It’s the shoes, stupid!

francis-eyes.jpg

Francis speaks on Antipope and Antichrist

One bit of news that was totally drowned out by Francis’ visit to the United States was the in-flight press conference he gave on leaving Cuba on September 22. A reporter from the Italian Corriere della Sera confronted Francis with the fact that more and more people, even secularists, are starting to ask themselves “if the Pope is a Catholic.” Instead of blushing for shame at such an embarrassing yet revealing phenomenon, Francis again showed his contempt for people who are beginning to detect that maybe he is not what he claims to be. See for yourself:

pope-catholic-newsweek.jpg

Gian Guido Vecchi, Corriere della Sera: Holiness, your reflections, also your denouncements of the inequity of the world economic system, the risk of self-destruction of the planet are also very uncomfortable, in the sense that they touch the powerful interests of arms trafficking, etc. Before this trip, there were some bizarre manifestations that came out. Also, very important world media picked them up and and sectors of North American society were even asking themselves if the Pope was Catholic. There have already been discussions about a communist Pope, now there are event those who speak of a Pope who isn’t Catholic. In the face of these considerations, what do you think?

Pope Francis: A cardinal friend of mine told me that a very concerned woman, very Catholic, went to him. A bit rigid, but Catholic. And she asked him if it was true that in the Bible, they spoke of an antichrist, and she explained it to him. And also in the Apocalypse, no? And, then, if it was true that an anti-pope, who is the antichrist, the anti-Pope. But why is she asking me this question, this cardinal asked me? “Because I’m sure that Pope Francis is the anti-pope,” she said. And why does she ask this, why does she have this idea? “It’s because he doesn’t wear red shoes.” The reason for thinking if one is communist or isn’t communist. I’m sure that I haven’t said anything more than what’s written in the social doctrine of the Church. On another flight, a colleague asked me if I had reached out a hand to the popular movements and asked me, “But is the Church going to follow you?” I told him, “I’m the one following the Church.” And in this it seems that I’m not wrong. I believe that I never said a thing that wasn’t the social doctrine of the Church. Things can be explained, possibly an explanation gave an impression of being a little “to the left”, but it would be an error of explanation. No, my doctrine on this, in Laudato si’, on economic imperialism, all of this, is the social doctrine of the Church. And if necessary, I’ll recite the creed. I am available to do that, eh.

(“Full transcript of Pope’s in-flight interview from Cuba to US”Catholic News Agency, Sep. 22, 2015)

Leaving aside for a minute the fact that the immediate background to posing this question had to do with the widespread mistaken notion that because Catholics are not allowed to be Communists, they must therefore be Capitalists, when in fact genuinely Catholic economics can be neither Capitalist nor Communist — the closest thing to a Catholic version of economics is “Distributism” —, what’s revealing here is the following:

  • Francis contrasts being “rigid” with being Catholic — when intransigence in matters of Faith and morals are the very hallmark of a good Catholic, as exemplified by Saint Pius X, to whom Francis claims to be devoted (LOL!)
  • It was Francis, not the reporter, who, in the context of this question, brought up Antichrist and Antipope — showing that he is quite aware of what is going on with regard to people’s views of him
  • Francis obviously considers it a laughing matter that people would think of him as an Antipope (=false Pope)
  • Francis makes fun of the woman’s concern, claiming that she is so foolish as to make his identity as a true or false Pope a matter of what color shoes he’s wearing
  • Even should this anecdote be true, Francis knows very well that this isn’t about shoes, and for him to take the conversation into that direction reveals his contempt for God’s Revelation concerning the Antichrist and the matter of an Antipope, and it shows he thinks his audience is incredibly stupid

Now, think about this: Who would have an interest in getting people to laugh at the idea of an Antipope and the (or an) Antichrist? The New Testament mentions the Great Apostasy, the Great Deception, the Antichrist and his False Prophet, numerous times, and never as a laughing matter — quite the contrary.

For example: “For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Behold I have told it to you, beforehand” (Mt 24:24-25). Was our Blessed Lord cracking a joke? Apparently Saint Paul, too, was in a jovial mood when he warned the Thessalonians about a future “operation of error” which God would permit so that people would “believe lying” in punishment of their lack of a love for the truth (see 2 Thess 2:6-14). Not to mention the prankster St. John, who joked that “Antichrist cometh” and that “even now there are become many Antichrists” (1 Jn 2:18), teasing his children about “them that seduce you” (v. 26). Oh, the humor!

francis-hidden-crucifix2.jpg

“This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.” (1 Jn 2:22-23)

In 1861, the great Cardinal Edward Henry Manning gave a series of lectures on the great affliction the Catholic Church would have to endure — the deception, the apostasy, the persecution, the Antichrist and False Prophet — and he laid out not his own opinion on the matter, but what the Church had taught consistently throughout the centuries in her most learned authorities on the matter. If you have not yet read Cardinal Manning’s presentation, we beg you to do so, for the sake of your own soul, or at least to read our post with the most important highlights:

In this context, we also want to point something out to all those who consider themselves traditionalists but accept the Vatican II “Popes” as legitimate Popes who simply need to be “resisted” in the damage they have inflicted on the Church: Notice that in traditional Catholic teaching and approved prophecy, the Pope is always mentioned as being the victim, never the perpetrator — he is always suffering, being persecuted, being disobeyed, etc. Yet, what the recognize-and-resist adherents are trying to tell us is that the Pope, a true Pope, is the one doing all the destroying and persecuting! That the Pope himself is the problem! NO! The Holy Father is per se always the solution, never the problem. In that spirit, Pope Pius IX emphasized that in the face of anti-Catholic upheaval within or outside the Church, the solution is ever greater adherence to the Vicar of Christ:

Now you know well that the most deadly foes of the Catholic religion have always waged a fierce war, but without success, against this Chair; they are by no means ignorant of the fact that religion itself can never totter and fall while this Chair remains intact, the Chair which rests on the rock which the proud gates of hell cannot overthrow and in which there is the whole and perfect solidity of the Christian religion. Therefore, because of your special faith in the Church and special piety toward the same Chair of Peter, We exhort you to direct your constant efforts so that the faithful people of France may avoid the crafty deceptions and errors of these plotters and develop a more filial affection and obedience to this Apostolic See. Be vigilant in act and word, so that the faithful may grow in love for this Holy See, venerate it, and accept it with complete obedience; they should execute whatever the See itself teaches, determines, and decrees.

(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Inter Multiplices, n. 7; underlining added)

Not something you’ve heard from the “traditional Catholics” at The Remnant lately, is it? Nope, can’t do that with Bergoglio or the other Vatican II impostor popes! So let’s pretend this teaching of Pius IX just doesn’t exist, right? What does that tell you?! More on this neo-traditionalist fantasyland with regard to the Papacy can be found in our response to a Remnant blogger’s idea that it just doesn’t matter if Francis is a valid Pope or not:

But let’s get back to the in-flight interview with Francis, the Argentinian papal pretender: Apparently he believes that merely reciting the Creed is sufficient to make you a Catholic. Really now? The Modernists are masters at affirming with their lips one day what they deny with the same lips on another — and that’s not even considering their actions, which always speak much louder than words. We have pointed out numerous times on this site that the Church has told us again and again to be on guard against crafty innovators, who make use of “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). And in Francis’ case, he doesn’t even mind stating explicitly that what he teaches may very well be heretical:

francis-devil-cross-satanic-symbolism.jpg

Francis kisses occult crucifix during World Youth Day 2013 in Rio de Janeiro — DETAILS HERE

Francis is right on one thing, however: He is merely repeating and developing Vatican II doctrine, just like his anti-pope predecessors of infelicitous memory. But the rupture between the Vatican II religion and the true Catholic religion is beyond reasonable dispute, as we prove in countless example throughout our web site. Francis knows very well that his doctrine is not the Catholic doctrine of old. Just look at the references he makes to the Catholic Church before Vatican II in any of his documents — practically zero. Sure, there are always the obligatory references to this or that Church Father, but then, like all Neo-Modernists, he skips ahead to John XXIII or Vatican II, as though in between the Church Fathers and Vatican II there had been nothing at all. It it was the proponents of the Nouvelle Theologie (New Theology) who always pretended to use the Church Fathers in their ressourcement theology, yet interpreted in a new way, which, of course, they claimed was a “rediscovery” of what they “really” taught. They did the same with St. Thomas Aquinas. Yet the New Theology was condemned by Pope Pius XII for its incompatibility with Catholicism:

At the 100th anniversary of Pope Saint Pius X’s exceptionally holy death last year (Aug. 20, 2014), Francis once again demonstrated just how connected he is to the traditional and real Church — by passing over this great centennial in complete and total silence, when the typical Vatican custom is to commemorate the most insignificant anniversary of anything (such as 36 years since the death of Paul VI):

We understand, of course, why Francis didn’t have time to even mention in passing such a monumental anniversary, the 100th of the passing of a sainted Pope whose body is incorrupt: He had to meet with Argentinian soccer players!

Yes, Frank, we get it. Don’t you worry.

And no, it’s not about shoes.