CHILDREN OF GOD ... no matter what?
made the following statement in 2017
and I think it is now time to revisit it in light
of his peremptory agendum of unbridled Ecumenism
a heretical concept altogether
to Vatican II and which Francis
frenetically promotes at the cost of authentic Catholicism.
He asks as though the question itself is altogether
Is it possible God
has some children He does not love? NO! We are
ALL Gods beloved children. (pope
more troubling still, is that this question is,
in fact, received by most post-Conciliar Catholics
as merely rhetorical, that
is to say, as though the answer is already understood
in the asking and that answer, of course, is a
resounding: yes of course! After all,
everyone goes to Heaven! The pope
himself routinely tells us so!
despite what Christ tells us about the
hard and narrow way to Heaven:
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in
the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they
are ravening wolves.
Christ: Saint Matthew 7.15-23)
ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the
gate, and broad is the way that
leadeth to destruction, and many
there are who go in thereat.
How narrow is the gate, and strait is the
way that leadeth to life: and few
there are that find it!
yes, concerning the
prophets, who come to you in the clothing of
sheep, but inwardly they are ravening
wolves, may we suggest that you consider five:
to say, in short, every pontiff who instigated,
promoted, or was complicit in the heresy we have
come to know as Vatican II which decimated the
Church and Religious Orders, contemned and
vitiated Her teachings, effectively abrogated
Her Sacred Tradition, laid siege to Her Sacred
Deposit of Faith, outlawed her language (Latin),
abolished the Mass of the Ages (Tridentine),
defiled the Sanctuary with women Ministers of
Communion (note that they are no longer
designated as Extraordinary-ministers),
secularized the Liturgy, and homosexualized Her
priests, bishops, and cardinals.
Consider the following:
Catholic Mass attendance was 75+% in 1955
and plunged to 20-30% in 2017. In 1970, 55
% of American Catholics went to Mass every
Sunday, and in 2019 that figure dwindled to
20%.The Center for Church Management at
Villanova University projects an attendance
rate in the neighborhood of 12 percent by next
year or the year after.
2 Altar girls vastly
outnumber Altar-Boys and both are
socially/correctly neutered as Altar
Servers thereby abolishing any
distinction in gender in deference to the rise of
Woman Church and the poison of Feminism.
this ALL OF IT is the fruit of
Vatican II ... every effeminate and recreant
priest, bishop, and cardinal; the feminization
and homosexualization of nearly every aspect of
the once glorious edifice of the Holy Catholic
Church has left it in ruins, pallid and
prostate before the World which it loves before
God. There are good and faithful
traditional priests who are persecuted
mercilessly by their bishops, cardinals ... and
even the pope. Good men. Manly men.
Priests of Almighty God! Men who do not lisp
and who would die before kissing the Muslim
Quran! Not so Francis. Not so!
Vatican II really sound like a success story to
you? Then look
might take the initial quoted citation from Holy Scripture
(Saint Matthew 9.11-15)
as a prologue merely to the many
disagreements between Francis
and Jesus Christ in this matter (and
many, many others.) Consider the following:
(Saint John 8.41-44)
do the works of your father. They
said therefore to Him: We are not born of fornication:
we have one Father, even God. Jesus therefore
said to them: If God were your
Father, you would indeed love Me. For from God
I proceeded, and came; for I came not of Myself,
but He sent Me: Why do you not know My speech?
Because you cannot hear My word.
You are of your father the
devil, and the desires of your father you
He was a murderer from the beginning,
and he stood not in the truth; because
truth is not in him. When he speaketh
a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he
is a liar, and the father thereof.
He that committeth
sin is of the devil: for the devil sinneth
from the beginning. For this purpose, the Son
of God appeared, that he might destroy the works
of the devil. Whosoever is born of God, committeth
not sin: for his seed abideth in him, and he
can not sin, because he is born of God.
In this the children of God are manifest,
and the children of the devil.
Whosoever is not just, is not of God, nor he
that loveth not his brother.
(1 Saint John 3.8-10)
Not every one that
saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
Kingdom of Heaven: but he that doth the
will of My Father who is in Heaven, he shall
enter into the kingdom of heaven. Many will
say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not
we prophesied in Thy name, and cast out devils
in Thy name, and done many miracles in Thy name?
then will I profess unto them, I never
knew you: depart from Me,
you that work iniquity.
(Saint Matthew 7.21-23)
thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
(Saint Matthew 17.17) note the
love me, keep my commandments. (Saint
John 14.15) once again, note the conditional
What fellowship hath
light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ
with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful
with the unbeliever? (2 Corinthians
from Holy Scripture in which Francis openly contradicts
Christ are too many to enumerate. 3
do we Believe?
is simply this: whom shall we believe? The Master
or the servant? Truth Himself Who stood
before Pontius Pilate on the day He was
crucified 4 while Pilate pedantically
What is Truth?
... even as Truth bled in his presence
5 or His feckless vicar who either
distorts or contradicts the truth entrusted
to him? In other words, are we to believe Truth
Himself or His recreant proxy who speaks
in open contradiction to the Truth?
Statue of Heretic
Martin Luther brought into
Vatican by Francis
of Franciss hero, the arch-heretic Martin Luther
1521 Luther wrote to Philip Melanchthon (Luthers
closest collaborator in heresy) Love
God and sin boldly ...
No sin can separate
us from Him, even if we were to kill
or commit adultery thousands of times each day.
correspondence between Franciss,
Is it possible God has some children He does
not love? NO! We are ALL Gods beloved
children. and Luthers,
Love God and sin boldly ... No sin
can separate us from Him. is unmistakable.
This is the most manifest and deadly fruit of
the heresy called Ecumenism.
Let us be
less textually literal and absolutely clear on the substance
of these mutually corroborating statements:
Luther: everyone goes to Heaven no matter
what. There is no sin so grievous to preclude anyone
from attaining salvation.
Francis: We are all the beloved
children of God we are his beloved
children! But is it possible that God has some
children whom he does not love? No. We are all
Gods beloved children. Therefore, despite
that all that Christ taught us, no matter what we
do, say, promote, believe, or not believe is
irrelevant. No sin
is so heinous, no act so horrendous, no belief so
criminal, no unbelief so absolute, that it can disqualify
us from going to Heaven with all the other ... saints
... like Hitler, Joseph Mengele, Stalin, Hideki
Tojo, Nero, Mao Zedong, Genghis Khan, Caligula,
and Diocletian, to name a few. For Francis, these
men despite the magnitude of their
malevolence and the enormity of their atrocities
... are nevertheless Gods beloved children.
Who can so
much as conceptualize God uttering something like, These
are my beloved children: Adolf Hitler
and his brothers Diocletian, Mao Zedong, Joseph Mengele,
Stalin, Hideki Tojo, Nero, Genghis Khan, and Caligula.?
is their father? Are they the beloved
children of God whom Francis Bergoglio would have us
believe or are they those of whom Christ
are of your father the devil.
They cannot be both.
Christ is a deceiver or Francis is.
God with the Father and the Holy Ghost, Christ can
neither deceive nor be deceived.6
will, and does.
Such a harsh,
even cruel statement!, you will reproach me.
I will respond, and far less frightening than the
words of Christ at
the Last Judgment:
when the Son of Man shall come in His
majesty, and all the angels with Him, then
shall He sit upon the seat of His majesty.
And all nations shall be gathered together
before Him, and
separate them one from
another, as the shepherd separateth the
sheep from the goats: And He shall set the
sheep on His right hand, but the goats on
His left. Then shall the King say to them
that shall be on His right hand: Come, ye
blessed of My Father, possess you the
kingdom prepared for you from the foundation
of the world. Then He shall say to them also
that shall be on His left hand:
Me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which
was prepared for the devil and his angels.
(Saint Matthew 25.31-33 & 25.41)
The god of
Francis, it turns out, is not the God
of Sacred Scripture. He fabricates his god to assuage
the guilt and fear of men the better to accord with
the World, the Flesh, and primeval things of darkness
that have no place in the Light ...
AN EXTREMELY TROUBLING
Francis unlike his predecessors has not directly advocated the doctrine
Keeping to his South American
Pope Francis has called for Catholics to
the Eucharist as an
encounter with Christ an
where Christ makes
available to the community
an act of remembrance.
Protestants understand it merely
as an act of remembrance; nothing more.
ed.] Its an opportunity to be transformed to
carry out the work of Christ. The focus
here is not on dogma but the action that
flows from it. This is very different
from the hard-core theological dogma of
the Roman Catholic Church.
This is very much in line with
Franciss ecumenical and inter-religious
initiatives over the past five
years. He has consistently spoken
about Holy Communion as a sacrament
element rather than the
The Eucharist is the summit of Gods
saving action: the Lord Jesus,
becoming bread broken for us,
pours upon us all of His mercy and His
love, so as to renew our hearts, our
lives, and our way of relating with Him
and with the brethren.
[it is perennial
Church teaching that Christ did
but to the contrary,
transformed bread into His Sacred Body
through Transubstantiation. Ed.]
Through this teaching in the 2014
Encyclical, Pope Francis has departed
from the traditional line of who can
receive or participate in Eucharist
and called for a more inclusive
openness to our understanding and
practice of Eucharist (including
non-Catholics to be able to take
communion), and not to make it into an
exclusive practice. ... by signaling
that he is willing to welcome anyone and
share the Eucharist with others,
Pope Francis may have charted a
different path by opening up the
Eucharist to non-Catholics and those who
have been traditionally excluded.
He is clearly moving away from the idea
of the Eucharist as a directly
supernatural experience and more
and HOLY CONFESSION
Antidote of Death
First, Mortal Sin ...
excuses are numberless.
In fact, they are as
numberless as our sins, none of which are now
deemed by us (and, for sorrow, by many priests)
grievous enough to preclude our receiving the
Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in Holy Communion.
Most often they are reducible simply to this:
have not committed any mortal sin.
For Catholics who have never been taught the
difference between Mortal and Venial
sin which is to say, the entire last generation
of Catholics we must be clear about the notion
of sin especially the distinction between
two kinds of sin, before we can proceed to even
understand the necessity, as well as the inestimable
value of Holy Confession.
Only one analogy suffices to make this distinction
clear in a way that is particularly accessible
to Western society (I do not say
for that has ceased). Let us look at the matter
somatically, that is to say, through our bodies,
or more likely than not, the bodies of others
upon which we are, in one way or another, sexually
fixated. Perhaps this will provide a visual
cue, some imaginative element, to an otherwise
The distinction between a Mortal Sin and
a Venial Sin is akin to the difference between
a minor wound ... and death. Is that succinct
enough? Are you still unclear about the difference?
In other words, you may accumulate many minor
wounds and still live, although each is an impediment
to your health and, while small, if left unattended,
may yet contribute to something more serious,
something more debilitating. It is a small laceration
... awaiting infection.
Mortal wounds, on the other hand, may be many,
but any one of them
alone will bring you to death. It is not the
case that, inflicted with a mortal wound, you
may die the wound
precisely because as a consequence of it, you
in fact do die. We
most often understand a mortal wound in a posthumous
context, that is to say, in the past tense:
the person is already dead, and that
is why his injury was called
It is of the nature of wounds that they are
either the one or the other, although the
non-mortal wound may be sufficiently grievous
to cause lasting deformity or mutilation even
if it does not culminate in death.
Physics, Bodies, and Bullets
we wish to avoid both, but failing this we immediately
tend the wound, see a physician, and apply the
recommended remedy. The medicine may be bitter,
or the therapy arduous, but we do not curse
the doctor for that, still less the laws of
physics brought to bear upon human anatomy,
in the way, say, of projectiles and the like.
Bullets do those things. We do not like
it, and we would that bullets behaved otherwise,
but the reality is that, however regrettable
the result, we cannot, for that reason, alter
the path of the bullet nor make it less fatal
to the body. The consequences of this unfortunate
concatenation of events are not within our will
to change. I believe that we will all agree
on this. We may argue that the bullet ought
not have been shot, but having been shot
we understand the inevitability of the result
given laws inherent in physics, bodies and bullets.
That the trajectory of a projectile corresponds
to a given amount of energy expended over a
given distance and intersected by the human
tegument through which it subsequently passes
causing death, is a terrible occurrence to be
sure, but not one, in and of itself, that we
are likely to imprecate. We do not rage against
the laws of physics. Indeed, we would find such
indignation ... odd, to say nothing of futile.
The laws inherent in physics and the constitution
of the human body, are simply not amenable to
our will, and we recognize this. We do not despair
over it, but become terribly practical given
this recognition: we avoid bullets. However
great our outrage, we will not find a sane individual
standing long in disputation against it ...
The reality we wish to avoid the
reality avoided at all costs at the pulpit
is that Mortal Sin is deadly. You
die as a result of it.
Oh, not to yourself, and certainly not to the
world. You will breathe and move and the world
will applaud your posthumous existence. But
you die to God your life in God ceases. The
fact as little pleases us as it pleases our
preachers sin has real, most often empirical
and always inevitable consequences.
The ability of sin to harm, and yes, even kill,
is as real and as indifferent to our wishes
as the laws of physics that impinge on our bodies.
In our post-enlightened, post-modern pretension
to sophistication, we frankly find such a notion
abhorrent to our effete sensitivities ...
social sensitivities that we have so delicately
honed upon the touchstone of correctitude.
On the one hand, we morally concede to the correlation
between crime and punishment and
deem it just but somehow never quite attain
to any legitimate correspondence between sin
and condemnation on the other. We attenuate
our clemency in the courts of men, given the
gravity of the crime, but do not attain to that
same rigor in the tribunal of sin ... given
the gravity of the sin. There are, apparently,
no capital offenses in the City of God, even
as they abound in the City of Man. A mortal
life is held to be forfeit for a crime, but
life immortal is not held forfeit for a sin.
It is an odd state of affairs that few of us
believe that we can abolish crime, while most
of us appear to believe that we have virtually
Crime, of course can
in fact be abolished.
It is simplicity itself. Legitimize
what is criminal. Account nothing a crime and
you abolish the notion of crime itself even
as you leave the consequences intact.
that is absurd!,
In very deed ...
A cursory review of civil legislation over the
past 30 years reveals that, not only is it not
absurd, but attains to policy:
Sexual Deviance (homosexuality,
Prostitution (England, Scotland,
Canada, Australia, New Zealand,
Thailand, Philippines, offhand)
Few of us, I assume, would seek recourse to
such a solution and for good reason. Legitimizing
crime does not indemnify us against it however
much we hold ourselves to have abolished it.
We can say as much of sin.
In fact, we have said as much. Unlike the immediate
consequences of crime, the consequences of sin
even temporally are often deferred, less
immediate ... and because we apprehend them
as remote, as distant, as impending only, we
dismiss them, for we fail to immediately see
the terrible consequences they entail, consequences
so terrible, so far-reaching, so much beyond
our ken, that they have become effectively mythical,
brooding like demons on some distant bourne
that we obscurely perceive and never quite forget;
an escarpment lost in light and shadow where
life quite suddenly drops off that abrupt precipice
to death. We know it ... because we know that
we dance on the dead.
now, Holy Confession ...
am about to state something with which you are
likely to disagree, and for good reason:
parish Church is the holiest in all of Christendom;
not just in the Archdiocese of Boston, but
in all Massachusetts; very likely all New
England perhaps even the entire world.
You will disagree.
In fact, you know your own Catholic
parish to be the holiest, perhaps the most sinless
parish in the world, and we will both appeal
to the same reasons for making this remarkable
statement: during Holy Communion the pews
are literally emptied.
There is not a sinner among us; at least no
sinner guilty of Mortal Sin which prevents
our going to Holy Communion, since
as all Catholics know we add the tremendous
sin of sacrilege to
whatever mortal sin we carry if we receive Holy
Communion while not in a state of grace which
is to say, free of mortal sin.
But as I ponder the empty pews, the stigma of
being the sole sinner in the parish weighs heavily
upon me as many look askance at my kneeling
while all others scramble to make their way
to communion I at least wonder. Do Catholics,
do all Catholics, do most Catholics,
do at least some Catholics, even
know what a mortal sin is any more? Do
they know the difference between a mortal
sin that sunders the soul from God, and
a venial sin that merely impedes its
union with God?
Since the entire congregation have had at least
8 years of
Catechism, or Religious Education
8 to 10 years, mind you! surely
so simple, so basic, so fundamental a concept
as the difference between serious sin and sins
far less grievous in nature, is clearly apprehensible.
A very ready analogy may be to the point: in
the civic world, all of us know (probably because
the penalty is clearly comprehended, immediate
and forthcoming) the difference between grievously
unlawful, or capital offenses
such as murder and grand larceny, and
misdemeanors, like receiving a speeding
ticket or maliciously destroying a neighbors
property. It is a no-brainer. We do not think
twice, or rather, we do
think twice in a given situation about the sanctions
and penalties involved. It is, we are told,
the means by which we maintain a
a mutually responsible, society.
We acknowledge the concept of justice and understand
very clearly why it is maintained and what penalties
are incurred if it is violated. We have no problem
with that. After all, the law is not some gratuitous
abstraction, and you are a fool if you think
that you can trifle with it and walk away. If
the breach is serious enough you are clapped
in irons, removed from the community, and deprived
of your liberty until justice has exacted its
tribute, until you have
your debt to society.
By and large we are grateful for the severity
of the law, even as its rigors make us uneasy.
but for the grace of God, go I ...
We all recognize that our own behavior has not
always been unimpeachable ... if not clearly
actionable. We do not personally legislate
parallel laws that contravene the laws
of the state and hold, at any point of divergence,
the private interpretation of the
law to abrogate the public law. It
is the opposite which is true. We may find the
laws of the state repugnant to us, unamenable
to our own inclinations, even contrary to our
own convictions in which case we are confronted
with three clearly distinguishable alternatives:
we can absent ourselves from the polity and
choose to live elsewhere under a constitution
that more closely corresponds with our desiderations
and convictions, if such exists; we can continue
to enjoy the collateral benefits in the present
state that constrains us to abide by the laws
through which it is defined and by which it
is governed or, we can seek to amend the law
through the venues afforded us by the state.
What we cannot do is to enjoy the prerogatives
of the state while either acting in defiance
of it, or while subverting it. We understand
this, and in fact underwrite it through maintaining
our citizenship within it. We understand this
broadly as a
In any event, we cannot construct a private
and parallel universe of statutes and anticipate
that the public universe of affairs will recognize,
respect, and honor our privately legislated
laws. If we choose to abide only by those laws
of the state that we do not find disagreeable
to us we have not attained to personal freedom,
but to arbitrary license; not to civility, but
to anarchy. We become both legislator and law.
In such a solipsistic
the legislature and the corpus of law are as
numerous as the individuals legislating them.
Well and good.
But what of God' S Law?
Why, we must ask ourselves, is Gods
Law somehow less important, less pertinent
to our behavior? Why does it have less bearing
upon our responsibilities and our choices
and, most especially within Church? Is the
Divine Law, are the laws of the Church, no more
than pious and ultimately indolent sentiments
rather than clearly articulated precepts with
very real corresponding sanctions and responsibilities
in other words, coherent laws?
Do we give tribute to Caesar but withhold it
from God? Is the Fasces mightier than the Cross?
We are indeed a generation which had been nurtured
on defiance to authority only seeing now,
in our own children, the fruit of that unbridled
defiance which we nurtured in them even as we
Our children were ... "independent
... not defiant, and we were proud until we
began to detoxify them, to rehabilitate their
behavior, to trade notes with our neighbors
And our kids still get the keys to the car,
no matter how grievous their transgression ...
their money for the mall just as we still
get Holy Communion, no matter how grievous our
offenses against God. We are as blind to our
sins as we have made our children blind to their
own. After all, a
and does not descend to
such as punishing the child, no? And
if we are such
parents how much
God? Surely, there is no sin, no offense so
grievous, or so trite, as to offend Him ...
nothing we can ever do or say such
that we would ever forfeit our
not to the keys of the car but to the Kingdom
of God, through the Bread of Angels ... Holy
Communion that you as arrogantly insist is
as much your right as the keys to the
Still pondering the empty pews, it would seem
so. Perhaps it is the case that
all the parishioners are in fact guiltless of
civil crime, however petty (for these, too,
are the stuff of Holy Confession) as well
The truly defining question appears to be this:
to whom, we must genuinely ask ourselves, do
we owe more to God or man? To the City of
God or to the City of Man?
On your blithe way to Holy Communion, ponder
this especially given the ultimate
sanction placed before us by no
less an authority than Saint Paul:
shall eat this bread or drink the chalice of
the Lord unworthily, shall be
guilty of the Body and of the Blood of the Lord.
... are you prepared to add sacrilege
to your your sins?
Or has the notion of sacrilege itself
gone the way of mortal sin ... also?
Go to Confession. You must go. It is
the only antidote of Mortal Sin, and thus the
antidote of death.
Geoffrey K. Mondello
Boston Catholic Journal
Printable PDF Version
Comments? Write us:
Totally Faithful to the Sacred
Deposit of Faith entrusted to the Holy See in Rome
opera tua ... quia modicum habes virtutem, et servasti verbum
Meum, nec non negasti Nomen Meum
know your works ... that you have but little power, and
yet you have kept My word, and have not denied My Name.
Copyright © 2004 - 2022 Boston Catholic
Journal. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise stated, permission
is granted by the Boston Catholic Journal for the copying
and distribution of the articles and audio files under the
following conditions: No additions, deletions, or
changes are to be made to the text or audio files in any
way, and the copies may not be sold for a profit. In the
reproduction, in any format of any image, graphic, text,
or audio file, attribution must be given to the Boston Catholic