Chaos Frank lets it rip…
Bergoglian Poppycock by the Truckload:
Francis’ Christmas Address to the Roman Curia
The Jesuit apostate from Buenos Aires currently occupying Vatican City, Jorge Bergoglio, has once again outdone himself. In a 3500-word “Christmas address” to the Roman Curia, the 83-year-old man who presents himself to the world under the pseudonym “Pope Francis” delivered yet another Modernist manifesto, with the clear aim of getting his sheeple in line to accept the next tidal wave of doctrinal and disciplinary change.
The Vatican has provided a full transcript and English translation of the talk, as well as the video footage:
An interesting backstory to this speech was supposed to remain secret but has been revealed by Sandro Magister.
In prior years, Francis used his Christmas address to the Roman Curia as an opportunity to lash out at his Vatican underlings, accusing them of various “diseases” or lambasting them for not getting in line with his program. To recapitulate briefly:
- In his first presentation of Christmas greetings in 2013, there was already a mention of the problem of gossip, but overall the address was quite tame and within the bounds of the ordinary.
- In 2014, Francis priovided a “detailed diagnosis and careful analysis” of what allegedly ails his Curia, identifying as many as fifteen “diseases” such as “spiritual Alzheimer’s”, having a “funeral face”, the “terrorism of gossip”, and “existential schizophrenia”. Enough said!
- In 2015, during the “Year of Mercy”, Francis prescribed “curial antibiotics” with respect to the “diseases” he had diagnosed the year before.
- In 2016, Francis denounced “cases of malicious resistance” to his supposed ongoing reform of the Curia, “which spring up in misguided minds and come to the fore when the devil inspires ill intentions (often cloaked in sheep’s clothing). This … kind of resistance hides behind words of self-justification and often accusation; it takes refuge in traditions, appearances, formalities, in the familiar, or else in a desire to make everything personal, failing to distinguish between the act, the actor, and the action.” That this choice of words came after the now-famous dubia on Amoris Laetitia had been made public, is surely pure coincidence.
- In 2017, after remarking that “[m]aking reforms in Rome is like cleaning the Sphinx with a toothbrush”, Bergoglio launched into a frenzy of accusations, denouncing an “unbalanced and debased mindset of plots and small cliques that in fact represent a cancer leading to a self-centredness that also seeps into ecclesiastical bodies, and in particular those working in them.”
- In 2018, at the close of a year of horrific revelations (“Cardinal” Ted McCarrick’s decades-long sex abuse, then “Abp.” Vigano’s accusations against Francis), after denouncing those who commit abuse, Bergoglio castigated those who “hide behind good intentions in order to stab their brothers and sisters in the back and to sow weeds, division and bewilderment.”
With all this background, it was only natural to expect another doozy of a speech this time around — and those who did were not disappointed.
In what follows, we will dissect and comment on the highlights of Chaos Frank’s latest “words of wisdom”, proclaimed on Saturday, Dec. 21, 2019:
For [Cardinal “Saint” John Henry] Newman change was conversion, in other words, interior transformation. Christian life is a journey, a pilgrimage. The history of the Bible is a journey, marked by constantly new beginnings. So it was with Abraham. So it was too with those Galileans who two thousand years ago set out to follow Jesus: “When they had brought their boats to land, they left everything and followed him” (Lk 5:11). From that time forward, the history of God’s people – the history of the Church – has always been marked by new beginnings, displacements and changes. This journey, of course, is not just geographical, but above all symbolic: it is a summons to discover the movement of the heart, which, paradoxically, has to set out in order to remain, to change in order to be faithful.
(Antipope Francis, Christmas Greetings to the Roman Curia, Vatican.va, Dec. 21, 2019; italics given.)
Here Francis is laying the most basic premises to get his audience to warm up to more change. He begins with the rather unoriginal observation that we must constantly be converted to Christ in order to be and remain faithful to Him — a conversion which obviously involves change, a change from giving in to the inclination to sin to loving and doing God’s Will. From this he moves to Abram being called by God to be the father of the Chosen People of the Old Covenant and to the Apostles being called by Christ to be the first of the Chosen People of the New Covenant. So far, so good.
But then he introduces what he calls “a summons to discover the movement of the heart,” which has nothing to do with anything he said before, and which is conveniently metaphorical and therefore open to all kinds of interpretation. No less convenient is his gratuitous assertion that this “heart” must “set out in order to remain” and “change in order to be faithful.” Thus he has laid another premise to facilitate acceptance of the baloney he is about to spew.
All of this has particular importance for our time, because what we are experiencing is not simply an epoch of changes, but an epochal change. We find ourselves living at a time when change is no longer linear, but epochal. It entails decisions that rapidly transform our ways of living, of relating to one another, of communicating and thinking, of how different generations relate to one another and how we understand and experience faith and science. Often we approach change as if [it] were a matter of simply putting on new clothes, but remaining exactly as we were before. I think of the enigmatic expression found in a famous Italian novel: “If we want everything to stay the same, then everything has to change” (The Leopard by Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa).
Here the papal pretender makes more (and mere) assertions. Some of them may be true, others false, still others may contain some truth, depending on how they are understood. Francis has often mentioned that we live not in an era of change but in a change of era. That may be true or false, but him simply stating it doesn’t make it so. Precisely how everything supposedly stays the same if everything changes, he naturally does not explain, but mentioning that it’s a quote from a famous novel serves to camouflage that.
In any case, so far Francis has spoken of change as such, without even so much as defining it or drawing necessary distinctions as to the types and degrees of change, or the purpose for such; and he has treated all change as something fundamentally good or positive and perhaps even necessary and unavoidable. This is a recipe for disaster, but since chaos and disaster is what the apostate Argentinian Jesuit intends, it serves his cause well.
The more healthy approach is to let oneself be challenged by the questions of the day and to approach them with the virtues of discernment, parrhesía and hypomoné. Seen in this light, change takes on a very different aspect: from something marginal, incidental or merely external, it would become something more human and more Christian. Change would still take place, but beginning with man as its centre: an anthropological conversion.
There’s nothing like throwing some buzzwords into the mix to push the predetermined agenda forward — this gives everything an academic tone and a veneer of profundity. The definition of parrhesia is essentially “free, candid speech”; and hypomone means “patient endurance”. Both terms are Greek. Why approaching the “questions of the day” with these concepts should make change from “something marginal, incidental or merely external” into something “more human and more Christian”, or why this should even be desirable in the first place, is anyone’s guess. But whatever he might mean, he is tempering it immediately with the instrument of “discernment,” which allows him to relativize, as needed, whatever else he might say about change.
So far, Francis has not even answered the most important question about change: What change are we talking about? Change from what to what? Most people won’t think to ask this, however, because Bergoglio quickly moves on to his biggest truckload of poppycock yet:
We need to initiate processes and not just occupy spaces: “God manifests himself in historical revelation, in history. Time initiates processes and space crystalizes them. God is in history, in the processes. We must not focus on occupying the spaces where power is exercised, but rather on starting long-run historical processes. We must initiate processes rather than occupy spaces. God manifests himself in time and is present in the processes of history. This gives priority to actions that give birth to new historical dynamics. And it requires patience, waiting”. In this sense, we are urged to read the signs of the times with the eyes of faith, so that the direction of this change should “raise new and old questions which it is right that we should face”.
Processes and spaces — this has been a favorite topic of his from the very beginning, encapsulated in the meaningless but profound-sounding catchphrase “space is greater than time.” His first exhortation, the lousy Evangelii Gaudium, devoted several paragraphs to it (see nn. 222-225).
In the above paragraph, he quotes himself, first from a 2013 interview with his sidekick “Fr.” Antonio Spadaro, SJ, and then from his Letter to the “People of God” in Germany released earlier this year.
Leaving aside the obvious fact that if there is anyone who loves to “occupy the spaces where power is exercised” it’s Francis himself, we must point out that the false pope is pushing pure Modernism here. This idea that “God is in history”, in the way Francis means it (i.e. that He “is present in the processes of history”), is nothing but an application of Hegelian philosophy to theology, resulting in continuous revelation from the “god of surprises”. Furthermore, the assertion that “God is in the processes” betrays adherence to the Modernist principle of vital immanence, condemned by Pope St. Pius X.
His Modernism allows Francis to take “actions that give birth to new historical dymanics”. What these “historical dynamics” might be he naturally declines to say, but we know that all of this is fancily-expressed code for more doctrinal and disciplinary revolution in the name of Catholicism. The pseudo-pope is not even ashamed to hijack the sacred text for his nefarious undertaking, when he refers to reading “the signs of the times” (cf. Mt 16:3), to which our Blessed Lord pointed in response to the unbelieving Pharisees who were demanding a sign from Heaven before they would recognize Him as the Messiah, despite all the concrete proof of His divinity they were witnessing.
In discussing a change that is grounded mainly in fidelity to the depositum fidei [deposit of Faith] and the Tradition, today I would like to speak once more of the implementation of the reform of the Roman Curia and to reaffirm that this reform has never presumed to act as if nothing had preceded it. On the contrary, an effort was made to enhance the good elements deriving from the complex history of the Curia. There is a need to respect history in order to build a future that has solid roots and can thus prove fruitful. Appealing to memory is not the same as being anchored in self-preservation, but instead to evoke the life and vitality of an ongoing process. Memory is not static, but dynamic. By its very nature, it implies movement. Nor is tradition static; it too is dynamic, as that great man [Gustav Mahler, taking up a metaphor used by Jean Jaurès] used to say: tradition is the guarantee of the future and not a container of ashes.
Here he goes again with the metaphors, which he uses to evoke mental images so as to camouflage a lack of sound Catholic theology. Of course he pays lipserive to “fidelity to the deposit of Faith and the Tradition” — but which he is quick to reduce to a mere “appeal to memory”, however cleverly he then tries to define memory as something “dynamic” that “guarantees the future.” These are but hollow labels that help to ensure that, against all verbal protestations of his to the contrary, what will remain of the past is indeed nothing but ashes.
One way Bergoglio and his Novus Ordo predecessors have scorched the Catholic vineyard is by changing the nature and purpose of evangelization:
In today’s meeting, I would like to reflect on some other [curial] Dicasteries, beginning with the heart of the reform, that is, with the first and most important task of the Church, which is evangelization. As Saint Paul VI stated: “Evangelizing is in fact the grace and vocation proper to the Church, her deepest identity. She exists in order to evangelize”. Today too, Evangelii Nuntiandi continues to be the most important pastoral document of the post-conciliar period. Indeed, the aim of the current reform is that “the Church’s customs, ways of doing things, times and schedules, language and structures can be suitably channeled for the evangelization of today’s world rather than for her self-preservation. The renewal of structures demanded by pastoral conversion can only be understood in this light: as part of an effort to make them more mission-oriented” (Evangelii Gaudium, 27). Consequently, inspired by the magisterium of the Successors of Peter from the time of the Second Vatican Council until the present, it was decided to give the title Praedicate Evangelium to the new Apostolic Constitution being prepared on the reform of the Roman Curia. A missionary outlook.
What Francis does here is diabolically clever. He claims that his Novus Ordo Sect considers evangelization its most important task, which we know is a bald-faced lie. The false pope demonstrates week after week that he does not care about the salvation of souls and has no interest whatsoever in bringing the Good News to unbelievers. All he cares about is providing for people’s material needs, which, although important, are not the reason the Church was founded: clean water, food for all, sustainable agriculture, educational opportunities for the underprivileged, and so on, ad infinitum.
We have seen this again and again; for example, when Francis proclaims that God has willed the diversity of religions; that Muslims can find hope and Faith in the Koran; that the Jews are still God’s Chosen People; that it doesn’t matter if a child receives a Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish education; that it is “not licit to convince others of your Faith”; that unrepentant atheist sodomites need not amend their lives; and that atheists can attain salvation. In other words, if there is one thing that is not on Francis’ radar, it is Catholic mission.
And yet, the garrulous Jesuit continually talks about missionary activity and evangelization. How is this possible? The answer is as simple as it is frightening: He has redefined these concepts so as to hijack them to further his Masonic-Modernist agenda. Evangelization and mission are now essentially nothing but corporal works of mercy (soup kitchens, etc.), coupled with secular-humanist education (incl. environmentalism) and indoctrination into the Freemasonic ideals of liberty (freedom of conscience), equality (denial of social classes), and fraternity (religious indifferentism) — sprinkled with some Catholic prayers. Welcome to the new “missionary outlook”!
And the proof is in the pudding. Catholicism — or, rather, the Novus Ordo religion which people mistake for the real thing — has never been more irrelevant than now, over five decades after Vatican II and “Saint” Paul VI’s new religion first began. The more Francis talks about the Church not being an NGO (non-governmental organization), the more he makes it into precisely that — and that’s by design, not by accident.
The first two Congregations mentioned were established in an age when it was easier to distinguish between two rather well-defined realities: a Christian world and a world yet to be evangelized. That situation no longer exists today. People who have not yet received the Gospel message do not live only in non-Western continents; they live everywhere, particularly in vast urban concentrations that call for a specific pastoral outreach. In big cities, we need other “maps”, other paradigms, which can help us reposition our ways of thinking and our attitudes. Brothers and sisters, Christendom no longer exists! Today we are no longer the only ones who create culture, nor are we in the forefront or those most listened to. We need a change in our pastoral mindset, which does not mean moving towards a relativistic pastoral care. We are no longer living in a Christian world, because faith – especially in Europe, but also in a large part of the West – is no longer an evident presupposition of social life; indeed, faith is often rejected, derided, marginalized and ridiculed.
When Francis proclaims that “Christendom no longer exists!”, he is bragging; for he knows, of course, that the collapse of Christendom was brought about by the Second Vatican Council and its New Theology more than by any war or other historical event. Vatican II proclaimed religious freedom, rather than the Catholic confessional state, as the ideal for society; it proclaimed ecumenism for a Church made up of “elements” found in other religions, rather than the return of dissidents to the one true Church; it proclaimed interreligious dialogue rather than conversion to Christ and His Church.
Vatican II having, if not created, certainly exacerbated the problem of de-christianization and volunteered to be its catalyst, the council is nevertheless always proposed as the remedy to the evils afflicting the Novus Ordo Church. The result is what we see today, most fittingly described by Dietrich von Hildebrand as far back as the 1970s as the “devastated vineyard.” There is nothing Catholic left.
The Gospel always brings the Church back to the mysterious logic of the incarnation, to Christ who took upon himself our history, the history of each of us. That is the message of Christmas. Humanity, then, is the key for interpreting the reform. Humanity calls and challenges us; in a word, it summons us to go forth and not fear change.
The message of Christmas is that God became man in order to redeem us from sin and bondage to the devil. He Himself became a Child of Adam so He could most properly atone for the sins of men. What does this have to do with “interpreting the reform” of the Roman Curia?
Bergoglio blasphemously hijacks the Incarnation of Christ — obviously a singular event in history — so he can preach his false gospel of man: He makes God immanent to man so that he can then claim that God is present in the processes of human history, that every historical milestone of human history is really a special manifestation of God. That is the “new historical dynamics” he was referring to earlier. In more concrete terms, this translates into God speaking to us (supposedly) through the indigenous people of the Amazon, through the migrants flooding Europe from Africa, or through the apostate Declaration on Human Fraternity signed by Francis in Abu Dhabi. This is simply the theological application of Georg Hegel’s World-Soul (or World-Spirit)!
Let us not forget that the Child lying in the manger has the face of our brothers and sisters most in need, of the poor who “are a privileged part of this mystery; often they are the first to recognize God’s presence in our midst” (Admirabile Signum, 6).
And there we go, there we see an immediate application of this principle he just enunciated: Because of the Incarnation, man is God. And that is precisely how Bergoglio acts, especially when he wants people to kneel before the poor. Hence he declared in Bangladesh concerning the Muslim Rohingya refugees: “The presence of God today is also called ‘Rohingya'”. And that’s also the reason why he could affirm in 2018 that the poor “are a true presence of Jesus in our midst”. This is always speciously justified by exaggerating and distorting the true meaning of Christ’s words in Matthew 25, as demonstrated here.
However, let no one say that Francis is introducing these ideas for the first time. Not at all. It was his predecessor of unhappy memory, the Polish apostate Karol Wojtyla, “Pope” and “Saint” John Paul II, who declared on Christmas Day of 1978: “Christmas is the feast of man” (source). How much he place man above God, Wojtyla showed us in his Assisi interreligious prayer abominations, in his kissing of the Koran, and so on.
Linked to this difficult historical process there is always the temptation to fall back on the past (also by employing new formulations), because it is more reassuring, familiar, and, to be sure, less conflictual. This too is part of the process and risk of setting in motion significant changes.
Get ready, then, for “significant changes” — to oppose which would be a “temptation”, naturally, since Francis, who is the oracle of the god of surprises, has declared it so. Yet it is also he who constantly encourages us to let ourselves be “nourished by the Word of God” (see, for example, Evangelii Gaudium, n. 14); so let’s do it: “Thus saith the Lord: Stand ye on the ways, and see and ask for the old paths which is the good way, and walk ye in it: and you shall find refreshment for your souls. And they said: we will not walk” (Jer 6:16). Oops!
Here, there is a need to be wary of the temptation to rigidity. A rigidity born of the fear of change, which ends up erecting fences and obstacles on the terrain of the common good, turning it into a minefield of incomprehension and hatred. Let us always remember that behind every form of rigidity lies some kind of imbalance. Rigidity and imbalance feed one another in a vicious circle. And today this temptation to rigidity has become very real.
If anything is a “minefield of incomprehension”, it would be Bergoglio’s endless babble.
Here the Frankster attacks one of his favorite objects of hatred: rigidity! And yet he does so without much context. Just as he has declared all change to be good, in principle, so he declares all rigidity to be bad. He proceeds to “justify” this idiocy by simply making the assertion — note well: he merely asserts, he does not demonstrate or prove — that “behind every form of rigidity lies some kind of imbalance.” That he himself adheres very rigidly to his own ideas has apparently escaped this highly-gifted genius. Perhaps this is something he learned from the Jewish psychoanalyst he used to consult for therapy.
Bergoglio concludes his train wreck of a Christmas address with a direct quote from his ideological predecessor, the scandalously ultra-liberal Jesuit “Cardinal” Carlo Martini:
Cardinal Martini, in his last interview, a few days before his death, said something that should make us think: “The Church is two hundred years behind the times. Why is she not shaken up? Are we afraid? Fear, instead of courage? Yet faith is the Church’s foundation. Faith, confidence, courage… Only love conquers weariness”.
The mask is off now, one might say, if it weren’t for the fact that Francis never hid behind much of a mask, and if he ever did, it came off a long time ago. People were just not willing to see what was evident from the very beginning (right, Mr. Zuhlsdorf?).
For 2020, there is one thing you can expect from Jorge the Humble, and that is epochal change. So don’t say you weren’t warned. In his encyclical against Modernism, Pope Pius X noted that the Modernists “lay down the general principle that in a living religion everything is subject to change, and must in fact be changed” (Encyclical Pascendi, n. 26). Bergoglio is no exception.
After so many nauseating words from the popular antipope, we will close with the divinely-inspired words of St. Paul the Apostle: “Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. For they that are such, serve not Christ our Lord, but their own belly; and by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent” (Rom 16:17-18).
Image source: youtube.com (screenshot)
License: fair use