Part Four
by Thomas A. Droleskey
One of the things that is a great benefit to a man in his early sixties is to have a complete and total aversion to what is called "social media." My days are busy enough with my studies of state as a husband and a father to have any time whatsoever for "instant" social communications. E-mail itself takes up enough of my time to have to deal with all manner of modern means of communication.
To be sure, there are those who make profitable use of such media for the good of the Holy Faith. My own workload is excessive as it stands, thanks in large measure these days to the motor mouth from Argentina now residing with a group from central casting at the Casa Santa Marta inside the Vatican Walls, which is why I do not surf all manner of internet sites regularly, trying to use my time online to cull together the news from various sources so as to provide somewhat coherent commentary on events to the benefit of this site's readers.
This having been noted, however, I should note that I am aware, however faintly, that Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis's interview with the octogenarian atheist named Eugenio Scalfari of the Italian newspaper La Repubblica is causing a bit of a stir up and down and all across the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide in this time of apostasy and betrayal.
It's all very good theater and high drama, and the latest Bergoglio outrage certainly is helping to open the eyes of a few Catholics and non-Catholics alike concerning the current state of apostasy that abounds among those who are considered to be the officials of the Catholic Church.
In the larger scheme of things, though, most people, including most Catholics have other "fish to fry" even if the usual suspects on formerly Catholic colleges and universities and chancery offices and mary rectories and convents are having quite a time celebrating the arrival of "their" "pope."
That is, the wonderful shutdown of the Federal government of the United States of America that one could only hope lasts for a very long time, meaning to disparage not for a moment the financial difficulties that some Federal workers are going to face, is taking place right now, providing Bergoglio/Francis's demagogic admirer, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, with an opportunity to demonize the likes of United States Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who is acting with a great deal of courage at this time, in order to put pressure on the "mainstream" naturalists of the false opposite of the naturalist "right" to cut a deal lest his lawless rage continue unabated.
The baseball "wild card" games, including a tie-breaker in the American League to determine which of two teams would play in the one-game "play in" to determine the league's wild card winner to play the league's first-seeded team in the "division series" have been played (this is all so much money-making madness).
The professional and collegiate teams of organized brutality known as professional football are in full swing now.
Those who are still glued to the idiot box (or is it an idiot screen these days?), and that appears to be a very, very low number, are excited over the beginning of the new television season, which, from what I have read, include a new version of Ironside that has received, thankfully, largely negative reviews, something that befits any effort to "reboot" what was a very fine program from September 14, 1967, to January 16, 1975 (pilot film on March 28, 1967, and reunion movie on May 4, 1993).
Lots and lots of bread and circuses exist to keep people from paying any careful attention to Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis's latest interview. This is especially the case now as the conciliar "pontiff'" has pretty much spoken his Modernist mind before now, especially in his interview with "Father" Antonio Spadoro, S.J., that received attention in the United States of America after its publication two weeks ago in America magazine. And Bergoglio/Francis has said in the past that he respects atheists and other non-Catholics and that the only thing that matters in God's eyes is that they "do good."
The latest interview is simply not getting the kind of traction in much of the "mainslime media" that the Spadoro interview generated as Bergoglio's mind, such as it is, has been pretty well discharged now, which is why he keeps repeating himself all of the time while patting himself on the back for his originality and creativity. After all, he has the "humility" and the ambition to recognize that his humble and ambitious to "do something."
For a believing Catholic, however, Jorge Mario Bergoglio's interview with Eugenio Scalfari is a cause for weeping and for doing penance as this wretched little man is doing great damage to what most people in the world think is the Catholic Church. Even some Protestants are scandalized, finding that Bergoglio has gone beyond anything imagined by Martin Luther himself, although Luther could not see that the very chaos that followed in the wake of his revolution was the direct result of his own false ideas.
Given the damage that is being caused to what most people in the world think is the Catholic Church and to use this moment of grace that God is given us to point out the truth to others, it is necessary to provide those who are interested in reading dispassionately about the falsehoods of the conciliar church an opportunity to do so, leaving it up to them to decide the conclusions that must be drawn from the evidence provided on sites such as this.
All this writer, for example, can do is to provide readers with information about what the Catholic Church has taught from time immemorial without any shadow of change. This is why no advertising has ever been used to promote this site as readers must be "ready" to read the article published hereon with a disinterested love of truth. Readers come and they go. Donors come and go. Friends and relatives come and go. We pray for each. Fervently. There is just no way to "force" anyone to see that which do not want to see or to accept that which requires them to make sacrifices that they are as of yet unwilling to make.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio's interview with Eugenio Scalfari is thus being examined carefully, not in sound bites, which is why each segment comments upon only a few of the exchanges between the Modernist and the atheist. There is a whole lot revealed in the latest interview to prove yet again the state of apostasy in which we find ourselves. Indeed, every day brings us further revelations of the extent to which the Bergoglio/Francis revolution will eliminate once and for all the remaining structural and ceremonial vestiges of Catholicism from his counterfeit church of conciliarism.
Blaspheming the Saints
[1] And we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of our gathering together unto him: [2] That you be not easily moved from your sense, nor be terrified, neither
by spirit, nor by word, nor by epistle, as sent from us, as if the day
of the Lord were at hand. [3] Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, [4] Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. [5] Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
[6] And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. [7] For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. [8] And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall
kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness
of his coming, him, [9] Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, [10] And
in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive
not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:
[11] That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity. [12] But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, beloved of
God, for that God hath chosen you firstfruits unto salvation, in
sanctification of the spirit, and faith of the truth: [13] Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. [14] Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. [15] Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God and our Father, who hath
loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope in
grace, [16] Exhort your hearts, and confirm you in every good work and word. (2 Thessalonians 2: 1-16.)
Bishop Richard Challoner's commentary on various verses contained in Chapter Two of Saint Paul the Apostle's Second Epistle to the Thessalonians have direct relevance to our times and to a certain posturing, preening, self-righteously and ostentatiously "humble" man dressed in a white cassock over at the Casa Santa Marta within the Vatican Walls and to the entirety of his false church:
[3] A revolt: This revolt, or falling off, is
generally understood, by the ancient fathers, of a revolt from the Roman
empire, which was first to be destroyed, before the coming of
Antichrist. It may, perhaps, be understood also of a revolt of many
nations from the Catholic Church; which has, in part, happened already,
by means of Mahomet, Luther, &c., and it may be supposed, will be
more general in the days of the Antichrist.
[3] The man of sin: Here must be meant some
particular man, as is evident from the frequent repetition of the Greek
article: 'the man of sin, 'the son of perdition, 'the adversary or
opposer. It agrees to the wicked and great Antichrist, who will come
before the end of the world.
[4] In the temple: Either that of Jerusalem which
some think he will rebuild; or in some Christian church, which he will
pervert to his own worship: as Mahomet has done by the churches of the
east.
[10] God shall send: That is God shall suffer them to be
deceived by lying wonders, and false miracles, in punishment of their
not entertaining the love of truth.
[14] Traditions: See here that the unwritten traditions are no less to be received than their epistles.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis is a poster boy for all the prophetic warnings provided us by Saint Paul the Apostle's Epistle to the Thessalonians, and he, Bergoglio/Francis continues to prove that this is case every morning when he opens his mouth at the Casa Santa Marta during his daily sessions of the Ding Dong School Of Apostasy. Indeed, the energize demon was it again this morning as he found a new way to denounce what is considers to be the "past" of the Catholic Church:
This is important not only in the great moments in history, but also in
the moments of our life: we all have the memory of salvation, everyone. I
wonder, though: is this memory close to us, or is it a memory a bit far
away, spread a little thin, a bit archaic, a little like a museum
[piece]… it can get far away [from us]… and when the memory is not
close, when we do not experience the closeness of memory, it enters into
a process of transformation, and the memory becomes a mere
recollection.”
When memory is distant, he added, “it is transformed
into recollection, but when it comes near, it turns into joy, and this
is the joy of the people.” This, he continued, constitutes “a principle
of our Christian life.” When memory is already close, said Pope Francis,
“it warms the heart and gives us joy.”:
“This joy is our strength. The joy of the nearness of memory. Domesticated memory, on the other
hand, which moves away and becomes a mere recollection, does not warm
the heart. It gives us neither joy nor strength. This encounter with
memory is an event of salvation, it is an encounter with the love of God
that has made history with us and saved us. It is a meeting of
salvation - and it is so wonderful to be saved, that we need to make
feast.”
The Church, said Pope Francis, has “[Christ’s] memory”: the
“memory of the Passion of the Lord.” We too, he said, run the risk of
“pushing this memory away, turning it into a mere recollection, in a
rote exercise.”:
“Every week we go to church, or rather when someone
dies, we go to the funeral … and this memory often times bores us,
because it is not near. It is sad, but the Mass is often turned into a
social event and we are not close to the memory of the Church, which is
the presence of the Lord before us. Imagine this beautiful scene in the
Book of Nehemiah: Ezra who carries the Book of Israel’s memory and the
people once again grow near to their memory and weep, the heart is
warmed, is joyful, it feels that the joy of the Lord is its strength –
and the people makes a feast, without fear, simply.”
“Let us ask the
Lord,” concluded Pope Francis, “ for the grace to always have His memory
close to us, a memory close and not domesticated by habit, by so many
things, and pushed away into mere recollection.” (Miss Frances, Ding Dong School, Thursday, October 3, 2013, Casa Santa Marta, Occupied Vatican Territory on the West Bank of the Tiber.)
"Domesticated memory"?
Not even Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, who popularized the Orwellian term "purification of memory," spoke in such wise.
"Domesticated memory"?
Once again, you see, the possessed little devil of an apostate, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, is disparaging Catholic Tradition and the Immemorial Mass of Tradition in particular.
"Domesticated memory," however, refers not only to Sacred Tradition and the Immemorial Mass of Tradition but to the very hierarchical nature of the Catholic Church, something that was explained in one of the earlier segments in this series (and I have no time to look up which one right now!).
Yes, as noted yesterday at some point, I believe, the ultimate goal of Bergoglio/Francis's perestroika (restructuring) is to create the equivalent of a federation of "local churches" who would be united by what could be called the "Worldwide Conciliar Communion" in perfect imitation of the heretical and schismatic "Worldwide Anglican Communion." Although some readers were skeptical of my analysis of this fact when they read it, I present it to you proof from the Commissars themselves:
The cardinals worked principally on the reform of the Curia. “The direction of their work would not indicate an updating of the apostolic Constitution 'Pastor Bonus', with retouches and marginal modifications”, explained Lombardi, “but rather, a new constitution with significant new aspects. It will be necessary to wait a reasonable amount of time following this Council, but the idea is this. The cardinals have made it clear that they do not intend to make cosmetic retouches or minor modifications to 'Pastor bonus'”.
The intention of the cardinals is to emphasise the nature of the service on the part of the Curia and the universal and local church “in terms of subsidiarity, rather than the exercise of centralised power. The intended direction would be to put this into practice in the service of the Church in all her dimensions”.
Another important theme was the nature and functions of the Secretariat of State, which “should be the secretariat of the Pope; the word State should not give rise to doubt. This body serves the Pope in the governance of the universal Church. The meeting of the Council is very useful at the moment, in view of the directions the Pope will give to the new Secretary of State, who will assume his role shortly, on 15 October”.
Again in relation to the Curia, the Council will address the matter of relations between the heads of the dicasteries and the Pope, and co-ordination between the various bodies. “In this context, mention was made of the role of a 'Moderator Curiae' (moderator for the Curia), and the functions of such a figure. The issue was touched upon but no decision has been made as to whether it will form part of the new constitution; however, it is in fact one of the hypotheses suggested by the Council”.
With regard to a possible re organisation of the administration of temporal goods, the cardinals touched upon this matter but without exploring the theme in depth, since they are awaiting the “reports of the referring commissions on the matter, who will communicate the results of their work [to the Council]”.
The question of the laity merited “significant attention” from Council members, as they had received many suggestions and questions on this subject from their various areas of origin. “When dealing with the reform of the curia and its institutions, the Council also plans to give more specific attention to issues relating to the laity, so that this dimension of the life of the Church is properly and effectively recognised and followed by the governance of the Church. Now there is a Pontifical Council for the Laity, but it is still possible to think of ways of strengthening this aspect”.
This morning, in view of the preparations for the next Synod, debate on the matter was reopened.
Finally, Lombardi said that yesterday no date had been set for the next meeting of the Council, although mention was made of a meeting in spring next year, of an informal nature. “The intention”, he concluded, “is to continue, without waiting for too long. Also, it would be incorrect to assume that nothing happens between one meeting and another; the cardinals and the Pope continue to exchange opinions and messages, even in the absence of a plenary meeting of the Council”. (The Politburo of Commissars: A New Constitution for the Curia on the Occupied West Bank of the Tiber.)
These are just the "finishing touches," so to speak, of the conciliar revolution wrought by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII and his immediate successor, Giovanni Montini/Paul the Sick, and that has been in "evolution" for the past five decades. This is more or less a formalization in "law" of what has been the actual fact in practice.
That is, how many well-meaning Catholics have written to Rome about this or that problem only to be rebuffed by the conciliar officials there, who have, noting some exceptions here and there, indemnified the revolutionaries at the local level at almost every turn. This is why, reiterating what I have said so many times before on this website in the past seven years, "letter-writing campaigns" to convince "Rome" to act are gigantic wastes of time, and no one has any further excuse before God to pretend that such campaigns will ever get results. I insist, without meaning to insult anyone whatsoever, To Blind To The Truth At This Point Is Irresponsible. Yes, completely and totally irresponsible.
The excuses being used by many are even more pathetic and more irresponsible when one considers the fact that Spokesflack Lombardi's comments about yesterday's session of Commissars, which were noted in part three late last night, Wednesday, October 2, 2013, the Feast of the Holy Guardian Angels:a
Fr. Lombardi SJ also explained that the Council of Cardinals is
conducting business in Italian. He reported that the sessions opened
with a broad and general reflection on the ecclesiology of Vatican
Council II. He said that the pastoral care of families will be a major
focal point of discussion. The group of eight Cardinals celebrated Mass
with the Holy Father in the chapel of the Domus Sanctae Marthae
residence again on Wednesday morning, and are scheduled to do so again
on Thursday. (Lombardi briefs on Council of Commissar.
"Father" Lombardi also stressed that his boss's interviews with Antonio
Spadoro and Eugenio Scalfari were NOT "magisterial" documents when the
truth is that nothing Bergoglio/Francis says, does or writes is
"magisterial" as he is not a Catholic and is the head of a false
church.)
Beyond the creation of what will be the equivalent of a "Worldwide Conciliar Communion," the little nugget about "the pastoral care of families" means that Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis is going to strip away the conciliar fig leaf of the nullity process in order to "open up" what he thinks is the Catholic Church to divorced and remarried Catholics, whether civilly remarried or "wed" in some kind of Protestant or Talmudic or Mohammedan or Buddhist ceremony, and to provide "pastoral support" to "families" of practicing sodomies, to "families of transgendered" Catholics, to "families" that contain "open marriages" (bigamous, polygamous), to any kind of "family" that one's conscience believes is "good" and "fulfilling." That is where this is heading. Make no mistake about this at all.
Is it any wonder, therefore, that Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a true figure of Antichrist, is anticlerical in that he hates all display of the royal dignity of the Holy Priesthood instituted by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ at the Last Supper and the regal pomp and circumstance befitting bishops, who are the Successors of the Apostles?
Scalfari: Your Holiness, may I tell you
something about my own cultural background? I was raised by a mother who
was a strict Catholic. At the age of 12 I won a catechism contest held
by all the parishes in Rome and I was given a prize by the Vicariate. I
took communion on the first Friday of every month, in other words, I was
a practicing Catholic and a true believer. But all that changed when I
entered high school. I read, among other philosophical texts that we
studied, Descartes' "Discourse on Method" and I was struck by the
phrase, which has now become an icon, "I think, therefore I am." The
individual thus became the basis of human existence, the seat of free
thought.
Bergoglio: "Descartes, however, never denied faith in a transcendent God."
Scalfari: That
is true, but he laid the foundation for a very different vision and I
happened to follow that path, which later, supported by other things I
read, let me to a very different place.
Bergoglio: "You, however, from what I understand, are a non-believer but not anti-clerical. They are two very different things."
Scalfari: True, I am not anticlerical, but I become so when I meet a clericalist.
Bergoglio: He
smiles and says, "It also happens to me that when I meet a clericalist,
I suddenly become anti-clerical. Clericalism should not have anything
to do with Christianity. St. Paul, who was the first to speak to the
Gentiles, the pagans, to believers in other religions, was the first to
teach us that." (The Antipope: how the Church will change - Repubblica.it.)
Yes, for Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, it is enough to believe in a "transcendent God." That is enough. Never mind the inconvenient fact that four of Rene Descartes' books were condemned by the Holy Office of the Inquisition or that the slogan "I think, therefore I am" is a debasement of the fact that our existence comes solely from God Himself, who gave our parents the means to be our procreators and who infused into us a rational immortal soul. "We are" because God created us. Period.
Moreover, one will note that Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis was the one who brought up the subject of clericalism and anticlericalism. The false "pontiff"was not referring to the abuse of clerical power by the abuse of the sheep who come to them with legitimate pastoral concerns. No, the false "pope" has, as noted just above, a hatred of all semblance of clerical privilege. This is so because he sees himself as an "egalitarian slum priest" (he is a layman, of course) who is close to the "people," especially the "poor," where they live, understanding as no one else does their temporal "needs," which take precedence over all else, including any and all decorum in the staging of the hideous Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service.
Although the next section will deal specifically with Bergoglio/Francis's attempt to make Saint Paul the Apostle a perjured witness in behalf of concilairism, suffice it for the moment to say that the Modernist from Argentina believes that the Apostle to the Gentiles can be invoked to justify false ecumenism when the truth of the matter is that the former Saul of Tarsus, the fire-breathing Jew who hated Catholics and believed it was his duty before God to persecute and kill them, preached to others so as to the convert them to the true Faith, something that Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis has absolutely no intention of doing, and anyone who contends that he does is refusing to believe his own testimony in this regard.
This leads directly to the next section of the Bergoglio-Scalfari interview:
Scalfari: Can I ask you, Your Holiness, which saints you feel closest to in your soul, those who have shaped your religious experience?
Bergoglio: "St.
Paul is the one who laid down the cornerstones of our religion and our
creed. You cannot be a conscious Christian without St. Paul. He
translated the teachings of Christ into a doctrinal structure that, even
with the additions of a vast number of thinkers, theologians and
pastors, has resisted and still exists after two thousand years. Then
there are Augustine, Benedict and Thomas and Ignatius. Naturally
Francis. Do I need to explain why?" (The Antipope: how the Church will change - Repubblica.it.)
Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis is one of one Modernist mind and heart with his immediate predecessor, the now retired but recently "wounded" (to be explained later in a subsequent segment) Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI concerning the alleged "additions" that were made to the Divinely inspired writing of Saint Paul the Apostle.
That is, Ratzinger/Benedict essentially held the same position as Martin Luther himself, believing that the Scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas and the decisions of various dogmatic councils, each of which met under the infallible protection and guidance of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, "obscured" the "true" teachings of Saint Paul the Apostle. Ratzinger/Benedict believes this is also true of many of the Latin Fathers of the Church, especially since the Orthodox today do not accept the authority of the Latin Fathers:
In many respects, a decision about the role of the Fathers seems, in fact, to have been reached today. But, since it is more unfavorable than favorable to a greater reliance upon them, it does nothing to lead us out of our present aporia. For, in the debate about what constitutes greater fidelity to the Church of the Fathers, Luther's historical instinct is clearly proving itself right. We are fairly certain today that, while the Fathers were not Roman Catholic as the thirteenth or nineteenth century would have understood the term, they were nonetheless "Catholic", and their Catholicism extended to the very canon of the New Testament itself. With this assessment, paradoxically, the Fathers have lost ground on both side of the argument because, in the controversy about the fundamental basis for understanding Scripture, there is nothing more to be proved or disproved by reference to them. But neither have they become totally unimportant in the domain, for, even after the relativization they have suffered in the process we have described, the differences between the Catholicism of an Augustine and a Thomas Aquinas, or even between that of a Cardinal Manning and a Cyprian, still opens a broad field of theological investigation. Granted, only one side can consider them its own Fathers, and the proof of continuity, which once led directly back to them, seems no longer worth the effort for a concept of history and faith that sees continuity as made possible and communicated in terms of discontinuity. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, pp. 141-142)
The then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, compounded his blasphemous heresy by directly disparaging Saint Thomas Aquinas:
Nevertheless, a fact is emerging from these reflections that can guide us in our search for an answer. For we must admit, on the one hand, that, even for Catholic theology, the so-called Fathers of the Church have, for a long time, been "Fathers" only in an indirect sense, whereas the real "Father" of the form that ultimately dominated nineteenth century theology was Thomas Aquinas, with his classic systematization of the thirteenth century doctrina media, which, it must be added, was in its turn based on the "authority" of the Fathers. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 142)
It is necessary to point out yet again that this
precise bias against Saint Thomas Aquinas's reading of the Fathers, a
common trait of each of the "new thinkers" (Henri de Lubac, Karl Rahner, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Maurice Blondel, et al, including Ratzinger himself), was condemned unequivocally by Pope
Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950:
In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and
to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and
from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a
return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking
used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. They cherish
the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to
be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with
the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the
Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual
assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)
Bergoglio/Francis, oaf that he is, is incapable of expressing heresy in the Ratzingerian style of paradox and contradiction. However, he is equally as blasphemous in contending that "additions" were made that obscured the "true meaning" of the writings of Saint Paul the Apostle, who specifically rejected what the conciliar revolutionaries themselves have embraced and practiced, fellowship with unbelievers:
[1] Be ye therefore followers of God, as most dear children; [2] And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath delivered
himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odour of
sweetness. [3] But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you, as becometh saints: [4] Or obscenity, or foolish talking, or scurrility, which is to no purpose; but rather giving of thanks. [5] For know you this and understand, that no fornicator, or unclean, or
covetous person (which is a serving of idols), hath inheritance in the
kingdom of Christ and of God.
[6] Let no man deceive you with vain words. For because of these things cometh the anger of God upon the children of unbelief. [7] Be ye not therefore partakers with them. [8] For you were heretofore darkness, but now light in the Lord. Walk then as children of the light. [9] For the fruit of the light is in all goodness, and justice, and truth; [10] Proving what is well pleasing to God:
[11] And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. [12] For the things that are done by them in secret, it is a shame even to speak of. [13] But all things that are reproved, are made manifest by the light; for all that is made manifest is light. [14] Wherefore he saith: Rise thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead: and Christ shall enlighten thee. [15] See therefore, brethren, how you walk circumspectly: not as unwise (Ephesians 5: 1-15.)
Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis is simply a machine of one shopworn revolutionary cliche and false belief after another.
His misunderstanding of the saints includes both to Saint Augustine, whose criticism of Judaism, he believes, was simply a matter of personal judgment with which he, Bergoglio/Francis, disagrees, and to the great foe of Protestantism and vigorous supporter of a strong papacy to combat it, Saint Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of his own Society of Jesus:
Scalfari: Francis - I allow myself to call him that
because it is the Pope himself who suggests it by the way he speaks,
the way he smiles, with his exclamations of surprise and understanding
- looks at me as if to encourage me to ask questions that are even more
scandalous and embarrassing for those who guide the Church. So I ask
him: you explained the importance of Paul and the role he
played, but I want to know which of those you named feels closer to your
soul?
Bergoglio: "You're asking me for a ranking, but classifications
are for sports or things like that. I could tell you the name of the
best footballers in Argentina. But the saints..."
Scalfari: They say joke with knaves, you know the proverb?
Bergoglio: "Exactly.
But I'm not trying to avoid your question, because you didn't ask me
for ranking of their cultural and religious importance but who is
closest to my soul. So I'd say: Augustine and Francis."
Scalfari: Not Ignatius, from whose order you come?
Bergoglio: "Ignatius,
for understandable reasons, is the saint I know better than any other.
He founded our Order. I'd like to remind you that Carlo Maria Martini
also came from that order, someone who is very dear to me and also to
you. Jesuits were and still are the leavening - not the only one but
perhaps the most effective - of Catholicism: culture, teaching,
missionary work, loyalty to the Pope. But Ignatius who founded the
Society, was also a reformer and a mystic. Especially a mystic." (The Antipope: how the Church will change - Repubblica.it.)
Again, this is very telling as Bergoglio/Francis, the lay Jesuit, gives a perfunctory nod to Saint Ignatius of Loyola, a militant defender of the Catholic Faith and of all of the rights and privileges of the papacy, to point out the revolutionary work of Carlo Maria Martini, the now deceased Jesuit whom the soon-to-be-"canonized" Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II appointed to be the conciliar "archbishop" of Milan, a stronghold of Modernism since Pope Pius XII had the bad judgment to put Giovanni Montini there on November 1, 1954, the Feast of All Saints, on December 29, 1979, remaining there until his retirement on July 11, 2002. Martini remained quite a revolutionary presence until his death on August 31, 2012, at the age of eighty-five.
Some "conservatives" expressed" confusion over why Wojtyla/John Paul II had chosen to appoint Martini without realizing that their beloved "pope" from Poland was a revolutionary in his own right, although he may not have have shared each of Martini's particular positions. That having been noted, however, the "conservative" criticism of Martini's positions on contraception and perversity, as well as the entire nature of what is thought to be the Catholic Church, was entirely correct then and applies precisely to Jorge Mario Bergoglio now:
He was "prudent" enough to wait until he passed the age for voting
for a new Pope, perhaps because he certainly didn't want to miss the
possibility of voting for a new Pope who would agree with his thinking
and change the teaching of the Church on contraception. But once he
turned 80, he obviously couldn't wait any longer to make a direct appeal
over the head of the Pope to the future elector cardinals.
Cardinal Martini did not become a "loyal" dissenter on the day he turned
80, but he was not about to lose every opportunity of changing the
Church from within, by using whatever power of office he might possess. More likely, Cardinal Martini became a dissenter not when he was 81, but
closer to when he was 31, or even younger, at the time of the Second
Vatican Council. He always had the reputation of being an extremely
liberal scholar, and it was surprising to many of us when John Paul II
named him the archbishop of Milan, which placed him in a position to
become a true member of the "papabili," and he was just that.
How close we came to having a dissenting bishop elected as the Pope is
now there for all to see, and we can at least thank Cardinal Martini for
that revelation through his interview.
The dissenters from
Church teaching on contraception did not all convert before they rose to
higher positions. For instance, Detroit's Cardinal Dearden never once
gave any evidence, before or after Humanae Vitae, that his
internal conviction that the Church was in error on contraception had
ever changed — he had voted with the majority on the Birth Control
Commission for the Church to abandon its teaching on contraception,
which effectively affirmed that the Church has been in error for 2,000
years on this critical moral norm. He would simply hedge the issue by
admitting it was "official" teaching while undercutting the binding
character of this teaching by suggesting members of his flock should
follow their private consciences on this issue.
The contrast
with Cardinal Shehan of Baltimore was dramatic, since this cardinal, who
also voted with the majority, made it clear after Humanae Vitae that he had changed his position, that he did internally accept the norm of decision of Humanae Vitae which reaffirmed the age-old norm condemning contraception, and he did
this by publicly preaching the norm as binding on conscience. Cardinal
Dearden clearly followed the path of lip service to the norm and
encouraging the primacy of private conscience. He obviously saw no
conflict between his own apparent internal dissent (which one must
assume persisted since he never publicly retracted his public dissent on
the commission) and his public office as a bishop.
Likewise,
one can see in cases like Cardinal Martini that some who were
unconverted dissenters, but did not yet hold high office, simply kept a
studious silence to ensure their possibility of ascending to higher
positions in the Church. It was simply the modernist tactic all over
again. The very least that can be said about what might be seen as a
kind of fifth column in the Church is that these closet dissenters
lacked something in their personal integrity since they inevitably had
to dissimulate in order to secure their episcopal advancement. That is,
they had to testify falsely (which may account for the oath of fidelity
now required even for Catholic theologians teaching in seminaries) that
they internally accepted all the Church's moral and doctrinal teachings.
But such dissimulating ("lying" is such a harsh word) has never much
bothered the dissenter, and especially not those today who, like
Cardinal Dearden or Cardinal Martini, support the decisive primacy of
the private conscience, at least in this one moral area; so why not in
the area of lying for the good of the Church? Indeed, the Priscillianist
bishops 1,600 years ago supported the proposition that lying for a holy
cause is justifiable, which led to a moral treatise (De Mendacio) by St. Augustine correcting this false notion. One perhaps wonders how
many bishops today follow that old Priscillianist norm when it comes to
their own advancement, which is surely, in their thinking, a holy end.
Cardinal Martini's whole approach to this moral issue is quite
astounding given his reputation as a scholar. But then Luther was a
scholar, as was Calvin, as were most of the great figures of the
Reformation and the modernist movement. Perhaps his most astounding
suggestion is that many, who need the Church's moral "advice," would be
drawn back to the Church, if only Benedict or some future Pope would
just change the teaching on contraception.
But "why" is the
obvious question. Perhaps his full interview will tell us what he
thinks, but I simply cannot see for the life of me why people who have
rejected this teaching, and who obviously believe, like the cardinal,
that the Church is in error, would turn to the Church for "advice" on
moral issues in the sexual sphere if only she would at last admit that
her moral teaching on this vital issue has been erroneous for 2,000
years and has misinformed the consciences of all her children for all
that time! Precisely what credibility would the Church have left that
would make them seek her advice, on anything?
The Anglicans and
other Protestant churches did this very reversal 75 years ago, and what
credibility do they have today even among their own members? How many
Anglicans seriously seek the advice of their church on anything in the
moral sphere today?
But of course the return of lapsed
Catholics to the Church to seek her moral guidance is not really what
Cardinal Martini has set as his primary agenda in this matter. What he
is quite obviously aiming at is the transformation of the Church herself
in the area of her Magisterium. This was the aim of not a few bishops
and theologians at Vatican II who tried to redefine the magisterial
office to include the whole Church, clergy and laity (carefully chosen
of course), in a kind of democratic process.
In short, what they wanted, and what the cardinal seems to envision,
is a new kind of magisterium that is no longer an exclusively episcopal
office, that is, a model of the magisterium that mirrors the kind
already found in the Anglican church and other mainline Protestant
churches. This model effectively strips the episcopal college and the
Pope of any final magisterial authority, at least in moral matters, and
explains the curious language of Cardinal Martini regarding the laity
seeking the "advice" of the hierarchy on matters other than sexual
questions; on those matters he clearly thinks the bishops were best just
to keep quiet!
Indeed he explicitly states that he thinks the
hierarchical Magisterium should just keep silent "at times" and
especially on such sexual issues. "In the past, the Church has said
perhaps even too much about the Sixth Commandment. Sometimes it would
have been better to remain silent." But again the question is why just
on sexual matters and not in all areas of morality? Or do the bishops
have a greater expertise on the social questions of morality than the
laity, say in areas like such as nuclear disarmament, penal justice,
immigration, just war, just economic structures, and all kinds of other
things? Once the authority of the bishops on sexual matters is quashed,
why should there remain authority in any moral matter?
And what
exactly has been the promising experience one might gather from the
Anglican Church's experience in the moral arena once it abandoned its
hierarchical decision making and changed its teaching on contraception,
which, by the way, it justified at the time only in very difficult
marriage cases? Has the former archbishop of Milan been paying any
attention to the fate of the Anglican communion over the past 50 or 60
years? Has he even noticed the total disintegration of its teaching on
human sexuality over that span, and the gradual disintegration of the
moral authority of their church, let alone its hierarchy? (The Cardinal Martini Problem for The Church.)
To invoke a venerable Catholic tradition here in the United States of America, BINGO!
This article, which was written by Father R. M. Pilon, S.T.D., and published in The Wanderer on January 22, 2009, applies perfectly to Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis's own "plans" for what he thinks is the Catholic Church. Martini was concerned about the Catholic Church having spoken "too much" about the Sixth Commandment. Bergoglio himself has warned us that what he thinks is the Catholic Church would "collapse like a house of cards" if Catholics remained "obsessed" about matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.
Carlo Martini was as open to the "gay agenda" as is Bergoglio/Francis. Consider how much he was praised following his death last year:
One of Italy's most revered cardinals has stunned the Catholic Church by issuing a damning indictment of the institution from the grave, calling for its "transformation".
Hours after Milan's former Archbishop, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, died on Friday at the age of 85, the leading daily paper Corriere della Sera printed his final interview, in which he attacks the Church – and by implication its current leadership – for being "200 years out of date".
"Our culture has aged, our churches are big and empty and the church bureaucracy rises up, our rituals and our cassocks are pompous," the Cardinal said. "The Church must admit its mistakes and begin a radical change, starting from the Pope and the bishops. The paedophilia scandals oblige us to take a journey of transformation."
Church insiders believe he wished for the interview to be published following his death.
Cardinal Martini, who was on the liberal wing of the church hierarchy, was once tipped to succeed John Paul II as Pope. His chances of being elected fell away when he revealed he was suffering from a rare form of Parkinson's disease and he retired as Archbishop in 2002. Instead, the ultra-conservative German cardinal Joseph Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI in 2005.
The body of Cardinal Martini has been laid out in Milan cathedral since noon on Saturday, with thousands of people coming to pay their last respects. His funeral will take place there this afternoon.
The left-wing Mayor of Milan, Giuliano Pisapia, who recently angered church authorities by recognising gay couples and providing them with the same rights the city gives married couples, led the tributes to the dead Cardinal. "Difficult times require words of wisdom and hope from great men," he said. "Carlo Maria Martini illuminated the way for the entire city, not just for part of it. For this reason, today more than ever, Milan mourns its Archbishop".
Cardinal Martini was noted for supporting the use of condoms, at least a decade before the Vatican grudgingly accepted they might be acceptable in certain situations to prevent the transmission of HIV. He also questioned the Church's line on gay relationships and divorce – calling on it to reconsider what constituted a family in the 21st century or risk losing even more of its flock.
Conservative voices in the Church tried to repair damage caused by Cardinal Martini's criticism. Marco Tarquinio, the editor of the bishops' daily paper, L'Avvenire, accused the mainstream press of distorting the Cardinal's comments, although he did not give specific examples.
"The attempts to distort and manipulate in an anti-ecclesiastical way the Cardinal's final hours on this earth are a bitter reminder of similar actions against even the blessed John Paul II," he said.
The suspicion – ever present in Italy – that the Vatican has tendrils everywhere, even in the mainstream press, was heightened by the failure of the article to appear on the Corriere della Sera website. Following inquiries by The Independent, Corriere's editor, Ferruccio de Bortoli, said there had been no pressure to keep the article off the website. It was then published online yesterday evening. Other leading newspapers failed to give the cardinals' comments much coverage.
Robert Mickens, the Rome correspondent of The Tablet, called for Cardinal Martini's deathbed comments to be taken very seriously.
"They must be seen in the context of coming from a man who loved the Church and who gave his life to the institution. He made a profound statement, which he had already said many times to Benedict and John Paul II in private," he said.
Cardinal Martini caused controversy in his final days after refusing artificial feeding, contravening church policy on end-of-life issues.
Mr Mickens said that although Cardinal Martini's ideas had "zero support" in the Vatican, he was revered by rank and file members. "The people in the trenches looked up to him. He was a giant. We're in a very conservative period. But that won't last forever. A whole generation have been inspired by Martini's writings. That will be his legacy." (Carlo Maria Martini, his final interview, and a damning critique that has rocked the Conciliar Church.)
"Cardinal" Martini's ideas no longer have "zero support" in the Vatican. Carlo Martini's "ideas" are those of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
Those who are looking for "clues" about who the "real" Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis is need look no longer lest they become caricatured by what a non-Catholic reader of this site himself noted yesterday was the great "detective" work of one Daffy Duck:
Reminds me of Daffy Duck, in his
detective years, who once saw a bloody knife, with a note attached "If
found please return to Shropshire Slasher." Daffy's comment was, "I
think this might be a clue."
Jorge Mario Bergoglio's interview with Eugenio Scalfari is not a "clue." It is simply a reiteration of who the lay "pope" has always be and will ever remain, barring a miracle of grace, until the day he dies. He has power, and he is running with it.
To be continued on a website near you soon.
No, there is nothing random about this as it is who and what this man has been from his youth. He is, as noted at the beginning of this segment, a total creature of the conciliar revolution and its "reconciliation" with the anti-Incarnational principles of Modernity.
It is now time for our family to pray Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary, which is good idea for everyone who is reading these articles.
We need to suffer as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. And it will be my own personal penance to have to return to this work in a few hours so as to complete part four by tomorrow morning.
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Our Holy Guardian Angels, pray for us, defend us and protect us.
Saint Therese of the Child Jesus and the Holy Face, pray for us.
Saint Francis of Assisi, pray for us.
