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 Krak√≥w, 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.


  1. "He wants to convert the Church from Catholicism to.... ???"
    Fill in: Marxism.
    Even the non-Catholics get it, but as you stated the "traditional" commenters who are still sitting on the sidelines and attack only bishops or the National Catholic Reporter won´t.

    "The Communist Pope"
    see here under 11/28/13:
    This headline is linked to this article:

  2. Hi Martina,

    Thanks for the link. That article is correct in stating that Bergoglio is a supporter of liberation theology. This is a topic which has been widely debated -- is Bergoglio an adherent of liberation theology or not? We now have our answer from Bergoglio himself.

    This gets the Church into the middle of the whole mess of secular left/right politics. To me the issue is not whether Bergoglio supports capitalism or marxism. The Church has no business in these matters except as it impacts Her true mission, which is to save souls.

    Liberation theology is intended to be marxism without atheism. That's not a combination that has ever succeeded. The foundations of marxism are materialism -- that is to say a denial of God. To try to take marxism and "convert" it through the Gospel into a something compatible with the Catholic Church is at best foolish.

    Liberation theology is nothing but a marketing ploy to sell marxism to Catholics. Where does liberation theology originate? In Latin America which up until recently was nearly 100% Catholic. And where the marxist have been trying for decades to gain a foothold -- at the cost of millions of lives.

    Latin America is also a place where international capitalists have been thoroughly ruthless in exploiting the people and the riches of the land. One only has to think of the copper industry in Chile or the banana industry in Central America. This ruthless capitalism allies itself with a local oligarchy. The resulting governments do not hesitate to use lethal force to maintain their hold on power.

    The frustration of the people of Latin American has been the inability to shake this evil power structure and into this vacuum comes liberation theology. The Church is used as a pawn by both sides -- capitalists and marxists -- in their struggle for power.


  3. (continued)

    Getting back to the article you mentioned -- the problem with that article is that the writer wants the Church to be on the side of capitalism. Bergoglio makes some good points in his criticism of capitalism which the article tries to attack. But all of this misses the point which is that the mission of the Church is to save souls.

    Of course the Church should speak up for the poor and the oppressed. But the way that the Church can change society is through converting the society to Catholicism and proclaiming the Kingship of Christ. This is not just about a protestant style missionary goal of converting individuals, but a full-scale conversion of the government to be subservient to Christ the King and to bring all its laws and institutions into conformity with the Catholic Church. It requires specifically the conversion of those in power so that they can use their power to convert the society.

    This is nothing new. We take for granted the Christian basis of western society. The secular humanists claim that "you don't need God to be good". Well that is only because we are living in a society which still preserves some of its Christian past. We should not take this for granted, but we do. Freedom in western society only works because Christianity places limits on that freedom.

    "Liberation", as in liberation theology, is "freedom". But what kind of "freedom" is being sought after? Is it the "freedom" of the Gospel that requires us to become servants of God. Or is it a marxist "freedom" where the state is free to do whatever is necessary to impose its ideals on the people? Including eliminating the people when they don't conform to the ideal.

    To answer the original question, "He wants to convert the Church from Catholicism to.... ???" I think that the creation of a "one world religion" is his ideal. He wants Catholicism to conform to this ideal and in order to "convert" the Church he will remove any elements of the Church which are found objectionable by other religions -- like Christ dying on the Cross for our sins. Just take a look at the "crucifix" hanging around his neck -- Chirst is depicted as the good shepherd. And what about his resurrection-crucifix?

    This is the ultimate goal of ecumenism. It is to neuter the Catholic Church and to "convert" Her from the Church of Christ to just one of many world religions which all say more or less the same thing.

    This is also the goal of the global elites such as John D. Rockefeller Jr. who was a "confirmed ecumenist" and gave "substantial sums" to the World Council of Churches.,_Jr.#Philanthropy_and_social_causes

    God help us.

    Yours in Christ,

  4. NOTE: I did a little bit of minor editing to clarify some of the statements, etc.