Print Friendly, PDF & Email

How NOT to speak about the Holy Eucharist…

“The Greatness of God in a Piece of Bread”:

A Commentary on Francis’ Corpus Christi Sermon and Angelus Address

Always has a profound insight, or thinks he does: The Modernist antipope Jorge Bergoglio

This past Sunday, June 6, 2021, the Vatican observed the Solemnity of Corpus Christi or Corpus Domini, the Feast of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Most Holy Eucharist.

The false pope Jorge Bergoglio (“Francis”) has long had a very strained relationship with this feast. Not only does he habitually refuse to kneel before the “Blessed Sacrament” exposed for adoration (unlike for other occasions), he also refuses to participate in the processions (the only time he did was in 2013, his first year), and he repudiates the dogma of Transubstantiation, usually opting for the Lutheran heresy of Consubstantiation instead:

In a separate post, we already reported on the latest bout of Eucharistic Knee Failure that predictably attacked him; in this post, we shall focus on the words he spoke during his sermon, delivered in the evening, and what he said during the Angelus address he had given earlier in the day.

Here’s a quick preview: In his homily, Bergoglio used the word “bread” as many as ten times. By contrast, the word “Body” does not appear at all in the transcript. In his Angelus address, the fake pope used the word “Body” twice (once as part of the phrase “Solemnity of the Body and Blood of Christ”, the second time in quoting Mk 14:22). The word “bread”, on the other hand, he used nine times. But that’s not the focal point of our criticism.

Let’s begin with the sermon Francis preached during the “Mass” in St. Peter’s Basilica.

Speaking of the Upper Room, which Our Lord described as “a large dining room furnished” (Mk 14:15), Bergoglio says:

A large room for a tiny piece of Bread. God makes himself tiny, like a morsel of bread. That is precisely why we need a great heart to be able to recognize, adore and receive him. God’s presence is so humble, hidden and often unseen that, in order to recognize his presence, we need a heart that is ready, alert and welcoming. But if our heart, rather than a large room, is more like a closet where we wistfully keep things from the past, or an attic where we long ago stored our dreams and enthusiasm, or a dreary chamber filled only with us, our problems and our disappointments, then it will be impossible to recognize God’s silent and unassuming presence. We need a large room. We need to enlarge our hearts.

(Antipope Francis, Homily for Corpus Christi, Vatican.va, June 6, 2021)

As usual, Bergoglio offers a stream of gratuitous half-truths and ambiguity, wrapped in a shallow greeting card spirituality that cannot nourish the soul. (Although it may fill the soul at first sight, upon digestion it will quickly dissolve into nothing and leave only heartburn and bloating — so to speak.)

His “explanation” of the sacred text appears rather contrived. He speaks of a “large room for a tiny piece of Bread” — Bread! — and leaves out of account that Our Lord chose a large room for the Last Supper presumably because it needed to be spacious enough to allow for at least 13 people (Christ Himself and the twelve disciples) celebrating the Passover (see Mk 14:16), during which our Blessed Redeemer instituted and offered the First Holy Mass.

All of Francis’ talk about a “large heart” is quasi-poetic fluff. What does it mean? What exactly is a “large heart”? Why the figurative language? Why do we need a “heart” to recognize God’s Presence — isn’t that the role Faith plays, which is an intellectual assent? What is a heart that is “ready, alert, and welcoming”?

Why does a heart need to be “welcoming” in order to be able to recognize the Lord’s Presence? Does this mean that sinners are not able to recognize the Real Presence, that sinners cannot have Faith, that Faith without charity is not true Faith? That would be a heresy condemned by the Council of Trent: “If any one saith, that, grace being lost through sin, faith also is always lost with it; or, that the faith which remains, though it be not a lively faith, is not a true faith; or, that he, who has faith without charity, is not a Christian; let him be anathema” (Session VI, Canon 28).

Bergoglio continues:

We need to break out of our tiny self-enclosed space and enter the large room, the vast expanse of wonder and adoration. That is what we really need! It is what is missing in the many movements we create to meet and reflect together on our pastoral outreach. But if wonder and adoration are lacking, there is no road that leads to the Lord. Nor will there be the synod, nothing. Adoration: that is the attitude we need in the presence of the Eucharist. The Church too must be a large room. Not a small and closed circle, but a community with arms wide open, welcoming to all. Let us ask ourselves this question: when someone approaches who is hurting, who has made a mistake, who has gone astray in life, is the Church, this Church, a room large enough to welcome this person and lead him or her to the joy of an encounter with Christ?

Once again the fake pope present us with thoughts that are not necessarily wrong but that could be wrong, depending on how one chooses to understand them.

It is curious that Francis deplores the “self-enclosed space”, when it is Novus Ordo churches that are often built in circular fashion, giving the appearance that all those attending, including the presider, are closed in on themselves.

Catholics must genuinely seek and work towards the conversion and salvation of all people, that much is clear. However, that does not translate into “welcoming everyone as he is” to join in Catholic worship. Leading people to conversion is one thing — welcoming people to participate in church is quite another:

…[T]o spread the idea indiscriminately among non-Catholics that all are welcome would be to go beyond the confines of what toleration [of non-Catholics at Catholic services] really means. An “all are welcome” announcement inserted in the local newspaper or bulletin would degrade the one and true religion to the status of being regarded as just another religion. The Eucharistic Sacrifice is not just another service, but it is the one and only Sacrifice of the new Christian economy. …Only the faithful have the right to assist at Mass; the distinction must be kept that the presence of others is only tolerated.

(Rev. John A. Prah, Communication of Non-Catholics in Catholic Religious Rites [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1956], p. 101)

In short: Everyone is welcome to convert and become a practicing Catholic. That is the only truly universal welcome that God and His Church offer unconditionally.

Contrary to popular belief, our Blessed Lord did not offer friendship with Him unconditionally. He laid out the conditions very clearly at times; for example:

He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10:37-38)

Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. (Matthew 16:24)

And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned. (Mark 16:15-16)

Therefore I said to you, that you shall die in your sins. For if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin. (John 8:24)

Francis continues his travesty of a sermon:

Let us not forget that the Eucharist is meant to nourish those who are weary and hungry along the way. A Church of the pure and perfect is a room with no place for anyone. On the other hand, a Church with open doors, that gathers and celebrates around Christ, is a large room where everyone – everyone, the righteous and sinners – can enter.

How about that! So now he strikes a different tune. Whereas a few sentences earlier, he was emphasizing that we must have a heart that is of a certain size, and is like this or like that, to be able to even so much as recognize God’s Presence — remember, he was not talking about a worthy reception of the Holy Eucharist but merely about a discernment of His True Presence — now he suddenly shifts into “the Eucharist is for sinners” mode. If the Holy Eucharist is for sinners, does it then not help to make their hearts large and welcoming? Do people with hearts like “attics where long ago they stored their dreams and enthusiasm” not also qualify for being “weary and hungry along the way”?

Yes, Holy Communion is indeed for sinners, to aid them in their sanctification so that they may stop sinning and attain to perfect holiness of life; but that is true only for venial sinners and those mortal sinners who are supernaturally contrite and have been absolved sacramentally before receiving. The Eucharist is not for the recalcitrant, for those who are happily steeped in mortal sin and seek to continue therein. It is not for those who do not believe and have no sanctifying grace in their souls. That does not mean that such souls are entirely beyond hope, it just means that they are not fit to approach the Communion rail. They must first convert and receive a different sacrament, that of penance (confession), assuming they have been baptized.

As for the “open doors”, notice that the Gospel says nothing about the size of the door leading to the Upper Room. One may surmise it was not particularly large, and that during the Last Supper it was locked. “All are welcome” is definitely not a sign that hung on that door. The only people welcome at the Last Supper were those twelve whom our Lord had invited, no one else. Of course Francis could have made that point in his homily, but he chose not to because it obviously conflicts with the narrative he wants to communicate: that all are welcome and no one is to be excluded from receiving the Novus Ordo “communion” cookie, especially not politicians who enable all kinds of sins against the Fifth and Sixth Commandments. More on that later.

Francis, filthy heretic that he is, continually mischaracterizes Holy Communion as being either only for the pure and perfect — of which there are none (excepting, of course, the Blessed Virgin Mary 2000 years ago) — or for everyone, including the obstinate scum of the earth. By framing the issue in this misleading manner, he deceives countless souls because of course the truth lies in between these two extremes: The Holy Eucharist is for some sinners but not for all, as explained moments ago. That’s because not all sins are equally serious and not all sinners are sorry for their sins.

Our recent post on Blase Cupich playing the same trick on souls explains this in more depth:

Francis then makes another about-face. Having just declared that everyone is equally welcome — at least everyone with a large-enough “heart” — he then switches back into restrictive mode, telling us that “everyone” doesn’t really mean everyone:

The Lord who asks nothing but gives everything. In celebrating and experiencing the Eucharist, we too are called to share in this love. For we cannot break bread on Sunday if our hearts are closed to our brothers and sisters. We cannot partake of that Bread if we do not give bread to the hungry. We cannot share that Bread unless we share the sufferings of our brothers and sisters in need.

So right after telling us that God “asks nothing but gives everything” — itself a highly problematic claim that easily lends itself to being understood in a heretical sense — Bergoglio proceeds to list the stipulations for a worthy reception after all. And wouldn’t you know it, all the conditions he specifies have to do with temporal concerns: not having hearts “closed” to others (whatever that means); feeding the hungry; sharing the sufferings of the needy. These are good and noble things, but notice the utter absence of anything pertaining to the supernatural relations between the soul and God. As always, Francis remains on the horizontal plane: His concern is only between man and his fellow-men, not between man and God.

For those who know him, this is not surprising. He is, after all, a Naturalist, and he underscores that in a subsequent claim: “Even now, our Eucharistic celebrations are transforming the world to the extent that we are allowing ourselves to be transformed and to become bread broken for others.”

Although the Novus Ordo “Eucharistic celebrations” are not the genuine Holy Catholic Mass, let us pretend for a moment that they were. Notice how Francis is implying that the efficacy of Holy Mass consists in this, that those attending are encouraged or enabled to do good works to the benefit of others. That is a thoroughly Protestant idea that requires neither belief in Transubstantiation nor in the Mass as propitiatory Sacrifice, but it is par for the course for a Naturalist like Bergoglio.

Nevertheless, the Council of Trent warns:

If anyone says that the sacrifice of the Mass is only one of praise and thanksgiving, or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the Cross, but not one of propitiation; or that it is of profit to him alone who receives; or that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities: let him be anathema.

(Council of Trent, Session XXII, Canon 3; Denz. 950)

Hence Pope Pius XI writes that Holy Mass “has a real efficacy unto the reconciliation of sinners with the Divine Majesty” (Encyclical Ad Catholici Sacerdotii, n. 14). The offering of the Holy Sacrifice causes an outpouring of boundless graces on souls, thus helping to bring about untold conversions throughout the world. And by “conversions” we don’t mean conversions to an integral ecology or to sustainable development; nor do we mean conversions from indifference and selfishness to compassion and generosity. Rather, we mean sinners returning to God, men who go from a state of sin to a state of justification through God’s grace. “Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you” (Mt 6:33).

But enough of Francis’ evening sermon. Let’s move on to Francis’ Angelus address of the same day, which wasn’t any better.

Right in the second paragraph the false pope declares that “today once more we find the greatness of God in a piece of Bread….” There is his denial of Transubstantiation again, a denial he would disavow, of course, were he ever to be challenged on it publicly and directly.

The papal impostor then addresses the question of worthiness of receiving Holy Communion again. He claims:

And there is another strength that stands out in the fragility of the Eucharist: the strength to love those who make mistakes. It is on the night he is betrayed that Jesus gives us the Bread of Life. He gives us the greatest gift while in his heart he feels the deepest abyss: the disciple who eats with Him, who dips the morsel in the same plate, is betraying Him. And betrayal is the worst suffering for one who loves.  And what does Jesus do? He reacts to the evil with a greater good. He responds to Judas’ ‘no’ with the ‘yes’ of mercy. He does not punish the sinner, but rather gives His life for him; He pays for him. When we receive the Eucharist, Jesus does the same with us: he knows us; he knows we are sinners; he knows we make many mistakes, but he does not give up on joining his life to ours. He knows that we need it, because the Eucharist is not the reward of saints, but the Bread of sinners.

(Antipope Francis, Angelus address, Vatican.va, June 6, 2021; italics given.)

Francis isn’t terribly intelligent, but he is clever. We can all understand in what larger context he is offering these words, and we can read between the lines. He is obviously trying to ensure that the “Catholic” politicians who enable all kinds of heinous sins against the Fifth and Sixth Commandments will continue to be served the Novus Ordo wafer at communion time. His unstated argument is that if Judas Iscariot was not barred from Holy Communion, surely no one else should be either! (For a moment he must have forgotten those whose “hearts are closed to [their] brothers and sisters” and who “do not give bread to the hungry”, but then consistency isn’t his strong suit.)

In any case, Bergoglio’s argumentation is thoroughly disingenuous.

First, notice the euphemistic language in which he couches the matter. He speaks of “those who make mistakes”, as though we were talking about missing an exit on the expressway — that would be making a mistake. We are all sinners, and God wants to forgive even our most serious sins, but let’s not pretend that horrendous violations of the Divine Law are mere “mistakes.”

Some truly horrific evil is committed with full deliberation and malice; some is so outrageous and abominable that it defies imagination and is mentioned in vernacular moral theology books in Latin only so that the common readership is prudently shielded from it. Any sin we are genuinely and supernaturally sorry for can be forgiven, but it is very misleading and unjust to speak of sins in general as mere mistakes, as this “Pope” likes to do. They’re not mistakes; they’re sins. They’re voluntary transgressions of God’s Law! A man who comes to confession like a politician, announcing that “mistakes were made” instead of sorrowfully accusing himself of his sins, cannot be absolved.

Second, it is telling that Francis speaks of “mistakes” in the context of Judas Iscariot betraying our Lord. It is well known that the Argentinian apostate has a soft spot for the traitor, of whom our Lord said that he would be lost (see Jn 17:12; Mk 14:21):

Given this, it is not surprising that Francis spins the Gospel text into a more Judas-friendly direction, arguing that Christ “responds to Judas’ ‘no’ with the ‘yes’ of mercy.” But does He really? It depends on what is meant. As usual, Bergoglio leaves things vague and ambiguous enough so everyone can take from his words what he would like to hear.

Francis makes it seem as though Christ giving Holy Communion to Judas meant He was forgiving his betrayal. For one thing, it is by no means certain that Judas received Holy Communion at all at the Last Supper. That is one of those questions the Church has never settled and allows Catholics to hold either position on. And even if Judas did receive Holy Communion, it was in a state of mortal sin, which means his Communion did not impart forgiveness or grace to him but, on the contrary, added even greater guilt to his troubled soul, thereby increasing the severity of his damnation:

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. (1 Cor 11:29)

O God, from whom Judas received the punishment of his guilt, and the thief the reward of his confession: grant unto us the full fruit of Thy clemency; that even as in His Passion, our Lord Jesus Christ gave to each a retribution according to his merits, so having taken away our old sins, He may bestow upon us the grace of His Resurrection. Who with Thee liveth and reigneth in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen.

(Roman Missal, Collect for Holy Thursday; underlining added.)

Bergoglio continues: “He does not punish the sinner, but rather gives His life for him; He pays for him.” It is true that Christ, when the human race was laboring under the guilt and consequences of original sin (see Rom 5:12), rather than punishing us all and giving us the just reward for our sins, He instead redeemed us gratuitously, solely out of His goodness and mercy (see Rom 3:23-24), enabling us to save our souls. In that sense, one can say that God did not punish the sinner but instead gave His Life for him.

However, this is not what Francis means, at least not only, for he immediately ties his thought to the reception of Holy Communion: “When we receive the Eucharist, Jesus does the same with us: he knows us; he knows we are sinners; he knows we make many mistakes, but he does not give up on joining his life to ours. He knows that we need it, because the Eucharist is not the reward of saints, but the Bread of sinners.”

With these words, it is clear what message Francis is sending: Even if our sins be as scarlet as those of Judas Iscariot, Christ forgives them in Holy Communion. That is not only false, it is outrageous, impious, and condemned! The Council of Trent declared:

If anyone says that faith alone is sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist: let him be anathema. And that so great a Sacrament may not be unworthily received, and therefore unto death and condemnation, this holy Council ordains and declares that sacramental confession must necessarily be made beforehand by those whose conscience is burdened by mortal sin, however contrite they may consider themselves. If anyone moreover teaches the contrary or preaches or obstinately asserts, or even publicly by disputation shall presume to defend the contrary, by that fact itself he is excommunicated.

(Council of Trent, Session XIII, Canon 11; Denz. 893)

Alas, this won’t bother Francis. After all, what is one more anathema, one more excommunication? He’s been piling them up left and right, and not just since he usurped the papal throne eight years ago.

Again the Jesuit antipope employs the false dichotomy regarding the Eucharist being either the reward of saints or the spiritual nourishment of souls in mortal sin. The truth is, once again, that Holy Communion is medicine for sinners in the state of sanctifying grace. When received by those in mortal sin, it does not forgive, it does not heal, it does not help; it only furthers a soul’s spiritual ruin and eventual damnation.

This is basic Catholic doctrine. Bergoglio knows it and denies it. Of course he does so “between the lines”, because that is what allows him to play innocent orthodox butterfly while nevertheless instilling condemned errors in as many souls as possible, thus making their ruin all the more certain.

Continuing his Angelus address, Francis claims that in the reception of Holy Communion, Christ “comes to give new meaning to our fragilities.” Although he explains what “fragilities” he has in mind — you know, such as “closing off within ourselves” and, naturally, that horrendous “rigidity” we all have — he fails to say just how receiving Christ in the Blessed Sacrament again and again “give[s] new meaning” to our sins. But then, it probably just sounded good to him, and, well, he’s got to say something, so….

The Frankster ends his insufferable discourse by claiming, or at least giving the impression (wink, wink), that the reason Christ instituted the Holy Eucharist is so we would assist the needy: “This is the logic of the Eucharist: we receive Jesus who loves us and heals our fragilities in order to love others and help them in their fragilities; and this lasts our entire life.”

Once again he has found a way to tout his pernicious “gospel of man”, in which there is heavy emphasis on the horizontal and the temporal, to the almost complete eclipsing of the supernatural, the soul, and man’s eternal destiny. In that false gospel, Francis continually places the eternal, the supernatural, the spiritual at the service of the transient, the natural, and the temporal. Instead of using the natural world to raise our minds to heavenly realities, as our Lord Jesus Christ did (see Mt 13:44-48; cf. Col 3:2), Francis does the opposite: He appeals to heavenly things in order to make a point about what is worldly and ephemeral.

Just as he uses Christ’s institution of the Holy Eucharist to teach that we are to receive it so we can “become bread broken for others” (Corpus Christi sermon), so the antipope does with Christ’s Resurrection: “Thanks to the Risen Lord, the faith opens us to our neighbour and to his needs, from the littlest to the greatest” (Address to CDF Plenary Meeting, Jan. 30, 2020). This is the Bergoglian strategy:

Although our Blessed Lord certainly did alleviate human temporal suffering, that is not the reason He became Man. Christ came to redeem us from sin and to trace out for us the Way of the Cross (cf. Lk 9:23; Jn 19:17), showing how we are to approach our temporal sufferings so as to transform them, by the aid of His grace, into beautiful stepping stones to eternal happiness.

The essence of the Gospel is supernatural, not natural. Yet Francis continually distorts the true Gospel by naturalizing it. Instead of preaching the Beatific Vision as man’s ultimate end, and proclaiming the necessity of becoming Catholic and persevering to the end to obtain it (see Mk 16:15-16; Mt 10:22), Bergoglio preaches a utopian earthly future that is to be secured by people of all “religious traditions” (the Vatican’s vocabulary of choice these days) holding hands, welcoming strangers, and assisting the needy.

Francis is hard at work to prepare his hapless flock to receive the Antichrist.

For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect.

(Matthew 24:24; cf. John 5:43)

Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God.

(2 Thess 2:3-4)

Although he is not the Antichrist himself, Bergoglio has been preparing his way by preaching Antichrist doctrine.

For Corpus Christi, he even managed to turn the “Bread of Angels” (Ps 77:25) into the “Bread of Sinners.”

Image source: youtube.com (screenshot)
License: fair use

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.