Lengthy conversation published in Spanish…
In new Interview, Francis rebukes Traditionalists, calls himself ‘Victim of the Holy Spirit’
Few people love to hear themselves talk more than the octogenarian apostate Jorge Bergoglio from Buenos Aires. Under his appropriated moniker ‘Pope Francis’, the stream of words that continually pours from his profane lips does immense damage to countless souls who mistakenly think this Modernist Jesuit is the Pope of the Catholic Church, the Vicar of Christ, the Father and Teacher of all Christians.
The ‘Catholic Woodstock’ event formally known as World Youth Day is currently underway, and during this time the Spain-based religious publication Vida Nueva has published a colossal new interview with the garrulous Jesuit.
Some initial news reports on the lengthy conversation have already appeared:
- Priests must play soccer, not preach dogma, says Pope in broadside against traditionalists (Catholic Herald)
- Pope Francis: Church is not ready for a Third Vatican Council (Vatican News)
- Pope Francis says new council unnecessary as Vatican II ‘has not yet been implemented’ (Life Site)
Vida Nueva has released the following 7-and-a-half-minute video clip, showing excerpts from the interview with Bergoglio:
The interview is so long that Vida Nueva has broken it into sundry separate posts. The entire text is only available to subscribers, but some of what has been made available by Vida Nueva to the public can be found in English here:
- Pope Francis to Vida Nueva: ‘I am a victim of the Holy Spirit…’ (English translation by Catholic Conclave)
- What does Pope Francis dream of? (English translation by Catholic Conclave)
Among the most explosive parts of the interview are the following words of the man we have aptly dubbed ‘Chaos Frank’. He responds to a question about the ‘rigidity’ that is apparently found now in younger, more conservative and traditional-leaning priests:
FRANCIS: That rigidity comes from good people who want to serve the Lord. They react this way because they are afraid of the time of insecurity we are living in, and this fear does not allow them to move forward. We have to remove this fear and help them. On the other hand, this armor hides a lot of corruption. I have already had to intervene in some dioceses in several countries with similar parameters. Behind this traditionalism, we have discovered moral problems and serious vices, double lives. We all know of bishops who, needing priests, have made use of people they had thrown out of other seminaries for immorality.
I do not like rigidity because it is a bad symptom of the interior life. The pastor cannot afford to be rigid. The pastor has to be ready for whatever comes.
Someone recently told me that the rigidity of young priests arises because they are tired of the current relativism, but this is not always the case. I ask the bishops to beware of this drift and to be clear that it is not only the “blessed Imeldas” who are the best priests. If one gives you the face of a ‘saint’ and turns his eyes away from you, be wary. We need normal seminarians, with their problems, who play soccer, who do not go to the neighborhoods to dogmatize… It helped me to ask the women of the parishes, the assistants and the brothers for information about where the seminarians went…
Q.- Once those priests identified as “rigid” are ordained, how do you accompany them so they will adhere to Vatican II? Because, deep down, they suffer for not being able to accept what is coming their way…
A.- There is a need for pastors with a strong wrist, those priests who are alive and past middle age. They have the experience and patience to accompany them. Slowly, they will ‘soften’ them. When they see that welcoming the Council is not a threat to the magisterium, they will ‘soften’. But it is not easy, because clericalism is always there.
There are people who live trapped in a theology manual, unable to get into the issues and move theology forward. Stagnant theology reminds me that stagnant water is the first to corrupt, and stagnant theology creates corruption. Both left-wing and right-wing movements that remain stagnant create corruption. …
(“El papa Francisco a Vida Nueva: ‘Soy una víctima del Espíritu Santo…'”, Vida Nueva; bold print given. Translation via DeepL with manual adjustments.)
Here we see the typical Bergoglian approach: Rigidity is considered a problem a priori, as if there were no possible justification for it. Instead, so the false pope insists, it has its origin in some psychological problem, or at least in fear or uncertainty, and possibly even in corruption or a double-life hiding some grave immorality. It is amusingly ironic that Francis does seem to want a rather rigid ‘wrist’ to allow for the necessary ‘accompaniment’ into the Bergoglian phase of the Vatican II religion. Rigidity surely comes in handy at times, doesn’t it?!
Considering the last ten years of the false Bergoglian pontificate in action, it is clear that being rotten, a slave to vices, or leading a double life is the fastest way to get a promotion from this ‘Pope’. No, Francis is not concerned about the real sins of clergy, public or secret. If he were, he would not have been surrounding himself with such reported scoundrels as ‘Bp.’ Gustavo Zanchetta, ‘Cardinal’ Oscar Maradiaga, or ‘Mgr.’ Battista Ricca, among others. His quip, “Who am I to judge?”, is applied rather selectively.
But then again, Bergoglio considers the sins of the flesh to be “the least serious sins”. When it comes to “rigidity”, on the other hand, he denounces it as a “perversion”. Likewise, idolatry — the worship of the creature instead of God — is no big deal to him, unless he is talking about some imagined ‘idolatry’, such as the ‘idolatry of ideas’ or of ‘space being greater than time’. The same goes for blasphemy, which he denounces only where it is not in fact present. He is also happy to participate in Paganism, while at the same time decrying proselytism as ‘pagan’ and denouncing Traditionalism as a ‘paganism of thought’.
Bergoglio’s obsession with rigidity seems to have a different origin: He adheres to the so-called ‘New Morality’, which is essentially a kind of situation ethics, which knows no objective moral principles that are perennially valid throughout the ages but instead draws all morality from the concrete given situation. Pope Pius XII condemned this ‘ethical existentialism’ roundly:
The ‘new morality’ affirms that the Church, instead of fostering the law of human liberty and of love, and of demanding of you that dynamics which is worthy of the moral life, instead bases itself almost exclusively and with excessive rigidity, on the firmness and the intransigence of Christian moral laws, frequently resorting to the terms ‘you are obliged’, ‘it is not licit’, which has too much of an air of a degrading pedantry.
… It so happens that the accusation of oppressive rigidity made against the Church by the ‘new morality,’ in reality, attacks, in the first place, the adorable Person of Christ Himself.
(Pope Pius XII, Radio Message La Famiglia, Mar. 23, 1952)
Note that the claim Pius XII rebuffs here — that the Church is too rigid in her moral teaching — is precisely what Francis complains about when he denounces “casuistry”, praises Fr. Bernard Haring, or moans about “following rigid rules”.
Francis’ subsequent comments about being “trapped in a theology manual” — as if that were a bad thing, or even a common occurrence in his Modernist sect — reveal his deep-seated contempt for the Neo-Scholasticism that prevailed in the decades before Vatican II. Wisely had Pope St. Pius X said of the Modernists:
They recognize that the three chief difficulties which stand in their way are the scholastic method of philosophy, the authority and tradition of the Fathers, and the magisterium of the Church, and on these they wage unrelenting war. 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. Let the Modernists and their admirers remember the proposition condemned by Pius IX: ‘The method and principles which have served the ancient doctors of scholasticism when treating of theology no longer correspond with the exigencies of our time or the progress of science.’
(Pope Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, n. 42; underlining added.)
Further, Bergoglio’s idiotic comment that “stagnant theology creates corruption” just shows that he is wedded to a fundamental error of the Nouvelle Theologie (New Theology), which goes back to Maurice Blondel (1861-1949), regarding the nature of truth.
Saint Pius X warned that the Modernists
pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true meaning of religion; in introducing a new system in which “they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the holy and apostolic traditions, they embrace other and vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, unapproved by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity, they think they can base and maintain truth itself” [Pope Gregory XVI, Encyclical Singulari Nos, n. 8].
(St. Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi, n. 13)
In his 1907 Syllabus of Modernist Errors, the same Pope condemned this proposition: “Truth is no more immutable than man himself, since it evolved with him, in him, and through him” (Holy Office Decree Lamentabili Sane, n. 58; Denz. 2058).
In 1924, Pope Pius XI condemned 12 errors of the so-called Philosophy of Action, among which are the following:
III. No abstract proposition can be regarded as unchangeably true.
V. Wherefore, truth is not found in any particular act of the intellect, in which “conformity with the object,” as the Scholastics say, would be had, but truth is always in the becoming, and it exists in the progressive equivalence of the intellect and life, to wit, in a certain perpetual motion, by which the intellect endeavors to develop and make known that which experience brings forth or action demands, but still on these terms: That nothing in the entire advancement to a more finished state ever be regarded as confirmed and firmly established.
XII. Even after the reception of faith, man ought not to rest in the dogmas of religion and cling to them irrevocably and immovably, but [he should] always remain solicitous of advancing to a further truth, namely by developing into new senses and even correcting that which he believes.
(Holy Office, Condemnation of 12 Propositions pertaining to the Philosophy of Action, December 1, 1924)
On September 17, 1946, the Holy Father Pius XII addressed a delegation of Jesuits (!) regarding the New Theology, as follows:
Much has been said, but not enough after due consideration, about the “Nouvelle Théologie”, which, because of its characteristic of moving along with everything in a state of perpetual motion, will always be on the road to somewhere but will never arrive anywhere. If one thought that one had to agree with an idea like that, what would become of Catholic dogmas, which must never change? What would happen to the unity and stability of faith?
(Pope Pius XII, Allocution Quamvis Inquieti)
What indeed? It is no accident that Francis says in the same interview with Vida Nueva that he wants his priests to be play soccer rather than preach dogma — just like the Apostles, right? “And the high priest asked them, saying: Commanding we commanded you, that you should not teach in this name; and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and you have a mind to bring the blood of this man upon us” (Acts 5:27b-28).
Of course playing soccer and preaching the Catholic Faith do not have to be mutually exclusive. In fact, a good Apostle will find creative ways to become part of a community and attract souls in order to preach the Catholic Faith to them, such as St. John Bosco. It is not surprising that we see Francis using once again the tactic of false dichotomy to promote his nefarious ideology.
Francis knows he does not have much time left on this earth. Tragically, instead of repenting of his apostasy, he appears to want to spend whatever God may still give him to do as much damage to souls as possible.
Either way, he will not lose his eternal reward.
Image source: YouTube (screenshot)
License: fair use