Dicastery for the Destruction of the Faith: Bergoglio issues Game Plan to his Doctrinal Undertaker

Francis gives marching orders to new DDF prefect…

Dicastery for the Destruction of the Faith:
Bergoglio issues Game Plan to his Doctrinal Undertaker

A hideous pectoral cross is not the only thing these two have in common: Jorge Bergoglio and ‘Tucho’ Fernandez

As surely everyone knows by now, Chaos Frank — the man otherwise known as ‘Pope’ Francis or Jorge Bergoglio — put his Argentinian buddy Victor Manuel Fernandez in charge of the Holy Office, or rather, what used to be the Holy Office and was known for the last few decades as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and is now the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith:

Fernandez, who is said to have been the ghostwriter for Bergoglio’s exhortation Amoris Laetitia, once authored a book on “the art of kissing”. Another work of his is “Incarnated Spiritual Theology (2004), a book that was featured in the Argentinian soap opera Esperanza Mía, about an illicit love affair between a priest and a nun”, according to a Catholic News Agency report. You can’t make this stuff up!

Furthermore:

Fernández is known for having openly defended [Rev.] Raúl Sidders, who was denounced for abusing an 11-year-old girl when he served as chaplain of the San Vicente de Paul School in La Plata and for harassing different students. In addition, Fernández threatened Prensa Obrera [Argentine newspaper] with legal action for having collected the stories of Sidders’ victims, which were essential for the cases to come to light and for the initiation of a process to fight impunity.

(Nazareno Suozzi, “Bergoglio, una década en el Vaticano encubriendo curas abusadores”, Prensa Obrera, Mar. 8, 2023; translation taken from Catholic Conclave.)

According to Clarín, Sidders was arrested in 2020 and will have his day in court in 2025.

But none of that will be the subject of the present post. Instead, we will now tackle Bergoglio’s letter to Fernandez which the Vatican published together with the announcement of his appointment.

Bergoglio issues his Marching Orders

An official English translation has now been published by the Vatican (original Spanish here):

In this letter, the ‘Pope’ explains to his chosen one — John Allen calls him “Francis’ Ratzinger” —  how he wants him to shape the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. And it includes some whoppers!

Let’s go through it step by step:

As the new prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, I entrust to you a task that I consider very valuable. Its central purpose is to guard the teaching that flows from the faith in order to “to give reasons for our hope, but not as an enemy who critiques and condemns”.[1]

That quote is from his own 2013 exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, n. 271. (Bergoglio loves to quote himself.) Yet the purpose of the Catholic Church’s doctrinal office is not simply “to give reasons for our hope” but to ensure the true Faith is safeguarded. This entails necessarily that heresy and other serious errors are condemned, bad books are withdrawn, dissenters are silenced, etc., lest the true doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus Christ be obscured. This is of the greatest importance since, as the First Vatican Council taught, “assent to the preaching of the Gospel” is “consenting to and believing in truth” (Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Ch. 3; Denz. 1791), and this truth is necessary for salvation (see Mk 16:15-16; 2 Jn 9).

Next, Francis’ lingo of “the teaching that flows from the faith” is a red flag, for two reasons. First, because it insinuates that the Faith is one thing, and the teachings of the Faith are another (more on that shortly). Secondly, as an astute Twitter user pointed out to us, to say that teaching flows from the Faith is pure Modernism, because of course the act of Faith — the firm adherence to what God has revealed — is necessarily subsequent to God’s revelation. One might argue that Francis isn’t talking about the act of Faith but about its content, but then we again have the needless distinction of Church teaching on the one hand, and the content of the Faith on the other, a perfect recipe for confusion and disaster. Not surprisingly, Francis left the matter ambiguous.

He continues:

The Dicastery over which you will preside in other times came to use immoral methods. Those were times when, rather than promoting theological knowledge, possible doctrinal errors were pursued. What I expect from you is certainly something very different.

“Immoral”! Now that is a term Bergoglio does not use a lot, at least not when it comes to some of the most obvious kinds of immorality, such as the kind that cries to heaven for vengeance. Then Bergoglio only knows words such as “dignity”, “mercy”, and “caresses”. In any case, as he has already begun a revolution in moral theology — from his false doctrine in Amoris Laetitia to his scandalous endorsement of the disaster theologian Bernhard Häring; from his declaration that sins of the flesh are “the least serious sins” to his false gospel of mercy without repentance — and so it is rather disingenuous to complain of immorality.

We have noted before that Bergoglio is very selective in his moral outrage, as well as in his vocabulary:

What “immoral methods” is Francis talking about? He invites plenty of speculation and only adds: “Those were times when, rather than promoting theological knowledge, possible doctrinal errors were pursued.” Here we see a typical Modernist tactic of using false dichotomies. Francis gives the impression that either there is promotion of theological knowledge or doctrinal errors are pursued. As if the same entity could not do both things, which go hand in hand. There can be no love of truth where there is no hatred of error. And there can be no love of God, no holiness, where there is no hatred of heresy.

So then Francis puts the world on notice: “What I expect from you is certainly something very different.” Something “very different” from identifying, condemning, and rooting out doctrinal errors? Good to know! No doubt the ‘god of surprises’ will chime in as well.

“Defending the Faith”?

Let’s continue:

You have served as dean of the Faculty of Theology of Buenos Aires, president of the Argentinean Society of Theology and president of the Faith and Culture Commission of the Argentinean Episcopate, in all cases voted by your peers, who have thus valued your theological charisma. As rector of the Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina you encouraged a healthy integration of knowledge. On the other hand, you were parish priest of “Santa Teresita” and until now archbishop of La Plata, where you knew how to bring theological knowledge into dialogue with the life of the holy People of God.

Given that for disciplinary matters – especially related to the abuse of minors – a specific Section has recently been created with very competent professionals, I ask you as prefect to dedicate your personal commitment more directly to the main purpose of the Dicastery which is “keeping the faith”.[2]

We see that Francis does mention “keeping the faith” — it is a quote of 2 Tim 4:7, repeated at the beginning of his motu proprio letter Fidem Servare (2022), with which he reorganized the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith — but this is simply smoke and mirrors. The reason he does this is in order to conceal his true, contrary purpose and in order to give his defenders something to point to as “evidence” for a noble and orthodox intention.

We have seen this time and again. For example, on the one hand, Francis keeps talking about “preaching the Gospel”, “proclaiming the Good News”, and “witnessing” to Jesus; on the other hand, he himself does the exact opposite when the opportunity arises, going so far as to tell Buddhists to continue following Buddha and Muslims to find their consolation and strength in the Koran. At the same time, any efforts at helping people become Catholic he denounces as “proselytism”, allegedly “the most serious sin a missionary can commit”. All the lofty talk about “proclamation” and “evangelization” is, then, just fluff, and is meant to encourage little more than corporal works of mercy. In this way, Francis can undermine the Gospel while appearing to endorse evangelization. We have talked about this before:

Likewise, when Francis now speaks of “defending the Faith”, he does not mean an actual defense of true doctrine, condemnation of error and heresy, and ensuring that souls are not misled into a false gospel (cf. Gal 1:8-9). Recall that in his homily for Ascension Day 2021, the Jesuit antipope said: “Keeping the truth does not mean defending ideas, becoming guardians of a system of doctrines and dogmas, but remaining bound to Christ and being devoted to his Gospel.” Once again we see the Modernist tactic of presenting a false dichotomy. The two things he sets in opposition are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, it is precisely by guarding “a system of doctrines and dogmas” — namely, Christ’s! — that we “remain bound to Christ and devoted to His Gospel”!

So, what does Francis mean when he talks about “defending the Faith”? We will see that in the remainder of his letter. Meanwhile, using such orthodox-sounding terminology allows the false pope’s apologists — think of people like Tim Staples, Dave Armstrong, Jimmy Akin, Michael Lofton — to point to that and proclaim smugly, “See, the ‘Pope’ really does want the Catholic Faith to be defended”!

So, let’s see now just how much of a defense of the Faith Bergoglio really has in mind:

In order not to limit the significance of this task, it should be added that it is a matter of “increasing the understanding and transmission of the faith in the service of evangelization, so that its light may be a criterion for understanding the meaning of existence, especially in the face of the questions posed by the progress of the sciences and the development of society”[3]. These issues, incorporated in a renewed proclamation of the Gospel message, “become tools of evangelization”[4] because they allow is to enter into conversation with “our present situation, which is in many ways unprecedented in the history of humanity”[5].

Blah, blah, blah. So many words, so little substance.

Looking at the last six decades of Vatican II theology, how’s it been working out with that “transmission of the faith in the service of evangelization”? Can anyone think of a less reliable guide as to “the meaning of existence” and “the progress of the sciences and the development of society” than Club Bergoglio? Beware of Modernists using the word “unprecedented”, because that is what they see as giving them carte blanche to introduce more surprise theology — you know, the dishing up of “courageous” and “creative” novel ideas.

All the quotes are from his own magisterial texts once more, so no surprise there.

Historicism and Dogmatic Relativism

The false pope continues:

Moreover, you know that the Church “grow in her interpretation of the revealed word and in her understanding of truth”[6] without this implying the imposition of a single way of expressing it. For “Differing currents of thought in philosophy, theology and pastoral practice, if open to being reconciled by the Spirit in respect and love, can enable the Church to grow”[7]. This harmonious growth will preserve Christian doctrine more effectively than any control mechanism.

Utter garbage. Both quotations, of course, are from his own exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, which was the Magna Carta for his ‘pontificate’.

What Francis says here is the usual Modernist code for making a mess of Catholic doctrine but under the cover of maturity, reconciled diversity, allegiance to “the Spirit”, being merciful, etc.

Bergoglio’s claim that his suggested methodology “will preserve Christian doctrine more effectively than any control mechanism” is complete nonsense, and he knows it. In fact, if he believed it would preserve the Faith more effectively and led to the growth of the Church, he would outlaw it. No, this is simply Francis using typical Modernist ambiguity and vagueness to give his marching orders to Fernandez while still retaining a modicum of plausible deniability and leave everyone else confused and arguing about what he “really” means.

An actual control mechanism works very well, and the Modernists’ hatred of the (real) Holy Office under Pope Pius XII or any of his predecessors is sufficient proof of that. Furthermore, Francis has no problem putting control mechanisms in place for people and movements he actually cares to oppose. What is Traditionis Custodes if not one gigantic tool to control the traditionalism in his church? He is known as the ‘Dictator Pope’ for a reason.

As regards opposing “the imposition of a single way of expressing” the truth, that is a sophism that goes back to at least the 1940s and lies at the root of the Modernist attack on dogma. While it is true, of course, that one can use different words to express the same truth — just think of different languages — this only works with regard to words that are identical in meaning. What Francis and other proponents of the ‘New Theology’ have had in mind, however, is something else: They want different concepts to be used in place of those “rigid” ideas of the past. But different concepts change the meaning, and that is precisely why they want them.

This is the error of “historicism”, and it was condemned by Pope Pius XII in his magnificent 1950 encyclical against the renascent Modernism of his time. According to the innovators,

the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say.

(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Humani Generis, n. 15)

But this, Pope Pius XII adds, implies “dogmatic relativism” (n. 16). To affirm it would mean the end of Catholicism and of revealed religion in general, and of course that is exactly why Francis promotes it.

The German Fr. Georg May explains the matter well in his massive tome exploring the last 300 years of Catholic, Modernist, and Protestant theology:

A typical Modernist error is the talk about the historicity of truth. By this is not meant the (explicative) development of dogma which is guided by the Holy Ghost, but the abandonment or redefinition of dogmas. The binding (and unchanging) faith of the Church is passed off as the product of a historical period which has been overcome, and thus the faith has to adapt itself to the changed social conditions. The standard for modifying what is preached is to be the spirit of the age (Zeitgeist). The thesis about the historicity of truth provides the apparent basis for reformulating the truths of the Christian faith, to make them “acceptable” to contemporaries. One speaks so much about the [historical] circumstances of a [dogmatic] definition and the changed conditions until the original sense of a dogma is no longer recognizable. An example of this mode of procedure is the constantly repeated attacks against the sacrosanct term of Transubstantiation.

(Fr. Georg May, 300 Jahre gläubige und ungläubige Theologie [Bobingen: Sarto Verlag, 2017], p. 913; our translation.)

In Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII warned that such historicism “overthrows the foundation of all truth and absolute law both on the level of philosophical speculations and especially to Christian dogmas” (n. 7), and we have tragically seen the truth and prudence of this admonition verified before our very eyes.

A perfect example of what an attempt to replace “outdated” categories — such as substance and accident, first introduced by the ancient philosopher Aristotle — looks like, we can see in the oh-so conservative ‘Cardinal’ Gerhard Ludwig Müller’s suggested replacement of the dogma of Transubstantiation with a ‘Transcommunication’ of sorts. That this should result in nothing short of the denial of the dogma, i.e., in heresy, precisely as Fr. May noted, should not be surprising.

Bergoglio’s claim about the Church “grow[ing] in her interpretation of the revealed word and in her understanding of truth” is thus simply code for historicism and dogmatic relativism.

In 1907, Pope St. Pius X condemned the following proposition as Modernist: “The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort” (Lamentabili Sane Exitu, error no. 22).

Three years later, the same Pope instituted the Anti-Modernist Oath, which was required to be sworn “by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries” — until it was conveniently abolished by the false pope Paul VI in 1967. The oath contains the following lines:

I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

(Pope St. Pius X, Oath against Modernism, included in Motu Proprio Sacrorum Antistitum)

Here Saint Pius is clearly tying the concept of dogma to the concept of truth, from which it follows that to defend dogma is to defend truth, the very thing denied by Francis, as we have seen.

Too much Logic, not enough Tenderness

Returning now to Bergoglio’s epistle to Fernandez:

It is good that your task expresses that the Church “encourages the charism of theologians and their scholarly efforts” as long as they are not “content with a desk-bound theology”[8], with a “a cold and harsh logic that seeks to dominate everything”[9].

Here the false pope regurgitates some of his usual expressions of hatred against dogmatic Catholicism, which is, of course, the only kind of Catholicism there is. That “cold and harsh logic” has long been a thorn in the side of Francis and other Modernists because it exposes their errors. It does not allow them to hide behind their usual ambiguity, their vagueness, and their sentimental tropes.

What it looks like when true Catholic theology refutes the ideas of Bergoglio and Fernandez — which aren’t new but just warmed-over errors of yesteryear, can be seen in Pope Pius XII’s condemnation of the ‘new morality’, that is, situation ethics:

Here we should also mention Francis’ repeatedly-expressed disdain for Scholasticism, for it goes hand-in-hand with his passion for novelty and his embrace of Modernism:

Well did Pope St. Pius X say of the Modernists, whom he called “partisans of error”:

Against scholastic philosophy and theology they use the weapons of ridicule and contempt. Whether it is ignorance or fear, or both, that inspires this conduct in them, certain it is that the passion for novelty is always united in them with hatred of scholasticism, and there is no surer sign that a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the scholastic method…. They exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority.

(Pope Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi, n. 42)

That Francis claims to have a ‘strong devotion’ to Saint Pius X is simply adding insult to injury. He does it because he can.

The god of Bergoglian Mercy

The fake pope continues:

It will always be true that reality is superior to the idea. In this sense, we need theology to be attentive to a fundamental criterion: to consider that “all theological notions that ultimately call into question the very omnipotence of God, and his mercy in particular, are inadequate”[10]. We need a way of thinking which can convincingly present a God who loves, who forgives, who saves, who liberates, who promotes people and calls them to fraternal service.

There he goes again, promoting an existentialist theology. Ironically, his oh-so smart-sounding principle that “reality is superior to the idea” is itself an idea. It is, furthermore, a very dangerous one, at least in the sense in which Bergoglio means it, which he illustrates in the words that follow. As if the Catholic Church had not yet discovered or understood either God’s mercy or His omnipotence in the 1900 years before the Vatican II religion came around!

The quote associated with footnote [10] is taken from a 2007 paper published by the International Theological Commission entitled, “The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being Baptized”. There is no need to rehash that whole topic now, except to say that as late as 1951, Pope Pius XII expressly taught:

…the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly-born, this way is not open.

(Pope Pius XII, Address Vegliare con Sollecitudine)

There is not the slightest injustice in this, nor does it call into question God’s mercy or omnipotence. For a better understanding of this topic, the following article will be helpful:

So Bergoglio is looking for “a way of thinking which can convincingly present a God who loves, who forgives, who saves, who liberates, who promotes people and calls them to fraternal service.” So either Bergoglio believes the Catholic Church has never done that before, or the “god” he is looking to present is a different one from the God of the Catholic religion. It shouldn’t be too difficult for people to figure out which of these it is.

Notice how Francis is always very one-sided in his “presentation” of God. For him, God is only “a God who loves, who forgives, who saves, who liberates, who promotes people and calls them to fraternal service.” But the true God is also a God who exhorts, restrains, judges, rebukes, refuses, condemns, punishes, demands, and excludes. Our Lord did not only pronounce blessings, He also hurled “woes” (see Lk 6:20-26).

Whereas Bergoglio lies and blasphemously claims that God does not ask for anything in return for His Love, our Blessed Lord made clear that He demands to be loved “with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole strength” (Mk 12:30). Indeed, God requires us to render Him a return on His investment (see Mt 25:14-29), and He exacts justice to the point that we will be punished temporally until we “repay the last farthing” (Mt 5:26). All of these things are truths taught by Christ; they are part of the Gospel.

The only time Francis remembers what Fr. Robert D. Smith once called “the other side of Christ”, is when he can use it in support of his agenda. For example, when it comes to ‘combatting climate change’ or helping migrants, Bergoglio is quick to dig up that otherwise outdated notion of moral obligation, and he even remembers that there will be a Last Judgment!

In his condemnation of the Sillonist movement, Pope St. Pius X refuted its Bergoglio-like distortion of the Gospel as follows:

We wish to draw your attention, Venerable Brethren, to this distortion of the Gospel and to the sacred character of Our Lord Jesus Christ, God and man, prevailing within the Sillon and elsewhere. As soon as the social question is being approached, it is the fashion in some quarters to first put aside the divinity of Jesus Christ, and then to mention only His unlimited clemency, His compassion for all human miseries, and His pressing exhortations to the love of our neighbor and to the brotherhood of men.

True, Jesus has loved us with an immense, infinite love, and He came on earth to suffer and die so that, gathered around Him in justice and love, motivated by the same sentiments of mutual charity, all men might live in peace and happiness. But for the realization of this temporal and eternal happiness, He has laid down with supreme authority the condition that we must belong to His Flock, that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practice virtue, and that we must accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors.

Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. He was as strong as he was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body.

Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross.

These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one’s personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism.

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

In the face of such a strong and clear presentation of Catholic truth, all of Bergoglio’s sophistical drivel evaporates.

Speaking of which, Francis continues:

This happens if “the message has to concentrate on the essentials, on what is most beautiful, most grand, most appealing and at the same time most necessary”[11]. You are well aware that there is a harmonious order among the truths of our message, and the greatest danger occurs when secondary issues end up overshadowing the central ones.

Oh, how amusingly ironic that the man who has made it his life’s work to focus on the peripheral rather than on the essential — just think of his endless blather about temporal/earthly concerns, while starving souls to death supernaturally — should now point out that secondary issues should not obscure the primary ones. If hypocrisy caused weight gain, it would be difficult for Bergoglio to fit into St. Peter’s Square.

The false pope’s final instructions to his new DDF prefect read:

In the horizon of this richness, your task also implies a special care to verify that the documents of your own Dicastery and of the others have an adequate theological support, are coherent with the rich humus of the perennial teaching of the Church and at the same time take into account the recent Magisterium.

Ah, there he throws a final crumb to his conservative co-religionists, especially his professional apologists, who will hang everything on Bergoglio’s stated demand for “coheren[ce] with the rich humus of the perennial teaching of the Church”. There you go, that cancels out everything else he said, all problems solved! Now that is “rich” indeed!

Final Thoughts

As a preview of what is coming down the pike for those unhappily caught up in the Vatican II Sect, we should note that ‘Abp.’ Fernandez is on video saying from the pulpit: “For many centuries, the Church … unwittingly developed a whole philosophy & morality full of classifications, to classify people… This one can receive Communion, this one cannot… This one can be forgiven, this one cannot. Terrible that this has happened” (translation by Diane Montagna).

Clearly, Bergoglio knows why he put this man in position as the top doctrinal watchdog just in time for his quasi-inspired ‘Synod on Synodality’, which is scheduled to take place for three weeks in October, right there in Vatican City.

Here is a video clip from seven years ago about Fernandez, after two turbulent synods on the family and just before the release of Amoris Laetitia:

By the way: Francis will obviously want to appoint his new DDF prefect a ‘cardinal’, of course, so look for a new consistory very soon, probably before the end of the year. Bergoglio wants to do as much damage as he can before God calls him to judgment. Clearly, Fernandez’ job is to bury anything resembling Catholicism once and for all. A good nickname for him would be ‘The Undertaker’.

But pity these souls! They have not learned their lesson. Once there were men who thought they had definitively rid the world of Jesus of Nazareth and His doctrine by nailing Him to a cross and burying Him in a tomb.

They found out they had been wrong.

Image source: Facebook (Arzobispado de La Plata; cropped)
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.