Inclusion good, exclusion bad!

Francis: “God has included us all in Salvation, all!” — Except the Excluders!

When Jorge Bergoglio speaks, it’s always the same Modernist trash we’ve been hearing for decades, albeit in somewhat recycled fashion. We’ve said before that he could work for Hallmark to write shallow greeting cards full of chicken-soup-for-the-soul spirituality. The homily he gave at the Casa Santa Marta today, November 5, 2015, is a perfect example of this.

Vatican Radio just published a summary, with long verbatim quotes, of Francis’ latest homily against “exclusion” and for “inclusion”, in which he goes so far as to state, “God has included us all in salvation, all!” Take a look at what an infantile, immature, quasi-heretical and wholly dangerous rant this was. We are quoting the Vatican Radio report in full (red font added for emphasis):

The Christian includes, he does not close the door to anyone, even if this provokes resistance. He who excludes, because he believes himself to be better, generates conflicts and divisions, and does not consider the fact that “we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God.” That was the message of Pope Francis during Thursday morning’s Mass at Casa Santa Marta.

The attitude of Christ is to include

In the Letter to the Romans, Saint Paul exhorts us not to judge and not to despise our brothers, because, the Pope said, this leads to excluding them from “our little group,” to being selective, and this is not Christian.” Christ, in fact, “with His sacrifice on Calvary” unites and includes “all men in salvation.” In the Gospel, publicans and sinners draw near to Jesus – “that is, the excluded, all those that were outside,” – and “the Pharisees and the scribes complained”:

“The attitude of the Scribes and the Pharisees is the same, they exclude. [They say,] ‘We are the perfect, we follow the law. These people are sinners, they are publicans’; and the attitude of Jesus is to include. There are two paths in life: the path exclusion of persons from our community and the path of inclusion. The first can be little but is the root of all wars: all calamities, all wars, begin with an exclusion. One is excluded from the international community, but also from families, from friends – How many fights there are! – and the path that makes us see Jesus and teaches us Jesus is quite another, it is contrary to the other: to include.”

There is resistance in the face of inclusion

“It is not easy to include the people,” Pope Francis said, “because there is resistance, there is that selective attitude.” For this reason, Jesus tells two parables: the parable of the lost sheep, and the parable of the woman and the lost coin. Both the shepherd and the woman will do anything to find what they have lost, and when they find it, they are full of joy:

“They are full of joy because they have found what was lost and they go to their neighbours, their friends, because they are so happy: ‘I found, I included.’ This is the ‘including’ of God, against the exclusion of those who judge, who drive away people, persons: ‘No, no to this, no to that, no to that…’; and a little of circle of friends is created, which is their environment. It is a dialectic between exclusion and inclusion. God has included us all in salvation, all! This is the beginning. We with our weaknesses, with our sins, with our envy, jealousies, we all have this attitude of excluding which – as I said – can end in wars.”

If I exclude, I will one day stand before the tribunal of God

Jesus, the Pope said, acts like His Father, Who sent Him to save us; “He seeks to include us,” “to be a family.”

“We think a little bit, and at least – at least! – we do our little part, we never judge: ‘But this one has acted in this way…’ But God knows: it is his life, but I don’t exclude him from my heart, from my prayer, from my greeting, from my smile, and if the occasion arises I say a good word to him. Never excluding, we have no right! And how Paul finishes the Letter: ‘We shall all stand before the judgment seat of God . . .  then each of us shall give an account of himself to God.’ If I exclude I will one day stand before the judgment seat of God, I will have to give an account of myself to God. Let us ask the grace of being men and women who always include, always, always! in the measure of healthy prudence, but always. Not closing the doors to anyone, always with an open heart: ‘It pleases me, it displeases me,’ but the heart is open. May the Lord grant us this grace.”

(“Pope Francis: The Christian includes; Pharisees excludeVatican Radio, Nov. 4, 2015; red font added for emphasis.)

This is absolute pseudo-theological junk, and it’s not even offered in particularly appealing wrapping paper. The key takeaway seems to be this: “Inclusion, good. Exclusion, bad.” That’s what he wants you to remember. One really can’t sink much lower than this in terms of theological depth and spiritual insight. A freshman in college would have to be embarrassed to be submitting a paper putting forth this kind of a thesis to his theology professor.

The substance of Francis’ homily today is virtually nil. General statements such as, “The Christian includes”, are devoid of genuine theological or even philosophical meaning. Even as soundbites they are not all that usable. So the Christian always includes, eh? Includes what? Whom? At what time? For what motive? In what context? To what extent? With what intended result?

Francis’ statement, “If I exclude I will one day stand before the judgment seat of God” is no less asinine. We will allstand before God’s judgment seat before long either way — “exclusion” or “inclusion” is hardly the criterion for that. But perhaps he meant to suggest that those who always include won’t actually be judged by God, which would be a clear heresy, because it is divinely revealed that everyone undergoes God’s judgment: “…it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment” (Heb 9:27; cf. Mt 25:32).

Perhaps Francis forgot that last year he quite clearly excluded the mafia from salvation (thank goodness – at least he got that much right, although he forgets that he himself is the chief of a spiritual mafia), and that in today’s homily he himself is also excluding a whole group of people, namely, those never-identified “pharisees”! Yes, Francis is excluding the excluders, as “not Christian”. How dare he! The funny thing is that the Argentinian pseudo-pope is quite happy to denounce people left and right as pharisees (in somewhat pharisaical fashion), yet when it comes to the real pharisees — you know, their spiritual successors in Talmudic Judaism — he is only too happy to make them feel included and welcome. Remember?

Yes, this from the man who keeps saying we must “preach the Gospel always.” What kind of a gospel it is, we know not, only that it is not the true Gospel: “Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son, hath the Father also” (1 Jn 2:22-23); “If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema” (Gal 1:9).

Of course, the Novus Ordo apologists will quickly spring into action and “explain” that Francis isn’t putting forth the heresy of universal salvation in today’s homily, but rather, that he means to say that Christ redeemed everyone, that salvation is offered to everyone only potentially, not actually (which would be a true statement). But what we really have here is a sly Modernist at work. He speaks in such a way as to inject heresy into the consciousness of the hearer, while, perhaps, leaving just enough room to give himself a way out if he should ever be pressed on it. But a Catholic, a good shepherd who has care for his sheep and seeks to protect them (cf. Jn 10:11-13), will not constantly and habitually speak in such a way that most people who hear him will take heresy from his words, even if they are, very strictly considered, not definitely heretical in themselves. At the very least, Francis’ words are offensive to pious ears and favorable to heresy, and this is, of course, deliberate.

To make sense of this, we have to understand Modernism and its tactics. A man who sometimes acts as a Catholic and sometimes as a Modernist, is a Modernist, not a Catholic; because while a Modernist can act as a Catholic and still remain a Modernist, a Catholic cannot act as a Modernist and still remain a Catholic. Think of it as filling a cup with both a toxic substance and with water. You can add water to poison, and it will still be poison; but you cannot add poison to water and it will still be water. This is not possible. Hence Pope Leo XIII made this very point: “There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition” (Encyclical Satis Cognitum, n. 9).

It will not do, therefore, to point out that on occasion Francis acts like a Catholic, such as when he “excommunicates” some uber-liberal, or when he says we must preach the Gospel, or when he insists on being faithful to the Church or condemns abortion. This is simply an old trick of the Modernists, one St. Pius X exposed long ago:

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.

(Pope St. Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi, n. 18)

Pope Pius VI, denouncing the Proto-Modernist innovators of his time (18th century), was even more explicit regarding their tactics of equivocation and confusion:

In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, the innovators sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation….

Moreover, if all this is sinful, it 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.

… [The heretic Nestorius] expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.

In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements that disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged.

(Pope Pius VI, Bull Auctorem Fidei [1794], introduction)

Along these same lines, Pius VI’s predecessor Pope Clement XIII pointed out how dangerous even just a slight alteration in expressions of the Faith is and how this can lead to spiritual ruin: “…diabolical error, when it has artfully colored its lies, easily clothes itself in the likeness of truth while very brief additions or changes corrupt the meaning of expressions; and confession, which usually works salvation, sometimes, with a slight change, inches toward death” (Encyclical In Dominico Agro, n. 2).

As far as Bergoglio’s absurd idea that “God excludes no one”, here are a few scriptural reminders of the hard truth:

Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.

(1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

Then shall the kingdom of heaven be like to ten virgins, who taking their lamps went out to meet the bridegroom and the bride. And five of them were foolish, and five wise. But the five foolish, having taken their lamps, did not take oil with them: But the wise took oil in their vessels with the lamps. And the bridegroom tarrying, they all slumbered and slept. And at midnight there was a cry made: Behold the bridegroom cometh, go ye forth to meet him. Then all those virgins arose and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said to the wise: Give us of your oil, for our lamps are gone out. The wise answered, saying: Lest perhaps there be not enough for us and for you, go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. Now whilst they went to buy, the bridegroom came: and they that were ready, went in with him to the marriage, and the door was shut. But at last come also the other virgins, saying: Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answering said: Amen I say to you, I know you not. Watch ye therefore, because you know not the day nor the hour.

(Matthew 25:1-13)

And the king went in to see the guests: and he saw there a man who had not on a wedding garment. And he saith to him: Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? But he was silent. Then the king said to the waiters: Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen.

(Matthew 22:11-14)

Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

(Matthew 7:13-15)

This is not exactly the FrancisGospel, now is it?

You can see, ladies and gentlemen, why we are in desperate need of a Year of Exclusion, Judgment, and Condemnation, such as we have announced to be celebrated here at Novus Ordo Watch, beginning on December 8, running concurrently with His Phoniness’ bogus “Year of Mercy”. People must be reminded of the hard truths of the Gospel, for what they have heard as the “Gospel” since Vatican II is a counterfeit, feel-good gospel that cannot lead anyone to salvation.

Exclusion and inclusion, as such, are concepts that are morally indifferent. They can be good or bad, depending on the circumstances. If I include what I ought to exclude, I may very well be committing a sin; likewise, if I exclude what I ought to include. Unfortunately, most people today have not been taught how to think, only how to feel, and since inclusion always feels better than exclusion, this is a false gospel that appeals to many.

Follow it at your own risk. It will lead to your exclusion from the Kingdom of Heaven, and to your inclusion in the jaws of hell.

Image source:
License: paid

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.