Masterful: After Opening Annulment Floodgates, Francis ‘Laments’ Attack on Families

One mouth, two sides…

Masterful: Two Days after Opening Annulment Floodgates, Francis “Laments” Attack on Families

If hypocrisy could prolong your life, Francis would be immortal. The Argentinian impostor pope is a master at the pernicious art of Modernism, the “synthesis of all heresies”, as the heroic Pope Saint Pius X called it in his 1907 landmark encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis (n. 39). When one studies the tactics of the Modernists, as exposed, for example, in the Vatican-endorsed 1886 book Liberalism is a Sin, or in Pope Pius VI’s 1794 bull Auctorem Fidei, one finds that one is eerily reminded of people like “Pope” Francis. But more on that in a minute; first, let’s look at the latest of what Francis said to earn this distinction.

On September 10, a mere two days after decreeing a simplifcation and speeding up of the process for obtaining Novus Ordo marriage “annulments” — a calculated move intended precisely to create a gigantic new wave of (bogus, of course) declarations of nullity of valid marriages, as even a Vatican official has candidly admitted — Francis received a French lay group promoting holiness in marriage (Equipes de Notre Dame) and, putting on his sad face, “lamented” the fact that in our society, families are under attack. Take a look at the story coming to us from a prominent Novus Ordo news outlet:

Pope Francis told couples to defend God’s design for the family as the union of a man and woman for the procreation of children, and urged them to be merciful to those whose marriages have failed.

Today “the family – as God wants it, composed of a man and a woman for the good of the spouses and also the generation and education of children – is deformed by powerful contrary projects supported by ideological colonization,” the Pope said Sept. 10.

A family which is filled with the presence of God, he said, “speaks for itself of God’s love for all men.”

The Pope asked couples to commit to activities aimed at welcoming, forming and accompanying young couples both before and after marriage.

Francis’ address was directed to members of the Equipes Notre Dame (Teams of Our Lady, END), who are present in Rome for an international meeting titled: “Here I am Lord, send me.”

Founded in France in 1938, END is a lay movement which focuses on married spirituality, using its own methods to help couples live the sacrament of marriage fully amid the various challenges married couples face.

In his speech, the Pope said that Christian couples and families are “in the best position” to announce Jesus to other families, and to support, strengthen and encourage them.

…

(Elise Harris, “Marriage – between a man and a woman – is under attack, Pope Francis says”, Catholic News Agency, Sep. 10, 2015; underlining added.)

Of course we all know that nothing says “support the family” like handing out declarations of nullity like candy, practically for the asking, tearing valid marriages apart, causing confusion, hardship, and grave harm to the children, and leaving the extended family in turmoil. Yet this is exactly what Francis is doing. In addition, every annulment, of course, says to the children of the family that they are really illegitimate. Way to support the family, Francis! Look, you can call it an annulment, but at the end of the day, we all know that it is in fact a divorce, a forced separation of what God has joined together (cf. Mt 19:6), in order to legitimize the grave sin of adultery, usually in a permanent way.

The fact that Francis uses the language of the revolution — such as speaking of marriages that have “failed” or, as he said in an audience of August 5, have experienced “an irreversible failure of their matrimonial bond” — speaks volumes as well. There is no power on earth that can dissolve a valid marriage between two baptized persons. The only thing that can actually end a marriage is death itself, which is specifically mentioned in the marriage vow: “until death do us part”. So, let us correct Francis right there: The only thing irreversible here is the marriage bond itself, not its “failure”!

As we said in the beginning, Francis is once again playing both sides, verbally “lamenting” the attack on families and then also doing everything he can to ensure that families are further harmed and torn asunder — all under the cover of “mercy.”

But this doublespeak tactic is nothing new. The great Pope St. Pius X said the following concerning the Modernists and their diabolically clever strategies:

Although they express their astonishment that We should number them amongst the enemies of the Church, no one will be reasonably surprised that We should do so, if, leaving out of account the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the Judge, he considers their tenets, their manner of speech, and their action. Nor indeed would he be wrong in regarding them as the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church. For, as We have said, they put into operation their designs for her undoing, not from without but from within. Hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain from the very fact that their knowledge of her is more intimate. Moreover, they lay the ax not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fibers. And once having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to diffuse poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth which they leave untouched, none that they do not strive to corrupt. Further, none is more skillful, none more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious devices; for they play the double part of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; and as audacity is their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance. To this must be added the fact, which indeed is well calculated to deceive souls, that they lead a life of the greatest activity, of assiduous and ardent application to every branch of learning, and that they possess, as a rule, a reputation for irreproachable morality. Finally, there is the fact which is all but fatal to the hope of cure that their very doctrines have given such a bent to their minds, that they disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy.

…

But it is pride which exercises an incomparably greater sway over the soul to blind it and lead it into error, and pride sits in Modernism as in its own house, finding sustenance everywhere in its doctrines and lurking in its every aspect. It is pride which fills Modernists with that self-assurance by which they consider themselves and pose as the rule for all. It is pride which puffs them up with that vainglory which allows them to regard themselves as the sole possessors of knowledge, and makes them say, elated and inflated with presumption, “We are not as the rest of men,” and which, lest they should seem as other men, leads them to embrace and to devise novelties even of the most absurd kind.

…

This will appear more clearly to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In their writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful. But this is done deliberately and advisedly, and the reason of it is to be found in their opinion as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they are dealing with history they take no account of the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechize the people, they cite them respectfully. In the same way they draw their distinctions between exegesis which is theological and pastoral and exegesis which is scientific and historical. So, too, when they treat of philosophy, history, and criticism, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, they feel no especial horror in treading in the footsteps of Luther and are wont to display a manifold contempt for Catholic doctrines, for the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be taken to task for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, maintaining the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly rebuke the Church on the ground that she resolutely refuses to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, having for this purpose blotted out the old theology, endeavor to introduce a new theology which shall support the aberrations of philosophers.

(Pope Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, nn. 3, 40, 18; underlining added.)

Sound familiar? Of course the context of the encyclical differs somewhat from our issues today, but if you abstract the essence of what the Pope is saying here, you can easily see that it applies perfectly to Francis and the rest of the pseudo-Catholic “authorities” in the Vatican and throughout the Novus Ordo Sect.

Let’s look at some more evidence. In 1794, Pope Pius VI condemned the innovators of the “Robber Synod” of Pisotia, Italy, who were the forerunners of the Modernists and were proposing ideas very much like those to be found at and after Vatican II. They were using the tactic of affirming at one point what they were denying at another. While today’s Neo-Catholics would react by saying, “But this just means they’re confused!” or, “You are judging, you need to use a different hermeneutic!”, Pope Pius VI had something quite different to say on the matter:

[This] cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up to the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.

(Pope Pius VI, Bull Auctorem Fidei; underlining added.)

We have all witnessed the truth of these words in the past few decades since Vatican II. Although individual Neo-Catholics have always had a number of ready excuses with which to defend the Modernists and pacify their own consciences, the revolution itself has continued unabated, at full steam, and the evil fruits of all the wicked scheming are now apparent to all who still have eyes to see.

Thus, we can easily see that “Pope” Francis is the very epitome of a Modernist, and he happily employs their very tactics. This was confirmed once again on August 21, when Francis showed up at the tomb of the Saint Pius X to pretend to honor him, claiming even to be “a devotee of St. Pius X”! The audacity of such hypocrisy speaks volumes, as does the fact that there are apparently still many people around who fall for such blatant and laughable deception. They are ready for the Antichrist — he won’t have much work to do; all he needs to do is kiss babies and he can preach whatever he wants.

Speaking of the Antichrist, if you have not yet read our post on Cardinal Manning’s 1861 predictions of what would lie ahead for the Church, please do so as soon as possible. One thing to notice in particular is that in all the Catholic teaching and approved prophecies we’ve seen about the Great Apostasy and the persecution and the passion of the Church, the Pope is always identified as the solution, never the problem — in accordance with Church teaching that the Pope is the bulwark, guarantor, and proximate rule of the Faith. The Pope is persecuted, is victimized, and suffers — he is never the one doing the persecuting (as is the case, quite obviously, with Francis).

Think about that.

Image source: Shutterstock
License: paid