Eternal Life is overrated…
No Ark of Salvation:
A Critical Look at Francis’ “Ark of Fraternity” Speech
In addition to joining his imam friend Ahamad Al-Tayyib to sign an outrageous document that blatantly promotes apostasy, “Pope” Francis (Jorge Bergoglio) also gave a speech at the so-called Global Conference of Human Fraternity in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, on Feb. 4.
Here is the full video of the talks given by all the speakers and the document signing at the end:
We will go ahead now and examine some of the nonsense Francis put forward in his speech:
The logo of this journey depicts a dove with an olive branch. It is an image that recalls the story – present in different religious traditions – of the primordial flood. According to the biblical account, in order to preserve humanity from destruction, God asked Noah to enter the ark along with his family. Today, we too in the name of God, in order to safeguard peace, need to enter together as one family into an ark which can sail the stormy seas of the world: the ark of fraternity.
(Francis, Address to Interfaith Meeting at Founder’s Memorial, Zenit, Feb. 4, 2019)
An “Ark of Fraternity”! There it is — Francis’ first buzzword, his first metaphor of the evening that is meant to generate headlines.
Pope Pius IX, too, once used the image of Noah’s ark, although in a slightly different way: “Faith orders Us to hold that out of the Apostolic Roman Church no person can be saved, that it is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever will not enter therein shall perish in the waters of the deluge” (Allocution Singulari Quadam; cf. 1 Peter 3:18-21).
Instead of babbling about entering some Ark of Fraternity, Francis’ job — if he were what he claims to be, that is — would have been to labor for bringing people into the Ark of Salvation. Not by force, obviously, or by any other illicit means, but by explaining and demonstrating the truth of the Roman Catholic religion and drawing men to it. Being a Naturalist, however, it was clear that Francis wasn’t going to take that route. Had the Novus Ordo Sect been preaching the Social Reign of Christ the King rather than dialogue, religious liberty, and the dignity of man, how much closer to true and lasting peace this world would be by now!
Back to Mr. Bergoglio:
We cannot honor the Creator without cherishing the sacredness of every person and of every human life: each person is equally precious in the eyes of God, who does not look upon the human family with a preferential gaze that excludes, but with a benevolent gaze that includes. Thus, to recognize the same rights for every human being is to glorify the name of God on earth.
The constant emphasis on the “sacredness” of man is a typical trait of the Vatican II religion. There is a proper sense in which one can affirm that human life is “sacred” — some of the true Popes of the past have done so — but this constantly gets exaggerated by the Modernists to the point where they condemn even the licit taking of human life, such as in a defensive war or in the infliction of capital punishment by the lawful state authority. In the Modernist religion, the exaggerated “sacredness” of every human life is always posited as a foundational principle that no one is permitted to call into doubt, yet it is never really explained. What, for example, is “sacred” about Kermit Gosnell, Dennis Rader, or James Mitchell DeBardeleben?
Francis went on:
In the name of God the Creator, therefore, every form of violence must be condemned without hesitation, because we gravely profane God’s name when we use it to justify hatred and violence against a brother or sister. No violence can be justified in the name of religion.
“Every form of violence” is wrong? That’s simply idiotic. If he had said, “Murder is wrong” or “terrorism is wrong”, then there would be no issue, but to say that all violence is wrong is simply not true. There is plenty of violence which is morally right and even necessary, such as the defense of one’s own life and the lives of one’s family members. The police often need to use violence to restore order, and every decent parent may at times resort to (very mild) “violence” in order to discipline his unruly children. And Francis? Does he not have armed security? Does he not have Swiss Guards in Vatican City? Are laws not enforced through at least the threat of violence? Why do societies have policemen with weapons if all forms of violence are wrong? Even a society that wants to be completely pacifist — which would be gravely immoral — would still have to have a way to enforce that pacifism.
It is one thing to point out that certain violent acts are immoral, but it’s a completely different thing altogether to make the asinine universal statement that all forms of violence are wrong, which is plainly false.
The Bergoglian mouth continued:
The enemy of fraternity is an individualism which translates into the desire to affirm oneself and one’s own group above others. This danger threatens all aspects of life, even the highest innate prerogative of man, that is, the openness to the transcendent and to religious piety. True religious piety consists in loving God with all one’s heart and one’s neighbor as oneself. Religious behavior, therefore, needs continually to be purified from the recurrent temptation to judge others as enemies and adversaries. Each belief system is called to overcome the divide between friends and enemies, in order to take up the perspective of heaven, which embraces persons without privilege or discrimination.
This is a most dangerous paragraph in the speech. It condemns any and all “desire to affirm oneself and one’s own group above others”, without even so much as distinguishing different senses in which one might do so (some of which are clearly wrong). As stated, Bergoglio is condemning the Catholic Church’s (rightful) claim to being the only true religion established by God Himself. This, we know, Francis rejects as outdated “Triumphalism”, but it is Catholic dogma and is based on the fact that the Church’s Founder is God Incarnate, Jesus Christ, who requires all men to acknowledge Him not simply as a nice chap or one option among many but as nothing less than the Son of God (see Mt 16:13-17; Lk 18:19; Jn 8:12-59).
That was clearly the teaching of Pope Pius IX, as we saw above, who raised “his group” so much above others that he declared that whoever doesn’t join it “will perish” everlastingly! Pope Boniface VIII, too, was blissfully unaware of that Bergoglian fraternity memo when he wrote: “…we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff” (Bull Unam Sanctam). So exlusionary! So divisive!
Ironically and amusingly, however, Francis is condeming himself in all this because it is precisely in making these statements against raising oneself up over others that he is affirming himself and his group — the “Ark of Fraternity” — above those who disagree with them, thus “divid[ing] between friends and enemies.” Bergoglio has refuted himself and doesn’t even realize it.
He says that one’s “religious behavior” — whatever exactly that is supposed to be — must not “judge others as enemies and adversaries”. Yet the Christian religion is impossible to conceive without the notion of enemies. The Lord Jesus made that clear: “He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth” (Mt 12:30); “For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s enemies shall be they of his own household” (Mt 10:35-26); “But as for those my enemies, who would not have me reign over them, bring them hither, and kill them before me” (Lk 19:27; words of the king in the parable of the pounds).
The fact is quite simply that the New Testament is filled with talk of enemies of our Lord and His Church. Was St. Paul not an enemy of Christ before his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus (see Acts 9:1-2)? In his Letter to the Philippians, he wrote: “For many walk, of whom I have told you often (and now tell you weeping), that they are enemies of the cross of Christ” (Phil 3:18). And the Corinthians he reminded that God “must reign, until he hath put all his enemies under his feet” (1 Cor 15:25).
The ultimate enemies of the Catholic religion are Satan, the False Prophet, and the Antichrist. The very term “anti-Christ” means “he that is opposed to Christ.” The fact of opposition to Christ is part of Divine Revelation, and it could not be otherwise because if unregenerate man were not an adversary of God, there would have been no need for a Redeemer. The encyclicals of the (real) Popes, especially in the 19th century, are filled with warnings about the plots and snares of the Church’s enemies. And at the General Judgment, “all nations shall be gathered together before [God], and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats” (Mt 25:32). There will be no “bridge-building” at the Last Judgment; there will be division, walls, and barriers: “…a great chaos: so that they who would pass from hence to you, cannot, nor from thence come hither” (Lk 16:26).
Francis’ next big buzzword is “the courage of otherness”, which he claims is the “heart of dialogue”. He declares that “while sincerely intended prayer incarnates the courage of otherness in regard to God, it also purifies the heart from turning in on itself. Prayer of the heart restores fraternity.” It is mindless tripe like this that gets regurgitated ad nauseam in Novus Ordo and interreligious circles as though it were God’s very speaking. Yet the truth is that such are only the ramblings of an apostate mind that seeks to speak without having anything to say. The thoughts expressed are vague, incoherent, or simply stupid — and always gratuitous, meaning they are simply stated, never proved or justified. So, for example, the assertion that “prayer of the heart restores fraternity” can simply be refuted by saying: “No, it doesn’t.” That’s the intellectual level on which this Jesuit pseudo-pope argues.
Another one of Bergoglio’s gratuitous statements no one is permitted to question is this one: “There is no alternative: we will either build the future together or there will not be a future.” In other words: You must choose the one-world religion of Freemasonic human brotherhood — or death. But there is another option: Catholicism, the religion of Jesus Christ. Remember Him? Don’t say it’s not possible: “With men it is impossible; but not with God: for all things are possible with God” (Mk 10:27).
Francis has another metaphor up his sleeve: “Peace, in order to fly, needs wings that uphold it: the wings of education and justice.” He could just as well have said that the two wings are supernatural Faith and charity, but then Catholicism just isn’t his thing. Instead, he promotes his apostate philosophical talking points: “It is important for the future to form open identities capable of overcoming the temptation to turn in on oneself and become rigid.” Rigidity! Heaven forbid we should be inflexible in matters of Faith and morals; like St. John the Baptist was, for example, who told King Herod flat-out: “It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife” (Mk 6:18), instead of inviting him to an open-minded dialogue of discernment about his “irregular situation.” He who is not rigid where rigidity is necessary (cf. Acts 4:13) is but a “reed shaken with the wind”, which our Lord emphasized the Baptist was most definitely not (see Lk 7:24).
“The world’s religions also have the task of reminding us that greed for profit renders the heart lifeless”, Francis pontificates, thereby once more giving legitimacy to false religions. The truth is, of course, that although the Catholic religion has all sorts of obligations, all other religions only have one single task: to go away. Objectively speaking, their existence is illegitimate and unjust and gravely displeasing to God. Members of false religions do indeed have tasks and obligations and also rights, but not the religions themselves. If it be protested that such a thing cannot really be said in a context in which we try to reach the souls that are unhappily, but in good faith, caught up in false religions, this can readily be granted, but then the right course of action would be to be silent on the matter and not to put forward what is false. (On this point, readers are encouraged to read the powerful article, Continuity or Contradiction: Should Catholics Respect False Religions?)
The penultimate paragraph of Francis’ insufferable speech to the Global Conference of Human Fraternity reads:
A fraternal living together, founded on education and justice; a human development built upon a welcoming inclusion and on the rights of all: these are the seeds of peace which the world’s religions are called to help flourish. For them, perhaps as never before, in this delicate historical situation, it is a task that can no longer be postponed: to contribute actively to demilitarizing the human heart. The arms race, the extension of its zones of influence, the aggressive policies to the detriment of others will never bring stability. War cannot create anything but misery, weapons bring nothing but death!
Notice that Bergoglio’s “seeds of peace” are entirely Naturalist. They can only help bring about peace “as the world giveth” (Jn 14:27), not the supernatural and unique peace of Jesus Christ, whose Vicar Francis claims to be. Yet “the peace of Christ … is the only true peace”, as Pope Pius XI taught (Encyclical Ubi Arcano, n. 37), and so any other kinds of peace — although they may at times be all that can be obtained given certain demands and circumstances — can never be the ideal.
That “weapons bring nothing but death” is another mindless pseudo-dogma of the Bergoglian religion and probably news to his armed security guards. That weapons can bring and many times have brought necessary safety and security to countless people and nations must also be acknowledged, simply because it too is part of the whole truth.
Francis’ “demilitarizing [of] the human heart” is another item for his headline-generating metaphor collection, as are “the floods of violence” and “the desertification of altruism” mentioned in the last paragraph.
Before concluding, Bergoglio couldn’t resist another condemnation of those evil “walls” he keeps preaching against: “…let us commit ourselves against the logic of armed power, against the monetization of relations, the arming of borders, the raising of walls, the gagging of the poor….” Against this reality-denying idealism, the fact remains that as long as fallen human nature exists, there will need to be arms, borders, and walls. To say otherwise is to deny the effects of original sin. But if Francis were really serious about what he says there, he would sack all of his security guards, raze the gigantic walls surrounding Vatican City, remove door locks everywhere, and permit the whole planet to roam freely throughout the tiny nation states’ 0.17 square miles.
We have come to the end of Francis’ speech. We didn’t bother commenting on the usual claptrap about dialogue and encounter. To summarize, the main problems with the text are that it:
- implicitly endorses Islam as a legitimate religion
- implies that Muslims believe in and worship the true God
- encourages the heresy of Indifferentism
- puts Islam and Catholicism on the same level
- promotes the error or heresy of religious freedom
None of this is permitted for a Roman Catholic to hold.
In the video message he released ahead of his trip to the United Arab Emirates, Francis had opined that “faith in God unites rather than divides”, which is a dangerous half-truth that is compulsively affirmed by Novus Ordos and their partners in interreligious dialogue. In the context of the Abu Dhabi trip, it is utterly misleading because it posits, falsely, that Muslims have Faith in God. They do not, and that’s fairly easy to demonstrate.
Notice that in the entire speech, the Lord Jesus Christ was not mentioned at all. Indeed, His Name would have been rather divisive in this environment in which it was just said that “faith in God” unites rather than divides. In other words, this silly notion of “unity of belief” between Christians and Mulims collapses as soon as one bothers to say who God is, because it is then that the divisions begin, thus revealing that the “unity of believers” constantly invoked is in fact a chimera.
There is no unity of Faith between those who affirm the Trinity and those who deny it. None. It is true that, like Christians, Muslims too are monotheists; but their acknowledgment of there being a single Creator God is not the result of Faith or religion but of reason. Whatever they believe about God that is true — for example, that He is one divine and transcendent Being who created the world — has its origin either in God’s revelation to another religion (Old Testament Judaism or New Testament Catholicism) or in the light of natural reason, for many true things about God can be deduced from created things (see Rom 1:20; Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Ch. 2; Denz. 1785,1806) and are therefore accessible to all.
To say that any non-Catholic as such has Faith is false and misleading, objectively speaking. Denial of the Most Holy Trinity is due to a lack of Faith, not its presence. “Pope” John Paul II’s claim that “the firm belief of the followers of the non-Christian religions … is also an effect of the Spirit of truth” (Encyclical Redemptor Hominis, n. 6) is an abominable blasphemy! Adherence to the doctrines of Mohammed does not proceed from Faith but from infidelity.
Are these words divisive? Yes, they are — because they are part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, who said:
Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s enemies shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me.
(Matthew 10:34-38)
Have you never read in the Scriptures: The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? By the Lord this has been done; and it is wonderful in our eyes. And whosoever shall fall on this stone, shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it shall grind him to powder.
(Matthew 21:42,44)
He that is not with me, is against me; and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.
(Luke 11:23)
Contrary to what Francis would have people believe, there is a sense in which the Gospel is quite difficult to accept, and it will often cause offense and division among people and bring sufferings to onself. It is not a feel-good religion that essentially consists in proclaiming content-less “God loves you” platitudes while caressing the needy.
Much has been made of Bergoglio supposedly imitating St. Francis of Assisi, who visited the Egyptian Sultan al-Malik al-Kamil 800 years ago. But a closer look at what transpired in 1219 reveals the stark contrast between the real Catholic St. Francis and the pseudo-Catholic and pseudo-pope Bergoglio:
The Sultan Meledin asked him who sent them, and for what purpose they came? Francis answered with courageous firmness: “We are not sent by men, but it is the Most High who sends me, in order that I may teach you and your people the way of salvation, by pointing out to you the truths of the Gospel.” He immediately preached to him, with great fervor, the dogma of One God in Three Persons, and the Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind.
(Congregation of the Oratory of St. Philip Neri, The Life of S. Francis of Assisi [New York, NY: D. & J. Sandlier & Co., 1889], pp. 197-198)
Could the difference between St. Francis and “Pope” Francis be any more obvious? Clearly, St. Francis had the audacity to “affirm [his] own group above others”! The first thing the saint from Assisi did was tell the Muslim sultan about the true God, whom he did not yet know! Bergoglio, by contrast, accepts Mohammedans as fellow “believers” capable of producing a document “born from faith in God” (see Francis’ in-flight press conference, Feb. 5, 2019). Thus the Jesuit antipope confirms once more that he is ultimately a Naturalist. For him, the purpose of Catholicism — indeed of all religions — is entirely natural: coexistence, fraternity, peace, dialogue, psychological aid. In other words, it’s more or less a spiritual version of the United Nations. That may indeed be what Jorge Bergoglio believes, but it is not what God has revealed.
It is evident that “Pope” Francis, unlike his sainted Catholic namesake, did not go to Abu Dhabi to proclaim the Gospel but to preach “humanity”. Yet he stands condemned even by his very own words. Remember that it is Francis who has said that a “baptized person who does not feel the need to proclaim the Gospel, to announce Jesus, is not a good Christian” (source). In his 2013 exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, the apostate Jesuit explained that “evangelization is first and foremost about preaching the Gospel to those who do not know Jesus Christ or who have always rejected him. …All of them have a right to receive the Gospel. Christians have the duty to proclaim the Gospel without excluding anyone” (Evangelii Gaudium, n. 15). And remember this nugget from the first full day of his “papacy”? In a sermon given at the Sistine Chapel, he said: “When we do not profess Jesus Christ, the saying of Léon Bloy comes to mind: ‘Anyone who does not pray to the Lord prays to the devil.'” Too bad he didn’t share that information with his imam friends in the Emirates.
The fact is quite simply this: When Francis preaches to those who already know the Gospel, he tells them they need to spread the Gospel. When he speaks to those who don’t know or even reject the Gospel, he tells them sweet things about human brotherhood, encounter, and dialogue. He modifies his message according to his audience, always in service of his ideological agenda. That’s how five years ago he was able to tell Christian refugees to read their Bible while, in the same breath, telling the Muslims among them to read their Koran, adding that “[t]he faith that your parents instilled in you will always help you move on”.
The man does not believe in Catholicism; he is an apostate.
Before we conclude, a few words ought to be said about this whole concept of “human fraternity” which was on prominent display throughout Francis’ trip. Yes, there is a legitimate Catholic way to speak of “human brotherhood”, because all men are obviously created by the same true God and made in His image and likeness (see Gen 1:26-27). Indeed, “it was Christianity that first affirmed the real and universal brotherhood of all men of whatever race and condition” (Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Divini Redemptoris, n. 36). But this brotherhood is merely of a natural kind, which will profit us nothing if we do not direct it to its proper end and, through grace, allow Christ to raise it to a supernatural level. This can only be done in the supernatural society He established for that purpose, which is the Roman Catholic Church:
When Jesus Christ had blotted out the handwriting of the decree that was against us, fastening it to the cross, at once God’s wrath was appeased, the primeval fetters of slavery were struck off from unhappy and erring man, God’s favour was won back, grace restored, the gates of Heaven opened, the right to enter them revived, and the means afforded of doing so. Then man, as though awakening from a long-continued and deadly lethargy, beheld at length the light of the truth, for long ages desired, yet sought in vain. First of all, he realised that he was born to much higher and more glorious things than the frail and inconstant objects of sense which had hitherto formed the end of his thoughts and cares. He learnt that the meaning of human life, the supreme law, the end of all things was this: that we come from God and must return to Him. From this first principle the consciousness of human dignity was revived: men’s hearts realised the universal brotherhood: as a consequence, human rights and duties were either perfected or even newly created, whilst on all sides were evoked virtues undreamt of in pagan philosophy. Thus men’s aims, life, habits and customs received a new direction. As the knowledge of the Redeemer spread far and wide and His power, which destroyeth ignorance and former vices, penetrated into the very life-blood of the nations, such a change came about that the face of the world was entirely altered by the creation of a Christian civilisation.
(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Tametsi Futura, n. 3)
In 1928, Pope Pius XI warned of misusing the natural brotherhood of men to promote a false kind of religious unity, the kind that bases itself not on God’s true revelation and obedience to His rule but on what all religions happen to have in common. The Holy Father wrote these truly prophetic words:
Never perhaps in the past have we seen, as we see in these our own times, the minds of men so occupied by the desire both of strengthening and of extending to the common welfare of human society that fraternal relationship which binds and unites us together, and which is a consequence of our common origin and nature. For since the nations do not yet fully enjoy the fruits of peace — indeed rather do old and new disagreements in various places break forth into sedition and civic strife — and since on the other hand many disputes which concern the tranquillity and prosperity of nations cannot be settled without the active concurrence and help of those who rule the States and promote their interests, it is easily understood, and the more so because none now dispute the unity of the human race, why many desire that the various nations, inspired by this universal kinship, should daily be more closely united one to another.
A similar object is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.
(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Mortalium Animos, nn. 1-2; underlining added.)
Abandon the divinely revealed religion is exactly what Francis has done in Abu Dhabi, most demonstrably in the signing of the Document on Human Fraternity in which the apostate Jesuit declared, in unison with Imam Ahamad Al-Tayyib, that false religions are willed by God in His Wisdom and that the right of religious liberty proceeds from this fact. As our substantial post on the issue shows, this statement does away with all of Catholicism in one fell swoop, and from there it is not far to the kissing of the Koran.
If this blasphemous claim were correct, it would follow not only that one would have the right to choose any religion whatsoever, but also that all religions necessarily lead to salvation. In his landmark encyclical against Liberalism, Pope Gregory XVI condemned this very notion:
Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism” [Eph 4:5] may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that “those who are not with Christ are against Him” [Lk 11:23], and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate” [Athanasian Creed]. Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: “He who is for the See of Peter is for me.” A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: “The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?”
(Pope Gregory XVI, Encyclical Mirari Vos, n. 13; underlining added.)
But, ladies and gentlemen, we saved the best for last. It was none other than the great Pope St. Pius X who sounded the death knell for the apostate enterprise which Francis has been promoting under the banner of peace, fraternity, and human dignity. Pope Pius was writing against the French Sillonist movement in 1910, but he sounds just as if he was condeming Bergoglio and his false interreligious ideas today:
The same applies to the notion of Fraternity which [the Sillonists] found on the love of common interest or, beyond all philosophies and religions, on the mere notion of humanity, thus embracing with an equal love and tolerance all human beings and their miseries, whether these are intellectual, moral, or physical and temporal. But Catholic doctrine tells us that the primary duty of charity does not lie in the toleration of false ideas, however sincere they may be, nor in the theoretical or practical indifference towards the errors and vices in which we see our brethren plunged, but in the zeal for their intellectual and moral improvement as well as for their material well-being. Catholic doctrine further tells us that love for our neighbor flows from our love for God, Who is Father to all, and goal of the whole human family; and in Jesus Christ whose members we are, to the point that in doing good to others we are doing good to Jesus Christ Himself. Any other kind of love is sheer illusion, sterile and fleeting.
Indeed, we have the human experience of pagan and secular societies of ages past to show that concern for common interests or affinities of nature weigh very little against the passions and wild desires of the heart. No, Venerable Brethren, there is no genuine fraternity outside Christian charity. Through the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ Our Saviour, Christian charity embraces all men, comforts all, and leads all to the same faith and same heavenly happiness.
By separating fraternity from Christian charity thus understood, Democracy, far from being a progress, would mean a disastrous step backwards for civilization. If, as We desire with all Our heart, the highest possible peak of well being for society and its members is to be attained through fraternity or, as it is also called, universal solidarity, all minds must be united in the knowledge of Truth, all wills united in morality, and all hearts in the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ. But this union is attainable only by Catholic charity, and that is why Catholic charity alone can lead the people in the march of progress towards the ideal civilization.
(Pope St. Pius X, Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique; underlining added.)
There is no genuine fraternity outside Christian charity! This sentence alone dismantles the entire Bergoglian-Masonic program of interreligious “human fraternity”! The words of Saint Pius X are the very antithesis of what Francis preaches, and this is so because they come from a genuine Catholic Pope and not from a mouthpiece of Freemasonry and obvious forerunner of the Antichrist.
Francis’ apostasy in Abu Dhabi has confirmed once again the radical incompatibility of Roman Catholicism with the Modernist Vatican II religion. Indeed, it was the infernal robber council that Francis invoked yesterday in defense of his joint statement on fraternity: “From the Catholic point of view, the document does not pull away one millimeter from Vatican II, which is even cited a few times. The document was made in the spirit of Vatican II.” No doubt about it!
All who consider themselves Catholics, therefore, have an inescapable decision to make: You are either with the Catholicism of the ages or with the 60-year-old Novus Ordo religion of man that takes its origin, essentially, in the Second Vatican Council. You are either with the true Popes or with the false popes. You are either with Christ or with Antichrist (cf. Mt 12:30). On this question there is no middle way, there is no compromise, there is — truly — no alternative! You either serve the Living God, or you serve idols, that is, the devil (cf. 1 Thess 1:9).
“But if it seem evil to you to serve the Lord, you have your choice: choose this day that which pleaseth you, whom you would rather serve, whether the gods which your fathers served in Mesopotamia, or the gods of the Amorrhites, in whose land you dwell: but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord” (Jos 24:15).
;
No Comments
Be the first to start a conversation