Francis At The Improv

Embarrassed by the imprecision with which Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis has used to speak extemporaneously at his morning gabfests as he takes the world his daily Ding Dong School Of Apostasy, officials in the Occupy Vatican Movement have taken to explaining why the currently governing "Petrine Minister" does not want his daily "homilies" published verbatim:

In other words, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis cannot be trusted to stay within the counterfeit church of conciliarism's accepted confines of Modernism, which is why his daily "homilies" have to be "polished up" by the Keystone Kops who work out of "Father" Federico Lombardi's "spin room" in the Vatican press office before they are sent out for public consumption.

The mere fact that "Father" Lombardi has seen fit to issue yet another statement to explain why verbatim transcripts of his brother Jesuit's Ding Dong School lessons is yet another proof of how the man who is thought by most people in the world, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, has been diminished into nothing other than that a garden variety conciliar presbyter who is prone to say whatever comes into his mind and try to make it fit somehow into the context of what he thinks is the Catholic Faith.

This is all kind of reminiscent of the time I heard a presbyter, now around seventy-one years of age and installed in 1970, say from the pulpit during his "homily" at a staging of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service in 1982 after he had viewed the motion picture Gandhi, "I think that Christ was a very Gandhi-like figure." A thirteen-year old student who was in one of the religious education programs that I was teaching on different nights at the time said to me, "I think that Father [name of presbyter] is making up his homilies as he is walking across the street to the church." Well. what was true of the blaspheming presbyter thirty-one years ago is true also every day now at the Casa Santa Marta, which has become home to the ostentatiously "humble" Francis at the Improv.

Not even Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II did so when I served as his "lector" at his daily staging of the Novus Ordo liturgical service in his private chapel in the Apostolic Palace on Wednesday, May 26, 1993. Wojtyla/John Paul II simply staged the Novus Ordo service, doing so without facing the people, which I thought at the time was a sign of an imminent "restoration" when it was, of course, no such thing. And as far as I know--and I could be wrong on this point, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI did not blather on and on and on every day at his supposedly "reverent" staging of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo facing the altar.

Ah, but what Wojytyla/John Paul II and Ratzinger/Benedict XVI did do, however, was to prepare the way for Francis at the Improv and hence the necessity for Federico Lombardi's Toody and Muldoon operation in the Press Office of the Holy See by publishing "unofficial" books that contained various errors that fell outside, well, at least for the time being, of the accepted parameters of the Modernist "faith" of conciliarism. "Clarification" after "clarification" has been issued to reassure Catholics that something in a "pope's" "unofficial" writing that is considered to be "personal speculation" is not binding on them.

This insanity has led defenders of all things conciliar, eager to avoid the conclusion that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is a false ape of the Catholic Church that has been headed by five successive apostates, to take repeated and a most sorry refuge in the preposterous contention that the "private" views of the conciliar "popes" that are clearly contrary to the Catholic Faith do not carry any significance for their membership in the Church, less yet for their legitimacy to serve in the capacities that they claim to have had.

As I wrote a little in late-2010, no true pope of the Catholic Church has ever written in a "private" capacity prior to Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's doing so in Crossing the Threshold of Hope.

There is a reason for this: a true pope is not a "private" person. He is the Vicar of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on earth. He speaks for Our Lord as he governs Holy Mother Church and teaches only that which has been revealed by the One Whose Vicar he is, nothing more, nothing less.

A true pope does not have the luxury to be a private person or to publish "private" views, no less views that are contrary to the defined teaching of the Catholic Church.

Our true popes have understood that most Catholics do not make distinctions readily. It is part of the sensus Catholicus to render unto a true pope our loyalty, respect and submission as sons and daughters of Holy Mother Church, indeed, as his spiritual sons and daughters. A true pope would never want to confuse Catholics with a bifurcation between "official" and "unofficial" words and deeds. This refuge is illusory as it conflicts with the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church, something that will be demonstrated later in this article.

Suffice it to say for the moment, however, that the "novelty" of "papal" books and pronouncements that are not considered part of the Magisterium of Holy Mother and the "novelty" of "unofficial" pronouncements by such bodies as the "International Theological Commission" and the "Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue Between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church" have muddied the waters of what is the distinction between the "official" teaching of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, much of which is apostate in its own right, and the "unofficial" teaching that, we are told, binds no one in particular.

Defenders of all things conciliar tell us repeatedly that the "unofficial" teaching binds no one in particular. However, the false "pontiff," Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict referred on many occasions in the nearly eight years of his false "pontificate" to the "unofficial" nature of the teaching in his own "unofficial" pronouncements and the teachings in his books.

The "unofficial" and supposedly "private" views of the conciliar "pontiffs" have proved to be a very potent and perverse "catechetical" tool, if you will, to convince Catholics and non-Catholics alike that what appears to be the Catholic Church has "changed" her teaching. This is especially so when one considers the fact that most Catholics do not follow anything the conciliar "popes" do or say, meaning that whatever snippets news they hear or read represents the "official" teaching of the Catholic Church. Don't kid yourselves. Very few people, relatively speaking, pay attention even to the "conservative" websites and blogs, no less to those that purport represent a supposedly "traditional" viewpoint, and thus they what they hear on the news or read in print, whether online or in what the ancients called newsprint, is what they believe is taught by the Catholic Church.

What, then, do you think that those relatively people think when they hear that a putative "pope's" daily "homily" does not represent the official teaching of the Catholic Church and that a spokesman, "Father" Thomas Rosica, has had to see fit to correct the "pope" when he strays from conciliar orthodoxy as happened recently:

Francis Do-Right discussed the issues raised by Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis's May 15, 2013, "homily" in great detail. No matter what the false "pontiff" is supposed to have "really" meant in his May 15, 2013, "homily," the plain reality is that most of those who read the press reports came away with the impression that the man they believe to be the "pope" was saying that it did not matter what atheists believed as long as they "did good." Those who specifically reject Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through the Catholic Church, outside of which there can be no true personal or social order, are not to be "admired" for "doing good."

Yet it is that despite the "Father" Rosica's recent "clarification" of the reigning Petrine Ministers comments made nineteen days ago now, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis does show great respect for atheists and their nonexistent ability to help produce "peace" in the world.

Witness the fact that Bergoglio/Francis discussed "the integral development of the person" with the atheist who is the President of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, the singularly most secularized nation in all of South America that had blazed a path in behalf of what Pope Saint Pius X termed the "separation of Church and State" that is, of course, one of the essential building rocks of conciliarism:

Jose Alberto Mujica Cordano is an atheist. He is a socialist. He is a former "guerilla fighter." In the crazy-quilt world of conciliarism, such a man can speak with a putative "pope" on issues of "common interest" such as "the integral development of the person, and respect for human rights, justice, and social peace."

There is a slight problem with this. No man who is committed to the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn knows anything about "human rights, justice, and social peace," noting that no one except those in state hospitals knows anything about "the integral development of the person" as the only kind of "development" that pleases the Most Blessed Trinity is our growth in personal sanctity on a daily basis, something that Pope Pius XI noted very clearly in his condemnation of Nazism in Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937:

Jose Alberto Mujica Cordano does not believe in this. Indeed, he is an agent of social disorder as he personally signed a bill in law "decriminalizing" the slaughter of an innocent baby in his mother's womb by surgical means within the first twelve to fourteen weeks of his life:

It is not a good thing when the pro-contraception, pro-death, pro-perversity "Human Rights Watch" praises legislation dealing with the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. Yet it is that the very atheist, Jose Alberto Mujica Cordano, with whom Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis spoke to about the "integral development of the human person and respect for human rights, justice, and social "peace" supports evils that defy the immutable laws of God and can do nothing but foment His wrath and social disorder.

Jose Alberto Mujica Cordano also supports "rights" for those engaged in perverse sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments as he signed a "marriage equality" bill on May 3, 2013, that had been passed by the General Assembly of Uruguay (Chamber of Deputies and Chamber of Senators) on April 11, 2013. Some advocate of "the integral development of the person" and of "social justice."

Did Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis refuse to be photographed with the president of the country that borders on his own native land, Argentina for fear of scandalizing the faithful?

Here is a question for "Father" Thomas Rosica: What if Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis really, really, really thinks that hideous creatures such as Jose Alberto Mujica Cordano can "do good" as they show themselves to be doing nothing other than evil?

Then again, "Father" Thomas Rosica is the last one to be "clarifying" the "unofficial" comments of the conciliar "pontiff" as he is a heretic in his own sorry right:

Fr. Rosica: “What I think this resignation [of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI] has done is to take us one step further now about examining the role of the papacy, the collegiality that is necessary for the papacy; that is the pope who works in conjunction with and dialogues with the bishops of the world. The papacy is not some kind of a myth that’s way out there and making this almost a super human role. For example why didn't people get all upset when Archbishop Rowan Williams stepped down after leading brilliantly the Anglican Communion through some turbulent times? He did his work and now to know that Rowan Williams a great theologian a friend of Benedict has gone to Magdalene College to continue research and writing. He did his work, so somehow what Benedict has done to us is put the church in a new trajectory into understanding the role of Peter. The leadership of the papacy requires somebody who can connect with people somebody who has health somebody who can move around and not be afraid of long flights. Somebody who’s got energy and stamina; it’s really a respect for life what he’s done.”

Mansbridge: “Does it also need someone that connects with this generation….that the Church has to move forward into a whole new era?”

Father Rosica: Oh sure…a leader, that figurehead this first among equals in the person of the pope is absolutely essential. He is a symbol. He represents who we are. And so, for the past two papacies especially the last part of John Paul’s papacy and this papacy, we got to know an older man, an elderly person; John Paul certainly dying before our very eyes almost the last ten years and Benedict who came in elderly and who goes out now weak and that’s very important because we respect elders, in our culture we respect elders… (As found on Vox Cantoris, Motumania website.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis clearly agrees with "Father" Rosica as he, Bergoglio/Francis, refuses to use the title of "pope," having signed his name as merely "Francesco" in the official yearbook, Annuario Pontificio, published by the Vatican while his predecessor, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, calls himself the "pope emeritus:"

Francis has possibly de-emphasized a number of the formal titles normally taken by the leader of the Roman Catholic church, choosing instead to list himself first by the basic title "Bishop of Rome" in the Vatican's annual directory.

The directory, known as the Annuario Pontificio, lists the Vatican's official information regarding church leaders and dioceses throughout the world. Release of the 2013 edition was delayed following Pope Benedict XVI's resignation in February and Francis' election in March.

VATICAN CITY, May 23, 2013 – With a delay of two months with respect to the traditional timetable, the 2013 edition has finally been published of the Annuario Pontificio, the voluminous publication that constitutes a sort of who's who of the Holy See and of the whole Catholic Church, at least in its hierarchical component.

This delay with respect to the canonical timing is without a doubt due to the unexpected resignation of Benedict XVI, announced on February 11, and to the subsequent conclave that saw the election of the new pope on March 13.

Last year, in fact, as is the tradition, Benedict XVI received a preview of the 2012 edition of the Annuario on March 10. While this year, Pope Francis had it in his hands only on March 13.

Apart from the timing, the new Annuario is not lacking in those surprises which characterize the current pontificate.

The main one concerns precisely the title with which Pope Francis has chosen to define himself.

From the beginning of the pontificate, he has chosen to call himself almost exclusively “bishop of Rome.” And this preference has been fully reflected in the initial part of the new Annuario, the pages of which, as usual, are numbered with figures followed by an asterisk (*) and include the historical list of popes and the composition of the college of cardinals.

On page 23 of the last edition, Benedict XVI was indicated not only as “bishop of Rome," but also as “Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and metropolitan of the Roman province, Sovereign of Vatican City-State, Servant of the Servants of God.”

This year, however, on the same page is found only the wording, on two lines, "Francis / bishop of Rome," while all of the other titles, together with the usual brief biographical notes, are on the following page, 24*, which in 2012 was left blank.

The new pope has therefore not given up any of the classical titles that belong to him, but has wanted to put them visibly in second place.

And at the same time, he has not wished to reintroduce for himself the title of “patriarch of the West” that pope Joseph Ratzinger had already eliminated at the beginning of his pontificate, provoking discontent in Orthodoxy, seeing that it is precisely the title that the Orientals are disposed to concede to the bishop of Rome.

This year, moreover, on the opposite side of the page with the coat of arms of the reigning pope are not depicted, as was done before, the two sides of the official medal of the pontificate.

Furthermore, beneath the photo-portrait of the pontiff is now his signature with only the name “Francesco” in Italian, while with pope Ratzinger the signature was in Latin and with the specifically papal title: “Benedictus PP XVI".

There was also the curiosity of seeing what treatment would be given to the figure, unprecedented for the Annuario, of a pontiff who has resigned the position. The answer is found right at the beginning of the main body of the Annuario, on page 1, where Benedict XVI is called “supreme pontiff emeritus.”

This makes official the term equivalent to “pope emeritus” that had already been used in the telegram from the college of cardinals of March 5 and in the statement from the press office of May 2 in which the news was given of the reentry of Ratzinger into the Vatican.

And this in spite of the fact that an effort was made on various sides to demonstrate the greater congruity of the use of the title of “bishop emeritus of Rome,” if for no other reason than to avoid the impression that there could be “two popes” in the Church, with the resulting disorientation of the faithful.

One of the contributions in this direction, among others, was a scholarly article in “La Civiltà Cattolica" by Jesuit Fr. Gianfranco Ghirlanda, an illustrious canonist, advisor to the former Holy Office, and former rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University.

More recently this was done in a more direct way, with a letter to “Corriere della Sera," by Fr. Dario Vitali, a professor of ecclesiology - but not a Jesuit - also at the Gregorian. (The identity cards of the last two Universal Public Faces of Apostasy.)

No matter the appearance of Catholicism that Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis may give on some occasions, he is a complete Modernist who has been on a thoroughly relentless mission to propagandize in behalf of the conciliar revolution by means of his words, his very style of address and by the symbols he refuse of the papacy that he refuses to use in order as he speaks of his "simplicity" and emphasizes his "mission" as the alleged Bishop of Rome.

It was in the latter capacity that Bergoglio/Francis conducted himself on Trinity Sunday, May 26, 2013, as he preached and then distributed what purported to be Holy Communion at an outdoor staging of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service at the parish of Saint Elizabeth and Zachary in Rome. This gave rise to even more confusion, leaving aside the "blessing" that he had the poor non-First Communicans give him at the end of the travesty, as Bergoglio/Francis said the following after having referenced the two presbyters who came with him from the Vatican for the service:

One can see that Bergoglio/Francis pointed to the Vatican in the far-off distance when he said "the Pope is in the Vatican."

It could mean that Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis believes he is "pope" only in the Vatican and that he is the "Bishop of Rome" outside of the Vatican Walls when visiting Roman parishes.

It could mean that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who resides within the Vatican Walls once again, is "pope" and that he is only the "Bishop of Rome."

It could mean that the ever "humble" Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis was trying convey the fact that he is a simple "pastor" of his flock and not a "monarch" to be considered as anyone of great importance.

This is the kind of imprecision with which those who do not have the Catholic Faith in all of Its Holy Integrity leave with Catholics and non-Catholics alike, and to try to determine what is "official" and what is "unofficial" within the conciliar structures is just another exercise of madness in this time of apostasy and betrayal.

One thing is quite certain, however: whether "official" or "unofficial," "papal" or merely "episcopal," Jorge Mario Bergoglio has gone to great lengths in the past eighty-two days to beat up on nonexistent strawmen within the conciliar structures who want to "turn back" the "Second" Vatican Council, referring to such strawmen as representing a "triumphalistic church," the "no church" and a church that is "closed in on itself," confident of "having all the answers."

How many Catholics have ever heard of the word "triumphalism" or know that it has been used to disparage the Catholic Church as the sole repository of Divine Revelation and that her visible head, the Vicar of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on earth, must reign monarchically over her?

How many Catholics know that the word "triumphalism" has been used to disparage the glories of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that had been taught in all of its essential parts by Christ the King Himself in the forty days between Easter Sunday and Ascension Thursday?

How many Catholics know that the word "triumphalism" has been used to disparage the art and architecture in Catholic churches that befit the greater honor and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity and that serve as external symbols to help us to lift up our minds and hearts to Him in a recollected manner when assisting at the unbloody re-presentation or perpetual of the Sacrifice of the Holy Cross offered to God the Father by His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal Son in Spirit and in Truth on Good Friday?

Whether Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis or the Toodys and Muldoons in "Father" Federico Lombardi's damage control office on the Via della Concilazione outside of the Vatican Walls consider his weekday "homilies" to be "official," they do very much represent the official teaching and spirit of the "Second" Vatican Council that simply reeks of utter contempt and hatred for all that preceded the "Catholic enlightenment" represented by that false council and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes."

Catholics must be faithful to everything that has been handed down to us by the Apostles without a shadow of change or alteration.

The Mystical Body of Christ here on earth will know its resurrection one day. For the moment, though, she is in the tomb. We must keep close to Our Lady as it will be the Triumph of her Immaculate Heart that will make possible this resurrection and thus the vanquishing of conciliarism and its offenses once and for all, making sure to pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.

Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death.


© Copyright 2013, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.

Francis At The Improv

by Thomas A. Droleskey