On Saturday, June 22, Jorge Bergoglio (widely known otherwise as “Francis”) addressed the Eleventh International Youth Forum in Rome; an event “aimed at promoting the implementation of the 2018 Synod on Young People.”
He took the occasion to announce that the conciliar church’s next quasi-religious version of Woodstock (aka, World Youth Day 2022) will be held in Lisbon, a mere 75 miles from Fatima, under the theme, “Mary arose and went with haste” (cf. Lk 1:39).
Hey, maybe the still hidden portion of the Third Secret reads:
“In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved, but when the bishop in white choses that nation to host a multi-day ‘religious’ festival for youth featuring profane music, rampant immodesty, and all manner of sacrilege – under a Marian theme no less – know that he most certainly is not the pope!”
In any case, one may well ask, what exactly informs and inspires the conciliar church’s disturbing fascination with young people?
Given that World Youth Day was the brainchild of John Paul II – a man widely credited in Santo Subito circles with defeating the Evil Empire almost singlehandedly – the answer, at least in part, may come as a surprise to many: Communism.
And what does Communism, the conciliar church, and each one’s desire to rally young people have in common regardless of who happens to be donning the papal whites?
The answer: Revolution.
As an aside, readers may be interested in knowing that the first International World Youth Day took place in 1987 in Buenos Aires. One can be certain that the potential revolutionary energy of its enthusiastic, flag waving, foot stomping attendees did not escape the notice of then Fr. Jorge Bergoglio.
The aforementioned Synod on Young People resulted in the Apostolic Exhortation (so-called) Christus Vivit (reviewed in part HERE); a text that declared:
Young people are not meant to become discouraged; they are meant to dream great things, to seek vast horizons, to aim higher, to take on the world, to accept challenges and to offer the best of themselves to the building of something better. That is why I constantly urge young people not to let themselves be robbed of hope. (Art. 15)
Don’t let the multi-year process of “discernment” leading up to the Synod and all of its many interventions and ersatz deliberations fool you; these are hardly original ideas.
In 1978, the U.S. based Communist periodical, Revolution, published an article entitled, Communism – Road Forward for Youth, outlining the party’s plan to establish the “Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade.”
“The importance of this organization,” the article states, “is clearly based on the important role youth have to play in making revolution,” or making a mess as Bergoglio likes to say.
Using language eerily similar to that employed by Francis, the article explained why the young are ideal candidates for conscripting into their cause:
Growing up with big hopes, dreams and ideas of the world they’d like to live in, with decent lives for themselves and others, they’re finding these dreams and hopes run smack up against life today … At the same time youth stand at a crossroads in their lives – and are faced with the impossible task of picking the road to a decent future out of the dozens of dead-end situations…
The article went on to make clear, however, that the youth, once well and truly indoctrinated with Communist ideology, are not just an investment in the party’s future, but primarily in its present:
There is also the fact that as Mao says in “Orientation of the Youth Movement,” that youth can, in a certain sense play a vanguard role. Youth can be a “shock force”, often being the first to take up revolutionary ideas and the struggle for revolution. This constitutes one of the most valuable contributions youth can make and why the Party sees this as a key strata to work among.
On Saturday, Comrade Bergoglio invoked the very same theme; assuring his wide-eyed audience that they are called, not so much to follow, but to lead:
You, young people, are the chief protagonists of the pastoral conversion so greatly desired by the Synod Fathers. To call you “protagonists” is not just to say something nice about you. Either you are protagonists or you are not. Either you go ahead of the train or you end up as the final car, dragged along by the rest. Protagonists.
The Communist article goes on:
As the Programme of the Revolutionary Communist Party states, “There is only one path that offers youth a genuine opportunity to put to use its enthusiasm, its innovativeness, its daring and its determination to change the world – proletarian revolution … The millions of youth in this country – both working class youth and students–form a powerful reserve for the proletariat.”
It is this same determination to effect change (ostensibly on behalf of “those on the periphery” – the Bergoglian proletariat) that the conciliar church is presently laboring to promote by likewise weaponing youth. In the words of Francis:
Young people can help [the Church]… to take the side of the poor and the outcast, to fight for justice… to humbly acknowledge that some things concretely need to change, and if that is to happen, she needs to appreciate the vision but also the criticisms of young people. (cf Christus Vivit 37, 39)
The Revolution article went on to offer the following observation:
Youth are very open to investigating and taking up whole new outlooks and ways of doing things … and in this way channel their daring and unwillingness to accept things the way they are, into the revolutionary struggle.
This dovetails perfectly with Bergoglio’s “dream of a ‘missionary option’” as outlined in Evangelii Gaudium, the manifesto for his “so-called pontificate” (to quote Fr. Nicholas Gruner), describing it as an “impulse capable of transforming everything, so that the church’s customs, ways of doing things, times and schedules, language and structures.”
As has been noted in this space many times, Jorge Bergoglio is not a man gone rogue; a freethinker who has no interest in building upon the efforts of his predecessors. On the contrary, he is merely the current version of John Paul II, the same who proudly professed that his own “deep roots” vis-à-vis “the awareness of the Church” extended no further than the Second Vatican Council (cf Redemptor Hominis 3) – the inglorious spectacle launched by John XXIII, whose passion for Ostpolitik led him to order the Council to refrain from condemning pure evil, thus revealing himself as a bona fide Communist sympathizer.
This is the very moment in history when the humanistic revolutionary spirit was made manifest in Rome; it was the “new Pentecost” that gave birth to the conciliar church. As Cardinal Suenens once pompously declared, “Vatican II is 1789 in the Church.”
The groundwork for this takeover, however, had been laid long before. As George Neumayr noted in a 2017 article entitled, The Communist Cardinals of Pope Francis:
In 1953, Manning Johnson, a former propaganda director for the Communist Party in America, testified to the U.S. Congress that Marxists had infiltrated Catholic seminaries. “In the earliest stages it was determined that with only small forces available it would be necessary to concentrate Communist agents in the seminaries and divinity schools,” he said. “The practical conclusion, drawn by the Red leaders, was that these institutions would make it possible for a small Communist minority to influence the ideology of future clergymen in the paths most conducive to Communist purposes.”
Two years later, Jorge Mario Bergoglio entered Inmaculada Concepción Seminary in Buenos Aires; eventually professing as a novice in the Society of Jesus in 1958.
Fast forward sixty-one years and even the most disinterested observer must conclude that the ideology of the man presently known as ‘Francis’ is more than conducive to Communist purposes!
Consider, for example, his words and deeds in Bolivia; including his grateful reception of the sacrilegious representation of the Crucifix fashioned out of a hammer and sickle as given to him by President Evo Morales. Then there is his reference to the longtime Cuban dictator as “His Excellency Mister Fidel Alejandro Castro.” If that’s not enough, surely the agreement he forged with Beijing should suffice. This list could go on and on.
For those who may desire more evidence of Bergoglio’s Communist bent, I recommend a report recently issued by Michael Hichborn of the Lepanto Institute: Pope Francis Promotes Goals Created by Communists.
All of this, however, leads to some very important questions in light of the sure and consistent teaching of the Holy Catholic Church stating that Communism is:
– “That infamous doctrine which is absolutely contrary to the natural law itself, and if once adopted would utterly destroy the rights, property and possessions of all men, and even society itself.” (Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus, 1864)
– “The fatal plague which insinuates itself into the very marrow of human society only to bring about its ruin.” (Pope Leo XIII, Quod Apostolici Muneris, 1878), and therefore…
– “Communism is intrinsically wrong, and no one who would save Christian civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking whatsoever.” (Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, 1937)
With this in mind, let us ask, what does Jorge Bergoglio’s undeniable collaboration with Communism and its purposes say about his status as a member of the Mystical Body of Christ?
Given that he is simply carrying on the great conciliar “tradition” (if you will allow), what does this say about the men-in-white who came before him?
Furthermore, what does all of this say about the institution presently doing business in Rome under the direction of Francis; is it really the same Holy Roman Catholic Church of Leo XIII, Pius IX, and Pius XI?
If, dear reader, you are genuinely unsure how to answer these questions, be not ashamed; surely you are not alone. If, however, you cannot be bothered to prayerfully contemplate them in the light of authentic Catholic tradition, may God help you.
Louie, you know you will be dismissed as a conspiracy theory nut by the deceived and willfully blind conciliarists. They say this idea the Church was infiltrated by Communists or Masons is a bunch of baloney used by the heretics (sometimes lovingly referred to as RadTrads) to further their agenda.
We know Communism never died. It is alive and well everywhere.
Has anyone here read “School of Darkness” by Bella Dodd? It is on my reading list. Please google Bella Dodd if you are not familiar with her. She laid out the Communist plan for the Catholic Church as far back as the 1940’s. Their plan is being realized from the enemy within.
“…the same who proudly professed that his [John Paul II’s] own “deep roots” vis-à-vis “the awareness of the Church” extended no further than the Second Vatican Council…”
Wojtyla was—as evidenced by his writings, actions, and the manner in which the Polish communist regime allowed him relatively unlimited freedom to come and go as he pleased (compared to the treatment meted out to Cardinal Mindszenty in Hungary, a prelate who uncompromisingly condemned communism)—no enemy of communism. Rather, he was at best a fellow traveler and, at worst, a Marxist himself (I have no doubt that he WAS a Marxist). John XXIII and Paul VI performed the critical function of softening up the Catholic faithful so as to pave the way for the Big Show: Wojtyla The Wrecking Machine. “Francis” is here merely to finish off “the wretch,” i.e., the Catholic Church which now lies mortally wounded, so that Satan can reign on the world stage. Pray. Pray hard and pray daily. God will not be mocked.
“As has been noted in this space many times, Jorge Bergoglio is not a man gone rogue; a freethinker who has no interest in building upon the efforts of his predecessors. On the contrary, he is merely the current version of John Paul II…”
Since I do see this argument being made quite often amongst the various traditionalist groups, I wonder if Frank Walker from Canon212 has a valid point regarding this way of thinking. After talking about Francis annexing the Knights of Malta, he goes on to say (7:55 – 8:25):
“But this kind of thing making Francis and Francis’ Church equivalent with Benedict and JPII’s Church or any of the Church before them; it’s not the same. It isn’t a difference only in degree, it’s a difference in kind. And that’s what Chris Ferrara says… it’s a difference in kind. I see traditionalists doing that… making Francis look like just more of JPII, more of Benedict. I think that’s really wrong. I think that’s deceitful and misleading.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WbrTabIRkc
I believe there is a difference in kind to some extent. Before Bergoglio, the first phase of the Demolition: Faith. With Bergoglio, the next phase of the Demolition: Morals
Interesting that Louie ends with Pius XI. Why not Pius XII? Is that because His Holiness Venerable Pope Pius XII condemned Capitalism *by name* in Questa Grande Vostra Adunata:
“And what of a regime in which capitalism is dominant? Does it offer a prospect of real welfare for woman? We have no need here to describe the economic and social consequences of this system. You know its characteristic signs and you yourselves labor under the burden it imposes: the excessive crowding of the population into the cities; the ever-growing and all-invading power of big business; the difficult and precarious condition of other industries, especially the crafts and even more especially agriculture; the disquieting spread of unemployment.”
Jokes on the Vatican, completely out of touch with the world they love, as usual…
The kids today are more conservative leaning.
Even the Sex Alphabet Community is worried as polls indicate the sexcapade movement is losing steam. I guess naked old men and women marching past the eyes of children dragged to parades year after year by their stupid liberal parents will do that. That’s when the liberal parents aren’t murdering their offspring and thus dying out naturally.
Even social media is getting on everybody’s nerves, and the kids know a big tech political fix when they see one. They are not getting their news from CNN or La Republica.
Anybody reading the flowery BS coming from synods and surveys claiming to be written by the ‘youth’ who actually knows any youth, knows Francis Corp is outright lying. Maybe that stuff was hip and cool in the sixties. It ain’t now. The Rick’n’Morty crowd doesn’t dialogue in that language.
The youth won’t deliver if left to the passage of time. So the revolutionaries need to move quickly on behalf of the youth to make things happen.
And he thinks any of us, least of all Louie, care a fag for Capitalism!
Aren’t you the same moron who predicted the Republicans would win the mid-terms with the same specious reasoning you’re using here. But wait, that was *before* they took their 40 seat ass kicking…
You must have me mixed up with some Republican American voter.
Or maybe someone you just made up entirely…
I do recall there were some folks looking forward to some big ‘blue wave’ of Democratic take-over that never materialized… But I don’t think that was you. I don’t think that guy was a communist sympathizer. Which is probably why you got so triggered by Louie’s critical references to Communism that you felt the pressing need to remind us all that Capitalism is bad. Yeah, we know that Gags. Just like we know you don’t actually hold the Catholic faith. You just like to sing a few songs from its album. And you still get the lyrics wrong quite often. But have fun with choosing between dark blue and light blue in the next America’s Top Figurehead contest.
Now, we just got the combox open again and I wouldn’t want to have it turn into a mess for everyone with you vomiting all over the place, so I’m going to turn your volume down so I can’t hear you any more… there… just like that…
Spot on, Johnno. My grandkids see through the crap “they” are trying to ram down their throats. They tell me that all of their friends see through it, too. So, I for one see evidence of the truth of what you’re talking about. My guess is that, given the instantaneous means of communication via social media, a great number of today’s young people are wise to “them.” It’s ironic that the platform by which Marxist propaganda was to be spread across the world—a platform which was SO sure to enslave the gullible goyim and which was promoted by the likes of Zuckerberg, Brin, Page, Eisner, Goldberg, Rothstein, Spielberg, etc.—would turn out to be the very weapon used against those who would annihilate us if they could.
Good point and a great observation.
Like male columnists writing for a newspaper yet another column on sexism but never quitting their job to let a female take it, radical church adults are always manipulating the youth via praise and propaganda.
If Bergoglio really wants to let the youth lead, he could resign and urge all other putative men in the Hierarchy to resign and let the youth take over.
It’ll never happen and the idea for WYD was a crummy one but it did lead to an increase in the cult of personality for whatever Pope is currently reigning.
All of this is such nonsense – complete and utter destructive nonsense
“The kids today are more conservative leaning.”
I wish I could agree with this. In my neck of the woods nothing could be further from the truth.
As for the overall point of the piece, I think there is much truth in how the Vatican II Sect is using the youth. It’s not that different than the liberal indoctrination you see in the public schools.
JPII supported Socialism. Bergoglio in all things is simply following his predecessor’s.
Excerpts from https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2019/02/wojtyla-and-marx.html
From Laborum Exercens, JPII teaches:
Christian tradition has never upheld this right [to private property] as absolute and untouchable…
As mentioned above, property is acquired first of all through work in order that it may serve work. This concerns in a special way ownership of the means of production. Isolating these means as a separate property in order to set it up in the form of “capital” in opposition to “labor”-and even to practice exploitation of labor-is contrary to the very nature of these means and their possession. They cannot be possessed against labor, they cannot even be possessed for possession’s sake, because the only legitimate title to their possession- whether in the form of private ownership or in the form of public or collective ownership-is that they should serve labor, and thus, by serving labor, that they should make possible the achievement of the first principle of this order, namely, the universal destination of goods and the right to common use of them. From this point of view, therefore, in consideration of human labor and of common access to the goods meant for man, one cannot exclude the socialization, in suitable conditions, of certain means of production. (#14)
Compare this with what Pope Pius IX wrote in Qui Pluribus:
To this goal also tends the unspeakable doctrine of Communism, as it is called, a doctrine most opposed to the very natural law. For if this doctrine were accepted, the complete destruction of everyone’s laws, government, property, and even of human society itself would follow.
And what Pope Leo XIII taught in Rerum Novarum:
Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property. (#15)
Is The Social Doctrine of the Church “The Soul of Marxism”?
In 1993, JPII made the following remarks:
The conditions that gave rise historically to this system [Marxism] were very real and serious. The system of exploitation, to which inhuman capitalism had submitted the proletariat since the beginning of the industrial revolution, represented a true iniquity that the social doctrine of the Church openly condemned. At depth, the latter [Church social doctrine] was the soul of truth of Marxism, thanks to which it can present itself in a fascinating way in Western societies themselves. (See L’Osservatore Romano, September 11, 1993; Emphasis mine) Here, “St.” Wojtyla calls Church social teaching “the soul” of the demonic system of Karl Marx. What can you expect from a man who praises the Communist Manifesto in one of his “encyclicals”? Yes, you read that correctly. In 1981, JPII wrote Laborem Exercens, and in section #8 we read:
It was precisely one such wide-ranging anomaly that gave rise in the last century to what has been called “the worker question”, sometimes described as “the proletariat question.” This question and the problems connected with it gave rise to a just social reaction and caused the impetuous emergence of a great burst of solidarity between workers, first and foremost industrial workers. The call to solidarity and common action addressed to the workers-especially to those engaged in narrowly specialized, monotonous and depersonalized work in industrial plants, when the machine tends to dominate man – was important and eloquent from the point of view of social ethics. It was the reaction against the degradation of man as the subject of work, and against the unheard-of accompanying exploitation in the field of wages, working conditions and social security for the worker. This reaction united the working world in a community marked by great solidarity…Following the lines laid dawn by the Encyclical Rerum Novarum…it must be frankly recognized that the reaction against the system of injustice and harm that cried to heaven for vengeance and that weighed heavily upon workers in that period of rapid industrialization was justified from the point of view of social morality.
Without mentioning the Communist Manifesto, JPII clearly agrees with its cry, “Proletarians of the whole world unite.” Wojtyla mentions the great Pope Leo XIII, in my opinion one of the holiest and most underrated popes of all time, as supporting this view by “following the lines” he laid down. Pope Leo XIII was a theological giant; did he lay the foundation for Wojtyla’s teaching? Hardly. Here’s what that great pontiff taught in Quod Apostolici Muneris:
You understand, venerable brethren, that We speak of that sect of men who, under various and almost barbarous names, are called socialists, communists, or nihilists, and who, spread over all the world, and bound together by the closest ties in a wicked confederacy, no longer seek the shelter of secret meetings, but, openly and boldly marching forth in the light of day, strive to bring to a head what they have long been planning – the overthrow of all civil society whatsoever.(#1)
Hence, by a new species of impiety, unheard of even among the heathen nations, states have been constituted without any count at all of God or of the order established by Him; it has been given out that public authority neither derives its principles, nor its majesty, nor its power of governing from God, but rather from the multitude, which, thinking itself absolved from all divine sanction, bows only to such laws as it shall have made at its own will. The supernatural truths of faith having been assailed and cast out as though hostile to reason, the very Author and Redeemer of the human race has been slowly and little by little banished from the universities, the lyceums and gymnasia-in a word, from every public institution. (#2)
For, indeed, although the socialists, stealing the very Gospel itself with a view to deceive more easily the unwary, have been accustomed to distort it so as to suit their own purposes, nevertheless so great is the difference between their depraved teachings and the most pure doctrine of Christ that none greater could exist: “for what participation hath justice with injustice or what fellowship hath light with darkness?
Furthermore, the social teaching of the Vatican II sect no longer held that work can be set in confrontation with capital or detached from it as an independent factor or aspect on the very level of production itself. Rerum Novarum of Pope Leo had taught: “Neither capital can subsist without labor, nor labor without capital. (#14). Now we are taught instead:
This consistent image, in which the principle of the primacy of person over things is strictly preserved, was broken up in human thought. The break occurred in such a way that labor was separated from capital and set in opposition to it, and capital was set in opposition to labor, as though they were two impersonal forces, two production factors juxtaposed in the same “economistic perspective.” (Laborem Exercens, 13].
In a 1993 interview with Jas Gawronski, JPII said, “If present day capitalism is improved, it is in great part because of the good things realized by communism: the fight against unemployment, concern for the poor. Capitalism, on the other hand, is individualistic.” (See http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/6975%26eng%3Dy.html?refresh_ce)
Thank you, Katherine.
True, it’s not a complete route, and we need to keep in mind that given population decline through contraception and abortion, the older generation is more numerous than the younger one, excluding immigrants.
But the trends do indicate that more young people are more pro-life for obvious reasons, and also that the sexual degeneracy has pushed as far as it can go and the absurdity of changing genders and demanding unreal pronouns, and the whole natural disgust of transsexuals, means that while the kids are still willing to be ‘secularly tolerable’ to some extent of live and let live, they are not going to be marching on the streets so that men pretending to be women can use the ladies restroom and beat handily them in competitive sports.
They still aren’t Catholic, but as the popularity behind men like Jordan Peterson etc. displays, they are no longer willing to entertain modernity’s endless revolutions. They are in fact willing to entertain turning back to reclaim the things that Christendom once naturally taught, for which secularist agnostics like Peterson are re-popularizing whilst the hirelings in the Church are doings away with. So traditionalism is seeing seeds planted that are ripe for being given proper nutrition.
The kids want hard-talking truths and responsibilities. The kind Peterson is repackaging and selling, while Francis is tossing away along with his credibility. They also see the falling apart of the secular establishment before their very eyes with the brouhaha and censorship and utterly transparent politics of their secularist leaders and now know that secularism has failed to deliver. So there’s a natural parting between left and right. A bunch are going more radically off the cliff of leftism, and this is naturally creating a reaction where with the middle ground disappearing, the more rational side is being pushed more towards ‘the right’ though really it’s more towards the common sense of Christian civilization.
We’re at the point now that they value the rules and structure of Christendom, but at the same time are still not willing to accept Christ totally, because they’re still suffering under the delusion that the Church as an institution is fallible due to scientific myths, and are unable to fully understand what dogma is. And the sodomite mafia under Francis in the Vatican certainly isn’t helping things.
We’re kind of back at the era of Fatima – a new cold war is on, the world’s people are disenfranchised about the global order, communism is waving its flag as the solution, and the Church is faced with the sequel ‘Vatican II: Apostate Harder’ under Francis and his little gatherings. God is ready to work miracles through the Pope, but they are too busy smashing the windows to let in more air. Frankly, everything is back, only much worse than it ever was before. The people of the world are hungry, and the clergy are baking stones and frying serpents.
“I think that’s deceitful and misleading.”
Most making that argument are not claiming Francis is not worse, and are certainly not trying to mislead or be deceitful. They are just pointing out that most Catholics slept through some very big problems with past popes which makes the traditionalists correct and forces the conservatives to have to humbly admit they miscalculated the extent of the problems in the Church. There is no hermeneutic of continuity, and Vatican II is problematic and not just misinterpreted, heresy and failure to condemn errors existed before Francis.
“Christian tradition has never upheld this right [to private property] as absolute and untouchable…”
That’s heretical according to his own conclusions that
“property is acquired first of all through work in order that it may serve work.”
If labor has a right to private property, then private property is absolute and untouchable!
“Isolating these means as a separate property in order to set it up in the form of “capital” in opposition to “labor”-and even to practice exploitation of labor-is contrary to the very nature of these means and their”
Capital cannot cheat labor!
“one cannot exclude the socialization, in suitable conditions, of certain means of production.”
If socialization means socialism as apposed to incorporation, that statement would be heretical.
“the first principle of this order, namely, the universal destination of goods and the right to common use of them.”
If common use means living in common, that statement would be heretical, but it most likely means that we all have the right to bid on the use of the laborers production.
“community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit,”
Here Leo XIII is condemning the notion that Caesar has the natural right to the laborers production and the obligation distribute it so all live in common.
“Neither capital can subsist without labor, nor labor without capital.” Pope Leo XIII
“labor was separated from capital and set in opposition to it, and capital was set in opposition to labor, as though they were two impersonal forces, two production factors juxtaposed in the same “economistic perspective.” (Laborem Exercens, 13].” John Paul II
Seems to me John Paul II was pointing out that crony capitalism ie. fractional reserving the supply of money, fractional reserving bank deposits and the central banking system with unjustified monetary inflation, not the free market, has indeed set labor against capital, which does not make Marx correct, but only makes him appear to be correct.
The early Christians in Jerusalem lived in common by giving the goods they possessed through natural law to the Apostles or bishops to be distributed to other Christians. Socialists and Communists propose to live in common not by giving what they posses through natural law, nor by giving anything to Caesar, by by claiming Caesar has the right to claim what they posses, through natural law, and commandeer it from them and give it more abudantly to infidels and apostates. I’ve heard it claimed that the early Christians in Antioch never gave what they possessed through natural law to the bishops to live in common with other Christians. At any rate, tradition has established that living in common among Christians is to be by the cloistered monasteries and convents. Yet, since it was during the 1st century destruction of Jerusalem that Christians lived in common without being cloistered monks or nuns, it is most likely how we are going to have to survive as the apocalypse unfolds.
Caesars rights to our property is less then God’s Tithe, that is, less then 10% net income (local, state, and federal).
“[Church social doctrine] was the soul of truth of Marxism,”
That’s heresy, at best Marx used a few truths to deceive.
We must fully wrap our minds around the situation: Jorge Bergoglio and his conciliar allies (including the “conservatives”) are in league with Satan—quite possibly subjectively but certainly objectively. We need to get very clear on this.
Vatican II was, quite literally, the devil’s council.
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.  By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?  Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit.  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit.  Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire.  Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.”
-Christ the King at Mt 7:15-16
It is interesting for me to see how you comunists are stuck in a binary state of mind. If someone is not comunist he is capitalist right? It just shows how limited intelect you have.