Previous Posts

No time left for You

Louie,

christ-the-king Prince of PeaceVatican Radio is reporting that Pope Francis has announced the theme for the 2016 World Day of Peace.

Be prepared to get inspired…

Are you ready?

“Overcome Indifference and Win Peace”

Do you hear the angelic choir singing?

Nah, me neither.

According to a communique released by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace:

Indifference in regard to the scourges of our time is one of the fundamental causes of the lack of peace. Today, indifference is often linked to various forms of individualism which cause isolation, ignorance, selfishness and, therefore, lack of interest and commitment.

Among the individual “scourges of our time” listed in the communique are:

Fundamentalism, intolerance and massacres, persecutions on account of faith and ethnicity, disregard for freedom and the destruction of the rights of entire peoples, the exploitation of human beings submitted even to the different forms of slavery, corruption and organized crime, war and the plight of refugees and forcibly displaced persons.

Based on the entire body of work belonging to the present pontificate, one will hardly be surprised to learn that indifference toward Our Lord Jesus Christ didn’t make the cut among those scourges deemed worthy of mention in this purported peace initiative.

As for how the men of modern day Rome imagine peace may be attained, the communique suggests the need for “an increase of attention to the problems … accompanied by solidarity-based openness of conscience.”

Did you get that?

The pursuit of peace among men and nations will be fruitless, not without Jesus Christ apart from whom we can do nothing as those rascally traditionalists (aka Catholics) would have us believe, but apart from a “solidarity-based openness of conscience.”

What in the name of all that is good and holy does that even mean?

The answer is, it would seem, being little more than the “emotional and high-sounding words” so prevalent among the champions of Liberalism (cf Pope St. Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique), it means precisely nothing.

Unfortunately, that’s not the whole story.

What it really means is that those currently running the show in Rome in our day, the humble head honcho included, have precious little time for neither the Prince of Peace, Christ the King, nor the mission that He actually gave to His Church.

You see, theirs is a purely anthropocentric agenda, one that laughably imagines, according to the Pontifical Council:

Peace is possible where the rights of every human being are recognized and respected, heard and known, according to freedom and justice…

Peace is to be worked at: it is not something that one gains without efforts, without conversion of mind and heart, without a sense of creativity and positive engagement in discussion. Such an action must urgently have recourse to build a sense of responsibility and awareness creation about the serious problems and challenges afflicting our time…

“Awareness creation…”

The empty rhetoric employed by these geldings, far more befitting a leftwing political think tank than a body of churchmen, is enough to make one vomit.

And please, don’t let the pseudo-call to “conversion” fool you; it does not mean to suggest what Catholics have always intended. Remember, modernists often “change the meaning of words and things.” (Cf Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis)

Theirs is a call to conversion, not to Jesus Christ and the one true faith (for that would be “solemn nonsense”), but to “solidarity” with heathens, heretics and Jews, an “openness of conscience,” and, of course, “positive engagement in discussion.”

And to what end is this alleged conversion?

HINT: It’s certainly not the salvation of souls!

It is truly nothing more than an earthbound effort to address the aforementioned “scourges of our time;” not by teaching the nations everything whatsoever that Jesus commanded (cf Mt. 28:16-20), but through “education in dialogue and co-operation.”

So you tell me, was Archbishop Lefebvre correct in saying that Rome has lost the faith?

If you happen to be among those who still aren’t quite sure how to answer, might I suggest that you take a moment to discover how those Roman Pontiffs that reigned according to the mind of the Church (what Archbishop Lefebvre called “Eternal Rome”) addressed the cause of peace.

A great place to start would be an exploration of the Encyclical Letter of Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio: On the Peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ.

Having done so, apart from willful ignorance, evil intent, or diabolical disorientation (or perhaps even a combination of all three), one cannot but conclude that the Archbishop was entirely correct: Rome has lost the faith indeed.

The central issue is, and has been from the time of the Council on forward, that Jesus Christ is no longer “the center of society, the center of thoughts, the focus of reflection,” much less “King of the Universe” (to quote Pope Francis); rather, it is man.

This is so much the case that if the Holy See in our day was to commission an “Ode to Christ the King,” it might sound something like this:

Blog Post

Comments (44)

  1. What are the odds that there will be any mention of the only true path to peace, namely the consecration of Russia to The Immaculate Heart of Mary that our LORD and our Blessed Mother are still waiting on, 86 years later ?

  2. Exactly my thought Frank. Our Lady said, only I can help you now. With Rome being the shambles that it is peace is a long ways off. Then again, the worse it gets the closer we are to Mary s victory- surely it will be all the sweeter for all that is being endured now and will yet need to be endured. In the end Her Immaculate Will Triumph.

  5. Louie writes of Bergoglio having “precious little time for…the Prince of Peace”. I would say that the reason for this is intellectual, and will attempt to illustrate this as follows.
     

    To begin, I believe that there are at least two ways a Modernist pope can teach heresy. The first is to teach something specifically contrary to what has been defined as de fide catholicâ. The second is to downgrade the level of certainty that one should have in the faith. This latter way obviously entails a rejection of the authority of Christ’s Church, because the faith is not just to be believed, it is to be held as intellectually most certain.
     

    If we now consider Bergoglio’s teaching, we can see him speak positively to Catholics of “an element in favour of the historicity of the Resurrection”, and even of “evidence” and “proof” of the Holy Trinity and Transubstantiation. But what level of certainty does Bergoglio teach that this evidence and proof ought to give all mankind? 
     

    First let us look at his attitude to evidence of another historical fact – the Armenian genocide. About this fact, Bergoglio is certain. He remarks:
    “There was that great tragedy in Armenia. So many died. I don’t know the figure: more than a million certainly.”
    Nor is Bergoglio’s certainty affected by the opinions of others. For example, according to this news report, “Turkey…has insisted that the toll has been inflated, and that those killed were victims of civil war and unrest, not genocide”.
    Nor is Bergoglio affected by diplomatic considerations. The news report continues:
    “But Francis’s willingness to rile Ankara with his words showed once again that he has few qualms about taking diplomatic risks for issues close to his heart.”
     

    But what is Bergoglio’s public attitude to the historical fact of the Resurrection, a fact which has been additionally confirmed by infallible authority?
    Bergoglio, when he “teaches all nations”, implicitly places this momentous fact below the level of historical certainty, in spite of any “element in its favour”. When addressing a Catholic congregation, Bergoglio urges that “our prayer should be Trinitarian“. But when he addresses all nations, he instead encourages them to religiously read their own holy books, and composes a non-Trinitarian prayer for them, which he encourages Catholics to pray with them, promising access to the Father, but not through the Son.

    In doing this, I submit, he reduces the public perception of the Catholic faith to something of the level of tribal legend.

  8. The road to Bergoglio is paved with Wojtylian stones… (yes, I’ve said that before, and will probably bring that up in the future)
    –
    MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS POPE JOHN PAUL II
    FOR THE CELEBRATION OF THE WORLD DAY OF PEACE
    –
    1 JANUARY 2001
    DIALOGUE BETWEEN CULTURES FOR A CIVILIZATION OF LOVE AND PEACE
    –
    1. At the dawn of a new millennium, there is growing hope that relationships between people will be increasingly inspired by the ideal of a truly universal brotherhood. Unless this ideal is shared, there will be no way to ensure a stable peace. There are many signs which suggest that this conviction is becoming more deeply rooted in people’s minds. The importance of fraternity is proclaimed in the great “charters” of human rights; it is embodied in great international institutions, particularly the United Nations; and it is called for, as never before, by the process of globalization which is leading to a progressive unification of the economy, culture and society. For their part, the followers of the different religions are ever more conscious of the fact that a relationship with the one God, the common Father of all, cannot fail to bring about a greater sense of human brotherhood and a more fraternal life together. In God’s revelation in Christ, this principle finds a radical expression: “He who does not love does not know God; for God is love” (1 Jn 4:8).
    http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/messages/peace/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_20001208_xxxiv-world-day-for-peace.html
    ——————
    Universal peace is to be sought by a “universal brotherhood”…? With followers of false religions who worship the “one God”… (even as these same false religions persecute the true Church of Christ…?

  9. It seems Bergoglio increasingly presents himself implicitly as the head of a new one world religion. Perhaps Pope Benedict resigned since he couldn’t take the pressure of going in that same direction. He did at times show resistance, such as separate private prayers among participants at the Assisi gathering, rather than continue the example of common prayer by his predecessor, JPII.

  10. Indifference to God and our duty to know, love and glorify Him destroys all peace. The greatest thing that the pope and the whole hierarchy can do for true peace is to guard, defend and preach the One, True Faith and moral law zealously and unceasingly, suffering the persecution of the enemies of God and His Holy Church for the salvation of souls, and refusing all ccompromise, cooperation or collusion

  11. Bergoglian Secular Humanism, Plain & Simple!
    Gee, when he speaks of Fundamentalism, it is a veiled slap at Traditional Catholics and at Doctrine.
    It is as if Voltaire is seated on The Throne of Peter.

  12. Pretty much, yes….that is exactly who he is attacking; only I dont see it as veiled…I dont think he makes any bones about his contempt for traditional Catholics. Benedict was a pretty good deceiver, this guy Francis not so much.

  13. I was just thinking earlier today about all this awful teaching coming out of Rome, as Louie so clearly shows. And about us here, and on other blogs for faithful Catholics. What’s it all about? Every waking moment, every action, word, thought must be for Jesus. His Glory, His Love, His Mercy, His Thanksgiving to Our Father. What else is there?
    –
    If everything we do is not for Jesus what’s it for? We don’t hear much about that even on good blogs. We’re all pretty busy trying to find a way out of this cesspit. But it all must be for Him because we love Him.
    –
    On Francis’ part it’s all about a group hug – his great big teddy-bear hug for humanity – “He’s got the whole world in his hands!” He smiles and waves and hugs. Souls follow him and fall into Hell by the millions. How many people die each day in the world? Just people, not poor little babies murdered by their mothers. Hundreds of thousands? Who will help them if Francis will not? Who will help them if priests and bishops follow Francis instead of Our Lord Jesus Christ?
    –
    I’d say we’re in dire straits and I must admit I get very disheartened. True contrition and amendment of life. How much time have any of us got left?
    –
    Yes, I’m rambling. I’m feeling very sad for Jesus. He could see all this with His beloved eyes, misted with sweat and blood. He saw Francis’s smile and hugs. He floods Francis will oceans of grace but it washes over his head as he smiles and hugs.
    –
    Our Lady has said only she can help us now (slight paraphrase) and I guess I’d better go say a Rosary.
    –
    The only peace possible is the peace we experience when we do everything for love of Jesus – no matter what. Can we even imagine a world where for one 24 hour day everyone did all, said all, thought all FOR JESUS? We’d have peace.

  14. “‘solidarity-based openness of conscience.’ What in the name of all that is good and holy does that even mean? The answer is, it would seem, being little more than the “emotional and high-sounding words” so prevalent among the champions of Liberalism (cf Pope St. Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique), it means precisely nothing.”

    I think it means Lutheranism. I think it means accompanying sodomites, pedophiles, fornicators, abortionists, murderers, thieves — as the Swiss bishop recently put it: “Human relationships have many dimensions, because each person carries within himself several dimensions. One of them is sexuality. To advance a person’s well-being, what is decisive is not so much one’s heterosexual or homosexual inclination, but rather the responsible use of sexuality and of all dimensions present in a relationship (such as attentiveness, care, respect, or faithfulness). We as faithful Catholics in particular may CERTAINLY RELY ON THE CONSCIENCE OF EACH INDIVIDUAL with respect to this matter. Let us be happy about every kind of relationship in which the partners accept each other [or “themselves” —Transl.] as equal, valuable, beloved children of God, who respect the dignity of the other and advance the well-being of the person!”
    http://mathias-von-gersdorff.blogspot.com/2015/08/bischof-von-sankt-gallen-egal-ob-jemand.html

    To celebrate Satan’s victory, Luther is getting a square in Rome – Sept 16

    http://evangelicalfocus.com/cities/904/Luther_will_have_a_square_in_the_middle_of_Rome

  15. The encyclical of Pius XI. is brilliant!
    a must read
    thank you for the link… It may prove invaluable to those charged with rebuilding society should some enormous world conflict take place in the near future.

    It would seem to me that those who are steering the ship have read this. But I could be wrong. May His peace fill our hearts and guard our minds. May we savor the things of God and not the things of man is my prayer.

  16. My dear brethren,
    A little more respect please!!!
    You are talking about the Holy Father!!!
    The Vicar of Christ!!!
    Please do remember that the First Vatican Council infallibly declared:
    “this See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error.”
    What His Holiness, Pope Francis, teaches to the Universal Church is not just to be believed, it is to be held as intellectually most certain. So when the Holy See proclaims that we are to exercise “solidarity-based openness of conscience”, or universal religious indifference, we really must take note. Close inspection will always reveal a hermeneutic of continuity with prior magisterial teaching, because the Church is indefectible and a valid Magisterium cannot teach error harmful to the salvation of souls. This is why we hang pictures of our beloved Holy Father in the foyers of our churches, pray in union with him and crave canonical recognition from him.

  18. Dear Barbara,
    Your comment is so full of love and warmth and truth. The Immaculate Heart will prevail. I’m gonna start keeping you a seat at St. Gertrude’s. 🙂

  20. “Seasons change and so did ‘I’ = The World imposes and so ‘I’ (the Conciliar Kirk) takes heed. “No time left for You…” = no ‘time’ left for Eternal Lord Jesus Christ.
    –
    Half-baked. Something a King can’t stomach.
    He rages against the Counterfiet Court
    of Tolerance, the Counterfiet Crown
    of assent as ‘kind-ness’; where the great
    laugh of Catholic delight, and the great
    wail of Catholic grief, are silenced or worse.
    –
    “Overcome Indifference and Win Peace” = overcome conscience and win a screwed up sense of belonging to corruption – there ain’t nothin’ like it!
    –
    Archbishop Lefebvre spoke true when contrasting Eternal Rome with the ‘antichrists’ he saw were squatting as ‘updated residents’. That he did not have the nous to then understand what to do about it beyond reaction is for others to write books about (I hope they do).

  22. Dear Louie and all,
    This man-centered theme ignoring Our Lord’s mandate doesn’t surprise us anymore, as neither did Cardinal Maradiaga’s reported –all roads lead to heaven- thinking in his “tweet” last week.
    You and Barbara and others who comment here have called attention to the error-ridden philosophers in the last “100 years of modernism”, and Chris Ferrara this week offered another excellent and informative analysis of the part played in this particular brand of disorientation by one of them– Teilhard de Chardin -whom the Pope praised in “Laudato Si.”
    He tells us “.. de Chardin is the only “Catholic” author whose works were on display in Moscow’s Hall of Atheism alongside those of Marx and Lenin. Thus, de Chardin’s “work” is literally among “the errors of Russia” of whose spread Our Lady warned at Fatima. Yet now, for the first time, this heretical loon receives favorable mention in a papal encyclical, which cites his imaginary “contribution” to the Church.
    __
    [Quoting Ladauto Si and providing what he considered a better translation than the Vatican’s :]
    “The end of the way of the universe is in the fullness of God, which has already been achieved by the risen Christ, fulcrum of the universal maturation…. The final end of other creatures is not in us. Instead, all advance, together with us and through us, toward the common destination, which is God, in a transcendent fullness where the Risen Christ embraces and illuminates everything. The human being, in fact, gifted with intelligence and love, and attracted by the fullness of Christ, is called to lead all creatures back to their Creator.
    __
    [Chris responds] “With all due respect, what sort of nonsense is this? Christ has not “achieved the fullness of God” with the Resurrection. Christ is God, and He rose by His own power. Nor is Christ any sort of “fulcrum” of a “universal maturation,” according to which “all creatures” are “advancing” “through us” toward some nebulous “transcendent fullness.” This is nothing other than de Chardin’s bogus notion of Christ as the Omega Point, or end, of the evolution of all things. And, indeed, Francis at this point in the “recyclical” cites none other than de Chardin: “Against this horizon we can set the contribution of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin…”
    __
    “.. What contribution? In terms of science, Teilhard contributed two frauds: the alleged “missing links” Piltdown Man and Peking Man, the former withdrawn in disgrace by the British Museum and the latter consigned to oblivion when evidence emerged that this so-called evolutionary ancestor of man was simply an ancient man.
    In terms of theology, Teilhard contributed a mountain of neo-Modernist, poetic gibberish condemned by the Holy Office .. June 30, 1962..
    .[which] “exhort all Ordinaries as well as the superiors of Religious institutes, rectors of seminaries and presidents of universities, effectively to protect the minds, particularly of the youth, against the dangers presented by the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and of his followers.” Teilhard ..was also an evolutionary monomaniac, who openly advocated eugenics — the selective breeding of humans — as also advocated by his patron, the infamous atheist and eugenicist Julian Huxley. …in his “The Phenomenon of Man (p. 281), ..Teilhard openly declared:
    “So far we have certainly allowed our race to develop at random, and we have given too little thought to the question of what medical and moral factors must replace the crude forces of natural selection should we suppress them. In the course of the coming centuries it is indispensable that a nobly human form of eugenics, on a standard worthy of our personalities, should be discovered and developed. .
    ..” Evolution is Teilhard’s god. “It is Christ, in very truth, who saves — but should we not immediately add that, at the same time, it is Christ who is saved by Evolution?” (The Heart of the Matter, p. 92) …
    http://fatima.org/perspectives/sv/perspective764.asp
    =====
    Knowing this kind of background information takes some of the guesswork out of analyzing the nonsense we’re hearing so often from officials in Rome these days.
    St. Pius X, [you who understood what had already been done, and foresaw what was coming] pray for us.

  24. Again, it comes down to a lack of knowledge of the natural law. We are made in a certain way, and any use of our bodies or minds that is different is DIS-ORDERED.
    –
    God is ORDER. He is TRUTH. TRUTH is BEAUTY. This is not rocket science. God is also SIMPLICITY. We can be taught the simple truths of what God has revealed, and live these truths. That was what Jesus Christ asked. That we (pope, bishops, priests, religious, and the faithful) live what He said, and tell others about it.
    –
    Instead we get the most ridiculous language out of stupid minds. The language used in these documents that are coming out of the Vatican is laughable. Who the heck talks like that? Who can understand the meaning of this garbage? Can the man in the pew understand what’s meant? How can he carry out this message in his life, and teach others to do the same?
    –
    This language is a clear example of pride – intellectual pride. Look at me. I’m one of the cognoscenti and I speak a very special language. What is even sadder is the rapidity with which this silly talk spreads downwards. Listen to poor bishops talk! They are little sock puppets! Smile, talk gibberish in a gentle voice, be sincere and look right into the camera, right into the eye of the poor sap in the pew. When any bishop sits at dinner with his priests, or whomever do they talk like this? It would be a fun exercise to translate table talk into Francis-gibberish eh?
    –
    Pass the potatoes might sound like this:
    –
    ” My dear brother in Christ, let us appreciate nature as represented in these humble, round, white, pure potatoes, garnished with the fruit of the cow, churned by the strong arms of a woman of nature on a farm untouched by the greedy capitalist ‘fruit of the cow factory’ – oh I know she is poor but humble like me, devoted to Mother Nature as she churns and churns. Please, dear brother in Christ, share your abundance with me – I’m poor like you, I’m hungry for acceptance as I sit out on the peripheries of this table, and yearn for love. I’m hungry for justice – and I WANT SOME OF THOSE DAMNED POTATOES, SO SHOVE THEM ACROSS!!!!”

  25. Dear Barbara,
    Maybe it’s time to consider that some potatoes can do a better job than humans of “appreciating nature”, because they are not hezi-taters or mere spec- taters, but keep their eyes peeled. Unfortunately what they see sometimes gets them to boiling, which, leads some people to resort to buttering them up.
    🙂 🙂

  26. p.s. speaking of differing uses of words… G.K. Chesterton once wrote:

    “The word ‘good’ has many meanings. For example, if a man were to shoot his grandmother at a range of five hundred yards, I should call him a good shot, but not necessarily a good man.”
    🙂 🙂

  30. Dear Friends,
    Would it be too disrespectful to say I think Mr. Potato Head would be equally suited for Pope as Mr. Bergoglio? With apologies to the potato, of course. At least, the potato provides nourishment for the body!!

    I hope I didn’t offend anyone, but surely you see the resemblance. Maybe, this topic is too much of a “hot potato”!!!

  31. What a beautiful picture of a truly humble man, weighed down with the trappings of his office, submitting himself to Tradition – a Saint.

  32. @Dumb Ox: He just doesn’t implicitly attack the level of certainty one can have in the faith, he also explicitly attacks it:
    –
    “If the Christian is a restorationist, a legalist, if he wants everything clear and safe, then he will find nothing. Tradition and memory of the past must help us to have the courage to open up new areas to God. Those who today always look for disciplinarian solutions, those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal ‘security,’ those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists ­— they have a static and inward-directed view of things. In this way, faith becomes an ideology among other ideologies. I have a dogmatic certainty: God is in every person’s life. God is in everyone’s life. Even if the life of a person has been a disaster, even if it is destroyed by vices, drugs or anything else — God is in this person’s life. You can, you must try to seek God in every human life. Although the life of a person is a land full of thorns and weeds, there is always a space in which the good seed can grow. You have to trust God.”
    –
    https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2013/september/documents/papa-francesco_20130921_intervista-spadaro.html
    –
    “Jesus Christ, yesterday, and to day; and the same for ever. ” Hebrews 13:8
    –
    “If I (St. Paul) am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” 1 Tim. 3 : 15
    =
    “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.” Satis Cognitum 9, Pope Leo XIII.
    –
    So according to the Pope, Jesus DOES change and is in search of novelty. In addition. St. Paul is wrong in encouraging those who aren’t clear how to behave as Christians to seek for answers from the Church because the problems of such believers really isn’t ignorance of doctrine but rather a neurotic need for security. Further, Pope Leo XIII was wrong to warn believers that it is necessary to hold the faith whole and inviolate, and not to recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by the authentic magisterium of the Church since concern with doctrine again betrays a neurotic need for security on the part of the believer.
    –
    Exactly whose words are these?

  33. There is a Fatima perspectives video precisely on that same theme, worth watching – truly eye opening. The envirocyclical is indeed even more sinister than most of us had initially feared:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDhgRKE_Cks
    –
    Also very sinister indeed is B XVI’s praise for the archheretic/lunatic (from his book “Spirit of the Liturgy”):
    “And so we can now say that the goal of worship and the goal of creation as a whole are one and the same—divinization, a world of freedom and love. But this means that the historical makes its appearance in the cosmic. The cosmos is not a kind of closed building, a stationary container in which history may by chance take place. It is itself movement, from its one beginning to its one end. In a sense, creation is history. Against the background of the modern evolutionary world view, Teilhard de Chardin depicted the cosmos as a process of ascent, a series of unions. From very simple beginnings the path leads to ever greater and more complex unities, in which multiplicity is not abolished but merged into a growing synthesis, leading to the “Noosphere”, in which spirit and its understanding embrace the whole and are blended into a kind of living organism. Invoking the epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, Teilhard looks on Christ as the energy that strives toward the Noosphere and finally incorporates everything in its “fullness’. From here Teilhard went on to give a new meaning to Christian worship: the transubstantiated Host is the anticipation of the transformation and divinization of matter in the christological “fullness”. In his view, the Eucharist provides the movement of the cosmos with its direction; it anticipates its goal and at the same time urges it on.”
    “Divinization”?? “Noosphere??”” What is all THAT supposed to mean??
    I mean – is this pure unadulterated gobbledygook (aka modernist speech) or what)??!!

  36. Teilhard de Chardin’s New Age paganism – a portal to Satanic possession – blasphemes Our Lord by inserting Christ into their man-made “cosmic” paradigm. Lord, have mercy! Reparation!!

  37. What is happening in our Holy Mother Church now is the preaching of Christianity without THE CROSS.
    –
    The Cross of obeying God’s Commandments is now seen as too hard so we live Christianity without that Cross. To our minds, who strive to remain faithful Catholics, this stinks of protestantism. It is protestantism! “We are an Easter People!” Well, er, NO! actually, we’re a “Crucifixion People.” Easter morning comes AFTER Good Friday.
    –
    The Cross – Jesus told us to take up OUR Cross – not somebody else’s Cross – that is what the false-humble Francis is doing. Look at the picture linked above of Pope St. Pius X. The look on his holy face tells the tale. He is burdened with heavy, embroidery encrusted robes, the Papal Crown, cape, stole and all the other trappings, proper shoes! He looks so tired, so weary, and seems to be suffering from this, his burden. He is embracing the Cross of his Office.
    –
    Contrast Francis. He wants to carry someone else’s Cross – that of a humble friar – the Franciscan ideal – but poor deluded soul! – that’s not HIS Cross to bear.
    –
    Our Lady told Lucy in one of her later apparitions that all that is required of us in “these latter times” is that we do our duty – imagine how low we have sunk that all we have to do now is our duty in our state of life!!. Our Lady knows we are not strong enough to be called to heroic virtue in our present state of weakness. What is our duty? To worship God, to love Him with all our hearts, and to perform all we are asked to perform in our state whatever that may be.
    –
    With God’s grace many of us are already doing that, and are trying to move beyond that to acquire more virtue, more grace, and work towards holiness. But “the world” which includes “the worldly Church?” No Cross.

  38. Deception uses complicated and confusing language – it abuses language for its evil ends.

  40. Another example of a Papal Cross not borne is that of John XXIII when he said (paraphrase) that it was time for the Church to stop condemning…poor soul. He had forgotten that his CROSS was to be unpopular, judgemental, harsh when necessary – in order to show souls their Cross, and to give them the example of how to carry it. The havoc wrought by this action is part of our Cross today.
    –
    Modern bishops too – it must be painful to carry a heavy Cross that means your priests will hate you, and that parishioners will think you are mean! But isn’t that what Our Lord did? All Jesus’ friends and family ran away because they thought His Cross was the wrong one. And when He suggested they might take His example, they ran even farther!
    –
    To put down the Cross designed for each to take up another goes directly against God’s Wish.

  41. Yes… Good thoughts…
    Even the pagan emperor Constantine had enough wisdom when push came to shove to connect the dots together, “IN HOC SIGNO VINCES”… 😉
    –
    You are right. People don’t want the cross precisely BECAUSE it is a “cross” – i.e. it requires sacrifice, and most importantly SELF-DENIAL, which is anathema to modern EGOtistical modern man, who is all about “ME ME ME ME” ad nausaeam. Also, the cross is too “difficult” to carry for effeminate, weak modern man, so he opts instead for the false gospel of Protestantism of “once saved, always saved”. IOW – why preach on the way of the cross and the need to crucify our passions on the cross anymore?

  42. PS Personally, I don’t even think Francis wants to carry anyone else’s “Cross” – not that of a humble Franciscan friar certainly, who would never dare to blaspheme Our Lady the way Francis has dared to do.

  43. Interesting thoughts.
    Perhaps Vatican II, in a certain way, deep down in its roots has as one of its intentions the ill conceived idea of lifting the “Cross” from the shoulders of “modern man” – an idea that could never, of course, bear good fruits.

Comments are closed.