One of the reasons that I am concentrating more on preparing my next book for publication rather than to rend my garments and gnash my teeth every time that Jorge Mario Bergoglio opens his mouth to utter whatever combination of apostasy, heresy and blasphemy come to him “randomly” is that there is nothing really new in anything that he has said since his revolutionary program at the Institute for Advanced Conciliar Studies codified his lifelong beliefs in Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013. There is little need, at least as I see it, to keep repeating points made so many times before.
It is useful now and again, however, to try to burst the bubble of those who think that there is any true difference on matters of substance between Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his predecessor, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. Although there may be different areas of focus and emphasis on matters of theological substance, Bergoglio and Ratzinger are united in the core “elements” of conciliarism (the new ecclesiology, belief in the evolution of doctrine, false ecumenism, episcopal collegiality, religious liberty, separation of Church and State, Protestant and/or Talmudic interpretations of Sacred Scripture), the only genuine differences between the two Modernists are matters of style and decorum.
Bergoglio is the self-proclaimed “street priest” who says he knows the “smell” of the flock, speaking in a manner that is profane and vulgar, demonstrating that he is moved by viscera above all else. There is a “bull market” for this kind of speech and behavior in the world-at-large, which is why Jorge is so very popular with unbelievers and unrepentant sinners. The Argentine Apostate speaks their “lingo” and is not “tied down” to tradition or decorum.
Ratzinger, who sported a jacket-and-tie at the “Second” Vatican Council, styles himself as a man of “culture” and “refinement,” which is part of the reason that his own attacks against the integrity of the Holy Faith were so very insidious as the devil without his tail is harder to recognize as an enemy than the devil with his tail. “Papa” Ratzinger was every bit as dangerous to the good of the souls for whom Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood to redeem as Bergoglio is as his successor. Hundreds upon hundreds of articles on this site have demonstrated this to be the case.
To wit, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI used his 2011 “World Day of Peace” message as an opportunity to evangelize in behalf of “religious liberty” as the “key” to world peace:
Religious freedom expresses what is unique about the human person, for it allows us to direct our personal and social life to God, in whose light the identity, meaning and purpose of the person are fully understood. To deny or arbitrarily restrict this freedom is to foster a reductive vision of the human person; to eclipse the public role of religion is to create a society which is unjust, inasmuch as it fails to take account of the true nature of the human person; it is to stifle the growth of the authentic and lasting peace of the whole human family.
For this reason, I implore all men and women of good will to renew their commitment to building a world where all are free to profess their religion or faith, and to express their love of God with all their heart, with all their soul and with all their mind (cf. Mt 22:37). This is the sentiment which inspires and directs this Message for the XLIV World Day of Peace, devoted to the theme: Religious Freedom, the Path to Peace.
A sacred right to life and to a spiritual life
2. The right to religious freedom is rooted in the very dignity of the human person, whose transcendent nature must not be ignored or overlooked. God created man and woman in his own image and likeness (cf. Gen 1:27). For this reason each person is endowed with the sacred right to a full life, also from a spiritual standpoint. Without the acknowledgement of his spiritual being, without openness to the transcendent, the human person withdraws within himself, fails to find answers to the heart’s deepest questions about life’s meaning, fails to appropriate lasting ethical values and principles, and fails even to experience authentic freedom and to build a just society.
Sacred Scripture, in harmony with our own experience, reveals the profound value of human dignity: “When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars which you have established, what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man, that you care for him? Yet you have made him little less than God, and crowned him with glory and honour. You have given him dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet” (Ps 8:3-6).
Contemplating the sublime reality of human nature, we can experience the same amazement felt by the Psalmist. Our nature appears as openness to the Mystery, a capacity to ask deep questions about ourselves and the origin of the universe, and a profound echo of the supreme Love of God, the beginning and end of all things, of every person and people.The transcendent dignity of the person is an essential value of Judeo-Christian wisdom, yet thanks to the use of reason, it can be recognized by all. This dignity, understood as a capacity to transcend one’s own materiality and to seek truth, must be acknowledged as a universal good, indispensable for the building of a society directed to human fulfilment. Respect for essential elements of human dignity, such as the right to life and the right to religious freedom, is a condition for the moral legitimacy of every social and legal norm. (44th World Day of Peace 2011, Religious Freedom, the Path to Peace.)
First, of course, there is no such thing as “Judeo-Christianity.” There is only Judeo-Masonry (see To Blot Out the Holy Name Forever, part one and To Blot Out the Holy Name Forever, part two.)
Second, “religious liberty” is a monstrous right, not a “sacred” one:
The necessary effect of the constitution decreed by the Assembly is to annihilate the Catholic Religion and, with her, the obedience owed to Kings. With this purpose it establishes as a right of man in society this absolute liberty that not only insures the right to be indifferent to religious opinions, but also grants full license to freely think, speak, write and even print whatever one wishes on religious matters – even the most disordered imaginings. It is a monstrous right, which the Assembly claims, however, results from equality and the natural liberties of all men.
But what could be more unwise than to establish among men this equality and this uncontrolled liberty, which stifles all reason, the most precious gift nature gave to man, the one that distinguishes him from animals?
After creating man in a place filled with delectable things, didn’t God threaten him with death should he eat the fruit of the tree of good and evil? And with this first prohibition didn’t He establish limits to his liberty? When, after man disobeyed the command and thereby incurred guilt, didn’t God impose new obligations on him through Moses? And even though he left to man’s free will the choice between good and evil, didn’t God provide him with precepts and commandments that could save him “if he would observe them”? …
Where then, is this liberty of thinking and acting that the Assembly grants to man in society as an indisputable natural right? Is this invented right not contrary to the right of the Supreme Creator to whom we owe our existence and all that we have? Can we ignore the fact that man was not created for himself alone, but to be helpful to his neighbor? …
“Man should use his reason first of all to recognize his Sovereign Maker, honoring Him and admiring Him, and submitting his entire person to Him. For, from his childhood, he should be submissive to those who are superior to him in age; he should be governed and instructed by their lessons, order his life according to their laws of reason, society and religion. This inflated equality and liberty, therefore, are for him, from the moment he is born, no more than imaginary dreams and senseless words.” (Pope Pius VI, Brief Quod aliquantum, March 10, 1791; Religious Liberty, a “Monstrous Right“).
What Pope Pius VI declared to be a monstrous right and an invented right has been hailed by the conciliar “popes,” including Ratzinger and Bergoglio, as a “sacred” right. Something that is monstrous and invented in 1791 does not become sacred in 1965 with the issuance of Dignitatis Humanae, December 7, 1965, and thus a cornerstone as a foundation for world peace. The Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, had to have hidden this supposed “truth” for over one thousand nine hundred thirty-two years prior to its proclamation at the “Second” Vatican Council.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio has spoken in almost identical terms as his predecessor, doing so, of course, two weeks ago now while he was in Istanbul, Turkey:
Mr President, interreligious and intercultural dialogue can make an important contribution to attaining this lofty and urgent goal, so that there will be an end to all forms of fundamentalism and terrorism which gravely demean the dignity of every man and woman and exploit religion.
Fanaticism and fundamentalism, as well as irrational fears which foster misunderstanding and discrimination, need to be countered by the solidarity of all believers. This solidarity must rest on the following pillars: respect for human life and for religious freedom, that is the freedom to worship and to live according to the moral teachings of one’s religion; commitment to ensuring what each person requires for a dignified life; and care for the natural environment. The peoples and the states of the Middle East stand in urgent need of such solidarity, so that they can “reverse the trend” and successfully advance a peace process, repudiating war and violence and pursuing dialogue, the rule of law, and justice. (Meeting with the President, Prime Minister and Civil Authorities.)
What is the difference between what Ratzinger said in 2011 and what Bergoglio said to the civil authorities in Turkey on Friday, November 28, 2014?
There is no difference.
None whatsoever as both men subscribe to and profess doctrines that are alien to the immutable truths contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication.
The logic of conciliarism is such that all manner of falsehoods must be accepted with “respect,” something that is but the legacy of the “religious liberty” that was enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America and extolled by Bishop John Carroll, the first bishop (and archbishop) of the Diocese of Baltimore, which is the de facto primatial see of the United States of America:
If any man can be regarded as the Father of the American Church, it is John Carroll of Maryland. Bearer of a respected American name, ordained in a Society which had planted the faith on the shores of the Chesapeake, he took charge of the infant Church as naturally and firmly as a man bringing order to his own household. To the handful of ex-Jesuits demoralized by the suppression of their order he brought inspiration and direction, while guiding the Church from the Penal Age and into the sunlight of religious freedom. John Carroll organized the American Church. Under him, its diverse and disparate elements were unified, and by his establishment of a seminary and schools, its future was assured.
Although his administrative ability was indeed great, coming at a time when it was most needed, his insights into the American character may have been even of more value to the Church. He realized that in the matter of religion the genius of the new American political system was the separation of church and state. His writings and his speeches are full of encomiums not on behalf of toleration, for that presumes an established church, but for complete religious freedom. It may be that, like the Calverts before him, this attitude was born of expediency; that Catholicism had more to gain from religious freedom than any other American creed. True enough, but so also did the Founding Fathers of the United States have the most to gain from independence.
So it was John Carroll who gave the American Church, this congeries of European races forever in conflict over tastes and customs, yet joined together in the unity of the One Faith, its peculiar American stamp. Most astonishing, he foresaw its future, "To dissipate justice," he said in 1785, "time will be our best aid, as also will divine Providence and the experience of our fellow citizens in our devotion to our country and its independence." (Robert Leckie, American and Catholic, Doubleday and Company, pp. 88-89.)
There is a lot of truth contained in the three paragraphs cited above from the late Robert Leckie's American and Catholic, but not that intended by Mr. Leckie or by the man he praised so much, Archbishop John Carroll, who became the first bishop of the United States of America when he was consecrated on August 15, 1790, by Bishop Charles Walmseley, O.S.B., in Lulworth Castle, Dorsetshire, England. There is, I should say (apologies to Ralph McPherson Kiner for using this phrase that he repeated so much in the early days of broadcasting games for the New York Mets in the 1960s), a lot of unintended truth in the three paragraphs cited above.
Archbishop John Carroll did assure the future of the Catholic Church in the United States of America by his embrace of "religious freedom." Carroll's embrace of "religious freedom" in the belief that the civil rights of individual Catholics and the institutional rights of Holy Mother Church was erroneous as "religious freedom" for one is "religious freedom" for all, including open devil worship.
Carroll, presaging the giddy optimism of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII concerning the need for an "opening to the world" (Roncalli/John XXIII's much vaunted "updating" or, in Italian, aggiornamento), could not foresee areas of conflict between Church and State in the framework of the "genius" of Constitution of the United States of America. Archbishop Carroll truly believed that the Catholic Church, though she might have suffer persecution from individual Protestants and unbelievers and in states where the roots of "religious liberty" had not yet taken root, would be respected by officials of the Federal government to carry out her apostolic duties without interference.
Quite instead, of course, religious liberty and separation of Church and State, both of which Carroll thought were guarantees of the life of the Church in the United States of America, opened the doors wide to the persecution that the current administration of Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus is waging against what he thinks are the true officials and institutions and agencies of the Catholic Church.
Carroll's naive trust and full-throated endorsement of these twin errors came despite the fact that it was within his own lifetime that the first two of the papal condemnations of them were pronounced. Those pronouncements did not matter to him. The United States of America was "different." It was "special." It was "exceptional." The "good" and "tolerant" Protestants and Freemasons and others who just wanted to "live together" as Americans would never seek to the double-edged sword of "religious liberty" and "separation of Church and State" against the Catholic Church, right? Wrong.
Behold the latest results of American “religious liberty” that were on display as an atheist, one of those such as Jorge’s pal Eugenio Scalfari for whom the false “pontiff” has great esteem, gave an invocation at the Fort Worth, Florida, City Commission meeting on December 2, 2014:that neither Joseph Alois Ratzinger or Jorge Mario Bergoglio would ever condemn as to do so would mean that there are some “religions, including Satanism, that do not fall under the “protection” of such “liberty”
Our collective atheism -- which is to say, loving empathy, scientific evidence, and critical thinking -- leads us to believe that we can create a better, more equal community without religious divisions. May we pray together? [pause]
[After seeing commissioners walk out on him] Duly noted.
Our collective atheism — which is to say, loving empathy, scientific evidence, and critical thinking — leads us to believe that we can create a better, more equal community without religious divisions.
May we pray together.
Mother Earth, we gather today in your redeeming and glorious presence, to invoke your eternal guidance in the universe, the original Creator of all things.
May the efforts of this council blend the righteousness of Allah with the all-knowing wisdom of Satan. May Zeus, the great God of justice, grant us strength tonight. Jesus might forgive our shortcomings while Buddha enlightens us through His divine affection. We praise you, Krishna, for the sanguine sacrifice that freed us all. After all, if Almighty Thor is with us, who can ever be against us?
And finally, for the bounty of logic, reason, and science, we simply thank the atheists, agnostics, Humanists, who now account for 1 in 5 Americans, and [are] growing rapidly. In closing, let us, above all, love one another, not to obtain mythical rewards for ourselves now, hereafter, or based on superstitious threats of eternal damnation, but rather, embrace secular-based principles of morality — and do good for goodness’ sake.
And so we pray.
So what? (In Lake Worth ( Florida), An Atheist’s Invocation.)
Neither Joseph Alois Ratzinger or Jorge Mario Bergoglio would ever condemn such an invocation as to do would be to disrespect “unbelievers,” both generally and individually, something that is forbidden in the false religion of conciliarism. Moreover, to condemn Preston Smith’s invocation would mean that there are some “religions, including Satanism, that do not fall under the “protection” of such “liberty,” which is based upon “respect” for “individual consciences” and not fidelity to the binding precepts of the First Commandment.
Indeed, an actual Satanist has petitioned the Forth Worth City Commission to give his own invocation before one of its meetings:
Mr. Bornstein;
My name is Chaz Stevens, father of the Pabst Blue Ribbon Festivus Pole. In case you’re not familiar with me (I dunno, you live in a cave), here’s a recent story about my pole.
I’d like permission to give a Satanic, yes Satan, invocation at an upcoming City Commission meeting. Everyone is welcome to sing along, or as is the recent case when Miami atheist activist Preston Smith gave the invocation, like Elvis, they can leave the building. (Petitioning to Deliver a direct invocation to the adversary.)
Emboldened by the lies of Modernity and Modernism that he has diffused widely, the adversary now wants public worship given to him to demonstrate that the world in which we live has been shaped by his diabolical influences, starting with the rise of Protestantism, which overthrew the Social Reign of Christ the King, and the institutionalization of this overthrow by the combined naturalistic forces of Judeo-Masonry.
The conciliar “popes” have exalted these diabolical forces in the name of “religious liberty.” They are as powerless to stop the advance of these forces as the Protestants who have commented on the recent “invocation” in Fort Worth, Florida, are clueless about the fact that Protestantism itself is a tool of the devil.
Obviously, conciliarism is also a tool of the devil, which is one of the reasons that the conciliar “popes” greet the leaders of other false religions with such great esteem and respect, something that Jorge Mario Bergoglio did yet again on Friday, December 12, 2014, the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, when he met with Andre Cox, the “general” of the Salvation Army:
Greeting warmly a delegation led by General André Cox, the Pope said Catholics and Salvationists, together with other Christians, recognise that those in need have a special place in God’s heart – so much so, that the Lord himself became poor for our sake. As a result, the Pope said, Catholics and Salvationists often meet at the same peripheries of society.
I pray, he concluded, that all of Christ’s disciples can contribute with the same conviction and dynamism that the Salvation Army demonstrates in its devoted and highly appreciated service. Founded by former Methodist minister William Booth in 1865 as the East London Christian Mission, the Salvation Army today numbers one and a half million members in 126 countries worldwide.
Just after the papal audience, I talked to General André Cox to find out more about the meeting and about the message of closer cooperation he was bringing here to the Vatican….
The Salvation Army leader told me he had asked for an audience because in recent years there have been “some pretty intensive and helpful and useful discussions” between Catholics and Salvationists, culminating in the publication of a book on the joint discussions. These talks, he said, have revealed “so many points of faith that connect us together, but also our passion and commitment for social justice and work among the poor.”
The audience, he continued, was an opportunity to present the book to the Pope and to express thanks and prayer support for him “since many of the things he’s been expressing really resonate with the heart of Salvationists around the world.” Given the growing mutual understanding and respect, General Cox said he told the Pope his organisation was seeking “practical ways to support each other and also align our message as we speak to the world on these issues.”
Describing Pope Francis as “a peoples’ person”, the Salvation Army leader said the pontiff spoke off-the-cuff to describe his memory of walking, as a four-year old, with his grandmother in Argentina and seeing two Salvation Army ladies in their distinctive hats and uniforms. Despite the prevailing Catholic view that Protestants “were destined to Hell”, Bergoglio’s grandmother told him they were “Protestants, but good people”, awakening in the young boy an opening to ecumenical encounter.
General Cox also looked ahead to next July when the Salvation Army will be celebrating the 150th anniversary of its foundation, gathering with representatives from across the globe at the O2 arena in London, just a couple of miles away from where the East London Christian Mission was first founded.
Please find below the official text of Pope Francis' greeting to the Salvation Army delegation:
Dear Friends,
I extend a warm welcome to you, the leadership of The Salvation Army, well-known to me for its evangelizing and charitable mission. Your visit is the happy outcome of more frequent and fruitful contacts in recent years between The Salvation Army and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, including a series of theological conversations aimed at fostering a better understanding of one another, mutual respect and regular collaboration. I earnestly hope that Catholics and Salvationists will continue to offer a common witness to Christ and to the Gospel in a world so much in need of experiencing God’s boundless mercy.
Catholics and Salvationists, together with other Christians, recognize that those in need have a special place in God’s heart, so much so that the Lord Jesus Christ himself became poor for our sake (cf. 2 Cor 8:9). As a result, Catholics and Salvationists often meet in the same peripheries of society. It is my hope that our shared faith in Jesus Christ the Saviour, the one mediator between God and man (cf. 1 Tim 2:5), will become evermore the firm foundation of friendship and cooperation between us.
“The Church which ‘goes forth’ is a community of missionary disciples who take the first step, who are involved and supportive, who bear fruit and rejoice. An evangelizing community knows that the Lord has taken the initiative; he has loved us first (cf. 1 Jn 4:19), and therefore we can move forward, boldly take the initiative, go out to others, seek those who have fallen away, stand at the crossroads, and welcome the outcast. Such a community has an endless desire to show mercy, the fruit of its own experience of the power of the Father’s infinite mercy” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, 24).
I pray that in today’s world all of Christ’s disciples will make their contribution with the same conviction and dynamism that The Salvation Army demonstrates in its devoted and highly appreciated service. The differences between Catholics and Salvationists regarding theological and ecclesiological questions need not impede the witness of our shared love of God and love of neighbour, a love which is capable of inspiring a concerted commitment to restoring the dignity of those who live on the margins of society.
Dear friends, I pray to God for the work of The Salvation Army. May many people in difficulty continue to rely on your efforts, which enable Christ’s light to shine in the darkest recesses of their lives. May you and your fellow Salvationists be filled with the Holy Spirit’s gifts of wisdom, understanding, fortitude and peace, and so witness to the Lord’s Kingdom in our suffering world. And I ask that you also pray for me. Thank you. (Apostate says Salvationists and Catholics meet at peripheries of society. For a website that keeps track of The Salvation Army's efforts to mask the persquisites of its "officers," see Exposing The $alvation Army.)
Everything is a matter of subjectivity for Modernists, who are, of course, complete subjectivists and relativists.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio bases his “respect” for “The Salvation Army” on an experience with his grandmother in Argentina, something that showed him the path to an “ecumenical encounter.”
As was the case with each of his predecessors who have served as the head of the false conciliar sect, Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes that those outside of the One Sheepfold of Christ that is the Catholic Church have a “mission” to give a “witness” to the Divine Redeemer in the world. He speaks with the tongue of a devil, who can appear to be a veritable angel of light.
The truth, of course, is otherwise:
It is for this reason that so many who do not share 'the communion and the truth of the Catholic Church must make use of the occasion of the Council, by the means of the Catholic Church, which received in Her bosom their ancestors, proposes [further] demonstration of profound unity and of firm vital force; hear the requirements [demands] of her heart, they must engage themselves to leave this state that does not guarantee for them the security of salvation. She does not hesitate to raise to the Lord of mercy most fervent prayers to tear down of the walls of division, to dissipate the haze of errors, and lead them back within holy Mother Church, where their Ancestors found salutary pastures of life; where, in an exclusive way, is conserved and transmitted whole the doctrine of Jesus Christ and wherein is dispensed the mysteries of heavenly grace.
It is therefore by force of the right of Our supreme Apostolic ministry, entrusted to us by the same Christ the Lord, which, having to carry out with [supreme] participation all the duties of the good Shepherd and to follow and embrace with paternal love all the men of the world, we send this Letter of Ours to all the Christians from whom We are separated, with which we exhort them warmly and beseech them with insistence to hasten to return to the one fold of Christ; we desire in fact from the depths of the heart their salvation in Christ Jesus, and we fear having to render an account one day to Him, Our Judge, if, through some possibility, we have not pointed out and prepared the way for them to attain eternal salvation. In all Our prayers and supplications, with thankfulness, day and night we never omit to ask for them, with humble insistence, from the eternal Shepherd of souls the abundance of goods and heavenly graces. And since, if also, we fulfill in the earth the office of vicar, with all our heart we await with open arms the return of the wayward sons to the Catholic Church, in order to receive them with infinite fondness into the house of the Heavenly Father and to enrich them with its inexhaustible treasures. By our greatest wish for the return to the truth and the communion with the Catholic Church, upon which depends not only the salvation of all of them, but above all also of the whole Christian society: the entire world in fact cannot enjoy true peace if it is not of one fold and one shepherd. (Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868.)
Weigh carefully in your minds and before God the nature of Our request. It is not for any human motive, but impelled by Divine Charity and a desire for the salvation of all, that We advise the reconciliation and union with the Church of Rome; and We mean a perfect and complete union, such as could not subsist in any way if nothing else was brought about but a certain kind of agreement in the Tenets of Belief and an intercourse of Fraternal love. The True Union between Christians is that which Jesus Christ, the Author of the Church, instituted and desired, and which consists in a Unity of Faith and Unity of Government. (Pope Leo XIII, referring to the Orthodox in Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 20, 1884.)
Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is "the root and womb whence the Church of God springs," not with the intention and the hope that "the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government. Would that it were Our happy lot to do that which so many of Our predecessors could not, to embrace with fatherly affection those children, whose unhappy separation from Us We now bewail. Would that God our Savior, "Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,"[29] would hear us when We humbly beg that He would deign to recall all who stray to the unity of the Church! In this most important undertaking We ask and wish that others should ask the prayers of Blessed Mary the Virgin, Mother of divine grace, victorious over all heresies and Help of Christians, that She may implore for Us the speedy coming of the much hoped-for day, when all men shall hear the voice of Her divine Son, and shall be "careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)
Although Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI was a disciple of the late Father Hans von Balthasar, who believed in the heresy of universal salvation, he was careful to cloud his own belief in this heresy with his patented display of opaqueness, contradiction and paradox. Bergoglio, however, has been quite open about believing that everyone, including the members of The Salvation Army, go to Heaven as, after all, the “only” thing that matters is “doing good” (see Francis Do-Right). This is what the Argentine Apostate said on Wednesday, Tuesday, November 26, 2014, the Feast of Saint Catherine of Alexandria:
The Conciliar Constitution Gaudium et Spes, faced with these questions that forever resonate in the hearts of men and women, states: “We do not know the time for the consummation of the earth and of humanity, nor do we know how all things will be transformed. As deformed by sin, the shape of this world will pass away; but we are taught that God is preparing a new dwelling place and a new earth where justice will abide, and whose blessedness will answer and surpass all the longings for peace which spring up in the human heart” (n. 39). This is the Church’s destination: it is, as the Bible says, the “new Jerusalem”, “Paradise”. More than a place, it is a “state” of soul in which our deepest hopes are fulfilled in superabundance and our being, as creatures and as children of God, reach their full maturity. We will finally be clothed in the joy, peace and love of God, completely, without any limit, and we will come face to face with Him! (cf. 1 Cor 13:12). It is beautiful to think of this, to think of Heaven. We will all be there together. It is beautiful, it gives strength to the soul. (General Audience, November 26, 2014.)
To believe that “we will all be there together” is to profess “universal salvation,” which is nothing other than the sin of Presumption against the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity.
Yet it is that the only people who have to “convert” are those who believe in the integrity of the Catholic Faith and who are “attached” to liturgical rites in which the faithful were not the focus of the ceremony and thus were unable to “participate” “fully, actively and consciously” in the “community banquet” that is a mere memorial of the Last Supper.
Bergoglio told Elisabetta Pique of the Argentine newspaper La Nacion that he was praying for the “conversion” of those “stubborn” “bishops” who were seeking to “cage the Holy Spirit” at his “extraordinary synod of ‘bishops’” two months ago now:
You could ask me "are there any that are completely stubborn and won´t move from their positions?". Yes, there surely are. But that is not my concern. It´s a question of praying for the Holy Spirit to convert them, if any. (Argentine Motor Mouth Modernist Babbles On Yet Again.)
As noted a few days ago now, Bergoglio does believe in conversion, but it only applies to those who won’t agree to every jot and tittle of conciliarism. “Partial communion” with the conciliar agenda of Modernism is insufficient. “Pope Francis” wants the “stubborn” “bishops,” each of whom supports the new ecclesiology, false ecumenism and interreligious prayer services, episcopal collegiality, religious liberty, separation of Church and State, condemned interpretations of Sacred Scripture, etc., to “convert,” although he is making sure that the “stubborn” “bishops” are at the “peripheries,” shall we say, of the next synod in 2015.
Bergoglio also wants the Franciscan Friars and Sisters of the Immaculate to “convert,” although the commissar he has appointed to “reprogram” them, Fidenzio Volpi, has waged a relentless campaign of persecution against them for merely trying to maintain a semblance of the Catholic Faith while remaining in the “good graces” of the conciliar revolutionaries.
This is nothing new.
Those in the “resist while recognize” and Motu communities who think that Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s characterization of believing Catholics as “stubborn” is startlingly new, the fact is that their mythical “restorer of Tradition,” Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, used the same language himself, “Pope Benedict XVI” told us time and time again that he was using Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, to “pacify the spirits” and to break down the “stubbornness” and “one-sided” attitudes of those who did not see the “continuity” between the “Second” Vatican Council and the teaching of the “past”:
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 restraint. (Letter 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 this liturgy.
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.)
The conciliar revolutionaries are just as much soldiers in what can be called The Damnation Army as are the leaders of each of the false religions over whom they fawn so much.
Today is Gaudete Sunday.
As is the case on Laetare Sunday during Lent, priests wear rose colored vestments today, signifying the joy that is ours to behold now that Advent is more than half over and that Christmas Day is just twelve days away. Our Lord's Nativity in Bethlehem meant to change the entirety of human history for all eternity. No one can be make war upon those who seek to defend the truths of the Holy Faith e and be called a "preacher of Truth."
We are either for Our Lord as He has reavealed Himself to us through His true Church or we are against Him.
There was no middle ground on this point during His life here on this earth. There is no middle ground on this point now. There is no middle ground on this point at any time in the future prior to His Second Coming in glory on the Last Day. We are either for Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ or we are against Him, and those who are against Him belong to the devil whether or not they realize it.
If we are honest with ourselves, of course, we must recognize that our sins make us Our Lord's enemies more often than we would like to admit. Although God is indeed all merciful, He wants us to repent of our sins and to live more penitentially after He absolves us of our sins through the instruments of true priests in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance. The final twelve full days of Advent give us an opportunity, especially during the upcoming Ember Days in this Third Week of Advent (Wednesday and Saturday are days of fast and partial abstinence; Friday, of course, is a day of fast of total abstinence). We must make good use of these final days of Advent so as to prepare room to welcome Our Lord in the "inns" of our hearts on Christmas Day, spending time in prayer before His Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament and spending time in Scripture reading and good spiritual meditations in preparation for His Nativity.
We want to welcome Our Lord fittingly and with great joy at Midnight Mass in eleven days. No matter the crosses of the moment, each of which has been fashioned for us from all eternity from all eternity by the loving hand of God for His greater honor and glory and for our sanctification as we carry each cross with gratitude as the consecrated slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, we will rejoice on Christmas Day that a Saviour has been born for us so as to die on the wood of the Holy Cross, making it possible for us to born to the life of grace in the baptismal font and to thus have a possibility to be born into the joys of eternal life with Him in Heaven for all eternity. Every set of Joyful Mysteries that we pray between now and Christmas Day will help us to be more prepared to welcome Our Newborn King, Christ the King, Who is, of course, born for us under the appearances of bread and wine in every true offering of Holy Mass.
Our