Anything but the Gospel…
Pie in the Sky: Francis offers Pseudo-Religious Drivel to Mongolian Authorities
The Argentinian apostate Jorge Bergoglio — stage name: ‘Pope Francis’ — spent the first few days of the month of September in Mongolia. The official motto of his 43rd blather tour outside Vatican City, solemnly styled an ‘apostolic journey’, was Hoping Together. Precisely what the object of that hope is supposed to be, was not explained, but we can be certain it’s not the Beatific Vision.
On Sep. 2, 2023, the fake pope met with Mongolian president Ukhnaagiin Khürelsükh and other authorities and diplomats at the state palace:
Vatican News broadcast official video of the entire meeting:
As always, of course, Bergoglio had a lot to say, but since he is a lowest-common-denominator kind of guy and Mongolia is about 50% Buddhist and 40% non-religious, the ‘Pope’ was limited in what he could talk about and how to express it. The result is the address he gave, at which we will now take a closer look.
Francis starts out by telling President Khürelsükh and the other authorities present that he is “standing at the door, a pilgrim of friendship, who comes to you quietly, with a joyful heart and the desire to find myself humanly enriched in your presence.”
‘Enrichment’ is one of those concepts Bergoglio has a special fondness for in the context of interreligious and diplomatic relations, perhaps because it admits of no falsification, will not be challenged, and has a positive, non-offensive ring to it. Furthermore, the concept allows one to speak about something without really saying much.
Early on in his address, Francis says:
I have been told that at daybreak, the children in your countrysides stand at the door of the ger [a kind of tent used by nomadic peoples] and look into the distance to count the heads of cattle and then report that number to their parents. We too benefit from gazing towards the vast horizons everywhere around us, abandoning short-sighted perspectives for a broader, global vision.
This is Bergoglio’s typical rhetorical strategy when visiting abroad: use an idea, custom, or concrete object that is characteristic of the host nation and then use it as a tool to inculcate whatever thesis he wishes to communicate.
How wise that is, is another question. In the quote above, Bergoglio uses the fact that Mongolian children count all the cattle they can see in the morning as a cue for teaching not to be short-sighted but having a broader vision. The question must surely be permitted: At what point does it get embarrassing?
Throughout the remainder of his speech, Francis keeps returning to the ger (or yurt) as a common thread, using it as a figure of speech for his false indifferentist gospel, his lowest-common-denominator interreligious ideology. Listen to this:
Upon entering a traditional ger, our gaze is directed upwards to the highest central point, where there is a round window open to the sky. I would like to emphasize the importance of this fundamental attitude that your tradition helps us to appreciate: the ability to keep our eyes fixed on high. Raising our eyes to heaven – the eternal blue sky that you have always venerated – means persevering in an attitude of docile openness to religious teachings. A profound spiritual sensitivity belongs to the very fibre of your cultural identity, and it is proper that Mongolia should be a symbol of religious freedom. In the contemplation of boundless and sparsely settled horizons, your people have developed a refined spiritual sense, born of nurturing silence and interiority. The solemn grandeur of the countless natural phenomena that surround you has given rise to a sense of wonder, which instils simplicity and frugality, a preference for the essential and a capacity for detachment from what is not. Here I think of the threat represented by the consumerist spirit that nowadays, in addition to creating great injustices, leads to an individualistic mindset that cares little for others and for sound established traditions. When religions remain grounded in their original spiritual patrimony, and are not corrupted by sectarian deviations, they prove to be trustworthy supports in the construction of healthy and prosperous societies, in which believers work to ensure that peaceful coexistence and political foresight are placed increasingly at the service of the common good. At the same time, they also represent a safeguard against the insidious threat of corruption, which effectively represents a serious menace to the development of any human community; corruption is the fruit of a utilitarian and unscrupulous mentality that has impoverished whole countries. Yes, corruption impoverishes entire nations. It is a sign of a vision that fails to look up to the sky and flees the vast horizons of fraternity, becoming instead self-enclosed and concerned with its own interests alone.
(underlining added)
There goes interreligious, indifferentist Francis again: We must “raise our eyes to heaven”, look up to the “eternal blue sky” and find there “religious teachings”. Who knew?!
It is noteworthy that ‘Pope’ Bergoglio claims to locate religious teachings high above in the sky, whereas on his return flight to Rome a few days later he maintained that Catholic doctrine is “rooted in God’s holy faithful people”. Throughout the last 10+ years, we have learned, however, that what the apostate Jesuit says changes depending on whom he is speaking to.
The truth is, of course, that the teachings of the true religion are rooted in divine revelation: “God, who, at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all, in these days hath spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world” (Heb 1:1-2). For that reason, the Catholic Church preaches Jesus Christ and His doctrine, not some generic pseudo-religion to be discovered in the clouds.
As far as those “vast horizons of fraternity” go that Francis speaks of, the problem with these contrived metaphors is that one can just as easily use them to argue the opposite point. For example, drawing on the image of the ger, what should prevent one from contending that just as these round tents isolate the people inside from others outside, we too should embrace the ‘lesson of the ger’ and first worry about our own concerns and remain self-referential in our perspectives?
Blather can work both ways, you see.
Notice too that Francis in his speech to Mongolian authorities tries hard to meet them at the lowest common denominator, but he has difficulty because that means God is out, because neither Buddhists nor atheists believe in God. Since he cannot forgo all religion, however, he decided instead to speak of “Heaven”, the “sky”, and gifts from “on high”. This he did also at the interreligious meeting the following day. Again we must ask: At what point does it become embarrassing?
Francis does not believe in the true Gospel, so he has to preach a false one (cf. Gal 1:8-9). His doctrine is one of “look at what we have in common, now let’s work together to make the world a better place!” That is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ; it is not what the martyrs died for. Nor would we need a Pope or a Catholic Church — or any religion at all — to spread such an ideology.
But then, this is simply par for the course: The same ‘Pope’ who at other times presumes to teach about the ‘passion for evangelization’ we must have, when he actually has a chance to address unbelievers and share the Gospel with them, he instead validates their pagan traditions and effectively congratulates them for their false religions!
He has done this again and again, and it is no doubt a direct consequence of the teaching of the false Second Vatican Council (1962-65):
The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these [false] religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself (cf. 2 Cor. 5:18-19).
(Vatican II, Decree Nostra Aetate, n. 2)
What nonsense! What blasphemy! The Catholic Church most certainly does not regard with sincere respect such teachings and ways of life that are false, dangerous, harmful, or contrary to truth, simply because they may also occasionally “reflect a ray” of truth. False religions do not come in elements, so it is quite misleading to say the Church “rejects nothing that is true and holy” in other religions. That is not to deny that false religions can and often do contain some teachings that are true; rather, the point is that this does not in any way make the false religions better or less of a danger. If anything, it makes them more dangerous because a half-truth is more deceptive than a lie.
This idea that we should praise false religions for the “good elements” they contain is a decidedly Liberal, that is, Modernist idea. That it has been rejected by the true Catholic Church can be seen, for example, in its refutation by the 19th-century priest Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany, whose book Liberalism is a Sin received the Vatican’s recommendation under Pope Leo XIII:
When [Sir Edwin] Arnold’s Light of Asia appeared [a work promoting Buddhism –N.O.W.], not a few Catholics joined in the chorus of fulsome praise which greeted it. How charming, how beautiful, how tender, how pathetic, how humane; what lofty morality, what exquisite sentiment! Now what was the real purport of the book and what was its essence? To lift up Guatama, the founder of Buddhism, at the expense of Jesus Christ, the Founder of Christianity! The intention was to show that Guatama was equally a divine teacher with as high an aspiration, as great a mission, as lofty a morality as our Divine Lord Himself. This was the object of the book; what was its essence? A falsification of history by weaving a series of poetical legends around a character, about whose actual life practically nothing is known. But not only this, the character was built up upon the model of Our Lord, which the author had in his own mind as the precious heirloom of Christianity; and his Gautama, whom he intended to stand out as at least the divine equal of the Founder of Christianity, became in his hands in reality a mere echo of Christ, the image of Christ, made to rival the Word made flesh! Buddhism, in the borrowed garments of Christianity, was thus made to appeal to the ideals of Christian peoples, and gaining a footing in their admiration and affections, to usurp the throne in the Christian sanctuary. Here was a work of literary merit, although it has been greatly exaggerated in this respect, praised extravagantly by some Catholics who, in their excessive desire to appear impartial, failed or refused to see in Edwin Arnold’s Light of Asia a most vicious, anti-Christian book! What difference does it make whether a book be excellent in a literary sense or not, if its effect be the loss of souls and not their salvation? What if the weapon in the hands of the assassin be bright or not, if it be fatal? Though spiritual assassination be brilliant, it is nonetheless deadly.
Heresy under a charming disguise is a thousand times more dangerous than heresy exposed in the harsh and arid garb of the scholastic syllogism — through which the death’s skull grins in unadorned hideousness. Arianism had its poets to propagate its errors in popular verse. Lutheranism had its humanists, amongst whom the elegant Erasmus shone as a brilliant writer. Arnauld, Nicole, Pascal threw the glamour of their belles lettres over the serpentine doublings of Jansenism. Voltaire’s wretched infidelity won its frightful popularity from the grace of his style and the flash of his wit. Shall we, against whom they aimed the keenest and deadliest shafts, contribute to their name and their renown! Shall we assist them in fascinating and corrupting youth! Shall we crown these condemners of our faith with the laurels of our praises and laud them for the very qualities which alone make them dangerous! And for what purpose? That we may appear impartial? No. Impartiality is not permissible when it is distorted to the offense of truth, whose rights are imprescriptible. A woman of bad life is infamous, be she ever so beautiful, and the more beautiful, the more dangerous. Shall we praise Liberal books out of gratitude? No! Follow the liberals themselves in this, who are far more prudent than we; they do not recommend and praise our books, whatever they be. They, with the instinct of evil, fully appreciate where the danger lies. They either seek to discredit us or to pass us by in silence.
Si quis non amat Dominum Nostrum Jesum Christum, Sit anathema [“If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema”], says St. Paul. Liberal literature is the written hatred of Our Lord and His Church. If its blasphemy were open and direct, no Catholic would tolerate it for an instant; is it any more tolerable because, like a courtesan, it seeks to disguise its sordid features by the artifice of paint and powder?
(Rev. Felix Sarda y Salvany, Liberalism is a Sin, Chapter 18; some formatting changed; underlining added.)
Now that is how a Catholic answers the interreligious errors of Vatican II and the post-conciliar Novus Ordo magisterium!
In a kind of Copernican revolution that would later be applied to moral theology in Bergoglio’s demonic Amoris Laetitia exhortation, the false council wrought a paradigm shift according to which false religions were no longer considered the product of the devil and a lethal threat to souls. Instead, they suddenly became ‘imperfect realizations’ of the true religion — fundamentally good, even if not necessarily “good enough” for salvation. In effect, they were no longer darkness per se but light — insufficient light, perhaps, but this insufficiency was considered merely accidental.
That accounts for all that positive attitude Francis brings to his pagan interlocutors (paganism is something he condemns only when he uses the label to smear traditionalists). He does not consider them dear but lost souls in need of salvation — rather, he considers them fellow-travelers in the great journey of life which they enrich by their various religious and spiritual traditions, called to walk in fraternity, mutual respect and dialogue, always with their gaze “toward heaven”. Whatever this is, it’s not the Gospel!
Francis ends his insufferable address by telling his pagan friends:
May the various components of Mongolian society, so well represented here, continue to offer to the world the beauty and nobility of this unique people. In this way, like your traditional vertical script, may you remain ever “upright” in your efforts to relieve the great human suffering all around you, reminding everyone of the dignity of each human being, called to dwell in our earthly home by embracing the sky. Bayarlalaa! [Thank you!]
We’ve got news for the fake pope: People can “embrace the sky” all they want — they labor under original sin and its consequences and therefore cannot save themselves. Pelagianism, or salvation by works, is a heresy. In order for humanity to be restored once again to grace, it was necessary for God to act first, and for that reason, in His mercy and goodness, He sent His Son, “that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting” (Jn 3:16).
It is only through Jesus Christ that we can attain eternal salvation, as our Blessed Lord told St. Thomas the Apostle: “Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me” (Jn 14:6).
‘Pope’ Francis is concerned about many things — for example, about the unemployment of the youth, the loneliness of the elderly, and the global average temperature in 2050 — but the most important thing of all, the salvation of the souls for which our Blessed Redeemer died, is of no interest to him.
“But without faith it is impossible to please God”, St. Paul wrote to the Hebrews (11:6), repeating what our Lord Himself taught His disciples before ascending into Heaven: “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned” (Mk 16:16).
‘Pope’ Francis is nothing but a false prophet.
Image source: YouTube (screenshot)
License: fair use
;
No Comments
Be the first to start a conversation