A message from Francis that was delivered to a regional World Meeting of Popular Movements that took place in the United States from February 16-19 is causing a stir among conservatives; both Catholic and political.
The reasons are twofold.
First, Francis insisted that “Muslim terrorism does not exist.”
“There are fundamentalist and violent individuals in all peoples and religions,” he continued; as if suicide bombers are just as likely to shout Laudetur Iesus Christus or Avinu Malkeinu (Hebrew for “Our Father, Our King) as Allahu Akbar.
On the other hand, Francis said, “the ecological crisis is real,” with the latter being described more specifically as “a disturbing warming of the climatic system.”
At a time when godless social engineers are using the Trump Administration’s stance on global warming and immigration as fuel for igniting civil unrest among America’s unchurched, uneducated and unhinged, Francis cast his lot with the activists:
I know that you have committed yourselves to fight for social justice, to defend our Sister Mother Earth and to stand alongside migrants. I want to reaffirm your choice…
This, of course, is just more of the same from the author of Evangelii Gaudium and Laudato Si’ – so-called “official papal texts” that contain similarly ludicrous statements on the topics of Islam and ecology.
While it is right for Catholics to be outraged by this latest bit of leftist screed emanating from Rome, few it seems have taken notice of the most offensive part of Francis’ message; much less the unavoidable conclusion to which it leads.
In his message to the World Meeting of Popular Movements (WMPM), which is described on its website as “an initiative of Pope Francis working to address the economy of exclusion and inequality,” said “Pope” encouraged attendees not to be “paralyzed by fear nor shackled within the conflict.”
Precisely what “conflict” does Francis have in mind?
It’s the almighty “class struggle” – the same that forms the centerpiece of Marxist ideology.
Karl Marx is widely considered the father of the “social conflict theory,” which seeks to ignite tensions between the “Haves” and the “Have-nots” as a vehicle for social change.
Readers may recall that Francis, in an interview with Eugenio Scalfari, publisher of the Italian newspaper, La Repubblica, recently said, “It is the communists who think like Christians.”
And it is Francis who thinks like a Communist.
“We have to acknowledge the danger [of entering the conflict] but also the opportunity that every crisis brings,” he went on to tell attendees of the WMPM.
Never let a good crisis go to waste.
This may sound familiar to American ears in particular; it’s the motto that governs the behavior of Saul Alinsky’s disciples; among whom are such upstanding persons as Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton.
The now-deceased Alinsky left behind a legacy that most notably includes the book Rules for Radicals, a field guide for leftist rabble-rousers that was written, according to its author, “for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”
Raised in an Orthodox Jewish home, “Saul Alinsky was an agnostic Jew for whom religion of any kind held very little importance.” (Deal Hudson, Understanding Maritain: Philosopher and Friend, Mercer University Press. p. 40.)
In an interview with Playboy Magazine in 1971, Alisnky said:
I’ll tell you one thing about religious identity … Whenever anyone asks me my religion, I always say—and always will say—Jewish.
Not only did Alinsky’s lack of religious faith fail to stop him from self-identifying as Jewish, it also didn’t prevent him from citing Sacred Scripture; twisting it and misappropriating it at will in furtherance of his agenda:
The episode between Moses and God, when the Jews had begun to worship the Golden Calf, is revealing. Moses did not try to communicate with God in terms of mercy or justice when God was angry and wanted to destroy the Jews; he moved in on a top value and outmaneuvered God. It is only when the other party is concerned or feels threatened that he will listen — in the arena of action, a threat or a crisis becomes almost a precondition to communication … Moses kept his cool, and he knew that the most important center of his attack would have to be on what he judged to be God’s prime value. As Moses read it, it was that God wanted to be No. 1. (Rules for Radicals, pgs. 89-89)
It is a reprehensible thing indeed for a man to self-identify with a specific religion in spite of his lack of religious faith, but it is more disgusting still when that same man preys upon the religious sentiments of his audience; leveraging biblical texts simply in order to promote a secular agenda devoid of any religious purpose.
What kind of man does this?
Well, for one, Saul Alinsky; for another, Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
Addressing the WMPM, Francis (as he is widely known) likewise preyed upon the religious sentiments of his audience, saying:
The grave danger [of failing to enter the conflict] is to disown our neighbors. When we do so, we deny their humanity and our own humanity without realizing it; we deny ourselves, and we deny the most important Commandments of Jesus.
The most important Commandments of Jesus…
Francis is referring to the answer that Our Lord gave when asked which is the greatest commandment in the law:
“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” (Matthew 22: 37-39)
And yet, oddly, or perhaps better said, predictably, Francis ignored the “greatest and the first commandment” entirely; focusing exclusively on the “second” – that which has no merit apart from the former.
Not even once were those gathered for this “initiative of Pope Francis” called upon by their leader to love the Lord thy God, and yet, in an address of less than 2,000 words, he managed to invoke neighbors and humanity – the principal players in the class struggle – more than two dozen times.
As I write, the Church is reeling from the effects of Bergoglio’s two-part Secret Synod – a well-calculated and clearly diabolical effort designed to call into question matters long ago settled – and the document that emerged therefrom, Amoris Laetitia.
Now, all indications are that a similar effort is underway for the purpose of casting doubt on the Church’s infallible teaching concerning Holy Orders as validly conferred only upon baptized males.
My friends, this “Pope Francis” isn’t even bothering to pretend that he’s Catholic, and yet somehow we’re obligated to believe that he’s the Vicar of Christ?
Let’s be perfectly honest:
All of the evidence says that “Francis” is little more than the stage name of an irreligious papal imposter; the world’s most famous community organizer and disciple of Saul Alinsky who described Jorge Bergoglio to a tee more than forty years ago when he wrote:
“To the questioner nothing is sacred. He detests dogma, defies any finite definition of morality, rebels against any repression of a free, open search for ideas no matter where they may lead.” (ibid.)
Your kind support is both necessary and greatly appreciated!
“He isn’t even pretending to be Catholic anymore.”
So we should stop treating him as a Catholic.
I’m not so sure that Francis has been directly influenced by Alinsky. After all, Alinky was an American, and Francis knows very little about the U.S.; he barely even speaks English. Surely there has been other nefarious influences though.
The Modernist revolution didn’t start with Francis. It’s just become more obvious. JP2 and B16 were Modernists, too. They just weren’t as obvious about it. At least with Francis, his disdain for the Catholic faith is obvious to those who are paying attention. But quite a few Catholics aren’t paying attention; they believe that Francis is a fairly good Pope.
As Bishop Wlliamson says, God isn’t going to give us a decent Pope until there are enough Catholics who actually want a good Pope. It’s fine if you want to deny that Francis is a Pope, but that in itself is not going to convince a lot of Catholics. Prayer will help, and pointing out where Francis goes wrong.
Until the hierarchy convenes a synod or council to admonish the Pope, we are stuck with Francis. There’s no getting around that. But then I go by What Archbishop Lefebvre taught. We hold fast to Tradition, even though the conciliar church does not.
Interesting to note Francis drawing a fundamentalist (nasty word) description as a religious trait. I wonder if that label is reserved for rigid, traditional types?
A precursor to bundling actual terror acts with authentic Catholic practise. He seems to be warming the Church for another conflict – we know he leads the spiritual undermining of the truth with his campaign for those in adultery and remarriage; almost too clever for some. How does he sleep at night or lay straight in bed?
I urge all to read Francis’s reported letter to the attendees of the “Popular Movements” ; note how he quotes St Francis of Assisi ; a new verse to the prayer of St Francis – quote : “let us sow truth where there is error” – Gasp, that has got to be one for the record….error instead of truth…Francis sowing truth..a contradiction if I read his recent AL lines.
PF has gone around the bend. He is either diabolical or mentally impaired. No in between.
PF fits the description of the False Prophet & mirrors his initials. Instead of all the in -fighting we should be combining to rid ourselves of this monster. Where there’s a will there’s a way & somehow we must find both if we are to be found worthy followers of Christ.
The SSPX’s criticism of the Rome posters ridiculing PF appals me. There was a time they would be mightily pleased but maybe are trying to ingratiate themselves with the Vatican with a Personal Prelature in sight. If so, how shallow.
Let us thank Francis that he is making it clear that what is really important to him is not Jesus Christ and the spreading of His gospel in order to save souls, but rather the cult of man and how best we can address social inequality and syncretism. Catholic, Jewish, Muslin, whatever, we are all just as good as any other and all roads lead to heaven. What heresy.
Dear Lord, what have we done to deserve Francis?
We have dethroned Christ and now worship man. We the faithful are not being punished. Yes we may suffer some and may even one day be martyred for it. But that is not punishment. That is sharing in His Passion and hopefully one day in His Glory.
….. let us be reminded of the cockle in the field (the Church), and the harvest (the Judgment):
“And He said to them: An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to Him: WILT THOU THAT WE GO AND GATHER IT UP?
And He said: NO, LEST PERHAPS GATHERING UP THE COCKLE, YOU ROOT UP THE WHEAT ALSO TOGETHER WITH IT.
SUFFER BOTH TO GROW UNTIL THE HARVEST, AND IN THE TIME OF THE HARVEST I WILL SAY TO THE REAPERS;
GATHER UP FIRST THE COCKLE AND BIND IT INTO BUNDLES TO BURN, BUT THE WHEAT GATHER YE INTO MY BARN.”
(St. Matt 13: 28,30).
“AND I SAY TO THEE THOU ART PETER, AND UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH, AND THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT……..”
(St. Matt. 16).
May God bless the Society of Saint Pius X! May God’s Will Be Done!
Saint Peter visible head of the Church, pray for the Church, lest many will perish!
While we are at Alinsky…….one more reminder…..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1k9IlR3-_-A
The West Wing – Holy Land Map
http://www.a2zpublications.com/blog.php?page=4&ipp=25
….open the page, and scroll down to:
“An American Jew Reports on Her Experiences While Living in Palestine”
One ‘Ave Maria’ please, for this beautiful, and very courageous Anna, a ‘soldier of Christ’ in the making……by the grace of God!
There’ll be no synod or council to condemn him this side of the full blown physical chastizement.
Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit (He who is silent, when he ought to have spoken and was able to, is taken to agree) That goes for all the hierarchy now. That is called tacit permission.
In reading the latest article on the Non Possumus blog (an SSPX Resistance blog), I found an interesting statement. It quoted Francis, in that Francis said that he is only following the path of his predecessors, and the Council, though he was mainly speaking in terms of ecumenism. The SSPX, on the other hand, is not following the path of its predecessor, Archbishop Lefebvre. While the conciliarists stay true to their mission (which is evil), the SSPX has decided to collaborate with them, in order to try the “experiment of tradition.” It’s a sad state of affairs. The SSPX cannot collaborate with Rome and also stay true to its mission. We’ve already seen that they do not condemn Francis at all. Archbishop Lefebvre most certainly would have.
It’s just my opinion here, but I don’t think that trads should try to depose Francis. That’s what the sedevacantists want to do. Archbishop Lefebvre was shocked and appalled by the goings-on in Rome and the greater church, but he never advocated trying to depose the Pope. Trads are of course free to try, of course.
Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…
Either he’s not Catholic or I’m not. There’s no way we both practice the same faith. If I had to pick one I’d say he’s closer to being lutheran.
A bear that stops shitting in the woods is still a bear. I carried out this experiment, and got the same result three times in a row.
(To be serious: Francis has not publicly renounced the Catholic faith. And he has not been found pertinacious in heresy (or schismatic) by the Church. Therefore he is a member of the Body of the Church. These are all simple facts. We don’t get to define what “Catholic” means. As to the internal forum the Soul of the Church, he may well be in mortal sin and thus cut off from the Soul of the Church, sanctifying grace. He may even willfully reject the Church as the rule of faith, making him a formal heretic in the internal forum, and bereft entirely of the theological virtue of Faith as well. We cannot know this for certain. And, even if he is, he is still a member of the Body. That’s how these things work, even if it’s just so satisfying to say he’s not the pope.)
St Peter denied Christ, compromised with false region and was even called “Satan” by Jesus Himself.
For those that had to deal with them, it was just as hard to stomach some of the past bad Popes as it is for us to stomach this one.
God is sifting His Church. This disgusting pontificate is serving to draw lines. Be patient, friends, and wait. God will work this out, and many will be very surprised how He does it…
What “Church” is going to find him pertinacious in his heresy? Oh yeah, the vatican 2 church. Got it.
Thats like the KKK being responsible for calling someone out for being a hateful white supremacist.
When you proclaim that unrepentant adulterers can receive the Blessed Sacrament, even if you’re not wearing a white cassock, you have publicly renounced the Catholic faith.
JTLiuzza: You need to study what the Church actually teaches on such matters instead of relying on your intuition/what you want to believe.
How many cardinals need to warn him is not something the theologians considered. It could be just a handful, and still be valid. What we DO know, though, is that the Catholic Church cannot suddenly, magically morph into something else. That’s material heresy. So is denying the dogmatic fact of a papacy. Now I have to go and provide my little visibility-of-the-Church snippet here.
–
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.)
The visibility of the Church is the fact of Christs Mystical body. If the Church was by some means, reduced to a single person, the Fathers have taught, there the Church in that members.
Where ever the Blessed Sacrament is, there is Christ – as we believe, (Body Blood Soul and Divinity) – with his Angels and Heavenly Court.
The historical fact of imposters and material heretics, did not reduce the Church. These persons abandoned that institution, they defected and have gone to their judgement. For the Chair of Peter to be vacant, an apostate bishop needs to be in charge – for a time.
ACT seems to be hung up on definitions.
Recall when the Elders accused Our Lord of being possessed, or of the devil. The visibility is in its teachings and practice. The Head can disengage from the Members at any time. Our Lady told us this would happen. Like Judas, the traitor, who lost his place, the position was filled by a replacement. In out times, we can see the column of traitors, very clearly by their acts and false teachings. Don’t try and impose their positions on us for authentic tradition. That clearly wont work. None of us have invincible ignorance on that score.
Oh really, quote me the Church’s true teaching on adultery and bringing condemnation on oneself for sacrilege – please?
God will work it out, but it may be thru the action of inspired men and not by inaction. I really cannot agree with the many calls I hear about being patient. Its almost a call to inaction. God may be calling someone to act.
Authority is a sticky wicket. Everybody accepts it when in agreement, but authority only has value in disagreement.
NONE of us have the authority to remove a Pope or to declare him in some binding way, not a Pope. Those are simple facts. It may be that PF is not a valid Pope, or has lost the seat. But for that to be established, someone with the necessary faculties and authority must make that judgement. That could come in the future by a future Pope, but none of us are that Pope.
In many way, we are as a man held in prison. We can barks and froth as loud as we like from our cell that we are innocent {and indeed, maybe we should} but in the end, WE do not have the keys. Someone else does. Someone who has the authority to unlock the cell and free us.
All the hollering in the world won’t change that fact. If we wanted that authority, we should have pursued careers and callings as Priests, Bishops and Cardinals.
Ana, this is the only forum I can post on! OnePeterFive banned me yesterday. Thought you might want to know.