False pope poisons vulnerable souls…
Hot Air and Heresy:
Bergoglio misleads Young People in Athens
Earlier this month, “Pope” Francis (Jorge Bergoglio) graced the people of Cyprus and Greece not only with his humble presence but also his infinite wisdom, which he is always very eager to communicate.
In our latest podcast, TRADCAST EXPRESS 144, we took apart a few objectionable things His Phoniness said in Cyprus, specifically regarding walls, proselytism, the claim that God never tires of forgiving, and the idea that “the Gospel is not handed on by communication but by communion.” You can listen here:
More TRADCAST episodes are available on our Soundcloud channel here
After spending two days in Cyprus, Francis traveled to Greece.
His last stop before returning to Rome was a meeting with young people at St. Dionysius School of the Ursuline Sisters in the Greek capital of Athens. It was there, on Dec. 6, that the false pope unloaded a large heap of his usual ideological claptrap. Vatican News has made available video footage of the unfortunate occasion:
Francis’ address basically consisted of his reaction to testimonies that had been given by several pre-selected youngsters in attendance. Let’s examine the first load of bilge Francis dumped on his hapless audience:
Katerina, you told us about your recurring doubts of faith. I want to say to you and to everyone here: don’t be afraid of doubts, because they are not a sign of the lack of faith. Don’t be afraid of doubts. On the contrary, doubts are “vitamins of faith”: they help strengthen faith and make it more robust. They enable faith to grow, to become more conscious, free and mature. They make it more eager to set out, to persevere with humility, day after day. Faith is precisely that: a daily journey with Jesus who takes us by the hand, accompanies us, encourages us, and, when we fall, lifts us up. He is never afraid to do this. Faith is like a love story, where we press forward together, day after day. Like a love story too, there are times when we have to think, to face questions, to look into our hearts. And that is good, because it raises the quality of the relationship! This is very important for you, because you cannot travel the path of faith blind, no; instead, dialogue with God, with your conscience and with others.
(Antipope Francis, Address at Meeting with Young People, Vatican.va, Dec. 6, 2021; underlining added.)
We have some news for Jorge Bergoglio: Faith isn’t a journey; rather, Faith is, in essence, a “theological virtue by which our intellect is disposed to assent firmly to all the truths revealed by God, because of the infinite truth and wisdom of God who can neither deceive or be deceived” (Donald Attwater, ed., A Catholic Dictionary, 3rd ed., s.v. “Faith”, ii.).
From this definition — which Catholics recall every time they pray the Act of Faith — it is quite evident that doubts are contrary to Faith and therefore not compatible with it, because a man who is in doubt withholds the very assent that the virtue of Faith inclines to and that the Act of Faith gives.
Now of course not all doubt is voluntary, and in fact not all doubt is even real. Catholic theology draws some very important distinctions when assessing the morality of doubt. The complete moral treatment of doubt in regard to Faith can be found in paragraphs 840-846 of Moral Theology by Fathers John McHugh and Charles Callan (available electronically here). We will quote only the most pertinent passages:
840. The Sin of Doubt.—Faith as explained above must be firm assent, excluding doubt (see 752, 799), and hence the saying: “He who doubts is an unbeliever.” The word “doubt,” however, has many meanings, and in some of those meanings it is not opposed to firm assent, or has not the voluntariness or acceptance of error that the unbelief of heresy or infidelity includes. To begin with, doubt is either methodical or real.
(a) Methodical doubt in matters of faith is an inquiry into the motives of credibility of religion and the reasons that support dogma, made by one who has not the slightest fear that reason or science can ever contradict faith, but who consults them for the purpose of clarifying his knowledge and of strengthening his own faith or that of others. This kind of doubt is employed by St. Thomas Aquinas, who questions about each dogma in turn (e.g., “Whether God is good”), and examines the objections of unbelievers against it; but unlike his namesake, the doubting Apostle, he does not withhold assent until reason has answered the objectors, but answers his own questions by an act of faith: “In spite of all difficulties, God is good, for His Word says: ‘The Lord is good to them that hope in Him, to the soul that seeketh Him’ (Lament, iii. 25).”
(b) Real doubt, on the contrary, entertains fears that the teachings of revelation or of the Church may be untrue, or that the opposite teachings may be true.
841. Real doubt in matters of faith is always unjustifiable in itself, for there is never any just reason for doubting God’s word; but it is not always a sin of heresy or of infidelity. There are two kinds of real doubt, viz., the involuntary and the voluntary.
(a) Doubt is involuntary, when it is without or contrary to the inclination of the will, or when it proceeds from lack of knowledge (see 40-55 on the Impediments to Voluntariness). Example: Indeliberate doubts, and doubts that persist in spite of one, lack the inclination of the will, while doubts that proceed from invincible ignorance lack knowledge.
(b) Doubt is voluntary, when it is according to inclination and with sufficient knowledge.
842. Involuntary doubt in matters of faith is neither heretical nor sinful, for an act is not sinful, unless it is willed (see 99).
(a) Indeliberate doubts arise in the mind before they are adverted to and without any responsibility of one’s own for their appearance. From what was said above on first motions of the soul (see 129), it is clear that such doubts are not sinful.
(b) Unwelcome doubts persist in the mind after they have been adverted to, and, since faith is obscure (see 752, 799), it is not possible to exclude all conscious doubts, or even to prevent them from occurring often or lasting a considerable time. From what was said above on temptation (see 253 sqq.), it is clear that, if the person troubled with unwished doubts makes prompt and sufficient resistance, he not only does not sin, but gains merit. But, if his resistance is not all it should be, and there is no danger of consent to the temptation, he sins venially.
(c) Ignorant doubts occur in persons who have not received sufficient religious instruction, through no fault of their own, and who therefore regard the doctrines of faith as matters of opinion, or at least look upon doubts as not sinful. From what was said above on invincible ignorance (see 30), it is clear that such persons do not sin by their doubts.
(Rev. John A. McHugh & Rev. Charles J. Callan, Moral Theology, vol. 1 [New York, NY: Joseph F. Wagner, 1958], nn. 840-841; underlining added.)
It is easy to see, then, that doubts are a serious matter. While not all doubts are equally sinful and some are not sinful at all, it is a recipe for disaster to tell youngsters not to be afraid of doubts and to make them think that doubt is not contrary to Faith — especially without any qualifications or distinctions.
This is confirmed when we look at Francis’ remarks in context, that is, when we listen to the testimony by the young woman to which he was responding. The testimony can be heard in the video above beginning at the 11:50 min mark. There is a young, vulnerable soul who is sincerely struggling with doubts about God’s goodness and love for all human beings. She has so many questions that she cannot find satisfying answers to, especially why it is that we have to suffer in this life. That is a question Francis’ false gospel cannot answer because it is saturated with Naturalism.
A brief Catholic answer to that question is that only suffering, when raised to the supernatural level with the grace merited for us by Christ, can cure the profound disorder in our souls caused by original and actual sin. We must always remember that although the guilt of sin is remitted by baptism and in the sacrament of confession, and even by perfect contrition, the temporal consequences of original and actual sin remain, especially that of concupiscence. Although forgiven, we are still, by (fallen) nature, inclined to commit sin, which is why we fall again and again: “For a just man shall fall seven times and shall rise again: but the wicked shall fall down into evil” (Prov 24:16); “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 Jn 1:8).
Only the supernatural embrace of suffering — think: penance — allows us to mortify ourselves internally and externally with the goal of a holy death and a Blessed Eternity: “If we suffer, we shall also reign with him. If we deny him, he will also deny us” (2 Tim 2:12). The only road to Heaven, the only path that leads to the Resurrection unto Eternal Life, is the “narrow way” of suffering, it is the way of the Cross: “Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat” (Mt 7:13); “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me” (Lk 9:23).
This is why St. Paul can say that he “now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church” (Col 1:24). It is truly a glorious thing to be allowed to suffer for Christ’s sake (cf. Acts 5:41), for it not only allows us to overcome our sinful inclinations but also constitutes a share in the sufferings of the Mystical Body, in which it is Christ Himself who suffers.
Needless to say, these are things that this dear young lady who gave her testimony was never taught in Novus Ordo catechism, and so she is understandably confused. It would have been Bergoglio’s job to enlighten her by feeding her the supernatural truth of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ our Lord. Instead, he loaded her up with fluffy remarks about how her doubts supposedly enhance her faith and make it more mature! Instead of providing satisfying answers to her sincere and important questions, he congratulated her for asking them and then left her hanging, distracting her with words about conscience, a love story, and dialogue!
The remarkable and saintly Fr. Edward Leen mopped the floor with Francis’ Naturalism when he wrote in 1938:
…To Christians, who persist in thinking that the function of Christianity is to provide men with good things and banish from their life evil things — understanding by good and evil what appear such to fallen human nature — life will speedily prove unintelligible. To men with such views the mystery of pain becomes insoluble. In the face of the harsh realities of existence their belief stands condemned. They have no answer to give to the ever-recurring question: if God is kind and good and tender towards human suffering, why does suffering continue to be not only for those that deserve it, but also for those who do not?
That Jesus, in His power and goodness, did not put an end to all human suffering shows that, in His eyes, suffering is not the real source of human unhappiness.
(Rev. Edward Leen, Why the Cross? [London: Sheed & Ward, 1938], pp. 54-56; italics given; underlining added. Full disclosure: Novus Ordo Watch makes a small commission on items purchased through this link.)
Francis has no answer to the problem of suffering, especially the suffering of children, because he is a Naturalist and not a Catholic.
Thus we can see that the false pope’s travesty of an answer to this young lady is doubly appalling. Not only did he not give her the supernatural truth she was craving, he even commended her for having doubts and essentially encouraged her to question the Catholic Faith even more! And not merely her, of course, but anyone who was listening or who ends up reading his remarks on the Vatican web site, all under the pious-sounding pretext that this “enable[s] faith to grow”.
For the Argentinian pseudo-pontiff, this isn’t new, however. He’s sung the praises of “virtuous” doubt before. In 2013, for instance, he had the audacity to say: “The great leaders of God’s people, like Moses, always left room for doubt. We must always leave room for the Lord and not for our own certainties. We must be humble. Every true discernment includes an element of uncertainty open to receiving spiritual consolation” (source).
Notice how he conflates “leaving room for doubt” with “leaving room for the Lord” when in fact the Lord commands assent, which by its nature excludes real doubt! Now it is true that Moses “left room for doubt” — indeed he did, but it didn’t go well for him:
And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Take the rod, and assemble the people together, thou and Aaron thy brother, and speak to the rock before them, and it shall yield waters. And when thou hast brought forth water out of the rock, all the multitude and their cattle shall drink. Moses therefore took the rod, which was before the Lord, as he had commanded him, and having gathered together the multitude before the rock, he said to them: Hear, ye rebellious and incredulous: Can we bring you forth water out of this rock? And when Moses had lifted up his hand, and struck the rock twice with the rod, there came forth water in great abundance, so that the people and their cattle drank, and the Lord said to Moses and Aaron: Because you have not believed me, to sanctify me before the children of Israel, you shall not bring these people into the land, which I will give them.
Moses was punished by God for his doubt! He had been ordered to speak to the rock to make water flow, yet Moses struck the rock, not once but twice!
When St. Thomas the Apostle (“Doubting Thomas”) doubted the testimony of the other disciples that Christ had risen from the dead, did the Lord commend him for being “humble”, for “leaving room” for Him, for not clinging to “certainties”? Of course not! No, St. Thomas’ doubt merited a gentle rebuke from the Risen Christ: “Then he saith to Thomas: Put in thy finger hither, and see my hands; and bring hither thy hand, and put it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing” (Jn 20:27).
Likewise, our Blessed Lord reprimanded the wavering St. Peter walking on the water, saying: “O thou of little faith, why didst thou doubt?” (Mt 14:31). The certainty of Faith is necessary for salvation! “But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him” (Heb 11:6).
What Francis ought to have done in the face of youngsters struggling with doubts concerning the Faith — and here we mean doubt in general, regardless of the specific theological question or moral problem — is first of all to teach them clearly the nature of Faith, dispelling any misconceptions (such as the idea that Faith is an “encounter”, or other such subjective concepts). Then he should have reinforced in them the reasonableness of Faith and the unreasonableness of doubts, reminding them that Faith rests on a solid rational foundation. Further, he should have encouraged them in prayer and other spiritual exercises to strengthen Faith, especially the witness of the martyrs, who ought to be called upon for help in keeping the Faith; and he should have counseled them to stay away from any unnecessary occasions that could weaken their Faith or produce doubts. Further, he should have drawn some basic distinctions about the kinds of doubt, the advertence of the mind, and the consent of the will, and assured them that not every doubt or unholy thought that pops into their head is also a sin. Further, he should have counseled them to use any such temptations against Faith that they may experience, as tools to make their Faith stronger, with God’s help, thus beating the devil at his own game. And lastly, Francis should have reminded them of the priceless pearl that is their Faith (cf. Mt 13:46) and thus underscore the importance of safeguarding it and persevering in it until the end, otherwise their life will have been in vain and all will be lost, for then they will be like those who “believe for a while, and in time of temptation, they fall away” (Lk 8:13), to their eternal ruin.
Yes, Francis could have said all these things — but instead, he dumped a load of blather on them about how doubt is a “vitamin” for Faith, how it’s a journey and like a love story, and then something about dialogue and relationship and conscience. As always: lots of fluff, no substance. The only thing these dear young people will remember is that doubt is good, that they are explicitly permitted to doubt. And that is probably the only thing Bergoglio wants them to remember anyway.
Next, Francis does warn against temptation, even the temptation of doubt — not, however, the temptation of doubting the Faith but that of doubting oneself. He says: “We can think: ‘Maybe something is wrong with me… I think I may have made a mess of things…’ That, my friends, is a temptation! A temptation to be rejected. The devil sows this doubt in our hearts in order to make us gloomy and depressed.”
Notice the glaring double standard: When it comes to doubts against Faith, Francis encourages them as “vitamins”, veritable “boosters” of Faith — yet when it comes to doubting oneself, suddenly doubt is the mortal enemy that has its origin in the devil and must be resisted! And yet here too the testimony of Scripture flies squarely in Bergoglio’s Modernist face: St. Paul observes that “we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raiseth the dead” (2 Cor 1:9); and King Solomon exhorts: “Have confidence in the Lord with all thy heart, and lean not upon thy own prudence” (Prov 3:5).
Now, what does Bergoglio propose as the remedy to this totally impermissible doubt of oneself? The false pope says:
What should we do? What can we do when that kind of doubt becomes stifling and persistent, when we lose confidence and no longer even know where to begin? We need to go back to the starting point. What is that starting point? To understand it, let us listen to what your great classical culture has to say. Do you know the starting point for all philosophy, but also for art, culture and science? Do you know what it was? All that began with a spark, a realization, captured in the magnificent word: thaumàzein. It began with wonder, with amazement. Philosophy emerged from the sense of wonder about things that exist, about our own lives, about the harmony of nature all around us, and about the mystery of life itself.
So “amazement” is the answer to self-doubt… truly amazing indeed!
It looks like Bergoglio is simply trying to get his listeners to stir up within themselves a certain experience, an experience that will also be the origin of “faith” as understood by the Neo-Modernist “New Theology” he espouses. And so he says:
Wonder, amazement, is the beginning not only of philosophy, but also of our faith. Frequently the Gospel tells us that when people encountered Jesus, they were amazed. In the encounter with God, amazement is always present, for it is the beginning of dialogue with God.
It may perhaps be that the origin of Faith is always accompanied by amazement, but that does not mean that amazement is the beginning of Faith. But of course Francis goes on to make things worse:
And the reason is because faith is not primarily about a list of things to believe and rules to follow. In the deepest sense, faith is not an idea or a system of morality, but a reality, a beautiful truth that does not depend on us and that leaves us amazed: we are God’s beloved children! This is what faith is in its deepest sense: we are God’s beloved children! We are beloved children because we have a Father who watches over us and who never stops loving us.
To modern man, these words may seem so profound and pious and spiritual, but they are just typical Neo-Modernist claptrap. The object of Faith is God’s revelation, and that is very much “a list of things to believe and rules to follow”, if one must put it like that.
Recall that in 2019, Francis visited Morocco, where he said that “being a Christian is not about adhering to a doctrine” — when it is precisely and primarily the creed, the set of beliefs, that distinguishes Christians (i.e. Catholics) from members of other religions (or no religion at all).
We have already seen that without Faith, it is impossible to be in friendship with God; hence the importance of Faith cannot be overestimated. Although it is true that Faith alone (that is, without charity, without sanctifying grace) does not merit eternal life (see Jas 2:24; Mt 7:21), nevertheless charity cannot be recovered without Faith, for Faith informs the sinner as to what he must do to recover the state of grace so he can merit Heaven. Therefore the Church teaches:
Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins.
(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 23)
The Catholic in mortal sin knows the set of instructions on how to be reconciled again to God — his Faith has taught him how to repent so as to obtain forgiveness of his sins, primarily in the sacrament of penance but also through perfect contrition. But he who does not believe does not have a way to be reconciled to God and so must remain in his sins. Thus, not all is lost for the Catholic in mortal sin — clinging to Faith and hope, there is a way out for him. Yet for the non-Catholic, tragically, all is lost, objectively speaking.
Thus we can grasp the absolutely crucial role Faith plays in salvation, and we can appreciate the warning of St. John the Apostle: “The man who goes back, who is not true to Christ’s teaching, loses hold of God; the man who is true to that teaching, keeps hold both of the Father and of the Son” (2 Jn 1:9; Knox translation). We can also understand why there are so many warnings in the New Testament about evil teachers, false prophets, trying to corrupt the true Gospel and thus lead souls astray, for example: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (Gal 1:8); “For such false apostles are deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ” (2 Cor 11:13); “But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction” (2 Pet 2:1).
Francis claims that Faith is “a reality, a beautiful truth that does not depend on us and that leaves us amazed: we are God’s beloved children!” This is simply false, at least if these words are understood as they stand. Yes, Faith is a reality; and yes, the object of Faith is truth, and truth is beautiful. However, the truth that “we are God’s beloved children” does very much depend on us, as well as on God, for it requires not only God’s grace but also our free cooperation with that grace.
Being God’s beloved children, in the supernatural sense, does not rest merely on Faith but also on charity. This means that only Catholics who are also in the state of santifying grace are children of God. If we lose the state of grace, we return to being “children of wrath” (Eph 2:3). That is the traditional Catholic teaching:
The just man … is a child of God merely by the possession of sanctifying grace, which can be lost by mortal sin and consequently is founded upon a free relation that may be terminated by man as freely as it was entered into between himself and God.
(Mgr. Joseph Pohle, Dogmatic Theology, vol. 7, pp. 358-359)
Besides forgiving sin and producing sanctifying grace, with all its formal effects — justice, supernatural beauty, the friendship of God, and His adoptive sonship — Baptism also effects the supernatural concomitants of sanctifying grace….
(Mgr. Joseph Pohle, Dogmatic Theology, vol. 8, p. 229)
Another effect of baptism is the infusion of sanctifying grace and supernatural gifts and virtues. It is this sanctifying grace which renders men the adopted sons of God and confers the right to heavenly glory.
(Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. “Baptism”)
But since all mortal sins, even those of thought, make men children of wrath [Eph. 2:3] and enemies of God, it is necessary to ask pardon for all of them from God by an open and humble confession.
(Council of Trent, Session 13, Ch. 5; Denz. 899)
For the Spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirit, that we are the sons of God. And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him.
Francis continues his false gospel as follows:
Think about this: whatever you may think or do, even the worst things possible, God continues to love you. I want you to understand this well: God never tires of loving. Someone might say to me: “But if I slip into the worst of things, does God love me?” God loves you. “And if I am a traitor, a terrible sinner and end up badly, in drugs… does God love me?” God loves you. God always loves. He cannot stop loving. He loves always, without exception. He looks at your life and sees that it is good (cf. Gen 1:31). He never abandons us. If we stand before a mirror, we may not see ourselves the way we would like, because we are too concerned with the things we don’t like. But if we stand before God, the perspective changes. We cannot help but be amazed that, for all our sins and failings, for him we are, and always will be, his beloved children. So, instead of starting the day by looking in the mirror, why not open your bedroom window and focus on everything beautiful that exists, on the beauty that you see all around you? Go out of yourself. Dear young people, think about this: if nature is beautiful in our eyes, in God’s eye each of you is infinitely more beautiful! Scripture says: “He has wondrously made us” (cf. Ps 139:14). In God’s eyes we are a wonder. Allow yourself to be caught up in that wonder. Let yourself be loved by the One who always believes in you, by the One who loves you even more than you succeed in loving yourself. It is not easy to understand the breadth and depth of God’s love, it is not easy to grasp it, but it is like this: simply let yourself be gazed upon by the gaze of God.
This is clear and unmistakable heresy! This is in direct contradiction to Divine Revelation and extremely harmful to souls because it directly concerns the very topic of salvation, that is, how to go to Heaven (or to hell).
It is true that God still loves us when we commit mortal sin, but not in the sense that He delights in us or keeps in tact His friendship with us, for He withdraws His grace from us and abandons us to the infernal path we have chosen. How, then, does He still love us? He loves us in the sense that He still seeks our good; He still seeks our conversion, our repentance, and ultimately our salvation.
Is it my will that a sinner should die, saith the Lord God, and not that he should be converted from his ways, and live? But if the just man turn himself away from his justice, and do iniquity according to all the abominations which the wicked man useth to work, shall he live? all his justices which he hath done, shall not be remembered: in the prevarication, by which he hath prevaricated, and in his sin, which he hath committed, in them he shall die. Therefore will I judge every man according to his ways, O house of Israel, saith the Lord God. Be converted, and do penance for all your iniquities: and iniquity shall not be your ruin.
For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. What think you? If a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them should go astray: doth he not leave the ninety-nine in the mountains, and go to seek that which is gone astray? And if it so be that he find it: Amen I say to you, he rejoiceth more for that, than for the ninety-nine that went not astray. Even so it is not the will of your Father, who is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.
Indeed, God “will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4), but Francis completely distorts the true Gospel here, for he gives the impression that we always remain in friendship with God, by our very nature, even when we are in mortal sin. That is Naturalism!
Of course it is perfectly alright, and quite important, to assure young people that God still loves them even after they have sinned, lest they fall into despair over their sins and fail to repent. But that is not what Francis does here. He does not tell them that God came to save them (cf. Is 35:4) and therefore desires their conversion and salvation even after they have committed great sins, and that for that reason they ought to be sorry for having offended God and repent right away. No, he tells them instead that even their sinful life is really “good”, that even the ugliness of sin cannot stain their beauty before God! That is an abominable lie! Francis is lying to these youngsters, and he is blaspheming God in the process! He is teaching them a very distorted view of God’s Love, of the nature and consequences of sin, and of the necessity of supernatural grace for salvation.
Notice what he says: “He looks at your life and sees that it is good (cf. Gen 1:31).” He references Genesis 1:31, which concerns the creation of man in the state of grace, in original innocence. Genesis 1:31 was before the fall, that is, before Adam and Eve sinned, which did not take place until Genesis 3. Thus, it is clear that Francis is equating “your life”, even when tainted by unforgiven mortal sin, with the life of supernatural innocence (sanctifying grace) before the fall, which God declared to be “good”. But note well: If grace was not lost with original sin, or if actual mortal sin after baptism does not rob us of the “wedding garment” of sanctifying grace (cf. Mt 22:11-12), then what need is there of Christ the Redeemer? How much more diabolical can Francis get?!
As quoted above, Francis says further: “If we stand before a mirror, we may not see ourselves the way we would like, because we are too concerned with the things we don’t like. But if we stand before God, the perspective changes.” Again, this wicked antipope is clearly communicating to the youth that they are always beautiful before God, regardless of their sins — an incredibly audacious and blasphemous heresy!
As if addressing Bergoglio directly, the Old Testament prophet Malachias writes: “You have wearied the Lord with your words, and you said: Wherein have we wearied him? In that you say: Every one that doth evil, is good in the sight of the Lord, and such please him: or surely where is the God of judgment?” (Mal 2:17). The prophet Isaias, too, has some words appropriate for “Pope” Francis: “Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter” (Is 5:20).
We find the Bergoglian heresy reprobated in the New Testament no less. St. John admonishes us that “if we claim fellowship with [God], when all the while we live and move in darkness, it is a lie; our whole life is an untruth” (1 Jn 1:6; Knox). And St. Paul warns the Corinthians: “Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9-10).
Apparently worried that some people might notice that his false doctrine does away not only with the Divine Redeemer but even with the necessity of any kind of forgiveness, Bergoglio suddenly changes course and says to the youths:
When you feel sorrow for something you have done, you should feel another kind of wonder: the wonder of forgiveness. I want to be clear about this: God always forgives. We can grow tired of asking for forgiveness, but he always forgives. In that wonder of forgiveness, we rediscover the Father’s loving face and peace of heart. He gives us a new beginning and he pours out his love in an embrace that lifts us up, dispels the evil we have done, restores the irrepressible beauty that is within us as his beloved children, and enables it to shine forth. May we never let laziness, fear or shame rob the treasure of forgiveness. May we always be amazed by God’s love! We will rediscover ourselves: not what other people say about us, or where the whims of the moment may lead us, or the hype we are in advertisements, but our deepest reality, the truth that God sees, the one he believes in: our unique beauty.
So somehow Francis had to tie the subject of forgiveness into it all, and this is the result: forgiveness as amazement, wonder, feeling. All we have to do is ask, allegedly — and yet that is so wrong. There is no attempt at all to teach the youngsters about the nature and necessity of supernatural contrition, without which no forgiveness is possible, not even in the sacrament of penance. Granted, a meeting with the youth on a foreign trip may not have been the appropriate setting for an elaborate catechesis on contrition, but he could have briefly outlined the essentials or at least mentioned that it takes more than simply asking.
In any case, Francis suddenly claims that forgiveness from God “dispels the evil we have done, restores the irrepressible beauty that is within us as his beloved children, and enables it to shine forth.” What need is there for beauty that is still “within us” to be “restored”? Why does it need to be restored if it’s already present? And why must evil be dispelled if God always loves us, just as we are, and looks at us with a corresponding perspective?
It is good of Bergoglio to say that we should never allow “laziness, fear or shame rob [us of] the treasure of forgiveness.” Indeed! But if God loves us anyway and we appear as beautiful and good before Him regardless, then why should it matter? What should we bother to “rediscover ourselves” and find “our unique beauty” if God always sees it regardless of our sins?
Once again we see that Francis is leading souls into most pernicious error, error that directly impacts their salvation. Like all Modernists, he likes to make his depraved heresies more palatable by camouflaging them with half-truths, for instance, the half-truths that God always loves us and always forgives us. These things are true but only in a certain sense — they are not true in another sense. It all depends, therefore, on how they are understood, and that is where the infernal pseudo-pope has plenty of room to obfuscate, confuse, and mislead.
In his landmark document against Modernism, Pope St. Pius X warned against “the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In their writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful. But this is done deliberately and advisedly…” (Encyclical Pascendi, n. 18). And in an address given to newly-created cardinals a few months prior to the encyclical’s release, the same Supreme Pontiff denounced the Modernists not only for their errors but also for how “they wrap them in certain ambiguous terms, in certain nebulous expressions, in order always to leave a way open in their defense so as to avoid incurring an open condemnation and yet to take the unwary in their snares” (Pius X, Address Accogliamo of Apr. 17, 1907).
There is much more the Argentinian heretic Bergoglio told his audience of young people, but we will stop here. The “spiritual advice” he gave them — that of “[t]raining yourselves to be open to others, taking a few extra steps so as to shorten your distance from others, vaulting with your heart over obstacles; lifting one another’s burdens” — might have been given by a man of any religion or no religion. It is, as we have noted so often on this web site and on our Twitter account, nothing more than greeting card spirituality.
That, as we have seen, is ultimately all “Pope” Francis has to offer: hot air and heresy.
Image source: youtube.com (screenshot)
License: fair use
Be the first to start a conversation