On the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, Francis, in a shameless attempt to fool the ignorant into believing that he and his agenda are Catholic, stood before a statue of Our Lady to deliver what amounted to a glorified political speech disguised as a prayer.
Pretending to seek Our Lady’s intercession, he used the occasion to publicize a laundry list of his pet causes (e.g., poverty, immigration, environmentalism) and to convict those who aren’t convinced of his pious intentions as fearful, hypocritical, and antisocial.
The full text of Jorge’s “prayer” is linked above. Go ahead, read it. Allow yourself to become outraged at the mockery of Our Lord’s mother as her Feast Day is leveraged as a public relations tool by a heretic dressed in papal garb in furtherance of his earthbound agenda.
And then, offer prayers and sacrifices in consolation of Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart.
One of my first thoughts in reading the disgusting text was, No surprise, after all, this is the same guy who claimed that Our Lady wished to accuse God of lying.
This thought led me to reread those comments.
Speaking of Our Lady at the foot of the Cross, Francis stated in December 2013:
The Gospel does not tell us anything: if she spoke a word or not… She was silent, but in her heart, how many things told the Lord! ‘You, that day, this and the other that we read, you had told me that he would be great, you had told me that you would have given him the throne of David, his forefather, that he would have reigned forever and now I see him there!’ Our Lady was human! And perhaps she even had the desire to say: ‘Lies! I was deceived!’ John Paul II would say this, speaking about Our Lady in that moment. But she, with her silence, hid the mystery that she did not understand and with this silence allowed for this mystery to grow and blossom in hope.
Upon publication of these blasphemous words, a number of commentators objected to Francis’ suggestion that John Paul II “would say this.”
As for why Francis would make such a claim, apparently he had in mind the Encyclical Redemptoris Mater, wherein John Paul II said:
At that moment [the Annunciation] she had also heard the words: “He will be great…and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end” (Lk. 1:32-33). And now, standing at the foot of the Cross, Mary is the witness, humanly speaking, of the complete negation of these words. (RM 18)
Do you see how Bergoglio twisted and manipulated the words of John Paul II?
I suspect that many, if not most of you, said yes.
As for me, what I see is Francis, a dyed-in-the-wool Vatican II modernist, building upon the example of yet another dyed-in-the-wool Vatican II modernist.
Let’s take a closer look at what the Polish pope said in Redemptoris Mater, and I’ll conclude by giving you another opportunity to tell me what you see.
Question: Is it true that the words of the Archangel Gabriel, spoken at the Annunciation, telling Mary that her Son would be a King whose reign is everlasting, were completely negated on the Cross, humanly speaking?
I can imagine the neo-con answering:
Yes, but only ‘humanly speaking’ since Our Lord, in His sacred humanity, truly died! Our King, however, is true God!
This is an entirely conciliar way of looking at the Kingship of Christ; i.e., it is wrong.
As Pope Pius XI wrote in his magnificent Encyclical Quas Primas:
But if we ponder this matter more deeply, we cannot but see that the title and the power of King belongs to Christ as man in the strict and proper sense too. For it is only as man that he may be said to have received from the Father “power and glory and a kingdom,” since the Word of God, as consubstantial with the Father, has all things in common with him, and therefore has necessarily supreme and absolute dominion over all things created. (Quas Primas 7)
Get that?
The power of King belongs to Christ “as man in the strict and proper sense;” i.e., humanly speaking.
When the Archangel tells the Virgin Mary that “the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever,” therefore, he is speaking precisely of her Son in His sacred humanity; i.e., “human speaking.”
As such, Our Lord’s death on the Cross, by which He merited the Kingship that was given to Him, does not represent “the complete negation” of Gabriel’s words; most especially “humanly speaking” since this is the only way (the only Catholic way, that is) that they can be understood!
To this, no doubt, the neo-con defender of all things Wojtyla will object:
John Paul II merely meant to say that viewing the Cross in purely human terms makes it appear as though the words of the angel were completely negated!
Nice try, but John Paul II wasn’t speaking about human beings in any general sense, much less only those who are spiritually blind; rather, he was speaking very specifically about Our Lady and what she witnessed while standing at the foot of the Cross:
“Mary is the witness, humanly speaking, of the complete negation of these words.” – JPII
Let us not forget (as Francis reminded us) that Mary is entirely human!
In other words, John Paul II – the ‘Totus Tuus’ pope who allegedly embodied Marian devotion like no other pope before him – is telling us what the Cross looked like through the eyes of the Blessed Virgin Mary; namely, the complete negation of the words spoken at the Annunciation.
At this, let’ revisit the words of Francis:
Our Lady was human! And perhaps she even had the desire to say: ‘Lies! I was deceived!’ John Paul II would say this, speaking about Our Lady in that moment.
Now do you see how Bergoglio twisted and manipulated the words of John Paul II?
I didn’t think so.
If you found this post helpful, praise God, and please help me to continue this effort.
Inversion of Truth is of the devil and it is the best descriptor of Bergoglio’s “pontificate”. For this man to act as if he’s devoted to the Mother of God is a lie, for it would mean that he’s devoted to the Woman who crushes the head of the one he serves with such enthusiasm.
When you start referring to popes simply by their last names, you may be drifting towards the s word. If somebody referenced Sarto or Pecci Id be going right to wikipedia to find out who they were. Bergoglio and Wojtyla….I know those two names like I know my own.
And for the umpteenth time , what is so wrong about the S word when its viability is upheld by the teaching of Scripture, Saints, Doctors of the Church, and the ordinairy Magisterium of the Catholic Church as defined by papal teaching and Canon Law especially over the past 500 years? The ‘anything but’ crowd needs to get a life and a pair of eyes. I’m a Sede 2.0. Only since 2014. I don’t ascribe to all aspects of Sede 1.0 but they are fundamentally right about Catholic Doctrine concerning the Papacy. Believe me, the number of Sede 2.0’s grow each day when this apostate remains in Rome. .
Im assuming sede 2.0’s are those who denounce bergoglio but accept ratzinger? Im 1.0 but I just want to make sure we’re talking about the same thing.
If you’re a sede then I apologize. Your post was ambiguous. No I view the rest as being doubtful popes. I differ on the validity of orders that’s about it but even my position is not definitive in my view. They created a new and false religion so they are all suspect. Bergolio is damnable because no pope should even come anywhere close to changing the teaching on marriage—-this is what is in my view madness for those clinging to Francis.
I’m 1.0 with you Rich. If Bergolio isn’t Pope, then none of the conciliar pretenders could be either.
And you will never see me criticize either of you. Without the sede 1.0’s I would not be here today. I owe you a debt of thanks. All of this will soon become academic as no one who wants to save their soul will have any contact with the official “church”. Even the Remnant is slowly coming to sanity on this fact. That will leave those who are baptized and hold the Catholic Faith against all others.
The Remnant has a post on a sermon Burke just gave. He actually uses the modernist term “new evangalization.” So far my comments there have been deleted (shocking!). Its apparent that Burke is their new Pope. Just as they were highly critical of Ratzinger, until he became Pope, they are now pitching woo with Burke. Read the comments, unbelievable.
See it. as clear As mud.
Pure vomit, Modernist worm ridden thinking makes no sense to me.
Sr Lucy is right, how little do we know Our Lord , and how little still do we know Our Blessed Mother , His powerful Ark!
My goodness it’s no different than the heretics ignorant song “Mary did you know.”
What a stupid stupid song.
Ditto, I’m a 1.0 sede too Tom. The problem is not even Bergoglio, it’s Vatican II. Vatican II created a new false religion.
I apologize. As I look at my post it was a bit ambiguous, I agre. I personally came to the only viable option (as I understand the Catholic Faith) about 4 years ago.
Tom
I dont post here much anymore, but I visit this site daily. Keep up the good fight….and to Verrechio, you keep up the good fight as well.
I am happy that Francis has opened your eyes Semper, but why does Francis’ ripping apart of the 6th and 9th Commandments trump Vatican II’s (and therefore all of the conciliar papal claimants’) ripping apart of the 1st Commandment?
There are some in the Traditional Catholic Movement who get excited and see great hope when a prominent Cardinal or Bishop celebrates the TLM. If these same “Catholic”leaders also “celebrate” the N.O. V2 mess, isn’t it all just smoke and mirrors? The theology behind the TLM and the N.O. mess is totally contradictory. I don’t get it. I’m waiting for Cardinal Burke to make a statement that he will only celebrate the TLM because the N.O. mess is a fabrication of man designed to glorify Man not God. Do you think that day will ever come?
Everyone is upset over Bergoglio allowing communion for adulterers, as well they should be, but it is actually much worse to give the Holy Eucharist to non-Catholics than to Catholics in a state of mortal sin.
This sacrilege is specifically allowed in the 1983 new Code of Canon Law, Canon 844, which was promulgated by “Saint” JPII.
No.
Yes, which gets back to my comment up-thread about teachings contrary to the 6th and 9th commandments versus the First Commandment.
Sarto I know. If one considers that Jorge Bergoglio is not truly pope because Benedict XVI did not validly resign, then one is not sede vacantist. No seat is vacant when occupied by someone. So that is a misnomer for those who say Benedict not Francis is pope. It seems to me that John Paul II had a devotion, though inadequate, to Our Lady. I can see zero sign of devotion in Francis/Bergoglio. I was dedicated to Mary before I was born when I almost died and she saved my life, so I have been wounded by what this man has said about Our Lady. He has never known her at all to speak this way. It is surely a pretense, a useful facade. Thank you so much Louie Verrecchio for your articles. God bless you.
I found this part of the speech/prayer interesting. ..
–
“Immaculate Virgin, 175 years ago, not far from here,
in the church of Sant’Andrea delle Fratte,
you touched the heart of Alphonse Ratisbonne, who at that moment,
from being an atheist and enemy of the Church, became a Christian.
You revealed yourself to him as a Mother of grace and mercy.”
–
Alphonse Ratisbonne, by all accounts, was a jew, and he was engaged to a jewess before his conversion, after which, he dedicated himself to converting fellow jews. The Pope calls him an atheist here, which I’ve never heard before, but it is a secondary point or perhaps not true.
–
The conversion of Alphonse Ratisbonne is ignored by the conciliar church, because he was a jew. But now I suppose it is ok to talk about him if he is referred to as an atheist.
I second that ‘NO” !
Yes, and those people who feel that way will be tasked with a tough decision if/when Fr Ratzinger passes away before jorge. Then will they be sedevacantists (for the wrong reason of course), or will there be a new excuse?
It would be difficult to convince me that the Novus Ordo establishment believes in the Real Presence. (Actions speak louder than words) Therefore, it is no big deal to allow receiving holy communion to anyone. The Novus Ordo is not Catholic. It is another Protestant sect who believe the Eucharist is symbolic. At least, Protestants are what they say they are and do not claim to be Catholic.
True. But for those who still think it is Catholic, why are they suddenly so upset with Francis giving communion to adulterers when non-Catholics have been given the green light by his predecessors (including the “real” pope Benedict) for decades now?
Typically when I bring up the codification of Vatican II in JPII’s Code of Canon Law (which clearly states that non-Catholics CAN receive communion), so-called traditionalists in the Novus Ordo church usually remain silent.
A new excuse for most.
Of course. No longer are we to convert Jews. They don’t need to be converted!
2Vermont–You pose a very logical question. According to the website of my local diocese, non-Catholic Christians are allowed to received Holy Communion under special circumstances which I interpreted to be quite liberal. I believe this policy goes back to 1993. I would encourage visitors to this blog, to research their own diocese regarding this matter. I would guess that this is a universal norm. So, therefore, why the fuss over AL? AL is just another bi-product of V2. How is it possible to be a “traditionalist” in the N.O. church? A zebra is not a horse even if you painted it brown.
Like I said in my post, if you look at the 1983 Code of Canon Law you will see the “special circumstances” that non-Catholics are allowed to receive communion. JPII clearly explains that his Code is a codification of the Council.
Never before in the history of the Catholic Church were non-Catholics allowed to receive communion before they converted to the Catholic Faith…no exceptions.
Benedict the Abdicator gave the NO “eucharist” to a known protestant on at least one highly public NO occasion. There are probably many more.
Hi, John314. Just a clarification — Alphonse Ratisbonne called himself an atheist Jew. He basically did not believe in anything, which is why his conversion was truly miraculous. He an his brother, as you wrote, spent the remainder of their lives converting their fellow Jews, but their apostolate has fallen down the rabbit hole, never to be heard of again.
That may be true Lake Erie, but the fact that Bergoglio leaves out the “Jew” part is no coincidence.
One of those fairy Swiss Guards should hoist Bergoloio on one of their petards.
It is more than fair to refer to these men by their surnames who have drifted so far past the H word.
Rich, a heretic is a heretic is a heretic. Any pertinacious public heretic has separated himself from mother Church and thereby without further declaration, loses all power and authority of office. This goes for all heretics in white, not just bergoglio.