Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Blast from the past — Benedict XVI (2012)

Keys to interpreting Vatican II

Reform & continuance!

Everybody Loves Francis!

Salma Hayek who is committing adultery with her ‘husband’ and pro-abortion

Womanizer and pro-abortion lefty George Clooney who is also committing adultery with his ‘wife’

And Buddhist adulterer Richard Gere 

Defecating anti-Catholic abortionist Hebe de Bonafini

Anglican and president of Singapore, Tony Tan Keng Yam helps Francis push ‘global warming’

brainwashing Italy's children to love the Moslem invasion

Surf’s up man! Gnarly dude!!!

Don’t worry unconscious Francis won’t stop “making a mess” unless the god of surprises tells him to!

Saturday, May 28, 2016

Another confused homily from Francis

We were made to be God’s children, it is in our DNA. But this filial relationship was ruined and required the sacrifice of God’s only-begotten Son in order to be restored. From the immense gift of love which is Jesus’ death on the cross, the Holy Spirit has been poured out upon humanity like a vast torrent of grace. Those who by faith are immersed into this mystery of regeneration are reborn to the fullness of filial life.

Francis, 15 May 2016 —

“For you are all the children of God by faith, in Christ Jesus.  For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ.  There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.  And if you be Christ' s, then are you the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise.”

“He came unto his own, and his own received him not.  But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name.  Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.  And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.  John beareth witness of him, and crieth out, saying: This was he of whom I spoke: He that shall come after me, is preferred before me: because he was before me.”

So which is it Francis?

Are we children of God by nature or by grace?

Friday, May 27, 2016

Francis is a cafeteria ‘catholic’

In fact, to be a Christian does not primarily mean to belong to a certain culture or adhere to a certain doctrine, but rather to join one’s own life, in all its aspects, to the person of Jesus and, through Him, to the Father.”
—Francis, 15 May 2016—
source: Zenit, Pope on Pentecost: ‘Being God’s Children Is in Our DNA’

Sunday, May 22, 2016

Francis the humble “bloodsucker”

During his homily at Casa Santa Marta on Thursday 19 May 2016, Francis condemned himself with his own words.  The following three paragraphs are excerpted from Radio VaticanaPope: the rich who exploit the poor are bloodsuckers.

“When riches are created by exploiting the people, by those rich people who exploit [others], they take advantage of the work of the people, and those poor people become slaves. We think of the here and now, the same thing happens all over the world. “I want to work.” “Good, they’ll make you a contract, from September to June.” Without a pension, without health care… Then they suspend it, and in July and August they have to eat air. And in September, they laugh at you about it. Those who do that are true bloodsuckers, and they live by spilling the blood of the people who they make slaves of labour.”


“Yesterday, in the Audience, we meditated on the rich glutton and Lazarus. But, this rich man was in his own world, he didn’t realize that on the other side of the door of his house, there was someone who was starving. But this is worse. That rich man, at least, did not realize, and left the other man to die of hunger. But this is worse. This is starving the people with their work for my own profit! Living on the blood of the people. And this is a mortal sin. This is a mortal sin. And this demands a great deal of penance, a great deal of restitution, in order to be converted from this sin.”


“We consider this drama of today: the exploitation of the people, the blood of these people who become slaves, the traffickers of people—and not just those who deal in prostitutes and children for child labour, but that trafficking we might call “civilized”: “I’ll pay you this much, without vacation, without health care, without… everything under the table… But I will become rich!” May the Lord make us understand today the simplicity that Jesus speaks to us of in the Gospel of today: a glass of water in the name of Christ is more important than all the riches accumulated through the exploitation of the people.” 

Compare that to the reality of Francis’ behavior and the system he runs!

Saturday, May 21, 2016

A few commentaries on Francis’ remarks about Christ’s words, “to convert all nations” equalling Moslem Jihad

“Today, I don’t think that there is a fear of Islam as such but of ISIS and its war of conquest, which is partly drawn from Islam. It is true that the idea of conquest is inherent in the soul of Islam. However, it is also possible to interpret the objective in Matthew’s Gospel, where Jesus sends his disciples to all nations, in terms of the same idea of conquest....”

The above quote is taken from a recent interview Francis gave to the French daily newspaper, La Croix.  Many of the mainstream medias are finally pointing out the illogicality of Francis’ words.  This wasn’t the only terrifying statement given by Francis in the interview (Click here to read the full La Croix interview) but it is the one receiving the most play because it fits a preconceived narrative while deflecting attention away from the puppet masters of that narrative.

Many of the leaders of the European Union’s western member countries are complicit in this plague of unrestricted ‘immigration’ as well as some of the common peoples (typically noahide social justice warriors).  Now is a good time to refresh the reader about the force which is behind the impetus to bring the Moslem invaders to Europe to de-Christianize it (albeit the few Catholic elements that still remain there).

Two videos about Francis’ interview

a brief commentary

a much longer and extensive commentary

Thursday, May 19, 2016

Inside the Mind of Jorge Mario Bergoglio

They have been his guiding criteria ever since he was young. And now they inspire his way of governing the Church. Here they are for the first time, analyzed by a philosopher and frontier missionary

by Sandro Magister

ROME, May 19, 2016 – What is the guiding criterion of Pope Francis, of his fluid but definitional magisterium, intentionally open to the most contrasting interpretations?

It is he himself who recalls what it is, at the beginning of “Amoris Laetitia":

“Since ‘time is greater than space,’ I would make it clear that not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the magisterium.”

Further on in the same exhortation Francis translates this criterion:

“It is more important to start processes than to dominate spaces.”

“Time is greater than space” is effectively the first of the four guiding criteria that Francis lists and illustrates in the agenda-setting document of his pontificate, the exhortation “Evangelii Gaudium.” The other three are: unity prevails over conflict, realities are more important than ideas, the whole is greater than the part.

It is a whole lifetime that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has been inspired by these four criteria, and mainly by the first. The Argentine Jesuit Diego Fares, in commenting on “Amoris Laetitia” in the latest issue of “La Civiltà Cattolica,” extensively cites notes from a conversation with the provincial of the Society of Jesus in Argentina at the time, dated 1978, all “on the domain of room for action and on the sense of time.”

Not only that. The entire block of “Evangelii Gaudium” that illustrates the four criteria is the transcription of a chapter of the uncompleted doctoral thesis written by Bergoglio in the few months he spent in Frankfurt, Germany in 1986. The thesis was about the Italian-German theologian Romano Guardini, who in fact is cited in the exhortation.

This background of “Evangelii Gaudium” was revealed by Pope Francis himself, in a book released in Argentina in 2014 about his “difficult” years as a Jesuit:

“Even though I was not able to complete my thesis, the studies I did at the time helped me a great deal with what came afterward, including the apostolic exhortation ‘Evangelii Gaudium,’ seeing that the whole part on social criteria in it is taken from my thesis on Guardini.”

It is therefore indispensable to analyze these criteria, if one wishes to understand the thought of Pope Francis.

And this is what is done in the following text by Fr. Giovanni Scalese, 61, Barnabite, since 2014 head of the mission “sui iuris” in Afghanistan, the only outpost of the Catholic Church in that country, where he also carries out diplomatic roles such as attaché at the embassy of Italy.

In addition to being a missionary in India and in the Philippines and an assistant general of the order of the Barnabites, Fr. Scalese has been a professor of philosophy and rector at the Collegio alla Querce in Florence.

And from this college he has taken the name “Querculanus” with which he signs the reflections that he posts to the blog on which can be read in its entirety the text that is slightly abbreviated here:

> I postulati di papa Francesco

Scalese observes among other things that by virtue of these historicist, Hegelian-tinged postulates, Pope Francis continuously argues against the abstractness of “doctrine,” contrasting it with a “reality” to which one must adapt.

As if forgetting that reality, if it is not illuminated, guided, ordered by a doctrine, “risks turning into chaos.”


The four postulates of Pope Francis
They can be considered the postulates of Pope Francis’s thought, since in addition to being recurrent in his teaching he also presents them as general criteria of interpretation and evaluation. 
They are:
- time is greater than space;
- unity prevails over conflict
- realities are more important than ideas
- the whole is greater than the part.
In “Evangelii Gaudium” 221, Francis calls them “principles.” Personally I maintain instead that they can be considered “postulates,” a term that in the Zingarelli dictionary of the Italian language designates a “proposition devoid of evidence and not demonstrated but all the same admitted as true in that it is necessary for founding a procedure or demonstration.”
Also in “Evangelii Gaudium” 221, the pope writes that the four principles “derive from the pillars of the Church’s social doctrine.”
But in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, those that are indicated as “permanent principles” and “the very heart of Catholic social teaching” are instead the “dignity of the human person,” the “common good,” “subsidiarity,” “solidarity,” to which are connected the universal destination of goods and participation, in addition to the “fundamental values of social life” like truth, freedom, justice, love.
So then, it is hard to grasp the derivation of the four postulates of “Evangelii Gaudium” from the aforementioned “permanent principles” of the social doctrine of the Church. Or at the least such a derivation is not very evident; it would have to be brought to light and not taken for granted.
The fact is that these have always been the first principles of the thought of Pope Francis. The Argentine Jesuit Juan Carlos Scannone informs us that “when Jorge Mario Bergoglio was provincial, in 1974, he was already using them. I was part of the provincial congregation with him, and I have heard him recall them to illuminate various situations that were being dealt with in that assembly.”
It should be taken into account that in 1974 Bergoglio was 38 years old, had been a Jesuit for sixteen years (1958), had received his philosophy degree eleven years before (1963), had been a priest for five years (1969), had been a provincial for one (1973-1979) and had not yet been in Germany (1986) to complete his studies. It would therefore seem that those four postulates were the result of the personal reflections of the then-young Bergoglio.
In the apostolic exhortation “Evangelii Gaudium,” Francis proposes them again “out of the conviction that their application can be a genuine path to peace within each nation and in the entire world” (no. 221).
First postulate: “Time is greater than space”
Among the four postulates, this would seem to be the dearest to Pope Francis. We find it enunciated for the first time in the encyclical “Lumen Fidei” (no. 57). We find it again, together with the other three principles, in “Evangelii Gaudium" (nos. 222-225). It is subsequently included in the encyclical “Laudato si’” (no. 178). It is finally cited, twice, in the apostolic exhortation “Amoris Laetitia" (nos. 3 and 261).
It is however less immediately comprehensible in its formulation. It becomes clear only when it is explained. “Evangelii Gaudium” illustrates it as follows:
“This principle enables us to work slowly but surely, without being obsessed with immediate results. It helps us patiently to endure difficult and adverse situations, or inevitable changes in our plans. It invites us to accept the tension between fullness and limitation, and to give a priority to time. One of the faults which we occasionally observe in sociopolitical activity is that spaces and power are preferred to time and processes. Giving priority to space means madly attempting to keep everything together in the present, trying to possess all the spaces of power and of self-assertion; it is to crystallize processes and presume to hold them back. Giving priority to time means being concerned about initiating processes rather than possessing spaces. Time governs spaces, illumines them and makes them links in a constantly expanding chain, with no possibility of return. What we need, then, is to give priority to actions which generate new processes in society and engage other persons and groups who can develop them to the point where they bear fruit in significant historical events. Without anxiety, but with clear convictions and tenacity.” (no. 223)
More concise is the exposition in “Amoris Laetitia”: “it is more important to start processes than to dominate spaces” (no. 261). But in this last apostolic exhortation there is a surprising application of the principle in question:
“Since time is greater than space, I would make it clear that not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the magisterium. Unity of teaching and practice is certainly necessary in the Church, but this does not preclude various ways of interpreting some aspects of that teaching or drawing certain consequences from it. This will always be the case as the Spirit guides us towards the entire truth (cf. Jn 16:13), until he leads us fully into the mystery of Christ and enables us to see all things as he does. Each country or region, moreover, can seek solutions better suited to its culture and sensitive to its traditions and local needs.” (no. 3)
We must sincerely recognize that the derivation of such a conclusion from the principle under examination is not so immediate and evident as the text would seem to suppose. It would seem that the essence of the first postulate lies in the fact that one must not presume to homogenize everything and everyone, but to allow everyone to make his own way toward a “horizon” (nos. 222 and 225) that remains rather undefined.
In the interview given to Fr. Antonio Spadaro in "La Civiltà Cattolica" on September 19, 2013, Francis presents the principle in a more theological perspective:
“God manifests himself in historical revelation, in time. Time initiates processes, and space crystallizes them. God is in time, in the processes. We must not focus on occupying the spaces where power is exercised, but rather on starting long-run historical processes. We must initiate processes rather than occupy spaces. God manifests himself in time and is present in the processes of history. This gives priority to actions that give birth to new historical dynamics. And it requires patience, waiting.” (p. 468).
In the journal “PATH” of the Pontifical Theological Academy (no. 2/2014, pp. 403-412) Fr. Giulio Maspero identifies the sources of the principle in Saint Ignatius and in John XXIII, cited by Francis in the interview with Fr. Spadaro, and in Blessed Pietro Favre, cited in “Evangelii Gaudium” 171; while he excludes as a source Romano Guardini, who is however cited in EG 224. To the principle is attributed “a profound Trinitarian root,” while its hermeneutic key, of a mainly theological nature, is found in the affirmation of the presence and manifestation of God in history. Frankly, it is a bit difficult to follow the reasoning of Fr. Maspero in this impassioned commentary of his on the principle of the superiority of time with respect to space.
Personally, rather than the theological roots - which remain entirely to be demonstrated - I cannot help but perceive at the foundation of the first postulate some threads of idealistic philosophy, like historicism, the primacy of becoming over being, the origin of being from action (“esse sequitur operari”), etc. But this is a discussion that should be explored by experts in a scholarly setting.
Second postulate: “Unity prevails over conflict”
This principle too was enunciated for the first time in the encyclical “Lumen Fidei” (no. 55). Its more expansive treatment is found in “Evangelii Gaudium" (nos. 226-230). We find it, finally, in the encyclical “Laudato Si’" (no. 198). EG begins from an observation:
“Conflict cannot be ignored or concealed. It has to be faced. But if we remain trapped in conflict, we lose our perspective, our horizons shrink and reality itself begins to fall apart. In the midst of conflict, we lose our sense of the profound unity of reality.” (no. 226)
And he describes three attitudes:
“When conflict arises, some people simply look at it and go their way as if nothing happened; they wash their hands of it and get on with their lives. Others embrace it in such a way that they become its prisoners; they lose their bearings, project onto institutions their own confusion and dissatisfaction and thus make unity impossible. But there is also a third way, and it is the best way to deal with conflict. It is the willingness to face conflict head on, to resolve it and to make it a link in the chain of a new process.” (no. 227)
The third attitude is based on the principle: “unity prevails over conflict,” which is in fact called “indispensable to the building of friendship in society” (no. 228). This principle inspires the concept of “reconciled diversity” (no. 230), recurrent in the teaching of Pope Francis, above all in the field of ecumenism.
The big problem with this postulate is that it presupposes a dialectical vision of reality very similar to that of Hegel:
“Solidarity, in its deepest and most challenging sense, thus becomes a way of making history in a life setting where conflicts, tensions and oppositions can achieve a diversified and life-giving unity. This is not to opt for a kind of syncretism, or for the absorption of one into the other, but rather for a resolution which takes place on a higher plane and preserves what is valid and useful on both sides.: (no. 228)
This “resolution on a higher plane” recalls very much the Hegelian “Aufhebung.” It also does not seem to be a coincidence that at no. 230 there is mention of a “synthesis,” which evidently presupposes a “thesis” and an “antithesis,” the poles in conflict with each other. In this case too the discussion should be explored.
Third postulate: “Realities are more important than ideas”
This is presented in “Evangelii Gaudium” (nos. 231-233) and subsequently included in “Laudato Si’” (no. 201):
“There also exists a constant tension between ideas and realities. Realities simply are, whereas ideas are worked out. There has to be continuous dialogue between the two, lest ideas become detached from realities. It is dangerous to dwell in the realm of words alone, of images and rhetoric. So a third principle comes into play: realities are greater than ideas. This calls for rejecting the various means of masking reality: angelic forms of purity, dictatorships of relativism, empty rhetoric, objectives more ideal than real, brands of ahistorical fundamentalism, ethical systems bereft of kindness, intellectual discourse bereft of wisdom.” (EG 231)
It could seem that such a postulate is the one more easily understood and accepted, the one closer to traditional philosophy. His exploration of it in “Evangelii Gaudium” is rather attractive, and at first sight absolutely embraceable:
“Ideas – conceptual elaborations – are at the service of communication, understanding, and praxis. Ideas disconnected from realities give rise to ineffectual forms of idealism and nominalism, capable at most of classifying and defining, but certainly not calling to action. What calls us to action are realities illuminated by reason. Formal nominalism has to give way to harmonious objectivity. Otherwise, the truth is manipulated, cosmetics take the place of real care for our bodies” [Plato, “Gorgias,” 465] (no. 232).
In the previously cited journal of the Pontifical Theological Academy, Fr.
Giovanni Cavalcoli lets himself go in an enthusiastic commentary on this principle, assimilating it, without further clarifications, to the traditional Aristotelian-Thomistic epistemological realism.
In my view, however, he does not take two important aspects into account:
- the context in which the principle is presented, which is a sociological context with repercussions of a pastoral character. “Evangelii Gaudium” is not an essay on the philosophy of knowledge: in spite of dealing with a philosophical principle, the third postulate is used in function of the development of social coexistence and of the construction of a people (no. 221);
- and the language used, which is not a technical language. When he speaks there of “ineffective of idealisms and nominalisms,” he is not referring to the historical currents of idealism and nominalism, so much so that he uses the plural. Above all, the terms “idea” and “reality” are understood in a meaning different from that in which traditional epistemology might understand it. The “reality” that is spoken of in “Evangelii Gaudium” is not a purely phenomenal reality. The “idea” is not the simple mental representation of the object, but, as the text indicates, it is a synonym for “conceptual elaborations” (no. 232) and therefore of “ideology.” On the other hand, the use of existential expressions like, for example, the verb “being involved” should have made it understood immediately that this not a matter of traditional scholastic language.
Such observations have important consequences. The postulate “realities are more important than ideas” has nothing to do with the “adaequatio intellectus ad rem.” It signifies instead that we must accept reality as it is, without presuming to change it on the basis of absolute principles, for example moral principles, which are only “abstract” ideas, which most of the time risk turning into ideologies. This postulate is at the basis of Francis’s continual arguments against doctrine. Significant, in this regard, is what Pope Bergoglio affirms in the interview with “La Civiltà Cattolica”:
“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” (pp. 469-470).
Fourth postulate: “The whole is greater than the part”
We find this principle presented extensively in “Evangelii Gaudium” (nos. 234-237) and later summarized in “Laudato Si’" (no. 141):
“The whole is greater than the part, but it is also greater than the sum of its parts. There is no need, then, to be overly obsessed with limited and particular questions. We constantly have to broaden our horizons and see the greater good which will benefit us all. But this has to be done without evasion or uprooting. We need to sink our roots deeper into the fertile soil and history of our native place, which is a gift of God. We can work on a small scale, in our own neighbourhood, but with a larger perspective. Nor do people who wholeheartedly enter into the life of a community need to lose their individualism or hide their identity; instead, they receive new impulses to personal growth. The global need not stifle, nor the particular prove barren.” (EG 235)
Appreciation must be shown here for this attempt to hold together the two poles that are in tension with each other - the whole and the part - and that in EG are identified with “globalization” and “localization” (no. 234). The acknowledgment of the part, which must not disappear in the whole, is represented by the geometrical figure, dear to Pope Francis, of the polyhedron, in contrast with the sphere (no. 236).
The problem is that the principle, as it is formulated, does not express such a balance between the whole and the parts. It speaks openly of the superiority of the whole with respect to the parts. And this in contrast with the social doctrine of the Church, which indeed states that the person is an intrinsically social being, but at the same time reaffirms his primacy and the impossibility of reducing him to the social organism (Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, nos. 125 and 149; Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 1878-1885). There is the risk that, by repeating the fourth postulate without further clarification, it could be understood in a Marxist sense and thus justify the obliteration of the individual in society.
It should be kept in mind that also from a hermeneutical point of view the relationship between the whole and the parts is not described in terms of superiority but of circularity, what is called the “hermeneutical circle”: the whole must be interpreted in the light of the parts; the parts in the light of the whole.
That in the reality in which we find ourselves living there exist polarities is a fact that is hard to deny. What matters is the attitude that we take in the face of the tensions that we experience in everyday life. From the consideration of the four postulates as a whole, it would seem that we must conclude that the most appropriate attitude is indeed that of bringing together the opposing poles, but with the presumption that one of the two is superior to the other: time is greater than space; unity prevails over conflict; realities are more important than ideas; the whole is greater than the part.
Personally I have always maintained that tensions should instead be “managed”; that it is utopian to think that they can be, as long as we are on this earth, definitively overcome; that, above all, it is mistaken to take the side of one pole against the other, almost as if the good were all on one side and the evil all on the other (a Manichaean view of reality always rejected by the Church). The Christian is not the man of “aut aut,” but of “et et.” In this world there is - there must be! - room for everything: for time and for space, for unity and for diversity, for reality and for ideas, for the whole and for the parts. Nothing must be excluded, at the expense of knocking reality out of balance, which can lead to devastating conflicts.
Another observation that could be made at the end of this reflection is that the presentation of these four postulates demonstrates that, in human action, it is inevitable to allow oneself to be led by some principles that are abstract by their nature. It is therefore useless to polemicize about the abstractness of “doctrine,” opposing to it a “reality” to which one should simply adapt. Reality, if it is not illuminated, guided, ordered by some principles, risks turning into chaos.
The problem is: which principles? It is genuinely not clear why the four postulates that we have considered should be able to legitimately orient the development of social coexistence and the construction of a people, while the same legitimacy may not be extended to other principles, which are continually confronted with their abstractness and their at least potentially ideological character.
That Christian doctrine runs the risk of becoming ideology cannot be denied. But the same risk is run by any other principle, including the four postulates of “Evangelii Gaudium”; with the difference that these are the result of human reflection, while Catholic doctrine is founded on divine revelation.
May that not happen today which happened to Marx, who, while he taxed with ideology the thinkers who had preceded him, did not realize that he was elaborating one of the most ruinous ideologies of history. 

On the “difficult” years during which Bergoglio, in Argentina, developed the reflection on his four criteria of inspiration:
> Padre Jorge e i suoi confratelli. Perché vollero liberarsi di lui 


English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Bp. Fellay gives his side of the story

After having a disastrous interview with Tim Sebastian of the Conflict Zone for Deutsche Welle, Bp. Fellay followed it up with softer interview conducted by Edward Pentin of National Catholic Register. Many topics are discussed:
(Part 1) the excommunications, relations & discussions with Rome, why there has never been a break with Rome; SSPX doesn't trust Rome; the FSSP, Bp. Williamson; Benedict XVI & Summorum Pontificum; Benedict XVI & lifting of some of the excommunications; Vatican intrigue; Francis’ paradoxical and confusing behavior; SSPX is not in schism, need clarification on what is magisterium; are Francis’ teachings binding?; Francis & Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith operate in two different manners but they both come to the same conclusion about the SSPX; is Vatican II binding?; you can question Nostra Aetate, the liturgical reforms, etc.... and still be Catholic; problem of obedience.
(Part 2) obstacles to full communion with Rome; SSPX recognizes the authorities; no compromise on the Faith; dangers of modernist Rome; Bp. Williamson is wrong; the SSPX will not become modernist; Rome has become more lenient to the SSPX; is the SSPX coming to the rescue of Rome?; God’s merciful hand is bringing the SSPX back to Rome; Francis is paradoxical; to Fellay, Francis is someone who wants to see everyone saved; Francis knows the SSPX from Argentina and he knows they care. 
(Part 3) the church is in a messy situation; the problem isn’t the SSPX, it is the church (Rome); there are others who criticize Rome besides the SSPX; no insistence of a bishop of the SSPX becoming a cardinal; will Vatican II be corrected?; is the SSPX behind Fellay?; we are entering a new phase in the history of the church; women deacons; does Francis listen to Fellay?; Francis possibly wants the SSPX to be controversial in a Hegelian way; Bp. Williamson is gone and his consecrating new bishops is him stepping further into the abyss, he needs our prayers; SSPX holds to the principle of obedience; Our Lady of Fatima and the 3rd secret; ‘diabolical disorientation’ is at the top; Benedict XVI’s book The Salt of the Earth; La Salette and the Eclipse of the Church.

Edward Pentin’s interview of Bp. Fellay (Part 1)

Edward Pentin’s interview of Bp. Fellay (Part 2)

Edward Pentin’s interview of Bp. Fellay (Part 3)

Interestingly, Francis was interviewed on 9 May 2016 by the French newspaper La Croix and had this to say about the FSSPX and bishops Fellay & Williamson:
– On April 1, you received Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior-general of the Priestly Fraternity of St Pius X. Is the re-integration of the Lefebvrists into the Church again under consideration? 
Pope Francis: In Buenos Aires, I often spoke with them. They greeted me, asked me on their knees for a blessing. They say they are Catholic. They love the Church.
Bishop Fellay is a man with whom one can dialogue. That is not the case for other elements who are a little strange, such as Bishop Williamson or others who have been radicalized. Leaving this aside, I believe, as I said in Argentina, that they are Catholics on the way to full communion. 
During this year of mercy, I felt that I needed to authorize their confessors to pardon the sin of abortion. They thanked me for this gesture. Previously, Benedict XVI, whom they greatly respect, had liberalized the use of the Tridentine rite mass. So good dialogue and good work are taking place. 
– Would you be ready to grant them the status of a personal prelature? 
Pope Francis: That would be a possible solution but beforehand it will be necessary to establish a fundamental agreement with them. The Second Vatican Council has its value. We will advance slowly and patiently.
source: the latest anti-Catholic bilge spewing from Francis’ mouth in French interview

This is quite the contrast to how Bp. Williamson feels about Rome and Francis.  In a Question and Answers session from a 1 June 2014 conference in Post Falls, Idaho, Williamson said the following,
“Can you imagine?  That commanding resistant priests is like trying to herd cats.  Can you imagine?  Is it unimaginable?  In which case, is it worth trying if it's bound to fail? In it's...  It may be better not to attempt than to attempt and fail.  Some of you may think it would be better to attempt cause it might succeed.  I don't have the authority.  I don't, I..., I...,   
If ..., if ..., if ... by some miracle, Pope Francis rang me up next week and said,  
"Your Excellency, you and I have had our divergences, but right now I am authorizing you to found a society.  You go right ahead for the good of the Church."   
"Uh, Holy Father, can I have that  in writing?"    
"Do you mind if I come to Rome and get that with your signature?"  
"Yes, of course."   
Then I'd be on the next plane to Rome.  I'd be on the next plane to Rome!  But without that, we're up a creek without a paddle.  And I don't, there's  not a solution.  So, in the resis..., in what is called the resistance movement, you're going to have a problem of authority.  Get used to the idea.”
source: Bp. Williamson gives a shoutout to Francis

So now we know where the positions of Bp. Fellay, Francis, and Bp. Williamson are with regard to each other.

Where will this tango end?

Francis said some time ago, “I love the tango a lot. It is something that comes from inside me.” Which is interesting because only 9 days ago he said, “This is a sin committed by two parties, like the tango!”

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Selling Francis to the Protestant Evangelicals

Francis’ good friend, Giovanni Traettino, an ex-Catholic and now a Baptist minister speaks about Francis & the Vatican

or click here

Jorge Mario Bergoglio kneels in 2006 to receive pastor Giovanni Traettino’s blessing

Francis gives pastor Giovanni Traettino a spiritual hug in 2014


For those who still think Jews believe in the Old Testament and are God’s chosen people

Rabbi Noson Gurary, who through an exchange of letters with the late Justicle Antonin Scalia was inspired to and then founded The International Institute for Judaic Law (IIJL).

Malka Werde of Fashion Institute of Technology, New York City said of Rabbi Nosson Gurary,

“I was totally flabbergasted that he was teaching about G-d and souls and reincarnation. At the time I thought it was ironic that I went all the way around the world looking for truth, when really this little black-hatted, bearded man was teaching truth right here.” 

Malka Werde is 2nd from right.

What else do you need to know?

Judaism believes in reincarnation!

Guess the only question left is how many lives does the Talmudist get?

More on Noson Gurary

the latest anti-Catholic bilge spewing from Francis’ mouth in French interview

Francis, Guillaume Goubert, and Sébastien Maillard pose in front of a painting of (a made up Francis devotion) Mary Untier of Knots, while looking at an issue of La Croix in the Vatican.

This is the English translation of an interview Francis recently gave to the French daily newspaper, La Croix on Monday, 9 May, 2016.  The original interview published in French can be found here.  The interview contains the usual double speak and macabre jests which have become a daily routine for Francis as he puts the final nails into the coffins of Europe and the Novus Ordo.

– In your speeches in Europe, you refer to the “roots” of the continent without ever describing them as Christian. Rather, you define “European identity” as “dynamic and multicultural.” In your view, is the expression “Christian roots” inappropriate for Europe ?
Pope Francis : We need to speak of roots in the plural because there are so many. In this sense, when I hear talk of the Christian roots of Europe, I sometimes dread the tone, which can seem triumphalist or even vengeful. It then takes on colonialist overtones. John Paul II, however, spoke about it in a tranquil manner.
Yes, Europe has Christian roots and it is Christianity’s responsibility to water those roots. But this must be done in a spirit of service as in the washing of the feet. Christianity’s duty to Europe is one of service. As Erich Przywara, the great master of Romano Guardini and Hans Urs von Balthasar, teaches us, Christianity’s contribution to a culture is that of Christ in the washing of the feet. In other words, service and the gift of life. It must not become a colonial enterprise.
– On April 16, you made a powerful gesture by bringing back the refugees from Lesbos to Rome. However, does Europe have the capacity to accept so many migrants ?
Pope Francis : That is a fair and responsible question because one cannot open the gates wide unreasonably. However, the deeper question is why there are so many migrants now. When I went to Lampedusa three years ago, this phenomenon had already started.
The initial problems are the wars in the Middle East and in Africa as well as the underdevelopment of the African continent, which causes hunger. If there are wars, it is because there exist arms manufacturers – which can be justified for defensive purposes – and above all arms traffickers. If there is so much unemployment, it is because of a lack of investment capable of providing employment, of which Africa has such a great need.
More generally, this raises the question of a world economic system that has descended into the idolatry of money. The great majority of humanity’s wealth has fallen into the hands of a minority of the population.
A completely free market does not work. Markets in themselves are good but they also require a fulcrum, a third party, or a state to monitor and balance them. In other words, [what is needed is] a social market economy.
Coming back to the migrant issue, the worst form of welcome is to ‘ghettoize’them. On the contrary, it’s necessary to integrate them. In Brussels, the terrorists were Belgians, children of migrants, but they grew up in a ghetto. In London, the new mayor (Editor: Sadiq Khan, the son of Muslim Pakistanis) took his oath of office in a cathedral and will undoubtedly meet the queen. This illustrates the need for Europe to rediscover its capacity to integrate.
I am thinking here of Pope Gregory the Great (Editor: Pope from 590 – 604), who negotiated with the people known as barbarians, who were subsequently integrated. This integration is all the more necessary today since, as a result of a selfish search for well-being, Europe is experiencing the grave problem of a declining birth rate. A demographic emptiness is developing. In France, at least, this trend is less marked because of family-oriented policies.
– The fear of accepting migrants is partly based on a fear of Islam. In your view, is the fear that this religion sparks in Europe justified?
Pope Francis: Today, I don’t think that there is a fear of Islam as such but of ISIS and its war of conquest, which is partly drawn from Islam. It is true that the idea of conquest is inherent in the soul of Islam. However, it is also possible to interpret the objective in Matthew’s Gospel, where Jesus sends his disciples to all nations, in terms of the same idea of conquest.
In the face of Islamic terrorism, it would therefore be better to question ourselves about the way in an overly Western model of democracy has been exported to countries such as Iraq, where a strong government previously existed. Or in Libya, where a tribal structure exists. We cannot advance without taking these cultures into account. As a Libyan said recently, “We used to have one Gaddafi, now we have fifty.”
Ultimately, co-existence between Christians and Muslims is still possible. I come from a country where they co-habit on good terms. Muslims come to venerate the Virgin Mary and St George. Similarly, they tell me that for the Jubilee Year Muslims in one African country formed a long queue at the cathedral to enter through the holy door and pray to the Virgin Mary. In Central Africa, before the war, Christians and Muslims used to live together and must learn to do so again. Lebanon also shows that this is possible.
– The significance of Islam in France today, like the nation’s Christian historical foundation, raises recurring questions concerning the place of religion in the public arena. How would you characterize a positive form of laicity (Editor: ‘laicity’ refers to the French system of separation of Church and state)?
Pope Francis: States must be secular. Confessional states end badly. That goes against the grain of History. I believe that a version of laicity accompanied by a solid law guaranteeing religious freedom offers a framework for going forward. We are all equal as sons (and daughters) of God and with our personal dignity. However, everyone must have the freedom to externalize his or her own faith. If a Muslim woman wishes to wear a veil, she must be able to do so. Similarly, if a Catholic wishes to wear a cross. People must be free to profess their faith at the heart of their own culture not merely at its margins.
The modest critique that I would address to France in this regard is that it exaggerates laicity. This arises from a way of considering religions as sub-cultures rather than as fully-fledged cultures in their own right. I fear that this approach, which is understandable as part of the heritage of the Enlightenment, continues to exist. France needs to take a step forward on this issue in order to accept that openness to transcendence is a right for everyone.
– In a secular setting, how should Catholics defend their concerns on societal issues such as euthanasia or same-sex marriage?
Pope Francis: It is up to Parliament to discuss, argue, explain, reason [these issues]. That is how a society grows.
However, once a law has been adopted, the state must also respect [people’s] consciences. The right to conscientious objection must be recognized within each legal structure because it is a human right. Including for a government official, who is a human person. The state must also take criticism into account. That would be a genuine form of laicity.
You cannot sweep aside the arguments of Catholics by simply telling them that they “speak like a priest.” No, they base themselves on the kind of Christian thinking that France has so remarkably developed.
– What does France mean to you?
Pope Francis: It is the eldest daughter of the Church, but not the most faithful! (Laughs) However, during the 1950s, they also spoke of “France, the mission country.” In that sense, it remains a periphery to be evangelized. However, to be fair to France, the Church there does have a real creative capacity.
France is also a land of great saints, great thinkers such as [Jean] Guitton, [Maurice] Blondel, [Emmanuel] Levinas, who was not Catholic, and [Jacques] Maritain. I am also thinking of the depth of its literature.
I also appreciate how French culture is impregnated with Jesuit spirituality compared to the more ascetic Spanish current. The French current, which began with Pierre Favre, gave it another flavor, while continuing to emphasize discernment of spirits.
There have also been great French spiritual figures such as (Louis) Lallemant, or (Jean-Pierre) de Caussade. And the great French theologians who helped the Society of Jesus so much, namely Henri de Lubac and Michel de Certeau. I really like the last two. Two Jesuits who are creative.
Overall, that’s what fascinates me about France. On one hand, that exaggerated laicity, the heritage of the French Revolution, and on the other hand, so many great saints.
– Who is your favorite?
Pope Francis: Saint Therese of Lisieux.
– You have promised to come to France. When might such a trip be possible?
Pope Francis: I recently received an invitation from President François Hollande. The episcopal conference has also invited me. But I don’t know when the trip will take place because next year is an election year in France, and in general, the policy of the Holy See is not to organize such trips during these periods.
Last year a few hypotheses emerged regarding such a trip, including a visit to Paris and its suburbs, to Lourdes and to a city that no pope has yet visited, such as Marseille, which represents an open door to the world.
– As elsewhere, the Church in France is experiencing a serious crisis of priestly vocations. How is it possible to manage today with so few priests?
Pope Francis: Korea provides a historical example. That country was evangelized by missionaries from China who later left. Then, for two hundred years, Korea was evangelized by lay people. It is a land of saints and martyrs that now has a strong Church.
So there is not necessarily a need for priests in order to evangelize. Baptism provides the strength to evangelize. And the Holy Spirit, received at baptism, prompts one to go out, to take the Christian message with courage and patience. The Holy Spirit is the protagonist of whatever happens in the Church, its motor. Too many Christians are ignorant of this.
On the other hand, the opposite danger for the Church is clericalism. This is a sin committed by two parties, like the tango! The priest wants to clericalize lay people and lay people request to be clericalized because it’s easier.
In Buenos Aires, I knew many good priests who, whenever they saw a capable lay person, immediately exclaimed “let’s make him a deacon!” No, let him remain a lay person.
Clericalism is particularly significant in Latin America. If popular piety is strong, it is precisely because it is the only lay initiative that has not been clericalized. This is not understood by the clergy.
– The Church in France, particularly in Lyon, has been shattered recently by historical pedophilia scandals. What should be done about this situation?
Pope Francis: It is true that it is not easy to judge the facts decades later in a different context. Reality is not always so clear. Nevertheless, there can be no statute of limitations for the Church in this field. As a result of these abuses, a priest, whose vocation is to lead a child to God, destroys him. He disseminates evil, resentment, distress. As Benedict XVI said, there must be zero tolerance.
Based on the information that I have, I believe that Cardinal Barbarin in Lyon took the necessary measures and that he has matters under control. He is courageous, creative, a missionary. We now need to await the outcome of the civil judicial proceedings (Editor: As opposed to canon law proceedings).
– So Cardinal Barbarin does not need to resign?
Pope Francis: No, that would be a contradiction, imprudent. We will see after the conclusion of the case. At the moment, however, that would amount to an admission of guilt.
– On April 1, you received Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior-general of the Priestly Fraternity of St Pius X. Is the re-integration of the Lefebvrists into the Church again under consideration?
Pope Francis: In Buenos Aires, I often spoke with them. They greeted me, asked me on their knees for a blessing. They say they are Catholic. They love the Church.
Bishop Fellay is a man with whom one can dialogue. That is not the case for other elements who are a little strange, such as Bishop Williamson or others who have been radicalized. Leaving this aside, I believe, as I said in Argentina, that they are Catholics on the way to full communion.
During this year of mercy, I felt that I needed to authorize their confessors to pardon the sin of abortion. They thanked me for this gesture. Previously, Benedict XVI, whom they greatly respect, had liberalized the use of the Tridentine rite mass. So good dialogue and good work are taking place.
– Would you be ready to grant them the status of a personal prelature?
Pope Francis: That would be a possible solution but beforehand it will be necessary to establish a fundamental agreement with them. The Second Vatican Council has its value. We will advance slowly and patiently.
– You have already convoked two synods on the family. In your view, has this long process changed the Church?
Pope Francis: This process was started by the consistory (Editor: The consistory of February 2014) where it was introduced by Cardinal Kasper, prior to an Extraordinary Synod in October the same year which was followed by a year of reflection and an Ordinary Synod.
I think that we all came out of the various processes different from the way that we entered. Including me.
In the post-synodal exhortation (Editor: Amoris Laetitia, April 2016), I sought to respect the Synod to the maximum. You won’t find canonical prescriptions there about what one may or may not do.
It is a serene, peaceful reflection on the beauty of love, how to educate the children, to prepare for marriage… It emphasizes responsibilities that could be developed by the Pontifical Council for the Laity in the form of guidelines.
Beyond this process, we need to think about genuine synodality, or at least the meaning of Catholic synodality. The bishops are cum Petro, sub Petro (Editor: with Peter and under Peter). This differs from Orthodox synodality or that of the Greek Catholic Churches, where the Patriarch only counts as a single voice.
The Second Vatican Council set out an ideal of synodal and episcopal communion. This still needs to be developed, including at parish level, with respect to what is required. There are parishes that still do not have a pastoral council, nor a council for economic affairs, even though these are obligations under canon law. Synodality is also relevant at this level.
Translation Stefan GIGACZ for la Croix Interviewed by Guillaume Goubert and Sébastien Maillard (in Rome)