I have taken my own advice.
As noted three days ago now, "Perhaps one of the best ways to handle the madness that passes for Catholicism from the lords of conciliarism is to refuse to pay much attention to it."
I have done so for the past three days.
There is simply no useful purpose to be served by staying up until long past midnight for three, four or even five consecutive nights to repeat oneself at length about the madness of the conciliar revolutionaries.
How many times and in how many different ways can it be documented that Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis is an apostate who is bereft of the Catholic Faith as It has been taught by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to the Apostles and transmitted from the time of Pentecost Sunday without any shadow of change or alteration?
Modernism, it must be remembered, is an admixture of truth and error.
There are occasions when each of the conciliar "popes" have attempted to defend the immutable teaching of the Catholic Church on various points, although they have done so in most instances by the use of "conciliarspeak" that has nothing to do with the manner in which various dogmas have been defined by Holy Mother Church's true general councils under the infallible guidance and protection of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost.
Far more numerous, though, are the times when the conciliar "popes" have combined error and a bit of truth in one allocution or in one "encyclical" letter or "homily."
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI was a past master at self-contradiction.
So is his successor as the universal public face of apostasy in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis.
According to a report on the Rorate Caeli website, Bergoglio/Francis mocked a group of "restorationists"--traditionalists, that is--who are as yet attached to the patently absurd notion that he, Francis the Talking Apostate, is a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter for counting the number of Rosaries that they had offered for his intentions:
Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis is a revolutionary demagogue, a man who seems to be obsessed with disparaging traditionally-minded Catholics no matter where they fall along the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide.
Bergoglio/Francis has disparaged traditionally-minded Catholics as "hard-headed" or stubborn (see Francis And The Commissars),
Bergoglio/Francis has disparaged traditionally-minded Catholics as the modern-day equivalent of Pharisees (see "You, Sir, Are A Pharisee!").
Bergoglio/Francis has used his daily blab and gab sessions at the Casa Santa Marta, which are "unofficial," of course (see Francis At The Improv), as a Ding Dong School Of Apostasy to explain conciliarism to dummies such as us.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis has now taken to comparing those pathetic creatures he disparages as "restorationists" to "ultra-progressive" revolutionaries who deny the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary by the power of God the Holy Ghost at the Annunciation.
This is very interesting when one considers the simple fact that he, Bergoglio/Francis, mocks the meaning of Our Lord's Incarnation by seeking to redefine and reinterpret almost every single article of the Catholic Faith to suit his own revolutionary schemes that fall with the "accepted" norms of "mainstream" conciliar thought and pastoral praxis.
Remember, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, has told us that his training in liturgical matters was an "emancipated" one in contrast to the "rigidity" of those Pharisaical strawmen known as traditionalists that he loved to disparage and knock down on a regular basis (see Francis The Liturgist).
By mocking the devotion of "restorationists" to Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary and the other "practices" and "disciplines" that existed once in time but do not exist now, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis was giving public voice to a sentiment that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI himself shared to the depths of his own Modernist heart.
How many times must it be noted that the now retired Benedict XVI said specifically that he issued Summorum Pontificum on July 7, 2007, merely as a means to "pacify" the "spirits" of those poor traditionalists who were "attached" to a previous discipline of the Catholic Church?
Well, here is a little reminder:
Leading men and women to God, to the God Who speaks in the Bible:
this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the
Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is
that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity,
their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility
of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith - ecumenism - is part of the supreme priority.
Added to this is the need for all those who believe in God to join in
seeking peace, to attempt to draw closer to one another, and to journey
together, even with their differing images of God, towards the source of
Light - this is inter-religious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is
Love 'to the end' has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to
the suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity - this is the
social dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the
Encyclical 'Deus caritas est'.
"So if the arduous task of working for faith,
hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always)
the Church's real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of
reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of
extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the
opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must
accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to
meet half-way the brother who 'has something against you' and to seek
reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall
forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents - to the
extent possible - in the great currents shaping social life, and thus
avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can
it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and
narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for
the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the
return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their
interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church
enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole.
Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests,
215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level
institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands
of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the
Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed
their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have
chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements,
they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim Him and,
with Him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives
of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What
would then become of them?
"Certainly, for some time now, and once again on
this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that
community many unpleasant things - arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions,
etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a
number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an
openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to
be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of
the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas?
And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged
in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society
needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown;
which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to
approach them - in this case the Pope - he too loses any right to
tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or
to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the
excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, March 10, 2009.)
Fr Federico Lombardi, S.J., Director of the Holy See Press Office: What do you say to those who, in France, fear that the "Motu proprio' Summorum Pontificum signals a step backwards from the great insights of the Second Vatican Council? How can you reassure them?
Benedict XVI: Their fear is unfounded, for this "Motu
Proprio' is merely an act of tolerance, with a pastoral aim, for those
people who were brought up with this liturgy, who love it, are familiar
with it and want to live with this liturgy. They form a small group,
because this presupposes a schooling in Latin, a training in a certain
culture. Yet for these people, to have the love and tolerance to let
them live with this liturgy seems to me a normal requirement of the
faith and pastoral concern of any Bishop of our Church. There is no
opposition between the liturgy renewed by the Second Vatican Council and
On each day [of the Council], the Council Fathers celebrated Mass in
accordance with the ancient rite and, at the same time, they conceived
of a natural development for the liturgy within the whole of this
century, for the liturgy is a living reality that develops but, in its
development, retains its identity.
Thus, there are certainly different accents, but nevertheless [there
remains] a fundamental identity that excludes a contradiction, an
opposition between the renewed liturgy and the previous liturgy.
In any case, I believe that there is an opportunity for the enrichment
of both parties. On the one hand the friends of the old liturgy can and
must know the new saints, the new prefaces of the liturgy, etc....
On the other, the new liturgy places greater emphasis on common
participation, but it is not merely an assembly of a certain community,
but rather always an act of the universal Church in communion with all
believers of all times, and an act of worship. In this sense, it seems
to me that there is a mutual enrichment, and it is clear that the
renewed liturgy is the ordinary liturgy of our time. (Interview of the Holy Father during the flight to France, September 12, 2008.)
Liturgical worship is the supreme expression of priestly and
episcopal life, just as it is of catechetical teaching. Your duty to sanctify
the faithful people, dear Brothers, is indispensable for the growth of the
Church. In the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum”, I was led to
set out the conditions in which this duty is to be exercised, with regard to the
possibility of using the missal of Blessed John XXIII (1962) in addition to that
of Pope Paul VI (1970). Some fruits of these new arrangements have already been
seen, and I hope that, thanks be to God, the necessary pacification of spirits
is already taking place. I am aware of your difficulties, but I do not doubt
that, within a reasonable time, you can find solutions satisfactory for all,
lest the seamless tunic of Christ be further torn. Everyone has a place in the
Church. Every person, without exception, should be able to feel at home, and
never rejected. God, who loves all men and women and wishes none to be lost,
entrusts us with this mission by appointing us shepherds of his sheep. We can
only thank him for the honour and the trust that he has placed in us. Let us
therefore strive always to be servants of unity! (Meeting with the French Bishops in the Hemicycle
Sainte-Bernadette, Lourdes, 14 September 2008.)
There is no "hermeneutic of rupture," so to speak, between Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis and his predecessor, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. The two are of absolutely one mind when he comes to the "threat" posed by traditionalists, a "threat" about which the then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote as follows thirty-one years ago now:
Among the more obvious phenomena of the last years must be counted the
increasing number of integralist groups in which the desire for piety,
for the sense of mystery, is finding satisfaction. We must be on
our guard against minimizing these movements. Without a doubt, they
represent a sectarian zealotry that is the antithesis of Catholicity. We
cannot resist them too firmly. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 389-390)
Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis's mockery of the number of Rosaries prayed for him by "restorationists" and their attachment to "past" practices and disciplines is no renegade belief on his part in conciliar circles. It is in absolute conformity with the letter and the spirit of Paragraph Fifteen of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal:
The same awareness of the present state of the world also influenced the
use of texts from very ancient tradition. It seemed that this cherished
treasure would not be harmed if some phrases were changed so that the
style of language would be more in accord with the language of modern
theology and would faithfully reflect the actual state of the Church's
discipline. Thus there have been changes of some expressions bearing on
the evaluation and use of the good things of the earth and of allusions
to a particular form of outward penance belonging to another age in the
history of the Church. (Paragraph Fifteen, General Instruction to the Roman Missal, 1997.)
Acts of outward penance
belong to every age in the history of the Catholic Church, unless, that
is, Our Lady herself, the very Mother of God, was wrong when she said:
"Penance! Penance! Penance!. . . . Kiss the ground as a penance for sinners." (Our Lady's Words at Lourdes.)
"Are you willing to offer yourselves to God and
bear all the sufferings He wills to send you, as an act of reparation
for the conversion of sinners? (May 13, 1917.)
"Then you are going to have much to suffer, but the grace of God will be your comfort." (May 13, 1917.)
"Pray, pray very much, and make sacrifices for
sinners; for many souls go to hell, because there are none to sacrifice
themselves and pray for them." (August 19, 1917.) (Our Lady's Words at Fatima.)
Outward signs of penance simply belong to the "past" insofar as Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis is concerned. "Restorationists" are to be disparaged as self-redeeming Pelagians and compared to those on what he believes is their opposite "extreme," the ultra-progressives.
"Wait!", some defenders all things conciliar might say. "Francis also said in that same talk to the women men and religious dressed up in nontraditional garb that he wanted to get rid of the 'gay lobby' in the Vatican. Isn't that good, Droleskey?"
Well, let's take a look at what Francis the Blind is reported to have said on this point:
Among many other things said by His Holiness in his audience to the Presiding Board of CLAR (the Latin American and Caribbean Confederation of Religious Men and Women - Confederación Latinoamericana y Caribeña de Religiosos y Religiosas) on June 6, 2013, according to the transcript provided by those present to Chilean ultra-progressive website Reflexión y Liberación (Reflection and Liberation), was a reference to a supposed "gay lobby" inside the Roman Curia. Just a note: the words below, not at all happy from a progressive perspective, are a strong indication of the likeliness that the transcript is accurate - or as accurate as it is possible in the setting of a non-public audience.
And, yes... it is difficult. In the Curia, there are also holy people, really, there are holy people. But there also is a stream of corruption, there is that as well, it is true... The "gay lobby" is mentioned, and it is true, it is there... We need to see what we can do...
The reform of the Roman Curia is something that almost all Cardinals asked for in the Congregations preceding the Conclave. I also asked for it. I cannot promote the reform myself, these matters of administration... I am very disorganized, I have never been good at this. But the cardinals of the Commission will move it forward. There is Rodríguez Maradiaga, who is Latin American, who is in front of it, there is Errázuriz, they are very organized. The one from Munich is also very organized. They will move it forward.
Pray for me... that I make mistakes the least possible... (Universal Public Face of Apostasy to CLAR, part 2: "Yes, there is a 'gay lobby' in the Curia. We need to see what we can do about it".)
"We need to see what we can do" about the "gay lobby" within the Vatican?
Boy, that's a strong statement coming from a putative pope.
Then again, my friends, a true pope would never be discussing matters of internal governance within the Vatican in any kind of public forum, whether formal or informal.
A true pope would recognize the danger posed by the presence of practicing homosexuals within the Vatican and he would get rid of each and every single one of them without any delay, banishing each to a monastery for a life and prayer and, yes, Jorge, penance to make reparation for their sins and the scandal they had caused.
A true pope does not tear his garments in public and say that he is too "disorganized" to effect "reform."
The removal of practicing homosexuals from the Vatican is not a matter of a "reform." It is a duty, and for Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis to contend that the best he could do was to "see what could be done" about the presence of such perverted individuals in the Vatican is thus yet another collateral proof that he lacks the sensus Catholicus, something that is but the rotten fruit of his own Modernist mind and heart.
Moreover, one wonders what will happen to those in the Occupy Vatican Movement who may not be members of the "gay lobby" but who are nevertheless enablers of what Mrs. Randy Engel has termed the "homosexual collective."
After all, Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself is supportive of the concept of "civil union" status for those engaged in unrepentant acts of perversity in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.
Will Bergoglio/Francis "see what he can do" about getting rid of those who support "civil unions" for those steeped in perverse practices that cry out to Heaven for vengeance?
Will he purge himself?
Ah, don't count on it.
The director of the Press Office of the Holy See, "Father" Federico Lombardi, S.J., supports such "civil union" status for those engaged in the sin of Sodom:
"[I]t is a good thing for the child to know that he has a father and a
mother"; [it must be] "made clear that matrimony between a man and a
woman is a specific and fundamental institution in the history of
mankind. This does not prevent that other forms of union between two persons may be recognized". (Layman Lombardi, Holy See spokesman, defends legal recognition of non-marital "unions" of two persons?. See also One Thousand Four Hundred Eighty-One Days.)
Has there been any "papal" rebuke given to "Father" Federico Lombardi?
No, none that I have been able to find.
Has anyone in the Vatican contradicted Godfried "Cardinal" Danneels, who has gone so far as to say that "gay marriage" represents a "positive" development (see Plenty To Say, Godfried, Plenty)?
What has happened to the likes of Theodore McCarrick, the retired conciliar "archbishop" of Washington, District of Columbia, or to Vincent Nichols, the conciliar "archbishop" of Westminster, England, or to Robert Zollitsch, the apostate who denied that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ died on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday in atonement for the sins of men, or to Piero Marini (see Rocketing To The Very Depths Of Hell), the fiend who served under the liturgical revolutionary named Annibale Bugnini and is now the president of the conciliar commission on Eucharistic Congresses, after announcing their support for "civil union" status for "couples" engaged in degrading, perverse acts denounced by Saint Paul the Apostle in no uncertain terms in his Epistle to the Romans (Chapter 1, Verses 18-32)?
What has happened to to Ranier "Cardinal" Woelki, the conciliar "archbishop" of Berlin, Germany, for saying the following two years ago now?
But some momentum for change was evident from a speech by Berlin Cardinal Rainer Maria Woelki.
He told a crowd on Thursday that the church should view long-term,
faithful homosexual relationships as they do heterosexual ones.
"When two homosexuals take responsibility for one another, if they deal
with each other in a faithful and long-term way, then you have to see it
in the same way as heterosexual relationships," Woelki told an
astonished crowd, according to a story in the Tagesspiegel newspaper.
Woekli acknowledged that the church saw the relationship between a man
and a woman as the basis for creation, but added that it was time to
think further about the church's attitude toward same sex relationships. (Some clerical abusers 'should work in church'.)
And the best that Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis can do about the "gay lobby" within the Vatican is to "see" what could be done it as he admitted that such a "reform" was beyond his ability to effect?
Sure. Anything you say.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis has no problem at all denouncing the "restorationists" over and over and over again. while the "best" that he can do about the "gay lobby" within the Vatican is to "see" what can be done about it.
Meanwhile, the madness of conciliarism continues unabated as the president of the "Pontifical" Commission for Interreligious Dialogue, Jean-Louis "Cardinal" Tauran, is going to London this week to participate in an "Assisi World Day of Peace"-like travesty to pray for "peace" in the aftermath of the murder of a British soldier by a faithful adherent of the false prophet and true blasphemer by the name of Mohammed:
Following the terrible events in Woolwich last month, the country is still in shock, but the killing of an off-duty soldier and public reaction to his death provide a powerful context for the visit to London next week of Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue. This is because a recurring theme since the Woolwich tragedy has been the need for people of good will from all faiths to stand together in their rejection of violence and their commitment to peace at both local and international level.
From 12 to 16 June, next Wednesday until the following Sunday, Cardinal Tauran will be visiting three specific communities; on Thursday evening he will speak in Westminster Cathedral Hall at an interfaith event entitled “Together in Prayer for Peace”. This will be a public event to which representatives of all the main faith communities will be invited.
The “Prayer for Peace” event harks back to the World Day of Prayer for Peace that took place in Assisi on 27 October 1986. Pope John Paul II convened that meeting because he was convinced that although religious leaders are not able to influence events directly, they can and should pray for the gift of peace. He therefore created an event in which they could do so publicly and support one another in prayer.
That historic gathering did not come entirely out of the blue. To understand it, we need to go back to Vatican II and beyond. Pope John Paul explained the initiative in his famous address to the Roman Curia in December 1986. He reflected on the Assisi Day and spoke profoundly about the theme of people being united and being one in their refusal of violence and their desire for peace. He also made it clear that the convening of the Assisi event was precisely an implementation of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council. We are now marking the fiftieth anniversary of Vatican II, and what struck me recently, rereading John Paul’s address, was the remarkable affinity between his words and the writings of Henri de Lubac, one of the theological brains behind the council and a man whom John Paul later made a cardinal.
De Lubac’s book Catholicism is a sustained reflection on the nature of the Church. An overarching vision of the unity of humanity is what shapes his thinking: “The human race is one. By our fundamental nature – and still more in virtue of our common destiny – we are members of the same body.” In the light of that, he draws on the Fathers of the Church to affirm “that the grace of Christ is of universal application, and that no soul of goodwill lacks the concrete means of salvation in the fullest sense of the word.” In answer to the question of the salvation of non-believers, he affirms: “In short, they can be saved because they are an integral part of that humanity which is to be saved.”
These statements grow out of what de Lubac refers to as “spiritual evolutionism”, a term he associates with St Irenaeus. But his presentation is also thoroughly modern in its vision of the evolutionary nature of reality. What is important is that it is a vision that is profoundly patristic and absolutely eschews any kind of relativism.
Echoes of this thinking are evident throughout Pope John Paul’s address to the Roman Curia two months after the Assisi Day: “More than once, the council established a relationship between the identity and mission of the Church on the one hand, and the unity of the human race on the other … there is only one divine plan for every human being who comes into this world (cf. John 1:9), one single origin and goal, whatever may be the colour of his skin, the historical and geographical framework within which he happens to live and act, or the culture in which he grows up and expresses himself. The differences are a less important element when confronted with the unity which is radical, fundamental and decisive.”
I would suggest that that truth is being explored and expressed when leaders of different religions appear and speak out together after a tragedy like Woolwich. The Catholic Church stands at the heart of it, as Pope John Paul also explained in the same address: “The identity of the Catholic Church and her self-awareness have been reinforced by Assisi. For the Church – that is we ourselves – has understood better, in the light of this event, the true sense of the mystery of unity and reconciliation which the Lord entrusted to us, and which he himself carried out first, when he offered his life ‘not for the people only, but to unite the children of God who had been scattered abroad’ (John 11:52).”
These reflections from de Lubac and Pope John Paul provide, I suggest, the context, background and rationale for Cardinal Tauran’s visit. Their relevance for the interfaith event is obvious but it is equally important for the visits he will make to particular religious communities. Of course, his office has outreach to all the major religions – the exception being relations with the Jews, which are handled by a special commission housed in the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity. Each relationship has a unique character. Last month, the cardinal was in London for a meeting of European bishops involved in Catholic-Muslim relations; this time it is the turn of three of the dharmic religions, which originate in India.
On Thursday 13 June, Cardinal Tauran will visit the beautiful Hindu Mandir in Neasden, north-west London. Here, as in each of his visits, a dialogue theme has been chosen which it is hoped will enable both sides to affirm their own beliefs and address together an issue of common concern. They will be assisted by experts from their own communities. The title for the dialogue session in Neasden is “Catholics and Hindus: the practice of compassion as a contribution to peace”. The Catholic speaker will be Fr Martin Ganeri OP.
The following day, the cardinal will visit the Jain Derasar in Potters Bar, Hertfordshire, where the theme will be “Catholics and Jains: the practice of non-violence as a contribution to peace”. Here the Catholic speaker will be Fr Michael Barnes SJ. This is also a “return” visit since the Jains of this community have made two visits to the Pontifical Council in Rome.
There will be another return visit on Saturday 15 June when Cardinal Tauran goes to the Sikh Gurdwara at Soho Road, Birmingham. Representatives of this gurdwara have been to Rome on several occasions and its leader, Dr Bhai Mohinder Singh, has been made a Knight of St Gregory for his work in Catholic-Sikh relations. Here the topic will be “Catholics and Sikhs: service to humanity as a contribution to peace”. The Catholic contributor will be Professor Gavin D’Costa.
There will also be opportunities for the cardinal to meet representatives of other faith communities. He will celebrate Mass in Westminster Cathedral and Vespers in Birmingham Cathedral. It is worth noting that the initiative for the venture came from the pontifical council, which asked the Bishops’ Conference’s Office for Interreligious Dialogue to organise the trip.
These visits can be said to have several purposes. As I have indicated, in two cases it is a return call. But the exercise as a whole, and the interfaith event in particular, will help to raise the profile of interreligious work as a crucial and characteristic feature of contemporary Catholicism. When Benedict XVI visited England in 2010, he gave a strong boost to this work when he met and addressed representatives of other religions at St Mary’s University College, Twickenham. He returned to the theme in one of his last major speeches as Pope, when he said this in his Christmas 2012 address to the Roman Curia: “In man’s present situation, the dialogue of religions is a necessary condition for peace in the world and it is therefore a duty for Christians as well as other communities.”
Next week’s visit is a clear response to Benedict’s plea. We now have a new Pope and there is every indication that Pope Francis will want to build on the remarkable work of his predecessors. It is a privilege for the Catholic Church in this country to be asked to collaborate with the Holy See in this way. ("Archbishop" Kevin McDonald, Chairman of the Office for Interreligious Relations of the Conciliar "Bishops'" Conference of England and Wales, Towards peace together.)
You want me to dissect this garbage again?
Forget about it.
Been there, done that. (See (Bearing "Fruits" From Hell Itself, part one, Bearing "Fruits" From Hell Itself, part 2 and Not Interested in Assisi III.), Processing Along The Path To Antichrist and Outcome Based Conciliar Math: Assisi I + Assisi II + Assisi III = A-P-O-S-T-A-S-Y--and this is just a partial listing, mind you.)
Paths to peace?
There is one path given us by Heaven at this late hour: Our Lady's Fatima Peace Plan.
To put a fail nail in the coffin of the contention that Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis's comment about seeing what could be done with the "gay lobby" in the Vatican represents a sign of "hope" for a restoration even though he has mocked what he calls the "restorationists," consider the fact that Justin Welby, the layman who is the Anglican "archbishop" of Canterbury, is coming to the Vatican to have his first pow-wow with his kindred spirit who resides at Casa Santa Marta:
Vatican City, 10 June 2013 (VIS) – In a press release today, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity states that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, will be in Rome to visit Pope Francis on Friday, 14 June.
“This brief visit”, reads the release, “is of particular interest since it is the first meeting of the Archbishop and the Pope since their inaugurations, which took place at about the same time, just over two months ago.”
“This visit is an opportunity for the Archbishop and Pope Francis to review the present state of relations between the Roman Catholic Church and Anglican Communion. In particular, the interest shown by Archbishop Welby in global justice and the ethical regulation of financial markets so that they do not oppress men and women, is echoed in the constant teaching of the Holy Father. Ever since his experience as an executive in an oil company, Archbishop Welby has placed great emphasis on reconciliation, and has continued to press for the resolution of conflicts within the Church and society. This also evokes Pope Francis’ own call to build bridges between people of every nation, so that they may be seen not as rivals and threats, but as brothers and sisters.”
“Anglicans and Catholics also must work together to provide clear moral guidance to society and Archbishop Justin has collaborated closely with the Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, to safeguard marriage and other Christian values in society. It is a sign of their close relations that Archbishop Nichols will accompany the Archbishop of Canterbury on this visit.”
“Following the audience, and brief speeches, there will be a short service of mid-day prayer presided over by the Holy Father and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Earlier in the day, at the Archbishop’s own request, he will visit the Excavations beneath St Peter’s Basilica to pray at the tomb of St Peter, as his predecessor Archbishop Rowan Williams did on his first visit to Rome. He has also asked particularly for a time of prayer before the tomb of Blessed John Paul II. Following this, Archbishop Welby will call upon Cardinal Koch at the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, to renew the acquaintance made at the time of the Archbishop’s inauguration at Canterbury, and to learn about the workings of the Pontifical Council.” (UPCOMING VISIT OF ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY TO POPE.)
There is quite an irony represented by the visit of Justin Welby (see Jorge Mario Bergoglio And His Friend, Justin Welby) with Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis as it will represent the first time that the head of the schismatic and heretical Anglican sect, which is loathsome in the sight of the Most Blessed Trinity and which thus servers as a hindrance to true peace, the peace of Christ the King, in the world by its false doctrinal and moral teaching and abominable liturgical ceremonies, will meet a layman serving as the head of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. The two have much in common, starting with the fact that each believes in false doctrines and engages in false liturgical ceremonies.
One must be willfully blind to see that Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis is blind to the truths of the Catholic Faith as is evident by his own words and deeds and by his constant, unremitting mockery of the "restorationists."
For any doubters out there in cyberspace, yes, Virginia, The Chair is Still Empty.
Well, you had to wait three days for this commentary. I saw no reason to rush to a posting on simply one matter when I was sure that more would follow thereafter.
How much more will it take to convince those not yet convinced that not one little bit of this can come from the Catholic Church, she who is the spotless, virginal Mystical Bride of her Divine Founder and Invisible Head, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?
The Catholic Church cannot give us false, unclear or ambiguous doctrines.
The Catholic Church cannot give us liturgies that are incentives to impiety.
Pope Gregory XVI wrote in Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834, that the truth can be found in the Catholic Church without "even a slight tarnish of error."
Pope Leo XIII stressed in A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902, that the Catholic Church "makes
no terms with error but remains faithful to the command which it has
received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits
of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable
Pope Pius XI explained in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928, that the Catholic Church brings forth her teaching "with ease and security to the knowledge of men."
Anyone who says that this
has been done by the counterfeit church of conciliarism, which has made
its "reconciliation" with the false principles of Modernity that leave
no room for the confessionally Catholic civil state and the Social Reign
of Christ the King, is not thinking too clearly (and that is as about
as charitably as I can put the matter). If the conciliar church has
brought forth its teaching "with ease and security to the knowledge of
men," why, as noted earlier in this article, is there such disagreement
even between the "progressive" conciliarists and "conservative"
conciliarists concerning the proper "interpretation" of the "Second"
Vatican Council and its aftermath? Or does this depend upon what one
means by "ease and security"?
Perhaps the matter can be summarized even more simply:
O my God, I firmly believe that Thou art one God,
in three Divine Persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost: I believe that Thy
Divine Son became Man, and died for our sins, and that He will come to
judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the
truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast
revealed them, Who can neither deceive nor be deceived. Amen.
This in and of itself, putting
aside all of the weighty and quite binding dogmatic declarations about
the nature of Divine Truth issued by the authority of the Catholic
Church, should be an end to all discussion whatsoever of the "need" for
"understanding" the dogmas of the Faith in different ways at different
times because the language used to express those dogmas in the past was
necessarily "conditioned" by the historical circumstances in which they
were pronounced. To assert that dogmatic expressions used in the past
can be understood anew because the language that expressed them was
"conditioned" by historical circumstances is to deny the nature of the
Most Blessed Trinity, Who is immutable, and to blaspheme the Third
Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, Who has directed
our true Popes and council fathers to express doctrine as they have been
expressed consistently--and without even the shadow of ambiguity--prior
to the "election" of Angelo Roncalli/John XIII on October 29, 1958.
May we cling to the Cross of
Our Divine Redeemer, praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits. The sufferings of this present life
Christ the King will triumph over His enemies in our
world of naturalism and in the the
counterfeit church of conciliarism. Every extra moment
we spend in prayer before Our King in the Most Blessed Sacrament and
every extra set of mysteries of Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary that we
will help us to be more and more conformed to the likeness of Our
Divine Redeemer, Who endured the Cross, heedless of Its shame, to
us and to make us members of His Catholic Church.
We must always remember that this is the time that
God has appointed from all eternity for us to live and thus to sanctify
and to save our immortal souls as members of the Catholic Church. The
graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of Our Lord's
Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flows into
our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, the Mediatrix
of All Graces, are sufficient for us to handle whatever
crosses--personal, social and ecclesiastical--that we are asked to
carry. We must give thanks to God at all times for each of our crosses
as we seek to serve Him through Our Lady in this time of apostasy and
Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour our death.