Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Heretical blasphemer is Preacher of Papal Household…

Francis raises Apostate Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa to Rank of “Cardinal”

Yesterday, Oct. 25, the apostate Jesuit Jorge Bergoglio, who styles himself “Pope Francis”, announced a consistory for the creation of a new batch of “cardinals” on Nov. 28, 2020. A total of 13 individuals will receive the red hat then; among them are “Abp.” Wilton Gregory of Washington, D.C., “Bp.” Mario Grech, and Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, O.F.M. Cap.

In light of the revelations about former “Cardinal” Theodore McCarrick, Wilton Gregory is a daring but not surprising choice: Gregory has been described as a “protégé of Cdl. Joseph Bernardin, who actively promoted homosexuality” and also a “longtime associate of Theodore McCarrick” (source). His appointment certainly does fit the pattern we have come to expect from the “Dictator Pope”, however.

The Maltese Mario Grech, who was recently appointed Secretary General for the Synod of Bishops, is another “pink prelate”. Moreover, he has been at the forefront of interpreting and implementing Francis’ guidelines given in Amoris Laetitia for the reception of “Holy Communion” by the publicly unworthy.

And then there’s Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa. Ordained a priest in 1958, the now-86-year-old Franciscan Capuchin has been the so-called Preacher of the Papal Household since 1980, when John Paul II appointed him to that post. The Preacher of the Papal Household is the only person on earth who is permitted to preach to the Pope — or, in our bizarre times, to the Antipope.

As far back as 2002, when John Paul II was still at the helm of the Modernist Sect, Fr. Cantalamessa revealed himself to be a hardcore apostate. He preached on Good Friday, in the very presence of the “Pope”, the incredible blasphemy that God does not merely passively tolerate false religions but positively wills their existence!

Cantalamessa said verbatim that such religions “are not merely tolerated by God but positively willed by Him as an expression of the inexhaustible richness of His grace and His will for everyone to be saved” (Sermon of March 29, 2002). This is obviously outlandish and manifestly contrary even to right reason. It also incurs the anathema pronounced at the Council of Trent: “If anyone shall say that it is not in the power of man to make his ways evil, but that God produces the evil as well as the good works, not only by permission, but also properly and of Himself, so that the betrayal of Judas is no less His own proper work than the vocation of Paul: let him be anathema” (Session 6; Canon 6; Denz. 816).

It took us a while, but were able to dig up an archived copy of the Catholic News Service news blurb, dated Apr. 1, 2002, in which this was reported in English (no, it wasn’t an April Fool’s joke):

A direct link to the cached web page from which this screenshot is taken, is available here. The full text of the sermon, in the original Italian, can be accessed here (scroll down to where the text begins with “Le cronache del tempo”).

This staggering and heretical blasphemy was uttered by Cantalamessa long before Francis ever signed the Abu Dhabi declaration on human fraternity, in which it is likewise blasphemously maintained that God desires a diversity of religions. However, even the Abu Dhabi document was not as explicit about it as the Capuchin apostate on Good Friday 17 years ago, which is why Francis thought he could get away with lying to “Bp.” Athanasius Schneider about it.

Either way, both Cantalamessa and Francis have basically developed the blasphemous teaching of the Second Vatican Council that God uses false religions as means of salvation. If that were so, what use would there be for one true revealed religion? What would be the need for the Great Commission (see Mt 28:19-20; Mk 16:15-16)? To what end would St. John the Baptist say, “He that believeth in the Son, hath life everlasting; but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him” (Jn 3:36)? Why would St. Paul put the Thessalonians on alert that “God shall send … the operation of error, to believe lying: that all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity” (2 Thes 2:10-11)? And why would St. John the Evangelist warn that “[w]hosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God” (2 Jn 9)?

Make no mistake about it: As evil as sodomy and other sins against purity are, they do not come close to the heretical blasphemy uttered by Fr. Cantalamessa! If a sexually impure person retains Faith and hope, he can find forgiveness in confession or, absent that opportunity, perfect charity. His adherence to the true Faith shows him the path to forgiveness and reconciliation with God. The heretic, on the other hand, has no Faith; he has abandoned the only way to salvation (cf. Heb 11:6) and therefore cannot find forgiveness until he once again returns to the true Faith (cf. Heb 6:4-6).

This particular heresy about God positively willing false religions is not Fr. Cantalamessa’s only case of spiritual misconduct, of course. In fact, the Franciscan apostate is a big name in the so-called “Charismatic Movement” and an ardent proponent of so-called “Baptism in the Spirit”, one of the Charismatic pseudo-sacraments that such Novus Ordos and Protestants believe in.

Interestingly enough, Cantalamessa was present when “Pope” Francis, then “Cardinal” Bergoglio, received this “Baptism in the Spirit” on June 19, 2006, in Buenos Aires:

[Bergoglio’s] link with the Charismatic Renewal grew stronger especially between 2006 and 2012, when Cardinal Bergoglio attended yearly gatherings of around 7,000 Catholics and evangelicals in Luna Park stadium in Buenos Aires, among the biggest such ecumenical praise meetings at that time anywhere. Hesitant at first, the cardinal came up to be prayed over by the church’s leading charismatic preacher, the Capuchin friar and preacher to the papal household, Father Raniero Cantalamessa, together with a handful of pentecostal pastors. He was said to have received a “baptism in the Spirit,” an experience of the pneumatic power mentioned often in the New Testament.

(Austen Ivereigh, “Is Francis our first charismatic pope?”, America, June 14, 2019)

Thankfully, we need not rely on mere verbal reports of this incident. We actually have some video footage available of it. Take a look:

(footage begins at 3:00 min into the video)

Don’t be surprised at a Protestant pastor praying over Bergoglio. The Charismatic Movement is all about ecumenism and religious Indifferentism. As long as you’ve got that “Spirit” with its “pneumatic power”, you’re good to go — what dogmas you affirm or doctrines you believe in, is not that important. In the case of Francis, that special “Baptism” must have engendered in him a direct connection with the god of surprises:

In Cardinal Bergoglio’s case it led to a new boldness, especially in ecumenism. He began to meet regularly to pray with evangelicals, convinced that the Spirit was at work in bringing them together. Since his election in 2013, he has continued that openness, reaching out through the renewal to evangelicals and Pentecostals, who are quick to recognize in him one of their own. Francis has invoked the Holy Spirit so often and so emphatically, constantly emphasizing the “new things” the Spirit is calling forth and the dangers of resisting it through rigidity and ideology, that he is arguably not just history’s first Jesuit pope but also the first charismatic pope.

(Austen Ivereigh, “Is Francis our first charismatic pope?”)

There is no doubt that some spirit entered Bergoglio at some point, but it definitely wasn’t the Holy Ghost.

Returning to Fr. Cantalamessa, we must not fail to mention two other Good Friday homilies of his. In the one given in 2013, right after Francis’ election, he prepped his audience for the Bergoglian revolution:

We must do everything possible so that the Church may never look like that complicated and cluttered castle described by [Franz] Kafka, and the message may come out of it as free and joyous as when the messenger began his run. We know what the impediments are that can restrain the messenger: dividing walls, starting with those that separate the various Christian churches from one another, the excess of bureaucracy, the residue of past ceremonials, laws and disputes, now only debris.

As happens with certain old buildings. Over the centuries, to adapt to the needs of the moment, they become filled with partitions, staircases, rooms and closets. The time comes when we realize that all these adjustments no longer meet the current needs, but rather are an obstacle, so we must have the courage to knock them down and return the building to the simplicity and linearity of its origins….

(Rev. Raniero Cantalamessa, O.F.M. Cap., Good Friday Sermon, Zenit, Mar. 29, 2013)

Knocking things down has long been a favorite idea of the Modernists, among them Fr. Hans Urs von Balthasar (in 1952) and Fr. Joseph Ratzinger (in 1982). Fr. Yves Congar had his own way of showing appreciation for Catholic orthodoxy.

Lastly, let’s have a look at Cantalamessa’s Good Friday sermon of this year, 2020. He tries to make his listeners believe that God does not ever punish the world anymore:

The cross of Christ has changed the meaning of pain and human suffering—of every kind of suffering, physical and moral. It is no longer punishment, a curse. It was redeemed at its root when the Son of God took it upon himself. What is the surest proof that the drink someone offers you is not poisoned? It is if that person drinks from the same cup before you do. This is what God has done: on the cross he drank, in front of the whole world, the cup of pain down to its dregs. This is how he showed us it is not poisoned, but that there is a pearl at the bottom of this chalice.

(Rev. Raniero Cantalamessa, Good Friday Sermon, Catholic News Agency, Apr. 10, 2020)

As is typical for a Modernist, Cantalamessa puts forward half-truths. Certainly, our Blessed Lord has redeemed suffering, so to speak. He has made it potentially meritorious. However, this does not mean that no suffering is a punishment, it simply means that any such punishment can be used as a means to convert, grow in holiness, and obtain countless graces and blessings.

That God certainly does punish people even in the New Covenant, is obvious from history, common sense, Sacred Tradition, and the New Testament itself. In fact, Catholic doctrines such as purgatory and indulgences cannot be understood without the notion of temporal punishment due to sin: “If anyone shall say that after the reception of the grace of justification, to every penitent sinner the guilt is so remitted and the penalty of eternal punishment so blotted out that no penalty of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in the world to come in purgatory before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened: let him be anathema” (Council of Trent, Session 6, Canon 30; Denz. 840; underlining added).

Sometimes God even punishes by allowing sinners to become hardened in sin and fall ever deeper into vice and immorality — a most dreadful chastisement. For instance, in his letter to the Romans, St. Paul writes:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things. Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient….

(Romans 1:18-28)

In fact, St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans is filled with references to God’s wrath; for example:

And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them who do such things, and dost the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness, and patience, and longsuffering? Knowest thou not, that the benignity of God leadeth thee to penance? But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest up to thyself wrath, against the day of wrath, and revelation of the just judgment of God. Who will render to every man according to his works. To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life: But to them that are contentious, and who obey not the truth, but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation. (Rom 2:3-8)

But if our injustice commend the justice of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust, who executeth wrath? (I speak according to man.) God forbid: otherwise how shall God judge this world? (Rom 3:5-6)

What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction, that he might shew the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he hath prepared unto glory? (Rom 9:22-23)

Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved; but give place unto wrath, for it is written: Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord. (Rom 12:19)

For as long as the sinner is still capable of reform, God’s punishments can be redemptive for him. It depends on how the sinner responds to them. With God’s grace, he can use his suffering to amend his ways, to do penance for his sins, to expiate the temporal punishment due to them, and even to attain a great degree of glory in Heaven. This means there is still hope even for Fr. Cantalamessa! But none of this means that God does not send punishment. Did our Blessed Lord not state very clearly: “Amen I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city [that rejects the Gospel]” (Mt 10:15)?

Cantalamessa was preaching in the context of the question whether God was punishing the world with Coronavirus. He stated:

God is our ally, not the ally of the virus! He himself says in the Bible, “I have . . . plans for your welfare and not for woe” (Jer 29:11). If these scourges were punishments of God, it would not be explained why they strike equally good and bad, and why the poor usually bring the worst consequences of them. Are they more sinners than others?

That is perhaps how a Naturalist thinks, but a Catholic knows that, contrary to the impression given by Francis and his henchmen, this world is not our home: “He that cometh from above, is above all. He that is of the earth, of the earth he is, and of the earth he speaketh. He that cometh from heaven, is above all” (Jn 3:31); “For we know, if our earthly house of this habitation be dissolved, that we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in heaven. For in this also we groan, desiring to be clothed upon with our habitation that is from heaven” (2 Cor 5:1-2).

We were not created for temporal life but for Life Eternal. Everything that occurs, takes place within the Providence of an all-just and all-good God, sometimes to manifest His power, His goodness, or His justice (cf. Jn 9:1-3), but never without an overabundant reward for those who persevere in love for Him (cf. Mt 19:29; Is 64:4; 1 Cor 2:9).

With all his errors, heresies, blasphemies, and confusion, can we really be surprised at what he says next?

Did God the Father possibly desire the death of his Son in order to draw good out of it? No, he simply permitted human freedom to take its course, making it serve, however, his own purposes and not those of human beings.

He dares to contend that God did not positively will the Passion and Death of our Blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ but merely permitted it! Yet at the same time, as we saw, he claims that God positively wills the existence of false religions! What heresy! What blasphemy!

Our Blessed Lord Himself refuted it in His discourse with Nicodemus and before He lovingly ascended Mount Calvary for us:

For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting. For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him.

(John 3:16-17)

Therefore doth the Father love me: because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No man taketh it away from me: but I lay it down of myself, and I have power to lay it down: and I have power to take it up again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

(John 10:17-18)

In fact, our dear Savior’s voluntary Way of the Cross was prophesied as far back as the book of Genesis, when Abraham said to Isaac, who was carrying on his back the wood for the sacrifice: “God will provide himself a victim for an holocaust, my son” (Gen 22:8). It was also foretold by the Prophet Isaias, who makes clear it was God’s positive Will to sacrifice His Son for us:

He was offered because it was his own will, and he opened not his mouth: he shall be led as a sheep to the slaughter, and shall be dumb as a lamb before his shearer, and he shall not open his mouth…. And the Lord was pleased to bruise him in infirmity: if he shall lay down his life for sin, he shall see a long-lived seed, and the will of the Lord shall be prosperous in his hand.

(Isaias 53:7,10; cf. Phil 2:8-9)

The implications of Cantalamessa’s heretical view are staggering. For one thing, it could greatly lessen the faithful’s love for the Sacred Heart, for it would mean that it was not actually God’s positive Will to redeem us, but merely His will not to step in and prevent the Redemption — as though man, in a sense, had accomplished the Redemption, and Christ merely didn’t mind playing a part in it! By that logic, one might as well say that Judas Iscariot redeemed us! What outrageous and blasphemous wickedness!

Embed from Getty Images

Just think about all this for a moment: According to Cantalamessa, who is “baptized in the Spirit”, God did not positively will to redeem the human race through the Passion and Death of His Son, but he does positively will the existence of Protestantism, Judaism, Islam, Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, and other false religions!

Ladies and gentlemen, this is all you need to know to understand why “Pope” Francis has chosen this man to become a “cardinal”!

Image sources: youtube.com (screenshot) / archive.org (screenshot) / Getty Images
Licenses: fair use / fair use / Getty embed

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.