In this post, we will take a closer look at Bergoglian ecclesiology as presented in the Instrumentum Laboris for the upcoming Synod on the Amazon, which, to be perfectly clear, is not exactly his own; rather, it is the Council’s ecclesiology made clearer.
Before we dig in, for the sake of clarity, I’ll provide the conclusion at the very outset.
Not very long ago, I would have concluded this examination by declaring that the ecclesiology espoused by the authors of the Instrumentum Laboris and their faithless leader, Jorge Bergoglio, is dead wrong inasmuch as it in no way describes the Holy Roman Catholic Church that was established by Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Today, however, it is plain to me that while it is accurate to state that the text we are about to review really does not describe the Catholic Church, the fact of the matter is that it is not “wrong” inasmuch as it very accurately describes the conciliar church to which these men belong. This distinction is crucial.
You see, the bottom line is that the institution presently based in Rome under the headship of Jorge Bergoglio is not the Catholic Church; even though “they have the buildings” and are pleased to march with impunity under that venerable name. It is merely an imposter “Church” and a very poor one at that; in fact, poorer with every passing day.
As Archbishop Lefebvre said in 1978, well before the Bergoglian occupation:
Now, I think sincerely, that we are talking about a counterfeit version of the Church, and not the Catholic Church.
I realize that many sincere Catholics are unwilling to even consider that this may be the case. It seems that a good number of them have not given adequate thought to the notion that the Church is suffering a “passion” reminiscent of the Passion of Our Lord; a very common observation. Indeed, this is true, the questions that must be asked, however, are:
– At whose hands is she suffering?
– Is the Holy Roman Catholic Church the cause of her own passion?
– Are the error-ridden conciliar texts, or the Protestantized Novus Ordo that is causing so many to lose their faith, or the unadulterated blasphemy in Amoris Laetitia, etc., products of the one true Church of Christ?
Keep these questions in mind as we proceed. We will return to them later.
At this, let’s review some relevant citations taken from an English translation of the Instrumentum Laboris provided by Rorate Caeli:
Today the Church [sic] again has the opportunity to be a listener… And this process must continue during and after the Synod as a central element of the future life of the Church [sic]. (cf Art. 2,3)
The process of conversion to which the Church [sic] is called involves unlearning, learning and relearning … They [the indigenous peoples, of which many are pagans] teach us to recognize ourselves as part of the biome and as co-responsible for its present and future care. (cf Art. 102) [Emphasis in original]
Indeed, we must concur with the opinion that the conciliar church is a church – if you will allow for the sake of expedience – that stands in need of being converted.
But from what and to what does it imagine that it must convert, one might ask?
The first part of the answer, as we shall see, is from her self-understanding as “the pillar and bulwark of truth” (1 Tim 3:15), her awareness of being “another Christ” (see Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis), and her role as the “Mother and Teacher of all nations” (John XXIII of all people, Mater e Magister).
In other words, the conciliar church is convinced that it must unlearn, vis-à-vis its activities, what the Holy Catholic Church truly is; namely, what Francis condescendingly describes as “a monolithic body of doctrine guarded by all” (Evangelii Gaudium 40, as cited in Instrumentum Laboris Art. 110).
Article 38 of the Instrumentum is perhaps even more condescending toward tradition:
Many of the obstacles to a dialogical evangelization and to being open to cultural otherness are historical in character and hidden behind certain petrified doctrines.
As for what it is converting to, we find that the conciliar church aims to be a listener and a learner; “a Church that is sister and disciple” (cf Art. 92), and all of this in order to “discover the incarnate and active presence of God in expressions of popular [that is, pagan] religiosity” (cf Art. 33).
So, rather than behaving as the Mystical Body of Christ that Our Lord commissioned to go forth to teach the nations and make disciples; that is, to make those who learn (cf Matthew 20:16-20), the conciliar church is called to act as a disciple that stands in need of the world’s wisdom – including in matters of religion.
The Spirit speaks in the voice of the poor; the Church [sic] must listen to them because they are a locus of theological thought (Art. 144).
This model of a church that acts as a disciple in search of theological truths from the unchurched masses, as mentioned, is not a strictly Bergoglian invention; rather, it finds its genesis in the Council – the same of which Pope John Paul the Great Ecumenist stated:
This inheritance has struck deep roots in the awareness of the Church in an utterly new way, quite unknown previously, thanks to the Second Vatican Council… (Redemptor Hominis 3)
Wojtyla could not have spoken more clearly! The ecclesiology that emerged from the Council is entirely novel; i.e., it has no basis in Catholic tradition! As for the Council itself, we find in the Decree on the Mission Activity of the Church:
Even as Christ Himself searched the hearts of men, and led them to divine light, so also His disciples, profoundly penetrated by the Spirit of Christ, should show the people among whom they live, and should converse with them, that they themselves may learn by sincere and patient dialogue what treasures a generous God has distributed among the nations of the earth. (Ad Gentes 11)
In this, we have a “missionary church” that goes out in search of Divine treasures among the nations; this, as opposed to the Holy Catholic Church, whose missionaries go forth to freely dispense to the nations the Divine treasure already in her storehouse; the eternal truth that she alone possesses in all of its fullness, the Sacraments, and ultimately the way of eternal life.
As expected, the needy, unsure, searching church born of Vatican Council II, like all Protestant sects, morphed further from its pitiable origins in the decades that followed. Today, no longer is it sufficient for this church to learn from pagans, it is also moved to engage in “mutual listening to peoples and nature” (Art. 92), and to “listen to the cry of Mother Earth” (Art. 146).
Thus a Church [sic] called to be ever more synodal begins by listening to the peoples and to the earth by coming into contact with the abundant reality of an Amazon full of life and wisdom but also of contrasts. (Art. 5) [Emphasis added]
[It is a church that] wants to learn, dialogue and respond with hope and joy to the signs of the times together with the peoples of the Amazon. (cf Art. 34)
And why does the conciliar church desire to behave in such a way?
Whereas the Holy Roman Catholic Church is preoccupied with imparting supernatural life to all men in the name of Christ Jesus, the conciliar church “wants to be involved in, and is at the service of, life, and of the ‘future of the planet’” (Laudato Si 4, as cited in Art. 35)
[NOTE: Though a topic of its own, I wish to mention here that this focus on “nature, Mother Earth, and the planet” is not an end unto itself; rather, it is part and parcel of the effort to bring about a One World Religion as expediently as possible in service to its counterpart, a One World Government. (Thus the parallel push for open borders and the effective abolition of national sovereignty.)
The expedience of earth worship in this matter is based upon the reality that this planet is, as Bergoglio so often likes to state, our “common (temporal) home.” Thanks to this point of commonality among men, there is no more efficient way to give birth to a One World Religion than to make of the earth a divine oracle as noted above. It is as such that it is peddled to the unwary as the principle of religious unity that binds all of humankind, irrespective of any particular confession.]
Moving on, the conciliar church is, therefore, committed to both a humanistic and an ecological mission; one squarely focused upon things purely natural.
[It is a church] that listens to the cries and songs of pain and joy … one that dialogues, that knows how to seek agreements, and that, from an option for the poor and their testimony of life, seeks concrete proposals in favor of an integral ecology. (Art. 42)
[Indigenous peoples] contribution can resonate with and assist the ecological conversion of the Church [sic] and of the planet (Art. 141)
The ecological conversion of the Church… In this phrase, we find one of those occasions wherein Satan, via his minions, cannot help but boast openly of his designs. Namely, the diabolical desire to see the Catholic Church undergo a metanoia – a transformative change of heart; moving from that which leads men to Heaven, to that which insists that man fix his gaze on this passing world.
Unlike the Holy Roman Catholic Church, which is rooted in and animated by the Divine; that is, “the presence and activity of the Spirit of Jesus Christ” (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis), the conciliar church draws its strength from men laboring under Satan’s yoke:
All the activity of the church in the Amazon must start from the integrality of the human being – life, territory and culture (Art. 49).
As such, it comes as no surprise that one of the marks of the conciliar church is sinfulness, as opposed to the Holiness that is a mark of the one true Church of Christ:
It is suggested to identify the reasons with which we justify our participation in the structures of sin in order to analyze them (Art. 104).
That is why Pope Francis humbly asked for ‘forgiveness, not only for the offenses of the Church [sic] itself but also for the crimes against the original peoples during the so-called conquest of America’ (Art. 38).
Whereas the Holy Roman Catholic Church that received the Holy Ghost directly from the Risen Christ and was sent forth to forgive, or to retain, sins in His name (see John 20:22-23), the conciliar church, having only the spirit of sinful man, must beg for forgiveness.
Given all that has been said thus far, it only makes sense that the conciliar church should aspire to engage in an earthbound mission that is more properly described as socio-political activism as opposed to evangelism. This mission includes such activities as:
Churches on the border addressing the problem of migration by establishing a reception service in each urban community that quickly welcomes those who arrive unexpectedly (cf Art. 69). [Emphasis added]
The italicized phrase above is, of course, code for illegal immigrants.
Promoting agro-family projects in rural communities (ibid.).
Establishing partnerships with other entities in initiatives to demand that companies assume responsibility for the socio-ecological impacts of their actions (cf Art. 83).
In other words, the conciliar church is going to join in consumer activism; perhaps even by organizing boycotts. It will also engage in:
Promoting habits of behavior, production and consumption, recycling and reuse of waste… (Art. 104)
Promoting eco-solidarity markets, fair consumption and ‘happy sobriety’ (ibid. citing Laudato Si).
The border Churches [sic] should join together in pastoral action to face common problems such as the exploitation of the territory, delinquency, drug trafficking, human trafficking, prostitution, etc. (Art. 129).
Furthermore, according to the Instrumentum:
It is necessary to join grassroots social movements, to prophetically announce an agenda of agrarian justice that promotes profound agrarian reform, supporting organic agriculture and agroforestry (cf Art. 146).
It is necessary to take up the cause of agroecology by incorporating it into training activities… (ibid.)
In order for all of these initiatives to take flight, the leaders of the conciliar church openly admit that they must ever be at pains to see to it that their institution never comes to resemble the Holy Roman Catholic Church as established by Christ; even with regard to its constitution. (I dare say they’ve nothing to fear!)
As the Council of Florence states:
We define that the Holy and Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold the primacy of the Church throughout the whole world: and that the same Roman Pontiff is the successor of St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and the true Vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church.
Pope Leo XIII explains:
It was necessary that a government of this kind, since it belongs to the constitution and formation of the Church, as its principal element – that is as the principle of unity and the foundation of lasting stability – should in no wise come to an end with St. Peter, but should pass to his successors from one to another (Pope Leo XIII, 1896, cf Satis Cognitum 12-13)
Note well that the “lasting stability” of the Catholic Church requires (“it was necessary”) that the government of the whole Mystical Body of Christ be centralized as it were, and shared only to the extent that one receives jurisdiction from the Roman Pontiff and remains in union with him.
The leaders of the conciliar church, being that theirs is another institution altogether, have no concern for the stability of the one true Church of Christ; on the contrary, they labor to destabilize its presence wherever it is found. They declare of their institution:
In accordance with a “healthy ‘decentralization'” of the Church [sic], the communities request that the Episcopal Conferences adapt the Eucharistic ritual to their cultures (Art. 126).
Get that? “Decentralization” to these men is “healthy.” This necessarily means that the hierarchical model established by Christ for His Church is unhealthy!
In furtherance of this goal, the leaders of the conciliar church are looking for guidance – neither to Christ, nor to Sacred Scripture, nor to the venerable councils of the past – but to their fellow heretics:
They [the heretical sects] are showing us another way of being church where the people feel that they are the protagonists and where the faithful can express themselves freely without censorship or dogmatism or ritual disciplines (Art. 138)
It would be appropriate to seek common ground through periodic meetings with representatives of other religions in order to work together for the care for our common home … and to consider what aspects of being church other religions can teach us and which aspects need to be incorporated into new paths for the Church [sic]… (Art. 139)
At this, I trust the point has been made. So, as promised, we return now to the questions posed at the outset:
Q. At whose hands is the Church presently undergoing a passion?
A. Those who reject her; as was the case with Our Lord.
Q. Is the Holy Roman Catholic Church the cause of her own passion?
A. No more than Christ served as His own executioner!
Q. Does the blather outlined above, the error-ridden conciliar texts, the Protestantized Novus Ordo, that dreadful Amoris Laetitia, etc., all of which contributes greatly to the Church’s agony in our day, come to us from the one true Church of Christ herself?
A. Certainly not! The Church is the Kingdom of Christ on earth. She is indefectible, which simply would not be the case if indeed she could be so divided against herself. As Our Blessed Lord said:
“Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.” (Matthew 12:25)
So, my friends, it would seem that we have but two choices:
Either we must conclude that the institution presently based in Rome under the headship of Jorge Bergoglio is not the Catholic Church, or the Holy Roman Catholic Church is not indefectible after all; rather, she will be made desolate and will not stand.
Though the choice would hardly seem difficult to some, the fact is that the crisis at hand has rendered all of us deprived of grace and clarity in some degree or another. In charity, therefore, let us make it a point to beg the Lord to open the eyes of those who as yet are unable to choose wisely.