Francis: “I am Not Afraid of Schism” – and other Bergoglian Nuggets from latest Q&A

Antipopes say the darndest things…

Francis: “I am Not Afraid of Schism”
— and other Bergoglian Nuggets from latest Q&A

Embed from Getty Images

Alright, everyone, you know how the game works. After a Francis trip finishes, the aircraft prepares for departure: Everyone gets in and sits down, the door closes, and the Bergoglian mouth opens. By that time, you’d better have your seatbelts on, because anything is possible. We’ve seen it a few more times than we care to remember.

Today was another such day.

On the return flight from his latest Africa trip (visiting Mozambique, Madagascar, and Mauritius), during which he proclaimed that it was “necessary” for hordes of unbelievers to reject Jesus Christ and His Holy Gospel, the Jesuit apostate the world mistakenly believes to be the Pope of the Catholic Church provided the usual in-flight entertainment by holding a press conference during which he candidly answered questions from the journalists traveling with him.

A full English transcript of the “papal” Q&A has been released by the Vatican:

The following news reports present various highlights from the in-flight presser:

We will now go ahead and look at some of Francis’ more explosive remarks and comment on them accordingly. (All quotations are taken from the Vatican’s English transcript; any underlining is added.)

First, regarding the question of the youth. Francis lamented that Europe “has grown old” and does not have enough children, whereas “Africa is full of life”. As for the cause, he said: “I think – this is a personal opinion of mine – that well-being is at the root. Being attached to wellbeing….”

There can be no doubt that this is indeed one of the reasons, though we notice that the talkative Jesuit was utterly silent on the mortal sin of contraception, which, in addition to infanticide (“abortion”), is obviously the immediate reason for the shortage of births. This would have been a perfect opportunity for him to draw attention to this great evil, but instead he was silent. This is not surprising, as we recall the attitude towards the issue he had displayed a number of plane interviews ago: “God gives you means to be responsible. Some think that — excuse the language — that in order to be good Catholics, we have to be like rabbits. No. Responsible parenthood.” This revolting and contemptuous statement, together with his outlandish claim that sexual sins are “the least serious of all sins”, tells us what this mean really believes. Any lamentations about the disappearing European youth are just crocodile tears.

Second, Bergoglio turned to one of his favorite topics, that of so-called “xenophobia”. He says:

I read on the newspapers of this xenophobia, but it is not only an African problem. It is a human disease, like measles… It is a disease that enters a country, enters a continent, and we build walls. But walls leave only those who built them. Yes, they leave out many people, but those who remain inside the walls will be left alone, and in the end, they will be defeated by great invasions. Xenophobia is a disease. It is a disease that is “justifiable”, for example, to maintain the purity of the race – just to mention a form of xenophobia from the last century. And very often, xenophobia rides the waves of political populism. I said last week, or the one before, that sometimes in some places I hear speeches being given that sound similar to those made by Hitler in ’34. It’s as if they wanted to return to the past in Europe.

This is nothing but the cheap political rhetoric of a leftist demagogue. The building of border walls and fences is a prudent and necessary response by nations being overrun by people who have no right to enter them. What Francis always leaves out of consideration is the fact that even with a very secure border, even with walls or fences, anyone can still enter a country in principle — he just has to do it legally, that is, he must go through the official port of entry and ask for permission to enter. Admittance may be given or denied — just as it would happen at your own front door. It’s not a difficult concept.

Next, let’s look at what Bergoglio said about religious unity:

Differences between the religions are not to be cancelled out, that we are all brothers is to be underlined, that everyone needs to speak. This is a sign of the maturity of your country. Speaking yesterday with the prime ministry, I remained surprised at how they, you, have worked at this reality and live it as necessary in order to live together. There is an intercultural commission that gathers together… The first thing that I found yesterday when I went into the bishop’s resident [sic] – this is anecdote – was a bouquet of beautiful flowers. Who sent them? The Grant Imam. We are brothers, human brotherhood is the foundation and respects all beliefs. Respect for other religions is important. This is why I tell missionaries not to proselytize. Proselytizing is valid for the world of politics, of sport – I root for my team, for yours – not for a faith. But, Holy Father, what does evangelization mean to you? There is a phrase of St  Francis that has greatly enlightened me. Francis of Assisi used to say to his brothers: “Bring the Gospel, if it is necessary also with words”. That is, to evangelize is what we read about in the book of the Acts of the Apostles: testifying. And that testimony provokes the question: ‘But why do you live like this? Why do you do this?’ And then I explain: ‘Because of the Gospel’. Proclamation comes before [sic — must mean after] testifying. First live like a Christian and if they ask you, speak. Testifying is the first step and the protagonist of evangelization is not the missionary but the Holy Spirit who leads Christians and missionaries to bear witness. Then questions will come or won’t come, but what counts is the witness of life. This is the first step. It is important to avoid proselytism. When you see religious proposals that follow the path of proselytism, they are not Christian. They are looking for converts, not worshippers of God in truth. I want to take this opportunity to emphasize your interreligious experience which is extremely beautiful. Your prime ministry also told me that when someone asks for help, we give the same hope to everyone, and no one is offended because we feel like we are brothers. This unifies the country. It is very, very important. At the events, there were not only Catholics, there were Christians from other confessions, and there were Muslims, Hindus, and all of them were brothers. I saw this even in Madagascar and also in the interreligious meeting for peace of the young people, with young people of different religions who wanted to express how they live their desire for peace. Peace, brotherhood, interreligious co-existence, no proselytism, these are things that we must learn to foster peace.

So here we see the usual Bergoglian claptrap. The genuinely Catholic reality, however, is quite different.

The idea that false religions must be “respected” is a tenet of Freemasonry and Liberalism and was roundly condemned by Pope Leo XIII:

Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to Masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God.

(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Custodi di Quella Fede, n. 15; underlining added.)

Pope St. Pius X, too, has a good spanking for his pseudo-successor:

As soon as the social question is being approached, it is the fashion in some quarters to first put aside the divinity of Jesus Christ, and then to mention only His unlimited clemency, His compassion for all human miseries, and His pressing exhortations to the love of our neighbor and to the brotherhood of men. True, Jesus has loved us with an immense, infinite love, and He came on earth to suffer and die so that, gathered around Him in justice and love, motivated by the same sentiments of mutual charity, all men might live in peace and happiness. But for the realization of this temporal and eternal happiness, He has laid down with supreme authority the condition that we must belong to His Flock, that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practice virtue, and that we must accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors. Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them.

(Pope Pius X, Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique; underlining added.)

The 19th-century catechist Fr. Michael Müller put it succinctly when he stated: “It is impious to say, ‘I respect every religion.’ This is as much as to say: I respect the devil as much as God, vice as much as virtue, falsehood as much as truth, dishonesty as much as honesty, Hell as much as Heaven” (The Church and Her Enemies, p. 287).

We must certainly respect people who are unhappily caught up in a false religion — but that is a far cry from respecting the false religions themselves. We cannot respect any religion except the Roman Catholic one, for it alone is from God. The other religions are from the devil. That is the timeless and true Catholic position, not the poppycock spouted by Francis.

What about Bergoglio’s remarks regarding evangelization? Of course, he could not refrain from beating up once more on his favorite whipping boy, that ugly and triumphalist “proselytism”. He contrasts it with “witnessing”, which he claims is true evangelization, but the fact of the matter is that Francis is simply trying to reduce the Gospel to little more than the practice of the corporal works of mercy (feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc.) plus attending bad liturgy.

Pitting witnessing against proselytism is devious but to be expected of a demagogue like him. He points to the Acts of the Apostles, but this is ironic because the Acts most certainly do not back up his idea of living a certain way and then waiting until people ask you about the reason for it before you preach Jesus Christ and His Holy Gospel to them.

For example, if we turn to the second chapter of Acts, what do we find? Just after the Holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles, they went out and proselytized:

But Peter standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spoke to them: … Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him, in the midst of you, as you also know: This same being delivered up, by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you by the hands of wicked men have crucified and slain. Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the sorrows of hell, as it was impossible that he should be holden by it. For David saith concerning him: I foresaw the Lord before my face: because he is at my right hand, that I may not be moved. For this my heart hath been glad, and any tongue hath rejoiced: moreover my flesh also shall rest in hope. Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, nor suffer thy Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life: thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Ye men, brethren, let me freely speak to you of the patriarch David; that he died, and was buried; and his sepulchre is with us to this present day. Whereas therefore he was a prophet, and knew that God hath sworn to him with an oath, that of the fruit of his loins one should sit upon his throne. Foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection of Christ. For neither was he left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised again, whereof all we are witnesses. Being exalted therefore by the right hand of God, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath poured forth this which you see and hear. For David ascended not into heaven; but he himself said: The Lord said to my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool. Therefore let all the house of Israel know most certainly, that God hath made both Lord and Christ, this same Jesus, whom you have crucified. Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their heart, and said to Peter, and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren? But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call. And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them, saying: Save yourselves from this perverse generation. They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls. And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul: many wonders also and signs were done by the apostles in Jerusalem, and there was great fear in all. And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common. Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need. And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart; praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord increased daily together such as should be saved.

(Acts 2:14,22-47)

Astonishingly, we find here that not only did the Apostles preach the Gospel using words, they actually used “very many” such words, and the result was not the augmentation of members on a sports team but baptized converts who “were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers.” And, as if to really whack Bergoglio over the head, the sacred text even notes that because of this first Apostolic effort at proselytization, “there were added in that day about three thousand souls.” Was God perhaps “looking for converts”? And to think that St. Luke, the author of the Acts, even numbered those converts. As though someone were counting!

We also recall the example of St. Francis of Assisi — yes, that same Saint Francis the apostate Bergoglio outrageously invoked in defense of his anti-proselytism bunk –, who, upon his visit to a Mohammedan ruler in 1219, used words to preach the Gospel to him. Here is what transpired:

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)

Let’s face it: Had this happened in our day, “Pope” Francis would have been the first to condemn St. Francis in no uncertain terms for his outrageous proselytism and for not respecting the “necessary differences” between Christians and Muslims! In fact, he would have probably told the Saint of Assisi that he is not even a Christian because he is “looking for converts, not worshippers of God in truth”!

Pitting the making of converts against having new “worshippers of God in truth” — as though these two ideas stood in contradiction to each other — is despicable but par for the course for the Jesuit blasphemer. Is anyone still fooled by this man?

The Apostles were sent to preach the Gospel to every creature — not to live for decades in every community, hoping that someone will eventually ask them a question: “Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Mt 28:19-20). That is the divine mission. And we can see from our Blessed Lord’s own public ministry that He most certainly preached the Gospel — He used words! — and did not simply give drink to the thirsty and waited for people to line up in astonishment trying to talk to Him about His reason for doing so.

It’s not like you have to be a Catholic to help those in need, anyway. When Francis proposes this sort of thing, it sounds impressive and charitable on the surface, but it is really just the stepping stone to a blending of all religions under the specious pretext that at the end of the day they all teach the same thing anyway: treat others as you would like to be treated (cf. Lk 6:31). But that is a horrendous falsehood! That is not the essence of the true religion (although it is a necessary part of it), nor will the mere practice of the Golden Rule lead to salvation without Faith (see Heb 11:6), hope (see Rom 8:24), or love of God (see Lk 10:25-28), for all of which God’s supernatural grace is necessary (see Eph 2:8). In addition, St. John the Evangelist warns us: “And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world” (1 Jn 4:3).

With his interreligious efforts, what Francis is aiming at is very similar to Sillonism, which St. Pius X described as “a religion … more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men become brothers and comrades at last in the ‘Kingdom of God’. – ‘We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind’ [the Sillonists say].” Indeed, Francis continually puts forth a false notion of brotherhood or fraternity, just as the Sillonist movement did in the early 20th century:

The same applies to the notion of Fraternity which they 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.

(Pope St. Pius X, Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique; underlining added.)

Francis pretends to have a devotion to Saint Pius X, but the truth is that he hates his guts.

Antipope Bergoglio also talked about communication, truth, and fake news, emphasizing the importance of transmitting facts and distinguishing them from opinion. Which is quite hypocritical of him, since he just promoted his own former communications director, “Mgr.” Dario Viganò (not to be confused with Carlo Maria Viganò), who, in the first half of 2018, was found to have doctored a letter from Benedict XVI in order to make it appear as though he was saying something that he really wasn’t — a classic case of manufacturing fake news, made worse by the fact that the culprit was the Prefect of the Secretariat for Communications, after the Vatican had just made combatting fake news one of its priorities.

Francis had no choice but to dismiss him, which he did only begrudgingly, and then he immediately appointed him to an “advisory” role in the same department — a new position he was creating just for him so he could be retained in communications after all. And now, this past Aug. 31, Francis promoted Vigano to the position of Vice Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. Christopher Altieri rightly speaks of the “nine lives of Mgr. Dario Edoardo Vigano.”

But not enough. The Frankster made his most explosive comments in this press conference towards the end.

New York Times reporter Jason Horowitz asked:

On the flight to Maputo you acknowledged being under attack by a segment of the American Church. Obviously, there is strong criticism from some bishops and cardinals, there are Catholic Television stations and American websites that are very critical. And there are even some of your closest allies who have spoken of a plot against you. Is there something that these critics do not understand about your pontificate? Is there something that you have learned from your critics? Are you afraid of a schism in the American Church? And if so, is there something that you could do – a dialogue – to keep it from happening?

Francis’ answer was long, naturally. We will dissect it and intersperse our comments throughout:

First of all, criticism always helps, always. When someone receives criticism, that persons needs to do a self-critique right away and say: is this true or not? To what point? And I always benefit from criticism. Sometimes it makes you angry…. But there are advantages.

Oh yes, no doubt Bergoglio is a big friend of criticism. He is so receptive of candid feedback that he has refused an audience with the “dubia cardinals” for years, and he has gone out of his way to ensure the “cardinals” that he considers a threat will not have any opportunity to speak with him even outside an audience. Francis is the one who sees to it that any attempted dialogue will remain a monologue. So much for that “culture of encounter” he always raves about.

Continuing with Francis’ words:

Traveling to Maputo, one of you gave me that book in French on how the Americans want to change the Pope. I knew about that book, but I had not read it. Criticisms are not coming only from the Americans, they are coming a bit from everywhere, even from the Curia. At least those that say them have the benefit of the honesty of having said them. I do not like it when criticism stays under the table: they smile at you letting you see their teeth and then they stab you in the back. That is not fair, it is not human. Criticism is a component in construction, and if your criticism is unjust, be prepared to receive a response, and get into dialogue, and arrive to the right conclusion. This is the dynamic of true criticism. The criticism of the arsenic pills, instead, of which we were speaking regarding the article that I gave to Msgr Rueda, it’s like throwing the stone and then hiding your hand… This is not beneficial, it is no help. It helps small cliques, who do not want to hear the response to their criticism. Instead, fair criticism – I think thus and so – is open to a response. This is constructive. Regarding the case of the Pope: I don’t like this aspect of the Pope, I criticize him, I speak about him, I write an article and ask him to respond, this is fair.

Here Bergoglio’s hypocrisy is on full display. The fact is that he is not willing to receive and speak with those who want to bring their genuine concerns and criticisms to him. And since he is the “Pope”, they need his permission before they can see him and have a discussion with him. When “Abp.” Carlo Maria Vigano forced the issue by accusing Francis of grave wrongdoing in a series of public letters last year, even then Francis did not respond, once again hiding behind sanctimony.

To criticize without wanting to hear a response and without getting into dialogue is not to have the good of the Church at heart, it is chasing after a fixed idea, to change the Pope or to create a schism. This is clear: a fair criticism is always well received, at least by me.

Riiight… It’s just that no one has been fair to him lately, huh?

Secondly, the problem of the schism: within the Church there have been many schisms. After the First Vatican Council, for example, the last vote, the one on infallibility, a well-sized group left and founded the Old Catholic Church so as to remain “true” to the tradition of the Church. Then they developed differently and now they ordain women. But in that moment they were rigid, they rallied behind orthodoxy and thought that the council had erred. Another group left very, very quietly, but they did not want to vote. Vatican II had these things among its consequences. Perhaps the most well-known post-conciliar split is that of Lefebvre.

It is amusing that Francis, of all people, would pretend to be a defender of the First Vatican Council. We know what he told the Modernist Hans Kung about papal infallibility:

Bergoglio’s attempt to draw a parallel between the Old Catholics of the 1870s and us Sedevacantists today who reject the Second Vatican Council is clever but without foundation (we cannot include the Lefebvrists in this because their rejection of Vatican II is indeed unjustifiable in principle, as they believe it came from a true Pope). The so-called “Old Catholics” did not hold the Faith as it had been “on the books” before Vatican I, as we Sedevacantists hold the Faith as it was “on the books” before Vatican II. Perhaps a future Novus Ordo Watch post will go into this in detail, but for now we must move on.

In the Church there is always the option for schism, always. But it is an option that the Lord leaves to human freedom. I am not afraid of schisms, I pray that there will be none, because what is at stake is people’s spiritual health. Let there be dialogue, let there be correction if there is an error, but the schismatic path is not Christian.

Yeah, that “dialogue” option has been working out great, right? We know about Francis’ attitude towards heresy (see here and here, for example), and we can see his attitude on schism isn’t much different. In fact, we cannot help but recall that in 2016 the leftist German periodical Der Spiegel reported that Francis allegedly said: “It’s not impossible that I will go down in history as the one who split the Catholic Church.” An attitude of pastoral concern for the sheep sounds different.

Let’s think about the beginnings of the Church, how it began with many schisms, one after the other: Arians, Gnostics, Monophysites… An anecdote is coming to mind that I would like to recount: it was the people of God who saved [the Church] from the schisms. The schismatics always have one thing in common: they separate themselves from the people, from the faith of the people of God. And when there was a discussion in the council of Ephesus regarding Mary’s divine maternity, the people – this is history – were at the entrance of the cathedral while the bishops entered to take part in the council. They were there with clubs. They made the bishops see them as they shouted, “Mother of God! Mother of God!”, as if to say: if you do not do this, this is what you can expect… The people of God always correct and help. A schism is always an elitist separation stemming from an ideology detached from doctrine. It is an ideology, perhaps correct, but that engages doctrine and detaches it… And so I pray that schisms do not happen, but I am not afraid of them. This is one of the results of Vatican II, not because of this or that Pope. For example, the social things that I say are the same things that John Paul II said, the same things! I copy him. But they say: the Pope is a communist… Ideologies enter into doctrine and when doctrine slips into ideology that’s where there’s the possibility of a schism.

Funny… A few days ago, Francis was telling the world that differences in religious matters “are necessary”. What happened to that? And in Morocco, the same Bergoglian lips had proclaimed earlier this year that “being a Christian is not about adhering to a doctrine”. So, which is it?

Bergoglio talks about schism as though he were talking about a stained shirt. It’s unfortunate, but what can you do? Schism happens. Whatever, move on. Not my problem. It’s that couldn’t-care-less attitude he’s mentioned before.

Lastly:

There’s the ideology of the primacy of a sterile morality regarding the morality of the people of God. The pastors must lead their flock between grace and sin, because this is evangelical morality. Instead, a morality based on such a pelagian ideology leads you to rigidity, and today we have many schools of rigidity within the Church, which are not schisms, but pseudo-schismatic Christian developments that will end badly. When you see rigid Christians, bishops, priests, there are problems behind that, not Gospel holiness. So, we need to be gentle with those who are tempted by these attacks, they are going through a tough time, we must accompany them gently.

This pseudo-theological and psychoanalytical garbage is simply not deserving of any comment. Pelagianism? Oh yes, we know about Pelagianism.

By the time Francis finally got his trap closed, “about an hour and a half” had elapsed, Vatican News reports. So many words were spoken, but did you notice which two were missing entirely? Francis did not mention Jesus Christ at all.

Oh well, can’t talk about everything!

Image source: Getty Images
License: Getty embed

Share this content now:

No Comments

Be the first to start a conversation

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.