Print Friendly, PDF & Email

“Living tabernacles” and all…

Building the City of God AND Man?
Francis and the Idolatry of Migrants

If you want to know what cause is really near and dear to “Pope” Francis’ heart, you just need to see what it is that he never shuts up about. As our Blessed Lord said: “…out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh” (Lk 6:45), and this is true for the fake pope Jorge Bergoglio as much as it is for anyone else.

We thus turn to Exhibit A in this regard: Francis’ perpetual solicitude for, and quasi-idolatry of, migrants.

On May 27, the Vatican released Francis’ Message for the 105th World Day of Migrants and Refugees 2019, which will be observed on September 29. The text was not simply released online but was introduced with a Vatican press conference.

In this post, we will have a critical look at much of this Message, as it illustrates perfectly how the Argentine pseudo-pope misuses Catholicism as a prop to promote his leftist political agenda. He takes the spiritual and reduces it to the mundane; he takes what are essentially supernatural truths pertaining chiefly to men’s salvation and refocuses them on natural objects. This way the Gospel is perverted because turned away from its proper end. At the same time, Francis appears to be preaching the truth because he ostensibly gets his doctrine from the Gospel text. Such a tactic is as successful as it is deceptive.

The first problem with Francis’ Message is that it conveniently fails to distinguish between migrants and refugees. It lumps them together when in fact they are entirely different classes of people who merely have in common the fact that they are on the move, traveling from one country to another. But the difference is crucial: A refugee is someone who “flees for refuge or safety, especially to a foreign country, as in time of political upheaval, war, etc.” (source). A migrant, on the other hand, is a person who “attempts to permanently relocate to a new country, but who may be subject to removal by the government of that country” (source).

It is clear that a refugee is deserving of help, compassion, and protection. Any genuine refugee will only travel as far as the nearest nation to offer him asylum, and when the danger in his native country has subsided, he will happily return to it.

A migrant, by contrast, is simply looking to relocate to another country because he would rather live there, for any number of reasons, many of them quite legitimate in themselves but none of them acutely life-threatening. While one cannot really blame people for looking for better opportunity so as to advance their temporal well-being, for example, it is nevertheless not right for them to intrude into another country, disrespecting the laws of that nation by entering without the requisite visa.

There is no question that people who are in genuine temporal need deserve our help and compassion. The corporal works of mercy are works of mercy. However, what’s happening with these endless streams of migrants is something different altogether: To a large extent, Europe is deliberately being flooded with untold numbers of people from Africa and the Middle East with the intention of destabilizing the nations there and destroying the European peoples — so much for diversity! Once each nation loses its identity, it will no longer be distinguishable from any other nation, and the new global order will finally be able to be put in place — an order that is, if not a prerequisite, certainly highly conducive to the Antichrist being able to rule the entire world, as prophesied (see Apoc 13:7).

In any case, the fact remains that people do not have the right to move to any country they please. Entering a foreign country is a privilege, not a right, and although asylum should indeed be granted to those who flee from war or unjust persecution, that is merely a temporary permit to stay in the nearest country that can provide safety, not a right to permanently move wherever one pleases.

Some may ask what this would mean for human equality, however. The answer is as simple as it is unpopular: Human life is essentially unequal. There will always be the rich, the poor, and the middle class (cf. Mt 26:11). There will always be the privileged and the less fortunate, just as some people are born strong and healthy and others have to cope with disabilities and diseases from childhood. However, this presents a problem only for a Naturalist, not for a Catholic.

Pope St. Pius X taught the inherent inequality of the members of human society very clearly in his 1903 Apostolic Letter Fin Dalla Prima Nostra, in which he presented in summary fashion the teachings of his predecessor Pope Leo XIII on the social question, including the following:

I.  Human society, as established by God, is composed of unequal elements, just as the different parts of the human body are unequal; to make them all equal is impossible, and would mean the destruction of human society. (Encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris.)

II.  The equality existing among the various social members consists only in this: that all men have their origin in God the Creator, have been redeemed by Jesus Christ, and are to be judged and rewarded or punished by God exactly according to their merits or demerits. (Encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris.)

III.  Hence it follows that there are, according to the ordinance of God, in human society princes and subjects, masters and proletariat, rich and poor, learned and ignorant, nobles and plebeians, all of whom, united in the bonds of love, are to help one another to attain their last end in heaven, and their material and moral welfare here on earth. (Encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris.)

IV.  Of the goods of the earth man has not merely the use, like the brute creation, but he has also the right of permanent proprietorship and not merely of those things which are consumed by use, but also of those which are not consumed by use. (Encyclical Rerum Novarum.)

V.  The right of private property, the fruit of labor or industry, or of concession or donation by others, is an incontrovertible natural right; and everybody can dispose reasonably of such property as he thinks fit. (Encyclical Rerum Novarum.)

VI.  To heal the breach between rich and poor, it is necessary to distinguish between justice and charity. There can be no claim for redress except when justice is violated. (Encyclical Rerum Novarum.)

VII.  The following are obligations of justice binding on the proletariat and the workingman: To perform fully and faithfully the work which has been freely and, according to equity, agreed upon; not to injure the property or outrage the person of masters; even in the defense of their own rights to abstain from acts of violence, and never to make mutiny of their defense. (Encyclical Rerum Novarum.)

VIII.  The following are obligations of justice binding on capitalists: To pay just wages to their workingmen; not to injure their just savings by violence or fraud, or by overt or covert usuries; not to expose them to corrupting seductions and danger of scandal; not to alienate them from the spirit of family life and from love of economy; not to impose on them labor beyond their strength, or unsuitable for their age or sex. (Encyclical Rerum Novarum.)

IX.  It is an obligation for the rich and those who own property to succor the poor and the indigent, according to the precepts of the Gospel. This obligation is so grave that on the Day of Judgment special account will be demanded of its fulfillment, as Christ Himself has said (Matthew 25). (Encyclical Rerum Novarum.)

X.  The poor should not be ashamed of their poverty, nor disdain the charity of the rich, for they should have especially in view Jesus the Redeemer, who, though He might have been born in riches, made Himself poor in order that He might ennoble poverty and enrich it with merits beyond price for heaven. (Encyclical Rerum Novarum.)

XI.  For the settlement of the social question much can be done by the capitalists and workers themselves, by means of institutions designed to provide timely aid for the needy and to bring together and unite mutually the two classes. Among these institutions are mutual aid societies, various kinds of private insurance societies, orphanages for the young, and, above all, associations among the different trades and professions. (Encyclical Rerum Novarum.)

(Pope Pius X, Apostolic Letter Fin Dalla Prima Nostra, nn. I-XI; underlining added.)

In this motu proprio, St. Pius X draws from Pope Leo XIII’s encyclicals Quod Apostolici Muneris, Rerum Novarum, and Graves de Communi Re, as well as from an instruction of the Sacred Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs under the same Pope. Pius X makes clear in his document that “nobody may dare depart from [these rules] in the smallest particulars”.

How amusing that although Francis has claimed, falsely and blasphemously, that God has willed the diversity of religions, it turns out that God has actually willed the inequality between “princes and subjects, masters and proletariat, rich and poor, learned and ignorant, nobles and plebeians”! We can expect that the Argentinian apostate won’t be signing a joint document delcaring that any time soon.

Francis being Francis, he does not merely lump refugees and migrants together, of course; he adds others into the mix as well, thus facilitating even further the nefarious globalist agenda that is aimed ultimately at destablizing and subverting the entire European continent:

The most economically advanced societies are witnessing a growing trend towards extreme individualism which, combined with a utilitarian mentality and reinforced by the media, is producing a “globalization of indifference”. In this scenario, migrants, refugees, displaced persons and victims of trafficking have become emblems of exclusion. In addition to the hardships that their condition entails, they are often looked down upon and considered the source of all society’s ills. That attitude is an alarm bell warning of the moral decline we will face if we continue to give ground to the throw-away culture. In fact, if it continues, anyone who does not fall within the accepted norms of physical, mental and social well-being is at risk of marginalization and exclusion.

For this reason, the presence of migrants and refugees – and of vulnerable people in general – is an invitation to recover some of those essential dimensions of our Christian existence and our humanity that risk being overlooked in a prosperous society. That is why it is not just about migrants. When we show concern for them, we also show concern for ourselves, for everyone; in taking care of them, we all grow; in listening to them, we also give voice to a part of ourselves that we may keep hidden because it is not well regarded nowadays.

(underlining added)

In one fell swoop, Francis has put them all on the same level, erasing all distinctions: migrants, refugees, the displaced, victims of human trafficking, and “vulnerable people in general” — whoever those might be. (Curiously, when it comes to generously granting annulments and thus ripping apart families, Francis’ care for the vulnerable — the children — is nowhere to be found.) The fact that most of the people intruding into Europe are migrants rather than refugees and that it is precisely in migrants that human traffickers can easily find victims, is left conveniently unsaid.

What Francis writes in the above two paragraphs is not even particularly sensible. Where do we see an “extreme individualism” that has given rise to a “globalization of indifference”? What is this, other than one more attempt to crank out yet another buzzword to ensure a headline? Where are true refugees and victims of crime becoming “emblems of exclusion”?

Migrants, we remember, are the people who enter countries without permission and without cause for asylum. That unending streams of such people from foreign countries with foreign cultures and religions are or will be the source of a great many social ills, hardly needs explanation, for it is common sense. That they are not going to be “the source of all society’s ills” is obvious, too, but then nobody, except for Francis’ straw man argument, suggested otherwise. Any nation should be unsettled and horrified at the thought of its borders suddenly getting erased de facto, because a nation defines itself, among other things, by the boundaries that limit its territory. A country needs closed borders for the same reason that families and individuals need a house with a locked door. It’s not complicated.

Utterances such as “in taking care of them, we all grow” and “in listening to them, we also give voice to a part of ourselves that we may keep hidden” are simply the usual meaningless platitudes from the Jesuit antipope.

After his first three paragraphs, Francis gets down to business: He begins commandeering Sacred Scripture to promote his false gospel of man. He begins thus:

“Take courage, it is I, do not be afraid!” (Mt 14:27). It is not just about migrants: it is also about our fears. The signs of meanness we see around us heighten “our fear of ‘the other’, the unknown, the marginalized, the foreigner… We see this today in particular, faced with the arrival of migrants and refugees knocking on our door in search of protection, security and a better future. To some extent, the fear is legitimate, also because the preparation for this encounter is lacking” (Homily in Sacrofano, 15 February 2019). But the problem is not that we have doubts and fears. The problem is when they condition our way of thinking and acting to the point of making us intolerant, closed and perhaps even – without realizing it – racist. In this way, fear deprives us of the desire and the ability to encounter the other, the person different from myself; it deprives me of an opportunity to encounter the Lord (cf. Homily at Mass for the World Day of Migrants and Refugees, 14 January 2018).

Notice how he precedes his remarks by quoting our Blessed Lord’s exhortation: “Be of good heart: it is I, fear ye not” (Mt 14:27). Christ spoke these words to His Apostles in the boat who, “seeing him walk upon the sea, were troubled, saying: It is an apparition. And they cried out for fear” (Mt 14:26). That this has absolutely nothing to do with migrants is easy to see, but for Bergoglio the migrant (or the poor person, the disadvantaged, the vulnerable, the excluded, the marginalized, the one who suffers from athlete’s foot) is literally Christ; and so he hijacks the Gospel text to make people believe that just as they would not be afraid of Christ, who is perfectly good and benevolent (see Jn 1:1; Lk 18:19), so they ought not to be afraid of “the other”, either. This is blasphemy!

But it is not just blasphemy, it is also utter foolishness. Fear is a natural and healthy human response to the unknown, especially when the unknown is knocking on our doors looking for an encounter. Of course it must be regulated by reason, but some fear is indeed reasonable — it all depends on the object and the circumstances. Although Francis indeed acknowledges that “the fear is legitimate”, he only concedes this in theory, that is, as long as people don’t act on their fear. Whoop dee do!

When applied to any other scenario, the absurdity of Francis’ argument becomes easily visible. What sane father would allow his 16-year-old daughter to hitchhike across the country with strangers and use the Gospel parable of the Good Samaritan for backup? Would any mother in her right mind tell her teenaged daughter not to be afraid to thumb a ride with people she doesn’t know because “fear deprives us of the desire and the ability to encounter the other, the person different from myself; it deprives me of an opportunity to encounter the Lord”?! To ask these questions is to answer them.

Of course, at the heart of Francis’ quasi-idolatrous and perpetually recurring “encountering the Lord in the other” mantra lies a gross exaggeration and distortion of Christ’s words in Matthew 25. Let’s review the full pericope for a minute:

And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty: And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me. Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me. And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

(Matthew 25:31-46)

Obviously, Christ wasn’t speaking literally when He said that He was hungry, thirsty, naked, etc. Rather, Christ teaches us here that He will judge us based on our works — not only on our works but also on our works (cf. Heb 11:6; Mk 16:16; Jas 2:24). If, united with faith and hope, we practice works of charity — the corporal and spiritual works of mercy, for example — and do so for the love of God, we will be admitted into Heaven. If we do not do so, we will be condemned because, not loving our neighbor, we also evidently do not love God, who has commanded us to love our neighbor: “He that hath the substance of this world, and shall see his brother in need, and shall shut up his bowels from him: how doth the charity of God abide in him?” (1 Jn 3:17; cf. 1 Jn 4:20).

But what Bergoglio, being a Naturalist, always conveniently fails to mention is that unless we perform our good works through God’s grace and for the proper motive — namely, the love of God — they will not merit for us eternal life. Thus an atheist, for example, who selflessly assists the needy is indeed doing a noble and good work; but, not believing in nor loving God, he will still go to hell if he does not convert before the end of his life: “…he that believeth not shall be condemned” (Mk 16:16).

We must love God first, and then our neighbor (see Mt 22:35-40). But we must love our neighbor for the love of God, that is, for God’s sake — not for our neighbor’s sake or for our own sake. This is basic Catholic catechism:

To love our neighbor for God’s sake means to love him in order to please God. This supernatural love is called charity. If we love a person because we expect from him some favor or advantage in return, we love him for our own sake. Our love is interested; it is not real love.

True love of God makes us love even disagreeable people, without reference to their love for us. It makes us love the poor, the sick, the unfortunate, the suffering, the repulsive, and even our enemies, just because God loves them, and wishes us to love them. Thus Christians of all ages have sacrificed themselves for charity.

Love is the fulfilling of the law; and so one who loves his neighbor for the love of God is rewarded with heaven.

(Most Rev. Louis LaRavoire Morrow, My Catholic Faith [Kenosha, WI: My Mission House, 1954], p. 177; italics and bold print given.)

We find this confirmed, of course, in Sacred Scripture: “For whosoever shall give you to drink a cup of water in my name, because you belong to Christ: amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward” (Mk 9:40). Commenting specifically on the merits of the good works mentioned in Matthew 25, the Jesuit scholar Fr. Cornelius a Lapide explains that Christ “counts them done to Himself, because they were done to the poor for love of Christ” (Great Commentary, vol. 3 [London: John Hodges, 1891], p. 138; italics added). And in the Act of Charity, we declare unto God: “I love my neighbor as myself for the love of Thee” (source). It thus follows that if any such works are not done for the love of God (at least implicitly), but for some lesser motive, they will have no supernatural value before God, although He might still bestow a natural reward (cf. Mt 6:2).

In short, we can say that whatever good works we do, we do them to Christ in the sense that we do them to please Him; and if we do not do them — either not at all, or not in order to please Him — then we do not do them to Him. That is the beautiful, profound, and yet simple teaching of our Blessed Lord in Matthew 25. Francis’ exaggeration and distortion of Christ’s teaching into a kind of “extended Incarnation” in the poor and the suffering, before whom we ought to kneel down, constitutes an idolatrous denial of the true doctrine of the Incarnation, at least implicitly.

Think this is too harsh? Not at all. Just a few days prior to the relase of his Message for the 105th World Day of Migrants and Refugees 2019, the same Jesuit apostate said during a sermon he gave to the 21st General Assembly of Caritas Internationalis: “It helps us to be before the Tabernacle and before the many living tabernacles that are the poor. The Eucharist and the poor, fixed Tabernacle and mobile tabernacles: there one abides in love and absorbs the mentality of the broken Bread”! You can’t make this stuff up!

Here is a brief video clip showing some of those “mobile tabernacles” knocking on the doors of Spain, ready for encounter (notice all the starving women and children):

Returning now to Francis’ Message rooting for migrants:

Compassion motivated that Samaritan – for the Jews, a foreigner – not to pass by. Compassion is a feeling that cannot be explained on a purely rational level. Compassion strikes the most sensitive chords of our humanity, releasing a vibrant urge to “be a neighbour” to all those whom we see in difficulty. As Jesus himself teaches us (cf. Mt 9:35-36; 14:13-14; 15:32-37), being compassionate means recognizing the suffering of the other and taking immediate action to soothe, heal and save. To be compassionate means to make room for that tenderness which today’s society so often asks us to repress.

Of course we all know that until he came along, Catholics had never had compassion on anyone and didn’t know how to practice works of charity, specifically the corporal and spiritual works of mercy…. No, Mr. Bergoglio: We don’t need you to tell us what charity is — you who only care about the natural life of the body and not the supernatural life of the soul (cf. Mt 10:28); you who only care about this world and not the world to come. No, your cheerleading for the destruction of Europe has nothing to do with Christian charity!

Alas, the Bergoglian tripe continues unabated. Hijacking Mt 18:10, the papal pretender laments: “Today’s world is increasingly becoming more elitist and cruel towards the excluded.” That there are elitists who are cruel towards those not in their group can readily be conceded, but those elitists tend to be, for instance, the very ones that attend the Bilderberg Meetings, to which Francis sent his Secretary of State, “Cardinal” Pietro Parolin, last year. Oops!

In any case, who are meant by “the excluded”? Could the label be a bit more general, please? Excluded from what and for what reason? Francis’ false theology thrives on vagueness and generalizations. For example, society has a duty to exclude criminals so they cannot harm others, and this is typically done by imprisoning them. Are those among “the excluded” Francis is referring to?

Sacred Scripture, by the way, has plenty to say about excluding people. Here is a small selection:

  • 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)
  • 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)
  • He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned. (Mark 16:16)
  • But this know ye, that if the householder did know at what hour the thief would come, he would surely watch, and would not suffer his house to be broken open. (Luke 12:39)

What do you know? Exclusion! Rejection! Closed doors! No tenderness or compassion! How is this possible? It all depends on making necessary distinctions, distinctions Bergoglio doesn’t make, in order to mislead and confuse all the more.

More from Chaos Frank:

“I came so that they might have life and have it more abundantly” (Jn 10:10). It is not just about migrants: it is about the whole person, about all people. In Jesus’ words, we encounter the very heart of his mission: to see that all receive the gift of life in its fullness, according to the will of the Father. In every political activity, in every programme, in every pastoral action we must always put the person at the centre, in his or her many aspects, including the spiritual dimension. And this applies to all people, whose fundamental equality must be recognized. Consequently, “development cannot be restricted to economic growth alone. To be authentic, it must be well-rounded; it must foster the development of each man and of the whole man” (SAINT [sic] PAUL VI, Populorum Progressio, 14).

Once again we see Francis misusing a Scriptural pericope to advance his Naturalist garbage. Christ’s declaration that He came “that they may have life, and may have it more abundantly” (Jn 10:10) has nothing to do with everybody receiving natural life to the full but supernatural life, that is, the life of grace, which culminates in life everlasting in Heaven. To that end, Christ must be put at the center, not man. Bergoglio does mention that man has a “spiritual dimension” but that this doesn’t translate into seeking the conversion of unbelievers for him he has amply demonstrated in the past. For example, remember this story:

Thus far Bergoglio’s care for the “spiritual dimension” of man.

But Francis isn’t done yet. As though we didn’t have enough evidence yet of his belief that man is divine, the antipope states:

Dear brothers and sisters, our response to the challenges posed by contemporary migration can be summed up in four verbs: welcome, protect, promote and integrate. Yet these verbs do not apply only to migrants and refugees. They describe the Church’s mission to all those living in the existential peripheries, who need to be welcomed, protected, promoted and integrated. If we put those four verbs into practice, we will help build the city of God and man.

(underlining added)

Here the Argentinian pretend-Pope gives it away: Man is God, and God is man! No, this is not a rash inference, it is abundantly clear, not simply from everything we have seen from this godless blasphemer in the last six years, but also because there is no possible way that Francis doesn’t know that the City of God and the City of Man are at war with one another and fundamentally irreconcilable.

The promoters of the Nouvelle Theologie (New Theology), which is the official theology of the Vatican II Sect, typically profess to be adherents of the theology of St. Augustine (rather than of that of St. Thomas Aquinas), and yet St. Augustine wrote an entire book — The City of God — on the opposition between the Heavenly City and the Earthly City: “The book presents human history as a conflict between what Augustine calls the Earthly City (often colloquially referred to as the City of Man, but never by Augustine) and the City of God, a conflict that is destined to end in victory for the latter” (Wikipedia). When Francis, therefore, equates the City of God with the City of Man, this speaks volumes.

Francis is essentially a Sillonist, an advocate of a pseudo-Catholic theology condemned by Pope St. Pius X in 1910:

…[The Sillonists] dream of changing [human society’s] natural and traditional foundations; they dream of a Future City built on different principles, and they dare to proclaim these more fruitful and more beneficial than the principles upon which the present Christian City rests.

No, Venerable Brethren, We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker – the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants. OMNIA INSTAURARE IN CHRISTO [RESTORE ALL THINGS IN CHRIST].

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

The city Francis seeks to build is most certainly not that of Christian civilization, which he detests. He instead wants a “New Humanity” to build a “City of Man” that is founded on the principles of Freemasonry and Naturalism. What Pope Pius X said about the Sillonists could just as well be said about Francis: “For the construction of the Future City they appealed to the workers of all religions and all sects. These were asked but one thing: to share the same social ideal, to respect all creeds, and to bring with them a certain supply of moral force” (Notre Charge Apostolique).

Francis ends his Message by once again extolling the presence of migrants in the world, without whom we might never have known just what the Gospel demands of us:

Migrants, especially those who are most vulnerable, help us to read the “signs of the times”. Through them, the Lord is calling us to conversion, to be set free from exclusivity, indifference and the throw-away culture. Through them, the Lord invites us to embrace fully our Christian life and to contribute, each according to his or her proper vocation, to the building up of a world that is more and more in accord with God’s plan.

This sounds a lot like what the Frankster said last year in his Message for the World Day of the Poor: “The poor evangelize us, helping us to discover every day the beauty of the Gospel.” Yes, in the Marxist gospel of Jorge Bergoglio, the poor basically are the gospel and evangelize Catholics. In the true Gospel, things are a bit different: “The blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, the poor have the gospel preached to them” (Mt 11:5). Christ sent His Apostles and disciples to preach the Gospel to the poor — He didn’t send the poor to evangelize the Apostles and disciples. Details, details! But then Francis has never let facts stand in the way of his agenda.

Summing up, we can say that the contents of Bergoglio’s Message are not based on Faith or reason. Rather, they are simply propaganda for his liberation-theology-inspired political ideology, and they are uttered with the aim of making Catholics (or those who think themselves to be such) support the continued flood of mostly African migrants into the European continent. More generally, the purpose of his false Naturalist gospel of man is to reduce the true Gospel to the performance of corporal works of mercy that have in Christ their perfect Exemplar. By thus dissolving the essentially supernatural character of the Gospel, it will be easier to merge all religions into one, in preparation for the Antichrist.

The irony in it all is that, naturally, whoever has the audacity to oppose Francis’ program of inclusion-at-all-costs gets… excluded! Marginalized! Looked down upon! Discriminated against! Just ask Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of the Interior, Matteo Salvini, who has been enforcing his nation’s border and immigration laws and has now even “dared” to commend his nation to the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary! Francis has no qualms about marginalizing him, and this goes to underscore that this sorry caricature of a “Pope” is a leftist political ideologue, not a Catholic theologian.

To be clear: Salvini is no saint. He is a public sinner, and he admits as much; but his sins pale in comparison with those of Francis. As our Blessed Lord said: “Amen I say to you, that the publicans and the harlots shall go into the kingdom of God before you” (Mt 21:31).

Note well: While Salvini is rebuked, ignored, and treated like a cockroach for simply acting in his country’s best interest, Emma Bonino (a notorious Italian abortionist and politician) is hailed by Francis as a “forgotten great” and is welcomed by him to chat about migrants. Similarly, public abortion and perversion supporter Joseph Biden (former U.S. Vice President) is likewise welcome at the Vatican and is never refused the Novus Ordo sacraments or excommunciated.

Here it is irrelevant that the apostate Jesuit just recently reminded everyone again that abortion is never permissible and that it is, in fact, just like hiring a hitman. For as long as he is totally cool with inviting such hitmen (and their political enablers) to the Vatican to chat with him about other issues, like sustainable development and climate change, only a fool can’t see what side Francis is working for.

Image source: shutterstock.com
License: paid

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.