As has been the case unerringly, perhaps even infallibly, since the supposed "archbishop" of Buenos Aires, the then seventy-six year-old Jorge Mario "Cardinal" Bergoglio, walked on the Balcony of the Basilica of Saint Peter on Wednesday, March 13, 2013, La Civilta Cattholica, the semi-official Roman journal of the Society of Jesus in its conciliar captivity of which Bergoglio is now the de facto non-father general, continues to serve as the means by which the Argentine Apostate may float various "trial balloons" that wind up becoming the foundation of future non-papal actions, although sometimes he uses his "ordinary" and "extraordinary" "synod of bishops" to provide himself with a fig leaf of "episcopal collegiality" to mask the fact that whatever Jorge wants, Jorge gets.
Guess what?
Jorge wants women "priests" even though he said three months ago that he wants no such thing. The false "pontiff" would not have permitted La Civilta Cattolica to put into question the binding nature of "Saint John Paul II's" 1994 statement concerning the inadmissabiity of women to what is considered to be the Holy Priesthood wihtin the structures of the Roman Rite of the false conciliar sect.
How can this be?
Well, read Vaticanologist Sandro Magister's Vatican Insider article, which includes a good part of the La Civilta Cattolica article itself:
On August 2, 2016, Pope Francis instituted a commission to study the history of the female diaconate, for the purpose of its possible restoration. And some have seen this as a first step toward priesthood for women, in spite of the fact that Francis himself seems to have ruled it out absolutely, responding as follows to a question on the return flight from his journey to Sweden last November 1 (in the photo, his embrace with Swedish Lutheran archbishop Antje Jackelen):
"For the ordination of women in the Catholic Church, the last clear word was given by Saint John Paul II, and this holds."
But to read the latest issue of “La Civiltà Cattolica,” the question of women priests appears to be anything but closed. On the contrary, wide open.
“La Civiltà Cattolica” is not just any magazine. By statute, every line of it is printed after inspection by the Holy See. But in addition there is the very close confidential relationship between Jorge Mario Bergoglio and the magazine’s editor, the Jesuit Antonio Spadaro.
Who in turn has his most trusted colleague in deputy editor Giancarlo Pani, he too a Jesuit like all the writers of the magazine.
So then, in the article with his byline that appears in the latest issue of “La Civiltà Cattolica,” Fr. Pani calmly rips to shreds the “last clear word” - meaning the flat no - that John Paul II spoke against women’s priesthood.
To see how, all it takes is to reread this passage of the article, properly speaking dedicated to the question of women priests, but taking the cue from there to express hopes for women priests as well.
*
ONE CANNOT SIMPLY RESORT TO THE PAST
by Giancarlo Pani, S.J.
[…] On Pentecost of 1994, Pope John Paul II summarized, in the apostolic letter “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis,” the outcome of a series of previous magisterial statements (including “Inter Insigniores”), concluding that Jesus has chosen only men for the priestly ministry. Therefore “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women. This judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.”
The statement was a clear word for those who maintained that the refusal of priestly ordination for women could be discussed. Nonetheless, […] some time later, following the problems raised not so much by the doctrine as by the force with which it was presented, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was presented with a question: can “ordinatio sacerdotalis” be “considered as belonging to the deposit of the faith?” The answer was “affirmative,” and the doctrine was described as “infallibiliter proposita,” meaning that “it must be held always, everywhere, and by all the faithful.”
Difficulties with the answer’s reception have created “tensions” in relations between magisterium and theology over the connected problems. These are pertinent to the fundamental theology on infallibility. It is the first time in history that the congregation explicitly appealed to the constitution “Lumen Gentium” no. 25, which proclaims the infallibility of a doctrine that is taught as definitively binding by the bishops dispersed throughout the world but in communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter.
Moreover, the question touches upon the theology of the sacraments, because it concerns the subject of the sacrament of Orders, which traditionally is indeed man, but this does not take into account the developments that the presence of woman in the family and in society has undergone in the 21st century. This is a matter of ecclesial dignity, responsibility, and participation.
The historical fact of the exclusion of woman from the priesthood because of the “impedimentum sexus” is undeniable. Nevertheless, already in 1948, and therefore well ahead of the disputes of the 1960’s, Fr. Congar pointed out that “the absence of a fact is not a decisive criterion for concluding prudently in every case that the Church cannot do it and will never do it.”
Moreover, another theologian adds, the “consensus fidelium” of many centuries has been called into question in the 20th century above all on account of the profound sociocultural changes concerning woman. It would not make sense to maintain that the Church must change only because the times have changed, but it remains true that a doctrine proposed by the Church needs to be understood by the believing intelligence. The dispute over women priests could be set in parallel with other moments of Church history; in any case, today in the question of female priesthood the “auctoritates,” or official positions of the magisterium, are clear, but many Catholics have a hard time understanding the “rationes” of decisions that, more than expressions of authority, appear to signify authoritarianism. Today there is unease among those who fail to understand how the exclusion of woman from the Church’s ministry can coexist with the affirmation and appreciation of her equal dignity.” […]
*
In the judgment of “La Civiltà Cattolica,” therefore, not only should the infallibility and definitiveness of John Paul II’s “no” to women priests be brought into doubt, but more important than this “no” are the “developments that the presence of woman in the family and society has undergone in the 21st century.”
These developments - the reasoning of the magazine continues - now render incomprehensible the “rationes” for prohibitions “that, more than expressions of authority, appear to signify authoritarianism.”
“One cannot always resort to the past, as if only in the past are there indications of the Spirit. Today as well the Spirit is guiding the Church and suggesting the courageous assumption of new perspectives.”
And Francis is the first “not to limit himself to what is already known, but wants to delve into a complex and relevant field, so that it may be the Spirit who guides the Church,” concludes “La Civiltà Cattolica,” evidently with the pope’s imprimatur. (Latest From Casa Santa Marta Opens Doors for Women Priests.)
"Father" Giancarolo Pani, S.J., is merely a "front man" for the octogenarian juvenille delinquent who lives in the Casa Santa Marta in an ostenatious display of his rejection of "papal" pomp and privilege. Pani is thus doing for the absurdity of the "women priests" what Walter "Cardinal" Kasper did three years ago when helping to provide the rationale for the administration of what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service to Catholics who are divorced and civilly "remarried" without a decree of marital nullity from a conciliar marriage tribunal. Kasper was Bergoglio's front man for what became Amoris Laetitia, March 19, 2016, whose torch has been carried by numerous allies of the false "pontiff's," and Pani is the "front man" for what will become a "top-down" movement rouse the Jacobins/Bolesheviks within the concilicar stuctures to start talking from the pulpit about God's "dreams" and "surprises.
One will note that "Father" Pani's article is based on a completley Modernist view of Catholic doctrine, one that responds to the "times" and is thus in line with the "expectations" of the "people" in an era of egalitarianism that rejects any form of authoritative teaching as nothing other than an unjust authoritarianism.
Pope Pius IX, writing at the end of The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864, condemned the proposition that the Roman Pontiff should and must accommodate himself to the tenor of the times:
80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- -Allocution "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861. (Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864.)
By the way, one will search in vain for any listing of The Syllabus of Errors on the webpage for Pope Pius IX on the Vatican website. One will also search in vain for Pope Gregory XVI's condemnation of liberalism, including religious indifferentism, liberty of conscience and separation of Church and State, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832, on the Vatican's page for his pontificate. And even though the page for Pope Saint Pius X does list Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, and Praestantia Scripturae, November 18, 1907, one will look in vain for our last truly canonized legitimate pontiff's condemnation of The Sillon, whose principles are identical to those of conciliarism in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.
Speaking of Pope Saint Pius X, the following passage from Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, demonstrates "Father" Giancarlo Pani, S.J., is a Modernist in the pattern of his fellow lay Jesuit, Senor Jorge Mario Bergoglio, and of each of his predecessors since the accession of the old Sillonist, Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, as the first of the current line of antipopes on October 28, 1958, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude:
34. It is not surprising that these new opinions endanger the two philosophical sciences which by their very nature are closely connected with the doctrine of faith, that is, theodicy and ethics; they hold that the function of these two sciences is not to prove with certitude anything about God or any other transcendental being, but rather to show that the truths which faith teaches about a personal God and about His precepts, are perfectly consistent with the necessities of life and are therefore to be accepted by all, in order to avoid despair and to attain eternal salvation. All these opinions and affirmations are openly contrary to the documents of Our Predecessors Leo XIII and Pius X, and cannot be reconciled with the decrees of the Vatican Council. It would indeed be unnecessary to deplore these aberrations from the truth, if all, even in the field of philosophy, directed their attention with the proper reverence to the Teaching Authority of the Church, which by divine institution has the mission not only to guard and interpret the deposit of divinely revealed truth, but also to keep watch over the philosophical sciences themselves, in order that Catholic dogmas may suffer no harm because of erroneous opinions. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)
For the likes of men such as the conciliar revolutionaries to be correct, the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity not only hid the true meaning of doctrines for over nineteen hundred years, He permitted true popes and the Fathers of Holy Mother Church's twenty true general councils to condemn propositions that have, we are supposed to believe, only recently been "discovered" as having been true. Blasphemous and heretical.
Pope Pius IX and the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council condemned such views on April 24, 1870. a condemnation that was taken up anew by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:
Hence it is quite impossible [the Modernists assert] to maintain that they [dogmatic statements] absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907. See the Appendices below for another recitation of the Vatican Council's condemnations of everything that the conciliar "popes," including Karol Josef Wotyla/John Paul II, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio)
Behold a false religion, conciliarism, that is built on an edifice of sophisms that have indeed ruined and wrecked the average Catholic’s understanding of the Holy Faith. This edifice of sophisms has produced such instability and uncertainty in the counterfeit church of conciliarism that Joseph Ratziner/Benedict XVI’s interpretation of the “Second” Vatican Council can be swept away by the next by using the exact same “hermeneutic” that he been used to sweep away the immutable teaching of the Catholic Church in order to justify the new ecclesiology, episcopal collegiality, false ecumenism, religious liberty, separation of Church and State, condemned interpretations of Sacred Scripture according to an unfettered use of the historical-critical method of modern Scriptural exegesis and, of course, ever-changing liturgical rites and pastoral practice.
As descendants of the original Modernists by way of the "New Theology," the conciliar revolutionaries have been able to build their false religion by overcoming three difficulties that had been identified by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, that stood in their way of all Modernists to advance their errors and heresies:
42. Would that they had but displayed less zeal and energy in propagating it! But such is their activity and such their unwearying labor on behalf of their cause, that one cannot but be pained to see them waste such energy in endeavoring to ruin the Church when they might have been of such service to her had their efforts been better directed. Their artifices to delude men's minds are of two kinds, the first to remove obstacles from their path, the second to devise and apply actively and patiently every resource that can serve their purpose. They recognize that the three chief difficulties which stand in their way are the scholastic method of philosophy, the authority and tradition of the Fathers, and the magisterium of the Church, and on these they wage unrelenting war. Against scholastic philosophy and theology they use the weapons of ridicule and contempt. Whether it is ignorance or fear, or both, that inspires this conduct in them, certain it is that the passion for novelty is always united in them with hatred of scholasticism, and there is no surer sign that a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the scholastic method. Let the Modernists and their admirers remember the proposition condemned by Pius IX: "The method and principles which have served the ancient doctors of scholasticism when treating of theology no longer correspond with the exigencies of our time or the progress of science." They exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those "who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind...or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church"; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: "We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by everyone of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church." Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: "I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.''
The Modernists pass judgment on the holy Fathers of the Church even as they do upon tradition. With consummate temerity they assure the public that the Fathers, while personally most worthy of all veneration, were entirely ignorant of history and criticism, for which they are only excusable on account of the time in which they lived. Finally, the Modernists try in every way to diminish and weaken the authority of the ecclesiastical magisterium itself by sacrilegiously falsifying its origin, character, and rights, and by freely repeating the calumnies of its adversaries. To the entire band of Modernists may be applied those words which Our predecessor sorrowfully wrote: "To bring contempt and odium on the mystic Spouse of Christ, who is the true light, the children of darkness have been wont to cast in her face before the world a stupid calumny, and perverting the meaning and force of things and words, to depict her as the friend of darkness and ignorance, and the enemy of light, science, and progress.''This being so, Venerable Brethren, there is little reason to wonder that the Modernists vent all their bitterness and hatred on Catholics who zealously fight the battles of the Church. There is no species of insult which they do not heap upon them, but their usual course is to charge them with ignorance or obstinacy. When an adversary rises up against them with an erudition and force that renders them redoubtable, they seek to make a conspiracy of silence around him to nullify the effects of his attack. This policy towards Catholics is the more invidious in that they belaud with admiration which knows no bounds the writers who range themselves on their side, hailing their works, exuding novelty in every page, with a chorus of applause. For them the scholarship of a writer is in direct proportion to the recklessness of his attacks on antiquity, and of his efforts to undermine tradition and the ecclesiastical magisterium. When one of their number falls under the condemnations of the Church the rest of them, to the disgust of good Catholics, gather round him, loudly and publicly applaud him, and hold him up in veneration as almost a martyr for truth. The young, excited and confused by all this clamor of praise and abuse, some of them afraid of being branded as ignorant, others ambitious to rank among the learned, and both classes goaded internally by curiosity and pride, not infrequently surrender and give themselves up to Modernism. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 2007.)
These two paragraphs describe the modus operandi of each of the conciliar "popes" even though they have used different terms to describe their truly rigid adherence to the "evolution of dogma" that is the foundation of their entire false belief system. Indeed, these two paragraphs are really all one needs to know when reading anything written by the conciliar "popes," especially the three who have been the most prolific: Wojtyla/John Paul II, Ratzinger/Benedict and Bergoglio. Each has disparaged Scholasticism and Tradition, although they have done so in different ways, and they have done so in direct defiance of Catholic teaching, including the following proposition that was condemned by Pope Pius XI in The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864:
13. The method and principles by which the old scholastic doctors cultivated theology are no longer suitable to the demands of our times and to the progress of the sciences. -- Ibid. (Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864.)
It is very easy to ignore Catholic doctrine once one decides to make of Catholicism what one will because it just "has" to "change" to appeal to the people.
This reminds me of the second article of mine that appeared in The Wanderer after the late, nefarious Modernist named Joseph Benardin, who was a true bishop, wrote in late-1992 concerning the necessity of "women priests." Indeed, the title of that article was taken from the following words of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ after most of the crowd who had eaten of the loaves and fishes he multiplied just a short while before turned away from Him after hearing His Eucharistic Discourse that was too much for them to bear:
[66] And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. [67] After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. [68] Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? [69] And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. [70] And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.
[71] Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve; and one of you is a devil? [72] Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray him, whereas he was one of the twelve. (John 6: 66-72.)
Our Lord did not become Incarnate in Our Lady's Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of God the Holy Ghost at the Annunciation to curry favor with the very rational creatures whose sins he came to redeem. He did not die on the wood of the Holy Cross to tickle the ears of the hateful Jews who, motivated in large part by our own sins having transcended time, put Him to death and taunted Him as He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood atop the dung heap of Gologtha to redeem them even though they did not want to believe that He was doing so. Our Lord came to teach us His immutable truth, and no amount of sophisims from lay Jesuits can change that fact.
In truth of course, Joseph "Cardinal" Bernardin, was not the first to advance the agenda for women "priests." Indeed, I had the privilege in the Fall of 1984 of compiling a name index for an anthology of his articles that were published under the title of Women Priests and Other Fantasies, finding time for this while I was teaching three courses as an adjunct professor in the Department of Government and Politics at Saint John's University in Jamaica, Queens, New York. Although I had spent a year living in the same residence, Saint Philip's Hall, at Holy Apostles Seminary as Father Miceli in the 1983-1984 academic year, and got to know him very well during that time, I was very impressed with the careful nature of his good Catholic scholarship in the book he asked me to index. This scholarship was also evident in his other books, including his doctoral dissertation at Fordham University,Ascent to Being, and The Gods of Atheism, The Antichrist, The Roots of Violence and his last book, a collection of retreat talks, Rendezvous with God.
Father Miceli, who entered the New Orleans Province of the Society of Jesus in 1936 at the age of twenty-one and was ordained to the Holy Priesthood in 1949, was, though, a boy from the South Bronx to the core of his pugnacious being. He was a street-fighter without peer. He loved to tear heretics to shreds with his incisive intelligence and his sharp, biting wit. One of his favorite ways of referring to a Catholic who dissent from the Sacred Deposit of Faith was by saying, "He [or she] is a disaaaaassta!"
To wit, pun completely intended, Father Miceli was eating a tuna fish salad sandwich in the refectory of Holy Apostles Seminary in Cromwell, Connecticut, in September of 1983. I was seated at the table with him along with two seminarians, Michael Scott and Anthony Mary Dandry, who were installed as presbyters for the Diocese of Metuchen in 1987 and 1989, respectively (both now deceased).
Also at the table was a woman who was taking theology courses at the seminary for "theological fulfillment" just "in case" God the Holy Ghost "changed His mind" about ordaining women to the priesthood. Father Miceli patiently gave one learned explanation after another to this woman to show her about the ontological impossibility of ordaining women to the priesthood. Finally, however, Father Miceli, having reached the point of total intellectual exasperation, just shook his head in disbelief and spoke while chewing his tuna fish salad sandwich, "Lady, you're crazy!" He then smiled broadly, being very pleased with himself, and looked from side to side for approvals of satisfaction from the rest of us, which he, quite of course, received.
Well, "Father" Giancaro Pani's article in La Civilta Cattolica confirms that “women priests” are no longer the stuff of fantasies in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Like everything else in the false conciliar sect, today’s forbidden practice is tomorrow’s “innovation” that is approved by the conciliar officials in the Vatican after decades of disobedience has accustomed the “people” to a feature that has no precedent in the history of the Catholic Church. The same will be true one day of “women priests," and Giancarlo Pani's article indicates that such a day may not be too long in the offing.
Conciliarism has opened up a veritable Pandora's Box of relentless change and innovation that has robbed millions upon millions of Catholics of their sensus Catholicus and bewildered and confused those who do have something left of that sensus Catholicus. Protestations against the nonadmissability of women to the priesthood ring rather hollow when one considers the fact that women can touch what is purported to be the Sacred Species with their own hands as they distribute Holy Communion to the faithful in their roles as "extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist." Women can proclaim the Word of God as lectors. They can lead "priestless" "Communion services." They can serve as administrators of parishes, having the responsibility, given to them by their "ordinaries," to supervise the work of "priests," thereby further emasculating the notion of the priesthood as an imaging of the Chief Priest and Victim of every Mass.
There are women serving as chancellors of the Catholic dioceses that are now in the hands of the conciliar revolutionaries. There has even been some talk from officials in the conciliar Vatican of permitting deaconesses. With little else in the counterfeit church of conciliarism that has not been subject to change and reconsideration and reinterpretation, why should the average Catholic think that Our Lord's own choice exclusively of males to His Holy Priesthood is not going to "change" at some point in the future.
I asked Dr. John Page, the Executive Director of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (I.C.E.L.) from 1980 to 2002, when interviewing him in his offices in Washington, District of Columbia, for The Wanderer in 1993 if any of the scores of "experts" listed as ICEL's advisors supported ordination of women to the priesthood. He gave a vague answer, saying only that it was his job and that of I.C.E.L. to "push the liturgy into the Twenty-first Century." That answer was not a denial of the presence of perhaps even large number of ICEL "advisors" who supported women's ordination to the conciliar presbyterate, something that many theologians in the conciliar structures have long contended is only a "matter of time."
Even though Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II had reiterated the impossibility of the ordination of women to what is purported to be the Catholic priesthood, the expectations created by egalitarianism and feminism encouraged by the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service helped to prepare the way for ever newer “changes” on the level of universal praxis in the conciliar world after years of acts of disobedience that went unpunished by one conciliar “pope” after another.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who has long cleaved to the Jacobin/Girondist view of the conciliar revolution, is merely ending any pretense that there is any token “opposition” inside the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River to “unapproved” practices that he believes is tearing down the “walls of exclusion” that have thus prevented women from what he believes is their rightful place in the leadership of liturgy and church administration. In other words, the Argentine Apostate, serving the role of the adversary himself, wants to place women over men, thus inverting the very order of Creation (Nature) and Redemption (Grace) signified by Our Lady’s humble fiat to the will of God the Father at the Annunciation that untied the knot of Eve’s prideful disobedience to God when she ate from the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Conciliarism has thus resulted in creating expectations that lead people into believing that ontological absurdities are possible even though its own officialdom does not see how this has occurred. Moreover, the exigencies of false ecumenism have been such that those in false religions believe that they have a mission from God Himself to "push" what they believe to be the "Catholic" Church further and further in the direction of the "enlightenment" represented by the most revolutionary strains of modern though, strains that reject the subordination of women even to Our Lord Himself (which is what the chapel veil signifies) and emphasizes the strict equality of all men at all times in all circumstances in order to appease the insatiable pride of those who do not accept the simple fact that each of us, whether a man or a woman, must conform our lives at all times to the Mind of God Himself as He has discharged It exclusively in the Catholic Church that He founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. Such a due submission of men and women to the authority of the Catholic Church is opposed to the spirit of the "enlightenment," which rejects the Social and Personal Kingship of Jesus Christ over nations and over individual human beings, a spirit which exults in the unabashed "freedoms of speech, of press, and of religion" that permit error to be spread and souls to be confused by all manner of insidious poisons.
Moreover, while Jorge Mario Bergoglio has spoken out against the admissibility of women to the conciliar presbyterate, he has done so solely because of the fact that Karol Wojtyla/John Paul reaffirmed the inadmissibility of women to Holy Orders in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, May 22, 1994, not because he, Bergoglio, believes, that it is ontologically impossible for women to be ordained:
102. Lay people are, put simply, the vast majority of the people of God. The minority – ordained ministers – are at their service. There has been a growing awareness of the identity and mission of the laity in the Church. We can count on many lay persons, although still not nearly enough, who have a deeply-rooted sense of community and great fidelity to the tasks of charity, catechesis and the celebration of the faith. At the same time, a clear awareness of this responsibility of the laity, grounded in their baptism and confirmation, does not appear in the same way in all places. In some cases, it is because lay persons have not been given the formation needed to take on important responsibilities. In others, it is because in their particular Churches room has not been made for them to speak and to act, due to an excessive clericalism which keeps them away from decision-making. Even if many are now involved in the lay ministries, this involvement is not reflected in a greater penetration of Christian values in the social, political and economic sectors. It often remains tied to tasks within the Church, without a real commitment to applying the Gospel to the transformation of society. The formation of the laity and the evangelization of professional and intellectual life represent a significant pastoral challenge.
103. The Church acknowledges the indispensable contribution which women make to society through the sensitivity, intuition and other distinctive skill sets which they, more than men, tend to possess. I think, for example, of the special concern which women show to others, which finds a particular, even if not exclusive, expression in motherhood. I readily acknowledge that many women share pastoral responsibilities with priests, helping to guide people, families and groups and offering new contributions to theological reflection. But we need to create still broader opportunities for a more incisive female presence in the Church. Because “the feminine genius is needed in all expressions in the life of society, the presence of women must also be guaranteed in the workplace”[72] and in the various other settings where important decisions are made, both in the Church and in social structures.
104. Demands that the legitimate rights of women be respected, based on the firm conviction that men and women are equal in dignity, present the Church with profound and challenging questions which cannot be lightly evaded. The reservation of the priesthood to males, as a sign of Christ the Spouse who gives himself in the Eucharist, is not a question open to discussion, but it can prove especially divisive if sacramental power is too closely identified with power in general. It must be remembered that when we speak of sacramental power “we are in the realm of function, not that of dignity or holiness”.[73] The ministerial priesthood is one means employed by Jesus for the service of his people, yet our great dignity derives from baptism, which is accessible to all. The configuration of the priest to Christ the head – namely, as the principal source of grace – does not imply an exaltation which would set him above others. In the Church, functions “do not favour the superiority of some vis-à-vis the others”.[74] Indeed, a woman, Mary, is more important than the bishops. Even when the function of ministerial priesthood is considered “hierarchical”, it must be remembered that “it is totally ordered to the holiness of Christ’s members”.[75] Its key and axis is not power understood as domination, but the power to administer the sacrament of the Eucharist; this is the origin of its authority, which is always a service to God’s people. This presents a great challenge for pastors and theologians, who are in a position to recognize more fully what this entails with regard to the possible role of women in decision-making in different areas of the Church’s life. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013.)
Note how Jorge Mario Bergoglio referred to the "ministerial," not the sacerdotal (sacrificing), priesthood.
Moreover, Jorge Mario Bergoglio had the temerity to disparage the power that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, He Who is the Chief Priest and Victim of every Mass, our High Priest Who governs us in all things, has given to his ordained priests to teach, rule and sanctify in His Holy Name. Bergoglio also dared to claim the priesthood is but a mere "function" that is not in the "realm" of "dignity" and holiness."
This man is a blaspheming heretic, one who makes a liar of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and of the teaching He gave to Holy Mother Church that has been guided infallibly by God the Holy Ghost.
Pope Pius XII's Mediator Dei refuted Bergoglio's reduction of the Holy Priesthood to but a mere function and not one that is separate and distinct from that of the common priesthood shared by each baptized Catholic:
83. For there are today, Venerable Brethren, those who, approximating to errors long since condemned[82] teach that in the New Testament by the word "priesthood" is meant only that priesthood which applies to all who have been baptized; and hold that the command by which Christ gave power to His apostles at the Last Supper to do what He Himself had done, applies directly to the entire Christian Church, and that thence, and thence only, arises the hierarchical priesthood. Hence they assert that the people are possessed of a true priestly power, while the priest only acts in virtue of an office committed to him by the community. Wherefore, they look on the eucharistic sacrifice as a "concelebration," in the literal meaning of that term, and consider it more fitting that priests should "concelebrate" with the people present than that they should offer the sacrifice privately when the people are absent.
84. It is superfluous to explain how captious errors of this sort completely contradict the truths which we have just stated above, when treating of the place of the priest in the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. But we deem it necessary to recall that the priest acts for the people only because he represents Jesus Christ, who is Head of all His members and offers Himself in their stead. Hence, he goes to the altar as the minister of Christ, inferior to Christ but superior to the people.[83] The people, on the other hand, since they in no sense represent the divine Redeemer and are not mediator between themselves and God, can in no way possess the sacerdotal power. (Pope Pius XII,Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947.)
That is pretty clear, is it not?
The priest his superio