| Devotion to Our Lady |
|
LINKS REGARDING THE 2019 PAN-AMAZON SYNOD OF BISHOPS
Rome, October 6th to October 27th
Click on any link below
| General Articles on the Synod | Amazon Synod Daily Updates | Synod Sequel | Pagan Idols Destroyed |
| The Instrumentum Laboris or Working Document of the Synod | The Final Document of the Synod |
| CCC Crazy Comments Critiqued |
Other related links
| Church Crisis | Liberalism & Modernism | Modernism & Children | Encyclical on Modernism, Pascendi (Pius X) |
| Modernist Documents | The Francis Pages | Church Enemies on Francis | Francis Quotes |
| Amoris Laetitia Critiqued (Pope Francis) | Dangers of Ignorance (Pius X) | Restoring All Things In Christ (Pius X) |
Catholic Action (Pius X) | Syllabus of Errors (Pius X) | Syllabus of Errors (Pius IX) |
| Another Titanic Disaster | The "Errors of Russia" | Conspiracy Theories |
Rome, October 6th to October 27th
Click on any link below
| General Articles on the Synod | Amazon Synod Daily Updates | Synod Sequel | Pagan Idols Destroyed |
| The Instrumentum Laboris or Working Document of the Synod | The Final Document of the Synod |
| CCC Crazy Comments Critiqued |
Other related links
| Church Crisis | Liberalism & Modernism | Modernism & Children | Encyclical on Modernism, Pascendi (Pius X) |
| Modernist Documents | The Francis Pages | Church Enemies on Francis | Francis Quotes |
| Amoris Laetitia Critiqued (Pope Francis) | Dangers of Ignorance (Pius X) | Restoring All Things In Christ (Pius X) |
Catholic Action (Pius X) | Syllabus of Errors (Pius X) | Syllabus of Errors (Pius IX) |
| Another Titanic Disaster | The "Errors of Russia" | Conspiracy Theories |
"CCC" Usually Stands for "Catechism of the Catholic Church"
In this case, "CCC" will stand for
CRAZY COMMENTS CRITIQUED!
CUNNING CLAIMS COMBATTED!
CLUELESS CATHOLICS CHALLENGED!
COMPROMISING CATHOLICS CHASTISED!
This series of articles will take quotes, comments, opinions, teachings and claims that are dubious or outrightly wrong and debunk them, defuse them, destroy them and dispose of them.
As the first three of the Seven Spiritual Works of Mercy command:
"Instruct the ignorant. Counsel the doubtful. Admonish the sinners."
In this case, "CCC" will stand for
CRAZY COMMENTS CRITIQUED!
CUNNING CLAIMS COMBATTED!
CLUELESS CATHOLICS CHALLENGED!
COMPROMISING CATHOLICS CHASTISED!
This series of articles will take quotes, comments, opinions, teachings and claims that are dubious or outrightly wrong and debunk them, defuse them, destroy them and dispose of them.
As the first three of the Seven Spiritual Works of Mercy command:
"Instruct the ignorant. Counsel the doubtful. Admonish the sinners."
Article 4
Pope Francis Says "YES!" to Freedom of Religion and Ecumenism,
But "NO!" to Proselytization
This article is currently being written. Sections will be posted as they are completed. Please check back later.
Pope Francis Says "YES!" to Freedom of Religion and Ecumenism,
But "NO!" to Proselytization
This article is currently being written. Sections will be posted as they are completed. Please check back later.
Two’s Company―Three’s a Crowd!
As they say: “Two is company! Three is a crowd!” Freedom of Religion and Ecumenism are like “bosom-buddies”―but Proselytization makes it a “crowd” and finds itself “crowded-out” by the other two. It seems that there is simply not enough room for Freedom of Religion, Ecumenism and Proselytization in Francis’ Church―but then, do we really understand what is meant by the terms “Freedom of Religion”, “Ecumenism” and “Proselytization”? If we are going to discuss those matters, then we should be perfectly clear as to what they mean! Otherwise, we will not really know what we are talking about! So―as they say― “Let us define the terms!”
To Proselytize or Not to Proselytize? That is the Question!
If you have―to some degree―followed what Francis has been saying since his 2013 papal election, then you will have realized that Francis has bashed the idea of “proselytizing” or “proselytization” time and time again.
Before we examine Pope Francis’ dislike―or even revulsion and hatred―for the idea of “proselytization,” it would not be a bad idea to educate ourselves a little on the terms “proselyte, proselytize, proselytization, proselytism, etc.”―if for no other reason than that of being to correctly spell those words! We have all been “dumbed-down” to some degree or another―and therefore we all need to “wisen-up” somewhat, to undo being “dumbed-down”! So please excuse the following introductory “schoolmarmish” and “scholarly” approach being a little “dry” and “technical” before we get down to the “juicier” bits!
Where Did It Come From?
The words “proselyte, proselytize, proselytization, proselytism, etc.” come from and are based upon the noun “proselyte” (meaning “a new convert”), which comes from the Late Latin noun “proselytus.” Proselytus means “stranger” or “alien resident,” and comes from a similar Greek word (“prosēlytos”). The biblical term “proselyte” is an anglicization of the Koine Greek term προσήλυτος (“proselytes”), as used in the Septuagint (which is the Greek Old Testament version) for “stranger,” i.e. a “newcomer to Israel”; a “sojourner in the land,” and in the Greek New Testament for a first-century convert to Judaism, generally from Ancient Greek religion. It is a translation of the Biblical Hebrew phrase גר תושב (“ger toshav”). Still hanging in there? See! It wasn’t that hard! Just a little bit more―you can do it!
When “proselytize” entered the English language in the 17th century, it had a distinctly religious connotation and meant simply “to recruit religious converts.” This meaning is still common, but today one can also proselytize in a broader sense ― such as, for example, recruiting converts to one’s own political party or pet cause. Hence, in the English language, you will find dictionary definitions such as the following:
The VERB “to proselytize” means…
1. To try to persuade someone to switch to your religious beliefs, or your way of living.
2. To attempt to convert someone to one's own religious faith.
3. To attempt to persuade someone to join one's own political party or to espouse one’s doctrine.
4. To convert (a person) from one belief, doctrine, cause, or faith to another.
5. To convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.
6. To induce someone to convert to one’s faith; to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause.
7. To convert or attempt to convert as a proselyte; recruit.
8. To try to persuade someone to change his or her religious beliefs, political party, etc., to your own
The NOUN “proselyte” means…
1. A new convert to a doctrine or religion.
2. A person who has changed from one opinion, religious belief, sect, or the like, to another; convert.
3. A person who has been converted from one religion to another, or from one belief, sect, party, etc. to another
4. A new convert to some religion or religious sect, or to some particular opinion, system or party.
Proselytes In Judaism
There are two kinds of proselytes in Rabbinic Judaism: “ger tzedek” (righteous proselytes, proselytes of righteousness, religious proselyte, devout proselyte) and “ger toshav” (resident proselyte, proselytes of the gate, limited proselyte, half-proselyte).
A ”righteous proselyte” is a gentile who has converted to Judaism, is bound to all the doctrines and precepts of the Jewish religion, and is considered a full member of the Jewish people. The proselyte is circumcised as an adult (milah l'shem giur), if male, and immerses in a mikvah to formally effect the conversion.
A “gate proselyte” is a resident alien who lives in the Land of Israel and follows some of the Jewish customs. They are not required to be circumcised nor to comply with the whole of the Torah. They are bound only to conform to the Seven Laws of Noe―which demand that they do not worship idols, do not blaspheme God’s Name, do not murder, do not commit fornication (immoral sexual acts), do not steal, do not tear the limb from a living animal, and do not fail to give obedience to the authorities, in order to be assured of a place in the World to come.
Pope Francis on Proselytizing
From the very beginning of his papacy (March 2013), Pope Francis has bashed proselytizing. The following quotes are just a small example of many times he has hammered proselytizing.
“The Church’s missionary spirit is not about proselytizing, but the testimony of a life that illuminates the path, which brings hope and love. The Church—I repeat once again—is not a relief organization, an enterprise or an NGO [non-profit organization], but a community of people, animated by the Holy Spirit, who have lived and are living the wonder of the encounter with Jesus Christ and want to share this experience of deep joy, the message of salvation that the Lord gave us” (Message for World Mission Day, May 19th, 2013).
In one of his morning Masses, Pope Francis said that Christian life must always be restive and never act as a tranquillizer or even less as “a terminal treatment to keep us quiet until we go to Heaven”; so like St Paul we must witness “to the message of true reconciliation” without being overly “concerned with statistics or proselytism. This is a lunatic way of acting but is beautiful, for it is the scandal of the Cross” (L’Osservatore Romano Account of Fervorino, June 15th, 2013).
“Father, now I understand: it is a question of convincing others, of proselytizing!” No! It is nothing of the kind! The Gospel is like seed: you scatter it, you scatter it with your words and with your witness. And then it is not you who calculate the statistics of the results; it is God who does” (Address, June 17th, 2013).
“There are pastoral plans designed with such a dose of distance that they are incapable of sparking an encounter: an encounter with Jesus Christ, an encounter with our brothers and sisters. Such pastoral plans can at best provide a dimension of proselytism, but they can never inspire people to feel part of or belong to the Church” (Address to Latin American Bishops, July 28th, 2013).
In a homily given on August 5th, 2013, reiterated again and again some of the differences between evangelization and proselytization. He stated that:
● Evangelization goes out to others and listens to them; proselytization excludes others and simply talks at them.
● Evangelization is a proclamation of Jesus, allowing people to have an encounter with Christ; proselytization is proud and convinced that it has all the answers.
● Evangelization trusts in the Holy Spirit as the true evangelist, as the one who makes converts; proselytization believes it's up to us, to the force of our arguments and persuasive power.
“The Church grows, but not through proselytizing: no, no! The Church does not grow through proselytizing. The Church grows through attraction, through the attraction of the witness that each one of us gives to the People of God” (Address in Assisi, October 4th, 2013).
In an October 2013 interview with the atheist Socialist editor of Italy’s La Repubblica, Eugenio Scalfari, Pope Francis said to him: “Convert you? Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense.” And in an address to catechists, he stated: “The Church does not engage in proselytism. Instead, she grows by attraction—just as Christ draws all to himself by the power of his love, culminating in the sacrifice of the Cross, so the Church fulfills her mission to the extent that, in union with Christ, she accomplishes every one of her works in spiritual and practical imitation of the love of her Lord.” Pope Francis commented that “proselytization is solemn nonsense.”
In the fall of 2015, at the Vatican’s World Congress on Education, Pope Francis said: “Never proselytize in schools! Never!”
On October 13th, 2016, Pope Francis publicly stated: “Proselytism is the strongest venom against the path of ecumenism.” During the same public encounter, a woman asked: “Most of my friends do not go to church and do not believe in God. They are happy, helpful, and truly good friends. Do I have to convince others of my Faith, or is it enough that they are good friends to me?” Pope Francis replied: “Listen, the last thing you must do is to speak. You have to live as a Christian, like a Christian: convinced, forgiven, and on a path. It is not licit to convince them of your Faith; proselytism is the strongest poison against the ecumenical path. You must give testimony to your Christian life; testimony will unsettle the hearts of those who see you. And from this unsettling grows one question: but why does this man or this woman live like that? And that prepares the ground for the Holy Spirit. Because it is the Holy Spirit that works in the heart. He does what needs to be done: but He needs to speak, not you. Grace is a gift, and the Holy Spirit is the gift of God from whence comes grace and the gift that Jesus has sent us by His passion and resurrection. It will be the Holy Spirit that moves the heart with your testimony ― that is way you ask ― and regarding that you can tell the ‘why,’ with much thoughtfulness. But without wanting to convince.”
Later in October, 2016, during an interview arranged by Fr. Antonio Spadaro, S.J., the editor of La Civiltà Cattolica, prior to the trip to Sweden for an ecumenical gathering anticipating the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, Pope Francis expressed something that he has voiced several times during his pontificate: “To proselytize in the ecclesial field is a sin.” He added: “Proselytism is a sinful attitude.”
Pope Francis again hammered against “proselytizing” during his visit to Morocco in March of 2019. In his address to a meeting with priests, religious, consecrated persons and the Ecumenical Council of Churches, he stated that “Our mission as baptized persons, priests and consecrated men and women, is not really determined by the number or size of spaces that we occupy, but rather by our capacity to generate change and to awaken wonder and compassion. We do this by the way we live as disciples of Jesus, in the midst of those with whom we share our daily lives, joys and sorrows, suffering and hopes. In other words, the paths of mission are not those of proselytism. Please, these paths are not those of proselytism!”
Was Jesus a Proselytizer? Were the Apostles Proselytizers? Were Saints Proselytizers?
In view of Pope Francis’ continual condemnations of proselytizing, we have to ask the question and look at Holy Scripture and history to see if the Our Lord, the Apostles and Saints were proselytizers.
As they say: “Two is company! Three is a crowd!” Freedom of Religion and Ecumenism are like “bosom-buddies”―but Proselytization makes it a “crowd” and finds itself “crowded-out” by the other two. It seems that there is simply not enough room for Freedom of Religion, Ecumenism and Proselytization in Francis’ Church―but then, do we really understand what is meant by the terms “Freedom of Religion”, “Ecumenism” and “Proselytization”? If we are going to discuss those matters, then we should be perfectly clear as to what they mean! Otherwise, we will not really know what we are talking about! So―as they say― “Let us define the terms!”
To Proselytize or Not to Proselytize? That is the Question!
If you have―to some degree―followed what Francis has been saying since his 2013 papal election, then you will have realized that Francis has bashed the idea of “proselytizing” or “proselytization” time and time again.
Before we examine Pope Francis’ dislike―or even revulsion and hatred―for the idea of “proselytization,” it would not be a bad idea to educate ourselves a little on the terms “proselyte, proselytize, proselytization, proselytism, etc.”―if for no other reason than that of being to correctly spell those words! We have all been “dumbed-down” to some degree or another―and therefore we all need to “wisen-up” somewhat, to undo being “dumbed-down”! So please excuse the following introductory “schoolmarmish” and “scholarly” approach being a little “dry” and “technical” before we get down to the “juicier” bits!
Where Did It Come From?
The words “proselyte, proselytize, proselytization, proselytism, etc.” come from and are based upon the noun “proselyte” (meaning “a new convert”), which comes from the Late Latin noun “proselytus.” Proselytus means “stranger” or “alien resident,” and comes from a similar Greek word (“prosēlytos”). The biblical term “proselyte” is an anglicization of the Koine Greek term προσήλυτος (“proselytes”), as used in the Septuagint (which is the Greek Old Testament version) for “stranger,” i.e. a “newcomer to Israel”; a “sojourner in the land,” and in the Greek New Testament for a first-century convert to Judaism, generally from Ancient Greek religion. It is a translation of the Biblical Hebrew phrase גר תושב (“ger toshav”). Still hanging in there? See! It wasn’t that hard! Just a little bit more―you can do it!
When “proselytize” entered the English language in the 17th century, it had a distinctly religious connotation and meant simply “to recruit religious converts.” This meaning is still common, but today one can also proselytize in a broader sense ― such as, for example, recruiting converts to one’s own political party or pet cause. Hence, in the English language, you will find dictionary definitions such as the following:
The VERB “to proselytize” means…
1. To try to persuade someone to switch to your religious beliefs, or your way of living.
2. To attempt to convert someone to one's own religious faith.
3. To attempt to persuade someone to join one's own political party or to espouse one’s doctrine.
4. To convert (a person) from one belief, doctrine, cause, or faith to another.
5. To convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.
6. To induce someone to convert to one’s faith; to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause.
7. To convert or attempt to convert as a proselyte; recruit.
8. To try to persuade someone to change his or her religious beliefs, political party, etc., to your own
The NOUN “proselyte” means…
1. A new convert to a doctrine or religion.
2. A person who has changed from one opinion, religious belief, sect, or the like, to another; convert.
3. A person who has been converted from one religion to another, or from one belief, sect, party, etc. to another
4. A new convert to some religion or religious sect, or to some particular opinion, system or party.
Proselytes In Judaism
There are two kinds of proselytes in Rabbinic Judaism: “ger tzedek” (righteous proselytes, proselytes of righteousness, religious proselyte, devout proselyte) and “ger toshav” (resident proselyte, proselytes of the gate, limited proselyte, half-proselyte).
A ”righteous proselyte” is a gentile who has converted to Judaism, is bound to all the doctrines and precepts of the Jewish religion, and is considered a full member of the Jewish people. The proselyte is circumcised as an adult (milah l'shem giur), if male, and immerses in a mikvah to formally effect the conversion.
A “gate proselyte” is a resident alien who lives in the Land of Israel and follows some of the Jewish customs. They are not required to be circumcised nor to comply with the whole of the Torah. They are bound only to conform to the Seven Laws of Noe―which demand that they do not worship idols, do not blaspheme God’s Name, do not murder, do not commit fornication (immoral sexual acts), do not steal, do not tear the limb from a living animal, and do not fail to give obedience to the authorities, in order to be assured of a place in the World to come.
Pope Francis on Proselytizing
From the very beginning of his papacy (March 2013), Pope Francis has bashed proselytizing. The following quotes are just a small example of many times he has hammered proselytizing.
“The Church’s missionary spirit is not about proselytizing, but the testimony of a life that illuminates the path, which brings hope and love. The Church—I repeat once again—is not a relief organization, an enterprise or an NGO [non-profit organization], but a community of people, animated by the Holy Spirit, who have lived and are living the wonder of the encounter with Jesus Christ and want to share this experience of deep joy, the message of salvation that the Lord gave us” (Message for World Mission Day, May 19th, 2013).
In one of his morning Masses, Pope Francis said that Christian life must always be restive and never act as a tranquillizer or even less as “a terminal treatment to keep us quiet until we go to Heaven”; so like St Paul we must witness “to the message of true reconciliation” without being overly “concerned with statistics or proselytism. This is a lunatic way of acting but is beautiful, for it is the scandal of the Cross” (L’Osservatore Romano Account of Fervorino, June 15th, 2013).
“Father, now I understand: it is a question of convincing others, of proselytizing!” No! It is nothing of the kind! The Gospel is like seed: you scatter it, you scatter it with your words and with your witness. And then it is not you who calculate the statistics of the results; it is God who does” (Address, June 17th, 2013).
“There are pastoral plans designed with such a dose of distance that they are incapable of sparking an encounter: an encounter with Jesus Christ, an encounter with our brothers and sisters. Such pastoral plans can at best provide a dimension of proselytism, but they can never inspire people to feel part of or belong to the Church” (Address to Latin American Bishops, July 28th, 2013).
In a homily given on August 5th, 2013, reiterated again and again some of the differences between evangelization and proselytization. He stated that:
● Evangelization goes out to others and listens to them; proselytization excludes others and simply talks at them.
● Evangelization is a proclamation of Jesus, allowing people to have an encounter with Christ; proselytization is proud and convinced that it has all the answers.
● Evangelization trusts in the Holy Spirit as the true evangelist, as the one who makes converts; proselytization believes it's up to us, to the force of our arguments and persuasive power.
“The Church grows, but not through proselytizing: no, no! The Church does not grow through proselytizing. The Church grows through attraction, through the attraction of the witness that each one of us gives to the People of God” (Address in Assisi, October 4th, 2013).
In an October 2013 interview with the atheist Socialist editor of Italy’s La Repubblica, Eugenio Scalfari, Pope Francis said to him: “Convert you? Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense.” And in an address to catechists, he stated: “The Church does not engage in proselytism. Instead, she grows by attraction—just as Christ draws all to himself by the power of his love, culminating in the sacrifice of the Cross, so the Church fulfills her mission to the extent that, in union with Christ, she accomplishes every one of her works in spiritual and practical imitation of the love of her Lord.” Pope Francis commented that “proselytization is solemn nonsense.”
In the fall of 2015, at the Vatican’s World Congress on Education, Pope Francis said: “Never proselytize in schools! Never!”
On October 13th, 2016, Pope Francis publicly stated: “Proselytism is the strongest venom against the path of ecumenism.” During the same public encounter, a woman asked: “Most of my friends do not go to church and do not believe in God. They are happy, helpful, and truly good friends. Do I have to convince others of my Faith, or is it enough that they are good friends to me?” Pope Francis replied: “Listen, the last thing you must do is to speak. You have to live as a Christian, like a Christian: convinced, forgiven, and on a path. It is not licit to convince them of your Faith; proselytism is the strongest poison against the ecumenical path. You must give testimony to your Christian life; testimony will unsettle the hearts of those who see you. And from this unsettling grows one question: but why does this man or this woman live like that? And that prepares the ground for the Holy Spirit. Because it is the Holy Spirit that works in the heart. He does what needs to be done: but He needs to speak, not you. Grace is a gift, and the Holy Spirit is the gift of God from whence comes grace and the gift that Jesus has sent us by His passion and resurrection. It will be the Holy Spirit that moves the heart with your testimony ― that is way you ask ― and regarding that you can tell the ‘why,’ with much thoughtfulness. But without wanting to convince.”
Later in October, 2016, during an interview arranged by Fr. Antonio Spadaro, S.J., the editor of La Civiltà Cattolica, prior to the trip to Sweden for an ecumenical gathering anticipating the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, Pope Francis expressed something that he has voiced several times during his pontificate: “To proselytize in the ecclesial field is a sin.” He added: “Proselytism is a sinful attitude.”
Pope Francis again hammered against “proselytizing” during his visit to Morocco in March of 2019. In his address to a meeting with priests, religious, consecrated persons and the Ecumenical Council of Churches, he stated that “Our mission as baptized persons, priests and consecrated men and women, is not really determined by the number or size of spaces that we occupy, but rather by our capacity to generate change and to awaken wonder and compassion. We do this by the way we live as disciples of Jesus, in the midst of those with whom we share our daily lives, joys and sorrows, suffering and hopes. In other words, the paths of mission are not those of proselytism. Please, these paths are not those of proselytism!”
Was Jesus a Proselytizer? Were the Apostles Proselytizers? Were Saints Proselytizers?
In view of Pope Francis’ continual condemnations of proselytizing, we have to ask the question and look at Holy Scripture and history to see if the Our Lord, the Apostles and Saints were proselytizers.
Article 3
Pope Francis: "I am not afraid of a schism!"
This article is still being written. Sections will be posted as they are completed. Please check back later.
Pope Francis: "I am not afraid of a schism!"
This article is still being written. Sections will be posted as they are completed. Please check back later.
Constantly Climbing Cardinal Criticisms
Antonio Socci, a leading Conservative journalist and Vatican-watcher, has stated that cardinals, who were once loyal to Francis, are so concerned about a schism that they are planning to appeal to him to step down. He predicts that the rebellion will be led by about a dozen moderate cardinals who work in the curia―unless, of course, they find themselves demoted and “out of work”! It is no secret in Rome that certain cardinals who voted for Francis are now worried that he is leading the Church towards schism, and that he must therefore be stopped. There are many more than just a dozen of them and, though they may not yet be ready to act upon their concerns, they would like this pontificate to end sooner rather than later. Some―even cardinals and bishops―have gone so far as to accuse Pope Francis of heresy and have more than once warned of the risk a schism arising in the Church as a result of the teachings and policies of Pope Francis.
Crazily Courageous Claim
Pope Francis―though he claims he never watches TV nor browses the internet―is nevertheless clearly aware of what he is doing and the impact it is having in certain quarters of the Catholic Church. On Tuesday, September 10th, 2019―on a flight back to Rome from Africa, Pope Francis spoke of his Conservative critics, saying that he sees them as “rigid” ideological opponents, who use their public criticism of the pope to mask their own moral failings. He is of the opinion that these Conservatives have already ‘infiltrated’ the American Catholic Church and are preparing for a schism. The pope insisted: “For me, it’s an honor if the Americans attack me … I’m not afraid of schisms … I pray that there aren’t any because the spiritual health of so many people is at stake! … Let there be dialogue, correction if there is some error. But the path of the schismatic is not Christian!” Francis stated that he prays a schism in the U.S. Catholic Church doesn’t happen, but he warned that “When doctrine slips into ideology, there’s the possibility of schism!” Francis said all schismatics share a common trait: They allow ideology to become “detached” from Catholic doctrine and distance themselves from the Faith of ordinary Catholics.
Contradictory Claims
So we have a classical case of “he said, she said”―where each party accuses the other. The Conservative clergy accuse Francis of fomenting a schism, while Francis claims it is the Conservative clergy that are causing a schism.
Already back in March of 2017, The London Times newspaper, drawing upon information from the Vatican expert Antonio Socci, a prominent Italian Catholic journalist, reported that a group of cardinals who supported Pope Francis wanted him to resign and be replaced by the Liberal Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, because they fear his reforms will cause a schism “more disastrous” than the Reformation. Antonio Socci said that those who backed the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio out of “impatience with the rule of his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI,” now want Pope Francis to resign out of fear of an impending schism. The Times reported:
“A large part of the cardinals who voted for him is very worried and the curia ... that organized his election and has accompanied him thus far, without ever disassociating itself from him, is cultivating the idea of a moral suasion to convince him to retire. It was the latter faction who now believed that the Pope should resign and who would like to replace him with Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican Secretary of State, Mr. Socci said. He believed that the group numbered around a dozen, but the importance of the members counts more than their number. Four years after Benedict XVI’s renunciation and Bergoglio’s arrival on the scene, the situation of the Catholic Church has become explosive, perhaps really on the edge of a schism, which could be even more disastrous than Luther’s [who is today being rehabilitated by the Bergoglio church]. The cardinals are worried that the Church could be shattered as an institution. There are many indirect ways in which the pressure might be exerted.”
Another expert on the Vatican gave this assessment: “A good number of the majority that voted for Bergoglio in 2013 have come to regret their decision, but I don’t think it’s plausible that members of the hierarchy will pressure the Pope to resign. Those who know him know it would be useless. [He] has a very authoritarian streak. He won’t resign until he has completed his revolutionary reforms, which are causing enormous harm.”
Antonio Socci reports that the importance significance of this development is that the group who want Pope Francis to resign are NOT the “Conservative” cardinals: “What was significant,” Socci said, “was that the doubters were not the Conservative cardinals―who had been in open opposition to the Pope since early in his reign.” This new opposition was coming from some of the Liberal cardinals.
Doubts Expressed to the Pope
Already in September of 2016, four cardinals — Italian Carlo Caffarra, American Raymond Burke and Germans Walter Brandmüller and Joachim Meisner — sent five questions, called dubia (Latin for “doubts”) to Pope Francis in a bid to clear up “grave disorientation and great confusion” surrounding the Pope’s summary document on the Synod on the Family―the Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love). Dubia are formal questions addressed to the Pope with the intention of obtaining a simple “Yes” or “No” response, without entering into any theological argumentation. The practice is an age-old way of addressing the Apostolic See, in the search for clarity on some point of Church teaching. The Cardinals specifically asked the Pope: (1) whether adulterers can receive Holy Communion; (2) whether there are absolute moral norms that must be followed without exceptions; (3) if habitual adultery is an objective situation of grave habitual sin; (4) whether an intrinsically evil act can be turned into a “subjectively’ good act based on circumstances or intentions; and (5) if, based on conscience, one can act contrary to known absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts. The Pope refused to reply and still has not formally replied to them to this day.
‘Pope’ Benedict Does What Pope Francis Would Not Do!
Craftily, the “ex-Pope”―some say “still-Pope” Benedict XVI, in his April 2019 essay, “The Church and the Scandal of Sexual Abuse,” answers to the dubia proposed by the above mentioned four cardinals. In offering a three-part response to the crisis in the Church, the essay indirectly answers the five dubia that Cardinals Brandmüller, Caffarra, Meisner, and Burke presented years ago (in 2016) to Pope Francis. The pope emeritus fulfilled a duty that Pope Francis has not, namely, to maintain the bishops and all the faithful in the unity of the Church’s constant teaching on Faith and morals.
What did the pope emeritus say? He gives the Church and the world unequivocally clear answers:
(1) Can adulterers can receive Holy Communion―NO
(2) Are absolute moral norms that must be followed without exceptions―YES
(3) Is habitual adultery an objective situation of grave habitual sin―YES
(4) Can an intrinsically evil act can be turned into a “subjectively’ good act based on circumstances or intentions―NO
(5) Based on one’s own personal conscience, can one act contrary to known absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts―NO
It does not really take a “rocket-scientist” or a pope to be able to answer the above questions―any reasonably well-informed Catholic could give those replies. So why has Pope Francis kept an ominous and stubborn silence on the matter―especially since it the dubia (the doubts or questions) were made public by the cardinals, after waiting for a personal response from the Pope that never came, and thus they published an open letter to the Pope?
Furthermore, Benedict warns us that “the very Faith of the Church” is being called into question. “It is very important to oppose the lies and half-truths of the devil with the whole truth: Yes, there is sin in the Church and evil. But even today there is the Holy Church, which is indestructible ... Today God also has His witnesses (Latin: "martyres") in the world. We just have to be vigilant to see and hear them.”
Cardinal Burke―the so-called “Arch Schismatic” or “Arch-Stirer”―Explains His Position
Cardinal Muller, the former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had said that the dubia questions should not have been made public because “there is no danger to the Faith.” Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke , the most outspoken of the four cardinals, disagreed with this view of Cardinal Muller, and, in his January 2017 interview with La Verita, he explained that: “The confusion in the Church over the interpretation of certain passages of Amoris Laetitia is evident! That is why I do not see how anyone could be able to say that there is no danger to the Faith ... are not only four. I personally know other cardinals who fully endorse the dubia … Moreover, we have communicated, in a very respectful way, five dubia (doubts or questions) to the Pope, and when they were not given a response, we decided, for the good of souls, to make public that there are dubia (doubts or questions) and that all the faithful are called to pay attention.”
Burke, specified: “I have never said that a public confrontation ought to occur. I agree with Cardinal Brandmüller, the first step would be to ask for a private meeting with the Holy Father ― ‘in camera caritatis’ [in the room of charity] ― to point out to him the unacceptable statements in Amoris Laetitia, showing how, in one way or another, they are not adequate to express what the Church He has always taught.” To further dispel false rumors of being divisive or of having a schismatic attitude, Cardinal Burke stated: “St. Thomas Aquinas in his theological writings proposes the problem of the possible formal correction of the pope and it is also in the discipline of the Church. It has been rarely used, there are some examples, and certainly we can envisage the case of a Pope who in some way might be able to fall into error. In this case, a correction must be made … What divides is falsehood and ambiguity, the truth always unites. It is absurd to say that four cardinals who ask five reasonable questions, and of fundamental importance for all Christians, are acting in a way to divide the Church. We are serving the Petrine office, giving the Pope the opportunity to confirm us in the teaching of the Church, faced with a situation that is proving ambiguous in practice … We are always waiting for a response from the Pope as our supreme pastor. To not expect a response would be disrespectful of his office.”
Pope Francis’ Plane Attack
On the papal plane, flying back to Rome from Madagascar, on September 10th, 2019, Pope Francis said he always welcomes constructive criticism, but not “pills of arsenic” which he says can come from “rigid” critics who hide behind orthodoxy and should be treated “with meekness.” During his in-flight press conference from Madagascar, Jason Horowitz, of The New York Times, said to the Pope: “On the flight to Maputo you acknowledged being under attack by a segment of the American Church. Obviously, there is strong criticism from some bishops and cardinals, there are Catholic Television stations and American websites that are very critical. And there are even some of your closest allies who have spoken of a plot against you. Is there something that these critics do not understand about your pontificate? Is there something that you have learned from your critics? Are you afraid of a schism in the American Church? And if so, is there something that you could do ― a dialogue ― to keep it from happening?”
Pope Francis answered: “First of all, criticism always helps―always. When someone receives criticism, that person needs to do a self-critique right away and say: ‘Is this true or not? To what point?’ And I always benefit from criticism. Sometimes it makes you angry―but there are advantages. Traveling to Maputo, one of you gave me that book in French on how the Americans want to change the Pope. I knew about that book, but I had not read it. Criticisms are not coming only from the Americans, they are coming a bit from everywhere, even from the Curia. At least those that say them have the benefit of the honesty of having said them. I do not like it when criticism stays under the table: they smile at you letting you see their teeth and then they stab you in the back. That is not fair, it is not human.
“Criticism is a component in construction, and if your criticism is unjust, be prepared to receive a response, and get into dialogue, and arrive to the right conclusion. This is the dynamic of true criticism. The criticism of the arsenic pills, instead, of which we were speaking regarding the article that I gave to Msgr. Rueda, it’s like throwing the stone and then hiding your hand… This is not beneficial, it is no help. It helps small cliques, who do not want to hear the response to their criticism. Instead, fair criticism ― I think thus and so ― is open to a response. This is constructive.
“Regarding the case of the Pope: I don’t like this aspect of the Pope, I criticize him, I speak about him, I write an article and ask him to respond, this is fair. To criticize without wanting to hear a response and without getting into dialogue is not to have the good of the Church at heart, it is chasing after a fixed idea, to change the Pope or to create a schism. This is clear: a fair criticism is always well received, at least by me. Secondly, the problem of the schism: within the Church there have been many schisms.
“After the First Vatican Council, for example, the last vote, the one on infallibility, a well-sized group left and founded the Old Catholic Church so as to remain “true” to the tradition of the Church. Then they developed differently and now they ordain women. But in that moment they were rigid, they rallied behind orthodoxy and thought that the council had erred. Another group left very, very quietly, but they did not want to vote. Vatican II had these things among its consequences. Perhaps the most well-known post-Conciliar split is that of Lefebvre. In the Church there is always the option for schism, always. But it is an option that the Lord leaves to human freedom.
“I am not afraid of schisms, I pray that there will be none, because what is at stake is people’s spiritual health. Let there be dialogue, let there be correction if there is an error, but the schismatic path is not Christian. Let’s think about the beginnings of the Church, how it began with many schisms, one after the other: Arians, Gnostics, Monophysites… An anecdote is coming to mind that I would like to recount: it was the people of God who saved [the Church] from the schisms. The schismatics always have one thing in common: they separate themselves from the people, from the Faith of the people of God. And when there was a discussion in the council of Ephesus regarding Mary’s divine maternity, the people ― this is history ― were at the entrance of the cathedral while the bishops entered to take part in the council. They were there with clubs. They made the bishops see them as they shouted, “Mother of God! Mother of God!,” as if to say: if you do not do this, this is what you can expect… The people of God always correct and help.
“A schism is always an elitist separation stemming from an ideology detached from doctrine. It is an ideology, perhaps correct, but that engages doctrine and detaches it… And so I pray that schisms do not happen, but I am not afraid of them. This is one of the results of Vatican II, not because of this or that Pope. For example, the social things that I say are the same things that John Paul II said, the same things! I copy him.
“But they say: the Pope is a Communist… Ideologies enter into doctrine and when doctrine slips into ideology that’s where there’s the possibility of a schism. There’s the ideology of the primacy of a sterile morality regarding the morality of the people of God. The pastors must lead their flock between grace and sin, because this is evangelical morality. Instead, a morality based on such a Pelagian ideology leads you to rigidity, and today we have many schools of rigidity within the Church, which are not schisms, but pseudo-schismatic Christian developments that will end badly. When you see rigid Christians, bishops, priests, there are problems behind that, not Gospel holiness. So, we need to be gentle with those who are tempted by these attacks, they are going through a tough time, we must accompany them gently.”
Cardinal Burke Speaks on Potential Papal Schism
In a 2019 interview with Ross Douthat, conducted roughly at the time of the Amazon Synod, between mid-October and early November, and published in the New York Times on November 9th, Cardinal Raymond Burke, expressed concerns that Pope Francis could be leading a “schism” if he were to put his “stamp” of approval on the Amazon Synod’s controversial working document, which has been strongly and publicly criticized by top-ranking prelates, including Burke, as constituting apostasy, heresy, and “false teaching.”
Cardinal Burke stated: “While the final document [from the Amazon Synod which concluded October 27th] is less explicit in the embrace of pantheism, it does not repudiate the statements in the working document which constitute an apostasy from the Catholic Faith … The working document doesn’t have doctrinal value. But what if the pope were to put his stamp on that document? People say if you don’t accept that, you’ll be in schism — and I maintain that I would not be in schism because the document contains elements that defect from the apostolic tradition. So my point would be the document is schismatic. I’m not.”
Antonio Socci, a leading Conservative journalist and Vatican-watcher, has stated that cardinals, who were once loyal to Francis, are so concerned about a schism that they are planning to appeal to him to step down. He predicts that the rebellion will be led by about a dozen moderate cardinals who work in the curia―unless, of course, they find themselves demoted and “out of work”! It is no secret in Rome that certain cardinals who voted for Francis are now worried that he is leading the Church towards schism, and that he must therefore be stopped. There are many more than just a dozen of them and, though they may not yet be ready to act upon their concerns, they would like this pontificate to end sooner rather than later. Some―even cardinals and bishops―have gone so far as to accuse Pope Francis of heresy and have more than once warned of the risk a schism arising in the Church as a result of the teachings and policies of Pope Francis.
Crazily Courageous Claim
Pope Francis―though he claims he never watches TV nor browses the internet―is nevertheless clearly aware of what he is doing and the impact it is having in certain quarters of the Catholic Church. On Tuesday, September 10th, 2019―on a flight back to Rome from Africa, Pope Francis spoke of his Conservative critics, saying that he sees them as “rigid” ideological opponents, who use their public criticism of the pope to mask their own moral failings. He is of the opinion that these Conservatives have already ‘infiltrated’ the American Catholic Church and are preparing for a schism. The pope insisted: “For me, it’s an honor if the Americans attack me … I’m not afraid of schisms … I pray that there aren’t any because the spiritual health of so many people is at stake! … Let there be dialogue, correction if there is some error. But the path of the schismatic is not Christian!” Francis stated that he prays a schism in the U.S. Catholic Church doesn’t happen, but he warned that “When doctrine slips into ideology, there’s the possibility of schism!” Francis said all schismatics share a common trait: They allow ideology to become “detached” from Catholic doctrine and distance themselves from the Faith of ordinary Catholics.
Contradictory Claims
So we have a classical case of “he said, she said”―where each party accuses the other. The Conservative clergy accuse Francis of fomenting a schism, while Francis claims it is the Conservative clergy that are causing a schism.
Already back in March of 2017, The London Times newspaper, drawing upon information from the Vatican expert Antonio Socci, a prominent Italian Catholic journalist, reported that a group of cardinals who supported Pope Francis wanted him to resign and be replaced by the Liberal Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, because they fear his reforms will cause a schism “more disastrous” than the Reformation. Antonio Socci said that those who backed the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio out of “impatience with the rule of his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI,” now want Pope Francis to resign out of fear of an impending schism. The Times reported:
“A large part of the cardinals who voted for him is very worried and the curia ... that organized his election and has accompanied him thus far, without ever disassociating itself from him, is cultivating the idea of a moral suasion to convince him to retire. It was the latter faction who now believed that the Pope should resign and who would like to replace him with Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican Secretary of State, Mr. Socci said. He believed that the group numbered around a dozen, but the importance of the members counts more than their number. Four years after Benedict XVI’s renunciation and Bergoglio’s arrival on the scene, the situation of the Catholic Church has become explosive, perhaps really on the edge of a schism, which could be even more disastrous than Luther’s [who is today being rehabilitated by the Bergoglio church]. The cardinals are worried that the Church could be shattered as an institution. There are many indirect ways in which the pressure might be exerted.”
Another expert on the Vatican gave this assessment: “A good number of the majority that voted for Bergoglio in 2013 have come to regret their decision, but I don’t think it’s plausible that members of the hierarchy will pressure the Pope to resign. Those who know him know it would be useless. [He] has a very authoritarian streak. He won’t resign until he has completed his revolutionary reforms, which are causing enormous harm.”
Antonio Socci reports that the importance significance of this development is that the group who want Pope Francis to resign are NOT the “Conservative” cardinals: “What was significant,” Socci said, “was that the doubters were not the Conservative cardinals―who had been in open opposition to the Pope since early in his reign.” This new opposition was coming from some of the Liberal cardinals.
Doubts Expressed to the Pope
Already in September of 2016, four cardinals — Italian Carlo Caffarra, American Raymond Burke and Germans Walter Brandmüller and Joachim Meisner — sent five questions, called dubia (Latin for “doubts”) to Pope Francis in a bid to clear up “grave disorientation and great confusion” surrounding the Pope’s summary document on the Synod on the Family―the Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love). Dubia are formal questions addressed to the Pope with the intention of obtaining a simple “Yes” or “No” response, without entering into any theological argumentation. The practice is an age-old way of addressing the Apostolic See, in the search for clarity on some point of Church teaching. The Cardinals specifically asked the Pope: (1) whether adulterers can receive Holy Communion; (2) whether there are absolute moral norms that must be followed without exceptions; (3) if habitual adultery is an objective situation of grave habitual sin; (4) whether an intrinsically evil act can be turned into a “subjectively’ good act based on circumstances or intentions; and (5) if, based on conscience, one can act contrary to known absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts. The Pope refused to reply and still has not formally replied to them to this day.
‘Pope’ Benedict Does What Pope Francis Would Not Do!
Craftily, the “ex-Pope”―some say “still-Pope” Benedict XVI, in his April 2019 essay, “The Church and the Scandal of Sexual Abuse,” answers to the dubia proposed by the above mentioned four cardinals. In offering a three-part response to the crisis in the Church, the essay indirectly answers the five dubia that Cardinals Brandmüller, Caffarra, Meisner, and Burke presented years ago (in 2016) to Pope Francis. The pope emeritus fulfilled a duty that Pope Francis has not, namely, to maintain the bishops and all the faithful in the unity of the Church’s constant teaching on Faith and morals.
What did the pope emeritus say? He gives the Church and the world unequivocally clear answers:
(1) Can adulterers can receive Holy Communion―NO
(2) Are absolute moral norms that must be followed without exceptions―YES
(3) Is habitual adultery an objective situation of grave habitual sin―YES
(4) Can an intrinsically evil act can be turned into a “subjectively’ good act based on circumstances or intentions―NO
(5) Based on one’s own personal conscience, can one act contrary to known absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts―NO
It does not really take a “rocket-scientist” or a pope to be able to answer the above questions―any reasonably well-informed Catholic could give those replies. So why has Pope Francis kept an ominous and stubborn silence on the matter―especially since it the dubia (the doubts or questions) were made public by the cardinals, after waiting for a personal response from the Pope that never came, and thus they published an open letter to the Pope?
Furthermore, Benedict warns us that “the very Faith of the Church” is being called into question. “It is very important to oppose the lies and half-truths of the devil with the whole truth: Yes, there is sin in the Church and evil. But even today there is the Holy Church, which is indestructible ... Today God also has His witnesses (Latin: "martyres") in the world. We just have to be vigilant to see and hear them.”
Cardinal Burke―the so-called “Arch Schismatic” or “Arch-Stirer”―Explains His Position
Cardinal Muller, the former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had said that the dubia questions should not have been made public because “there is no danger to the Faith.” Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke , the most outspoken of the four cardinals, disagreed with this view of Cardinal Muller, and, in his January 2017 interview with La Verita, he explained that: “The confusion in the Church over the interpretation of certain passages of Amoris Laetitia is evident! That is why I do not see how anyone could be able to say that there is no danger to the Faith ... are not only four. I personally know other cardinals who fully endorse the dubia … Moreover, we have communicated, in a very respectful way, five dubia (doubts or questions) to the Pope, and when they were not given a response, we decided, for the good of souls, to make public that there are dubia (doubts or questions) and that all the faithful are called to pay attention.”
Burke, specified: “I have never said that a public confrontation ought to occur. I agree with Cardinal Brandmüller, the first step would be to ask for a private meeting with the Holy Father ― ‘in camera caritatis’ [in the room of charity] ― to point out to him the unacceptable statements in Amoris Laetitia, showing how, in one way or another, they are not adequate to express what the Church He has always taught.” To further dispel false rumors of being divisive or of having a schismatic attitude, Cardinal Burke stated: “St. Thomas Aquinas in his theological writings proposes the problem of the possible formal correction of the pope and it is also in the discipline of the Church. It has been rarely used, there are some examples, and certainly we can envisage the case of a Pope who in some way might be able to fall into error. In this case, a correction must be made … What divides is falsehood and ambiguity, the truth always unites. It is absurd to say that four cardinals who ask five reasonable questions, and of fundamental importance for all Christians, are acting in a way to divide the Church. We are serving the Petrine office, giving the Pope the opportunity to confirm us in the teaching of the Church, faced with a situation that is proving ambiguous in practice … We are always waiting for a response from the Pope as our supreme pastor. To not expect a response would be disrespectful of his office.”
Pope Francis’ Plane Attack
On the papal plane, flying back to Rome from Madagascar, on September 10th, 2019, Pope Francis said he always welcomes constructive criticism, but not “pills of arsenic” which he says can come from “rigid” critics who hide behind orthodoxy and should be treated “with meekness.” During his in-flight press conference from Madagascar, Jason Horowitz, of The New York Times, said to the Pope: “On the flight to Maputo you acknowledged being under attack by a segment of the American Church. Obviously, there is strong criticism from some bishops and cardinals, there are Catholic Television stations and American websites that are very critical. And there are even some of your closest allies who have spoken of a plot against you. Is there something that these critics do not understand about your pontificate? Is there something that you have learned from your critics? Are you afraid of a schism in the American Church? And if so, is there something that you could do ― a dialogue ― to keep it from happening?”
Pope Francis answered: “First of all, criticism always helps―always. When someone receives criticism, that person needs to do a self-critique right away and say: ‘Is this true or not? To what point?’ And I always benefit from criticism. Sometimes it makes you angry―but there are advantages. Traveling to Maputo, one of you gave me that book in French on how the Americans want to change the Pope. I knew about that book, but I had not read it. Criticisms are not coming only from the Americans, they are coming a bit from everywhere, even from the Curia. At least those that say them have the benefit of the honesty of having said them. I do not like it when criticism stays under the table: they smile at you letting you see their teeth and then they stab you in the back. That is not fair, it is not human.
“Criticism is a component in construction, and if your criticism is unjust, be prepared to receive a response, and get into dialogue, and arrive to the right conclusion. This is the dynamic of true criticism. The criticism of the arsenic pills, instead, of which we were speaking regarding the article that I gave to Msgr. Rueda, it’s like throwing the stone and then hiding your hand… This is not beneficial, it is no help. It helps small cliques, who do not want to hear the response to their criticism. Instead, fair criticism ― I think thus and so ― is open to a response. This is constructive.
“Regarding the case of the Pope: I don’t like this aspect of the Pope, I criticize him, I speak about him, I write an article and ask him to respond, this is fair. To criticize without wanting to hear a response and without getting into dialogue is not to have the good of the Church at heart, it is chasing after a fixed idea, to change the Pope or to create a schism. This is clear: a fair criticism is always well received, at least by me. Secondly, the problem of the schism: within the Church there have been many schisms.
“After the First Vatican Council, for example, the last vote, the one on infallibility, a well-sized group left and founded the Old Catholic Church so as to remain “true” to the tradition of the Church. Then they developed differently and now they ordain women. But in that moment they were rigid, they rallied behind orthodoxy and thought that the council had erred. Another group left very, very quietly, but they did not want to vote. Vatican II had these things among its consequences. Perhaps the most well-known post-Conciliar split is that of Lefebvre. In the Church there is always the option for schism, always. But it is an option that the Lord leaves to human freedom.
“I am not afraid of schisms, I pray that there will be none, because what is at stake is people’s spiritual health. Let there be dialogue, let there be correction if there is an error, but the schismatic path is not Christian. Let’s think about the beginnings of the Church, how it began with many schisms, one after the other: Arians, Gnostics, Monophysites… An anecdote is coming to mind that I would like to recount: it was the people of God who saved [the Church] from the schisms. The schismatics always have one thing in common: they separate themselves from the people, from the Faith of the people of God. And when there was a discussion in the council of Ephesus regarding Mary’s divine maternity, the people ― this is history ― were at the entrance of the cathedral while the bishops entered to take part in the council. They were there with clubs. They made the bishops see them as they shouted, “Mother of God! Mother of God!,” as if to say: if you do not do this, this is what you can expect… The people of God always correct and help.
“A schism is always an elitist separation stemming from an ideology detached from doctrine. It is an ideology, perhaps correct, but that engages doctrine and detaches it… And so I pray that schisms do not happen, but I am not afraid of them. This is one of the results of Vatican II, not because of this or that Pope. For example, the social things that I say are the same things that John Paul II said, the same things! I copy him.
“But they say: the Pope is a Communist… Ideologies enter into doctrine and when doctrine slips into ideology that’s where there’s the possibility of a schism. There’s the ideology of the primacy of a sterile morality regarding the morality of the people of God. The pastors must lead their flock between grace and sin, because this is evangelical morality. Instead, a morality based on such a Pelagian ideology leads you to rigidity, and today we have many schools of rigidity within the Church, which are not schisms, but pseudo-schismatic Christian developments that will end badly. When you see rigid Christians, bishops, priests, there are problems behind that, not Gospel holiness. So, we need to be gentle with those who are tempted by these attacks, they are going through a tough time, we must accompany them gently.”
Cardinal Burke Speaks on Potential Papal Schism
In a 2019 interview with Ross Douthat, conducted roughly at the time of the Amazon Synod, between mid-October and early November, and published in the New York Times on November 9th, Cardinal Raymond Burke, expressed concerns that Pope Francis could be leading a “schism” if he were to put his “stamp” of approval on the Amazon Synod’s controversial working document, which has been strongly and publicly criticized by top-ranking prelates, including Burke, as constituting apostasy, heresy, and “false teaching.”
Cardinal Burke stated: “While the final document [from the Amazon Synod which concluded October 27th] is less explicit in the embrace of pantheism, it does not repudiate the statements in the working document which constitute an apostasy from the Catholic Faith … The working document doesn’t have doctrinal value. But what if the pope were to put his stamp on that document? People say if you don’t accept that, you’ll be in schism — and I maintain that I would not be in schism because the document contains elements that defect from the apostolic tradition. So my point would be the document is schismatic. I’m not.”
Article 2
Clueless Conciliar Corporate Comments on the Second Vatican Council
Clueless Conciliar Corporate Comments on the Second Vatican Council
Clearly Catastrophic Council
It is amazing to read the plethora of sadly misguided clerical comments about the Second Vatican Council. There seems to be a “corporate” and “collegial” clerical (clergy) approach to Vatican II which totally fails to see and acknowledge the utter catastrophe that the Second Vatican Council produced. It is a modern-day equivalent Hans Christian Andersen’s short tale, The Emperor's New Clothes, where the king is conned into seeing clothes where there were no clothes―and hence, after paying a fortune for the “invisible” clothes, ended up parading before his people in the nude―with everyone pretending that they could “see” the invisible suit of clothes, praising and cheering-on the nude king as he proudly walked along in his public procession to show off his new set of clothes.
There are various reactions to Vatican II or the Second Vatican Council. Some are exuberantly thrilled and delighted with the changes that the Council produced. Others are critical or even condemnatory of the fruits of the Council. While the majority know little or nothing about the Council and do not want to dispel that ignorance― “Let sleeping dogs lie” is their motto, or “See no evil, hear no evil, think no evil, speak no evil!” If you know nothing about it, then you will not have an opinion on it, and thus you will never talk about it.
Yet if anyone were to truly open their eyes and kick-start the rusty engine of their mind and its thinking processes, then they would, in all honesty, have to come to the sane and logical conclusion that the Second Vatican Council was, for the most part, was an unmitigated disaster. Yet there exists no small number of insane and illogical idealists, living and laboring under illusions and delusions that somehow make them imagine the Second Vatican Council to have been an unprecedented success―to the point that they have almost ‘canonized’ the Second Vatican Council (and its popes) in a vain attempt to somehow create the illusion of success, where in reality there was failure. Let us take a look at some of these crazy Conciliar ‘canonizations’ that creates a confusing, counterfeit, chimeric characterization of a Council, which, instead of being cheered, should be condemned.
Clothless Clueless Clergy
Hans Christian Andersen’s tale of The Emperor’s New Clothes―The King With No Clothes―The Invisible Suit of Clothes gives us some food for thought as regards the Second Vatican Council. Let us “re-live” his tale and draw some Vaticanist analogies from it.
Many years ago there was an Emperor so exceedingly fond of new clothes [a pope fond of change] that he spent all his money on being well dressed. He cared nothing about reviewing his soldiers, going to the theater, or going for a ride in his carriage, except to show off his new clothes. He had a coat for every hour of the day, and instead of saying, as one might, about any other ruler, “The King’s in council,” here they always said. “The Emperor’s in his dressing room.”
In the great city where he lived, life was always joyful and entertaining. Every day many strangers came to town, and among them one day came two swindlers [the Liberal and Modernist infiltrators in the Church]. They let it be known they were weavers [Catholic theologians―cardinals, bishops, priests], and they said they could weave the most magnificent fabrics imaginable [weave the most magnificent theological doctrine]. Not only were their colors and patterns uncommonly fine, but clothes made of this cloth had a wonderful way of becoming invisible to anyone who was unfit for his office, or who was unusually stupid [the terminology of this Modernist and Liberal doctrine is so confusing in its concepts and terminology that it is hard to see what they are talking about―but to avoid looking stupid, many people nod their approval and praise the absurdity].
“Those would be just the clothes for me,” thought the Emperor. “If I wore them I would be able to discover which men in my empire are unfit for their posts. And I could tell the wise men from the fools. Yes, I certainly must get some of the stuff woven for me right away.” He paid the two swindlers a large sum of money to start work at once. [At the start of Vatican II, the Modernists and Liberals persuaded the bishops of the Council to throw-out the already “traditionally woven clothes” (the so-called schemas or working documents that had been pre-prepared over a course of several years) and take charge themselves of “weaving” schemas in which they all could have a say―thus trying to microwave what really takes several years].
They set up two looms and pretended to weave, though there was nothing on the looms [the Council Fathers―the bishops―then produced new schemas that had very little in them compared to the ones they had thrown out]. All the finest silk and the purest old thread which they demanded went into their traveling bags, while they worked the empty looms far into the night [the Council talked “empty-talk” from their pews “far into the night”].
“I’d like to know how those weavers are getting on with the cloth,” the Emperor thought, but he felt slightly uncomfortable when he remembered that those who were unfit for their position would not be able to see the fabric. It couldn’t have been that he doubted himself, yet he thought he’d rather send someone else to see how things were going. The whole town knew about the cloth’s peculiar power, and all were impatient to find out how stupid their neighbors were. [the peculiar power of Modernism is that it talks a mighty talk, but it is all with “made-up” new, weird sounding and intellectually confusing words―which pretend to mean something, but what they mean is hard to see].
“I’ll send my honest old minister to the weavers,” the Emperor decided. “He’ll be the best one to tell me how the material looks, for he’s a sensible man and no one does his duty better.” So the honest old minister went to the room where the two swindlers sat working away at their empty looms.“Heaven help me!” he thought as his eyes flew wide open, “I can’t see anything at all!” But he did not say so. Both the swindlers begged him to be so kind as to come near to approve the excellent pattern, the beautiful colors. They pointed to the empty looms, and the poor old minister stared as hard as he dared. He couldn’t see anything, because there was nothing to see. “Heaven have mercy!” he thought. “Can it be that I’m a fool? I’d have never guessed it, and not a soul must know. Am I unfit to be the minister? It would never do to let on that I can’t see the cloth.”
“Don’t hesitate to tell us what you think of it,” said one of the weavers.
“Oh, it’s beautiful! It’s enchanting!” The old minister peered through his spectacles. “Such a pattern, what colors! I’ll be sure to tell the Emperor how delighted I am with it.”
“We’re pleased to hear that!” the swindlers said. They proceeded to name all the colors and to explain the intricate pattern. The old minister paid the closest attention, so that he could tell it all to the Emperor. And so he did.
[Some of the old honest Conservative bishops should have seen through the “smoke and mirrors” of the “new” doctrine being rolled-out from the weaving looms of the Liberals and Modernists, but for fear of “rocking the boat” of St. Peter, or some other reason, they kept their mouths shut and went along with the scam that was being hoisted upon the Church. Some bishops did react and protest, but were gradually silenced by various means].
The swindlers at once asked for more money, more silk and gold thread, to get on with the weaving. But it all went into their pockets. Not a thread went into the looms, though they worked at their weaving as hard as ever.
The Emperor presently sent another trustworthy official to see how the work progressed and how soon it would be ready. The same thing happened to him that had happened to the minister. He looked and he looked, but as there was nothing to see in the looms he couldn’t see anything. “Isn’t it a beautiful piece of cloth?” the swindlers asked him, as they displayed and described their imaginary pattern. “I know I’m not stupid,” the man thought, “so it must be that I’m unworthy of my good office. That’s strange. I mustn’t let anyone find it out, though.” So he praised the material which he could not see. He declared he was delighted with the beautiful colors and the exquisite pattern. To the Emperor he said, “It held me spellbound!” [Thus do the “useful idiots”―as Communists like to call their naïve stooges―praise Vatican II when its fruits are rotten or non-existent. They “go along to get along” so as to keep their “jobs” within the Church].
All the town was talking of this splendid cloth, and the Emperor wanted to see it for himself while it was still in the looms. Attended by a band of chosen men, among whom were his two old trusted officials―the ones who had been to the weavers―he set out to see the two swindlers. He found them weaving with might and main, but without a thread in their looms.
“Magnificent!” said the two officials already duped. “Just look, Your Majesty, what colors! What a design!” They pointed to the empty looms, each supposing that the others could see the stuff. “What’s this?” thought the Emperor. “I can’t see anything. This is terrible! Am I a fool? Am I unfit to be the Emperor? What a thing to happen to me of all people!” … “Oh! It’s very pretty!” he said. “It has my highest approval!” And he nodded approbation at the empty loom. Nothing could make him say that he couldn’t see anything. His whole retinue stared and stared. One saw no more than another, but they all joined the Emperor in exclaiming, “Oh! It’s very pretty!” and they advised him to wear clothes made of this wonderful cloth especially for the great procession he was soon to lead. “Magnificent! Excellent! Unsurpassed!” were words bandied from mouth to mouth, and everyone did his best to seem well pleased. The Emperor gave each of the swindlers a cross to wear in his buttonhole, and the title of “Sir Weaver.” [Thus the Pope goes along with Modernistic and Liberal theological ramblings that are being bandied around―not wishing to look a fool and not having either the mind (intellect) or the heart (will) to stand up to them and reject them. The Pope even promotes such Modernist and Liberal theologians―raising them to the ranks of “Sir Bishop” or “Sir Cardinal”].
Before the procession, the swindlers sat up all night and burned more than six candles, to show how busy they were finishing the Emperor’s new clothes. They pretended to take the cloth off the loom. They made cuts in the air with huge scissors. And at last they said, “Now the Emperor’s new clothes are ready for him!”
Then the Emperor himself came with his noblest noblemen, and the swindlers each raised an arm as if they were holding something. They said, “These are the trousers, here’s the coat, and this is the mantle,” naming each garment. [Here are the documents of the Council]. “All of them are as light as a spider web. One would almost think he had nothing on, but that’s what makes them so fine.”
“Exactly!” all the noblemen agreed, though they could see nothing, for there was nothing to see.
“If Your Imperial Majesty will condescend to take your clothes off,” said the swindlers, “we will help you on with your new ones here in front of the long mirror.” [If your Holiness will only take off your Traditional clothes (doctrines and customs), then we will give you new ones with which to clothe the Church].
The Emperor undressed, and the swindlers pretended to put his new clothes on him, one garment after another. They took him around the waist and seemed to be fastening something ―that was his train―as the Emperor turned round and round before the looking glass.
“How well Your Majesty’s new clothes look! Aren’t they becoming!” He heard on all sides, “That pattern, so perfect! Those colors, so suitable! It is a magnificent outfit.”
Then the minister of public processions announced: “Your Majesty’s canopy is waiting outside!”
“Well, I’m supposed to be ready,” the Emperor said, and turned again for one last look in the mirror. “It is a remarkable fit, isn’t it?” He seemed to regard his costume with the greatest interest.The noblemen who were to carry his train stooped low and reached for the floor as if they were picking up his mantle. Then they pretended to lift and hold it high. They didn’t dare admit they had nothing to hold.
So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid canopy. Everyone in the streets and the windows said, “Oh, how fine are the Emperor’s new clothes! Don’t they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!” Nobody would confess that he couldn’t see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success.
“But he hasn’t got anything on!” a little child said. [“This change of ‘clothing’ or change of teaching and customs has nothing on the traditional teaching and customs that it has changed or cast out” say the “little ones” or the laity].
“Did you ever hear such innocent prattle?” said the child’s father [“You don’t know what you are talking about!” say the priests to the complaining laity]. And one person whispered to another what the child had said, “He hasn’t anything on! A child says he hasn’t anything on!”
“But he HASN’T got anything on!” the whole town cried out at last.
The Emperor shivered, for he suspected they were right. But he thought, “This procession has got to go on!” [Vatican II has to go on!] So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn’t there at all.
Though the above is merely a moralistic tale, the Second Vatican Council is a live concrete presentation of the tale of the “The Emperor’s New Clothes” or “The King With No Clothes” or “The Invisible Suit of Clothes”―except you could rename the Vatican Tale as “The Pope’s New Church” or “The Church With No Faith and No Members” or “The Invisible Infiltration and Denudation of the Church”.
Council Closing Comments
As Pope Paul VI closed the Second Vatican Council on December 8th, 1965, he said in his optimistic address:
“Today we are concluding the Second Vatican Council. We bring it to a close at the fullness of its efficiency … This Council bequeaths to history an image of the Catholic Church … What then was the Council? What has it accomplished? … What is the religious value of this Council? … Still fresh in our memory are the words uttered in this basilica by our venerated predecessor, John XXIII, whom we may in truth call the originator of this great Synod. In his opening address to the Council he had this to say: “The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine be guarded and taught more effectively” … His great purpose has now been achieved. To appreciate it properly, it is necessary to remember the time in which it was realized: a time which everyone admits is orientated toward the conquest of the kingdom of Earth rather than of that of Heaven; a time in which forgetfulness of God has become habitual, and seems to be prompted by the progress of science; … a time, finally, which is characterized by upheavals and a hitherto unknown decline even in the great world religions. It was at such a time as this that our Council was held to the honor of God … it has been deeply committed to the study of the modern world. Never before perhaps, so much as on this occasion, has the Church felt the need to know, to draw near to, to understand, to penetrate, serve and evangelize the society in which she lives; and to get to grips with it, almost to run after it, in its rapid and continuous change. This attitude has been strongly and unceasingly at work in the Council; so much so that some have been inclined to suspect that an easy-going and excessive responsiveness to the outside world, to passing events, cultural fashions, temporary needs, an alien way of thinking ... may have swayed persons and acts of the Ecumenical Synod, at the expense of the fidelity which is due to Tradition, and this to the detriment of the religious orientation of the Council itself. We do not believe that this shortcoming should be imputed to it.
“Yes, the Church of the Council has been concerned … with man — man as he really is today: living man, man all wrapped up in himself, man who makes himself not only the center of his every interest but dares to claim that he is the principle and explanation of all reality. Every perceptible element in man, every one of the countless guises in which he appears, has, in a sense, been displayed in full view of the Council Fathers … man the sinner and man the saint, and so on ... The old story of the Samaritan has been the model of the spirituality of the Council. A feeling of boundless sympathy has permeated the whole of it. The attention of our Council has been absorbed by the discovery of human needs … And what aspect of humanity has this august senate studied? What goal under divine inspiration did it set for itself? It also dwelt upon humanity’s ever twofold facet, namely, man’s wretchedness and his greatness … But one must realize that this Council insisted very much more upon this pleasant side of man, rather than on his unpleasant one. Its attitude was very much and deliberately optimistic. A wave of affection and admiration flowed from the Council over the modem world of humanity. Errors were condemned, indeed, because charity demanded this no less than did truth, but for the persons themselves there was only warming, respect and love. Instead of depressing diagnoses, encouraging remedies; instead of direful prognostics, messages of trust issued from the Council to the present-day world. The modern world’s values were not only respected, but honored, its efforts approved, its aspirations purified and blessed.
“The teaching authority of the Church … descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force; it has spoken with the accommodating friendly voice of pastoral charity; its desire has been to be heard and understood by everyone; it has sought to express itself in simple, up-to-date, conversational style … it has spoken to modern man as he is … All this rich teaching is channeled in one direction, the service of mankind, of every condition, in every weakness and need. The Church has declared herself the servant of humanity … It might be said that all this and everything else we might say about the human values of the Council have diverted the attention of the Church in Council to the trend of modern culture, centered on humanity ... the Catholic religion is for mankind ... Would not this Council, then, which has concentrated principally on man, be destined to propose again to the world of today the ladder leading to freedom and consolation? Would it not be, in short, a simple, new and solemn teaching to love man in order to love God? To love man, we say, not as a means, but as the first step toward the final and transcendent goal which is the basis and cause of every love.”
Hopefully these few extracts from Pope Paul VI’s fatally optimistic closing address convey to you (1) the overwhelming focus on the world and the “man of the world” and the needs of the world, and also (2) shows you the seeds of thought that would have been planted in the mind of a young Jorge Bergoglio, the future Pope Francis, who would have passed from being 26 years old to almost 29 years old during the Council (1962-1965). You can see Francis “living-out” what Paul VI was saying back in 1965.
Craftily Calculated Canonizations
As the UK Catholic Herald stated in its January 11th, 2018, article “Liturgy and sexuality: the battle over Paul VI.” In speaking of the imminent canonization of Pope Paul VI by Pope Francis, the Herald states: “At first glance, this looks like a propaganda victory for those Liberals, who regard the beginning of the Second Vatican Council as the Church’s Year Zero – as if the 19 centuries that preceded it were little more than an irrelevant costume drama. They hope that canonizing Paul will be interpreted as canonizing the Council and, just as important, the canonizing the new liturgy that followed in its wake. This may indeed be Francis’s intention. He presents himself as a post-Vatican II pope ― not only the first to be ordained since the advent of the vernacular Mass in 1969, but also one who is determined to resist the “reform of the reform”, an attempt by mainstream conservatives to introduce elements of pre-Conciliar worship into parishes. Last August, he declared “with certainty and magisterial authority” that the liturgical changes promulgated by Vatican II were irreversible. In 2016 he was even more explicit. The changes to worship “must be carried forward as they are,” he said, insisting that “to speak of ‘the reform of the reform’ is an error!” What better way to drive home this point than to canonize the pope who promulgated the reforms of the 1960s? Yet, as Catholics who were around in the 1970s will remember, Paul himself was visibly unhappy with the liturgical and theological experiments favored by the more extreme enthusiasts for “the spirit of Vatican II”. These Liberals ― some of whom are still alive and claim to have the ear of Pope Francis ― may have been whom Paul VI had in mind when he said mysteriously in 1972 that “the smoke of Satan” had entered the Church. We can be sure that we will hear little about the smoke of Satan if Paul is raised to the altars. Instead, Progressive Catholics will portray the canonization as a corrective to revived Traditionalism in the Church; even a repudiation of Benedict XVI’s “hermeneutic of continuity”, about which Francis is less than enthusiastic. There will certainly be commentators who portray the canonization of Pope Paul VI as a papal slap in the face for Conservative Catholics ― and especially the young priests and seminarians who revere the Tridentine Mass” (Catholic Herald, UK, January 11th, 2018).
Cacophony of Council Congratulators
Since the Second Vatican Council ended, there has never been a shortage of voices in the Council’s cacophonic choir of congratulators. As in the above tale of “The Emperor’s New Clothes” or “The King With No Clothes”, the politically correct thing to do is to praise Vatican II. It is almost looked upon as being quasi-heretical to criticize Vatican II. Everyone has been brainwashed into thinking and accepting Vatican II as the “most beautiful set of clothes” (teachings and policies) that the world has ever seen! Cardinals, bishops, priest, religious and laity fall over one another in seeking to be at the front of the crowd singing the praises of Vatican II. Most of these people are self-deluded, semi-ignorant, self-inflating, useful idiots. They have no clue at all to the build-up to and back-drop of Vatican II. They are fed and happily swallow and digest “two-bit-phrases” and superficial slogans about Vatican II―yet they have never ever read any of the documents of Vatican II, nor have they read any worthwhile history concerning Vatican II. Their scant knowledge of Vatican II is more like an accumulation of headlines, chapter headings and slogans―without any in-depth, analytical and reasoned insight into what really happened. For most folk, it is easier and less disruptive and abrasive to follow the crowd and cry out with the crowd: “O what a beautiful set of ‘clothes’ Vatican II produced!”
There was much written about the Council in 2012, at the time of the 50th anniversary of the Council’s opening on October 11th, 1962. You would think that 50 years of increasing crisis, apostasy, fallen-away Catholics, worldliness and immorality would be time enough to convince the Vatican II cheerleaders that their euphoria about the Council sounds somewhat hollow―but for some, 50 years seems not to be enough!
Vatican Virus
Vatican II could be classified as a disease that has gone viral. To combat a disease you must first understand the disease and how it works, what circumstances are favorable to it, what helps it spread, what can slow it down, combat it and overcome it. The more precise the knowledge of a disease is, then the more chance there is in overcoming it. You will not fully understand the current Church Crisis unless you have a good grasp of the events of leading up to and the events that occurred during the Second Vatican Council. Knowledge on these points is pitifully and painfully low and meager. Most people could not even give you the dates of the Council―never mind what happened during it! If you want to win a war, then, as all the great military strategists of the past have all said, you must “Know your enemy!”
The Second Vatican Council was no friend, but an enemy―at least in its outcome if not entirely so in its conception. St. John Bosco had a prophetic vision concerning the Second Vatican Council. In 1862, exactly 100 years before the disastrous Second Vatican Council started, St. John Bosco predicted the Second Vatican Council and its disastrous impact on the Church. The relevant portion of his prophetic vision is: “There will be an Ecumenical Council in the next century, after which there will be chaos in the Church. Tranquility will not return until the Pope succeeds in anchoring the boat of Peter between the twin pillars of Eucharistic Devotion and Devotion to Our Lady.”
Bishop Rudolph Graber, in his book, Athanasius and the Church of Our Time (1974), quoted a prominent Freemason who declared that “the goal (of Freemasonry) is no longer the destruction of the Church, but to make use of it by infiltrating it.” (Bishop Graber, Athanasius and the Church of Our Time, p. 39).
Alice von Hildebrand reports the following incident in an interview with Latin Mass Magazine (Summer 2001). In this interview, she mentions the Italian priest Fr. Luigi Villa (diocese of Brescia), who, at the request of Padre Pio, devoted many years of his life to the investigation of the infiltration of both Freemasons and Communists into the Church:
“Another of Fr. Villa’s illustrations of infiltration is one related to him by Cardinal Gagnon. Paul VI had asked Gagnon to head an investigation concerning the infiltration of the Church by powerful enemies. Cardinal Gagnon (at that time an Archbishop) accepted this unpleasant task, and compiled a long dossier, rich in worrisome facts. When the work was completed, he requested an audience with Pope Paul in order to deliver personally the manuscript to the Pontiff. This request for a meeting was denied. The Pope sent word that the document should be placed in the offices of the Congregation for the Clergy, specifically in a safe with a double lock. This was done, but the very next day the safe deposit box was broken and the manuscript mysteriously disappeared. The usual policy of the Vatican is to make sure that news of such incidents never sees the light of day. Nevertheless, this theft was reported even in L’Osservatore Romano (perhaps under pressure, because it had been reported in the secular press). Cardinal Gagnon, of course, had a copy, and once again asked the Pope for a private audience. Once again his request was denied. He then decided to leave Rome and return to his homeland in Canada” (Latin Mass Magazine, Summer 2001)
Furthermore, it is a commonly held opinion by Fatima experts that part of the Third Secret of Fatima has something to do with the Council―for Sr. Lucia placed great stress upon the year 1960 as being the time of some foreboding event. Cardinal Oddi has perhaps the best quote tying the Third Secret to the Vatican II revolution:
“What happened in 1960 that might have been seen in connection with the Secret of Fatima? The most important event is without a doubt the launching of the preparatory phase of the Second Vatican Council. Therefore I would not be surprised if the Secret had something to do with the convocation of Vatican II... I would not be surprised if the Third Secret alluded to dark times for the Church; grave confusions and troubling apostasies within Catholicism itself ... If we consider the grave crisis we have lived through since the Council, the signs that this prophecy has been fulfilled do not seem to be lacking ...” (March 17th, 1990 interview published in Il Sabato magazine in Rome).
Hence we cannot look upon the Second Vatican Council as a relatively insignificant event, nor can we look upon it as being a benign event.
The Spirit of Vatican II Was Not the Spirit of God
Several popes had toyed with the idea of holding an Ecumenical Council in the 20th century, but they were dissuaded from doing so because of the large numbers of Liberals and Modernists in the Church and the firm grip that they could potentially gain over the Church. Pope John XXIII threw caution to the wind (and there are many theories as to why) and declared, in 1959, that the Church would prepare for its 21st Ecumenical Council―you could almost say, being the 21st, it was a “coming of age” as with a 21-year-old, which is often akin to their leaving home and going out into the world―which is what Vatican II ended up doing by leaving the traditional home of the Church and going out to seek the world! Since Vatican II, increasing numbers of Catholics have left the home of the Faith in preference for the world!
On his deathbed, Pope John reportedly cried out: “Stop the Council! Stop the Council!” The fact that Pope John XXIII wanted to close the Council after its first session was affirmed by Cardinal Heenan of England and by Catholic philosopher Jean Guitton the only lay peritus (expert) at Vatican II. The word “revolution” has been used numerous times to describe Vatican II. During the debate on the Liturgy Constitution at the Second Vatican Council, Cardinal Ottaviani asked: “Are these Fathers planning a revolution?” Before the end of Vatican II, in February 1965, someone announced to Padre Pio that soon he would have to celebrate the Mass according to a new rite, in the vernacular, which was being devised by a Conciliar liturgical commission. Immediately, even before seeing the text, he wrote to Paul VI to ask him to be dispensed from the liturgical experiment, and to be able to continue to celebrate the Mass of St. Pius V. When Cardinal Bacci came to see him, in order to bring the authorization, Padre Pio told the Pope’s messenger: “For pity’s sake! End the Council quickly!”
At the end of the Council, some of the Liberals and Modernists publicly stated to the press and media that they were surprised and shocked at the gains they had achieved during the Council―it was a result beyond their wildest dreams and hopes! The Liberal Cardinal Suenens stated: “Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church!” The Liberal and Modernist, Fr. Yves Congar, one of the artisans of the reforms, spoke likewise: “The Church has had, peacefully, its October Revolution!”―the reference being made to the Russian Communist October Revolution of 1917. Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, said: “We have now absorbed into Church teaching, and the Church has opened herself up to, principles which are not hers, but which come from modern society.” In his book published in 1982, Principles of Catholic Theology, Cardinal Ratzinger stated that the basic intention of the Second Vatican Council was “an attempt to officially reconcile the Church with the world as it had become after 1789 [meaning the French Revolution].” In 1984, Cardinal Ratzinger declared that the Council was called in order to bring into the Church doctrines born outside of her, doctrines that come from the world. Therefore, according to Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), the Second Vatican Council sought to bring the Church’s teaching into harmony with the principles of modern and Liberal thought, born of 1789 French Revolution.
Several popes had toyed with the idea of holding an Ecumenical Council in the 20th century, but they were dissuaded from doing so because of the large numbers of Liberals and Modernists in the Church and the firm grip that they could potentially gain over the Church. Pope John XXIII threw caution to the wind (and there are many theories as to why) and declared, in 1959, that the Church would prepare for its 21st Ecumenical Council―you could almost say, being the 21st, it was a “coming of age” as with a 21-year-old, which is often akin to their leaving home and going out into the world―which is what Vatican II ended up doing by leaving the traditional home of the Church and going out to seek the world! Since Vatican II, increasing numbers of Catholics have left the home of the Faith in preference for the world!
On his deathbed, Pope John reportedly cried out: “Stop the Council! Stop the Council!” The fact that Pope John XXIII wanted to close the Council after its first session was affirmed by Cardinal Heenan of England and by Catholic philosopher Jean Guitton the only lay peritus (expert) at Vatican II. The word “revolution” has been used numerous times to describe Vatican II. During the debate on the Liturgy Constitution at the Second Vatican Council, Cardinal Ottaviani asked: “Are these Fathers planning a revolution?” Before the end of Vatican II, in February 1965, someone announced to Padre Pio that soon he would have to celebrate the Mass according to a new rite, in the vernacular, which was being devised by a Conciliar liturgical commission. Immediately, even before seeing the text, he wrote to Paul VI to ask him to be dispensed from the liturgical experiment, and to be able to continue to celebrate the Mass of St. Pius V. When Cardinal Bacci came to see him, in order to bring the authorization, Padre Pio told the Pope’s messenger: “For pity’s sake! End the Council quickly!”
At the end of the Council, some of the Liberals and Modernists publicly stated to the press and media that they were surprised and shocked at the gains they had achieved during the Council―it was a result beyond their wildest dreams and hopes! The Liberal Cardinal Suenens stated: “Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church!” The Liberal and Modernist, Fr. Yves Congar, one of the artisans of the reforms, spoke likewise: “The Church has had, peacefully, its October Revolution!”―the reference being made to the Russian Communist October Revolution of 1917. Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, said: “We have now absorbed into Church teaching, and the Church has opened herself up to, principles which are not hers, but which come from modern society.” In his book published in 1982, Principles of Catholic Theology, Cardinal Ratzinger stated that the basic intention of the Second Vatican Council was “an attempt to officially reconcile the Church with the world as it had become after 1789 [meaning the French Revolution].” In 1984, Cardinal Ratzinger declared that the Council was called in order to bring into the Church doctrines born outside of her, doctrines that come from the world. Therefore, according to Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), the Second Vatican Council sought to bring the Church’s teaching into harmony with the principles of modern and Liberal thought, born of 1789 French Revolution.
Several popes had toyed with the idea of holding an Ecumenical Council in the 20th century, but they were dissuaded from doing so because of the large numbers of Liberals and Modernists in the Church and the firm grip that they could potentially gain over the Church. Pope John XXIII threw caution to the wind (and there are many theories as to why) and declared, in 1959, that the Church would prepare for its 21st Ecumenical Council―you could almost say, being the 21st, it was a “coming of age” as with a 21-year-old, which is often akin to their leaving home and going out into the world―which is what Vatican II ended up doing by leaving the traditional home of the Church and going out to seek the world! Since Vatican II, increasing numbers of Catholics have left the home of the Faith in preference for the world!
On his deathbed, Pope John reportedly cried out: “Stop the Council! Stop the Council!” The fact that Pope John XXIII wanted to close the Council after its first session was affirmed by Cardinal Heenan of England and by Catholic philosopher Jean Guitton the only lay peritus (expert) at Vatican II. The word “revolution” has been used numerous times to describe Vatican II. During the debate on the Liturgy Constitution at the Second Vatican Council, Cardinal Ottaviani asked: “Are these Fathers planning a revolution?” Before the end of Vatican II, in February 1965, someone announced to Padre Pio that soon he would have to celebrate the Mass according to a new rite, in the vernacular, which was being devised by a Conciliar liturgical commission. Immediately, even before seeing the text, he wrote to Paul VI to ask him to be dispensed from the liturgical experiment, and to be able to continue to celebrate the Mass of St. Pius V. When Cardinal Bacci came to see him, in order to bring the authorization, Padre Pio told the Pope’s messenger: “For pity’s sake! End the Council quickly!”
At the end of the Council, some of the Liberals and Modernists publicly stated to the press and media that they were surprised and shocked at the gains they had achieved during the Council―it was a result beyond their wildest dreams and hopes! The Liberal Cardinal Suenens stated: “Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church!” The Liberal and Modernist, Fr. Yves Congar, one of the artisans of the reforms, spoke likewise: “The Church has had, peacefully, its October Revolution!”―the reference being made to the Russian Communist October Revolution of 1917. Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, said: “We have now absorbed into Church teaching, and the Church has opened herself up to, principles which are not hers, but which come from modern society.” In his book published in 1982, Principles of Catholic Theology, Cardinal Ratzinger stated that the basic intention of the Second Vatican Council was “an attempt to officially reconcile the Church with the world as it had become after 1789 [meaning the French Revolution].” In 1984, Cardinal Ratzinger declared that the Council was called in order to bring into the Church doctrines born outside of her, doctrines that come from the world. Therefore, according to Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), the Second Vatican Council sought to bring the Church’s teaching into harmony with the principles of modern and Liberal thought, born of 1789 French Revolution.
In the light of the above facts and quotes, it is incomprehensible and insane for anyone to laud and praise the Second Vatican Council. If they do, then they are either ignoramuses or insane! To the above testimonies you also add the nefarious fruits of the Second Vatican Council.
Both the faithful and the general public have no idea how bad things have become since the close of the Second Vatican Council in 1965. Here are some of the stark facts about the Catholic Church in the USA, taken from Kenneth Jones’s 2003 book, Index of Leading Catholic Indicators. The statistics are almost 20 years old―but things have become even worse since then:
● Priests―After skyrocketing from about 27,000 in 1930 to 58,000 in 1965, the number of priests in the United States dropped to 45,000 in 2002. By 2020,3 there will be about 31,000 priests―and only 15,000 will be under the age of 70. Right now there are more priests aged 80 to 84 than there 1 are aged 30 to 34.
● Ordinations―In 1965 there were 1,575 ordinations to the priesthood, in 2002 there were 450, a decline of 350 percent. Taking into account ordinations, deaths and departures, in 1965 there was a net gain of 725 priests. In 1998, there was a net loss of 810.
● Priestless parishes―About 1 percent of parishes, 549, were without a resident priest in 1965. In 2002 there were 2,928 priestless parishes, about 15 percent of U.S. parishes. By 2020, a quarter of all parishes, 4,656, will have no priest.
● Seminarians―Between 1965 and 2002, the number of seminarians dropped from 49,000 to 4,700―which is a 90 percent decrease. Without any students, seminaries across the country have been sold or shuttered. There were 596 seminaries in 1965, and only 200 in 2002.
● Religious Sisters―180,000 sisters were the backbone of the Catholic education and health systems in 1965. In 2002, there were 75,000 sisters, with an average age of 68. By 2020, the number of sisters will drop to 40,000―and of these, only 21,000 will be aged 70 or under. In 1965, 104,000 sisters were teaching, while in 2002 there were only 8,200 teachers.
● Religious Brothers―The number of professed brothers decreased from about 12,000 in 1965 to 5,700 in 2002, with a further drop to 3,100 projected for 2020.
● Religious Orders―The religious orders will soon be virtually non-existent in the United States. For example, in 1965 there were 5,277 Jesuit priests and 3,559 seminarians; in 2000 there were 3,172 priests and 38 seminarians. There were 2,534 OFM Franciscan priests and 2,251 seminarians in 1965; in 2000 there were 1,492 priests and 60 seminarians. There were 2,434 Christian Brothers in 1965 and 912 seminarians; in 2000 there were 959 Brothers and 7 seminarians. There were 1,148 Redemptorist priests in 1965 and 1,128 seminarians; in 2000 there were 349 priests and 24 seminarians. Every major religious order in the United States mirrors these statistics.
● Catholic High Schools―Between 1965 and 2002 the number of diocesan high schools fell from 1,566 to 786. At the same time the number of students dropped from almost 700,000 to 386,000.
● Catholic Parochial Grade Schools―There were 10,503 parochial grade schools in 1965 and 6,623 in 2002. The number of students went from 4.5 million to 1.9 million.
● Sacramental Life―In 1965 there were 1.3 million infant baptisms; in 2002 there were 1 million. (In the same period the number of Catholics in the United States rose from 45 million to 65 million). In 1965 there were 126,000 adult baptisms of converts, in 2002 there were 80,000. In 1965 there were 352,000 Catholic marriages, in 2002 there were 256,000. In 1965 there were 338 annulments, in 2002 there were 50,000.
● Mass attendance―A 1958 Gallup poll reported that 74 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1958. A 1994 University of Notre Dame study found that the attendance rate was 26.6 percent. A more recent study by Fordham University professor James Lothian concluded that 65 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1965, while the rate dropped to 25 percent in 2000.
The decline in Mass attendance highlights another significant fact; fewer and fewer people who call themselves Catholic actually follow Church rules or accept Church doctrine. For example, a 1999 poll by the National Catholic Reporter shows that 77 percent believe a person can be a good Catholic without going to Mass every Sunday, 65 percent believe good Catholics can divorce and remarry, and 53 percent believe Catholics can have abortions and remain in good standing. Only 10 percent of lay religion teachers accept Church teaching on artificial birth control, according to a 2000 University of Notre Dame poll. And a New York Times/CBS poll revealed that 70 percent of Catholics age 18-44 believe the Eucharist is merely a “symbolic reminder” of Jesus.
Once again, let is be said that it is incomprehensible and insane for anyone to laud and praise the Second Vatican Council. If they do, then they are either ignoramuses or insane! .
To help you get a better grasp of this “enemy” or “disease” that has infiltrated and decimated countless Catholic families, a special page will be dedicated to a serialization of the events that led up to the Council, those that happened during the Council, and those that flowed forth from the Council. This should inform the uninformed minds and refresh the sleepy amnesia ridden minds.
It is amazing to read the plethora of sadly misguided clerical comments about the Second Vatican Council. There seems to be a “corporate” and “collegial” clerical (clergy) approach to Vatican II which totally fails to see and acknowledge the utter catastrophe that the Second Vatican Council produced. It is a modern-day equivalent Hans Christian Andersen’s short tale, The Emperor's New Clothes, where the king is conned into seeing clothes where there were no clothes―and hence, after paying a fortune for the “invisible” clothes, ended up parading before his people in the nude―with everyone pretending that they could “see” the invisible suit of clothes, praising and cheering-on the nude king as he proudly walked along in his public procession to show off his new set of clothes.
There are various reactions to Vatican II or the Second Vatican Council. Some are exuberantly thrilled and delighted with the changes that the Council produced. Others are critical or even condemnatory of the fruits of the Council. While the majority know little or nothing about the Council and do not want to dispel that ignorance― “Let sleeping dogs lie” is their motto, or “See no evil, hear no evil, think no evil, speak no evil!” If you know nothing about it, then you will not have an opinion on it, and thus you will never talk about it.
Yet if anyone were to truly open their eyes and kick-start the rusty engine of their mind and its thinking processes, then they would, in all honesty, have to come to the sane and logical conclusion that the Second Vatican Council was, for the most part, was an unmitigated disaster. Yet there exists no small number of insane and illogical idealists, living and laboring under illusions and delusions that somehow make them imagine the Second Vatican Council to have been an unprecedented success―to the point that they have almost ‘canonized’ the Second Vatican Council (and its popes) in a vain attempt to somehow create the illusion of success, where in reality there was failure. Let us take a look at some of these crazy Conciliar ‘canonizations’ that creates a confusing, counterfeit, chimeric characterization of a Council, which, instead of being cheered, should be condemned.
Clothless Clueless Clergy
Hans Christian Andersen’s tale of The Emperor’s New Clothes―The King With No Clothes―The Invisible Suit of Clothes gives us some food for thought as regards the Second Vatican Council. Let us “re-live” his tale and draw some Vaticanist analogies from it.
Many years ago there was an Emperor so exceedingly fond of new clothes [a pope fond of change] that he spent all his money on being well dressed. He cared nothing about reviewing his soldiers, going to the theater, or going for a ride in his carriage, except to show off his new clothes. He had a coat for every hour of the day, and instead of saying, as one might, about any other ruler, “The King’s in council,” here they always said. “The Emperor’s in his dressing room.”
In the great city where he lived, life was always joyful and entertaining. Every day many strangers came to town, and among them one day came two swindlers [the Liberal and Modernist infiltrators in the Church]. They let it be known they were weavers [Catholic theologians―cardinals, bishops, priests], and they said they could weave the most magnificent fabrics imaginable [weave the most magnificent theological doctrine]. Not only were their colors and patterns uncommonly fine, but clothes made of this cloth had a wonderful way of becoming invisible to anyone who was unfit for his office, or who was unusually stupid [the terminology of this Modernist and Liberal doctrine is so confusing in its concepts and terminology that it is hard to see what they are talking about―but to avoid looking stupid, many people nod their approval and praise the absurdity].
“Those would be just the clothes for me,” thought the Emperor. “If I wore them I would be able to discover which men in my empire are unfit for their posts. And I could tell the wise men from the fools. Yes, I certainly must get some of the stuff woven for me right away.” He paid the two swindlers a large sum of money to start work at once. [At the start of Vatican II, the Modernists and Liberals persuaded the bishops of the Council to throw-out the already “traditionally woven clothes” (the so-called schemas or working documents that had been pre-prepared over a course of several years) and take charge themselves of “weaving” schemas in which they all could have a say―thus trying to microwave what really takes several years].
They set up two looms and pretended to weave, though there was nothing on the looms [the Council Fathers―the bishops―then produced new schemas that had very little in them compared to the ones they had thrown out]. All the finest silk and the purest old thread which they demanded went into their traveling bags, while they worked the empty looms far into the night [the Council talked “empty-talk” from their pews “far into the night”].
“I’d like to know how those weavers are getting on with the cloth,” the Emperor thought, but he felt slightly uncomfortable when he remembered that those who were unfit for their position would not be able to see the fabric. It couldn’t have been that he doubted himself, yet he thought he’d rather send someone else to see how things were going. The whole town knew about the cloth’s peculiar power, and all were impatient to find out how stupid their neighbors were. [the peculiar power of Modernism is that it talks a mighty talk, but it is all with “made-up” new, weird sounding and intellectually confusing words―which pretend to mean something, but what they mean is hard to see].
“I’ll send my honest old minister to the weavers,” the Emperor decided. “He’ll be the best one to tell me how the material looks, for he’s a sensible man and no one does his duty better.” So the honest old minister went to the room where the two swindlers sat working away at their empty looms.“Heaven help me!” he thought as his eyes flew wide open, “I can’t see anything at all!” But he did not say so. Both the swindlers begged him to be so kind as to come near to approve the excellent pattern, the beautiful colors. They pointed to the empty looms, and the poor old minister stared as hard as he dared. He couldn’t see anything, because there was nothing to see. “Heaven have mercy!” he thought. “Can it be that I’m a fool? I’d have never guessed it, and not a soul must know. Am I unfit to be the minister? It would never do to let on that I can’t see the cloth.”
“Don’t hesitate to tell us what you think of it,” said one of the weavers.
“Oh, it’s beautiful! It’s enchanting!” The old minister peered through his spectacles. “Such a pattern, what colors! I’ll be sure to tell the Emperor how delighted I am with it.”
“We’re pleased to hear that!” the swindlers said. They proceeded to name all the colors and to explain the intricate pattern. The old minister paid the closest attention, so that he could tell it all to the Emperor. And so he did.
[Some of the old honest Conservative bishops should have seen through the “smoke and mirrors” of the “new” doctrine being rolled-out from the weaving looms of the Liberals and Modernists, but for fear of “rocking the boat” of St. Peter, or some other reason, they kept their mouths shut and went along with the scam that was being hoisted upon the Church. Some bishops did react and protest, but were gradually silenced by various means].
The swindlers at once asked for more money, more silk and gold thread, to get on with the weaving. But it all went into their pockets. Not a thread went into the looms, though they worked at their weaving as hard as ever.
The Emperor presently sent another trustworthy official to see how the work progressed and how soon it would be ready. The same thing happened to him that had happened to the minister. He looked and he looked, but as there was nothing to see in the looms he couldn’t see anything. “Isn’t it a beautiful piece of cloth?” the swindlers asked him, as they displayed and described their imaginary pattern. “I know I’m not stupid,” the man thought, “so it must be that I’m unworthy of my good office. That’s strange. I mustn’t let anyone find it out, though.” So he praised the material which he could not see. He declared he was delighted with the beautiful colors and the exquisite pattern. To the Emperor he said, “It held me spellbound!” [Thus do the “useful idiots”―as Communists like to call their naïve stooges―praise Vatican II when its fruits are rotten or non-existent. They “go along to get along” so as to keep their “jobs” within the Church].
All the town was talking of this splendid cloth, and the Emperor wanted to see it for himself while it was still in the looms. Attended by a band of chosen men, among whom were his two old trusted officials―the ones who had been to the weavers―he set out to see the two swindlers. He found them weaving with might and main, but without a thread in their looms.
“Magnificent!” said the two officials already duped. “Just look, Your Majesty, what colors! What a design!” They pointed to the empty looms, each supposing that the others could see the stuff. “What’s this?” thought the Emperor. “I can’t see anything. This is terrible! Am I a fool? Am I unfit to be the Emperor? What a thing to happen to me of all people!” … “Oh! It’s very pretty!” he said. “It has my highest approval!” And he nodded approbation at the empty loom. Nothing could make him say that he couldn’t see anything. His whole retinue stared and stared. One saw no more than another, but they all joined the Emperor in exclaiming, “Oh! It’s very pretty!” and they advised him to wear clothes made of this wonderful cloth especially for the great procession he was soon to lead. “Magnificent! Excellent! Unsurpassed!” were words bandied from mouth to mouth, and everyone did his best to seem well pleased. The Emperor gave each of the swindlers a cross to wear in his buttonhole, and the title of “Sir Weaver.” [Thus the Pope goes along with Modernistic and Liberal theological ramblings that are being bandied around―not wishing to look a fool and not having either the mind (intellect) or the heart (will) to stand up to them and reject them. The Pope even promotes such Modernist and Liberal theologians―raising them to the ranks of “Sir Bishop” or “Sir Cardinal”].
Before the procession, the swindlers sat up all night and burned more than six candles, to show how busy they were finishing the Emperor’s new clothes. They pretended to take the cloth off the loom. They made cuts in the air with huge scissors. And at last they said, “Now the Emperor’s new clothes are ready for him!”
Then the Emperor himself came with his noblest noblemen, and the swindlers each raised an arm as if they were holding something. They said, “These are the trousers, here’s the coat, and this is the mantle,” naming each garment. [Here are the documents of the Council]. “All of them are as light as a spider web. One would almost think he had nothing on, but that’s what makes them so fine.”
“Exactly!” all the noblemen agreed, though they could see nothing, for there was nothing to see.
“If Your Imperial Majesty will condescend to take your clothes off,” said the swindlers, “we will help you on with your new ones here in front of the long mirror.” [If your Holiness will only take off your Traditional clothes (doctrines and customs), then we will give you new ones with which to clothe the Church].
The Emperor undressed, and the swindlers pretended to put his new clothes on him, one garment after another. They took him around the waist and seemed to be fastening something ―that was his train―as the Emperor turned round and round before the looking glass.
“How well Your Majesty’s new clothes look! Aren’t they becoming!” He heard on all sides, “That pattern, so perfect! Those colors, so suitable! It is a magnificent outfit.”
Then the minister of public processions announced: “Your Majesty’s canopy is waiting outside!”
“Well, I’m supposed to be ready,” the Emperor said, and turned again for one last look in the mirror. “It is a remarkable fit, isn’t it?” He seemed to regard his costume with the greatest interest.The noblemen who were to carry his train stooped low and reached for the floor as if they were picking up his mantle. Then they pretended to lift and hold it high. They didn’t dare admit they had nothing to hold.
So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid canopy. Everyone in the streets and the windows said, “Oh, how fine are the Emperor’s new clothes! Don’t they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!” Nobody would confess that he couldn’t see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success.
“But he hasn’t got anything on!” a little child said. [“This change of ‘clothing’ or change of teaching and customs has nothing on the traditional teaching and customs that it has changed or cast out” say the “little ones” or the laity].
“Did you ever hear such innocent prattle?” said the child’s father [“You don’t know what you are talking about!” say the priests to the complaining laity]. And one person whispered to another what the child had said, “He hasn’t anything on! A child says he hasn’t anything on!”
“But he HASN’T got anything on!” the whole town cried out at last.
The Emperor shivered, for he suspected they were right. But he thought, “This procession has got to go on!” [Vatican II has to go on!] So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn’t there at all.
Though the above is merely a moralistic tale, the Second Vatican Council is a live concrete presentation of the tale of the “The Emperor’s New Clothes” or “The King With No Clothes” or “The Invisible Suit of Clothes”―except you could rename the Vatican Tale as “The Pope’s New Church” or “The Church With No Faith and No Members” or “The Invisible Infiltration and Denudation of the Church”.
Council Closing Comments
As Pope Paul VI closed the Second Vatican Council on December 8th, 1965, he said in his optimistic address:
“Today we are concluding the Second Vatican Council. We bring it to a close at the fullness of its efficiency … This Council bequeaths to history an image of the Catholic Church … What then was the Council? What has it accomplished? … What is the religious value of this Council? … Still fresh in our memory are the words uttered in this basilica by our venerated predecessor, John XXIII, whom we may in truth call the originator of this great Synod. In his opening address to the Council he had this to say: “The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine be guarded and taught more effectively” … His great purpose has now been achieved. To appreciate it properly, it is necessary to remember the time in which it was realized: a time which everyone admits is orientated toward the conquest of the kingdom of Earth rather than of that of Heaven; a time in which forgetfulness of God has become habitual, and seems to be prompted by the progress of science; … a time, finally, which is characterized by upheavals and a hitherto unknown decline even in the great world religions. It was at such a time as this that our Council was held to the honor of God … it has been deeply committed to the study of the modern world. Never before perhaps, so much as on this occasion, has the Church felt the need to know, to draw near to, to understand, to penetrate, serve and evangelize the society in which she lives; and to get to grips with it, almost to run after it, in its rapid and continuous change. This attitude has been strongly and unceasingly at work in the Council; so much so that some have been inclined to suspect that an easy-going and excessive responsiveness to the outside world, to passing events, cultural fashions, temporary needs, an alien way of thinking ... may have swayed persons and acts of the Ecumenical Synod, at the expense of the fidelity which is due to Tradition, and this to the detriment of the religious orientation of the Council itself. We do not believe that this shortcoming should be imputed to it.
“Yes, the Church of the Council has been concerned … with man — man as he really is today: living man, man all wrapped up in himself, man who makes himself not only the center of his every interest but dares to claim that he is the principle and explanation of all reality. Every perceptible element in man, every one of the countless guises in which he appears, has, in a sense, been displayed in full view of the Council Fathers … man the sinner and man the saint, and so on ... The old story of the Samaritan has been the model of the spirituality of the Council. A feeling of boundless sympathy has permeated the whole of it. The attention of our Council has been absorbed by the discovery of human needs … And what aspect of humanity has this august senate studied? What goal under divine inspiration did it set for itself? It also dwelt upon humanity’s ever twofold facet, namely, man’s wretchedness and his greatness … But one must realize that this Council insisted very much more upon this pleasant side of man, rather than on his unpleasant one. Its attitude was very much and deliberately optimistic. A wave of affection and admiration flowed from the Council over the modem world of humanity. Errors were condemned, indeed, because charity demanded this no less than did truth, but for the persons themselves there was only warming, respect and love. Instead of depressing diagnoses, encouraging remedies; instead of direful prognostics, messages of trust issued from the Council to the present-day world. The modern world’s values were not only respected, but honored, its efforts approved, its aspirations purified and blessed.
“The teaching authority of the Church … descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force; it has spoken with the accommodating friendly voice of pastoral charity; its desire has been to be heard and understood by everyone; it has sought to express itself in simple, up-to-date, conversational style … it has spoken to modern man as he is … All this rich teaching is channeled in one direction, the service of mankind, of every condition, in every weakness and need. The Church has declared herself the servant of humanity … It might be said that all this and everything else we might say about the human values of the Council have diverted the attention of the Church in Council to the trend of modern culture, centered on humanity ... the Catholic religion is for mankind ... Would not this Council, then, which has concentrated principally on man, be destined to propose again to the world of today the ladder leading to freedom and consolation? Would it not be, in short, a simple, new and solemn teaching to love man in order to love God? To love man, we say, not as a means, but as the first step toward the final and transcendent goal which is the basis and cause of every love.”
Hopefully these few extracts from Pope Paul VI’s fatally optimistic closing address convey to you (1) the overwhelming focus on the world and the “man of the world” and the needs of the world, and also (2) shows you the seeds of thought that would have been planted in the mind of a young Jorge Bergoglio, the future Pope Francis, who would have passed from being 26 years old to almost 29 years old during the Council (1962-1965). You can see Francis “living-out” what Paul VI was saying back in 1965.
Craftily Calculated Canonizations
As the UK Catholic Herald stated in its January 11th, 2018, article “Liturgy and sexuality: the battle over Paul VI.” In speaking of the imminent canonization of Pope Paul VI by Pope Francis, the Herald states: “At first glance, this looks like a propaganda victory for those Liberals, who regard the beginning of the Second Vatican Council as the Church’s Year Zero – as if the 19 centuries that preceded it were little more than an irrelevant costume drama. They hope that canonizing Paul will be interpreted as canonizing the Council and, just as important, the canonizing the new liturgy that followed in its wake. This may indeed be Francis’s intention. He presents himself as a post-Vatican II pope ― not only the first to be ordained since the advent of the vernacular Mass in 1969, but also one who is determined to resist the “reform of the reform”, an attempt by mainstream conservatives to introduce elements of pre-Conciliar worship into parishes. Last August, he declared “with certainty and magisterial authority” that the liturgical changes promulgated by Vatican II were irreversible. In 2016 he was even more explicit. The changes to worship “must be carried forward as they are,” he said, insisting that “to speak of ‘the reform of the reform’ is an error!” What better way to drive home this point than to canonize the pope who promulgated the reforms of the 1960s? Yet, as Catholics who were around in the 1970s will remember, Paul himself was visibly unhappy with the liturgical and theological experiments favored by the more extreme enthusiasts for “the spirit of Vatican II”. These Liberals ― some of whom are still alive and claim to have the ear of Pope Francis ― may have been whom Paul VI had in mind when he said mysteriously in 1972 that “the smoke of Satan” had entered the Church. We can be sure that we will hear little about the smoke of Satan if Paul is raised to the altars. Instead, Progressive Catholics will portray the canonization as a corrective to revived Traditionalism in the Church; even a repudiation of Benedict XVI’s “hermeneutic of continuity”, about which Francis is less than enthusiastic. There will certainly be commentators who portray the canonization of Pope Paul VI as a papal slap in the face for Conservative Catholics ― and especially the young priests and seminarians who revere the Tridentine Mass” (Catholic Herald, UK, January 11th, 2018).
Cacophony of Council Congratulators
Since the Second Vatican Council ended, there has never been a shortage of voices in the Council’s cacophonic choir of congratulators. As in the above tale of “The Emperor’s New Clothes” or “The King With No Clothes”, the politically correct thing to do is to praise Vatican II. It is almost looked upon as being quasi-heretical to criticize Vatican II. Everyone has been brainwashed into thinking and accepting Vatican II as the “most beautiful set of clothes” (teachings and policies) that the world has ever seen! Cardinals, bishops, priest, religious and laity fall over one another in seeking to be at the front of the crowd singing the praises of Vatican II. Most of these people are self-deluded, semi-ignorant, self-inflating, useful idiots. They have no clue at all to the build-up to and back-drop of Vatican II. They are fed and happily swallow and digest “two-bit-phrases” and superficial slogans about Vatican II―yet they have never ever read any of the documents of Vatican II, nor have they read any worthwhile history concerning Vatican II. Their scant knowledge of Vatican II is more like an accumulation of headlines, chapter headings and slogans―without any in-depth, analytical and reasoned insight into what really happened. For most folk, it is easier and less disruptive and abrasive to follow the crowd and cry out with the crowd: “O what a beautiful set of ‘clothes’ Vatican II produced!”
There was much written about the Council in 2012, at the time of the 50th anniversary of the Council’s opening on October 11th, 1962. You would think that 50 years of increasing crisis, apostasy, fallen-away Catholics, worldliness and immorality would be time enough to convince the Vatican II cheerleaders that their euphoria about the Council sounds somewhat hollow―but for some, 50 years seems not to be enough!
Vatican Virus
Vatican II could be classified as a disease that has gone viral. To combat a disease you must first understand the disease and how it works, what circumstances are favorable to it, what helps it spread, what can slow it down, combat it and overcome it. The more precise the knowledge of a disease is, then the more chance there is in overcoming it. You will not fully understand the current Church Crisis unless you have a good grasp of the events of leading up to and the events that occurred during the Second Vatican Council. Knowledge on these points is pitifully and painfully low and meager. Most people could not even give you the dates of the Council―never mind what happened during it! If you want to win a war, then, as all the great military strategists of the past have all said, you must “Know your enemy!”
The Second Vatican Council was no friend, but an enemy―at least in its outcome if not entirely so in its conception. St. John Bosco had a prophetic vision concerning the Second Vatican Council. In 1862, exactly 100 years before the disastrous Second Vatican Council started, St. John Bosco predicted the Second Vatican Council and its disastrous impact on the Church. The relevant portion of his prophetic vision is: “There will be an Ecumenical Council in the next century, after which there will be chaos in the Church. Tranquility will not return until the Pope succeeds in anchoring the boat of Peter between the twin pillars of Eucharistic Devotion and Devotion to Our Lady.”
Bishop Rudolph Graber, in his book, Athanasius and the Church of Our Time (1974), quoted a prominent Freemason who declared that “the goal (of Freemasonry) is no longer the destruction of the Church, but to make use of it by infiltrating it.” (Bishop Graber, Athanasius and the Church of Our Time, p. 39).
Alice von Hildebrand reports the following incident in an interview with Latin Mass Magazine (Summer 2001). In this interview, she mentions the Italian priest Fr. Luigi Villa (diocese of Brescia), who, at the request of Padre Pio, devoted many years of his life to the investigation of the infiltration of both Freemasons and Communists into the Church:
“Another of Fr. Villa’s illustrations of infiltration is one related to him by Cardinal Gagnon. Paul VI had asked Gagnon to head an investigation concerning the infiltration of the Church by powerful enemies. Cardinal Gagnon (at that time an Archbishop) accepted this unpleasant task, and compiled a long dossier, rich in worrisome facts. When the work was completed, he requested an audience with Pope Paul in order to deliver personally the manuscript to the Pontiff. This request for a meeting was denied. The Pope sent word that the document should be placed in the offices of the Congregation for the Clergy, specifically in a safe with a double lock. This was done, but the very next day the safe deposit box was broken and the manuscript mysteriously disappeared. The usual policy of the Vatican is to make sure that news of such incidents never sees the light of day. Nevertheless, this theft was reported even in L’Osservatore Romano (perhaps under pressure, because it had been reported in the secular press). Cardinal Gagnon, of course, had a copy, and once again asked the Pope for a private audience. Once again his request was denied. He then decided to leave Rome and return to his homeland in Canada” (Latin Mass Magazine, Summer 2001)
Furthermore, it is a commonly held opinion by Fatima experts that part of the Third Secret of Fatima has something to do with the Council―for Sr. Lucia placed great stress upon the year 1960 as being the time of some foreboding event. Cardinal Oddi has perhaps the best quote tying the Third Secret to the Vatican II revolution:
“What happened in 1960 that might have been seen in connection with the Secret of Fatima? The most important event is without a doubt the launching of the preparatory phase of the Second Vatican Council. Therefore I would not be surprised if the Secret had something to do with the convocation of Vatican II... I would not be surprised if the Third Secret alluded to dark times for the Church; grave confusions and troubling apostasies within Catholicism itself ... If we consider the grave crisis we have lived through since the Council, the signs that this prophecy has been fulfilled do not seem to be lacking ...” (March 17th, 1990 interview published in Il Sabato magazine in Rome).
Hence we cannot look upon the Second Vatican Council as a relatively insignificant event, nor can we look upon it as being a benign event.
The Spirit of Vatican II Was Not the Spirit of God
Several popes had toyed with the idea of holding an Ecumenical Council in the 20th century, but they were dissuaded from doing so because of the large numbers of Liberals and Modernists in the Church and the firm grip that they could potentially gain over the Church. Pope John XXIII threw caution to the wind (and there are many theories as to why) and declared, in 1959, that the Church would prepare for its 21st Ecumenical Council―you could almost say, being the 21st, it was a “coming of age” as with a 21-year-old, which is often akin to their leaving home and going out into the world―which is what Vatican II ended up doing by leaving the traditional home of the Church and going out to seek the world! Since Vatican II, increasing numbers of Catholics have left the home of the Faith in preference for the world!
On his deathbed, Pope John reportedly cried out: “Stop the Council! Stop the Council!” The fact that Pope John XXIII wanted to close the Council after its first session was affirmed by Cardinal Heenan of England and by Catholic philosopher Jean Guitton the only lay peritus (expert) at Vatican II. The word “revolution” has been used numerous times to describe Vatican II. During the debate on the Liturgy Constitution at the Second Vatican Council, Cardinal Ottaviani asked: “Are these Fathers planning a revolution?” Before the end of Vatican II, in February 1965, someone announced to Padre Pio that soon he would have to celebrate the Mass according to a new rite, in the vernacular, which was being devised by a Conciliar liturgical commission. Immediately, even before seeing the text, he wrote to Paul VI to ask him to be dispensed from the liturgical experiment, and to be able to continue to celebrate the Mass of St. Pius V. When Cardinal Bacci came to see him, in order to bring the authorization, Padre Pio told the Pope’s messenger: “For pity’s sake! End the Council quickly!”
At the end of the Council, some of the Liberals and Modernists publicly stated to the press and media that they were surprised and shocked at the gains they had achieved during the Council―it was a result beyond their wildest dreams and hopes! The Liberal Cardinal Suenens stated: “Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church!” The Liberal and Modernist, Fr. Yves Congar, one of the artisans of the reforms, spoke likewise: “The Church has had, peacefully, its October Revolution!”―the reference being made to the Russian Communist October Revolution of 1917. Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, said: “We have now absorbed into Church teaching, and the Church has opened herself up to, principles which are not hers, but which come from modern society.” In his book published in 1982, Principles of Catholic Theology, Cardinal Ratzinger stated that the basic intention of the Second Vatican Council was “an attempt to officially reconcile the Church with the world as it had become after 1789 [meaning the French Revolution].” In 1984, Cardinal Ratzinger declared that the Council was called in order to bring into the Church doctrines born outside of her, doctrines that come from the world. Therefore, according to Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), the Second Vatican Council sought to bring the Church’s teaching into harmony with the principles of modern and Liberal thought, born of 1789 French Revolution.
Several popes had toyed with the idea of holding an Ecumenical Council in the 20th century, but they were dissuaded from doing so because of the large numbers of Liberals and Modernists in the Church and the firm grip that they could potentially gain over the Church. Pope John XXIII threw caution to the wind (and there are many theories as to why) and declared, in 1959, that the Church would prepare for its 21st Ecumenical Council―you could almost say, being the 21st, it was a “coming of age” as with a 21-year-old, which is often akin to their leaving home and going out into the world―which is what Vatican II ended up doing by leaving the traditional home of the Church and going out to seek the world! Since Vatican II, increasing numbers of Catholics have left the home of the Faith in preference for the world!
On his deathbed, Pope John reportedly cried out: “Stop the Council! Stop the Council!” The fact that Pope John XXIII wanted to close the Council after its first session was affirmed by Cardinal Heenan of England and by Catholic philosopher Jean Guitton the only lay peritus (expert) at Vatican II. The word “revolution” has been used numerous times to describe Vatican II. During the debate on the Liturgy Constitution at the Second Vatican Council, Cardinal Ottaviani asked: “Are these Fathers planning a revolution?” Before the end of Vatican II, in February 1965, someone announced to Padre Pio that soon he would have to celebrate the Mass according to a new rite, in the vernacular, which was being devised by a Conciliar liturgical commission. Immediately, even before seeing the text, he wrote to Paul VI to ask him to be dispensed from the liturgical experiment, and to be able to continue to celebrate the Mass of St. Pius V. When Cardinal Bacci came to see him, in order to bring the authorization, Padre Pio told the Pope’s messenger: “For pity’s sake! End the Council quickly!”
At the end of the Council, some of the Liberals and Modernists publicly stated to the press and media that they were surprised and shocked at the gains they had achieved during the Council―it was a result beyond their wildest dreams and hopes! The Liberal Cardinal Suenens stated: “Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church!” The Liberal and Modernist, Fr. Yves Congar, one of the artisans of the reforms, spoke likewise: “The Church has had, peacefully, its October Revolution!”―the reference being made to the Russian Communist October Revolution of 1917. Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, said: “We have now absorbed into Church teaching, and the Church has opened herself up to, principles which are not hers, but which come from modern society.” In his book published in 1982, Principles of Catholic Theology, Cardinal Ratzinger stated that the basic intention of the Second Vatican Council was “an attempt to officially reconcile the Church with the world as it had become after 1789 [meaning the French Revolution].” In 1984, Cardinal Ratzinger declared that the Council was called in order to bring into the Church doctrines born outside of her, doctrines that come from the world. Therefore, according to Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), the Second Vatican Council sought to bring the Church’s teaching into harmony with the principles of modern and Liberal thought, born of 1789 French Revolution.
Several popes had toyed with the idea of holding an Ecumenical Council in the 20th century, but they were dissuaded from doing so because of the large numbers of Liberals and Modernists in the Church and the firm grip that they could potentially gain over the Church. Pope John XXIII threw caution to the wind (and there are many theories as to why) and declared, in 1959, that the Church would prepare for its 21st Ecumenical Council―you could almost say, being the 21st, it was a “coming of age” as with a 21-year-old, which is often akin to their leaving home and going out into the world―which is what Vatican II ended up doing by leaving the traditional home of the Church and going out to seek the world! Since Vatican II, increasing numbers of Catholics have left the home of the Faith in preference for the world!
On his deathbed, Pope John reportedly cried out: “Stop the Council! Stop the Council!” The fact that Pope John XXIII wanted to close the Council after its first session was affirmed by Cardinal Heenan of England and by Catholic philosopher Jean Guitton the only lay peritus (expert) at Vatican II. The word “revolution” has been used numerous times to describe Vatican II. During the debate on the Liturgy Constitution at the Second Vatican Council, Cardinal Ottaviani asked: “Are these Fathers planning a revolution?” Before the end of Vatican II, in February 1965, someone announced to Padre Pio that soon he would have to celebrate the Mass according to a new rite, in the vernacular, which was being devised by a Conciliar liturgical commission. Immediately, even before seeing the text, he wrote to Paul VI to ask him to be dispensed from the liturgical experiment, and to be able to continue to celebrate the Mass of St. Pius V. When Cardinal Bacci came to see him, in order to bring the authorization, Padre Pio told the Pope’s messenger: “For pity’s sake! End the Council quickly!”
At the end of the Council, some of the Liberals and Modernists publicly stated to the press and media that they were surprised and shocked at the gains they had achieved during the Council―it was a result beyond their wildest dreams and hopes! The Liberal Cardinal Suenens stated: “Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church!” The Liberal and Modernist, Fr. Yves Congar, one of the artisans of the reforms, spoke likewise: “The Church has had, peacefully, its October Revolution!”―the reference being made to the Russian Communist October Revolution of 1917. Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, said: “We have now absorbed into Church teaching, and the Church has opened herself up to, principles which are not hers, but which come from modern society.” In his book published in 1982, Principles of Catholic Theology, Cardinal Ratzinger stated that the basic intention of the Second Vatican Council was “an attempt to officially reconcile the Church with the world as it had become after 1789 [meaning the French Revolution].” In 1984, Cardinal Ratzinger declared that the Council was called in order to bring into the Church doctrines born outside of her, doctrines that come from the world. Therefore, according to Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), the Second Vatican Council sought to bring the Church’s teaching into harmony with the principles of modern and Liberal thought, born of 1789 French Revolution.
In the light of the above facts and quotes, it is incomprehensible and insane for anyone to laud and praise the Second Vatican Council. If they do, then they are either ignoramuses or insane! To the above testimonies you also add the nefarious fruits of the Second Vatican Council.
Both the faithful and the general public have no idea how bad things have become since the close of the Second Vatican Council in 1965. Here are some of the stark facts about the Catholic Church in the USA, taken from Kenneth Jones’s 2003 book, Index of Leading Catholic Indicators. The statistics are almost 20 years old―but things have become even worse since then:
● Priests―After skyrocketing from about 27,000 in 1930 to 58,000 in 1965, the number of priests in the United States dropped to 45,000 in 2002. By 2020,3 there will be about 31,000 priests―and only 15,000 will be under the age of 70. Right now there are more priests aged 80 to 84 than there 1 are aged 30 to 34.
● Ordinations―In 1965 there were 1,575 ordinations to the priesthood, in 2002 there were 450, a decline of 350 percent. Taking into account ordinations, deaths and departures, in 1965 there was a net gain of 725 priests. In 1998, there was a net loss of 810.
● Priestless parishes―About 1 percent of parishes, 549, were without a resident priest in 1965. In 2002 there were 2,928 priestless parishes, about 15 percent of U.S. parishes. By 2020, a quarter of all parishes, 4,656, will have no priest.
● Seminarians―Between 1965 and 2002, the number of seminarians dropped from 49,000 to 4,700―which is a 90 percent decrease. Without any students, seminaries across the country have been sold or shuttered. There were 596 seminaries in 1965, and only 200 in 2002.
● Religious Sisters―180,000 sisters were the backbone of the Catholic education and health systems in 1965. In 2002, there were 75,000 sisters, with an average age of 68. By 2020, the number of sisters will drop to 40,000―and of these, only 21,000 will be aged 70 or under. In 1965, 104,000 sisters were teaching, while in 2002 there were only 8,200 teachers.
● Religious Brothers―The number of professed brothers decreased from about 12,000 in 1965 to 5,700 in 2002, with a further drop to 3,100 projected for 2020.
● Religious Orders―The religious orders will soon be virtually non-existent in the United States. For example, in 1965 there were 5,277 Jesuit priests and 3,559 seminarians; in 2000 there were 3,172 priests and 38 seminarians. There were 2,534 OFM Franciscan priests and 2,251 seminarians in 1965; in 2000 there were 1,492 priests and 60 seminarians. There were 2,434 Christian Brothers in 1965 and 912 seminarians; in 2000 there were 959 Brothers and 7 seminarians. There were 1,148 Redemptorist priests in 1965 and 1,128 seminarians; in 2000 there were 349 priests and 24 seminarians. Every major religious order in the United States mirrors these statistics.
● Catholic High Schools―Between 1965 and 2002 the number of diocesan high schools fell from 1,566 to 786. At the same time the number of students dropped from almost 700,000 to 386,000.
● Catholic Parochial Grade Schools―There were 10,503 parochial grade schools in 1965 and 6,623 in 2002. The number of students went from 4.5 million to 1.9 million.
● Sacramental Life―In 1965 there were 1.3 million infant baptisms; in 2002 there were 1 million. (In the same period the number of Catholics in the United States rose from 45 million to 65 million). In 1965 there were 126,000 adult baptisms of converts, in 2002 there were 80,000. In 1965 there were 352,000 Catholic marriages, in 2002 there were 256,000. In 1965 there were 338 annulments, in 2002 there were 50,000.
● Mass attendance―A 1958 Gallup poll reported that 74 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1958. A 1994 University of Notre Dame study found that the attendance rate was 26.6 percent. A more recent study by Fordham University professor James Lothian concluded that 65 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1965, while the rate dropped to 25 percent in 2000.
The decline in Mass attendance highlights another significant fact; fewer and fewer people who call themselves Catholic actually follow Church rules or accept Church doctrine. For example, a 1999 poll by the National Catholic Reporter shows that 77 percent believe a person can be a good Catholic without going to Mass every Sunday, 65 percent believe good Catholics can divorce and remarry, and 53 percent believe Catholics can have abortions and remain in good standing. Only 10 percent of lay religion teachers accept Church teaching on artificial birth control, according to a 2000 University of Notre Dame poll. And a New York Times/CBS poll revealed that 70 percent of Catholics age 18-44 believe the Eucharist is merely a “symbolic reminder” of Jesus.
Once again, let is be said that it is incomprehensible and insane for anyone to laud and praise the Second Vatican Council. If they do, then they are either ignoramuses or insane! .
To help you get a better grasp of this “enemy” or “disease” that has infiltrated and decimated countless Catholic families, a special page will be dedicated to a serialization of the events that led up to the Council, those that happened during the Council, and those that flowed forth from the Council. This should inform the uninformed minds and refresh the sleepy amnesia ridden minds.
Article 1
Crafty, Confusing, Cunning, Compromising, Contaminated, Corrosive Comments Coming from Pope Francis & Co.
Crafty, Confusing, Cunning, Compromising, Contaminated, Corrosive Comments Coming from Pope Francis & Co.
Doctrinally rigid, ideological, morally ascetic and sick, critical, stone-throwing, disloyal backstabbers! Such are the adjectives that Pope Francis uses against his Conservative critics. Is the pope over-reacting, or is the pope correct in his assessment? That is what this opening article will tackle.
First of all, let us glean the quotes of Pope Francis from the various media outlets who initially reported Francis’ dissatisfaction with his Conservative critics.
Here's the Deal―or the State of the Question
On Wednesday, September 4th, 2019, during his flight out to Africa, a French journalist presented Pope Francis with a book about the pope’s Conservative critics in the U.S. Francis acknowledged his American right-wing opponents and, as he passed on the book to an aide, he jokingly commented: “It’s a bomb!” Nicolas Seneze’s book, How America Wants to Change the Pope, lays out the ever increasing criticism of Pope Francis by some Conservative U.S. Catholics who question many of his positions ― especially his outreach to gay and divorced people and his concern for the poor and the environment. Those critics often complain that Francis is watering down Church orthodoxy, retreating in the culture wars and sowing confusion in the Church. They take issue with Francis’ championing of migrants, his absolute opposition to the death penalty and his willingness to offer the sacraments to divorced and remarried Catholics. Some―even cardinals and bishops―have gone so far as to accuse Pope Francis of heresy and warned of the risk a schism arising in the Church.
On Tuesday, September 10th, 2019―on a flight back to Rome from Africa, Pope Francis ‘let fly’ at his Conservative critics, particularly but not solely, at those in the U.S. Catholic Church. He sees them as “rigid” ideological opponents, who use their public criticism of the pope to mask their own moral failings. He is of the opinion that these Conservatives have already infiltrated the American Catholic Church and are preparing for a schism. The pope insisted: “For me, it’s an honor if the Americans attack me … I’m not afraid of schisms … I pray that there aren’t any because the spiritual health of so many people is at stake! … Let there be dialogue, correction if there is some error. But the path of the schismatic is not Christian!” Francis stated that he prays a schism in the U.S. Catholic Church doesn’t happen, but he warned that “When doctrine slips into ideology, there’s the possibility of schism!” Francis said all schismatics share a common trait: They allow ideology to become “detached” from Catholic doctrine and distance themselves from the Faith of ordinary Catholics.
Pope Francis said he had no problem with “loyal” and “constructive” criticism, which leads to introspection and dialogue―for that shows a love for the Church. Yet Francis refused to reply to the so-called “dubia Cardinals” who, in November of 2016, asked for an explanation for some exceedingly worrisome and potentially doctrinally dangerous quotes that Francis had inserted into his March 2016 Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia―but Francis never answered them, while they waited, waited and waited and publicly stated that they were still waiting and are still waiting to this day―over 3 years later. Francis objects to those ideologically driven critics who do not really want a response to their criticisms, but merely “throw stones and then hide their hand.” But are those stones legitimately cast or unfairly cast? What are the true colors of Pope Francis? Is he a pope in white or a pope in red? Many have asked the question and the debate has raged for a long time.
Francis the Marxist? Francis the Communist? Francis the Socialist?
Pope Francis ― or Jorge Bergoglio as he was then called ― came of age under the regime of the nationalist Argentine leader, Juan Peron. Austen Ivereigh, who has written a biography of Pope Francis, and himself studied theology in Argentina, says Peronism has dominated Argentine politics ever since but is difficult to define in conventional political terms. “It is really neither left wing nor right wing,” says Austen Ivereigh, “but it comes out of a kind of nationalist revival in Argentina in the 1930s and 1940s and was very closely identified with the working class, above all, and particularly the trade unions.” Ivereigh believes the young Bergoglio was profoundly influenced by Peronist ideas. He came of age while Juan Perón dominated Argentine politics, and later, after the military coup in 1976, had to try to protect his people while the generals who had taken control of the government conducted their guerra sucia or “dirty war,” sending death squads to silence political dissidents. Bergoglio learned to speak ambivalently in public. Like Perón, he boldly tells different groups what they want to hear, even if he often contradicts himself. In an interview with La Civiltà Cattolica in August of 2013, shortly after his election to the papacy, Francis would admit: “Yes, perhaps I can say that I am a bit astute, in that I can adapt to circumstances … The Jesuit must be a person whose thought is incomplete, in the sense of open-ended thinking. There have been periods in the Society in which Jesuits have lived in an environment of closed and rigid thought … My authoritarian and quick manner of making decisions led me to be accused of being ultra-Conservative … but I have never been a right-winger.”
In another major interview, Pope Francis said that Liberation Theologians have a “high concept of humanity.” What, in a nutshell, is Liberation Theology? Simply put, it is a theology that sees things from a Marxist perspective. Leonardo Boff, one of the Liberation Theology founders, now an ex-priest who ‘married’ (is living with) a Marxist activist, explains: “What we propose is Marxism, historic materialism, in theology.” Another short explanation of Liberation Theology comes from another co-founder, the Peruvian Fr. Gustavo Gutiérrez, who says: “Our understanding of Liberation Theology is the participation in the political process of revolution … It is only in rising above a society, divided into classes (…) and in suppressing private ownership of the riches created by human labor, that we will be in a condition to lay the foundations for a more just society. This is why efforts to program a more just society in Latin America orient themselves more and more towards Socialism.” In a 2007 interview with the news agency Apic, Leonardo Boff stated that Liberation Theology was the reason behind the evolution of South American governments drifting to the political left (Socialism): “We are living in a left-center democratic process in almost all the countries on the continent. This is partly due to significant participation from the Liberation Church, which is victorious today. Liberation theology helped to consolidate this advance … The triumph of this theology is very clear today, both in the political sphere and in ecclesiastical domains.”
A few months after he became pope on March 13th, 2013, Francis welcomed the founding father of Liberation Theology, the Peruvian priest Gustavo Gutiérrez, to the Vatican as an honored guest. Gutiérrez had disappeared from high ecclesiastical circles under Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, after making a Marxist appeal for “effective participation in the struggle which the exploited classes have undertaken against their oppressors.” But after the elevation of Francis, Gutiérrez suddenly found himself basking in praise. Vatican officials pronounced him an impeccable thinker, responsible for one of “the most important currents in 20th century Catholic theology.” The Vatican’s newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, asserted that the election of Pope Francis would bring Liberation Theology out of the “shadows to which it has been relegated for some years, at least in Europe.”
The BBC, in a June 7th, 2015 article, reported that “The two Popes [John Paul II and Francis] had a very different understanding of Liberation Theology―the controversial movement based on the conviction that the Gospels enjoin the Church to put the poor first―which preoccupied and divided Latin America's Catholics for much of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. John Paul II believed it had tempted some priests and bishops into quasi-Marxist and even violent ideology, and, as Pope, he cracked-down on some Liberation Theologians. Jorge Bergoglio rejected Marxism ― although he cheerfully accepts that he has many Marxist friends ― but accepted many of Liberation Theology's principles, espousing what his biographer, Austen Ivereigh, calls ‘a nationalist version’ of the movement, or a so-called ‘Theology of the People’” ― [which you could say was Liberation Theology superimposed on Peronist ideas] ― Francis' interpretation of Catholic social teaching certainly sounds more radical than that of his predecessors. In Argentina he insisted that his priests should see the world through the eyes of the poor, by living among them, and he brought that approach with him to Rome. Francis argues that inequality creates ‘a state of social sin that cries to Heaven.’ Pope Francis has also said that unemployment is ‘the result of a worldwide choice, of an economic system that led to this tragedy, an economic system that has at its centre a false God, a false God called money.’ Evangelii Gaudium ― the document which got Rush Limbaugh so worked up ― he dismissed Pope Francis' apostolic exhortation ‘Evangelii Gaudium’ (The Joy of the Gospels) as ‘pure Marxism.’ Francis will soon publish an encyclical (Laudato Si) expected to deal with climate change, and a priest, who has been briefed on the contents, told us: ‘If some people think that he's a Marxist (now), wait and see what he says on the environment!’” (BBC News, June 7th, 2015).
Hmm! What about that encyclical, Laudato Si? Life Site News reports that Pope Francis sought the help of one of the Liberation Theology founders, the ex-priest, Fr. Leonardo Boff, now ‘married’ and living with a Marxist activist: Pope Francis, when visiting Brazil in July of 2013, was trying to meet with Leonardo Boff in person. In a German interview, Boff confirms this fact: ‘Yes, but only after he had concluded the reform of the Curia. In Rio, the Pope explicitly asked to receive a book from me. It was just published and is called « Francis of Assisi and Francis of Rome: A New Church Spring? » The Archbishop of Rio has given it to him.’ Thus, Bergoglio reached out to Boff, not long after his election. Not long after that, the Pope asked Boff to help him write his encyclical Laudato Si (published in 2015). Boff in speaking about his work with Pope Francis, said: ‘I had the opportunity to meet leading scientists while actively participating in drafting a text that significantly inspired Pope Francis’s recent encyclical, Laudato Si.’ Boff also says that Francis read some of his books: ‘More than that [reading Boff's books]. He asked me for material for the sake of Laudato Si. I have given him my counsel and sent to him some of what I have written. Which he has also used. Some people told me they were thinking while reading: “Wait, that is Boff!”’ … Boff, in a 2013 interview with El Pais, insists that Jorge Bergoglio himself is a Liberation Theologian: ‘Francis is a Liberation Theologian … who somehow sustained some attitudes of Peronism.’” In another interview, Boff added: “He [Pope Francis] has sought a reconciliation with the most important representatives of the Liberation Theology: with Gustavo Gutierrez, Jon Sobrino, and likewise with me.”
In a 2001 interview with the Internet site Communità Italiana, Boff hammered Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger ― later to become Pope Benedict XVI, but then still the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Pope John Paul II ― as being a religious terrorist: “What I can say is that the dominant tendency in the Vatican, under this pontificate [of John Paul II], is highly fundamentalist. A Cardinal like Joseph Ratzinger, who publishes an official [Vatican] document, in which he says that the only true Church is the Catholic Church and that the rest are not even churches, that the only legitimate religion is the Catholic religion and that the others have no Faith (they are only convictions and beliefs) ― he commits religious terrorism and is in grave theological error, as well.” This is the Boff whom Pope Francis rates and esteems highly!
In his role as doctrinal guardian of the Church, Cardinal Ratzinger―who would later become Pope Benedict XVI―repeatedly warned the faithful to reject Liberation Theology―a Marxist-inspired ideology, disguised as concern for the poor, that the Soviet Union’s KGB spies had helped smuggle into Latin America’s Catholic Church in the 1950s.“The [Liberation Theology] movement was born in the KGB, and it had a KGB-invented name: Liberation Theology,” according to Ion Mihai Pacepa, who served as a spymaster for Romania’s secret police in the 1950s and 1960s. The Soviets had long eyed the Catholic Church for infiltration. In the 1950s, Dr. Bella Dodd, the former head of the Soviet-controlled Communist Party of America, testified before the U.S. Congress that Communists occupied some of the highest places in the Catholic Church. “We put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within,” she said, “The idea was for these men to be ordained, and then climb the ladder of influence and authority as monsignors and bishops.” As an active party member, Dodd said that she knew of “four cardinals within the Vatican who were working for us.”
Francis the Fire-Man
Our Lord came to cast fire on Earth―Pope Francis seems to have come to “fire men” on Earth―especially if they are “rigid” “inflexible” “authoritarian” and “hypocritical” Conservatives or Traditionalists. Before launching his “Year of Mercy” (December 8th, 2015, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, to November 20th, 2016, the Feast of Christ the King), Francis had removed (or ‘decapitated’) the leaders of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, seemingly for their traditionalist sympathies. During his “Year of Mercy” Francis showed no mercy as he got rid of “rigid” Conservative cardinals and bishops who questioned his plans to allow divorced-and-remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion. As the year finished, the papal axe fell on the Grand Master of the Knights of Malta, Fra’ Matthew Festing, who during an internal row over the alleged distribution of condoms by its charitable arm, had robustly asserted the crusader order’s 800-year sovereignty. Francis seized control of the knights. They are sovereign no longer. The Conservative Cardinal Raymond Burke was demoted, as were several others.
Antonio Socci, a leading Conservative journalist and Vatican-watcher, has stated that cardinals once loyal to Francis are so concerned about a schism that they are planning to appeal to him to step down. He predicts that the rebellion will be led by about a dozen moderate cardinals who work in the curia―unless, of course, they find themselves demoted and “out of work”! It is no secret in Rome that certain cardinals who voted for Francis are now worried that he is leading the Church towards schism, and that he must therefore be stopped. There are many more than a dozen of them and, though they may not yet be ready to act upon their concerns, they would like this pontificate to end sooner rather than later.
In 2018-2019, all but five of the 39 Little Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Redeemer―a Conservative French religious order―have been relieved of their vows by the Vatican, after refusing to submit to a group of Vatican-appointed commissioners, led by a habitless Liberal nun, who wanted to impose “modern orientations” on the Little Sisters of Mary, in the sisters’ words. The 34 nuns, who dressed in traditional habits and cared for the disabled and elderly in four different nursing homes, were asked to relinquish their facilities and their religious dress, now that they are no longer considered members of their Institute.
Francis, Fans & Fixers Fan the Fire’s Flames
Francis’ comments have inflamed an ongoing and heated debate that is broiling in the Catholic Church in the United States and elsewhere. The pope’s Liberal “mercy-over-morals” approach and emphasis, has flabbergasted and fired-up doctrinally-minded Catholics who see Francis as someone who is compromising the Faith. They are increasingly hurling “fiery darts” at Francis and Francis is reciprocally hurling “fiery darts” back at them. As Holy Scripture counsels: “In all things taking the shield of Faith, wherewith you may be able to extinguish all the fiery darts of the most wicked one!” (Ephesians 6:16)―but who is “the most wicked one”? Francis or the Conservative critics? Well, as the saying goes: “Tell me who your friends are and I will tell you what you are!” Who are the friends and fans of Francis?
The Supporters of Francis
The list of Francis’ fans and friends makes interesting reading. For a start, you have the amazing number of Jews, Freemasons and Communists who “waxed lyrical” with praise for Francis upon hearing of his election to the papacy―you can read their praise of him on another page (click here). You can learn a lot about a person by looking at who they surround themselves with―or, as they say: “Tell me who your friends are, and I will tell you who you are.” Who is it that surrounds Pope Francis―especially among those whom he personally picked to be part of his team or entourage? It doesn’t take a “rocket scientist” to notice that Pope Francis has very few―if any―true Conservatives in his inner-circle. In fact, if any heads have fallen on the “chopping-block”, then it has usually been the Conservative head rather than the Liberal, Modernist or Marxist head. Who is it that seems to like or even love Pope Francis more? Is it the Traditional and Conservative Catholics, or is it the Liberals, Modernist and Marxists? Who does Pope Francis condemn most often―is it the Liberals, Modernist and Marxists, or is it the Traditional and Conservative Catholics?
First of all, let us glean the quotes of Pope Francis from the various media outlets who initially reported Francis’ dissatisfaction with his Conservative critics.
Here's the Deal―or the State of the Question
On Wednesday, September 4th, 2019, during his flight out to Africa, a French journalist presented Pope Francis with a book about the pope’s Conservative critics in the U.S. Francis acknowledged his American right-wing opponents and, as he passed on the book to an aide, he jokingly commented: “It’s a bomb!” Nicolas Seneze’s book, How America Wants to Change the Pope, lays out the ever increasing criticism of Pope Francis by some Conservative U.S. Catholics who question many of his positions ― especially his outreach to gay and divorced people and his concern for the poor and the environment. Those critics often complain that Francis is watering down Church orthodoxy, retreating in the culture wars and sowing confusion in the Church. They take issue with Francis’ championing of migrants, his absolute opposition to the death penalty and his willingness to offer the sacraments to divorced and remarried Catholics. Some―even cardinals and bishops―have gone so far as to accuse Pope Francis of heresy and warned of the risk a schism arising in the Church.
On Tuesday, September 10th, 2019―on a flight back to Rome from Africa, Pope Francis ‘let fly’ at his Conservative critics, particularly but not solely, at those in the U.S. Catholic Church. He sees them as “rigid” ideological opponents, who use their public criticism of the pope to mask their own moral failings. He is of the opinion that these Conservatives have already infiltrated the American Catholic Church and are preparing for a schism. The pope insisted: “For me, it’s an honor if the Americans attack me … I’m not afraid of schisms … I pray that there aren’t any because the spiritual health of so many people is at stake! … Let there be dialogue, correction if there is some error. But the path of the schismatic is not Christian!” Francis stated that he prays a schism in the U.S. Catholic Church doesn’t happen, but he warned that “When doctrine slips into ideology, there’s the possibility of schism!” Francis said all schismatics share a common trait: They allow ideology to become “detached” from Catholic doctrine and distance themselves from the Faith of ordinary Catholics.
Pope Francis said he had no problem with “loyal” and “constructive” criticism, which leads to introspection and dialogue―for that shows a love for the Church. Yet Francis refused to reply to the so-called “dubia Cardinals” who, in November of 2016, asked for an explanation for some exceedingly worrisome and potentially doctrinally dangerous quotes that Francis had inserted into his March 2016 Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia―but Francis never answered them, while they waited, waited and waited and publicly stated that they were still waiting and are still waiting to this day―over 3 years later. Francis objects to those ideologically driven critics who do not really want a response to their criticisms, but merely “throw stones and then hide their hand.” But are those stones legitimately cast or unfairly cast? What are the true colors of Pope Francis? Is he a pope in white or a pope in red? Many have asked the question and the debate has raged for a long time.
Francis the Marxist? Francis the Communist? Francis the Socialist?
Pope Francis ― or Jorge Bergoglio as he was then called ― came of age under the regime of the nationalist Argentine leader, Juan Peron. Austen Ivereigh, who has written a biography of Pope Francis, and himself studied theology in Argentina, says Peronism has dominated Argentine politics ever since but is difficult to define in conventional political terms. “It is really neither left wing nor right wing,” says Austen Ivereigh, “but it comes out of a kind of nationalist revival in Argentina in the 1930s and 1940s and was very closely identified with the working class, above all, and particularly the trade unions.” Ivereigh believes the young Bergoglio was profoundly influenced by Peronist ideas. He came of age while Juan Perón dominated Argentine politics, and later, after the military coup in 1976, had to try to protect his people while the generals who had taken control of the government conducted their guerra sucia or “dirty war,” sending death squads to silence political dissidents. Bergoglio learned to speak ambivalently in public. Like Perón, he boldly tells different groups what they want to hear, even if he often contradicts himself. In an interview with La Civiltà Cattolica in August of 2013, shortly after his election to the papacy, Francis would admit: “Yes, perhaps I can say that I am a bit astute, in that I can adapt to circumstances … The Jesuit must be a person whose thought is incomplete, in the sense of open-ended thinking. There have been periods in the Society in which Jesuits have lived in an environment of closed and rigid thought … My authoritarian and quick manner of making decisions led me to be accused of being ultra-Conservative … but I have never been a right-winger.”
In another major interview, Pope Francis said that Liberation Theologians have a “high concept of humanity.” What, in a nutshell, is Liberation Theology? Simply put, it is a theology that sees things from a Marxist perspective. Leonardo Boff, one of the Liberation Theology founders, now an ex-priest who ‘married’ (is living with) a Marxist activist, explains: “What we propose is Marxism, historic materialism, in theology.” Another short explanation of Liberation Theology comes from another co-founder, the Peruvian Fr. Gustavo Gutiérrez, who says: “Our understanding of Liberation Theology is the participation in the political process of revolution … It is only in rising above a society, divided into classes (…) and in suppressing private ownership of the riches created by human labor, that we will be in a condition to lay the foundations for a more just society. This is why efforts to program a more just society in Latin America orient themselves more and more towards Socialism.” In a 2007 interview with the news agency Apic, Leonardo Boff stated that Liberation Theology was the reason behind the evolution of South American governments drifting to the political left (Socialism): “We are living in a left-center democratic process in almost all the countries on the continent. This is partly due to significant participation from the Liberation Church, which is victorious today. Liberation theology helped to consolidate this advance … The triumph of this theology is very clear today, both in the political sphere and in ecclesiastical domains.”
A few months after he became pope on March 13th, 2013, Francis welcomed the founding father of Liberation Theology, the Peruvian priest Gustavo Gutiérrez, to the Vatican as an honored guest. Gutiérrez had disappeared from high ecclesiastical circles under Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, after making a Marxist appeal for “effective participation in the struggle which the exploited classes have undertaken against their oppressors.” But after the elevation of Francis, Gutiérrez suddenly found himself basking in praise. Vatican officials pronounced him an impeccable thinker, responsible for one of “the most important currents in 20th century Catholic theology.” The Vatican’s newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, asserted that the election of Pope Francis would bring Liberation Theology out of the “shadows to which it has been relegated for some years, at least in Europe.”
The BBC, in a June 7th, 2015 article, reported that “The two Popes [John Paul II and Francis] had a very different understanding of Liberation Theology―the controversial movement based on the conviction that the Gospels enjoin the Church to put the poor first―which preoccupied and divided Latin America's Catholics for much of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. John Paul II believed it had tempted some priests and bishops into quasi-Marxist and even violent ideology, and, as Pope, he cracked-down on some Liberation Theologians. Jorge Bergoglio rejected Marxism ― although he cheerfully accepts that he has many Marxist friends ― but accepted many of Liberation Theology's principles, espousing what his biographer, Austen Ivereigh, calls ‘a nationalist version’ of the movement, or a so-called ‘Theology of the People’” ― [which you could say was Liberation Theology superimposed on Peronist ideas] ― Francis' interpretation of Catholic social teaching certainly sounds more radical than that of his predecessors. In Argentina he insisted that his priests should see the world through the eyes of the poor, by living among them, and he brought that approach with him to Rome. Francis argues that inequality creates ‘a state of social sin that cries to Heaven.’ Pope Francis has also said that unemployment is ‘the result of a worldwide choice, of an economic system that led to this tragedy, an economic system that has at its centre a false God, a false God called money.’ Evangelii Gaudium ― the document which got Rush Limbaugh so worked up ― he dismissed Pope Francis' apostolic exhortation ‘Evangelii Gaudium’ (The Joy of the Gospels) as ‘pure Marxism.’ Francis will soon publish an encyclical (Laudato Si) expected to deal with climate change, and a priest, who has been briefed on the contents, told us: ‘If some people think that he's a Marxist (now), wait and see what he says on the environment!’” (BBC News, June 7th, 2015).
Hmm! What about that encyclical, Laudato Si? Life Site News reports that Pope Francis sought the help of one of the Liberation Theology founders, the ex-priest, Fr. Leonardo Boff, now ‘married’ and living with a Marxist activist: Pope Francis, when visiting Brazil in July of 2013, was trying to meet with Leonardo Boff in person. In a German interview, Boff confirms this fact: ‘Yes, but only after he had concluded the reform of the Curia. In Rio, the Pope explicitly asked to receive a book from me. It was just published and is called « Francis of Assisi and Francis of Rome: A New Church Spring? » The Archbishop of Rio has given it to him.’ Thus, Bergoglio reached out to Boff, not long after his election. Not long after that, the Pope asked Boff to help him write his encyclical Laudato Si (published in 2015). Boff in speaking about his work with Pope Francis, said: ‘I had the opportunity to meet leading scientists while actively participating in drafting a text that significantly inspired Pope Francis’s recent encyclical, Laudato Si.’ Boff also says that Francis read some of his books: ‘More than that [reading Boff's books]. He asked me for material for the sake of Laudato Si. I have given him my counsel and sent to him some of what I have written. Which he has also used. Some people told me they were thinking while reading: “Wait, that is Boff!”’ … Boff, in a 2013 interview with El Pais, insists that Jorge Bergoglio himself is a Liberation Theologian: ‘Francis is a Liberation Theologian … who somehow sustained some attitudes of Peronism.’” In another interview, Boff added: “He [Pope Francis] has sought a reconciliation with the most important representatives of the Liberation Theology: with Gustavo Gutierrez, Jon Sobrino, and likewise with me.”
In a 2001 interview with the Internet site Communità Italiana, Boff hammered Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger ― later to become Pope Benedict XVI, but then still the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Pope John Paul II ― as being a religious terrorist: “What I can say is that the dominant tendency in the Vatican, under this pontificate [of John Paul II], is highly fundamentalist. A Cardinal like Joseph Ratzinger, who publishes an official [Vatican] document, in which he says that the only true Church is the Catholic Church and that the rest are not even churches, that the only legitimate religion is the Catholic religion and that the others have no Faith (they are only convictions and beliefs) ― he commits religious terrorism and is in grave theological error, as well.” This is the Boff whom Pope Francis rates and esteems highly!
In his role as doctrinal guardian of the Church, Cardinal Ratzinger―who would later become Pope Benedict XVI―repeatedly warned the faithful to reject Liberation Theology―a Marxist-inspired ideology, disguised as concern for the poor, that the Soviet Union’s KGB spies had helped smuggle into Latin America’s Catholic Church in the 1950s.“The [Liberation Theology] movement was born in the KGB, and it had a KGB-invented name: Liberation Theology,” according to Ion Mihai Pacepa, who served as a spymaster for Romania’s secret police in the 1950s and 1960s. The Soviets had long eyed the Catholic Church for infiltration. In the 1950s, Dr. Bella Dodd, the former head of the Soviet-controlled Communist Party of America, testified before the U.S. Congress that Communists occupied some of the highest places in the Catholic Church. “We put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within,” she said, “The idea was for these men to be ordained, and then climb the ladder of influence and authority as monsignors and bishops.” As an active party member, Dodd said that she knew of “four cardinals within the Vatican who were working for us.”
Francis the Fire-Man
Our Lord came to cast fire on Earth―Pope Francis seems to have come to “fire men” on Earth―especially if they are “rigid” “inflexible” “authoritarian” and “hypocritical” Conservatives or Traditionalists. Before launching his “Year of Mercy” (December 8th, 2015, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, to November 20th, 2016, the Feast of Christ the King), Francis had removed (or ‘decapitated’) the leaders of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, seemingly for their traditionalist sympathies. During his “Year of Mercy” Francis showed no mercy as he got rid of “rigid” Conservative cardinals and bishops who questioned his plans to allow divorced-and-remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion. As the year finished, the papal axe fell on the Grand Master of the Knights of Malta, Fra’ Matthew Festing, who during an internal row over the alleged distribution of condoms by its charitable arm, had robustly asserted the crusader order’s 800-year sovereignty. Francis seized control of the knights. They are sovereign no longer. The Conservative Cardinal Raymond Burke was demoted, as were several others.
Antonio Socci, a leading Conservative journalist and Vatican-watcher, has stated that cardinals once loyal to Francis are so concerned about a schism that they are planning to appeal to him to step down. He predicts that the rebellion will be led by about a dozen moderate cardinals who work in the curia―unless, of course, they find themselves demoted and “out of work”! It is no secret in Rome that certain cardinals who voted for Francis are now worried that he is leading the Church towards schism, and that he must therefore be stopped. There are many more than a dozen of them and, though they may not yet be ready to act upon their concerns, they would like this pontificate to end sooner rather than later.
In 2018-2019, all but five of the 39 Little Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Redeemer―a Conservative French religious order―have been relieved of their vows by the Vatican, after refusing to submit to a group of Vatican-appointed commissioners, led by a habitless Liberal nun, who wanted to impose “modern orientations” on the Little Sisters of Mary, in the sisters’ words. The 34 nuns, who dressed in traditional habits and cared for the disabled and elderly in four different nursing homes, were asked to relinquish their facilities and their religious dress, now that they are no longer considered members of their Institute.
Francis, Fans & Fixers Fan the Fire’s Flames
Francis’ comments have inflamed an ongoing and heated debate that is broiling in the Catholic Church in the United States and elsewhere. The pope’s Liberal “mercy-over-morals” approach and emphasis, has flabbergasted and fired-up doctrinally-minded Catholics who see Francis as someone who is compromising the Faith. They are increasingly hurling “fiery darts” at Francis and Francis is reciprocally hurling “fiery darts” back at them. As Holy Scripture counsels: “In all things taking the shield of Faith, wherewith you may be able to extinguish all the fiery darts of the most wicked one!” (Ephesians 6:16)―but who is “the most wicked one”? Francis or the Conservative critics? Well, as the saying goes: “Tell me who your friends are and I will tell you what you are!” Who are the friends and fans of Francis?
The Supporters of Francis
The list of Francis’ fans and friends makes interesting reading. For a start, you have the amazing number of Jews, Freemasons and Communists who “waxed lyrical” with praise for Francis upon hearing of his election to the papacy―you can read their praise of him on another page (click here). You can learn a lot about a person by looking at who they surround themselves with―or, as they say: “Tell me who your friends are, and I will tell you who you are.” Who is it that surrounds Pope Francis―especially among those whom he personally picked to be part of his team or entourage? It doesn’t take a “rocket scientist” to notice that Pope Francis has very few―if any―true Conservatives in his inner-circle. In fact, if any heads have fallen on the “chopping-block”, then it has usually been the Conservative head rather than the Liberal, Modernist or Marxist head. Who is it that seems to like or even love Pope Francis more? Is it the Traditional and Conservative Catholics, or is it the Liberals, Modernist and Marxists? Who does Pope Francis condemn most often―is it the Liberals, Modernist and Marxists, or is it the Traditional and Conservative Catholics?