An appropriately demonic way to open the infernal assembly…
Francis kicks off Synod with Blasphemous Lie: St. John the Baptist doubted Jesus was really the Messiah!
“And he opened his mouth unto blasphemies against God, to blaspheme
his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven” (Apoc 13:6).
The Synod on Synodality in Rome has begun.
On the same day that he issued the apostolic exhortation Laudate Deum on some alleged global ‘climate crisis’ (Oct. 4, 2023), the apostate Jesuit Jorge Bergoglio (‘Pope Francis’) also kicked off the much-touted synod, or what is more properly called the 16th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops — even though participants now also include a good number of priests and laymen and, yes, laywomen.
The synodal assembly in the Vatican is an extraordinary exercise of the clueless ‘Listening Church’ headed by Bergoglio, which, not receiving its doctrines and wisdom from above, that is, from our Lord Jesus Christ as handed down by the Apostles and their successors (see Mt 28:19-20; Jn 14:26; 16:13; Rom 10:13-16, etc.), must somehow obtain its ideas and directives “from below”, in the truest sense of that expression.
The official synod participants are not yet in agreement on what they want, most of them just know they want something new; and so that is why they will now be ‘walking together’ like there’s no tomorrow for the next three-and-a-half weeks, ‘listening to the Spirit’ and discerning whatever novelties and surprises it may reveal to them. That there is nothing remotely Catholic about this ludicrous business is obvious.
In an Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, issued on Jan. 27, 1902, Pope Leo XIII warned:
It is impossible to approve in Catholic publications a style inspired by unsound novelty which seems to deride the piety of the faithful and dwells on the introduction of a new order of Christian life, on new directions of the Church, on new aspirations of the modern soul, on a new social vocation of the clergy, on a new Christian civilization, and many other things of the same kind.
(Quoted by Pope St. Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, n. 55)
The theological errors of the synodal circus have been masterfully exposed by Fr. Davide Pagliarani, head of the Lefebvrists. Although we are most certainly no defenders or friends of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) here, nevertheless it would be foolish to deny that Fr. Pagliarani has critiqued the Bergoglian synod theology very lucidly and compellingly:
The opening ‘Mass’ for the Synod on Synodality was held this morning in St. Peter’s Square, presided over by ‘Pope’ Bergoglio, who began his sermon for the solemn occasion with these words:
The Gospel we have just heard is preceded by the account of a difficult moment in Jesus’ mission, which we might call one of “pastoral desolation”. John the Baptist doubts that Jesus is really the Messiah; so many cities he passed through, despite the wonders he performed, were not converted; people accuse him of being a glutton and a drunkard, whereas they had just complained about the Baptist because he was too austere (cf. Mt 11:2-24).
(Antipope Francis, Homily at Mass for Opening of Synodal Assembly, Vatican.va, Oct. 4, 2023; underlining added.)
This abominable lie about the Baptist is not new for Francis. He has said it a few times in the last ten-and-a-half years, and in fact his predecessor ‘Saint’ John Paul II made the same iniquitous claim in 1983:
- Francis: St. John the Baptist doubted Jesus was the Messiah!
- The Day John Paul II blasphemed Jesus Christ and St. John the Baptist
The Gospel passage about St. John’s alleged messianic ‘doubt’ is the following:
Now when John had heard in prison the works of Christ: sending two of his disciples he said to him: Art thou he that art to come, or look we for another? And Jesus making answer said to them: Go and relate to John what you have heard and seen. The blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, the poor have the gospel preached to them.
Based on this pericope alone, of course someone who is not properly instructed in sacred doctrine and the Holy Gospels might conclude, albeit erroneously, that St. John the Baptist was indeed unsure of whether Jesus of Nazareth was the prophesied Messias. However, someone with Bergoglio’s educational background, and who claims to be the Pope to boot, has no excuse.
St. John the Baptist, conceived miraculously (see Lk 1:13-25,36-37), the greatest of all men of the Old Covenant (see Mt 11:11; Lk 7:28) and relative of Our Lord (see Lk 1), would have failed abysmally in his prophetic mission, in his very reason for being chosen by God to be the Precursor in the first place (cf. Mal 3:1; Mt 11:10; Jn 1:8), if he himself had been unsure of the identity of Him whom he was to point out to everybody: “For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” (1 Cor 14:8). And “if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing any more but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men” (Mt 5:13).
The matter is quite simple actually: The Baptist sent some of his disciples to ask Jesus whether He was truly the Christ, not because he doubted it but because they did. The two emissaries were to ask Christ directly for their sake, not for the sake of the Baptist, who knew that his life was coming to an end, and whose entire mission had been to direct people to the true Messiah, which he had done unfailingly. By Christ’s response — “The blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, the poor have the gospel preached to them” — John’s disciples were reassured.
How do we know that that is the correct understanding of the Gospel passage in question? Because it is what is contained in approved Catholic Scripture commentaries, whereas Bergoglio’s interpretation is insupportable from Scripture or Tradition.
To cite but one example, here is the explanation given by the Flemish Scripture scholar Fr. Cornelius à Lapide (1567-1636), himself a Jesuit, in his Great Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew:
John then, a little before his martyrdom, sent these disciples to Christ in the thirty-second year of Christ’s age, which was the second year of His preaching, when He was becoming famous by His doctrine and miracles, that they might learn from Himself that He was the very Messiah, or Christ, that when John was dead they might go to Him. For otherwise they might have made a schism from Christ, and preferred John as their master to Christ. For that they thought more highly of John than of Christ is plain from Matt. ix. 14. As therefore the runners in the Stadium hand on the lamp to the runner who succeeds them in the course, so did John — when he had fulfilled his office and ministry, resign it to Christ. And, as the dayspring dies away into the rising sun, so did John pale before Christ. For John was the morning star of the sun of righteousness. Wherefore, not only did he not envy Christ His rising glory when his own was setting, but rejoiced at it. Yea, he desired to set, that Christ might arise, for he was ambitious not of his own glory, but of God’s and Christ’s glory. Wherefore he said, “It behoveth Him to increase, but me to decrease” [Jn 3:30].
… From these words of John [in Mt 11:4: “Go and relate to John what you have heard and seen…”], Tertullian (De Baptism, c. 10) and Justin (Quest.38 ad Orthodox) think that John doubted concerning Jesus whether He were the Christ or not, but falsely [i.e. they are wrong], for John had already seen the Spirit descending upon Him in the form of a dove, and had heard the Father’s voice saying, This is my beloved Son. And John had already given the clearest testimony to Him, when he said, Behold the Lamb of God.
Others think that John did not doubt whether Jesus were the Christ, but only asked whether, after death, He would come into Limbus [the Limbo of the Fathers], and visit and deliver the Fathers who were detained there. …But this opinion is little apposite or probable.
I say, therefore, that John sends his disciples, and asks Jesus whether He be the Coming One, i.e., the Messias, not as doubting about Him, but because, being near death, he wished his hesitating disciples to be instructed concerning Him, that they might be led to Christ. So SS. Hil., Chrys., Cyril. Observe, too, the prudence of S. John. He in his own name asks Jesus if He be the Christ, because his disciples would not, of themselves, have dared to propose such a question. For he is the best physician who, to cure a sick man, acts as though he were sick himself, and takes nauseous medicine. So S. Paul says, “Who is weak, and I am not weak?” [2 Cor 11:29].
(The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide: S. Matthew’s Gospel – Chaps. X to XXI, trans. by Thomas W. Mossman, 4th ed. [Edinburgh: John Grant, 1908], pp. 50-51; italics given.)
Many more quotes from different pre-Vatican II Catholic Bible commentaries can be found in our detailed post on this very controversy, in answer to Novus Ordo apologist Mark Shea, who also claims that St. John was having second thoughts about the One he had pointed out as “the Lamb of God … who taketh away the sin of the world” (Jn 1:29) before he had even met Him:
We will not concern ourselves with the rest of Bergoglio’s sermon for the opening of the synod, except to say that it is what can be considered a sedative, a rhetorical sleeping pill for agitated souls who suspect that there is a different kind of spirit involved in the synodal circus than the Holy Ghost.
Of course Novus Ordo apologist Michael Lofton has — pardon the pun — loftily interpreted the homily as Bergoglio “calming the synodal fear storm”, but it is clear that the false pope’s true intent is to lull any perturbed and suspicious conservatives to sleep. Subsequent developments will no doubt prove this.
Interestingly enough, but not surprisingly, Francis’ homily is full of doublespeak giving interpretative loopholes, all his noble and pious-sounding words notwithstanding. This gives both progressives and conservatives something to be happy about. It’s the usual tactic, and apparently it works every time. “So likewise you, except you utter by the tongue plain speech, how shall it be known what is said?” (1 Cor 14:9).
But fine words are one thing, and practical action is another. Time and again, Francis has demonstrated that although he may say one thing, he will do another; or that he may say one thing to one person and say the opposite to someone else. “Realities are greater than ideas”, is one of the (idiotic) principles he goes by (Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, n. 233).
Opening the Synod on Synodality with a blasphemous lie was par for the course for Bergoglio, considering his track record; and it surely portends the things that are to come. “For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh” (Mt 18:7).
Considering that so much emphasis has been placed on ‘listening’, even to the point of “clean[ing] out our ears, to hear better”, it will be worthwhile to recall these words of St. Paul to St. Timothy: “For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears. And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables” (2 Tim 4:3-4; see also 1 Tim 6:20-21).
As far as ‘walking together’ goes in this ‘synodal church’, we have some biblical advice: “Thus saith the Lord: Stand ye on the ways, and see and ask for the old paths which is the good way, and walk ye in it: and you shall find refreshment for your souls. And they said: we will not walk” (Jer 6:16).
Image source: YouTube (screenshot)
License: Fair use