Have you ever wondered why the Nicene Creed contains a very specific reference to Pontius Pilate? It is a rather curious thing when one considers that the only others named therein, in addition to the Persons of the Blessed Trinity, are Jesus Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary.
By way of background, the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia states:
Soon after the Council of Nicaea new formulas of faith were composed, most of them variations of the Nicene Symbol, to meet new phases of Arianism. There were at least four before the Council of Sardica in 341, and in that council a new form was presented and inserted in the Acts, though not accepted by the council. The Nicene Symbol, however, continued to be the only one in use among the defenders of the Faith. Gradually it came to be recognized as the proper profession of faith for candidates for baptism.
Arguably, the Creed would have sufficed to confront the heresy of Arianism, and served as a succinct profession of faith moving forward, just as well without any mention of Pilate, and yet, the Holy Ghost inspired the Church to mention him by name.
I cannot say for certain why that’s the case, but given that Pontius Pilate and his reign as a Roman Governor of Judea are undisputed matters of the secular historical record, perhaps the reason is to preemptively address fallen man’s temptation to relegate religious beliefs to mere pious fables and fairytales. In other words, the mention of Pilate in the Creed serves to underscore the historicity of the Catholic faith.
During his “Urbi et Orbi” address yesterday, Jorge Bergoglio (stage name, Francis) seemed to do well in making a similar point. He said:
The Easter message does not offer us a mirage or reveal a magic formula … “Jesus who was crucified has risen”. It speaks to us not about angels or ghosts, but about a man, a man of flesh and bone, with a face and a name: Jesus. The Gospel testifies that this Jesus, crucified under Pontius Pilate for claiming he was the Christ, the Son of God, rose on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, just as he had foretold to his disciples.
As with many other Bergoglian operations, he proposed to offer one thing, but ultimately delivered the exact opposite, perhaps the best example of which is his “defense of marriage and family” known as Amoris Laetitia.
In the present case, rather than defending the reality of the Holy Catholic faith, he actually did violence to the historical record concerning Our Lord’s passion, and he did so by employing one of his favorite means of deception – the twisting of Sacred Scripture.
Pay close attention:
The Gospel testifies that this Jesus, crucified under Pontius Pilate for claiming he was the Christ, the Son of God, rose on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, just as he had foretold to his disciples.
Does Sacred Scripture really aver that Pontius Pilate put Jesus to death because he claimed to be the Christ?
The short answer: No. A better answer: Hell no.
Though it is hardly necessary for regular readers of this space, please allow me to present a brief synopsis of the historical truth to which the Gospel actually testifies.
On Holy Thursday, Judas, along with “a great multitude with swords and clubs,” sought out and apprehended Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane.
On whose orders were they so acting? Was it by Pilate’s authority?
No, they were sent for this very purpose by the Sanhedrin and the Chief Priests. Lest there be any doubt whatsoever as to who these armed assailants were, Jesus addressed the mob directly, saying, “I sat daily with you, teaching in the temple.”
Once they had Jesus in custody, where did they take Him? Did they take him to Pilate?
No, they immediately took Him to the men who ordered Our Lord’s abduction, Caiphas, the High Priest, and the “ancients of the people.”
What people? The Romans?
No, the Jews.
The Gospel testifies that Caiphas, the chief priests, the Sanhedrin and the bloodthirsty mob sought to put Jesus to death, for which purpose they delivered Him to Pilate, the Roman Governor and pagan, who could not have been less concerned with anyone who may claim to be the Christ. That was a Jewish matter, and none of his affair.
So, what did the murderous multitude and their leaders do? They lied, telling Pilate that Jesus had forbidden His followers to pay taxes when, in fact, He had instructed them to “render unto Caesar.”
Pilate was not moved, and after having examined Our Lord himself declared Jesus innocent, saying, “I find no cause in this man.”
The crowd, stirred to anger all the more by these very same leaders, pressed for Our Lord’s death just the same. Pilate, however, continued to oppose them, “desiring to release Jesus.”
Unwilling to bend in the stiffness of their necks, Caiphas, the chief priests, the Sanhedrin and the bloodthirsty mob demanded that Jesus be crucified, scoffing at His innocence and boldly declaring, “His blood be upon us and upon our children!”
Finally, Pilate relented and consented to their diabolical demands.
As suggested, not even one small detail provided in this synopsis is news to any of the regular readers of this space; in fact, they are well known to Jorge Bergoglio also.
And yet, on Easter Sunday, the holiest day of the year, he stood before the entire world, figuratively placed his hand on the Bible and lied with a subtlety worthy of the Evil One whose bidding he does with impunity.
No, Pilate didn’t crucify Jesus “for claiming he was the Christ;” he acquiesced to the demands of the Jewish leaders who fomented an insurrection in order to secure the execution of their long-awaited Messiah, and to this the Gospel testifies.
If the mockery of Our Lord and the Holy Catholic faith outlined here upsets you, good, it should, but make no mistake:
What took place yesterday – a man claiming to be pope but acting more as a defense attorney for the Jews than the Vicar of the One whose life they demanded – is nothing new.
This has been the common fare offered by the men in charge in Rome, going all the way to the top, ever since the “elder brothers” effectively took ownership of the Vatican, with the Second Vatican Council – Nostra Aetate in particular – serving as the deed.
On January 24, 2020, the Committees on Health and Foreign Relations held a closed-door meeting with Senators (no staffers allowed) to update them on the “novel coronavirus.” This was three days after the only person in the US at the time had been diagnosed with the virus, a man who had recently returned home to Washington state from Wuhan.
After the meeting, Senator Jim Risch, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, released a statement on the outcome:
Today, I convened a briefing from the U.S. government’s leading global health experts tracking this novel coronavirus, now identified as 2019-nCoV. There is a lot that we already know about this virus, and the American people should rest assured that U.S. agencies have experience in managing similar global health threats and are actively applying lessons learned from other outbreaks, including SARS and MERS.
Weeks later, it was discovered that a number of Republican Senators, after that meeting, had bought and sold what would prove to be a plethora of COVID-sensitive stocks, far in advance of the public’s knowledge of any impact the virus might have, and eventually did have, on financial markets.
For example, Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina sold corona-vulnerable stock holdings worth an estimated $1.7 million on February 13th, prior to the market’s collapse.
When news broke in mid-March about these apparent cases of insider trading – violations of the 2012 Stock Act, to be more precise – ordinary citizens and commentators both liberal and conservative were incensed, demanding an investigation. Some went even further. Tucker Carlson, for example, immediately called for Burr’s resignation, and though Democrat anger ebbed when it came to light that Sen. Diane Feinstien of California was also implicated, partisanship, it seemed, was temporarily suspended.
Following a DOJ / SEC investigation into the details of that January 24 closed-door meeting, exactly none of the alleged stock cheaters were held accountable for trading on privileged information; i.e., it was determined that no such information was made available to them.
In any case, whether you believe that or not, the point is simply this:
To this day, liberals and conservatives largely agree (and for good reason) that as late as mid-February 2020 arguably no one outside of a handful of Senatorial committee members, if them, had any reason to believe that the United States had a full-blown infectious disease crisis looming in its immediate future.
Mid-February, 2020. Remember the date.
At this, I’d like to call the reader’s attention to another curious aspect of the COVID timeline – one that should likewise unite Americans both left and right, if not with indignation, at the very least with a healthy dose of suspicion.
On New Year’s Eve, 2019, to the surprise of the entire world (as the story goes), researchers in China revealed that a newly identified virus had infected dozens of people in the Wuhan region with what we now call COVID-19. At that point in time, less than 50 people in a city with a population of over 1 million citizens had come down with a pneumonia-like illness.
On January 8, 2020, the NY Times reported “there is no evidence that the new virus is readily spread by humans;” in fact, they pointed out, the virus hadn’t even been blamed for any deaths. This wouldn’t happen until January 11 – a 61-year-old man from Wuhan.
It would be another 10 days before any cases of infection outside of China would surface. Here in the US, the first case wasn’t discovered until January 21.
And yet, less than 48 hour later, on January 23, 2020 – the day before only the second case was discovered in the US – a 4,500 word article attributed to then presidential primary candidate and civilian, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., was published by Foreign Affairs Magazine, a journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, in which it was stated:
The global challenges facing the United States—from climate change and mass migration to technological disruption and infectious diseases—have grown more complex and more urgent.
As would be entirely obvious to anyone familiar with writing, editing and publishing such content, this article was most certainly penned and readied for publication well before the early morning hours of January 23 when it first appeared online; prior to anyone in the US being infected with the novel coronavirus and even prior to any COVID infections being reported anywhere outside of one singular district in China.
So, one rightly wonders, what exactly moved Joe Biden (more likely his team of handlers and globalist puppet masters) to identify “infectious diseases” as one of the “more urgent global challenges” facing the United States at that time? In other words, precisely what infectious diseases were presenting an urgent and complex challenge to our nation as he (or whomever) wrote?
As the historical record indicates, there were none, at least not insofar as the overwhelming majority of ordinary Americans and their elected officials knew.
To put the matter into greater chronological context: On February 24, Democrat Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi – not exactly a COVID naysayer – famously declared, “Everything is fine here!” as she toured San Francisco’s Chinatown, reassuring her constituents that the virus presented little danger.
And who could blame her? The first COVID death (alleged) in the US wouldn’t happen until five days later, on February 29.
Both of these events took place more than a month after the Biden article was published by Foreign Affairs. So much for the urgent and complex challenge.
So, what is one to make of this?
I suppose some may be moved to praise Joe Biden for his amazing prescience and superior insight, while others may struggle to conjure up another far-fetched explanation for his apparent foreknowledge.
An exponentially more reasonable conclusion to draw, however, is that this is just one more entry on a long list of reasons to believe that the Made in China Virus that allegedly snuck up on the entire world in early 2020 was planned well in advance and, furthermore, the demented former VP who now babbles behind the presidential podium was privy to it.
Catholic social media has been all abuzz in recent days over a NJ parish, Church of the Precious Blood in Monmouth Beach, that had issued the following announcement on its website over the weekend:
Confessions Are Now Available for Those Who Are Vaccinated
Only those vaccinated may come to the Sacrament of Penance in order to protect yourself, and more importantly, to protect others in case you are asymptomatic and contagious.
Penance Passports. What a concept! Following the uproar that predictably ensued, the policy was swiftly changed, with the Diocese of Trenton announcing via Twitter on Monday afternoon:
The Diocese has contacted the pastor in question and the parish website has been updated to allow for all those seeking Confession, regardless of vaccination status.
Certain stipulations, however, remain. According to the parish’s new policy:
Now that Fr. Mike has been vaccinated, the Sacrament of Penance will be available in two ways: 1. For those who have not been vaccinated, in the sanctuary of the church, face to face. 2. For those who have been vaccinated, in the confessional where confession can take place anonymously.
If I was still in my neo-conservative, Novus Ordo adolescence, I would be very tempted to occupy the confessional at this church, only to conclude by confessing that not only have I not been vaccinated, I’m not feeling especially well at the moment… cough, cough.
Something tells me that if I did, “Fr. Mike,” the pastor, would break that confessional seal before you could shout Gay is OK!
Yup – surprise, surprise – Church of the Precious Blood has itself a thriving LGBT ministry that, according to its website, “supports lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Catholic persons.” And if you think that “support” includes encouraging abstinence, chastity and penance, think again; they’ve also earned a place on New Ways Ministry’s list of “LGBT-Friendly Parishes.”
This being so, no one will be shocked to learn that they’ve also been actively participating in local gay pride events for some years now. Nor would anyone be floored to discover that, in May of 2017, Church of the Precious Blood organized an “LGBT Pilgrimage” to the cathedral in neighboring Newark where participants were warmly greeted by Cardinal Joseph “Nighty-Night” Tobin.
So, what does homo-activism and COVID hysteria have in common?
Both are fruits the same evil tree; each is diabolical.
That the former is of the Devil is obvious enough, but so too is the latter, driven as it is by irrational fear, which is among the Evil One’s weapons of choice. As Aquinas teaches:
Hope differs from fear, which is of evil. (ST II, q. 40, a. I) … If fear increases so much as to perturb the reason, it hinders work even on the part of the soul.(ST II, q. 44, a. 4)
As such, it only makes sense that Sacred Scripture is so full of exhortations to fear not, be not afraid, let not your heart be troubled, be not anxious, etc. As fear can rob one of reason, likewise can it serve to darken the intellect, one of the wages of sin.
So, to the question Can COVID hysteria endanger one’s soul? we cannot but conclude that the answer is yes, it most certainly can.
It is for this reason that I find it all the more disturbing when I encounter an otherwise serious Catholic who has succumbed to this irrational fear – avoiding personal contact even among loved ones, compulsively masking and insisting others do the same, neurotically sanitizing surfaces, etc., often while looking with anger and resentment upon those who fail to do likewise.
Take stock and be honest with yourself, dear reader. If this describes you, even in part, beware; you are treading upon a very slippery slope.
On March 6, the “God of Surprises” (aka Jorge Bergoglio) addressed an interreligious meeting with Muslims and Jews in Iraq. To no one’s surprise, he began by twisting Sacred Scripture in order to lend an air of credibility to the false claims he was about to make.
Setting the tone for the address, he said:
God asked Abraham to raise his eyes to heaven and to count its stars (cf. Gen 15:5). In those stars, he saw the promise of his descendants; he saw us.
From there, Bergoglio (stage name: Francis) repeatedly invoked the theme of looking up at the stars.
It is my opinion that the scene described in Genesis 15 is among the most interesting and edifying to be found in all of Scripture. How so? For the simple reason that the text suggests that Abram (as he was then known) didn’t see any stars at all!
The observant reader will notice that as Abram’s encounter with God is described further, we are told in verse 12: And when the sun was setting, a deep sleep fell upon Abram…
This indicates that when God urged Abram to look heavenward and “number the stars if you are able,” it was daytime. As such, he could not number the stars, not so much because they were so numerous, but because he could not see them. Even so, he very well knew that they were there and that they would, in time, become visible.
This was God’s way of urging Abram to faith, to believe and to trust Him, and he did:
Abram believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice. (Gen 15:6)
According to Francis, however, it’s not necessary for Jews and Muslims to believe God as Abraham did – that is, to actually have faith in the one true God – in order to look upon Abraham as “our common father in faith” and to consider ourselves the “children of Abraham” – something he repeated numerous times throughout his address.
Sacred Scripture tells another story. As St. Paul wrote to the Galatians:
And if you be Christ’s, then are you the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise. (Gal 3:29)
Are the self-identified Jews to whom Francis spoke Christ’s? Are the Muslims?
Certainly not, they steadfastly reject Him. But guess who Jorge credits with being the author of these false religions? It is God, he says, who “gave birth” to them!
So, if not authentic faith in the one true God and His only begotten Son by which the unity of mankind is realized, what in Jorge’s opinion does bring “Jews, Christians and Muslims, together with our brothers and sisters of other religions,” as he puts it?
He informs his poor listeners that it is “by doing as Abraham did: we look up to heaven and we journey on earth.”
We look up to heaven. Thousands of years later, as we look up to the same sky, those same stars appear. They illumine the darkest nights because they shine together. Heaven thus imparts a message of unity: the Almighty above invites us never to separate ourselves from our neighbours. The otherness of God points us towards others, towards our brothers and sisters. Yet if we want to preserve fraternity, we must not lose sight of heaven. [Emphasis in original]
You see, for Bergoglio, those stars represent mere men, all people – heathens, heretics, Jews, atheists – who if only they band together will be as a great light amid the darkness, and what’s more, it is God himself who calls man to direct his focus upon his own kind.
The “message” of heaven according to Jorge is simple: Go dancing with the stars!
“The way that heaven points out for our journey is another: the way of peace,” he declared. Francis went on to underscore the point by offering a litany of earthbound endeavors that must be undertaken if we wish to realize the Scriptural promise of a day when men “shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks.” (Isaiah 2:4)
It is “up to us,” he declared:
- to turn instruments of hatred into instruments of peace.
- to make the increasing proliferation of arms give way to the distribution of food
- to make heard the cry of the oppressed and discarded in our world
- to shed light on the shady maneuvers that revolve around money
- to preserve our common home from our predatory aims
- to remind the world that human life has value
- to have the courage to lift up our eyes and look at the stars
Where is Christ – the Savior, the Prince of Peace, the true Light of the world – to be found in the religion espoused by Jorge Bergoglio? Oh, sure, Jesus occasionally gets an honorable mention, but for those who have been paying attention, it is plain that Francis looks upon Our Lord as a mere man, and man as sovereign.
As suggested at the outset, in spite of being the self-appointed oracle for the “God of Surprises,” very little that Jorge Bergoglio does or says comes as a surprise.
In July of 2014, he boldly declared that man is “King of the Universe” and “the center of reflection and the center of life.” He went on to pledge, “And this is not theology, not philosophy – it is human reality. With this reality, we will move forward.”
With this in mind, one may be moved to concede that Francis is, at the very least, a man of his word, but that would be to give him far too much credit for originality. In truth, he is nothing more than the most recent version of the men who preceded him as leader of the church-of-man. He is a man of the Council.
According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown. (Gaudium et Spes 12)
As I write, Bergoglian Rome is being applauded in certain conservative and quasi-traditional circles for its recently published Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to a dubium regarding the blessing of the unions of persons of the same sex.
Here, we will examine the text through Catholic eyes.
The dubium (doubt) consists of the following question: Does the Church have the power to give the blessing to unions of persons of the same sex?
The response given by the CDF, with the approval of the, ahem, “Sovereign Pontiff Francis”: Negative.
In addition to patting Bergoglio on the back for allegedly upholding the truth in this case, many Catholic commentators have added that the response merely stated what has always been obvious. I disagree entirely.
Bear in mind who we’re dealing with here: When the dubium asks if “the Church” has the power to bless homo-unions, the question concerns not the Holy Roman Catholic Church, but rather the imposter institution that presently occupies the Vatican under the headship of Jorge Bergoglio. They are not one and the same, not by a long shot.
The former, the one true Church of Christ, would never grant such an impious dubium the time of day, much less give it a serious treatment. In fact, no authentic member of the faithful – lay, religious or clerical – would ever be moved to ask such a question of the Roman Catholic Church.
The opening paragraph of “Explanatory Note” that follows the response provides the reason why the question exists even in the false church:
In some ecclesial contexts, plans and proposals for blessings of unions of persons of the same sex are being advanced. Such projects are not infrequently motivated by a sincere desire to welcome and accompany homosexual persons, to whom are proposed paths of growth in faith, “so that those who manifest a homosexual orientation can receive the assistance they need to understand and fully carry out God’s will in their lives”.
The footnote for the quote offered here cites Amoris Laetitia. In other words, the reason why such plans and proposals are being advanced is because the ersatz “Holy Father” has been signaling, in ways too numerous to number, that gay is A-OK!
The observant reader will also have noticed two other clues that clearly indicate that the text under review was not promulgated by the Holy Roman Catholic Church; namely, its mention of “homosexual persons” and “a homosexual orientation.”
There. Are. No. Such. Things.
“Homosexual” is no more an identity or an orientation than “rapist;” rather, it pertains to grotesque, deviant, immoral behavior. PERIOD. And if you’re pining away for the good old Ratzingerian days, as if the CDF’s blatant capitulation to LGBT activism is something new, you’re fooling yourself.
In 1986, the CDF issued a Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons!
Get that? Right in the very title to a document bearing the signature of the future Benedict XVI, with the expressed approval of John Paul the Great Ecumenist, we find credence given to the lie that there is such thing as a “homosexual person.” If that’s not enough, the Letter – in spite of containing tidbits of truth (as is Satan’s typical modus operandi) – mentions the “homosexual person” more than two dozen times!
In addition to this, the Letter states the following disclaimer in one of its opening paragraphs, “an exhaustive treatment of this complex issue cannot be attempted here.” Just to make sure the point is well and truly made, it goes on to speak of “the phenomenon of homosexuality, complex as it is…”
Nonsense! Sodomy and other deviant same sex behavior is no more a “complex issue” that requires further evaluation by the one true Church of Christ than infanticide does. Not so for the imposter church, however.
And from where did Josef Ratzinger and Karol Wojtyla get the idea that God created a being properly known as a “homosexual person”? From their esteemed conciliar predecessors, of course!
In December of 1975, the CDF issued a Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics that states:
A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable. [Emphasis added.]
Think about what you just read: This text – allegedly promulgated by the Roman Congregation that is responsible for maintaining doctrinal clarity – is declaring, with the approval of “Pope Saint” Paul the Pathetic, that some ‘homosexuals’ are such definitively, innately, and incurably. In other words, they were born that way!
Not to be outdone in deference to homo-culture by their predecessors, Bergoglio’s CDF made it a point to note “the presence in such relationships of positive elements, which are in themselves to be valued and appreciated.”
So, according to this text that some are treating as a sign that Jorge & Co. are Catholic after all, one must value and appreciate things like the camaraderie and the companionship that sodomites provide to one another!
At this, readers may recall the infamous Relatio Post Disceptationem for the 2014 Synod of Bishops, which stated, “Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community.”
Although that text can no longer be found on the Vatican website, there can be no doubt that its spirit (demonic) still permeates conciliar church headquarters.
In conclusion, don’t be fooled by any of the orthodox sounding snippets to be found in the CDF text; rather, consider the Scriptural warning about a “little leaven.” With this in mind, the Vatican’s recent response on the question of blessing same-sex unions really does serve to remove all doubt:
The institution in Rome, under the headship of Jorge Bergoglio, is not the Catholic Church.