Tuesday, December 24, 2013

Puer natus



Puer natus est nobis,
et filius datus est nobis:
cuius imperium super humerum eius:
et vocabitur nomen eius, magni consilii Angelus
 -- Prophecy Of Isaias (Isaiah) 9:6

To us is born a child
and to us is given a son:
his dominion is on his shoulders:
and he will be called angel of great counsel

 + + +

"Puer natus" is the introit  of Christmas Day.

Sandro Magister has posted a new recording of it  by the "Cantori Gregoriani" and their Maestro Fulvio Rampion. Please visit Magister's website and read the "listener's guide" which he has provided so that you may more fully appreciate the beauty of the rich Catholic tradition which is Gregorian Chant.

There are some recordings of "Cantori Gregoriani" and their Maestro Fulvio Rampion available for purchase:
http://www.tradebit.com/tagworld.php/cantori+gregoriani+||+fulvio+rampi

 + + +

May you have a blessed Christmas.

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Anti-Catholics agree: BEST POPE EVER!!!

And Peter remembering, said to him: Rabbi, behold the fig tree, which thou didst curse, is withered away.
 -- Gospel According to Saint Mark 11:21
Even though I had predicted this was coming, it's still a bit of shock to hear that "Pope Francis is Man of the Year". Uh, "person" of the year.

It must have been his "humility" that swayed the judges.

As I said on November 7:
It's all good news from the Vatican since Bergoglio was elected. And even though the mainstream press is ignoring this Bozo the Clown moment at the Vatican, I'm sure this will seal Bergoglio's being declared "Man of the Year" for 2013 by the world press. No doubt about it -- he is their man in the Vatican.
Over at Catholic News Agency (CNA -- which is run by EWTN) the headline reads "Catholics joyful at Pope's 'Person of the Year' recognition". If they think that "Catholics" are "joyful", they should see how "joyful" the anti-Catholics are!

CNA also tells us that he is the third Pope to receive this "honor".
"Pope John XXIII and Pope John Paul II have also been named Person of the Year, in 1962 and 1994, respectively."
... no comment .... what could I possibly add to that...

This is another sign of the times. It is not Bergoglio who is being "honored" by the secular press, it is the "New Church" of Vatican II. Could it possibly be any more clear?

And now... let the scandals begin... because there will be scandals aplenty. Just look... whenever the Church receives such high "honors"... scandals inevitably follow.

What a sad day. How can any "Catholic" be "joyful" at this news?

Saturday, November 30, 2013

The new and improved "new evangelization"

[41] Her sanctuary was desolate like a wilderness, her festival days were turned into mourning, her sabbaths into reproach, her honours were brought to nothing. [42] Her dishonour was increased according to her glory, and her excellency was turned into mourning. [43] And king Antiochus wrote to all his kingdom, that all the people should be one: and every one should leave his own law. [44] And all nations consented according to the word of king Antiochus. [45] And many of Israel consented to his service, and they sacrificed to idols, and profaned the sabbath.
 -- First Book Of Machabees 1:41-45

Or should I just say the new "new evangelization".

I am speaking of course of the apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium. I have not read it, nor do I ever intend to read it in its entirety. I have only read excerpts posted at various Catholic sites and that is nauseating enough.

I find that wherever Bergoglio goes a whirlwind of confusion follows. I would rather not contaminate my soul with his heretical ideas.

There is much to talk about. Bergoglio has made quite a "mess". Eventually someone will have to clean it up. How many souls will be lost in the meantime?

First there is the question of what exactly is an "apostolic exhortation"? An apostolic exhortation "does not define Church doctrine" and “it is considered lower in formal authority than a papal encyclical".

Got that? It "does not define Church doctrine".

But it is some sort of "official papal proclamation". Do you think that the secular media is going to spend a lot of time explaining that an apostolic exhortation "does not define Church doctrine"? No. They are going to treat these papal statements just as if they were Church doctrine. And so will most Catholics because it is an "official papal proclamation".

And so the whirlwind of confusion begins. Is it official Church teaching? Or not?

I mentioned Bergoglio's "heretical ideas" earlier. In Church theology there is something called "formal heresy". If the pope falls into "formal heresy" then  he ceases being the pope.

So what is formal heresy? Formal heresy only occurs if the pope with all his papal authority contradicts prior Church teaching. An apostolic exhortation cannot be the source of formal heresy because it "does not define Church doctrine".

Well, that is rather convenient. For more on "formal heresy" please see the following video by Father Gregory Hesse titled "Why I'm Not Sedevacantist". Father Hesse is deceased. When this recording was made he was referring to the papacy of John Paul II. One wonders what he would think of Bergoglio?




+ + +

Now we can discuss what I think is the main topic of this document even though I haven't read it. But at least I read the title, "Evangelii Gaudium", which I discussed in a previous post and referred to as "the happy gospel".

My very strong suspicion is that Bergoglio intends this to be a follow up to a previous apostolic exhortation -- “Evangelii Nuntiandi” by Paul VI (1975) which is considered to be the beginning of the “new evangelization”. From Wikipedia:
Evangelii Nuntiandi (Evangelization in the Modern World) is an apostolic exhortation issued on 8 December 1975 by Pope Paul VI on the theme of Catholic evangelization. Evangelii Nuntiandi is Latin and derives its name from the first words of the text: Evangelii nuntiandistudium nostrae aetatis hominibus. ("The effort to proclaim the Gospel to the men of our time.") The exhortation affirms the role of every Christian (not only ordained ministers, priests, and deacons, or religious, or professional church staff) in spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
This papal document was actually partially written by John Paul II when he was still an archbishop according to Wikipedia:
This apostolic exhortation inspired the teaching of Pope John Paul II. In 1975, the future pope was then known as Karol Cardinal Wojtyla, Archbishop of Kraków, as well as a consultor to the Pontifical Council for the Laity. Cardinal Wojtyla acted as the Synod's General Rapporteur and participated extensively in the original drafting of Evangelii Nuntiandi. The New Evangelization of the Catholic Church, described by Pope John Paul II, calls each person to deepen one's faith in God, believe in the Gospel’s message, and proclaim the Good News. The focus of the New Evangelization calls all to be evangelized and then go forth to evangelize others.
Yes, and we have all seen since 1975 how successful the "new evangelization" has been. So now it is time for a new an improved "new evangelization" according to Bergoglio.

There is no turning back according to the current "Bishop of Rome". Even though the pre Vatican II Church was vibrant and healthy, while the post Vatican II Church is dying.

According to Bergoglio the reason for this dismal failure of the "new evangelaztion" is that so far the implementation of Vatican II has not been radical enough. And he has the "humility and ambition" to move the Church in that "new and improved" radical direction. God help us.

The word that Bergoglio uses is "conversion".

Now, when we speak of the Church and we speak of "conversion" we always mean just one thing -- conversion to Christ. But this is not what Bergoglio means when he speaks of "conversion".

Remember that he is "a vulgar pope" so he is using "conversion" in the vulgar sense of the word not in the theological sense. So convert means to change. And who loves change? Radicals love change. Revolutionaries love change. Anarchists love change.

The Church loves the unchanging Truths.

Next Bergoglio uses the word "missionary".

Again the use of this word in the context of the Church is clear. St. Francis of Xavier was a missionary to the pagans in the far east. But for Bergoglio the target of the "mission" is the Church itself. He wants to convert the Church from Catholicism to.... ???

He then combines the two words "missionary" and "conversion" in the following mind-twisting statement.
I hope that all [religious???] communities will devote the necessary effort to advancing along the path of a pastoral and missionary conversion which cannot leave things as they presently are. “Mere administration” can no longer be enough. Throughout the world, let us be “permanently in a state of mission”.
This is the sort of rhetoric that would warm the heart of any marxist. This is a call for revolution -- a permanent state of revolution.

What will be left of the Church by the time that Bergoglio is done with his "missionary conversion"?

When will those sitting on the sidelines like Michael Voris get up and join the fight to save the Church?

Thank God for  Louie Verrecchio at "Harvesting the Fruit of Vatican II" who is leading the charge. Please keep him in your prayers and offer him whatever financial support you can. I know that he is suffering because of his defense of the Catholic faith.

 + + +

I left a comment in response to another commenter over at Harvesting the Fruit of Vatican II on an article by Louie Verrecchio in which he begins to analyze Evangelii Gaudium. I thought this discussion of "cognitive dissonance" was worth repeating so here it is.
As for this pope, he is either a "very ignorant man" as you say or he is clever as a fox. Personally, I think "there's a method to his madness". I could be wrong, but I have concluded that he is deliberately using "cognitive dissonance" to change the beliefs of Catholics. His teachings are full of "dissonance" -- what you refer to as "unintelligible ramblings".

He juxtaposes a completely orthodox statement with a totally heterodox statement. We are left with the task of resolving this "dissonance". Many will conclude that since the orthodox statement is true and the following heterodox statement is coming directly from the pope, that both statements must be true. And this is how they will resolve the dissonance. And so the average Catholic will conclude that they must accept everything in Evangelii Gaudium, and change their own personal beliefs to align with those expressed by the pope if necessary. (This is a psychological warfare technique by the way.)

But this is exactly what Pope St. Pius X warned  about in his encyclical "PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS -- ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE MODERNISTS" in 1907.

Friday, November 29, 2013

Psalm 24: To thee, O Lord, have I lifted up my soul


 + + +

Psalm 24 -- from the Book Of Psalms
Ad te, Domine, levavi. A prayer for grace, mercy, and protection against our enemies.

[1] Unto the end, a psalm for David. To thee, O Lord, have I lifted up my soul. [2] In thee, O my God, I put my trust; let me not be ashamed. [3] Neither let my enemies laugh at me: for none of them that wait on thee shall be confounded. [4] Let all them be confounded that act unjust things without cause. shew, O Lord, thy ways to me, and teach me thy paths. [5] Direct me in thy truth, and teach me; for thou art God my Saviour; and on thee have I waited all the day long.

[6] Remember, O Lord, thy bowels of compassion; and thy mercies that are from the beginning of the world. [7] The sins of my youth and my ignorances do not remember. According to thy mercy remember thou me: for thy goodness' sake, O Lord. [8] The Lord is sweet and righteous: therefore he will give a law to sinners in the way. [9] He will guide the mild in judgment: he will teach the meek his ways. [10] All the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth, to them that seek after his covenant and his testimonies.

[11] For thy name' s sake, O Lord, thou wilt pardon my sin: for it is great. [12] Who is the man that feareth the Lord? He hath appointed him a law in the way he hath chosen. [13] His soul shall dwell in good things: and his seed shall inherit the land. [14] The Lord is a firmament to them that fear him: and his covenant shall be made manifest to them. [15] My eyes are ever towards the Lord: for he shall pluck my feet out of the snare.

[16] Look thou upon me, and have mercy on me; for I am alone and poor. [17] The troubles of my heart are multiplied: deliver me from my necessities. [18] See my abjection and my labour; and forgive me all my sins. [19] Consider my enemies for they are multiplied, and have hated me with an unjust hatred. [20] Keep thou my soul, and deliver me: I shall not be ashamed, for I have hoped in thee.

[21] The innocent and the upright have adhered to me: because I have waited on thee. [22] Deliver Israel, O God, from all his tribulations.
 + + +

"Ad te levavi" is the introit to the first Sunday of Advent in Gregorian Chant.

Sandro Magister has posted a new recording of it on his website Chiesa, which means Church in Italian. Usually he covers Vatican news. Magister has been very subtle in his criticism of Bergoglio, but at the same time he has revealed scandals in this papacy such as the appointment of a homosexual priest to a high position in the Vatican.

I don't think it is a coincidence that Magister is posting these beautiful recordings of Gregorian Chant at the same time that Bergoglio has just published his first major document as Pope. Magister makes the point that...
... these masterpieces of Gregorian chant [are treasures that] have fallen into general disregard but are here intended to be brought back to light. Precisely as prescribed by the constitution on the liturgy of Vatican Council II in one of its most neglected passages:

"The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services."
Somehow, I don't think that the present Pope would agree with Magister on this point.

Magister has provided a "listener's guide" to "Ad te levavi". Here is a brief excerpt.
"Ad te levavi animam meam": this is the incipit of the Gregorian introit for the first Sunday of Advent, and therefore the incipit of the whole Graduale Romanum, the liturgical collection of proper chants of the Mass.

The initial capital "A," the first letter of the alphabet, is a sign of Christ as the "Alpha" from which the long meditation provided by the Church takes its origin and upon which it continually converges, through Gregorian chant, over the entire liturgical year.
Imagine a Church that could bring to life into this mundane world such beauty which is purely inspired by God... it could only be the Church founded by Jesus Christ.

Thursday, November 28, 2013

Thanksgiving -- giving thanks to Whom?

And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
-- Gospel According to Saint Matthew 26:27-28
Today is Thanksgiving in the United States. But Whom are we giving thanks to? Of course it is God and so this is a Christian holiday.

Even the Puritans in 1621 had not wandered so far from the True Faith that they had forgotten to give thanks to God. And even the United States government under Abraham Lincoln -- who was no Catholic -- had not forgotten in 1863 that we are a Christian nation.

I don't need to watch the news to know how our secular humanist (atheist) President, Barack Obama, will interpret Thanksgiving. Obama through his words and actions has established that he is thoroughly anti-Christian and even anti-God. He promotes an extreme form of "ecumenism" that claims to place non-Christians and even practitioners of witchcraft on an equal footing with Christians. But this false "ecumenical" has consequences far beyond the obvious religious consequences.

Our laws are based on our beliefs -- of how we define right and wrong. And on an even larger scale our form of government is based on our beliefs. As a Christian nation America has prospered. As America rejects Christianity we can already see the decline.

Christianity has its roots in the Catholic Church. As Christians in America have slowly drifted away from their Catholic roots the morality -- how we define right and wrong -- has changed. And this is reflected in the law with the "legalization" of such sinful activities as abortion and "homosexual marriage". This "legalization" is a tantamount to a proclamation by the state that these acts are morally "good". And as a consequence that Christian beliefs are "bad".

These concepts of "good" and "bad" are then taught to our children in the public schools, which further destroys the Christian foundations of our society.

Who are we giving thanks to? As Christians we give thanks to God for everything. And not just any God, but the triune God -- the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

We are living in times when nothing can be taken for granted. In the past we would not need to ask "Who are we giving thanks to?" But in the world in which we live, we must be constantly on vigil to protect our Christian faith from the traps and snares of the devil.

Dominus vobiscum.

Bergoglio is your kind of pope, he's such a happy pope...

Despised, and the most abject of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with infirmity: and his look was as it were hidden and despised, whereupon we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows: and we have thought him as it were a leper, and as one struck by God and afflicted. But he was wounded for our iniquities, he was bruised for our sins: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his bruises we are healed.
 -- Prophecy Of Isaias (Isaiah) 53:3-5
I was thinking about writing a post about the marketing of Bergoglio since he became pope.

It seems to me that he has had a "make over" since first appearing on the balcony. It seems as if he is not shown with glasses very often. I also think that the glasses he wears now are a different model that looks better in pictures. I wonder if he has a papal photographer because the shots and poses (yes poses) seem to be very deliberately chosen to make him look more "appealing".

It feels as if there is a whole PR campaign to make Bergoglio popular. His pictures always show him smiling -- "he's such a happy pope". And he's always waving to the crowds -- but never blessing the crowd. And there are balloons -- so many balloons. As if balloons were the new symbol of the papacy. How many pictures of past popes can you find with balloons in them?

And now Bergoglio has released "Evangelii Gaudium" which is translated into English as "The Joy of the Gospel". I beg to differ because I have noticed that usually when Bergoglio uses the word "joy", he really means "happiness". So I think it would be more appropriate to title this document "the happy gospel". A happy gospel for a happy pope and a happy church. A happy, hand clappy church which is more protestant than Catholic. This is Bergoglio's vision for the future.

And on that note and with the idea of creating a PR campaign to promote "the happy gospel", I'm reminded of a McDonald's commercial from the 60s which I think would fit right in with Bergoglio's "make over" of the church.

The Catholic Church is your kind of place. It's such a happy place. A happy slappy place.
Bergoglio is your kind of pope. He's such a happy pope. A hap-hap-happy pope.
The Gospel is your kind of faith. It's such a happy faith....



 + + +

BTW, this McDonald's commercial is a perfectly constructed form of propaganda. It uses all sorts of psychological manipulation. This used to be called witchcraft but has been perfected through experimentation by "scientists". You can see all sorts of flashing psychedelic images in this commercial while at the same time using a musical theme which elevates the levels of adrenalin in the system. The words are very affirmative. "McDonald's IS your kind of place." This is hypnotic suggestion. The use of the napkin as a bib is an element which is inserted to add "cognitive dissonance". It doesn't quite belong and it doesn't really make sense, but it forces you to stop and think precisely because it causes confusion in your mind. Adding this "dissonance" forces you to remember the commercial as your mind attempts to resolve this "dissonance".

I say this as a warning to be very careful and aware when watching this and other commercials and also as a warning not to watch it repeatedly.

Notice that Bergoglio uses the same techniques as in the McDonald's commercial. I think many people underestimate Bergoglio and think that he is a fool for saying things which are confusing and resonate in a "dissonant" way. But I think he is much more clever than people give him credit for.

 + + +

Here is Google's automatically generated transcript of this commercial. It seems apropo that somehow "and here's a plus" got translated into "hinduism". And "spill proof lids" became "spill proof lives".

Notice that this "credo" of the fast food giant begins with "McDonald's believes". "I believe"; "we believe"; "McDonald's believes"; "Bergoglio believes".

0:21 mcdonald's believes and including kids before they get to each other such good
0:25 food june mcdonald's famous french fries
0:28 crippled the creamy shoots queen bt cheeseburgers and hamburgers
0:33 icy cold soft drinks hinduism plus spill proof lives on all the bridges another
0:38 flight
0:38 reckons that are going to do
0:41 cleanliness extra care service that's mcdonald's a total value that unmatched
0:46 anywhere

 + + +

Actually, the exact opposite is true. The greatest joy of the Gospel is Christ's death on the cross because it redeemed our souls. Our example is Christ, the man of sorrows.

When I began to truly understand Catholic teaching by reading about the lives of the saints -- especially Therese of Lisieux -- I  began to understand that suffering has meaning. It was a great joy for Therese when she discovered that she had tuberculosis because she understood it as a gift from God which would allow her to suffer as Christ had suffered and to offer that suffering for the souls of poor sinners.

Happiness is fleeting. Joy is eternal.

The great teaching of the Church that I learned from Therese is that suffering can be a source of joy.

This is something that I never learned from the protestant church that I attended while growing up. This is one of the many great secrets of the Catholic Church which are handed down to us by the saints and past popes through our rich Catholic tradition.

Let's not make the mistake of throwing out that rich heritage in exchange for an empty "modern" interpretation of the gospel.

Does "modern man" not suffer? I dare say he does.

But fear not, Our Mother in Heaven is there to comfort us -- even at the hour of our death.

The joy of Catholics comes from knowing that God never abandons us and that he always loves us. Because we are His sheep. Because God is love.

Sunday, November 17, 2013

A vulgar pope

For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church.
 -- Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Ephesians 5:29
The original meaning of "vulgar" is from "vulgus" for  "common people". Typically,  when someone uses the term "vulgar" these days they usually mean obscene. I am using the term "vulgar" in its original sense of relating to the "common people". And in this sense to call Bergoglio "vulgar" is really something which I think he would heartily agree with and it is his "vulgarity" which really is the distinguishing characteristic of his papacy.

(And by the way, the word "Vulgate" also comes from this same origin because it was the translation of the scripture into the language of the common people which was Latin.)

Bergoglio has chosen to identify himself with the "common people" and yet we know that he is a Jesuit and he is well educated. So he has enough education and social upbringing to speak elegantly and yet he chooses instead a sort of beer-hall style of speaking with the press and even in his homilies. You could lift  out passages from his homilies and they would fit right in with a conversation in a bar over beers -- both the content and the style of speech. I have to conclude that this style of speech is deliberate on the part of Bergoglio and that he speaks this way in order to "reach out" to the "common people".

So what is wrong with this? What is wrong with appealing to the lowest standards of speech? Why haven't past popes employed this type of vulgar language in order to reach out to the "common people"?

For one thing, rather than lifting up Catholics to a higher culture level, it encourages the faithful to set low cultural standards for themselves. "Well, what is wrong with that?", you might say. Perhaps you think that the Church suffered from cultural elitism in the past, and that it neglected the popular culture.

But by lifting up the Catholic faithful culturally, the Church also lifted them up spiritually. And yes, there is a sense in which being vulgar, implies an earthly outlook focused on basic necessities rather than a heavenly outlook which is focused on our ultimate destiny.

And in addition, the type of culture that Bergoglio is promoting is not so much "popular culture" which the Church has always promoted in the best sense -- but rather Bergoglio is promoting the invasion of "pop culture" into the Church. And yes, "pop culture" is not just "vulgar" it is also obscene.

And this explains in a great part the popularity of Bergoglio. He is seen as giving the "OK" for Catholics to fully participate in the vulgar pop culture which surrounds us. So, this is "Catholic for dummies", because no one is required to change anything in their lives -- just go on living the way you always have and believing the false ideas that the "pop culture" thrusts upon us and you can still be a full-fledged Catholic.

This sort of "Catholicism" requires no sacrifice, no penance -- not even a sense of guilty unease. Oh, well if you really still must sacrifice, then you can make some sort of secular humanist "sacrifice" like recycling in order to save the environment. This is "Catholicism" perfectly aligned with secular humanism. It is EZ-Catholicism.

This vulgar approach of Bergoglio even fits in with his theology which is "teología del pueblo". This is often translated as "theology of the poor" but translates literally into the "theology of the people". The word "pueblo" in Spanish has the connotation of referring to the "common people", so "teología del pueblo" can be translated as "theology of the common people". And since "vulgar" refers to the "common people", we can also translate this as "the vulgar theology".

How appropriate. A "vulgar theology" for a "vulgar pope" who wishes to transform the Catholic Church into a "vulgar church".

Now there is nothing wrong with the "common people" and the Church has always been about common people from the beginning. Wasn't Peter a simple fisherman? But Christ lifted up Peter as he has lifted up all of us with His Death and Resurrection. The Catholic Church is anything but "common" -- it was divinely created to be extraordinary.

Thursday, November 7, 2013

Bozo the pope

Because the pastors have done foolishly, and have not sought the Lord: therefore have they not understood, and all their flock is scattered.
 -- Prophecy Of Jeremias 10:21

Well this is embarrassing.


A quick Google news search indicates that none of the big mainstream news sources are commenting on this. It's even too embarrassing for them. And since they want to maintain the image of Bergoglio they simply ignore it. Just like they ignored the story about the homosexual Ricca who Bergoglio appointed to an important position.

You don't hear anything about the "gay lobby" in the Vatican anymore. And what about that big scandalous Vatican report that Pope Benedict compiled just before stepping down. You don't hear anything about that anymore either.

It's all good news from the Vatican since Bergoglio was elected. And even though the mainstream press is ignoring this Bozo the Clown moment at the Vatican, I'm sure this will seal Bergoglio's being declared "Man of the Year" for 2013 by the world press. No doubt about it -- he is their man in the Vatican.

 + + +

Believe it or not I actually had a dream the other day about the pope coming out dressed in a Bozo the Clown outfit. And I was wondering how the Catholic press would react to this. Somehow I was sure that they would turn it into "a good thing". What does this pope have to do for the majority of the Catholic media to begin to criticize his words and actions which are destroying the Catholic faith?

Doesn't anyone care anymore?

Saturday, November 2, 2013

Bergoglio's New Age doctor

Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching the things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, without prohibition.
 -- The Acts Of The Apostles 28:31
While he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Bergoglio (Pope Francis) was treated for his heart condition and other maladies by a Taoist monk, Liu Ming. Ming would go regularly to the Cathedral to treat Bergoglio through the use of  acupuncture and massages.

The original Spanish article is here:
“Francisco va a vivir hasta los 140 años”, dice su médico chino

Here is a link to a Google translation in English:
"Francisco is going to live to 140 years," says Chinese doctor

My translation of a portion of the article -- which is in the form of an interview -- follows.
- Did he ever make ​​any recommendations to you regarding our culture?
- (Thinks) He asked me if I was familiar with San Lorenzo [NOTE: The soccer team!]. I don't even have a television (laughs). Yes, he talked to me about Argentinian beef. Oh! It's not like the beef in China, here you don't even need to add salt. He made another suggestion: the name of my daughter.

- Did Bergoglio give your daughter her name?
-Yes. Her name is María Guadalupe.

- Did you have conversations about Eastern philosophy? Was he interested?
-Yes, we exchanged books. For example he gave me the "Book of I Ching" in Spanish. I use it to teach courses in Buenos Aires. He gave me the Bible and a book called Reasons to Believe.

- Did you have any kind of disagreements?
-No. This world had a religious origin and life cannot exist without religion, otherwise we would be just animals. Since I am a Taoist monk I spoke to him a great deal about the Tao, which in China is the only truth. In your culture, it is called God and in China it is called the Tao. It's the same. It is the same truth.  He listened to me very attentively.

Regarding the "I Ching" here is what Wikipedia has to say:
The I Ching (Wade-Giles) or "Yì Jīng" (pinyin), also known as the Classic of Changes, Book of Changes or Zhouyi, is one of the oldest of the Chinese classic texts. The book contains a divination system comparable to Western geomancy or the West African Ifá system; in Western cultures and modern East Asia, it is still widely used for this purpose.

Traditionally, the I Ching and its hexagrams were thought to pre-date recorded history, and based on traditional Chinese accounts, its origins trace back to the 3rd to the 2nd millennium BCE. Modern scholarship suggests that the earliest layers of the text may date from the end of the 2nd millennium BCE, but place doubts on the mythological aspects in the traditional accounts. Some consider the I Ching the oldest extant book of divination, dating from 1,000 BCE and before. The oldest manuscript that has been found, albeit incomplete, dates back to the Warring States period (475–221 BCE).

During the Warring States Period, the text was re-interpreted as a system of cosmology and philosophy that subsequently became intrinsic to Chinese culture. It centered on the ideas of the dynamic balance of opposites, the evolution of events as a process, and acceptance of the inevitability of change.
NOTE: See also "The Taoist Background of Jorge Bergoglio" by Atila Sinke Guimarães. While I don't agree with some of Guimarães' conclusions, I give him credit for being the first to discover this story in the English speaking blogosphere.

Two Fatima talks

[28] Come to me, all you that labour, and are burdened, and I will refresh you. [29] Take up my yoke upon you, and learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart: and you shall find rest to your souls. [30] For my yoke is sweet and my burden light.
 -- Gospel According to Saint Matthew 11:28-30

There are two videos here from the recent Fatima "Path to Peace" conference. It may surprise you to be told that the first one by Cornelia Ferreira is very right. I highly encourage you to watch it. It is very enlightening and could easily be the basis for a book.

The second talk by G. Edward Griffin is very wrong as I will explain below.






The talk by G. Edward Griffin is 100% masonic. I doubt that Griffin is a Catholic or that he has ever read a papal encyclical. He should start with Pope Leo XIII's encyclical on Americanism. He is 100% anti-Catholic. He states that collectivism is always 100% bad. What about a Catholic monastery? What about the description in Acts of the early Christian communities that shared everything in common?

Griffin, like so many others, wants to use the Church to further his own political agenda. I don't even think that he believes in God -- oh, maybe a masonic "god" but certainly not Jesus Christ, true God and true man.

Griffin's whole starting off point is "human rights". This also the starting off point of the masonic anti-Catholic French Revolution. Griffin's source of "enlightenment" is the masonic US Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Oh sure, he makes a distinction between intrinsic individual rights and rights granted by the "state", but this is a distinction without basis. "Human rights" are a masonic concept that denies the existence of God. Humans have only one "right" which is to accept the will of God or to reject it. This "right" derives from God given free will. Once we accept the will of God we give up all other "rights" in order to accept the yoke of Christ -- we become slaves of God. This is true "freedom". It is freedom from sin.

If we reject God, this does not make us "free". It makes us slaves of our own sin -- Satan's slaves.

The "ideal government" is the Kingdom of God on earth with Christ the King as the head. This is not a form of "democracy" or a "republic" or a "communist state" or "anarchy" or any of the other masonic variations of the reign of Satan.

The best model we have for a Catholic "one world government" is Christendom as it existed in medieval Europe -- which is much maligned by the "modern" world.

Griffin may consider himself a "conservative" but actually he is a full-blooded "liberal" in the classic sense of the masonic French Revolution.

In contrast the talk by Cornelia Ferreira discusses "World Revolution and Diabolical Disorientation". Griffin would do well to listen carefully to what she has to say, because she is talking directly about him. He is one of the advocates of "revolution" -- in his case expanding the masonic American Revolution. He is pushing an ideology of diabolical disorientation.

Instead of applauding Griffin at the Fatima conference, he should never have been invited. His "libertarianism" is pure poison. Unfortunately, many Catholics believe this form of anti-communist radical capitalism is somehow in harmony with the Church. It is not. It is diametrically opposed to the Church.

Griffin tries to divide the world into two camps -- collectivists and individualists. The only true division that matters is Catholics who believe in the reign of Christ the King and the rest. The others are in the great majority -- throughout history this has always been true. But we have God given hope while those without the true faith live and die in misery.

Griffin makes some good points, but for the wrong reasons. It is true we don't need more laws, what we need is the teaching of the Gospel of Christ. When society is ruled by Christ then laws and the state become subservient to God. What we need is a Christian moral society. Then we would not need to fine people in order to make them do good.

Think of the saints. What motivates them? It is love of Christ.

 + + +

"The desire for peace is certainly harbored in every breast, and there is no one who does not ardently invoke it. But to want peace without God is an absurdity, seeing that where God is absent thence too justice flies, and when justice is taken away it is vain to cherish the hope of peace. "Peace is the work of justice" (Is. xxii., 17). There are many, We are well aware, who, in their yearning for peace, that is for the tranquillity of order, band themselves into societies and parties, which they style parties of order. Hope and labor lost. For there is but one party of order capable of restoring peace in the midst of all this turmoil, and that is the party of God. It is this party, therefore, that we must advance, and to it attract as many as possible, if we are really urged by the love of peace."
 -- From "E SUPREMI" ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS X ON THE RESTORATION OF ALL THINGS IN CHRIST. OCTOBER 4, 1903

Oath against Modernism

And no man drinking old, hath presently a mind to new: for he saith, The old is better.
 -- Gospel According to Saint Luke 5:39

Pope St. Pius X's “Oath against Modernism”

Extracted from the motu proprio, Sacrorum Antistitum; September 1, 1910
 + + +

To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.

I [name] firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day.

And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:19), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that therefore, His existence can also be demonstrated.

Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time.

Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when He lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time.

Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same explanation. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another, different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.

Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, Our Creator and Lord.

Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas.

I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion.

I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality ─ that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful.

Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm.

Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historical-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact ─ one to be put on par with the ordinary facts of history ─ the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages, a school begun by Christ and His apostles.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God, and these holy Gospels of God which I touch with my hand.

 + + +

Thursday, October 31, 2013

"Saint" Vatican II

"Why hast thou conceived this thing in thy heart? Thou hast not lied to men, but to God."
 -- The Acts Of The Apostles 5:4
The "clever" cartoon below is from the heretical NCR.


Yes, it is quite clear to everyone that the Bishop of Rome intends to "canonize" Vatican II through the "intercession" of Popes John XXIII and John Paul II. What is the rush? The "Spirit of Vatican II" isn't even dead yet.

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

"Hold the traditions"

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
-- Second Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Thessalonians 2:14
I highly doubt that this verse was one of those chosen by Bugnini to be part of the Sunday Mass readings.

The "church of nice" has a "gospel of nice" which consists of the Sunday Mass readings. This is why Catholics can attend Mass every Sunday and never get exposed to anything in Bible which contradicts basic secular humanist principles. You will get some of the that if you attend daily Mass, but how many Catholics make it to Mass every Sunday, much less every day?

According to Michael Davies, who I have a lot of respect for, Bugnini was a freemason.

"There is good reason to fear"

[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.
 -- Second Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Thessalonians 2:2-4

5. When all this is considered there is good reason to fear lest this great perversity may be as it were a foretaste, and perhaps the beginning of those evils which are reserved for the last days; and that there may be already in the world the "Son of Perdition" of whom the Apostle speaks (II. Thess. ii., 3). Such, in truth, is the audacity and the wrath employed everywhere in persecuting religion, in combating the dogmas of the faith, in brazen effort to uproot and destroy all relations between man and the Divinity! While, on the other hand, and this according to the same apostle is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist, man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned God's majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. "He sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God" (II. Thess. ii., 2).
 -- From "E SUPREMI" ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS X ON THE RESTORATION OF ALL THINGS IN CHRIST. OCTOBER 4, 1903

Monday, October 21, 2013

The bitter fruit of Vatican II

[11] Doth a fountain send forth, out of the same hole, sweet and bitter water? [12] Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear grapes; or the vine, figs? So neither can the salt water yield sweet. [13] Who is a wise man, and endued with knowledge among you? Let him shew, by a good conversation, his work in the meekness of wisdom. [14] But if you have bitter zeal, and there be contentions in your hearts; glory not, and be not liars against the truth. [15] For this is not wisdom, descending from above: but earthly, sensual, devilish.
 -- Epistle Of Saint James 3:11-15
I was not going to embed this video of John Vennari. I was not pleased with the harsh tone that Vennari uses.  I thought he was not being "charitable".



However, the more I learn about the "theology" of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the more convinced I become that he is deserving of the harshest criticism possible. The only danger is that some will not listen to the message because it is so hard to bear.

We should all be weeping at this time. And not wasting our time in defense of this anti-pope.

The reason it seems that at times he contradicts himself is quite simple. This is what happens to liars. They can't keep their stories straight. And Jorge Mario is engaged in such a "big lie" that it is nearly impossible for him to speak even one full sentence without contradicting himself.

If you read one of his homilies/sermons the first thing you realize is this is the product of a third rate preacher. His preaching lacks any depth -- in addition to being full of heresies. If nothing else he should be getting criticized by all Catholics for his inferior preaching. Surely a pope of the Catholic Church should be expected to capable of preaching the faith without leading souls into error.

If Bergoglio was a protestant preacher he would quickly find himself without a church to preach in. I can tell you that in the protestant churches if a preacher doesn't know how to preach he will be quickly tossed out and the search will begin for a new pastor.

This is only relevant because Bergoglio insists on rejecting all things Catholic and embracing all things non-Catholic. So then, isn't it fair play to hold him to a non-Catholic standard?

How did we get to this point? Unlike other calamities which have befallen the Church, this one has only one possible explanation. You can blame the closing of Catholic churches and seminaries on changes in the "modern" world. But the choice of a pope is completely an internal function of the Church.

Therefore the cause lies within the Church.

This is the bitter fruit of Vatican II. It is a poisonous apple which threatens to destroy the Church.

At this point I am afraid to say that I have lost all faith in this pope. If you read my earlier posts when Bergoglio was first elected you will see that I greeted this pope with great hope.

The only hope I have left comes from my faith in God. It is up to us to continue to do God's will despite whatever happens in the Vatican. This necessarily means that we will be required to oppose the plans of Bergoglio for the Church.

This will not be easy. But if we continue to follow the pope out of a sense of reverence we will end up with a disaster as devastating to the Church as the priest sex abuse scandal. It was out of respect for priests and bishops that the truth did not come out regarding this abuse earlier. Think of all the suffering that could have been avoided if people had spoken out.

This pope is getting great praise from the secular press. For the first time you can read articles about the pope without any references to the sex abuse scandal. This pope has friends in all the wrong places.

Here is another video along the same critical lines from the Remnant.



 + + +

 + Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

 + Pray the Rosary daily for the Pope.

Friday, October 18, 2013

By this is the spirit of God known

[1] Dearly beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. [2] By this is the spirit of God known. Every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God: [3] And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world. [4] You are of God, little children, and have overcome him. Because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. [5] They are of the world: therefore of the world they speak, and the world heareth them. [6] We are of God. He that knoweth God, heareth us. He that is not of God, heareth us not. By this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
 -- First Epistle Of Saint John 4:1-6

 +  +  +


  m M m


Wednesday, October 16, 2013

The theology of Pope Francis: an interview with Juan Carlos Scannone

"For the poor you have always with you; but me you have not always."
 -- Gospel According to Saint John 12:8
This is a translation of an interview with Father Juan Carlos Scannone who was one of Jorge Mario Bergoglio's teachers in the seminary. I offer it up because it contains so much insight into the man who is now the Pope.

[NOTE: The original interview was apparently done in Spanish as explained below. The article that I translated was in Portuguese. So there may be some parts of the translation that are little rough, but I have tried to make it as accurate as possible while still making it readable in English. One word that is a challenge to translate is "o povo" or "el pueblo". This is usually translated as "the people", but there is a connotation of the poor people or at least the common people.]

Notice that the themes that have emerged out of this papacy are already outlined by Scannone in May of 2013 -- only a few months after Bergoglio's election. Such themes as a "church of the poor", ecumenism, relations with Jews and Muslims. And contrary to many reports according to Scannone, Bergoglio does favor a Argentine form of liberation theology which he refers to as "theology of the people". Although perhaps this could also be translated as "theology of the poor" or "theology of the common people".

----

The theology of Pope Francis: an interview with Juan Carlos Scannone
Monday, May 27, 2013
Father Juan Carlos Scannone Jesuit 81, a former professor of several universities in Latin America and Europe, including the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, and former dean of the Faculty of Philosophy and Theology at the Universidad del Salvador in Buenos Aires, is the greatest Argentine theologian alive.
This article is by Mauro Castagnaro, published in the journal Il Regno, May 2013. The translation is by Moses Sbardelotto. [The original article was apparently in Spanish.]
Here is the interview.
What do you think of the rise of Cardinal Bergoglio to the Seat of Peter?
The fact that he has become the first pope "of the Americas", particularly from Latin America, has a great symbolic value along with the choice of the name Francis. Jorge Mario is a simple person, concerned about the poor, and with the renewal of the Church through an “urban” evangelical apostolate, carried out on the streets, and not only within the churches, as was the apostolate of St. Francis of Assisi .
Jorge Mario has three great qualities: he is a man of spirituality, and when he was my provincial I had the impression that he ruled based on spiritual discernment, at least with respect to me. He is austere, so that in Buenos Aires he traveled by subway or bus -- and often visited the poor neighborhoods, defending priests who worked there. He is determined, and therefore he will implement the necessary changes in the Church, but without causing a rupture.
What do you think about his actions in the case of the kidnapping during the dictatorship, of the Rev. Orlando Yorio and Fr Ferencz Jalics?
Fr Jalics denied any connection between Father Bergoglio and their arrest. I already knew that because I was a good friend of Father Yorio, with whom I sometimes collaborated on a theological level, and as Father Bergoglio lived in the same house as me, when they were “disappeared”, he told me about everything he was doing, and what the vicar of the region, Don Mario Serra, was doing in order to discover where they were and to have them released. The military denied that they had arrested them, but the news leaked that they had been detained at the Navy Mechanics School (Esma), and when the military realized that they were innocent, they still detained them for several months, in my view because they did not know what else to do. In the end, the military left them sleeping (most likely drugged) in a field. Then, with the help of the provincial, Father Yorio and Father Jalics took refuge abroad to avoid being arrested again.
What will Francis do?
I expect him to promote the new evangelization with the preferential treatment for the poor, as is appropriate within each culture. Therefore, he will look much towards Africa and he will promote this apostolate with respect to the most poor, in the large urban areas and in the "fourth world". He will also promote ecumenism and conferences worldwide with other world religions, particularly Judaism and Islam, based on what he has done in Argentina, where there is a dialogue between these three religions and Christianity. Also, I imagine that he will try to have his austere syle adopted by the whole Church, which would in this way be better able to adapt to the modern culture. Finally, he will give an emphasis to the fact that he is the Bishop of Rome while certainly not ignoring the universal Church, but valuing collegiality and the community of the faithful as a whole.
What consequences will his election have for Latin America?
Francis is very familiar with the Church of this continent. He was rapporteur at the Fifth General Conference of Latin American Bishops , held in Aparecida, Brazil, in 2007, also he coordinated the committee that drafted the final document, and so he will try to encourage the "pastoral conversion" of which the text speaks mainly putting the Church in Latin America "in a state of mission" in the major cities. Most likely he will promote dialogue with trade unions and popular organizations to foster greater social justice, and search for agreements in the area of politics that promote the common good. He will at last give credence to popular piety and spirituality, especially the typical Marian devotion of Latin Americans.
As Pope will Bergoglio look towards the theology of Latin America?
Jorge Mario is convinced of the importance of a spiritual and pastoral theology at a level of the contemporary culture and at the level of each particular culture. I believe he will promote the preferential treatment of the poor as the hermeneutic that reflects the  theological and pastoral teachings of Latin America. In Argentina, he defended what I refer to as "Argentinean liberation theology", which some refer to as the "theology of the people", and I assume he will continue to promote it, without ignoring other theological orientations.
What are the characteristics of this "theology of the people"?
Just as with liberation theology, it uses the method of "seeing-judging-acting", it connects historical praxis and theological reflection, and makes use of as intermediaries the social sciences and humanities. But it favors a cultural-historical analysis compared with the socio-structural Marxist type. It is a form of thinking that emerged in the immediate post-conciliar period, from two sources: paragraph number 53 of Gaudium et Spes, which speaks of "culture" as a way of life of every people, reading it with the conviction that the first evangelization contributed much to forge the Argentine culture that manifested itself especially in popular Catholicism; and the social theories which originated at the University of Buenos Aires in the 1960s and based on the categories of "pueblo" and "anti-pueblo", which recognized that there was injustice, but which emphasized unity rather than conflict, as would have occurred if it used the concept of "class".
Therefore, this way of thinking stresses the importance of culture, religiosity and popular mysticism, while affirming that the most authentic and faithful interpreters of culture are the poor, with their traditional spirituality and sensitivity for justice. This way of thinking gives rise to the pastoral care of the barrios and poor neighborhoods.
What is the situation of the Church in Argentina today?
Over the past 15 years, the bishops maintained a critical dialogue with the Executive [Presidency?], although a minority of bishops takes a more conservative approach. On the social level, we all recognize that the Church is far ahead, both with regards to assistance through Caritas, as well as in promoting humane solutions[?], but sometimes she comes into conflict with the government, because although the situation of the poor has improved thanks to assistance from the government, there is still a lack of financial investment to create decent jobs.
On moral issues such as abortion and marriage between persons of the same sex, I believe that natural law should be defended and also the rights of the unborn, but through more dialogue with secular society. In the case of the Law on the Equality of Marriage if among the bishops those who wanted to accept civil unions had prevailed instead of the radical opposition, then I think we could have avoided having the  relations of homosexuals raised to the level of “marriage”, by guaranteeing rights to all people such as inheritance, pensions etc. In my view, the hierarchy is still not accustomed to dialogue with the postmodern society, which expresses a kind of cultural relativism.
See also:
TO READ MORE:

The pope of the dissenters

They profess that they know God: but in their works they deny him; being abominable, and incredulous, and to every good work reprobate.
 -- Epistle Of Saint Paul To Titus 1:16
It seems that everyone who doesn't for a second believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God loves this pope! Atheists, agnostics, Jews, Muslims, humanists, communists.... all of these seem to be highly impressed for the first time with the Catholic pontiff.

If you visit the websites of dissenting Catholics, the comboxes are full of comments such as:
"I'm not religious. I gave up Christianity when I was 15. Now In my 30's, this is the first pope that I can say I have respect for."
And here is a top vote-getter:
"Had all Popes been like Francis there would have been no split between Protestant and Catholic. I am an agnostic however I recognize this Pope as a true holy man. The world sorely needs his guidance and his ministry."
Add to the list of ringing endorsements for Pope Francis that of Nancy Pelosi. She gets as giddy as schoolgirl when speaking of Pope Francis -- as if he were some sort of teen idol.



Obama, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Argentina's President Kirchner.... the list goes on and on. And they are all "hugely impressed" with Pope Francis.

Pray to God and the Blessed Virgin for a miracle so that these unbeliever's hopes will be dashed.

 + + +

Monday, October 14, 2013

The pain I felt when I left my father's house...

[1] I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: [2] Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. [3] For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: [4] And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. [5] But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober.

[6] For I am even now ready to be sacrificed: and the time of my dissolution is at hand. [7] I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith. [8] As to the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of justice, which the Lord the just judge will render to me in that day: and not only to me, but to them also that love his coming. Make haste to come to me quickly. [9] For Demas hath left me, loving this world, and is gone to Thessalonica: [10] Crescens into Galatia, Titus into Dalmatia.

 -- Second Epistle Of Saint Paul To Timothy 4:1-10
These are the times in which saints are made.

I can finally understand what it must have been like to go fight in the Crusades. We are fighting for the Holy Catholic Church and it will take men of great courage.

The saints are few in number.

In the passage below St. Teresa of Avila speaks of the courage it took to leave her father's house and enter into the Carmelite monastery. Now we must summon up the courage to follow the path that God has chosen for us even when it means speaking out against some of the teachings of Our Holy Father. Let us ask God for the courage to "fight against ourselves" in order to be able to serve the Lord.

I write these words while thinking of Louie Verrecchio so that he make take comfort in this greatest of all Carmelite saints. Trust in God. Think of the salvation of your soul. "Resolutely persevere" and God will reward you, "even in this life"....
1. In those days, when I was thus resolved, I had persuaded one of my brothers, by speaking to him of the vanity of the world, to become a friar; and we agreed together to set out one day very early in the morning for the monastery where that friend of mine lived for whom I had so great an affection: though I would have gone to any other monastery, if I thought I should serve God better in it, or to any one my father liked, so strong was my resolution now to become a nun—for I thought more of the salvation of my soul now, and made no account whatever of mine own ease. I remember perfectly well, and it is quite true, that the pain I felt when I left my father's house was so great, that I do not believe the pain of dying will be greater—for it seemed to me as if every bone in my body were wrenched asunder; for, as I had no love of God to destroy my love of father and of kindred, this latter love came upon me with a violence so great that, if our Lord had not been my keeper, my own resolution to go on would have failed me. But He gave me courage to fight against myself, so that I executed my purpose.

2. When I took the habit, our Lord at once made me understand how He helps those who do violence to themselves in order to serve Him. No one observed this violence in me; they saw nothing but the greatest good will. At that moment, because I was entering on that state, I was filled with a joy so great, that it has never failed me to this day; and God converted the aridity of my soul into the greatest tenderness. Everything in religion was a delight unto me; and it is true that now and then I used to sweep the house during those hours of the day which I had formerly spent on my amusements and my dress; and, calling to mind that I was delivered from such follies, I was filled with a new joy that surprised me, nor could I understand whence it came.

3. Whenever I remember this, there is nothing in the world, however hard it may be, that, if it were proposed to me, I would not undertake without any hesitation whatever; for I know now, by experience in many things, that if from the first I resolutely persevere in my purpose, even in this life His Majesty rewards it in a way which he only understands who has tried it. When the act is done for God only, it is His will before we begin it that the soul, in order to the increase of its merits, should be afraid; and the greater the fear, if we do but succeed, the greater the reward, and the sweetness thence afterwards resulting. I know this by experience, as I have just said, in many serious affairs; and so, if I were a person who had to advise anybody, I would never counsel any one, to whom good inspirations from time to time may come, to resist them through fear of the difficulty of carrying them into effect; for if a person lives detached for the love of God only, that is no reason for being afraid of failure, for He is omnipotent. May He be blessed for ever! Amen.
 -- "The book of her life -- Ch. 4" by St. Teresa of Avila

Sunday, October 13, 2013

Bergoglio's false Fatima consecration

"When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, there cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart: this is he that received the seed by the way side."
 -- Gospel According to Saint Matthew 13:19
In what I can only imagine to be a pre-written headline, Catholic News Agency says, "Pope entrusts world to Immaculate Heart of Mary". Back in August the headline from CNA was, "Pope to consecrate world to Mary's Immaculate Heart".

However, in Bergoglio's statements today I have found not a mention of Our Lady's Immaculate Heart. Nor does he use the word "consecrate". He doesn't mention Fatima. He doesn't mention Blessed Jacinta or Francisco or Sister Lucia.

Instead we have a rehash of Bergoglio's "church of the poor" theme in a statement that sounds like it would be much more appropriate at an anniversary dedicated to the masonic Statue of Liberty than to Our Lady of Fatima.

Bergoglo's statement includes the following:
"Teach us your same love and preference for the young and the poor, the marginalized and the suffering, for sinners and those whose hearts are lost: gather all under your protection and deliver us all to your beloved Son , our Lord Jesus"
Compare that with the poem engraved on the masonic Statue of Liberty:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Our Lady of Fatima's message was not about the poor .  She asked the pope to...
"consecrate the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, with a special mention for Russia, and order that all the Bishops of the world do the same in union with Your Holiness."
I don't know how you do this without ever mentioning Her Immaculate Heart. Who is Bergoglio trying to fool?

Our Lady told the children at Fatima...
"You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace."
Bergoglio makes a mockery of Our Lady's message. May God have mercy on him.

He makes it sound like all sinners are automatically going to Heaven because God in his mercy wold never condemn them to hell. But the message of Fatima is that for each of us hell is our ultimate destiny unless we surrender to God's will.
May our most loving Mother be pleased to look with clemency also upon those who are organizing the ranks of militant atheists and upon those who are collaborating in promoting such activities; may she deign to obtain for their minds that light which comes from God and direct their hearts through divine grace unto salvation.
 -- Apostolic Letter Carissimis Russiae Populis (1952) "On the Immaculate Heart and the People of Russia" Pius XII


Tuesday, October 8, 2013

The gospel according to Judas

[3] Mary therefore took a pound of ointment of right spikenard, of great price, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. [4] Then one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, he that was about to betray him, said: [5] Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?
 -- Gospel According to Saint John 12:3-5
Where have we heard this talk of a "stripped" down Church of the poor before?

It is in the words of Judas Iscariot, "Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?".

Jesus rebuked Judas immediately saying, "Let her alone, that she may keep it against the day of my burial. For the poor you have always with you; but me you have not always."

In reading Chapter 12 of the Gospel according to Saint John I see a perfect description of the how the Church has fallen prey to the devil through the "new" traps that he laid in the "modern" world.

It was revealed to St. John that the events surrounding Palm Sunday were a perfect foreshadowing of the Crucifixion. Vatican II reminds me of the how the multitude rejoiced at the "new springtime" even as they prepared to hand over Christ to the Jewish leaders to be crucified.

They "took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried: Hosanna, blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord, the king of Israel."

Jesus responded to them, "Now is the judgment of the world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself."

But St. John tells us that "they could not believe, because Isaias said again: He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart, that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them."

They were blinded because they saw as Judas saw. In my previous post I quoted from Pope Benedict regarding Judas. I will repeat that quote except that I will substitute for Jesus the Church.
In the end, Jesus knew that even among the Twelve there was one who did not believe: Judas. Judas too could have left [the Church] like the other disciples did; perhaps he should have left had he wanted to be honest. Instead he stayed with [the Church]. He stayed not because of faith, not because of love, but with the secret plan to get back at [the Church]. Why? Because Judas felt that [the Church] had betrayed him and he decided to betray [the Church] in turn. Judas was a zealot and wanted a victorious [Church] who would lead a revolt against [the Rich]. [The Church] frustrated these expectations. The problem is that Judas did not leave and his gravest fault was falsity, which is the sign of the devil. Because of this Jesus said to the Twelve: “One among you is a devil!” (John 6:70). Let us pray to the Virgin Mary, who helps us to believe in Jesus, as St. Peter did, to be ever more sincere with him and with everyone.
The gospel according to Judas sees the principal role of the Church as fighting for the poor against the rich. It is no wonder then that Bergoglio has won the endorsement of so many followers of Judas.
There is a reason every conceivable constituency of the Church’s enemies, both internal and external, is hailing Pope Francis: from Hans Kung (“was overwhelmed with joy” at Francis’s election), to the National Abortion Rights Action League (“To Pope Francis: Thank you”), to Stephen Colbert (“a seismic ripple throughout the world of Catholicism”), to Jane Fonda (“Gotta love new Pope. He cares about poor, hates dogma”), to Chris Rock (Francis is “the greatest man alive”), to the man that vulgar comedian worships as the “dad of our country” and “our boss”—none other than Barack Obama, who is “hugely impressed with the pope’s pronouncements.” When a politician who can rightly be viewed as a forerunner of Antichrist is “hugely impressed” by a Pope’s statements, there must be something gravely wrong with what the Pope is saying.
Bergoglio has even won the endorsement of the communist party.
Well, it appears they [the communists] prefer the words and emphasis and intentions of this particular pope. They trust him to take a stance closer to theirs. Consider the enthusiastic take of People’s World: “Pope Francis has provided a moral bully pulpit to rally the world’s workers in the ongoing crusade against corporate greed.”
It is interesting to note that Bergoglio gave a homily on St. John Chapter 12:3-5 soon after being elected pope by the cardinals. I cannot improve on an analysis of it by Atila Sinke Guimarães. And so I present his analysis in its entirety below.

St. Mary Magdalene, pray for us.

 + + +

Please refer to the original article which is properly formatted and also contains footnotes:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/bev/156bev05_29_2013.htm
*****

FRANCIS and JUDAS (by Atila Sinke Guimarães) -    During the homily he delivered at his Mass on May 14 at Santa Marta Inn, Pope Francis commented on the episode that, in many ways, is the paradigm of his pontificate. He referred to the complaint of Judas about the “waste” Mary Magdalene was making when she washed the sacred Feet of Our Lord Jesus Christ with an expensive perfume at the Bethany supper offered by Simon the leper.

Judas objected, contending that she should have saved the perfume, sold it and given the money to the poor. A quick look at the reports of St. Mark (14:3-9) and St. Matthew (26: 6-16) of that episode shows us that both Evangelists attribute the objection to the Apostles as a whole. St. John, more conscious of the vices of Judas, reports Judas as the one who authored it (12:4).

This comparison of the texts lets us suppose that it was Judas who raised the indignation of the Apostles. This was a mutinous and deceitful ploy, an attempt to set the Apostles against Our Lord and to pressure Him to reject Magdalene’s homage.

We sense the depth of Judas’s hatred for that act of glorification by considering that no one with a bit of good sense would provoke a whole group of men to go against a single woman. Further weakening her position, she was facing a general ambience that was strange to her.

Were it not for his uncontained hatred, Judas could have waited until later to ask Our Lord whether her action was correct or not. But he was no longer interested in learning from Him. His mind was made up; he detested that act of public glorification and wanted to stop that display. Thus, disregarding any sense of courtesy that men should normally show toward a fragile woman, ignoring the honor they owed their Messiah and God, Judas instigated the Apostles to reject Magdalene’s gesture.

Seeing the position of Judas, Our Lord took a divine attitude that anticipates medieval Chivalry’s protection of the weak, Scholasticism’s refutations of heretics, and the Constantinian Church’s glorification of God with riches and pomp. He said: “Why do you harass this woman? For she has wrought a good work upon me … Wherever this gospel will be preached in the whole world, that also which she has done will be told in memory of her.” (Matt 26: 10-13)

This is, therefore, an episode dense in symbolism: On one hand, it prefigures a long series of enemies of richness and solemnity in God’s worship: all types of heretics, as I have listed elsewhere. (1) Last on this list, we find the progressivists who have been controlling the Church since Vatican II. They are doing everything they can to transform the Catholic Church into a Miserablist Church despoiled of all her properties and glories, a proletarian Church compatible with Communism. It is the Church of the Poor, as Francis called it in his first audience, or the Servant, Humble and Fraternal Church that he prayed for with the Italian Bishops some days ago. (2)

On the other hand, this episode of Mary Magdalene symbolizes the Constantinian Church, the Church that offers to God the best of what nature provides and man produces in quality and beauty. She must have splendorous churches and solemn ceremonies to glorify the One who created all of nature and redeemed mankind.

Now, as Pope Francis speeds up his desacralization, the Miserablist Church with its patron, Judas Iscariot – a theme we have pointed out for a long time - is becoming increasingly linked to the Bergloglio Revolution.

So, Francis needed to disengage himself from this embarrassing and infamous association. Toward this purpose, nothing appeared better than to criticize Judas in that episode of Mary Magdalene. So this is what he did on May 14, 2013.

Francis’ objections

In a quite superficial sermon, as his teachings ex hospitio [from the inn] have often been, Francis said these words, summarized by Vatican Radio:

“Let us think of that moment with the Magdalene, when she washed the feet of Jesus with nard, which was so expensive. It is a religious moment, a moment of gratitude, a moment of love. And he [Judas] stands apart and criticizes her bitterly: ‘But ... this could be used for the poor!’ This is the first reference that I personally found in the Gospel of poverty as an ideology. The ideologue does not know what love is, because he does not know how to gift himself.”

Thus, we have his first accusation:

Judas was wrong because he adopted poverty as an ideology

Then, in another excerpt more accusations come:

The Pope warned that those who “isolate their conscience in selfishness,” in the end “lose.”This is how Judas ended up … he “was an idolater, attached to money”.

“This idolatry has led him to isolate himself from the community of others: this is the drama of the isolated conscience. When a Christian begins to isolate himself, he or she also cuts off his or her conscience from the sense of community … Instead, the Christian who gives his or her life, who loses it, as Jesus says, finds it again ... And those who, like Judas, want to keep it for themselves, lose it in the end. John tells us that ‘at that moment Satan entered into Judas’ heart.’ And, we must say: With Satan the payback is rotten. He always rips us off, always!”

Thus, the second and third accusations of Pope Bergoglio are:
Judas was an idolater of money; at that moment [when he made the objection] Satan entered his heart;

Judas was wrong because he isolated himself from the community.
Basically, these were the charges Francis made against Judas.

In these accusations, what first strikes me is what the Pope omitted. He did not condemn Judas for his infamous moral behavior, which has justly raised horror in Catholics everywhere and in all times. Instead, he chose to present Judas as an egocentric intellectual, like so many others. His only rigorous censures were that Judas was an idolater of money - which we will analyze below - and the inexact remark that the Devil entered Judas’s heart on that occasion. (3)

Let me analyze these accusations.

Poverty as an ideology

The first charge he makes is that Judas was wrong because he understood poverty as an ideology.

What does Francis mean by ideology?

For Catholics ideology was always synonymous with philosophy. Each man, movement or current of thought can be defined by the ideas that he or it upholds. So, the ideology of a man or movement is an ensemble of principles that orients their actions. This definition supposes that man is a rational being.

However, in the last phase of JPII’s pontificate, throughout Benedict’s and now in Francis' a new concept of ideology has been conveyed to Catholics. An ideology is an abstract, artificial and duplicitous system elaborated by cold reason without taking into consideration the ardor of love. An ideology is a system invented by some elites to fool the people and maintain their control over power and wealth.

Below, in another of Francis’ ex hospitio teachings (April 19, 2013), he addressed the topic of ideology:

“The ‘doctors’ answer only with the head. They do not know that the Word of God goes to the heart … They are the ‘scientists,’ the great ‘ideologues,’ those who do not understand that the word of God … is directed to the heart … because it is the beautiful word that brings love and makes us love. …

“The ‘ideologues’ are the ones in the Gospel who discuss among themselves: ‘How can this man give us His flesh to eat?’ It is a problem of the intellect! And when ideology enters the Church, we do not understand anything of the Gospel. …

“The ideologues falsify the Gospel. Every ideological interpretation, no matter the source, is a falsification of the Gospel. And these ideologues – as we have seen in the History of the Church - end up as intellectuals without talent, moralists without goodness. They do not speak of beauty because they do not understand it. Instead, the way of love, the path of the Gospel is simple: It is the road understood by the Saints! …

“Let us pray to the Lord for the Church to be free from any ideological interpretation and to open her heart to the simple, pure Gospel that speaks of the gate of love and so much beauty! … (original here)

Reading these lines, we see that Bergoglio considers any intellectual effort to understand the Gospel as wrong and qualifies it as an “ideology.’ Only love matters. However, the Catholic Church teaches that in the human soul the intellect has primacy over the will and the sensibility. To deny this is to establish anarchy in the soul.

Now, Francis denies this hierarchy and condemns it: It is an ideology. If one were to accept his judgment, all Catholic theology and exegesis should be rejected...

If we apply this outlook to Judas, Bergoglio’s charge against him would translate thus: Since Judas argued that the perfume should be sold and the money given to the poor, he was objecting intellectually; with this he became an ideologue. So, it is the way Judas placed his objection – not his hatred for the glorification of Christ – that would be wrong.

We see that this accusation against Judas - he adhered to the ideology of poverty – is meaningless. Any man who uses his intellect to articulate an idea can be similarly condemned.

An idolater of money

Francis also accuses Judas of being an idolater of money. In this second accusation he lacks precision.

St. John tells us that Judas was a thief who stole coins from the moneybag (12:6). The revelation stops here. Most persons who steal money do it to buy other things. A minority of thieves steal money to hoard it because they love money as such. The accusation of being an idolater of money only applies to the latter.

In his sermon Francis forgot to explain why Judas should be considered as one of this latter brand of thieves. Since no explanation was given, his second accusation is wide open to discussion.

It is sad to say, but these two ex hospitio teachings are of a very poor intellectual level.

Isolated from the community

When Bergoglio comes to his third accusation - Judas was an egocentric who had isolated himself from the community - in principle he is correct. Any traitor is motivated by his own interests and has no care for anything else.

But, what Francis is stressing here is not this banality. Instead, he is repeating the progressivist thesis that no one can have a private relationship with God and individual spiritual life, but rather must share everything with the community. It is a kind of spiritual Communism.

With this we see that the accusations Pope Francis made against Judas have little to no actual value.

Certainly they do not excuse Francis from being a follower of Judas in his hatred for the external glorification of God and in his pretext that the Church must give up her pomp and sacrality to better help the poor.

What remains to be analyzed in another occasion is whether or not Francis’ eagerness to please the Jews - his first letter some hours after been elected was for them - can be considered as selling the Mystical Body of Christ to the Jews, as Judas did with Our Lord.

*****