According to Vatican Radio, Pope Francis met with a delegation from the European Jewish Congress (EJC) on January 27th, otherwise known to some as International Holocaust Remembrance Day.
Present at the meeting was Secretary of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, Fr. Norbert Hofmann, who said:
[Francis] began the dialogue by mentioning the importance of this Day for the Jews, but also for us, because remembering the victims of the Holocaust is important so that this human tragedy never happens again.
Also present at the meeting was the President of the EJC, Moshe Kantor.
According to Fr. Hofmann:
Kantor spoke about the importance of ethics, that is, of the values which Christians and Jews have in common. He said that in our world we see much progress but also a decline in moral and ethical values. Therefore, we need to strengthen these values which we share. And then he spoke about the importance of education and the family.
Moral and ethical values that we share?
Like what, homo-activism and eugenics?
I for one am sick to death of hearing these make-believe “Jews” wailing incessantly about the horrors of the Holocaust while simultaneously insisting upon a so-called right to exterminate the most innocent of human beings in utero simply because they are inconvenient or may perhaps serve as a testament to the lack of “moral and ethical values” on the part their promiscuous would-be parents.
The European Jewish Congress is representative of those who choose to self-identify as “Jewish” and yet don’t have the decency to plainly admit that they firmly reject the moral tenets of Judaism properly so called.
For the EJC and certain other so-called “Jewish” organizations, “Holocaust Remembrance” has nothing whatsoever to do with upholding human dignity; much less does it have anything to do with honoring the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Rather, Holocaust, Inc.®, as the aforementioned collection of organizations should more properly be called, with their ubiquitous slogan “Never Again” ®, is nothing more than the marketing arm of a progressive humanist movement seeking to increase its financial and political influence in furtherance of its anti-Catholic, globalist, agenda; an agenda that includes such abominations as abortion, LGBT activism, and earth worship.
“Holocaust” insofar as these people are concerned isn’t a reference to genocide, it’s a brand – a highly marketable commodity, the exclusive rights to which they will stop at nothing to defend.
As such, it is no surprise that the EJC was pleased to report to its supporters:
A far-right wing populist group from Poland was forced to take down a controversial poster-exhibition at the European Parliament in Strasbourg that compared abortion to the Holocaust.
The “far-right wing” group’s crime was to call attention to one of the Ten Commandments given by God to Moshe Kantor’s namesake, “Thou shalt not kill,” by daring to “juxtapose photos of children in Nazi concentration camps, linking abortion and Nazi crimes.”
The heart of the problem in this case – in addition to the fact that the ersatz “Jews” at EJC could give a falafel about Divine Revelation – is that concentration camp photos are proprietary, belonging not to the public domain, but rather to Holocaust, Inc.
Oh, they can be used without the express permission of Holocaust, Inc., but only if done in a manner that is consonant with their godless aims, likewise, comparisons drawn between Hitler ® (another wholly owned commodity of Holocaust, Inc.) and modern day political figures.
Which brings me back to His Humbleness, Francis – the media manipulator extraordinaire who recently saw fit to play the Hitler card in a way that has been received by many (and never denied by the Holy See) as a reference to Donald Trump, the latter committing such unforgivable “populist” crimes as signing an executive order banning government funding of foreign pro-abortion groups.
How fitting it is that members of the European Jewish Congress should enjoy a pleasant little visit with Francis, the same who doesn’t have the decency to answer five simple questions thereby plainly admitting that he too firmly rejects the moral tenets of the religion that he claims to represent.
May it please God to grant us a pope who is less concerned with winning favor with the enemies of Jesus Christ than with treating every day as Pentecost Remembrance Day by calling the Jews, and others exposed to final despair, to conversion.
The Devil is in the Vatican.I can’t say more than that.Pray for Bergoglio.
Bergoglio loves Martin Luther. Bergoglio loves the Jews. Martin Luther (Hitler’s inspiration ??) hated the Jews. Can someone explain this to me?
Dear Louie: When I read your articles on the tragedies of Vatican II and the misguided views of Jorge Bergoglio, it boggles my mind as to why Bishop Fellay [leading the SSPX] is so persistent in his efforts to sign an accord with Rome. It seems to me that pure Catholicism lies sithin the SSPX and perhaps in the other Traditional groups who hold fast to the Traditions, Doctrines and Dogmas passed down from the Apostles. Rome MUST come home to Tradition. Perhaps you or one of your devoted followers could give me some insight.
Every day, something new from , Francis. He is trying to destroy the Church by a thousand little cuts and he is well on his way to that thousand. All the prelates who should speak up are silent because of human respect, cowardice or they are one with Francis. It is plain to see that the problem has gotten so enormous that no power on earth can come even close to solving it. God had given the victory to His Mother and it shall be hers. All these enemies of the Church will rue the day they pitted themselves against Holy Mother the Church. God will be merciless against them when His time comes, and it is coming and I believe, soon.
I read St Pius X’s Pascendi in which he lays out the modernist mindset.
Although the Saint explained it with a great deal of exacting care, it is still impossible for me to follow it in much depth.
Francis is a modernist, so, unfortunately, there is nothing else to explain.
Because thousands of Catholics, fed up with the heresy of anti-pope Bergoglio, could go over to the SSPX lifeboat with the resulting strong possibility of eternal salvation. Frankly, I think every thinking person should anyway. With His Excellency’s caveat, if everything goes off the rails with Bergoglio and the SSPX, they go off on their own again, not “in communion” with what too many still think is the real Catholic Church. It’s about the potential of saving souls, something that is increasingly unlikely for people who stay with the traditional Catholic real estate, owned and operated by heretics.
Tradprofessor, you paint a picture of subterfuge. Do you think it is moral to pretend to be something you are not? Your scenario, while it may lead trad NO souls to a better place, smacks of deception. To accomplish this task, the SSPX will have to stop “resisting.”
Being wise as a serpent sometimes requires righteous deception, especially amidst today’s universal madness.
Jews are at the vanguard not only of today’s ongoing holocaust of legalized fetal infanticide; they’re also at the vanguard of today’s ongoing holocaust of white genocide, manifested by the relentless push for open borders and “diversity.” They’re indispensably abetted in promoting this latter holocaust by today’s legions of suicidally xenophilic, pathologically altruistic white ethnomasochists.
Essential viewing on YouTube:
“Diversity” is White Genocide (Red-pilled Version)
OldTradCat I too was shocked at what was reported on SSPX, maybe that is the beginning of the end of a SSPX that is faithful to the Tradition. However I think it would be a slow death, not a sudden death like the Order of Malta. It took a while for Vatican to wipe out all the traditionist in the Diocese in Brazil in which the late Bishop Oscar de Meyer was once in charge.
Speaking of atrocities and the Pope… I wrote this on VoxCantor and feel I should share this here too. Something that I believe needs to be looked at and critiqued carefully:
—–
The alternative non-Catholic media had long ago suspected Bergolio…
“Washington’s Pope”? Who is Pope Francis?
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
http://www.globalresearch.ca/washingtons-pope-who-is-francis-i-cardinal-jorge-mario-bergoglio-and-argentinas-dirty-war/5326675
Pope Francis and the Dirty War – Michel Chossudovsky on GRTV
https://youtu.be/Lu0wosZyb5U
It’s time to reopen these files.
I recommend everyone read and watch the links I provided earlier by Prof. Chossudovsky, even if he was s a bit of a left-leaner.
If the data he paints is true, and Pope Francis had a hand in certain political atrocities then this explains A LOT!
It would paint Bergolio as a man saddled with a guilty conscience so painful that he would be likely to fall prey to that unforgiveable sin against the Holy Spirit that would make one unwilling to believe in or accept forgiveness from God. Either that or to the alternative error that also took hold of Martin Luther. A gravely false understanding of God’s salvation and mercy. A soul so scared that Confession becomes impossible, as if in a torture chamber and being unable to confess such sins, make excuses that the circumstances were too much. Assume God is at fault for one’s sins and presume His mercy without need for confession or repentance.
Bergolio likely has a guilty conscience. He projects this upon others, those pious hiding something behind their traditions. Who are they to judge? Who are they to stand in the way of his theology that absolves all from guilt? Or if not be annihilated rather than Hell!
How can such guilt allow one to confect or receive the Eucharist, much less genuflect before it, without confession, or if confessed, believing it not enough or invalid, or preferably that it was never God in the flesh at all?
This may very well be at the heart of things and Francis’ motives and anger. The thing that as prophecies might recall would cause the Holy Father to suffer much and find stones and insults hurled at him, until finally execution by proverbial arrows and bullets. But the source is from within him itself!
This bears looking into, maybe all Francis needs is true humility and penitence and a good Confessor. He might be the one in search of true mercy all this time. But mercy has a cost…
I should also doubly add that if Bergolio does feel guilty about atrocities against left leaning groups, that it would also make sense of his actions as Pope to kiss up to them, champion socialist causes and even provide them cover. One might also venture to guess that he himself could be liable to blackmail as a last resort by intelligence agencies.
The sspx is not a lifeboat. You cannot stand against a true pope on matters of faith and morals, when he sets forth his teachings universally, nor his governance of the Church. HE is in charge on all matters. The sspx is whistling past the graveyard. If you believe that francis is a heretic and therefore an anti-pope (which of course he is), than how can you be a member of the sspx? The sspx denies these things and calls francis a true pope.
Sedevacantism Debunked In A Nutshell
–
The dogmatic sedevacantist position is one that may appear as a legitimate solution to this crisis in the Church (the worst in Her history, it would seem), but only to those who have not yet fully explored its ramifications or do not know Her teaching well enough. In point of fact, there are at least several “one-shot kills” of the position – simple facts that, in and of themselves, render it logically impossible and, actually, leading directly to material heresy. We will explore a few of them here, and then briefly explore the false basis of the sedevacantist position.
–
1) The Fourth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, Canon 10: The Church directly and formally considered the question of whether or not the faithful can formally separate from any prelate sans judgment by the Church, and the answer – of course – was no. Sedevacantists live materially under the anathema the council declared:
–
“… this holy and universal synod justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful enquiry and judgment in synod, even if he alleges that he knows of some crime perpetrated by his patriarch, and he must not refuse to include his patriarch’s name during the divine mysteries or offices.”
–
2) The Church teaches that the public acceptance by a moral unanimity of the Church of a supreme pontiff is itself proof of his validity; the theologians agree that this constitutes what is known as a “dogmatic fact,” which is a matter so closely related to a dogma that it must be infallibly true for the dogma to have meaning (that dogma in this case being essentially papal infallibility). It is a mortal sin against Faith to reject a dogmatic fact.
–
What if Pius V had lost his office due to heresy, and his ratification of the Council of Trent was thus null? If Catholics could not rely on the dogmatic facts of papal acceptance, absolutely nothing in the Church would be certain! Would Christ have constructed such a house of cards?
–
(Note that the exceptions such as the Western Schism do not undo this rule: In such cases there obviously was *not* universal acceptance of the pontiff.)
–
3) The Visibility of the Church: The Church’s visibility is one of her three attributes – necessary qualities that follow directly from her nature – and sedevacantism leads directly to a denial of it (or her indefectibility, which is probably an even more serious breach of Catholic doctrine).
–
This visibility has both material and formal aspects: Materially, people can identify the Church by her visible members & hierarchy and, formally, know the Catholic Church is the true Church, by her Marks. For God to command that souls enter this Church (as He does) as the Ark of Salvation, it must be formally visible. As Christ’s incarnate, physical Body was visible, so is that of His Church. (And as He is composed of two natures, divine and human, so is the Church – one can err, one cannot.)
–
The notion of an invisible Church (with visible members) was, of course, one of the primary errors/denials of the early “Reformers,” and that is exactly where sedevacantists have pitched their tent today – as with the Protestants, it is essentially a *necessary* consequence of their position. Sede leaders have advanced models of the Church that are identical to the Protestant definition. But the Church cannot be invisible; it cannot be hidden; it cannot be some visible entity other than what it was in the past. Any of these things destroy the Church’s teachings regarding her visibility. Sedevacantism tosses this to the wind with their constant talk of the “false church of Vatican II”. If this Church is now false, where, now, is the Catholic Church? Clearly they cannot point to any specific Church that *has her four Marks and necessary attributes*. They know this and do not try; that is how they end up with the Protestent definition of the Church as merely a collection of visible members.
–
(Somewhat related to visibility is the mark of universality (catholicity). Theologians have discussed two two aspects of catholicity: right & fact. The former of these means that the Church always had the aptitude to spread throughout the world, and the latter that it did, in fact, do so. Van Noort, among others, notes that once the Church became universal in fact (spread to many nations) this characteristic became a permanent, necessary quality of it. Thus, once the Church (visible as she always has been and will be) became spread broadly among many nations, this so-called moral universality became a permanent property. The Church is now formally visible throughout virtually the entire world, perpetually – everyone (generally speaking) knows of the Catholic Church. It can never be the case that the Church that was once so broadly visible can cease to be formally visible.)
–
We’ve got three separate, unrelated matters that each kill the sede hypothesis dead in one shot.
–
Now that we have taken a look at some things that destroy the sedevacantist position before it gets out of the gate, we’ll look at the root of their errors.
–
As we all know, the core tenet of sedevacantism is that the post-conciliar popes (as well as more than a few others some of them also condemn) either were never popes or lost their office due to heresy (the *sin* of heresy as opposed to the crime, they say, this being an important distinction).
–
Concerning that critical determination of heresy, it is here where the dogmatic sedes first go wrong – and these errors in premise result in large errors in conclusion (as John Salza likes to say). The demonstrated fact (it’s been demonstrated very thoroughly by Salza & Siscoe) is that there is no theologian in the history of the Church who ever sanctioned what the sedes do: Making the critical determination of formal (obstinate) heresy a matter of private judgment.
–
I’m going to include only one link in this little piece, and that’s this one: http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/whyfr.html
–
Bellarmine has long been the sedevacantists’ “go-to theologian,” but he, like all the rest of them, clearly taught that *the Church* (not Fr. Cekada, Mario Derkson, John Lane, or any of the rest of them) must make a judgement of pertinacity in heresy for a pontiff to be separated from his office.
–
(Bellarmine, the canon “Si Papa” which was Church law for eight centuries, and other theologians note that the crime of heresy is the one exception to the rule that “the First See can be judged by no one.”)
–
There is more. Related to the determination of pertinacity, sedes all make a critical error in confusing the sin vs. the crime of heresy. They have long based their position on thesis that *sin* of heresy (which lives in the *internal* forum) results in the loss of ecclesiastic office, which is a matter of the *external* forum. In fact, neither the Church in any capacity nor any theologian has ever taught such a thing. God alone, of course, judges the internal forum, and nothing in the internal forum can possibly sever one from the *Body* of the Church (sedes typically make no distinction whatever between the Body and the Soul of the Church), which is where ecclesiastic office resides. (All the evidence for these assertions is in “True or False Pope,” and it is irrefutable.)
–
As Bellarmine also said, to paraphrase, as the Church is directly involved in elevating a man to the papacy, so it must be involved in separating him from it, should that occur.
–
Aquinas condemned the “judgement by usurpation” endemic to an individual claiming to have the power to depose a prelate from his office (in congruence with the Fourth Council of Constantinople referenced above).
–
This has been a very high-level view of the fatal issues with sedevacantism, intended to be extremely succinct. Rest assured that for every objection raised, there is an answer, and they can pretty much all be found in “True Or False Pope.”
–
God hasn’t given us a Church – perpetual, indefectible, and immaculate, the infallible Ark of Salvation – yet so ridiculously fragile and subject to individual whim as the sede thesis claims. It can’t have been meant to work that way and it does not work that way. Realizing how terrible this crisis of modernism is, seeing the Church bruised and bloodied, is indeed impetus for *exploring* notion such that the pontiffs who have ruled over this ruin were and are not truly popes. However, it simply is not possible to conclude so without embracing not only logical absurdities but material heresy as well.
–
One can see that some of these things can’t really be explained in sound bytes; it seems that sedes do tend to like things simple. They throw out Fr. Cekada’s syllogism again & again without realizing it is full of oversimplifications and other errors. Sorry, but we can’t demand a Theology of Bumper Stickers.
–
But, actually, this IS simple – look above. Sedevacantism quickly leads to logical nonsense, contradicts de fide teachings of the Church, and, according to the theologians, entails anathema or mortal sin in at least two areas (formal separation from a prelate without judgement from the Church, and rejection of the dogmatic fact of a pontiff’s election & reign).
“…with what too many still think is the real Catholic Church” – Oops. So you’re saying the Body that was the Catholic Church in 1958 no longer is? How did that happen? How is it that Christ’s promise regarding the Church proved null?
–
The Church is filled with erring, modernist clergy (just as it was filled nearly to brim with such in the time of Arius), but it is still the Church. There has always been on true Church, which is both materially and formally visible (it can be recognized as such), and there will be, until the end of time.
Trad Professor – please let me know what, if anything, of the below you disagree with, and, if so, please cite your authorities. (Specific authorities contradicting these *specific* teachings.)
–
Before speaking of the visibility of the Church per se, a brief detour into the nature of the papacy. Is it possible for the office of the papacy to be empty for extremely long periods of time – decades, even the better part of a century, as the sedevacantists assert? No, not really.
–
Vatican I, Session IV, Ch. II: “…if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter *should have perpetual successors in the primary over the whole Church*; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.”
–
“Perpetual” means continuous as well as unbroken – large gaps in time are not congruent with this teaching. The illustrious 20th century theologian, Fr. E. Sylvester Berry (whom sedes like to quote, actually), notes that, “the successors of St. Peter… form *an unbroken line of supreme pastors to rule the Church in its continued existence*… the Church must have a custodian, a supreme law-giver and judge, if she is to continue as Christ founded her.” The illustrious Msgr. Van Noort echoes: “It is a fact beyond question that the Church can never fail to have a successor to Peter.” (Both these quotes are on p21 of True Or False Pope.)
–
(Note that in times of multiple papal claimants, such as the Great Schism, there was a true pope, though his identity was not plainly known – his reign was not a dogmatic fact (unlike the situation today) since he had not been accepted by a moral unanimity of the episcopate. It should also be apparent to common sense that the brief period of an election, necessary as they are, do not violate this rule.)
–
On, now, to the visibility of the Church. Van Noort wrote that, “That the Church is visible follows necessarily from the fact that it is a real society, for there can be no genuine society in the world of men unless it is visible.” (Christ’s Church, quoted in TOFP, p25.)
–
This visibility has both material and formal aspects – the latter, basically, speaks to the ability of people to recognize the Church for what She is – the true Church, which men are *commanded* to enter for their salvation (God could not command such a thing if the Church were not both materially visible and able to be recognized as the true Church). It is the Church’s four Marks that give it formal visibility.
–
Fr. Berry, “The Church of Christ”: “The Church of Christ is formally visible, not only as a Church, but also as the true Church of Christ. **This is an article of faith, having been defined by the Vatican Council in the following words: ‘God established a Church through His only begotten Son, and endowed it with manifest marks of its institution, that it might be known by all as the guardian and teacher of the revealed world.”
–
Sede objections of, “the Church isn’t teaching truth anymore!!” and so on do not really hold water because the *official* teachings of the Church have not changed one whit in the past 50 years. The set of defined dogma is the same now as then; yes, this is the protection by the Holy Ghost of His Church, and, yes, this is the *opposite* of what we’d expect to see from a false church aping the true Church.
–
It should be readily apparent that this formal visibility is indeed a *necessary* attribute of the Church, as Fr. Berry points out is, in fact, a de fide teaching (this means, in point of simple fact, to deny or obstinately doubt it is material heresy). Next, we come to the closely related additional attributes of indefectibility, which means, simply, that the Church cannot “fail.” Despite what has been asserted here time and again, having one Catholic in his basement with his Bible somewhere in the world is *not* sufficient to hold back “failure” – the Church must remain materially and formally visible, as noted above.
–
Fr. Berry, “The Church Of Christ,” TOFP p30: “Perpetuity is indefectibility in existence. Strictly speaking, indefectibility pertains to the essential qualities of the Church, perpetuity to her existence. These two qualities, although distinct, are so closely related that it is difficult to treat them separately… If the Church is indefectible in her essential qualities and perpetual in her existence, **she must be perpetually indefectible in all essential qualities**.”
–
There we have it: The Church will always be formally visible. Period. This is *not* the hidden, underground, invisible church of the sedevacantists.
–
According to the sedes, there was the Catholic Church, in 1958, then the day after John XXIII’s election, POOF – she’s just plain gone. And still nowhere to be found – except in sede chapels here or there. Again, this is textbook Protestant ecclesiastical theology – PERIOD!
–
Just as the evil, heretical Arian bishops (90-99% of the hierarchy at the time) did indeed constitute the visible Church then, along with its head, the predominantly (that may even be slightly too harsh) modernist bishops of today do as well, like it or not.
–
Cardinal Billot – another eminent theologian – explained that the Church publicly adhering to a false pope would irreparably damage her indefectibility – it would make Christ’s promise a lie: “… the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined pontiff, and therefore also of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself… For the adhesion of the Church to a false pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith.”
–
(You can’t wiggle out of this by saying it’s a false church that’s accepted these false popes – see above.)
Francis is a liberal, Marxist, Talmudic Jew.
The enemy of my enemies is my friend. The first principle of the Revolutionaries.
If you a lot of time, scroll through the daily postings at tradition.com as they have covered the Fellay mess for years.
Sorry, the correct website is:
traditio.com
James Larson, contributor to Christian Order and blogger, brought up an interesting point regarding the issue of heresy. He wrote: “It is absolutely absurd to believe that the Cardinals could ever agree on declaring the Pope to be in formal heresy. They would not even be able to agree about what constitutes “formal” heresy.” The reason this is so is that “very likely, {absolutely is more accurate in my opinion}, a great many do not even believe in the legitimacy of the charge of heresy, since they now possess an evolutionary view of man’s spiritual growth which allows for no such black/white distinctions. The formal charge of heresy would be to them a ‘Medieval thing’, not suitable to their modern ecumenical understanding. After all, if the Pope can be a heretic, so also must be Lutherans or the Eastern Orthodox. And how many Cardinals are ready to go there!”
Indeed.
He continues, “..the fact that approximately 40% of the 120 Cardinals eligible to vote in a Conclave have been personally elevated to that position by Pope Francis, {and how many more by Benedict XVI who believes the heresy of evolutionary spiritual growth?} and that there has been very little doctrinal backbone evident in those elevated to this position before his pontificate.”
http://www.waragainstbeing.com/
They don’t have to all agree. This is mostly a straw man.
–
And, according to many, the dubia cardinals have a great many silent supporters. If there is a formal correction, then the battle lines are really drawn, and we’ll see what we see.
“We are facing a holocaust of the spiritual life and well-being of children which is directly attibutable to the chaos in religious instruction, sacramental life, and morality which has been the inheritance of post-VaticanII life in the Church. And this chaos in all things Catholic is directly attributable to the philosophical-theological orientation of members of the Catholic hierarchy, especially to the Popes who have reigned during and since the Council.”
James Larson
Writer for Christian Order and blogger
NOT a sedevacantist
A more realistic theory is that since Bergoglio was raised by both the revolutionary spirit in Argentina and trained by and mentored by revolutionaries in the Church, he can do nothing other than teach and preach the Revolution.
Writer, blogger James Larson (NOT a sedevacantist) states it best when he wrote: “The Church hierarchy are lying down in spiritual fornication with the enemies of the Church.” And, “…the spirit of Antichrist has invaded the thinking and actions of the Pope himself.” {My comment, not Mr. Larson’s is: This includes Benedict XVI definitely and to a lesser extent, John Paul II.}
http://www.waragainstbeing.com/
We are seeing prophecy unfold right before our eyes. The Antichrist will rise. Preparation is taking a path we haven’t seen before in history-the Church hierarchy lying down in spiritual fornication with the enemies of the Church.
In the Apocolypse: “And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: that all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.”
James Larson: “It is ‘love of truth’ which is here clearly proposed as the fundamental passion of the human soul which restrains the Antichrist. Jesus Christ is the Word of Truth Who is generated eternally from the Father, and therefore it only makes perfect sense that the path to Anti-Christ should be paved with betrayal of, or silence in regard to Truth. It is this silence of Pope Francis-this interior ‘casting down of truth’ in the name of a false mercy and inclusiveness-which now facilitates the rise of the man of lawlessness.”
Worse, he is not only silent in regard to Truth at times, but more vocal in his denials of it.
He goes on: “This does not mean that the papacy of Francis will lead directly to the reign of Antichrist. Our Lady has promised that her triumph will precede this final chastisement.”
All right. How many do have to agree? Two? Three? Some other established number and by whom?
Modernism boils down to Cult of Man vs Cult of God. So while the faith does not change externally, internally the emphasis shifts from God to Man. Hence the NO. God no longer exists for us to serve Him, for modernists he exists to serve Us. This has the effect of slowly destroying faith itself since we slowly drift inward where we become the ultimate magesterium. That is why I implore all those who still hold any vestige of the faith left to have absolutely nothing to do with the post v2 NO sect. Nothing! It will lead to the death of your faith.
It’s true we’re in undefined territory regarding some of the specifics!
–
This is not gospel (as is acknowledged by the author), but see the latter part:
–
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/2981-pope-francis-refuses-to-answer-the-dubia-what-happens-next
Nor does he sound like one. He sounds like a Traditionalist in the vein of the pioneers and leaders of the movement, since he speaks of the terrible crisis, of the failure (even “diabolical disorientation”) of the upper hierarchy, including the pope – but then he calls the popes “popes.”
Bergoglio reigns now as the head of “Holocaustianity” a fake religion of lies unfortunately completely opposed to the true religion he pretends to lead. Since the very earliest days of the Church, pharisaical, carnal jewry has plotted against the Church, and after nearly 2000 years has finally put one of their own in its highest seat. Its no suprise he invites the WJC and a near constant stream of Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Soros minions, he is one of them, and was put in place to do their bidding. “And they please not God, and are adversaries to all men.”
https://youtu.be/_cllmZQ_Z0A
https://youtu.be/k6C9BuXe2RM
I’d like to know what actions have been undertaken by these organisations, who rightfully demand “never again” , against the genocide of Christians in Syria?
The MSM’s silence during this recent genocide of the Christianpopulations of Aleppo and Homs, placed at the mercy of their own neighbors, the very same murderous fanatics the West championed as freedom fighters forging what they still herald as the ‘Arab spring’.
The silence of these virtue signalling “never again” chanters in government and media, and most shamefully in the hierarchy, is so stark it makes them almost complicit in the murderous atrocities they kept under-reporting. Worse the previous administrations of USA and indeed UK wanted to aid the fanatics and indeed defeat the Syrian government who at least provided protection for Christians against Islamist extremists.
The essence of the solution to this quandry is that Rabbi Bergoglio is in favor of any and every enemy of the Catholic Church that survives to our own time–the possible exception is the Nazis and that is actually more complicated than it seems. Bergoglio esteems, values, praises, accompanies, dialogues with the Moslems, Freemasons, Communists, Feminists, pro abortionists, sodomites (he promotes them actually inside the V2 sect) LBGTQABC, atheists, Modernists, liberals–the Jews he basically grovels to. Luther he uses to batter the counter-reformation Roman Church and the traditional and triumphalist Church (oh, for the good old days!) from sprang from that counter-reformation. This keeps him in good with the rancid liberal Protestant sects who are basically in denial about Luther the anti-Semite (they have to be) and and focus on Luther the apostate and reprobate Augustinian monk who ALMOST toppled the Roman Church-almost.
The bigger and more interesting question is this: the Jews and their many organizations and their lackeys jump on anybody who breathes a critical word about them, their religion, history, the Israeli state. etc. Why don’t THEY attack Bergoglio for honoring such an anti-Semite? The answer to that might answer a lot of other questions.