Remember that movie? About high school in the 70s? Well, I am now dazed and confused again, just like I was in Catholic High School in the 70s. Except this time, I didn't even get to smoke any Mexican Weed or oogle a whole new class of pretty girls!
With the ascension of Francis to the Papal throne, in just a few months, the Faith has become the confusing morass of contradiction and disrespect for tradition and Tradition in was in the 70s. It's happened so fast that it makes me consider the possibility, that Bergoglio might be an Anti-Pope, elevated to damage the Church in the End Times, to undo the reform of the renewal that the last two pontiffs have so manfully struggled to engender and implement.
We Northern Hemisphere Catholics--at least we Catholics who are still Catholic, still holding to the whole of Catholic Teaching --have known since the 70s that we cannot count on our Bishops to lead us. They're too busy playing progressive politics and sucking up to objectionable ideas and persons--like the Lavender Mafia and the Feminists who seek to re-write the gospel and redefine the sacraments. We know we can't trust our National Conferences of Bishops. We have the examples of the 21st century, when the African Bishops appealed to Rome because European Bishops, notably the German Bishops, refused to give them aid for proselytization and sacramental ministry, but offered, at times demanded they take, aid designed to implement a European style moral relativism and social services system. We saw it when the bishops of Chile appealed to the Canadian Bishops Conference to get them to stop funding groups that opposed Catholic teaching on Sexuality and human life--funds that saw their fruits explicitly this month when Feminists stormed a Cathedral during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass because a girl chose NOT to have an abortion. We see it now when we have the example of the USCCB's outreaches like Catholic Relief Services distributing abortificients, and the well documented funding by theCorrupt Campaign for Humanist Deception, Catholic Campaign for Human Development, CCHD of various secular political groups that work for goals diametrically opposed to Catholic Social and Moral teaching, some of which wok for the silencing of the Church.
Really, suddenly we have thing like the Catholic Health Services coming out in favor of public funding--with our money--of the ongoing mass murder of infants by an industry staffed by serial killers and their accomplices. Yeah, I'm talking about Abortion. Just a few months ago they had been smacked down, in the person of one of their leaders for doing so. Now they feel free to to do so en mass, because neither the bishops nor, apparently the Pope, will do anything about it. After, it's a piece of "progressive legislation". And we have so called "Catholic" publications not only defending them, but attacking those who oppose the quisling nun's and false faithful. (Interestingly, I had noticed this particular fish-wrap disappearing from various parish magazine and publications racks, and now I notice it's coming back--heresy is beginning to flourish once again.)
In a few short months, it seems to me that Bergoglio has done what the Modernists accused John-Paul and Benedict of doing for years: he has turned back the clock. He is resetting it to those halcyon days of the 70s, where praying before the Blessed Sacrament or Holy Hours were considered not only passe, but perhaps even sinful and a waste of time.
So, why would I think this of our new Supreme Bridge Builder? Perhaps because in his own Diocese, before he was Pope, he greatly restricted the rights of the clergy to celebrate the Extraordinary Form--in contravention of Summorum Pontificum. Now he has arbitrarily interfered with the internal affairs of a Religious Community and stripped them of a right supposedly enjoyed by all Roman Clergy .
He has also appointed persons from other orders to interfere with their governance. Odd, this was one of the most flourishing new communities of men, women and lay people in the Church, But hey were quite traditional. Part of the problem, supposedly, is that they were un-accepting of their members who didn't want to use the Extraordinary Form. But here were no rules or guidelines forbidding their members from celebrating the Ordinary Form., and the use of the Extraordinary Form was not universal in the Congregation. This was simply a blow against a traditional community, because it's a traditional community.
Odd, people can do all sorts of liturgical abuse, and he does nothing. Let them celebrate with reverence and a sense of tradition, and he's all over it. Look to his home diocese--about the only intervention to protect liturgy and tradition was the time when he made his priests use wheat bread instead of sweet potatoes to celebrate the Eucharist.
Then there are his remarks about Sodomites in the priesthood, and in general. This is tremendously galling, because it's not supported by tradition at all. The Catechism says that persons experiencing same sex attraction are not to be subjected to undue discrimination. Undue. Considering that the Anglo-sphere has been afflicted by a hugely damaging scandal--damaging not just financially, or in terms of public perception, but a true scandal, a scandal that has led the faithful to abandon the faith, and into sin--at the hands of sodomitic priests. One can find synods and councils in the Church--synods and councils who have had their legislation validated by the Pope, and extended to the Church at large--calling for Sodomites to be dis-enrolled from the clergy, permanently. They even go so far as to say that "defilers of boys" are to be excluded from communion and the sacraments, even at death. But Bergoglio has decided that he cannot judge "gay" priests. OK--but think of all the young boys raped by sodomites hiding in the Church, a problem that was addressed over and over again in it's history, and that in 1960 caused a document to be issued saying that homosexuals were not eligible for ordination. A document that was subverted by Cardinal Bernardin in the US, and elsewhere. Then think of this--80% of the victims of priestly sexual misconduct were boys past the age of puberty--they were preyed upon by faggots. (Yes, I used a hateful term on purpose.) only about 1.5%-3% of the priests did these things. But the rest covered for them, because in many cases they didn't want outed as sodomites themselves, or punished for exposing this by the gay mafia (and there are cases where precisely this happened).
But Bergoglio can't "judge" them? Oh, I though he was Pope, Christ's Vicar on Earth, with the power to bind and loose. I have read that he wasn't speaking English, so he probably didn't use the word "Gay". Turns out, he did. Think about the implications. Gay isn't about attraction, it's about lifestyle and choices. A Gay choose to believe--contrary to Scripture, Tradition and Natural Law--that sexual attraction between members of the same sex is fine, positive allowable and should be acted upon, tolerated, accepted and applauded.
Perhaps I misread him, and he is unaware how his remarks will be received. Perhaps, but a man as political as he--and he is very political and has been for years is unlikely to be so naive.
Is Bergoglio an Anti-Pope? I don't know. How could he be, if he was elected by a valid conclave? If the abdication of Benedict XVI was forced, or manipulated, by a clique in the Vatican intent on the triumph of Modernism and the ascendency of Sodomites and Feminists as the definitors of "truth". I hope he is an Anti-Pope, because if he isn't, I don't believe in Catholicism, and might go to hell for it.
With the ascension of Francis to the Papal throne, in just a few months, the Faith has become the confusing morass of contradiction and disrespect for tradition and Tradition in was in the 70s. It's happened so fast that it makes me consider the possibility, that Bergoglio might be an Anti-Pope, elevated to damage the Church in the End Times, to undo the reform of the renewal that the last two pontiffs have so manfully struggled to engender and implement.
We Northern Hemisphere Catholics--at least we Catholics who are still Catholic, still holding to the whole of Catholic Teaching --have known since the 70s that we cannot count on our Bishops to lead us. They're too busy playing progressive politics and sucking up to objectionable ideas and persons--like the Lavender Mafia and the Feminists who seek to re-write the gospel and redefine the sacraments. We know we can't trust our National Conferences of Bishops. We have the examples of the 21st century, when the African Bishops appealed to Rome because European Bishops, notably the German Bishops, refused to give them aid for proselytization and sacramental ministry, but offered, at times demanded they take, aid designed to implement a European style moral relativism and social services system. We saw it when the bishops of Chile appealed to the Canadian Bishops Conference to get them to stop funding groups that opposed Catholic teaching on Sexuality and human life--funds that saw their fruits explicitly this month when Feminists stormed a Cathedral during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass because a girl chose NOT to have an abortion. We see it now when we have the example of the USCCB's outreaches like Catholic Relief Services distributing abortificients, and the well documented funding by the
Really, suddenly we have thing like the Catholic Health Services coming out in favor of public funding--with our money--of the ongoing mass murder of infants by an industry staffed by serial killers and their accomplices. Yeah, I'm talking about Abortion. Just a few months ago they had been smacked down, in the person of one of their leaders for doing so. Now they feel free to to do so en mass, because neither the bishops nor, apparently the Pope, will do anything about it. After, it's a piece of "progressive legislation". And we have so called "Catholic" publications not only defending them, but attacking those who oppose the quisling nun's and false faithful. (Interestingly, I had noticed this particular fish-wrap disappearing from various parish magazine and publications racks, and now I notice it's coming back--heresy is beginning to flourish once again.)
In a few short months, it seems to me that Bergoglio has done what the Modernists accused John-Paul and Benedict of doing for years: he has turned back the clock. He is resetting it to those halcyon days of the 70s, where praying before the Blessed Sacrament or Holy Hours were considered not only passe, but perhaps even sinful and a waste of time.
So, why would I think this of our new Supreme Bridge Builder? Perhaps because in his own Diocese, before he was Pope, he greatly restricted the rights of the clergy to celebrate the Extraordinary Form--in contravention of Summorum Pontificum. Now he has arbitrarily interfered with the internal affairs of a Religious Community and stripped them of a right supposedly enjoyed by all Roman Clergy .
He has also appointed persons from other orders to interfere with their governance. Odd, this was one of the most flourishing new communities of men, women and lay people in the Church, But hey were quite traditional. Part of the problem, supposedly, is that they were un-accepting of their members who didn't want to use the Extraordinary Form. But here were no rules or guidelines forbidding their members from celebrating the Ordinary Form., and the use of the Extraordinary Form was not universal in the Congregation. This was simply a blow against a traditional community, because it's a traditional community.
Odd, people can do all sorts of liturgical abuse, and he does nothing. Let them celebrate with reverence and a sense of tradition, and he's all over it. Look to his home diocese--about the only intervention to protect liturgy and tradition was the time when he made his priests use wheat bread instead of sweet potatoes to celebrate the Eucharist.
Then there are his remarks about Sodomites in the priesthood, and in general. This is tremendously galling, because it's not supported by tradition at all. The Catechism says that persons experiencing same sex attraction are not to be subjected to undue discrimination. Undue. Considering that the Anglo-sphere has been afflicted by a hugely damaging scandal--damaging not just financially, or in terms of public perception, but a true scandal, a scandal that has led the faithful to abandon the faith, and into sin--at the hands of sodomitic priests. One can find synods and councils in the Church--synods and councils who have had their legislation validated by the Pope, and extended to the Church at large--calling for Sodomites to be dis-enrolled from the clergy, permanently. They even go so far as to say that "defilers of boys" are to be excluded from communion and the sacraments, even at death. But Bergoglio has decided that he cannot judge "gay" priests. OK--but think of all the young boys raped by sodomites hiding in the Church, a problem that was addressed over and over again in it's history, and that in 1960 caused a document to be issued saying that homosexuals were not eligible for ordination. A document that was subverted by Cardinal Bernardin in the US, and elsewhere. Then think of this--80% of the victims of priestly sexual misconduct were boys past the age of puberty--they were preyed upon by faggots. (Yes, I used a hateful term on purpose.) only about 1.5%-3% of the priests did these things. But the rest covered for them, because in many cases they didn't want outed as sodomites themselves, or punished for exposing this by the gay mafia (and there are cases where precisely this happened).
But Bergoglio can't "judge" them? Oh, I though he was Pope, Christ's Vicar on Earth, with the power to bind and loose. I have read that he wasn't speaking English, so he probably didn't use the word "Gay". Turns out, he did. Think about the implications. Gay isn't about attraction, it's about lifestyle and choices. A Gay choose to believe--contrary to Scripture, Tradition and Natural Law--that sexual attraction between members of the same sex is fine, positive allowable and should be acted upon, tolerated, accepted and applauded.
Perhaps I misread him, and he is unaware how his remarks will be received. Perhaps, but a man as political as he--and he is very political and has been for years is unlikely to be so naive.
Is Bergoglio an Anti-Pope? I don't know. How could he be, if he was elected by a valid conclave? If the abdication of Benedict XVI was forced, or manipulated, by a clique in the Vatican intent on the triumph of Modernism and the ascendency of Sodomites and Feminists as the definitors of "truth". I hope he is an Anti-Pope, because if he isn't, I don't believe in Catholicism, and might go to hell for it.
Glad you're still blogging - and fighting fit.
ReplyDeleteDon't despair. The Church has had bad Popes before and She is still the Church. We must stick with it.
God bless.