense of the word go together. As a necessary condition for the achievement of this coexistence, the commitment to unity must be constantly purified and renewed; it must constantly grow and mature. (Ecumenical meeting at the Archbishopric of Cologne English)

The conciliar officials would never elect a “pope” who reaffirmed the “teaching” of one of his predecessors concerning the validity of the Mosaic Covenant:

247. We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked, for “the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29). The Church, which shares with Jews an important part of the sacred Scriptures, looks upon the people of the covenant and their faith as one of the sacred roots of her own Christian identity (cf. Rom 11:16-18). As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God (cf. 1 Thes 1:9). With them, we believe in the one God who acts in history, and with them we accept his revealed word.

248. Dialogue and friendship with the children of Israel are part of the life of Jesus’ disciples. The friendship which has grown between us makes us bitterly and sincerely regret the terrible persecutions which they have endured, and continue to endure, especially those that have involved Christians.

249. God continues to work among the people of the Old Covenant and to bring forth treasures of wisdom which flow from their encounter with his word. For this reason, the Church also is enriched when she receives the values of Judaism. While it is true that certain Christian beliefs are unacceptable to Judaism, and that the Church cannot refrain from proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Messiah, there exists as well a rich complementarity which allows us to read the texts of the Hebrew Scriptures together and to help one another to mine the riches of God’s word. We can also share many ethical convictions and a common concern for justice and the development of peoples. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013.)

No, the conciliar officials would never elect a “pope” who sought to give comfort and support to practitioners of perversity with five simple words—“Who am I to judge?”—and with a variety of other words and gestures, to say nothing of “episcopal” appointments, that are advancing the homosexualist agenda.

The conciliar officials would never elect a “pope” who, following the example of Martin Luther and Henry VIII, gave his “bishops” permission to admit divorced and civilly “remarried” Catholics who lack even the fig leaf of a conciliar decree of nullity to continue living with all the benefits and privileges of matrimony while being admitted to the reception of what purports to be the sacraments of the Catholic Church:

Bp. Sergio Alfredo Fenoy
Delegate to the Buenos Aires Pastoral Region

Dear Brother:

I hereby acknowledge having received the document “Basic criteria for the application of Amoris Laetitia chapter VIII” from the Buenos Aires Pastoral Region. Thank you very much for sending it; and I congratulate you for the work done, a true example of accompaniment to the priests… and we all know how this closeness between the bishop and his clergy is necessary. The “closest” neighbor to the bishop is the priest, and for us bishops the commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves begins precisely with our priests.

The document is very good and fully expresses the meaning of Amoris Laetitia chapter VIII. There are no other interpretations. And I am sure that it will do much good. May the Lord reward them for this effort of pastoral charity.

And it is precisely this pastoral charity that moves us to seek out those who are most distant, and once we have found them, to begin a journey of acceptance, accompaniment, discernment, and integration into the ecclesial community. We know this is exhausting, it is a pastoral “melee” that is not content with programmatic, organizational, or legal mediation, but it is necessary. Simply embrace, accompany, discern, integrate. Of these four pastoral attitudes, the least cultivated and practiced is discernment; and I consider the formation in personal and communal discernment in our seminaries and presbyteries to be an urgent task.

Finally, I would like to remind you that Amoris Laetitia was the result of the work and prayer of the whole Church, with the mediation of two Synods and the Pope. Therefore, I recommend a complete catechesis of the Exhortation, which will certainly assist in the growth, consolidation, and sanctification of the family.

Once again, I thank you for the work done and I encourage you to continue forward, in the diverse communities of the diocese, with the study and catechesis of Amoris Laetitia. (As found at: Novus Ordo Watch.)

No, I suppose that it will never happen that a conciliar “pope” will, following the exact same path of auto-destruction of the Anglican sect, give a wink and a nod to contraception at the altar of “individual conscience” nor make some kind of accommodation to a supposed but nevertheless “regrettable” acceptance of the direct taking of innocent preborn life in certain “hard” cases, including dire poverty.

No, I suppose that a true "pope" would never equate the deliberate killing of an innocent preborn child with the right of foreign nations to enter another nation illegally while dismissing the worlwide genocide of babies as merely "bioethical issues":

101. The other harmful ideological error is found in those who find suspect the social engagement of others, seeing it as superficial, worldly, secular, materialist, communist or populist. Or they relativize it, as if there are other more important matters, or the only thing that counts is one particular ethical issue or cause that they themselves defend. Our defence of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection. We cannot uphold an ideal of holiness that would ignore injustice in a world where some revel, spend with abandon and live only for the latest consumer goods, even as others look on from afar, living their entire lives in abject poverty.

102. We often hear it said that, with respect to relativism and the flaws of our present world, the situation of migrants, for example, is a lesser issue. Some Catholics consider it a secondary issue compared to the “grave” bioethical questions. That a politician looking for votes might say such a thing is understandable, but not a Christian, for whom the only proper attitude is to stand in the shoes of those brothers and sisters of ours who risk their lives to offer a future to their children. Can we not realize that this is exactly what Jesus demands of us, when he tells us that in welcoming the stranger we welcome him (cf. Mt 25:35)? Saint Benedict did so readily, and though it might have “complicated” the life of his monks, he ordered that all guests who knocked at the monastery door be welcomed “like Christ”, with a gesture of veneration; the poor and pilgrims were to be met with “the greatest care and solicitude”. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Gaudete et Exaltate, March 19, 2018.)

Here is a quick Catholic antidote to this naturalist screed of the statist variety that serves the purposes of pro-abortion politicians worldwide quite nicely:

Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.) 

Enough of this.

The evidence is clear. It is abundant, and I remind the relatively few people who remain as readers of this site that none of this can come from the Catholic Church, she enjoys a perpetual immunity from error and heresy:

Not least among the blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy. (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925.)

I will let Pope Saint Leo the Great, whose feast day is tomorrow, Wednesday, April 11, 2018, have the last word about the nature of Holy Mother Church and her perpetual immunity from error and heresy, including, of course, error and heresy emanating from a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter:

When the Lord, as we read in the Evangelist, asked His disciples Who did men, amid their divers speculations, believe that He, the Son of Man, was; blessed Peter answered and said Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father, Which is in heaven and I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Thus therefore standeth the ordinance of the Truth, and blessed Peter, abiding still that firm rock which God hath made him, hath never lost that right to rule in the Church which God hath given unto him.

In the universal Church it is Peter that doth still say every day, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, and every tongue which confesseth that Jesus is Lord is taught that confession by the teaching of Peter. This is the faith that overcometh the devil and looseth the bands of his prisoners. This is the faith which maketh men free of the world and bringeth them to heaven, and the gates of hell are impotent to prevail against it. With such ramparts of salvation hath God fortified this rock, that the contagion of heresy will never be able to infect it, nor idolatry and unbelief to overcome it. This teaching it is, my dearly beloved brethren, which maketh the keeping of this Feast to-day to be our reasonable service, even the teaching which maketh you to know and honour in myself, lowly though I be, that Peter who is still entrusted with the care of all other shepherds and of all the flocks to them committed, and whose authority I have, albeit unworthy to be his heir.

When, therefore, we address our exhortations to your godly ears, believe ye that ye are hearing him speak whose office we are discharging. Yea, it is with his love for you that we warn you, and we preach unto you no other thing than that which he taught, entreating you that ye would gird up the loins of your mind and lead pure and sober lives in the fear of God. My disciples dearly beloved, ye are to me, as the disciples of the Apostle Paul were to him, (Phil. iv. 1,) a crown and a joy, if your faith, which, in the first times of the Gospel, was spoken of throughout the whole world, Rom. i. 8, abide still lovely and holy. For, albeit it behoveth the whole Church which is spread throughout all the world, to be strong in righteousness, you it chiefly becometh above all other peoples to excel in worth and godliness, whose house is built upon the very crown of the Rock of the Apostle, and whom not only hath our Lord Jesus Christ, as He hath redeemed all men, but whom also His blessed Apostle Peter hath made the foremost object of his teaching. (Matins, Feast of Pope Saint Leo the Great, April 11.)

Perhaps it would be useful to highlight one sentence from Pope Leo the Great’s sermon the second anniversary of his election:

With such ramparts of salvation hath God fortified this rock, that the contagion of heresy will never be able to infect it, nor idolatry and unbelief to overcome it. (Matins, Feast of Pope Saint Leo the Great, April 11.)

Are there any questions?

Good. I thought that there wouldn’t be any.

That which is false must degenerate over time. That which is true endures without change. It’s really very simple.

May we cling to Our Lady, especially through her Most Holy Rosary, to cling to the truth in these terrible times without any degree of doubt about the simple fact that a heretic cannot be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter and that it is necessary to separate ourselves from the false church of conciliarism with its false litugical rites and blasphemous, heretical "teachings" and pastoral practices.