The daily Mass reflections given by Pope Francis at Santa Marta typically shed precious little light on the Catholic faith. That’s not to say that they’re entirely useless, however… [NOTE: A transcript of this video is below. I will include one whenever possible from this point forward for those who are unable to watch the video.)
As most of us have come to realize, the daily Mass reflections given by Pope Francis at Santa Marta typically shed precious little light on the Catholic faith.
That’s not to say that they’re entirely useless, however. They do manage to provide insight into “Jorge’s faith,” such as it is, and the modernist mind that lurks within the current Bishop of Rome.
On November 23rd, for instance, L’Osservatore Romano reported Pope Francis as preaching on the readings for that day:
A widow is the only woman who does not have a husband to protect her; a woman who must make do as she can, who lives on public charity.
OK, fair enough, that’s the historical context for widowhood as it is found in Sacred Scripture, but then he continued:
I like seeing in the widows of the Gospel, the image of the ‘widowhood’ of the Church who awaits Jesus’ return. Indeed, the Church is the bride of Jesus, but her Lord has left, and her one treasure is her Lord.
Think about this… The widow, according to Francis, does not have a husband to protect her and must do as she can…
And this to him is an image of the Church.
Seriously? If the Church had no “husband” to protect her, and a Divine one at that, this man would have destroyed the Church several Scalfari interviews ago!
In any case, I’ve linked the article below [above] so you can read the reflection in its entirety for yourself. If you do, what you’ll find is that Francis refers to the supposed widowhood of the Church no less than four times.
Is this bizarre ecclesiology headline news?
Not really. Pope Francis has been treating us to a steady stream of heterodoxy almost from the moment he stepped onto the balcony of St. Peter’s and bid the world a “Buona sera.”
And yet, it is stunning nonetheless to imagine that this man; the man that most of the entire world considers the voice of Catholicism, actually believes that the Church can be likened to a widow whose spouse is dead and gone.
Where on earth did he ever get that idea? In other words, what informs this manner of thinking?
The answer is at once simple and tragic: You see, Francis believes neither in the Resurrection of Our Lord, nor in His sacred divinity – at least not as the Church believes these magnificent truths.
He made this clear some time ago when, during one of his insult-laden rants against so-called “traditionalists” (aka Catholics), he said:
This group of Christians in their hearts do not believe in the Risen Lord and want to make theirs a more majestic resurrection than that of the real one. These are the triumphalist Christians.
I’ve written about this in the past, but it bears repeating: As every faithful Catholic most certainly knows, it simply is not possible for the human mind to conceive of a Resurrection that is more majestic than that of the real one. In fact, so majestic is the “real Resurrection” that the human cannot fully comprehend it!
Those who believe otherwise, like Pope Francis, can do so only because they harbor an image of Christ that is “diminished and distorted” (cf Pope St. Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique), as if in death Our Lord managed to bequeath to the “widow Church” little more than a stellar example for those who wish to engage in random acts of kindness.
At the very heart of Francis’ “widow Church,” as well as his stunning lack of appreciation for the majesty of the Resurrection, lies a Christological heresy. Even as he occasionally exploits the language of tradition, ultimately he preaches a Christ that is effectively reduced to a mere man.
Don’t take my word for it; he says so himself. For instance, on the Feast of the Lord’s Resurrection, no less, he said:
Out of love for us, Jesus Christ stripped himself of his divine glory, emptied himself, took on the form of a slave and humbled himself even to death, death on a cross.
Once again, the faithful Catholic must object: It simply is not possible for Our Blessed Lord to have stripped Himself of His divine glory.
For the sake of argument, though, let’s imagine that it is possible. Ask yourself, if Jesus did indeed strip Himself of His divine glory, this would render Him what?
Little more than a man…
This is why Pope Francis is pleased to envision a widow Church. He apparently imagines that Jesus is simply a man who died like so many others, leaving behind a grieving Bride who, anticipating reunion with her Spouse upon her own final day, is able only to regale her children with tales of their father’s distant legacy.
It is for this reason that the preaching of Pope Francis, like that of his post-conciliar predecessors, so often paints an image of a Christ that is bereft of His Social Kingship, and who stands shoulder-to-shoulder with idols only to be treated as if He has no more rights and prerogatives in society than the many false gods of this world.
In his assault against the true faith at Santa Marta the other day, Francis continued:
The Church, when she is faithful, leaves everything waiting for her Lord. However, when the Church is not faithful … seeks to make do with other things, with other securities, more from the world than from God.
Of what “other securities” does Francis speak?
For those who have been paying attention it’s pretty obvious … He’s talking about the venerable disciplines and practices of the Church and the immutable doctrines of the faith from which they spring.
He’s been telling us as much for some time now.
Consider, for instance, the following comments made in his 2013 interview with Fr. Anthony Spedaro of so-called “restorationists”:
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.
Or perhaps this from Evangelii Gaudium:
More than by fear of going astray, my hope is that we will be moved by the fear of remaining shut up within structures which give us a false sense of security, within rules which make us harsh judges, within habits which make us feel safe, while at our door people are starving and Jesus does not tire of saying to us: ‘Give them something to eat.’
Did you get that? Discipline, doctrine, and rules offer only lead to harshness and judgmentalism according to this pope.
It seems rather clear, does it not, that in denouncing “other securities … of this world,” Francis is priming the pump, if you will; he’s tipping is hand yet again and setting the stage for the Synodal exclamation point that he is soon to provide.
In any event, therein lies the solitary value of his Santa Marta reflections; they give us a glimpse into the modernist mind of this pope who will undoubtedly go down in history as one of the most disastrous.
And so, on some level, we can be thankful for Francis’ utter inability to keep his whimsical thoughts to himself.
Specifically in the present case, we can be grateful for having been informed that the Apostolic Exhortation to come will be written by a man who sees the Church’s immutable practices as providing little more than a false sense of security.
We can also be thankful for having been informed that the Church insofar as Francis is concerned, is but an earthly enterprise that must busy herself with human concerns, presumably in order to fill the void that was created when her spouse and Lord “left” her a weeping “widow,” and the faithful little more than fatherless children.
This being the case, should the Church recover from this crisis, future generations will look back on us with pity as the poorest of bastards indeed. God help us.
Maybe he could explain why the sheep have no shepherd.
Likening the Church to a widow is wrong, wrong, wrong, in so, so, so many ways. Two wrongs come to mind immediately: 1) it is insult to all past and present nuns who have made themselves living brides of Christ; and 2) it really undermines the ‘militant’ character of our faith. (Notice how both tend to blur genders — very demonic.)
Lastly — because I can smell that Italian cooking all the way here — Bergoglio may smile ad nauseum all he likes, but he lacks the real joy of the Faith that comes in realizing that Salvation History is like a “Commedia”. Not in the sense that of a today’s situation comedies, but in the Italian and Latin tradition of a play that at the last act ultimately resolves all difficulties with a marriage. In the Bible, after the separation of man from the garden of Eden in the first chapter, there is the marriage of Heaven and Earth in John’s Apocalypse in the last. And that is why Dante calls his poem “La Commedia”, it starts in Hell, but ends with the beatific vision in heaven.
Now can you pass that plate of pasta, per favore.
John 3: 25-36
25And there arose a question between some of John’s disciples and the Jews concerning purification: 26And they came to John, and said to him: Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond the Jordan, to whom thou gavest testimony, behold he baptizeth, and all men come to him. 27John answered, and said: A man cannot receive any thing, unless it be given him from heaven. 28You yourselves do bear me witness, that I said, I am not Christ, but that I am sent before him. 29He that hath the bride, is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, who standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth with joy because of the bridegroom’s voice. This my joy therefore is fulfilled. 30He must increase, but I must decrease.
31He that cometh from above, is above all. He that is of the earth, of the earth he is, and of the earth he speaketh. He that cometh from heaven, is above all. 32And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth: and no man receiveth his testimony. 33He that hath received his testimony, hath set to his seal that God is true. 34For he whom God hath sent, speaketh the words of God: for God doth not give the Spirit by measure. 35The Father loveth the Son: and he hath given all things into his hand. 36He that believeth in the Son, hath life everlasting; but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
As sister Lucia predicted: Diabolical disorientation seems to be alive and well among the modernists.
Louie, I just noticed quite a few empty seats in the front row. Maybe what he has is contagious and deadly.
How long O Lord? This is the greatest of sufferings.
My soul cannot bear to listen to his anti-Catholic other-religion evil. Thank God for those such as yourself, Mr Verrechio, who together do the awful job of documenting his talks, writings and deeds that oppose the One True Faith and Moral Law. That place they’re in is reflective of Francis’s religion – no sanctuary, no place to kneel, chairs set up as if for a lecture or show. Lord, give us the graces to persevere and come to the aid of other souls.
Wow. Just wow.
“I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you. 18″I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 After a little while the world will no longer see Me, but you will see Me; because I live, you will live also.”
” and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
What gives? Are those blue things in the background port a potties?
That’s what I was thinking, tufty.
This is an excellent comment.
Your videos are superb.
I am making chicken parmesan tonight.
Notice in the picture, only four concelebrants (the numbers are going down). And one of them is that gay guy that cause Francis to say: “Who am I to judge.”
You mean those sitting in the front row of the audience are offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass??!!
It looks like a Sea World exhibit (or is it See world) ?
To the degree that she glorified herself and lived sensuously, to the same degree give her torment and mourning; for she says in her heart, ‘I SIT as A QUEEN AND I AM NOT A WIDOW, and will never see mourning.’ Apoc 18:7
And I heard another voice from heaven, saying: Go out from her, my people; that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and the Lord hath remembered her iniquities. Render to her as she also hath rendered to you; and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup wherein she hath mingled, mingle ye double unto her. As much as she hath glorified herself, and lived in delicacies, so much torment and sorrow give ye to her; because she saith in her heart: I sit a queen, and am no widow; and sorrow I shall not see. Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine, and she shall be burnt with the fire; because God is strong, who shall judge her. Apoc 18:4-8
18:7 I sit as a queen: that is, I am placed in honor and dignity, even as a queen sits in glory and honor; ‘and I am no Widow, ‘ as the Church has her own husband, that is, Christ; as the apostle says, ‘I have espoused you unto one husband to present you to Christ as a chaste virgin; 2 Cor 11:2 ‘ so the Harlot, that is, the city of the wicked, is adjoined to one man in adulterous intercourse, that is, the Devil. (Haimo of Auxerre)
“Once again, the faithful Catholic must object: It simply is not possible for Our Blessed Lord to have stripped Himself of His divine glory.”
I am not a theologian, but I believe the Church states that Jesus had two natures one human and one divine, i.e. He was true man and true God. However, at the same time, I don’t understand how you think the Romans, the high priests, the Sanhedrin etc. crucified Jesus Christ and mocked Him etc. if his Divine Glory was apparent. His Divine Glory is what He deprived Himself of for our sake. In appearance He was a man. He enclosed himself in a womb for nine months, got fed and carried around as a baby, subjected Himself to Mary and Joseph; even his brethren and fellow townsmen were not too impressed w/Him. Nor his disciples – witness Peter correcting Him and Judas betraying Him. They were as surprised (and disbelieving) as anyone when He did resurrect from the dead.
I do believe Bergoglio (and Benedict etc.) don’t believe Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ or the Son of God or the 2nd Person of the Trinity. However, I don’t think you can prove it from the statement you are trying to prove it from, because in that statement he states that Jesus did strip Himself of something divine (which means He had it to strip Himself of).
Darn it, Louie. Just when I was about to send the following album to you, you make this video.
Any brief listen to the Gospel narratives, and the understanding of the Saints, shows that even those who knew first hand the divinity of Our Lord were overawed by the actuality of such the glorious triumph of the Resurrection. But VII and its heresiarchs despise that triumph. They want to deconstruct it, dissect something living and place it in a jar with some Novus Ordo preservatives. And, for the Novus Ordite, who recognises Christ’s proxy in a heresiarch, and the Bride in Whore, the icky stuff in the jar is the source of worship.
Frankenchurch – ‘IT’S ALIVE!’
PS. the heresiarchs seek the clothe the whore with the widow. Damn the Bride…and those who buy the whore or the widow do damn the Bride.
PPS. it is those who want to feel safe above all else, who belong to the Novus Ordo. It is a worldly edifice that provides a false sense of security. The Catholic who dares to wake up to Catholicism becomes an exile and very much despised by those in their N.O. diocese comfort-zone.
Even Christ attributed the Samaritan woman at the well with having five husbands. Perhaps someone here is in denial that there is a harlot in our midst.
My first thought as well. Thanks for posting it.