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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

 + + +