Get Off The Throne, You Fake, Phony, Fraud, Bergoglio 

NOTE: NOT AN ENDORSEMENT FOR SEDEVACANTISM 

The late Robert Ciro Gigante, whose radio pseudonym was “Bob Grant,” was an anti-clerical, pro-abortion, quasi-libertarian, wholly-owned subsidiary of the Israeli Lobby radio talk show host from 1964, starting in California, until July 28, 2013, five months, three days before he died at the age of eighty-four on Tuesday, December 31, 2013, the Feast of Pope Saint Sylvester I.

The late “Bob Grant” did, however, have a number of phrases that New Yorkers who listened to him picked up and made part of their own vocabulary ("Get off my phone, you jerk!", " Let's be heard!", "Straight ahead," "He folded like a cheap camera," "[Insert name of politician] is a fake, phony, fraud." 

Well, let me adapt two of those phrases: “Get off the throne, you fake, phony, fraud, Bergoglio, and take the rest of your crew with you.”

Yes, following the path of auto-destruction and gradual degeneration followed by the “mainline” Protestant sects in the past five hundred years, the theologically, ecclesiastically, liturgically and morally corrupt sect that is referred to on this site as the counterfeit church of conciliarism has reached the stage in its own process of rapid degeneration in the past sixty years, slightly more than mere ninth of the time since the Protestant Revolution began, that its anti-Catholic officials dressed up to look like Catholic bishops and priests ask “the people” what they want their false religious sect to profess so that that they, “the people,” will remain unmolested in their lives of eternal perdition.

In other words, the officials of the counterfeit church of conciliarism are unintentionally fulfilling the following prophetic words of Saint Paul the Apostle in his Second Epistle to Saint Timothy:

[1] I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: [2] Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. [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. [5] But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober. (2 Tim. 4: 1-15.)

Quite to the contrary, the lords of conciliarism scoff at the words of Saint Paul, which were, after all written under the direct inspiration of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, as they seek to reaffirm sinners and to condemn anyone who calls sin by its proper name, no less who seeks to discharge a Spiritual Work of Mercy, to admonish the sinner, to call sinners to repentance and reform. Their whole ethos was described and condemned as follows by Pope Pius XII when he address the Thirtieth General Congregation of the Society of Jesus on September 14, 1957, the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross:

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 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.

In this regard, therefore, it is important to remember that Amoris Latetia , March 19, 2016, which has opened the floodgates of divorced and civilly “remarried” Catholics who lack a conciliar degree of marital nullity to the reception of what passes for Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service, was only the final product of what began with a series of questions that were asked of the conciliar “bishops” in 2013. Although Jorge Mario Bergoglio had “cooked the books” long before these questions, which were designed to give the appearance of “popular support” for the preconceived outcome the Argentine Apostate designed to produce, he wanted his “bishops” to ask “the people” what they wanted from the 2014 extraordinary synod of “bishops” on the family and the regular synod a year later.

Here is a review of those questions:

1. The Diffusion of the Teachings on the Family in Sacred Scripture and the Church’s Magisterium
a) Describe how the Catholic Church’s teachings on the value of the family contained in the Bible, Gaudium et spes, Familiaris consortio and other documents of the post-conciliar Magisterium is understood by people today? What formation is given to our people on the Church’s teaching on family life?

b) In those cases where the Church's teaching is known, is it accepted fully or are there difficulties in putting it into practice? If so, what are they?
c) How widespread is the Church's teaching in pastoral programmes at the national, diocesan and parish levels? What catechesis is done on the family?
d ) To what extent — and what aspects in particular — is this teaching actually known, accepted, rejected and/or criticized in areas outside the Church? What are the cultural factors which hinder the full reception of the Church’s teaching on the family?

2. Marriage according to the Natural Law
a) What place does the idea of the natural law have in the cultural areas of society: in institutions, education, academic circles and among the people at large? What anthropological ideas underlie the discussion on the natural basis of the family?
b) Is the idea of the natural law in the union between a man and a woman commonly accepted as such by the baptized in general?
c) How is the theory and practice of natural law in the union between man and woman challenged in light of the formation of a family? How is it proposed and developed in civil and Church institutions?
d) In cases where non-practicing Catholics or declared non-believers request the celebration of marriage, describe how this pastoral challenge is dealt with?
3. The Pastoral Care of the Family in Evangelization
a) What experiences have emerged in recent decades regarding marriage preparation? What efforts are there to stimulate the task of evangelization of the couple and of the family? How can an awareness of the family as the "domestic Church" be promoted?
b) How successful have you been in proposing a manner of praying within the family which can withstand life’s complexities and today’s culture?
c) In the current generational crisis, how have Christian families been able to fulfill their vocation of transmitting the faith?
d) In what way have the local Churches and movements on family spirituality been able to create ways of acting which are exemplary?
e) What specific contribution can couples and families make to spreading a credible and holistic idea of the couple and the Christian family today?
f) What pastoral care has the Church provided in supporting couples in formation and couples in crisis situations?

4. Pastoral Care in Certain Difficult Marital Situations
a) Is cohabitation ad experimentum a pastoral reality in your particular Church? Can you approximate a percentage?
b) Do unions which are not recognized either religiously or civilly exist? Are reliable statistics available?
c) Are separated couples and those divorced and remarried a pastoral reality in your particular Church? Can you approximate a percentage? How do you deal with this situation in appropriate pastoral programmes?
d) In all the above cases, how do the baptized live in this irregular situation? Are aware of it? Are they simply indifferent? Do they feel marginalized or suffer from the impossibility of receiving the sacraments?
e) What questions do divorced and remarried people pose to the Church concerning the Sacraments of the Eucharist and of Reconciliation? Among those persons who find themselves in these situations, how many ask for these sacraments?
f ) Could a simplification of canonical practice in recognizing a declaration of nullity of the marriage bond provide a positive contribution to solving the problems of the persons involved? If yes, what form would it take?
g) Does a ministry exist to attend to these cases? Describe this pastoral ministry? Do such programmes exist on the national and diocesan levels? How is God’s mercy proclaimed to separated couples and those divorced and remarried and how does the Church put into practice her support for them in their journey of faith?
5. On Unions of Persons of the Same Sex
a) Is there a law in your country recognizing civil unions for people of the same-sex and equating it in some way to marriage?
b) What is the attitude of the local and particular Churches towards both the State as the promoter of civil unions between persons of the same sex and the people involved in this type of union?
c) What pastoral attention can be given to people who have chosen to live in these types of union?
d) In the case of unions of persons of the same sex who have adopted children, what can be done pastorally in light of transmitting the faith?

6. The Education of Children in Irregular Marriages
a) What is the estimated proportion of children and adolescents in these cases, as regards children who are born and raised in regularly constituted families?
b) How do parents in these situations approach the Church? What do they ask? Do they request the sacraments only or do they also want catechesis and the general teaching of religion?
c) How do the particular Churches attempt to meet the needs of the parents of these children to provide them with a Christian education?
d) What is the sacramental practice in these cases: preparation, administration of the sacrament and the accompaniment?

7. The Openness of the Married Couple to Life
a) What knowledge do Christians have today of the teachings of Humanae vitae on responsible parenthood? Are they aware of how morally to evaluate the different methods of family planning? Could any insights be suggested in this regard pastorally?
b) Is this moral teaching accepted? What aspects pose the most difficulties in a large majority of couple’s accepting this teaching?
c) What natural methods are promoted by the particular Churches to help spouses put into practice the teachings of Humanae vitae?
d) What is your experience on this subject in the practice of the Sacrament of Penance and participation at the Eucharist?
e) What differences are seen in this regard between the Church’s teaching and civic education?
f) How can a more open attitude towards having children be fostered? How can an increase in births be promoted?

8. The Relationship Between the Family and the Person
a) Jesus Christ reveals the mystery and vocation of the human person. How can the family be a privileged place for this to happen?
b) What critical situations in the family today can obstruct a person’s encounter with Christ?
c) To what extent do the many crisis of faith which people can experience affect family life?
9. Other Challenges and Proposals
What other challenges or proposals related to the topics in the above questions do you consider urgent and useful to treat?  (Preparing for the Synod.)

This is what I wrote at the time on November 10, 2013, the Feast of Saint Andrew Avellino:

Look at these questions. Just look at them. They are absurd. I will deal with the first six categories in broad strokes below. The seventh will be examined in part two of this commentary tomorrow, Monday, November 11, 2013, the Feast of Saint Martin of Tours.

Poll after poll has indicated just how much knowledge that ordinary Novus Ordo-attending Catholics, no less the sixty-five to seventy-five percent of baptized Catholics who do not even bother to darken conciliar temples in order to engage in "full, active and conscious" participation in a liturgical abomination that is devoid of sacramental validity, have for even the documents of the "Second" Vatican Council and those of the postconciliar "pontiffs," no less of the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church.

Although the story that follows has been related on this site many times before, I will do so again as there are many new readers to this site in recent months. The story, dating back eighteen years ago now, showed the state of conciliar "education" then. It is even worse now.

Over nine thousand souls were in front of me during the thirty years that I served as a professor of political science in various institutions around the United States of America between the time that I started teaching discussion sections of American National Government at the then named State University of New York at Albany in January of 1974 to the time I taught my last class at the C. W.  Post Campus on Long Island University on January 11, 2007, over six years ago now. Some of them became close friends for various lengths of time before time and events and differences led to a natural parting of the ways. Others are still friends. Still others find me on this site now and again and drop me a line or two to say hello. Friendship is, after all, a free gift that is neither earned nor owed. What matters, of course, is that we continue to pray for those whom the Providence of God put in our paths at some point or another in our lives.

One student wrote to me in November of 2009, introducing himself to me by saying that I probably didn't remember him. Oh, I remember most of my former students, this one especially one as I have referred to him (without naming him) several times on this site. This is what I wrote to him after he had written to me to ask if I remembered him:

I am tired, busy writing another article for my www.Christorchaos.com website, where you have been quoted any number of times, including as follows in one article (and this is the EXACT quote preceded by an introductory paragraph):

Most of the over nine thousand students I taught in various colleges and universities between January of 1974 and July of 2003 (with an eleven-day reprise during the winter intersession at the C. W. Post Campus of Long Island University from December 28, 2006, to January 11, 2007) were baptized Catholics. Most of those Catholic students knew little about the Faith, and the little that they thought they knew was wrong. The material that I presented on Special Creation and Adam's Fall and Our Lord's Redemptive Act on the wood of the Cross (one cannot understand politics without understanding human nature, and one cannot understand human nature absent the teaching of the true Church) was completely foreign to most of these Catholic students.

One student, a young man from Westchester County, New York, despite having been through thirteen years of Catholic education, had never heard of Original Sin and Adam and Eve's Fall from Grace in the Garden of Eden. Anthony blurted out in amazement when I was lecturing on First and Last Things in an Introduction to Political Science course at the C. W. Post Campus of Long Island University in the Fall 1995 Semester, "Is this what the Faith is about? Why hasn't anyone taught this to me before?" "Because." I explained to him, "you have been the victim of Catholic educational fraud." Sadly, that young man was not then--and is not today--alone.

Don't remember you? Quite the contrary! You were an excellent student.

There was also a time in the Spring of 1983 that a an earnest young student at Nassau Community College in the Spring 1983 Semester who was a product of Catholic education and asked "Who's Judas?" when I mentioned the name of the betrayer of Our Lord in a class lecture. "Perhaps the bishops and priests and nuns responsible for your training," I told her.

Another student of mine, who took to heart my efforts to transmit the Faith in the context of two political sciences at Saint John's University, Jamaica, Queens, New York, during the 1984-1985 academic year, began teaching religion, after receiving a graduate degree from a "conservative" catechetical institute, at a conciliar-controlled high school in 1990 and asked me to review the curriculum that she was expected to teach. The curriculum was purely conciliar, based on  the touchy-feely "God is love," "we love God," God loves us," "we love others because God loves us" that passed for "religious education" in conciliar circles. After examining the curriculum, I telephoned the student to say, "The basic problem with this whole curriculum is it is premised on the belief that these students know Who God as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church. They have no such knowledge.

Fifty-five years of deliberate misrepresentation, distortion and corruption of Catholic teaching have produced Catholics of all ages, but especially the young, who are totally ignorant of the most basic truths of the Holy Faith. They do not know much, if anything, about the "Second" Vatican Council's Gaudium et Spes, December 7, 1965, or Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul The Sick's revolutionary Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968, that inverted and distorted the ends proper to marriage, and the soon-to-be "canonized" Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's post-synodal exhortation, Familiaris Consortio, November 22, 1981.

Furthermore, of course, what "knowledge" most young Catholics have about Sacred Scripture is erroneous, filled with the "demythologizing" of the Old Testament and, of course, of the miracles performed by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ during His Public Ministry. Much of this "demythologizing" has to do with denying that Our Lord had perfect knowledge of His Sacred Divinity after His Incarnation. This is particularly important as one of the standard ways in which young Catholics are taught to disbelieve in the tenets of the Faith by Modernists in conciliar-controlled schools, religious education programs, colleges, universities and seminaries. The Holy Office, however, decreed on this matter as follows on June 5, 1918, the Feast of Saint Boniface, when presented with various propositions casting doubt of the self-knowledge of Our Lord as True God and True Man from the first moment of the hypostatic union at His Incarnation:

When the question was proposed by the Sacred Congregation on Seminary and University Studies, whether the following propositions can be safely taught:

I. It was established  that there was in the soul of Christ while living among men the knowledge which the blessed and and the comprhensors have [cf. Phil. 3: 12, 13].

II. Nor can the opinion be called certain which has established that the soul of Christ was ignorant of nothing, but from the beginning knew all things in the World, past, present, and future, or all things that God knows by the knowledge of vision.

III. The opinion of certain more recent persons on the limited knowledge of the soul of Christ is to be accepted in Catholic schools no less than the notion of the ancients on universal knowledge.

     The Most Eminent and Reverend Cardinals, general Inquisitors in matters of faith and morals, the prayers of the Consultors being held first, decreed that the answer must be: In the negative. (Henry Denzinger, Enchirdion Symbolorum, thirteenth edition, translated into English by Roy Deferrari and published in 1955 as The Sources of Catholic Dogma--referred to as "Denziger," by B. Herder Book Company of St. Louis, Missouri, and London, England, Nos. 2183-2185, pp. 561-562.)

Pope Pius XII reiterated this teaching concerning the perfect self-knowledge possessed by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ from the first moment of His Incarnation in His Most Blessed Mother's Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost:

75. Now the only-begotten Son of God embraced us in His infinite knowledge and undying love even before the world began. And that He might give a visible and exceedingly beautiful expression to this love, He assumed our nature in hypostatic union: hence -as Maximus of Turin with a certain unaffected simplicity remarks -- "in Christ our own flesh loves us." But the knowledge and love of our Divine Redeemer, of which we were the object from the first moment of His Incarnation, exceed all the human intellect can hope to grasp. For hardly was He conceived in the womb of the Mother of God, when He began to enjoy the beatific vision, and in that vision all the members of His Mystical Body were continually and unceasingly present to Him, and He embraced them with His redeeming love. O marvelous condescension of divine love for us! O inestimable dispensation of boundless charity. In the crib, on the Cross, in the unending glory of the Father, Christ has all the members of the Church present before Him and united to Him in a much clearer and more loving manner than that of a mother who clasps her child to her breast, or than that with which a man knows and loves himself. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

Why should young Catholics be expected to know anything even about the counterfeit church of conciliarism's corrupted teaching on marriage and the family when they do not understand basic catechetical truths that were taught so clearly, despite its defects here and there, in the Baltimore Catechism, and in other such catechisms, including Father Joseph Deharbe's Small Catechism? Canon Ripley's This Is The Faith is excellent for use in the instruction of fallen away or poorly catechized Catholics and for use in the instructing of converts.

Most young Catholics whose parents are attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism do not believe in God's Special Creation of man, the existence of a real Adam and Eve, Original Sin or the devil. They are taught that the Bible is not inerrant an is is merely allegorical in most instances and that Our Lord Himself had to "struggle" to find out His mission in life as He came in His "inner consciousness" to come to a slow knowledge over time that He was indeed the Son of God in the Flesh.

Many teachers and catechists in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism represent the Holy Family as just another gathering of human beings who had their own "struggles" in relating to each other. Our Lady herself, as Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself has asserted so blasphemously, had to struggle with her emotions and her doubts, an assertion that is a denial of her perfect integrity, one of the chief doctrinal effects of her Immaculate Conception (see What More Time Needs To Be Wasted On This Horrible Man?). It is thus that many young Catholics in the conciliar structures are taught that the Holy Family had the same kinds of "struggles" and "conflicts" as do all families.

Never mind the horrific conciliar documents on marriage and the family. Most Catholics of all ages are complete ignorant of Pope Leo XIII's Arcanum, February 10, 1880, Pope Pius XI's Divini Illius Magistri (The Christian Education of Youth), December 31, 1929, and Casti Connubii, December 13, 1930. These three documents described with prophetic accuracy the problems that face the family today, problems that the conciliar officials do not care to understand have multiplied and grown worse over time because of their very failure to heed the warnings provided us by our true popes in order to do precisely what Martin Luther and Henry Tudor did in the Sixteenth Century, to teach that divorce and remarriage is consonant with fidelity to Christ the King, and what the Anglicans, doing the bidding of Margaret Sanger and her population limitation/eugenics cronies, did when endorsing the use of contraception for married couples in certain circumstances.

In other words, the lords of conciliarism have done in five decades what the devil had been planning ever since Martin Luther's revolution began on October 31, 1517: legitimizing divorce in spite of the plain words of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as they ignoring the stern admonitions and prophetic warnings given by Pope Leo XIII in Arcanum and by Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii:

Nevertheless, the naturalists, as well as all who profess that they worship above all things the divinity of the State, and strive to disturb whole communities with such wicked doctrines, cannot escape the charge of delusion. Marriage has God for its Author, and was from the very beginning a kind of foreshadowing of the Incarnation of His Son; and therefore there abides in it a something holy and religious; not extraneous, but innate; not derived from men, but implanted by nature. Innocent III. therefore. and Honorius III, our predecessors, affirmed not falsely nor rashly that a sacrament of marriage existed ever amongst the faithful and unbelievers. We call to witness the monuments of antiquity, as also the manners and customs of those people who, being the most civilized, had the greatest knowledge of law and equity. In the minds of all of them it was a fixed and foregone conclusion that, when marriage was thought of, it was thought of as conjoined with religion and holiness. Hence, among those, marriages were commonly celebrated with religious ceremonies, under the authority of pontiffs, and with the ministry of priests. So mighty, even in the souls ignorant of heavenly doctrine, was the force of nature, of the remembrance of their origin, and of the conscience of the human race. As, then, marriage is holy by its own power, in its own nature, and of itself, it ought not to be regulated and administered by the will of civil rulers, but by the divine authority of the Church, which alone in sacred matters professes the office of teaching.

Next, the dignity of the sacrament must be considered, for through addition of the sacrament the marriages of Christians have become far the noblest of all matrimonial unions. But to decree and ordain concerning the sacrament is, by the will of Christ Himself, so much a part of the power and duty of the Church that it is plainly absurd to maintain that even the very smallest fraction of such power has been transferred to the civil ruler.

Lastly should be borne in mind the great weight and crucial test of history, by which it is plainly proved that the legislative and judicial authority of which We are speaking has been freely and constantly used by the Church, even in times when some foolishly suppose the head of the State either to have consented to it or connived at it. It would, for instance, be incredible and altogether absurd to assume that Christ our Lord condemned the long-standing practice of polygamy and divorce by authority delegated to Him by the procurator of the province, or the principal ruler of the Jews. And it would be equally extravagant to think that, when the Apostle Paul taught that divorces and incestuous marriages were not lawful, it was because Tiberius, Caligula, and Nero agreed with him or secretly commanded him so to teach. No man in his senses could ever be persuaded that the Church made so many laws about the holiness and indissolubility of marriage, and the marriages of slaves with the free-born, by power received from Roman emperors, most hostile to the Christian name, whose strongest desire was to destroy by violence and murder the rising Church of Christ. Still less could anyone believe this to be the case, when the law of the Church was sometimes so divergent from the civil law that Ignatius the Martyr, Justin, Athenagoras, and Tertullian publicly denounced as unjust and adulterous certain marriages which had been sanctioned by imperial law.

Furthermore, after all power had devolved upon the Christian emperors, the supreme pontiffs and bishops assembled in council persisted with the same independence and consciousness of their right in commanding or forbidding in regard to marriage whatever they judged to be profitable or expedient for the time being, however much it might seem to be at variance with the laws of the State. It is well known that, with respect to the impediments arising from the marriage bond, through vow, disparity of worship, blood relationship, certain forms of crime, and from previously plighted troth, many decrees were issued by the rulers of the Church at the Councils of Granada, Arles, Chalcedon, the second of Milevum, and others, which were often widely different from the decrees sanctioned by the laws of the empire. Furthermore, so far were Christian princes from arrogating any power in the matter of Christian marriage that they on the contrary acknowledged and declared that it belonged exclusively in all its fullness to the Church. In fact, Honorius, the younger Theodosius, and Justinian, also, hesitated not to confess that the only power belonging to them in relation to marriage was that of acting as guardians and defenders of the holy canons. If at any time they enacted anything by their edicts concerning impediments of marriage, they voluntarily explained the reason, affirming that they took it upon themselves so to act, by leave and authority of the Church, whose judgment they were wont to appeal to and reverently to accept in all questions that concerned legitimacy and divorce; as also in all those points which in any way have a necessary connection with the marriage bond. The Council of Trent, therefore, had the clearest right to define that it is in the Church's power "to establish diriment impediments of matrimony," and that "matrimonial causes pertain to ecclesiastical judges."

Let no one, then, be deceived by the distinction which some civil jurists have so strongly insisted upon -- the distinction, namely, by virtue of which they sever the matrimonial contract from the sacrament, with intent to hand over the contract to the power and will of the rulers of the State, while reserving questions concerning the sacrament of the Church. A distinction, or rather severance, of this kind cannot be approved; for certain it is that in Christian marriage the contract is inseparable from the sacrament, and that, for this reason, the contract cannot be true and legitimate without being a sacrament as well. For Christ our Lord added to marriage the dignity of a sacrament; but marriage is the contract itself, whenever that contract is lawfully concluded. . . .

Truly, it is hardly possible to describe how great are the evils that flow from divorce. Matrimonial contracts are by it made variable; mutual kindness is weakened; deplorable inducements to unfaithfulness are supplied; harm is done to the education and training of children; occasion is afforded for the breaking up of homes; the seeds of dissension are sown among families; the dignity of womanhood is lessened and brought low, and women run the risk of being deserted after having ministered to the pleasures of men. Since, then, nothing has such power to lay waste families and destroy the mainstay of kingdoms as the corruption of morals, it is easily seen that divorces are in the highest degree hostile to the prosperity of families and States, springing as they do from the depraved morals of the people, and, as experience shows us, opening out a way to every kind of evil-doing in public and in private life.

Further still, if the matter be duly pondered, we shall clearly see these evils to be the more especially dangerous, because, divorce once being tolerated, there will be no restraint powerful enough to keep it within the bounds marked out or presurmised. Great indeed is the force of example, and even greater still the might of passion. With such incitements it must needs follow that the eagerness for divorce, daily spreading by devious ways, will seize upon the minds of many like a virulent contagious disease, or like a flood of water bursting through every barrier. These are truths that doubtlessly are all clear in themselves, but they will become clearer yet if we call to mind the teachings of experience. So soon as the road to divorce began to be made smooth by law, at once quarrels, jealousies, and judicial separations largely increased: and such shamelessness of life followed that men who had been in favor of these divorces repented of what they had done, and feared that, if they did not carefully seek a remedy by repealing the law, the State itself might come to ruin. The Romans of old are said to have shrunk with horror from the first example of divorce, but ere long all sense of decency was blunted in their soul; the meager restraint of passion died out, and the marriage vow was so often broken that what some writers have affirmed would seem to be true -- namely, women used to reckon years not by the change of consuls, but of their husbands. In like manner, at the beginning, Protestants allowed legalized divorces in certain although but few cases, and yet from the affinity of circumstances of like kind, the number of divorces increased to such extent in Germany, America, and elsewhere that all wise thinkers deplored the boundless corruption of morals, and judged the recklessness of the laws to be simply intolerable.

Even in Catholic States the evil existed. For whenever at any time divorce was introduced, the abundance of misery that followed far exceeded all that the framers of the law could have foreseen. In fact, many lent their minds to contrive all kinds of fraud and device, and by accusations of cruelty, violence, and adultery to feign grounds for the dissolution of the matrimonial bond of which they had grown weary; and all this with so great havoc to morals that an amendment of the laws was deemed to be urgently needed.

Can anyone, therefore, doubt that laws in favor of divorce would have a result equally baneful and calamitous were they to be passed in these our days? There exists not, indeed, in the projects and enactments of men any power to change the character and tendency with things have received from nature. Those men, therefore, show but little wisdom in the idea they have formed of the well-being of the commonwealth who think that the inherent character of marriage can be perverted with impunity; and who, disregarding the sanctity of religion and of the sacrament, seem to wish to degrade and dishonor marriage more basely than was done even by heathen laws. Indeed, if they do not change their views, not only private families, but all public society, will have unceasing cause to fear lest they should be miserably driven into that general confusion and overthrow of order which is even now the wicked aim of socialists and communists. Thus we see most clearly how foolish and senseless it is to expect any public good from divorce, when, on the contrary, it tends to the certain destruction of society. (Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, February 10, 1880.)

87. Opposed to all these reckless opinions, Venerable Brethren, stands the unalterable law of God, fully confirmed by Christ, a law that can never be deprived of its force by the decrees of men, the ideas of a people or the will of any legislator: "What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder."[64] And if any man, acting contrary to this law, shall have put asunder, his action is null and void, and the consequence remains, as Christ Himself has explicitly confirmed: "Everyone that putteth away his wife and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery."[65] Moreover, these words refer to every kind of marriage, even that which is natural and legitimate only; for, as has already been observed, that indissolubility by which the loosening of the bond is once and for all removed from the whim of the parties and from every secular power, is a property of every true marriage.

88. Let that solemn pronouncement of the Council of Trent be recalled to mind in which, under the stigma of anathema, it condemned these errors: "If anyone should say that on account of heresy or the hardships of cohabitation or a deliberate abuse of one party by the other the marriage tie may be loosened, let him be anathema;"[66] and again: "If anyone should say that the Church errs in having taught or in teaching that, according to the teaching of the Gospel and the Apostles, the bond of marriage cannot be loosed because of the sin of adultery of either party; or that neither party, even though he be innocent, having given no cause for the sin of adultery, can contract another marriage during the lifetime of the other; and that he commits adultery who marries another after putting away his adulterous wife, and likewise that she commits adultery who puts away her husband and marries another: let him be anathemae."

89. If therefore the Church has not erred and does not err in teaching this, and consequently it is certain that the bond of marriage cannot be loosed even on account of the sin of adultery, it is evident that all the other weaker excuses that can be, and are usually brought forward, are of no value whatsoever. And the objections brought against the firmness of the marriage bond are easily answered. For, in certain circumstances, imperfect separation of the parties is allowed, the bond not being severed. This separation, which the Church herself permits, and expressly mentions in her Canon Law in those canons which deal with the separation of the parties as to marital relationship and cohabitation, removes all the alleged inconveniences and dangers.[68] It will be for the sacred law and, to some extent, also the civil law, in so far as civil matters are affected, to lay down the grounds, the conditions, the method and precautions to be taken in a case of this kind in order to safeguard the education of the children and the well-being of the family, and to remove all those evils which threaten the married persons, the children and the State. Now all those arguments that are brought forward to prove the indissolubility of the marriage tie, arguments which have already been touched upon, can equally be applied to excluding not only the necessity of divorce, but even the power to grant it; while for all the advantages that can be put forward for the former, there can be adduced as many disadvantages and evils which are a formidable menace to the whole of human society.

90. To revert again to the expression of Our predecessor, it is hardly necessary to point out what an amount of good is involved in the absolute indissolubility of wedlock and what a train of evils follows upon divorce. Whenever the marriage bond remains intact, then we find marriages contracted with a sense of safety and security, while, when separations are considered and the dangers of divorce are present, the marriage contract itself becomes insecure, or at least gives ground for anxiety and surprises. On the one hand we see a wonderful strengthening of goodwill and cooperation in the daily life of husband and wife, while, on the other, both of these are miserably weakened by the presence of a facility for divorce. Here we have at a very opportune moment a source of help by which both parties are enabled to preserve their purity and loyalty; there we find harmful inducements to unfaithfulness. On this side we find the birth of children and their tuition and upbringing effectively promoted, many avenues of discord closed amongst families and relations, and the beginnings of rivalry and jealousy easily suppressed; on that, very great obstacles to the birth and rearing of children and their education, and many occasions of quarrels, and seeds of jealousy sown everywhere. Finally, but especially, the dignity and position of women in civil and domestic society is reinstated by the former; while by the latter it is shamefully lowered and the danger is incurred "of their being considered outcasts, slaves of the lust of men." (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

Yet it is that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is intent on "cooking the books" with the questions that have been posted by the authorities of the Vatican "synod of bishops" by changing the presumption, however weakly held it may be in practice, in favor of the bond of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony to a presumption of "mercy" instead:

Vatican City, 8 November 2013 (VIS) – This morning Pope Francis received in audience the participants in the plenary assembly of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, the dicastery of the Curia Romana which aside from exercising the function of supreme judicial authority, oversees the correct administration of justice in the Church. On this occasion, the Assembly focused on promoting an effective defence of the bond of marriage in canonical annulment.

The pontiff mentioned, first of all, that the activity of the dicastery is intended to promote the work of the ecclesiastical tribunals, called to respond adequately to the faithful “who turn to the justice of the Church, seeking a just decision”, and he described as “very favourable” the assembly's attention to the figure of the defender of the bond, “whose presence and intervention are obligatory throughout the entire process”.

In particular, he cited the instruction “Dignitas connubii” which describes the role of the defender of the bond “in cases of annulment on the grounds of mental incapacity, which in some tribunals constitutes the only permissible cause for annulment”, and “underlines the diligence with which [the defender of the bond] must appraise the questions addressed to expert witnesses, as well as the results of their reports”. Therefore, the defender of the bond must offer a careful service and “must not limit himself to a hasty reading of the acts, nor to bureaucratic or generic answers. In this delicate task, he is called upon to establish harmony between the prescriptions of the Code of Canon Law and the concrete situations in the life of the Church and society”.

The complete and faithful fulfilment of the duties of the defender of the bond “does not constitute impingement upon of the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical judge, who is solely competent in deciding the case. When the defender of the bond exercises his right to appeal, also to the Roman Rota, against a decision that he considers detrimental to the truth of the bond, his task does not intrude upon that of the judge. On the contrary, the judges may be assisted in their activities by the diligent work of the defender of the matrimonial bond. The Vatican Council II defined the Church as a communion. This is the context in which the services of the defender of the bond, and the esteem granted to him, should be regarded, in a respectful and attentive dialogue”.

The Holy Father mentioned that “those who work in the name of the Church are part of the Church”, and therefore “the link between the Church who evangelises and the Church who administers justice must be kept alive. Service to justice is a commitment to apostolic life: it must be exercised while remaining focused on the icon of the Good Shepherd, who tends to the lost and injured sheep”.

Pope Francis concluded by encouraging the participants in the plenary to persevere in their dedication to the “transparent and correct exercise of justice in the Church, in response to the legitimate wishes of the faithful who turn to their pastors, especially when in good faith they seek authoritative clarification of their status”. (Those Who Administer Justice Must Remember The Good Shepherd.)

In other words, you see, goodbye, presumption of the indissoluble bond of a ratified and consummated marriage. Hello, Reno on the Tiber.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is all about tickling the itching ears of the "faithful" by invoking the mercy of the Good Shepherd. This terrible human being knows full well that the questions in the survey sent to the conciliar "bishops" by his underlings in the Vatican that there is huge support among Catholics for legitimizing "irregular" situations in the name of "mercy" and to heed to their "wishes" even if they are opposed to plain teaching of the Divine Redeemer.

Jorge has himself an agenda, and none of it involves maintaining the Faith of our Fathers. (From  Always Asking All The Wrong Questions, part one.)

Well, it is the same now in 2018 as the Instrumentum Laboris (working instrument) that has been issued by the conciliar “Synod of Bishops,” an entity created during the “Second” Vatican Council as a means to “democratize” ecclesiastical and theological decision-making, prior to 2018 “synod on young people” reflects answer to the same sort of insipid questions that were asked of the conciliar “bishops” to address with products of the conciliar religious education system who know next-to-nothing, if that, of the authentic Catholic Faith. I will interject at various points found in an article on the National Catholic Reporter website, noting that what we called the National Catholic Distorter back in the 1980s was founded by lay Catholics who dreamed of having a “pope” such as Jorge Mario Bergoglio:

ROME — The Vatican document outlining the initial working positions for October's global meeting of Catholic bishops on the needs of young people focuses on considering how church leaders can better help the rising generation deal with unique 21st century challenges such as the part-time economy, digital dependency, and even so-called "fake news." (Conciliar Vatican's Synod Document Takes "Inclusive Tone" Towards Youth Who Reject the Certainty of the Teaching of the Catholic Church.)

Interjection Number One:

Note well the fact that the “unique 21^st century challenges” (“part-time economy, digital dependency, and even so-called ‘fake news’”) are purely naturalistic in character. There is no mention of the virtues of purity, chastity, continence and modesty. There is no mention of sanctity based upon a deep devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, especially by mean of her Most Holy Rosary. There is no mention at all of a the importance of serving as counter-cultural signs of contradiction in a world where all manner of sins, including those that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, are protected by the civil and promoted and celebrated shamelessly in what passes for “popular culture.” No, the lords of conciliarism, some of whom are steeped in sins of perversity or at least an admiration of the perverse, having rejected the Catholic Faith, must focus on supposed “challenges” having nothing to do with the sanctification of souls upon which the entirety of order in the souls of men and thus of their nations must be premised.

Moreover, the reference to so-called “fake news” is a slam against President Donald John Trump’s accurate reference to the mainslime news industry whose news editors are intellectually honest propaganda tools of George Soros and the agenda of the organized crime family of the naturalist “left” known as the Democratic Party. It is so bad now that I have stopped listening to national news broadcasts on the radio when out and about running errands for the family as, for instance, “CBS Radio News on Hour,” gives distorted reporting (e.g., United States Department of Justice Inspector Michael Horowitz found no “political bias” on the part of Federal Bureau of Investigation agents who cover-up for Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton and then launched an unfounded investigation into “Russian collusion” to “stop” and then undermine/overthrow Donald John Trump). Indeed, I just pray in he car. There is nothing any naturalist “talking head” has anything to say as they do not understand the world through supernatural eyes of the true Faith, without which all falls apart in the lives of men and their nations while leaving souls agitated about the “details” without ever focusing on authentic root causes, namely, the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King.

It is good to elaborate on this for a moment or two as the conciliar officials, starting with Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself, are never at a loss for words if they can score points with their friends in the Soros Foundation internationally and the Democratic Party here in the United States of America by making sure to bash the policies and, if necessary, even the person of the current president of this country. The very same conciliar officials, starting with Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the great masquerader as “Pope Francis,” who are tongue-tied and dumb when it comes to speaking out against such things as the recent referendum in the Republic of Ireland that repealed that country’s constitutional ban against the enactment of legislation to permit the surgical killing of preborn babies, muster up all the sanctimony and righteous indignation possible to advance the “causes” of accepting moral depravity and perversity in the name of “mercy” and “inclusion” and to make it appear that the real enemy of “social justice” in the world are believing Catholics and, of course, President Trump.

Talk about “fake news,” there is nothing more fake than the crisis manufactured by the promoters of “open borders” to make it appear as though the enforcement of the just immigration laws of the United States of America even though there is standing court order that prohibits children who enter this country with their parents or, in all too many cases, human traffickers posing as their parents from being held in detention centers for more than three weeks. Also, no consideration at all is given by “Pope Francis” to the fact that the administration of the pro-abortion, pro-perversity, Communist-trained statist and professional dissembler and suppressor of dissenting views, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, kept children who entered this country illegally in cages wrapped in foil (see  Photos of Obama's Immigration Detention Facilities). “Pope Francis” never condemned this.

Those in the counterfeit church of conciliarism and the mainslime media who are talking about the “ripping away” of children from their parents supported Elian Gonzalez’s forcible return to Cuba in 2000 and they have no problem with mothers paying (or having someone subsidize) the ripping of their own children of the sanctuaries of their own wombs. Spare me the righteous indignation and sanctimony, Jorge.

If “fake news” is one of the “challenges” facing young people today, then Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his “bishops” are the purveyors of the greatest, most egregious fake news of all, namely, that their religious sect is the Catholic Church when it is nothing other than its entirely counterfeit ape.

Back to the National Catholic Distorter Reporter story:

The document, which will guide the opening discussions of the Oct. 3-28 Synod of Bishops in Rome, also takes a notably inclusive tone towards both young Catholics who express disagreement with church teachings and young gay people.

Noting that some younger believers disagree with the church on contraception, abortion, or same-sex marriage, for example, it acknowledges that many of them also "express the desire to remain part of the Church."

Later, the document makes what appears to be the Vatican's first use of one of the preferred acronyms for the gay community, stating that "some LGBT youth ... wish to 'benefit from greater closeness' and experience greater care from the Church." (Conciliar Vatican's Synod Document Takes "Inclusive Tone" Towards Youth Who Reject the Certainty of the Teaching of the Catholic Church.)

Interjection Number Two:

How is this not apostasy and an exercise of cooperating with the adversary to lead young Catholics to hell?

As has been noted on this site so many times in the past, the counterfeit church of conciliarism the Catholic Church has never sought to recognize a freely chosen path to sin, no less the sin of Sodom and its related perversities and depravities, as a means of human self-identification. This working document, therefore, has taken the use of the word “gay” first used by Bergoglio in his infamous “Who am I to judge?” press conference while onboard a flight from Rio di Janeiro, Brazil, to Rome, Italy on Monday, July 29, 2013, the Feast of Saint Martha, to use the call letters of the homosexual collective to lend its own considerable weight as a means of surrendering to the collective’s agenda once and for all.

No one is free to “disagree” with the teaching of the Catholic Church on matters of Faith and Morals. Holy Mother Church is repository and infallible explicator of all that has been revealed by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ for its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication, and she is the authentic interpreter and authoritative teacher of all that is contained in the Natural Law. Then again, most of the conciliar revolutionaries in the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River do not believe in the immutability of dogmatic truth and many of them do not even believe that there is such a thing as the Natural Law, which was recognized by pagans such as Plato, Aristotle and Cicero, to name just a few.

Truth? What is truth?

Theological, ecclesiastical, liturgical, moral and pastoral relativism rule the day in the fake church run by the conciliar revolutionaries, who dress around as Catholic officials but who are for all intents and purposes the theological descendants of Martin Luther and the ideological descendants, George Freidrich Hagel, Karl Marx, Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, Carl Rogers, Joseph Fletcher, Fred Rogers and Oprah Winfrey.

The only way that those steeped in lives of unrepentant sins can draw closer to the true Catholic Church is to make a good, integral Confession to a true priest with perfect contrition for their sins and a firm purpose to amend their lives by cooperating with the graces received in the Sacraments and avoiding all near occasions of sin.

Period.

All right, yes, it is regrettably back to the National Catholic Distorter Reporter news account:

Released by the Vatican June 19 only in Italian, the new document is the preparatory working instrument for the October gathering, during which hundreds of bishops will come to Rome for discussions on the theme "Young People, the Faith and Vocational Discernment."

The working document was prepared by the Vatican's synod office following an 18-month process of soliciting input that included release of an online questionnaire, written suggestions from national bishops' conferences, and two meetings of young people in Rome.

The 32,000-word text draws extensively from the considerations of the bishops' conferences and from the second meeting of young people, a weeklong pre-synodal gathering of about 300 youth hosted by the Vatican in March.

At the end of their meeting, the youth released a document acknowledging that some in their generation want the church to change its teachings on so-called "polemical issues" and calling on the church to better include them at all levels of its global community.  (Conciliar Vatican's Synod Document Takes "Inclusive Tone" Towards Youth Who Reject the Certainty of the Teaching of the Catholic Church. All right, all right. I change headlines. I like to use a bit of satire to eliminate fake news headlines with what they should be in fact.)

Interjection Number Three:

Yes, sure, let the people sing, singing the songs of angry men. What was I telling you earlier about the “questionnaire” as the foundation to find the “results” that the conciliar revolutionaries have known all along they want to come from a supposedly “consultative” and “deliberate” process of considering the views of those who believe that Holy Mother Church’s immutable teaching on matters of Faith and Morals is a matter of “polemics.”

You see, the conciliar revolutionaries are insidious little devils who want to make it appear as though they are giving “the people” (young people in this case) a voice to “change” what “needs to change” even though they, the revolutionaries know what they want to do and how their revolution has produced Catholic youth who are clamoring for what they think is the Catholic Church to “get with the times” and to “meet the people where they are.” The conciliar revolutionaries cook the books to get the results they desire from Catholics who have known the true Faith and who thus lack any kind of sensus Catholicus. Belief and action must be based in one’s subjective sense of things, not in any objective truth that exists independent of human acceptance of it.

This is Modernism, and Pope Saint Pus X described the Modernist methodology of basing everything on the subjective by explaining that the end result of such subjectivism is atheism:

Let us turn for a moment, Venerable Brethren, to that most disastrous doctrine of agnosticism. By it every avenue to God on the side of the intellect is barred to man, while a better way is supposed to be opened from the side of a certain sense of the soul and action. But who does not see how mistaken is such a contention? For the sense of the soul is the response to the action of the thing which the intellect or the outward senses set before it. Take away the intelligence, and man, already inclined to follow the senses, becomes their slave. Doubly mistaken, from another point of view, for all these fantasies of the religious sense will never be able to destroy common sense, and common sense tells us that emotion and everything that leads the heart captive proves a hindrance instead of a help to the discovery of truth. We speak of truth in itself — for that other purely subjective truth, the fruit of the internal sense and action, if it serves its purpose for the play of words, is of no benefit to the man who wants above all things to know whether outside himself there is a God into whose hands he is one day to fall. True, the Modernists call in experience to eke out their system, but what does this experience add to that sense of the soul? Absolutely nothing beyond a certain intensity and a proportionate deepening of the conviction of the reality of the object. But these two will never make the sense of the soul into anything but sense, nor will they alter its nature, which is liable to deception when the intelligence is not there to guide it; on the contrary, they but confirm and strengthen this nature, for the more intense the sense is the more it is really sense. And as we are here dealing with religious sense and the experience involved in it, it is known to you, Venerable Brethren, how necessary in such a matter is prudence, and the learning by which prudence is guided. You know it from your own dealings with souls, and especially with souls in whom sentiment predominates; you know it also from your reading of works of ascetical theology — works for which the Modernists have but little esteem, but which testify to a science and a solidity far greater than theirs, and to a refinement and subtlety of observation far beyond any which the Modernists take credit to themselves for possessing. It seems to Us nothing short of madness, or at the least consummate temerity to accept for true, and without investigation, these incomplete experiences which are the vaunt of the Modernist. Let Us for a moment put the question: If experiences have so much force and value in their estimation, why do they not attach equal weight to the experience that so many thousands of Catholics have that the Modernists are on the wrong path? Is it that the Catholic experiences are the only ones which are false and deceptive? The vast majority of mankind holds and always will hold firmly that sense and experience alone, when not enlightened and guided by reason, cannot reach to the knowledge of God. What, then, remains but atheism and the absence of all religion? Certainly it is not the doctrine of symbolism that will save us from this. For if all the intellectual elements, as they call them, of religion are nothing more than mere symbols of God, will not the very name of God or of divine personality be also a symbol, and if this be admitted, the personality of God will become a matter of doubt and the gate will be opened to pantheism? And to pantheism pure and simple that other doctrine of the divine immanence leads directly. For this is the question which We ask: Does or does not this immanence leave God distinct from man? If it does, in what does it differ from the Catholic doctrine, and why does it reject the doctrine of external revelation? If it does not, it is pantheism. Now the doctrine of immanence in the Modernist acceptation holds and professes that every phenomenon of conscience proceeds from man as man. The rigorous conclusion from this is the identity of man with God, which means pantheism. The distinction which Modernists make between science and faith leads to the same conclusion. The object of science, they say, is the reality of the knowable; the object of faith, on the contrary, is the reality of the unknowable. Now, what makes the unknowable unknowable is the fact that there is no proportion between its object and the intellect — a defect of proportion which nothing whatever, even in the doctrine of the Modernist, can suppress. Hence the unknowable remains and will eternally remain unknowable to the believer as well as to the philosopher. Therefore if any religion at all is possible, it can only be the religion of an unknowable reality. And why this might not be that soul of the universe, of which certain rationalists speak, is something which certainly does not seem to Us apparent. These reasons suffice to show superabundantly by how many roads Modernism leads to atheism and to the annihilation of all religion. The error of Protestantism made the first step on this path; that of Modernism makes the second; atheism makes the next. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Pope Saint Pius X described the underlying methodology of the world’s greatest purveyor of fake theology, fake ecclesiology, fake liturgical rites and fake moral teaching, the counterfeit church of conciliarism, that was demonstrated by the 2014 working document on “the family” and by the current working document on youth.  Atheism is the last stop on the pantheistic road taken by Modernist.

Oh, yes, there is more from the National Catholic Distorter Reporter news account:

The new working document, known in Latin as the Instrumentum Laboris, is divided into three lengthy parts: on recognizing the reality of young people today, on interpreting its meanings, and on choosing paths forward for the church.

The text focuses heavily on considering how young people and the church should undergo processes of discernment. Much of the second section is devoted to how church leaders can better accompany young people in diverse ways: spiritually, psychologically, in reconciliation, and "in reading the signs of the times."

The document opens by saying that taking care of young people "is not an optional work for the church, but a substantial part of its vocation and its mission in history."

It then roots its considerations in the last message released from the 1962-65 Second Vatican Council, which called on the young men and women of the world of that time to "build in enthusiasm a better world than your elders had." (Conciliar Vatican's Synod Document Takes "Inclusive Tone" Towards Youth Who Reject the Certainty of the Teaching of the Catholic Church.)

Interjection Number Four:

Wow, look at that, will you?

The new working document “roots its considerations in the last message,” Gaudium et Spes, December 7, 1965, of the “Second” Vatican Council, “which called on the young men and women of the world to ‘build in enthusiasm a better world than your elders had.” That is, insidious authors of the current working document have nothing which they use prior to 1965 to justify the utopian scheme of the mythical “better world” built on the “enthusiasm” of young men and women rather than the betterment of their souls by means of cooperating with Sanctifying and Actual Graces and the intercessory power of the Blessed Mother, Saint Joseph, their Guardian Angels and patron saints to strive for the highest degree of sanctity possible.

Yes, we must discern the signs of the times, and these times were described by Saint Paul the Apostle as follows in his Epistle to the Thessalonians:

And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. [7] For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. [8] And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, [9] Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, [10] And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:

[11] That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity. [12] But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, beloved of God, for that God hath chosen you firstfruits unto salvation, in sanctification of the spirit, and faith of the truth: [13] Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. [14] Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. [15] Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God and our Father, who hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope in grace,

[16] Exhort your hearts, and confirm you in every good work and word. (2 Thessalonians: 6-16.)

The conciliar revolutionaries hath not a love of truth, and they have taught Catholics of all ages to hate even the concept that there is any kind of truth outside of themselves that is not based on their own subjective experiences and desires. No wonder that hedonism and heathenism abounds in the world today, including in many conciliar liturgies that are staged according to the dictates of Paragraphs 392-397 in the General Instruction to the Roman Missal.

Oh no, there’s more to the bilge to wade through:

In the first of many references to discernment, the text calls the process of discerning God's call as how "we recognize a way of being in the world, a style, a fundamental attitude and at the same time a way of working, a path to walk together that consists of looking at the social and cultural dynamics in which we are immersed with the gaze of a disciple."

"To walk this way, we have to be open to newness, have courage to go out, to resist the temptation to reduce the new to the already known," it continues. "A path so constructed invites us ... to ask and provoke questions without suggesting pre-constructed answers." (Conciliar Vatican's Synod Document Takes "Inclusive Tone" Towards Youth Who Reject the Certainty of the Teaching of the Catholic Church.)

Interjection Number Five:

Translation: In an exercise of hubris worthy of the currently reigning master of hubris, James Brien Comey, the conciliar revolutionaries claim that they have not “pre-constructed answers” even though they do have such “answers,” which involve reaffirming people in their sins and making it appear as though the immutable laws of God and nature are mutable according to the circumstances of the individual “believer.” This implies that what is thought as the Catholic Church is as lost as are young Catholics in how to adapt to the “new situations” of the “modern” world and must “grope” to find a way with them that is acceptable to everyone but God.

In other words, the Catholic Church as it is thought to be has no “answers” to the immorality of the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn, to the overthrow of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of that which God has ordained to be used solely in marriage between a man and woman for the begetting and raising of children, nor to the “new” relationships based on fornication or perversity or the decision to have oneself mutilated in the delusion that one can become a different gender than the one God gave him. This means that what is presented as the Catholic Church is a tabula rasa (blank tablet or slate) upon which can be written whatever the “people” think is best according to their ill-formed and deformed consciences.

Back to the sewage from the conciliar Vatican via one of its chief mouthpieces these days, the National Catholic Distorter Reporter:

The document returns to the question of discernment at the opening of its second part, devoting several paragraphs to the role conscience plays in helping individuals in their decision-making.

"The role of conscience is not limited to the recognition of being in error or sin," it states. "In the awareness of personal limitations or of the situation, and of all the difficulties in orienting oneself, the conscience helps us to recognize what gift we can offer and what contribution we bring, even if maybe not fully up to the ideal." (Conciliar Vatican's Synod Document Takes "Inclusive Tone" Towards Youth Who Reject the Certainty of the Teaching of the Catholic Church.)

Interjection Number Six:

Once again, this is yet another example of the conciliar revolutionaries’ disbelief in the truth that God never permits us to be tempted beyond our power to resist by means of our having recourse to His grace. As Our Lord told Saint Paul when he, the Apostle to the Gentiles, when he was stricken thrice by a thorn in his side:

For though I should have a mind to glory, I shall not be foolish; for I will say the truth. But I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth in me, or any thing he heareth from me. [7] And lest the greatness of the revelations should exalt me, there was given me a sting of my flesh, an angel of Satan, to buffet me. [8] For which thing thrice I besought the Lord, that it might depart from me. [9] And he said to me: My grace is sufficient for thee; for power is made perfect in infirmity. Gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me. [10] For which cause I please myself in my infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ. For when I am weak, then am I powerful. (2 Corinthians: 12: 6-10.)

Bishop Richard Challoner’s commentary on verse nine explains that God’s grace supports us the more that we recognize our own weakness and our utter reliance upon His Divine assistance:

[9] "Power is made perfect": The strength and power of God more perfectly shines forth in our weakness and infirmity; as the more weak we are of ourselves, the more illustrious is his grace in supporting us, and giving us the victory under all trials and conflicts.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his band of conciliar revolutionaries really do not believe that God’s grace is sufficient to withstand temptations to commit sins of impurity, whether natural or unnatural. Indeed, Bergoglio and his band of conciliar friends believe that it is “unhealthy” to supppress a “desire to love” as “love” is of God, they assert, and thus cannot be bad.

Ah, authentic love wills the good of another, the ultimate expression of which is the salvation of his immortal soul. No one truly loves another if he does or says anything which impedes his salvation, one cannot go to Heaven by practicing fornication or sodomy unrepentantly until the moment of his death:

[9] Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, [10] Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6: 9-10.)

Saint Jude is no less direct:

[1] Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James: to them that are beloved in God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called. [2] Mercy unto you, and peace, and charity be fulfilled. [3] Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. [4] For certain men are secretly entered in, (who were written of long ago unto this judgment,) ungodly men, turning the grace of our Lord God into riotousness, and denying the only sovereign Ruler, and our Lord Jesus Christ. [5] I will therefore admonish you, though ye once knew all things, that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, did afterwards destroy them that believed not:

[6] And the angels who kept not their principality, but forsook their own habitation, he hath reserved under darkness in everlasting chains, unto the judgment of the great day. [7] As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire. [8] In like manner these men also defile the flesh, and despise dominion, and blaspheme majesty. [9] When Michael the archangel, disputing with the devil, contended about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him the judgment of railing speech, but said: The Lord command thee. [10] But these men blaspheme whatever things they know not: and what things soever they naturally know, like dumb beasts, in these they are corrupted.

[11] Woe unto them, for they have gone in the way of Cain: and after the error of Balaam they have for reward poured out themselves, and have perished in the contradiction of Core. [12] These are spots in their banquets, feasting together without fear, feeding themselves, clouds without water, which are carried about by winds, trees of the autumn, unfruitful, twice dead, plucked up by the roots, [13] Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own confusion; wandering stars, to whom the storm of darkness is reserved for ever. [14] Now of these Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying: Behold, the Lord cometh with thousands of his saints, [15] To execute judgment upon all, and to reprove all the ungodly for all the works of their ungodliness, whereby they have done ungodly, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against God.  

[16] These are murmurers, full of complaints, walking according to their own desires, and their mouth speaketh proud things, admiring persons for gain' s sake. [17] But you, my dearly beloved, be mindful of the words which have been spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, [18] Who told you, that in the last time there should come mockers, walking according to their own desires in ungodlinesses. [19] These are they, who separate themselves, sensual men, having not the Spirit. [20] But you, my beloved, building yourselves upon your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

[21] Keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, unto life everlasting. [22] And some indeed reprove, being judged:[23] But others save, pulling them out of the fire. And on others have mercy, in fear, hating also the spotted garment which is carnal. [24] Now to him who is able to preserve you without sin, and to present you spotless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, in the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,[25] To the only God our Saviour through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory and magnificence, empire and power, before all ages, and now, and for all ages of ages. Amen. (Jude 1-25.)

Yes, there is quite a contrast between Saint Jude and the conciliar authorities who believe that the spotted garment is no impediment to salvation.

Several more segments of the rubbage:

Desire for a more 'authentic' church

In addressing the challenges facing young people in its first section, the working document notes a diverse range of issues.

It mentions "strong social and economic inequalities that ... push some young people into the arms of the mob and drug traffickers," levels of youth unemployment it calls "dramatic," and a global migratory trend that "represents an impoverishment of human capital ... in the countries of origin and a threat to sustainable development."

The document addresses so-called "fake news" in a section on the eruption of new digital technologies and social media networks, stating that young people have a "growing difficulty of distinguishing what is true."

The text mentions the church's sexual teachings in a section on "the body, affectivity and sexuality." It states: "Sociological studies demonstrate that many young Catholics do not follow the indications of the Church's sexual moral teachings.

Interjection Number Eight:

These geniuses need “sociological studies” to confirm the fact that their own fake, phony fraud religious sect has driven Catholics of all ages to embrace the world, the flesh and the devil?

These geniuses are mad.

We plod on and on and on:

"No bishops' conference offers solutions or recipes, but many are of the point of view that 'questions of sexuality must be discussed more openly and without prejudice,'" it continues.

"The pre-synodal document shows that the teachings of the Church on controversial questions, such as 'contraception, abortion, homosexuality, cohabitation and marriage' are sources of debate among young people, inside the church as much as outside of it," it states. (Conciliar Vatican's Synod Document Takes "Inclusive Tone" Towards Youth Who Reject the Certainty of the Teaching of the Catholic Church.)

Interjection Number Nine:

Sources of debate?

What’s to be discussed.

God’s laws are to obeyed:

Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. [18] For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled. [19] He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20] For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5: 17-20.)

The conciliar revolutionaries are patronizing masters of deceit as they make a liar out of the Author of Truth Himself, God Incarnate.

Back to the dung heap:

"There are young Catholics that find in the teachings of the Church a source of joy and desire 'not only that they continue to be taught despite their unpopularity, but that they be proclaimed with greater depth," it goes on. "Those that instead do not share the teachings express the desire to remain part of the Church and ask for a greater clarity about them." (Conciliar Vatican's Synod Document Takes "Inclusive Tone" Towards Youth Who Reject the Certainty of the Teaching of the Catholic Church.)

Interjection Number Ten:

Here is clarity for you:

1.  I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them.
2.  Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
3.  Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath day.
4.  Honor thy father and thy mother.
5.  Thou shalt not kill.
6.  Thou shalt not commit adultery.
7.  Thou shalt not steal.
8.  Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
9.  Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.
10.  Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods.

The Ten Commandments are taught definitively and infallibly solely by the Catholic Church, who has within herself all the necessary means to do so without seeking the counsel of “the people.”

Clarity is staring at these fools in the face, but they do not want clarity. They want obfuscation and doubt, neither of which is from the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Holy Trinity.

We return to the mountain of garbage:

The document also says that young people desire a church that is more "authentic."

"A substantial number of young people, coming mainly from very secularized areas, do not ask the Church for anything because they do not consider it a significant interlocutor for their existence," it states. "Some, on the contrary, expressly ask to be left alone, since they feel its presence as annoying and even irritating.

"This request is not born of an uncritical and impulsive contempt, but it also has its roots in serious and respectable reasons: the sexual and economic scandals, on which young people ask the Church to "strengthen its policy of zero tolerance against sexual abuse,'" it continues.

The text notes that some young people want to see more roles for women in the church.

"Another request concerns the adoption of a style of internal and external dialogue in the Church," it states. "Young people consider it necessary to face certain difficulties of our time, such as the recognition and appreciation of the role of women in the Church and in society."

The document refers to gay people in its final section, as part of a consideration of how the church can be a "community open and welcoming towards all."

It begins that section by noting that the March pre-synodal meeting included the participation of non-Catholics, a move that it says "showed the face of a hospitable and inclusive Church able to recognize the wealth and contribution that can come from each for the good of all."

"Knowing that authentic faith cannot generate an attitude of presumption towards others, the disciples of the Lord are called to value all the seeds of goodness present in every person and in every situation," it states. (Conciliar Vatican's Synod Document Takes "Inclusive Tone" Towards Youth Who Reject the Certainty of the Teaching of the Catholic Church.)

Interjection Number Eleven:

Authentic to what?

The devil and his wiles, that’s what.

Consider this next segment:

The document speaks of "LGBT youth" in a brief paragraph noting that the Vatican's Synod office received "various contributions" from young gay people during its consultative process. Its use of the acronym seems significant, as the Catholic Church has in the past formally referred to gay people as "persons with homosexual tendencies."

While Francis has eschewed that trend, using the word gay in interviews and press conferences, most recent Vatican documents have instead referred to "homosexuals."

A short preface by Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, the secretary general of the Vatican's synod office, precedes the document. It concludes with a prayer for the Synod, written by Francis, which asks that God help young people respond to their call "to make real their life's project and achieve happiness."

In a Vatican press conference releasing the working document June 19, Baldisseri said the primary goal of the upcoming Synod is to "make the entire church aware of its important mission to accompany every young person, none excluded."

The cardinal also said his office decided to make the Vatican's first use of the LGBT acronym to refer to gay people because the March pre-synodal meeting of young people used the term and his office was "diligent" about respecting the young people's work. (Conciliar Vatican's Synod Document Takes "Inclusive Tone" Towars Youth Who Reject the Certainty of the Teaching of the Catholic Church. All right, all right. I change headlines. I like to use a bit of satire to eliminate faket news headlines with what they should be in fact.)

Interjection Number Eleven:

How can this have anything to do with the Catholic Church, she who is the spotless, virginal mystical spouse of her Divine Founder, Invisible Head and Mystical Bridegroom, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?

Yes, Lorenzo Baldisseri wants to respect the “young people’s work” while using an acronym that signifies “pride” in identifying oneself as inclined to—and/or immersed in—the commission of sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

This is significant as Baldiserri openly endorsed the philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned precept of dogmatic evolutionism, which includes of course, the belief that moral teaching has to change in light of how people actually live even though their lives are in open rebellion against God’s laws and thus of their own eternal good.

Here is a reminder about Lorenzo Baldiserri’s endorsement of dogmatic evolutionism:

ROME: Last week, the debate about next October’s Synod on the Family came into view once again as the Secretary General of the Synod, Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, opened a three-day (January 22 -25) international conference of lay and family movements in Rome.

Cardinal Baldisseri called the 300 conference participants, representing 80 different organizations, to enter into the synod process by reflecting on the preparatory document, called the Lineamenta. The document contains the final report from last October’s preparatory assembly (the Extraordinary Synod of 2014), together with 46 questions intended to facilitate its reception and examine the themes treated in it.

The Secretary General of the Synod called participants to consider carefully how devoted Catholic families can help those who are not living the “fullness of Christian marriage.” The mission of the organizations assembled, he suggested, could be deepened by evangelization efforts to those in irregular marital situations. Caring for wounded families, he said, demands a search for courageous pastoral choices.

Following his presentation, Cardinal Baldisseri fielded questions. The first came from a representative from a Venezuelan-based family organization, who wished to remain anonymous. The representative’s question was more of a statement.

He expressed “concern” and “shock” over Cardinal Kasper’s proposal at last February’s Extraordinary Consistory of Cardinals, in which Cardinal Kasper argued that the Catholic Church ought to study the Eastern Orthodox Church’s allowance of divorce and remarriage. Cardinal Kasper speculated that divorced and civilly remarried Catholics might be allowed to receive the Holy Eucharist, after a penitential process in the Catholic Church.

Cardinal Baldisseri responded by saying, “We shouldn’t be shocked that there is a different position from the ‘common doctrine.’”

He cited the example of the many contrasting positions that were in evidence at Vatican II.  “Therefore, there’s no reason to be scandalized that there is a cardinal or a theologian saying something that’s different than the so-called ‘common doctrine.’ This doesn’t imply a going against. It means reflecting. Because dogma has its own evolution; that is a development, not a change.”

The cardinal added that it is “right that there is a reaction” and that “this is exactly what we want today. We want to discuss things, but not in order to call things into doubt, but rather to view it in a new context, and with a new awareness. Otherwise, what’s theology doing but repeating what was said in the last century, or 20 centuries ago?”

Theology, he said, “is meant to be investigated” and therefore “we shouldn’t be concerned.” (Aleteia.)

Lorenzo Baldisseri is a walking, talking caricature of Modernism and the “new theology,” a man who acts as though what he thinks is the Catholic Church is betraying her mission if she speaks with the same voice over the course of the centuries. Such a man hath not the Catholic Faith, something that readers of this site know so very well.

What is interesting to note, however, is that many “conservative” commentators have seized on Baldisseri’s endorsement of dogmatic evolutionism as something “new” even though the conciliar “popes” have taught the same thing, albeit by not being so bold as to call it by its proper name as Baldisseri did last month.

“Saint John Paul II” masqueraded the Modernist principle of dogmatic evolutionism by referring to as “living tradition,” meaning that everything in Sacred Deposit of Faith was open to reinterpretation and “adaptation” as the circumstances require:

5. Today the Church rejoices at the renewed confirmation of the prophet Joel's words which we have just heard: "I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh" (Acts 2:17). You, present here, are the tangible proof of this "outpouring" of the Spirit. Each movement is different from the others, but they are all united in the same communion and for the same mission. Some charisms given by the Spirit burst in like an impetuous wind, which seizes people and carries them to new ways of missionary commitment to the radical service of the Gospel, by ceaselessly proclaiming the truths of faith, accepting the living stream of tradition as a gift and instilling in each person an ardent desire for holiness.

Today, I would like to cry out to all of you gathered here in St Peter's Square and to all Christians: Open yourselves docilely to the gifts of the Spirit! Accept gratefully and obediently the charisms which the Spirit never ceases to bestow on us! Do not forget that every charism is given for the common good, that is, for the benefit of the whole Church.  (Meeting with ecclesial movements and new communities.)

This is not therefore a matter of inventing a "new programme". The programme already exists: it is the plan found in the Gospel and in the living Tradition, it is the same as ever. Ultimately, it has its centre in Christ himself, who is to be known, loved and imitated, so that in him we may live the life of the Trinity, and with him transform history until its fulfilment in the heavenly Jerusalem. This is a programme which does not change with shifts of times and cultures, even though it takes account of time and culture for the sake of true dialogue and effective communication. This programme for all times is our programme for the Third Millennium.

But it must be translated into pastoral initiatives adapted to the circumstances of each community. The Jubilee has given us the extraordinary opportunity to travel together for a number of years on a journey common to the whole Church, a catechetical journey on the theme of the Trinity, accompanied by precise pastoral undertakings designed to ensure that the Jubilee would be a fruitful event. I am grateful for the sincere and widespread acceptance of what I proposed in my Apostolic Letter Tertio Millennio Adveniente. But now it is no longer an immediate goal that we face, but the larger and more demanding challenge of normal pastoral activity. With its universal and indispensable provisions, the programme of the Gospel must continue to take root, as it has always done, in the life of the Church everywhere. It is in the local churches that the specific features of a detailed pastoral plan can be identified — goals and methods, formation and enrichment of the people involved, the search for the necessary resources — which will enable the proclamation of Christ to reach people, mould communities, and have a deep and incisive influence in bringing Gospel values to bear in society and culture.

I therefore earnestly exhort the Pastors of the particular Churches, with the help of all sectors of God's People, confidently to plan the stages of the journey ahead, harmonizing the choices of each diocesan community with those of neighbouring Churches and of the universal Church. (Apostolic Letter Novo Millennio Ineunte.)

It should be noted furthermore that Karol Joseph Wojtyla/John Paul II note specifically in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, July 2, 1988, that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre had placed the  Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (more commonly known as the Society of Saint Pius X) into schism with what is purported to be the Catholic Church by consecrating four priests as bishops without a “papal” mandate and for refusing to accept what the “canonized pope” said was “the living character of tradition”:

4. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth".(5)

But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.(6)

5. Faced with the situation that has arisen I deem it my duty to inform all the Catholic faithful of some aspects which this sad event has highlighted.

a) The outcome of the movement promoted by Mons. Lefebvre can and must be, for all the Catholic faithful, a motive for sincere reflection concerning their own fidelity to the Church's Tradition, authentically interpreted by the ecclesiastical Magisterium, ordinary and extraordinary, especially in the Ecumenical Councils from Nicaea to Vatican II. From this reflection all should draw a renewed and efficacious conviction of the necessity of strengthening still more their fidelity by rejecting erroneous interpretations and arbitrary and unauthorized applications in matters of doctrine, liturgy and discipline.

To the bishops especially it pertains, by reason of their pastoral mission, to exercise the important duty of a clear-sighted vigilance full of charity and firmness, so that this fidelity may be everywhere safeguarded.(7)

However, it is necessary that all the Pastors and the other faithful have a new awareness, not only of the lawfulness but also of the richness for the Church of a diversity of charisms, traditions of spirituality and apostolate, which also constitutes the beauty of unity in variety: of that blended "harmony" which the earthly Church raises up to Heaven under the impulse of the Holy Spirit.

b) Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other experts in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel themselves called upon to answer in the present circumstances. Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council's continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church. (Karol Wojytla/John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, July 2, 1988.)

Wojtyla/John Paul II was absolutely correct to state that the teaching of the universal magisterium of the Catholic Church cannot be contrary to Tradition. Some in the Society of Saint Pius X have posited a nonexistent conflict between the “authoritative magisterium” and the “governing magisterium.” There is no such distinction as no such division in the magisterium exists. It is a fabrication. The universal ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church cannot teach error, something that was reviewed most recently in Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton Calls Out Tricks of Shoddy Minimism.

Unfortunately, for “Saint John Paul II,” however, his very argument in favor of the continuity between the “Second” Vatican Council and the Tradition of the Catholic Church is based upon an admission that that false council’s texts might be too obscure to understand properly “especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.” Holy Mother Church teaches clearly. There is nothing “new” in her teaching. The “Polish Pope” was trying to have it both ways by referring to the “living character of Tradition” to call the Society of Saint Pius X to obedience while at the same time unwittingly admitting that that there are “new” points of doctrine that need to be “understood.” This is not from the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, Who is immutable. (Obviously, the Society of Saint Pius X is still trying to having both ways by claiming fealty to the man they believe is the Vicar of Christ on earth while disobeying him openly and refusing to accept the orthodoxy of at least some of his teachings. See the post at Novus Ordo Watch Wire: Twelve Inconvenient Questions for the Society of Saint Pius X.)

Reference to what Wojtyla/John Paul II called “living tradition,” which is nothing other than dogmatic evolutionism writ large, was made just about eleven years ago in an interview given by a former student of Ratzinger/Benedict and who had been appointed to the sees of Portland and San Francisco by the “sainted pontiff,” Wiliam Levada, who headed the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s very misnamed Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith from May 13, 2005, to June 30, 2012:

The role of the Church in that dialogue between an individual and his or her God, says the Cardinal, is not to be the first interlocutor, but the role is indispensable. "We believe that the apostles and their successors received the mission to interpret revelation in new circumstances and in the light of new challenges. That creates a living tradition that is much larger than the simple and strict passing of existing answers, insights and convictions from one generation to another.

But at the end of the day there has to be an instance that can decide whether a specific lifestyle is coherent with the principles and values of our faith, that can judge whether our actions are in accordance with the commandment to love your neighbor. The mission of the Church is not to prohibit people from thinking, investigate different hypotheses, or collect knowledge. Its mission is to give those processes orientation". (Levada Gives Rare Interview: "I Am Not Responsible for the Crusades, Past or Present.)

Who selected his former student to succeed himself as the head of the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s so-called Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?

Why, none other than the dogmatic evolutionist named Joseph Alois Ratzinger, who masqueraded as “Pope Benedict XVI” between April 19, 2005, and February 28, 2013, and still wears a white cassock as an antipope emeritus.

Here is a reminder of what Pope Pius XI wrote about “new species of unions” in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930, that are looked upon by Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Lorenzo Baldisseri and other like-minded conciiliar revolutionaries as containing "constructive elements" and about which what they present, falsely, as the Catholic Church, has no "preconceived answers":

Armed with these principles, some men go so far as to concoct new species of unions, suited, as they say, to the present temper of men and the times, which various new forms of matrimony they presume to label "temporary," "experimental," and "companionate." These offer all the indulgence of matrimony and its rights without, however, the indissoluble bond, and without offspring, unless later the parties alter their cohabitation into a matrimony in the full sense of the law.  

Indeed there are some who desire and insist that these practices be legitimatized by the law or, at least, excused by their general acceptance among the people. They do not seem even to suspect that these proposals partake of nothing of the modern "culture" in which they glory so much, but are simply hateful abominations which beyond all question reduce our truly cultured nations to the barbarous standards of savage peoples. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

Gee, I wonder why this was not in the new working document or had found its way into the text of Amoris Laetitia upon its pubication twenty-seven months ago now. (No, I wonder no such thing, of course. Just a bit of satire from a displaced and never-to-return New Yorker.)

Pope Pius XI referred to the new species of unions seventy-seven years, six months ago as "hateful abominations." Bergoglio and Baldiserri and the rest of the conciliar wrecking crew believe es them to contain "elements of true love."  This is because Pope Pius XI was a true pope. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not. He is an apostate.

Unlike the conciliar revolutionaries, Saint Alphonsus de Liguori taught that God wants sinners to quit their sins now, not at some point the future, reminding his hearers that God does not command the impossible, meaning that all of the supernatural helps are available for a repentant Catholic to quit his sins and to seek to do penance for them, especially by making reparation for his own sins and those of the whole world as a consecrated slave of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary:

4. You say:” I cannot at present resist this passion." Behold the third delusion of the devil, by which he makes you believe that at present you have not strength to overcome certain temptations. But St. Paul tells us that God is faithful, and that he never permits us to be tempted above our strength. "And God is faithful, who will not permit you to be tempted above that which you are able." (1 Cor. x. 13.) I ask, if you are not now able to resist the temptation, how can you expect to resist it hereafter? If you yield to it, the Devil will become stronger, and you shall become weaker; and if you be not now able to extinguish this flame of passion, how can you hope to be able to extinguish it when it shall have grown more violent? You say: "God will give me his aid." But this aid God is ready to give at present if you ask it. Why then do you not implore his assistance? Perhaps you expect that, without now taking the trouble of invoking his aid, you will receive from him increased helps and graces, after you shall have multiplied the number of your sins? Perhaps you doubt the veracity of God, who has promised to give whatever we ask of him?” Ask, “he says,” and it shall be given  you." (Matt. vii. 7.) God cannot violate his promises.” God is not as man, that he should lie, nor as the son of man, that he should be changed. Hath he said, then, and will he not do ?" (Num. xxiii. 19.) Have recourse to him, and he will give you the strength necessary to resist the temptation. God commands you to resist it, and you say: “I have not strength." Does God, then, command impossibilities? No; the Council of Trent has declared that ” God does not command impossibilities; but, by his commands, he admonishes you to do what you can, and to ask what you cannot do; and he assists, that you may be able to do it." (Sess. 6. c. xiii.) When you see that you have not sufficient strength to resist temptation with the ordinary assistance of God, ask of him the additional help which you require, and he will give it to you; and thus you shall be able to conquer all temptations, however violent they may be.  ("The Delusions of Sinners: Sermon for Quinquagesima Sunday," as found in Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, The Sermons of Saint Alphonsus Liguori For All the Sundays of the Year, republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1982, pp. 119-120.)

Saint Alphonsus de Liguori’s sermon for the First Sunday of Lent is a discourse about the number of sins beyond which God will not grant forgiveness. The conciliar revolutionaries commit Martin Luther’s sin of Presumption by presuming that unrepentant sinners do not have to be exhort to reform their lives, that it is enough for them to know that they are loved by God and “welcomed” by what is thought to be the “Catholic community” without any mention of their spiritually suicidal behavior that is an incentive to others to follow them in leading lives of licentiousness. The founder of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer offered some sobering words concerning such a recklessly false notion of God and His forgiveness:

8. O folly of sinners! If you purchase a house, you spare no pains to get all the securities necessary to guard against the loss of your money; if you take medicine, you are careful to assure yourself that it cannot injure you; if you pass over a river, you cautiously avoid all danger of falling into it; and for a transitory enjoyment, for the gratification of revenge, for a beastly pleasure, which lasts but a moment, you risk your eternal salvation, saying: "I will go to confession after I commit this sin." And when, I ask, are you to go to confession? You say: “On tomorrow." But who promises you tomorrow? Who assures you that you shall have time for confession, and that God will not deprive you of life, as he has deprived so many others, in the act of sin? “Diem tenes,” says St. Augustine, “qui horam non tenes.” You cannot be certain of living for another hour, and you say: “I will go to confession tomorrow.” Listen to the words of St. Gregory: “He who has promised pardon to penitents, has not promised tomorrow to sinners.” (Hom. xii. in Evan). God has promised pardon to all who repent; but he has not promised to wait till tomorrow for those who insult him. Perhaps God will give you time for repentance, perhaps he will not. But, should he not give it, what shall become of your soul? In the meantime, for the sake of a miserable pleasure, you lose the grace of God, and expose yourself to the danger of being lost for ever.  

9. Would you, for such transient enjoyments, risk your money, your honour, your possessions, your liberty, and your life? No, you would not. How then does it happen that, for a miserable gratification, you lose your soul, heaven, and God? Tell me: do you believe that heaven, hell, eternity, are truths of faith? Do you believe that, if you die in sin, you are lost for ever? Oh! what temerity, what folly is it, to condemn yourself voluntarily to an eternity of torments with the hope of afterwards reversing the sentence of your condemnation! "Nemo," says St. Augustine, “sub spe salutis vultæ grotare.” No one can be found so foolish as to take poison with the hope of preventing its deadly effects by adopting the ordinary remedies. And you will condemn yourself to hell, saying that you expect to be afterwards preserved from it. Folly! which, in conformity with the divine threats, has brought, and brings every day, so many to hell. “Thou hast trusted in thy wickedness, and evil shall come upon thee, and thou shalt not know the rising thereof.” (Isa. xlvii. 10, 11.) You have sinned, trusting rashly in the divine mercy: the punishment of your guilt shall fall suddenly upon you, and you shall not know from whence it comes. What do you say? What resolution do you make? If, after this sermon, you do not firmly resolve to give yourself to God, I weep over you, and regard you as lost. ("On The Number of Sins Beyond Which God Will Not Forgive: Sermon for the First Sunday of Lent," as found in Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, The Sermons of Saint Alphonsus Liguori For All the Sundays of the Year, republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1982. The entire texs of the sermons for Quinquagesima Sunday and the First Sunday of Lent are found in the appendices below.)

Saint Alphonsus de Liguori addressed his sermon to Catholics who attended Holy Mass. Those who lived during the years of his priesthood in the Eighteenth Century were well-instructed in the Catholic Faith, which is why the great bishop and doctor could ask, “Tell me: do you believe that heaven, hell, eternity, are truths of faith? Do you believe that, if you die in sin, you are lost for ever?” It is pretty difficult for non-practicing Catholics in the conciliar structures who have committed themselves to lives of unrepentant sin to answer Saint Alphonsus’s question in the affirmative when men such as Jorge Mario Bergolio and Lorenzo Baldisseri, et al., tell them that the path to Heaven is wide open for them as they, the conciliar revolutionaries, deny the existence of Hell and almost every single other truth of the Catholic Faith, sometimes in its entirety and at other times by means of obfuscation or by the invocation of the Modernist principle of dogmatic evolution.  

No one can say they love Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ while pesisting in, no less publicly celebrating and demanding affirmation from what he thinks is the Catholic Church for, a life of unrepentant sin. Sin is what caused Our Lord to suffer in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross. Sin is what caused the Swords of Sorrow to be pierced through the Immaculate Heart of Mary as Our Lady participated fully in the suffering of her Divine Son. Sin is what wounds the Church Militant on earth. Sin wounds the sinner and inclines him to sin the more, bringing misery and pain into his own life an the lives of those around him. Sin disorders the world.

Sinners must repent of their sins and amend their lives now, not at later time after some unspecified time of "accompaniment" by those who, as note before, doubt the efficacy of Our Lord's graces to change lives. The conciliar authorities do not value Holy Purity because they are, in effect, pagans who have rejected the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity, and thus project onto Our Lord whatever doctrinal heresy, moral relativism and false mercy they desire to reaffirm themselves and others in a set of lies that make show them to be officials of a fake, phony fraud religious sect that has no interest in the sanctification and salvation of souls.

Although readers of this site know these things, I am sure that some readers have relatives and friends who are more open now to considering commentaries such as this one. Truth resonates. The truths contained in the writings from and about Saint Anthony Mary Claret, Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, and Saint Leonard of Port Maurice, to say nothing of the prophetic witness given by Saint Francis Solano here in the Americas, will resonate anew in the souls of those who are open to accept the fact that the Catholic Church cannot be the author of heresy or error and that men who promote heresy and error cannot hold ecclesiastical office legitimately within her.

Pope Saint Pius X's The Oath Against Modernism condemned the proposition that the truths of the Holy Faith must be adapted to "the times" rather than those who live at each epoch be conformed to those truths:

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.   

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. (The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910.)

Does anyone who reads this site believe that the conciliar “popes” and their apparatchiks do not stand condemned by the very words that some of the older of those among their ranks had to swear to uphold before the advent of concilarism?

Does anyone who reads this site believe that Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not stand so condemned?

Nothing is stable, nothing is secure in the counterfeit church of conciliarism as it is a tool of the adversary himself that is preparing the way for the coming of Antichrist. 

We believe what the conciliar revolutionaries reject, namely, that it is one thing to sin and to be sorry and then to seek out the mercy of the Divine Redeemer in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance but that is quite another to persist in sin, no less perverse sins against nature, unrepentantly and to expect others to reaffirm him in those sins, whether explicitly by words of approval or implicitly by silence, which betokens consent. Catholics must judge the states of their own souls every night in their Examen of Conscience, and they have a duty to help others to recognize the serious states of sin into which they have plunged themselves, praying beforehand to God the Holy Ghost to fill them with wisdom and prudence so as to provide a warning in such a way that could plant a seed to get an unrepentant sinner to a true priest in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance. Such is not the purpose of the upcoming synod nor of the fake, phony fraud religious sect sponsoring it.

Get off the throne, you fake, phony, fraud Bergoglio, and take the rest of your crew, including your predecessor and his own pals, with you.

On the Feast of Saint Aloysius Gonzaga

Today is the Feast of Saint Aloysius Gonzaga, a professed religious of the Society of Jesus who is known for an angelic purity that the conciliar revolutionaries believe is neither possible nor desirable in the “modern world” where things have “changed” so much.

Here is the account of Saint Aloysisus’s life as found in the readings for Matins in today’s Divine Office:

Aloysius, eldest son of Ferdinand Gonzaga, Marquess of Castiglione, was so hurriedly baptized on account of danger that he seemed to be born to heaven almost before he was born to earth, and he so faithfully kept that his first grace that he seemed to have been confirmed therein. From his first use of reason, which he employed to offer himself to God, he led a life more holy day by day. At Florence, when he was nine years old, he made a vow of perpetual virginity before the Altar of the Blessed Virgin, upon whom he always looked as in the place of a mother to him, and by a remarkable mercy, from God, he kept this vow wholly and without the slightest impure temptation, either of mind or body, during his whole life. As for any other uprisings of the soul, he began at that age to check them so sternly, that he was never more pricked by even their earliest movements. His senses, and especially, his eye-sight, he so mortified, that he never once looked upon the face of Mary of Austria, whom, when he was for several years one of the Pages of honour of the King of Spain, he saluted almost every day and he even denied himself in part, the pleasure of looking on the face of his own mother. He might indeed have been justly called a fleshless man, or an infleshed angel.

With this fettering of the senses he added torture of the body. He kept three days as fasts in every week, and that mostly upon a little bread and water. But indeed he as it were fasted every day, for he hardly ever took so much as an ounce weight of food at breakfast. Often also, even thrice in one day, he would lash himself to flowing of blood with cords, or prick himself with spiked chains. He sometimes used a dog-whip, instead of a scourge, and the rowels of spurs instead of hair-cloth. He privately filled his soft bed with pieces of broken plates, that he might find it easier to wake to pray. He passed great part of the night, clad only in a shirt even in the depth of winter, kneeling on the ground, or lying flat on his face when too weak and weary to remain upright, busied with heavenly thoughts. Sometimes he would keep himself thus for three, four, or five hours, until he had spent at least one without any movement of body or any wandering of mind. Such perseverance obtained for him the reward of being able to keep his understanding quite concentrated in prayer without distraction, as though rapt in God in an unbroken extasy. Desiring to give himself up to Him alone, he overcame, after a strong opposition for three years, the objections of his father, procured the transfer to his brother of his right to the Marquessate, and on the 25th of November, 1585, joined at Rome the Society of Jesus, to which he had been called by a voice from heaven when he was at Madrid.

In his very Noviciate he began to be held a master of all godliness. His obedience to even the most trifling rules was absolutely exact, his indifference to the world extraordinary, and his hatred of self implacable. His love of God was so keen that it gradually undermined his bodily strength. Being commanded to give his mind some rest from thinking unceasingly of God, he struggled vainly to distract himself from Him Who met him everywhere. From tender love toward his neighbour, he joyfully ministered to the sick in the public hospitals,during the great distemper at Rome in 1591, and in the exercise of this charity he caught a deadly disease. This sickness slowly wore him away, and soon after he had entered on the 24th year of his age, upon the 21st day of June, a day which he had himself foretold, after entreating that he might be scourged, and laid upon the ground to die, he passed away to heaven. What the glory is which he there enjoyeth holy Mary Magdalen de' Pazzi was enabled, by the revelation of God, to behold, and she declared that it was such as she had hardly believed existed even in heaven, and that his holiness and love were so great that she should call him an unknown martyr of charity. On earth God glorified him by many great miracles. These being duly proved, Benedict XIII. inserted the name of this angellad in the Kalendar of the Saints, and commended him to all young scholars both as a pattern of innocency and purity, and as a patron.  (Matins, Divine Office, Feast of Saint Aloysius.)

The angelic life of Saint Aloysisus Gonzaga is both a contrast and a rebuke to the filthy, impure lay Jesuit, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who revels in all things having to do with indecency and impurity in the name of "mercy" as he justifies the impure in their sins, especially if they have achieved a "noteworthy stability" in the life of sins against Holy Purity (see Jorge Mario Bergoglio: A Man of Sin). Bergoglio would probably appoint an "apostolic visitator" to investigate how the Society of Jesus could admit a man into its ranks who engaged in what he believes are "masochistic" acts of mortification.

Dom Gueranger wrote this beautiful prayer to Saint Aloysius, found in The Liturgical Year:

"Venerable old age is not that of long time, nor counted by the number of years: but the understanding of man is grey hairs; and a spotless life is old age." (Wisdom 4: 8-9) And therefore, Aloysius, thou dost hold a place of honour amidst the ancients of they people! Glory be to the holy Society in the midst whereof thou didst, in so short a space, fulfill a long course; obtain that she may ever continue to treasure, both for herself and others, the teaching that flows that thy life of innocence and love. Holiness is the one only thing, when life is ended, that can be called a true gain; and holiness is acquired from within. External works count with God, only in as far as the interior breath that inspires them is pure; if occasion for exercising works be wanting, man can easily always supply the deficiency by drawing nigh unto the Lord, in the secrecy of his soul, as much as, and even more than, he could have done by their means. Thus didst thou see and understand the question; and therefore prayer, which held thee absorbed in its ineffable delights, succeeded in making thee equal to the very martyrs. What a priceless treasure was prayer in thine eyes, what a heaven-lent boon, and one that is indeed in our reach, too, just as it was in thine! But in order to find therein, as thou didst express it, 'the short cut to perfection,' perseverance is needed and a careful elimination from the soul, by a generous self-repression, of every emotion which is not of God. For how could muddy or troubled waters mirror forth the image of him who stands on their brink? Even so, a soul that is sullied, or a soul that without being quite a slave of passion is not yet mistress of every earthly perturbation, can never reach the object of prayer, which is to reproduced within her the tranquil image of her God.

The reproduction of the one great model was perfect in thee; and hence it can be seen how nature (as regards what she has of good), far from losing or suffering aught, rather gains by this process of recasting in the divine crucible. Even in what touches the most legitimate affections, thou didst look at things no loner form the earthly point of view; but beholding all in God, far were the things of sense transcended, with all their deceptive feebleness, and wondrously did thy love grow in consequence! For instance, what could be more touching than thy sweet attentions, not only upon earth, but even from thy throne in heaven, for that admirable woman given thee by our Lord to be thine earthly mother? Where may tenderness be found equal to the affection effusions written to her by thee in that letter of a saint to the mother of a saint, which thou didst address to her shortly before quitting thine earthly pilgrimage? And still more, what exquisite delicacy thou didst evince, in making her the recipient of thy first miracle, worked after thine entrance into glory! Furthermore, the Holy Ghost, by setting thee on fire with the flame of divine charity, developed also within thee immense love for thy neighbour: necessarily so because charity is essentially one; and well was this proved when thou wast seen sacrificing thy life so blithely for the sock and the plague-stricken.

Cease not, O dearest saint, to aid us in the midst of so many miseries; lend a kindly hand to each and all. Christian youth has a special claim upon they patronage, for it is by the Sovereign Pontiff himself that this precious portion of the flock is gathered around thy throne. Direct their feeble steps along the right path, so often enticed to turn into dangerous by-roads; may prayer and earnest toil, for God's dear sake, be their stay and safeguard; may they be enlightened in the serious matter before them of choosing a state of life. We beseech thee, dearest saint, exert strong influence over them during this most critical period of their opening years, so that they may truly experience all the potency of that fair privilege which is ever thine, of preserving in thy devout clients the angelical virtue! Yea, furthermore, Aloysius, look compassionately on those who have not imitated thine innocence, and obtain that they may yet follow thee in the example of thy penance; such is the petition of holy Church this day. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Volume XII: Time After Pentecost: Book III, pp. 193-195.)

We pray, therefore, to Saint Aloysius on this day, June 21, so that those of us who may have been been impure in thought, word and deed in the past might become serious about the pursuit of holiness and embrace with joy the cross of penance and humiliation as the true pathway to making our souls as white as they were when we wore white suits and white ties and white shoes and white socks and white shirts (or white dresses and white veils) at the time we received our First Holy Communion. May Saint Aloysius, a pure lover of the Eucharist, help us to spend many hidden hours in prayer before the tabernacle, keeping company with Our Lady and all of the angels and saints, including Saint Aloysius himself, as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit.

This prayer, composed by Saint Aloysius himself is one that we ought to pray every single day of our lives:

O holy Mary, my Mistress, into thy blessed trust and special keeping,into the bosom of thy tender Mercy, this day, every day of my life and at the hour of my death, I commend my soul and body; to thee I entrust all my hopes and consolations, All my trials and miseries, my life and the end of my life, that through thy most Holy intercession and thy merits, all my actions may be ordered and disposed according To thy will and that of thy divine Son. Amen.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Aloysius Gonzaga, S.J.,pra for us.

Litany to Saint Aloysius (for private use only)

Lord, have mercy on us.

Christ, have mercy on us.

Lord, have mercy on us.

Christ, hear us.

Christ, graciously hear us.

God, the Father of heaven, Have mercy on us.

God, the Son, Redeemer of the world, Have mercy on us.

God, the Holy Ghost, the Sanctifier, Have mercy on us.

Holy Trinity, one God, Have mercy on us.

Holy Mary, Pray for us.

Holy Mother of God, Pray for us.

Holy Virgin of virgins, Pray for us.

Saint Aloysius Gonzaga, Pray for us.

Beloved child of Christ, Pray for us.

Delight of the Blessed Virgin, Pray for us.

Most chaste youth, Pray for us.

Angelic youth, Pray for us.

Most humble youth, Pray for us.

Model of young students, Pray for us.

Despiser of riches, Pray for us.

Enemy of vanities, Pray for us.

Scorner of honors, Pray for us.

Honor of princes, Pray for us.

Jewel of the nobility, Pray for us.

Flower of innocence, Pray for us.

Ornament of a religious state, Pray for us.

Mirror of mortification, Pray for us.

Mirror of perfect obedience, Pray for us.

Lover of evangelical poverty, Pray for us.

Most affectionately devout, Pray for us.

Most zealous observer of rules, Pray for us.

Desirous of the salvation of souls, Pray for us.

Perpetual adorer of the Holy Eucharist, Pray for us.

Particular client of Saint Ignatius, Pray for us.

Be merciful: Spare us, O Lord. Be merciful: Hear us, O Lord.

From the concupiscence of the eyes: O Lord, deliver us.

From the concupiscence of the flesh: O Lord, deliver us.

From the pride of life: O Lord, deliver us.

Through the merits and intercessions of St. Aloysius: O Lord, deliver us.

Through his angelic purity: O Lord, deliver us.

Through his sanctity and glory: O Lord, deliver us.

Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world: Spare us, O Lord.

Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world: Graciously hear us, O Lord.

Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world: Have mercy on us.

Christ, hear us.

R. Christ, graciously hear us.

V. Pray for us, Saint Aloysius:

R. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

Let us pray:

O Blessed Aloysius! adorned with Angelic graces, I, thy most unworthy servant, recommend especially to thee the chastity of my soul and body, praying thee, by thy angelic purity, to plead for me with Jesus Christ the Immaculate Lamb, and His most holy Mother, Virgin of virgins, that they would vouchsafe to keep me from all grievous sin. O never let me be defiled with any stain against my chastity; but when thou dost see me in temptation, or in danger of falling, then remove far from me all bad thoughts and wicked desires; and awaken in me the memory of an eternity to come, and of Jesus crucified. Impress deeply in my heart a sense of the holy fear of God, and thus kindling in me the fire of thy divine love, enable me so to follow thy footsteps here on earth, that in heaven with thee, I may be made worthy to enjoy the sight of our God forever. Through Our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

Pray one Our Father, Hail Mary and Glory be.

SOURCE