Also wants ‘excluded’ voices of history to be heard…
Francis Wants ‘Renewed’ Study of Church History that Accepts Church’s ‘Spots and Wrinkles’
You know there’s trouble on the horizon when Modernists are calling for ‘renewal’. This is true even more so if they feel the need to throw the word ‘courageous’ into the mix.
On Nov. 21, 2024, the apostate Jesuit Jorge Bergoglio (‘Pope Francis’) published a Letter on the Renewal of the Study of Church History, in which he calls for a “sincere and courageous study of history”, especially on the part of seminarians. While this may at first seem like a pretty good and harmless idea, what Francis has in mind bears within itself the seeds of revolution.
The missive was presented in a Vatican press conference dedicated to its release yesterday. Vatican News’ chief propagandist Andrea Tornielli notes: “As with his letter in August [here], which focused on the importance of literature, the Successor of Peter speaks primarily to priests regarding their formation, but he also sheds light on a subject that concerns everyone” (source).
It is unclear to the present writer how it is that the study of Church history has suddenly become a ‘concern’ for Francis, so much so that he felt the need to address it in a letter that is presented by the Vatican press office. The matter seems more or less to have come out of the blue, being yet another revolutionary project Francis wants to see initiated, in line with his ‘time is greater than space’ approach (see Evangelii Gaudium, nn. 222-225) of getting the ball rolling on things, regardless of the consequences.
In any case, in his Letter on the Renewal of the Study of Church History, the false pope dares to state:
According to an oral tradition whose written source I cannot confirm, a great French theologian used to tell his students that the study of history protects us from “ecclesiological monophysitism”, that is, from an overly angelic conception of the Church, presenting a Church that is unreal because she lacks spots and wrinkles [macchie e rughe]. Indeed the Church, like our own mothers, must be loved as she is; otherwise we do not love her at all, or what we love is only a figment of our imagination. Church history helps us to see the real Church and to love the Church as she truly exists, and love what she has learnt and continues to learn from her mistakes and failures. A Church that even in her darkest moments is conscious of her deepest identity can be capable of understanding the imperfect and wounded world in which she lives. In her efforts to bring healing and renewal to the world, she will use the same means by which she strives to heal and renew herself, even if she at times does not succeed.
This can serve as a corrective to the misguided approach that would view reality only from a triumphalist defence of our function or role. As I pointed out in the Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti, that is precisely the approach that sees the injured man in the parable of the Good Samaritan as a distraction, irrelevant to the important things in life, a “nobody”.
(Antipope Francis, Letter on the Renewal of the Study of Church History, Nov. 21, 2024; underlining added.)
Notice the several outrageous things which Francis claims in the above excerpted text, either directly or indirectly:
- that a spotless Catholic Church is “unreal”
- that the “real” Catholic Church, the Church “as she truly exists” has “spots and wrinkles” and has made “mistakes and failures”, from which she, however, “has learnt and continues to learn”
- that precisely because the Church is imperfect and this imperfection is part of “her deepest identity”, she “can be capable of understanding the imperfect and wounded world in which she lives”, implying that her understanding of sin and the sinful world does not come from “the doctrine of Christ” (2 Jn 9), that is, the Deposit of Faith given to her by Christ and the Holy Ghost (see Jn 1:17; 16:13), and from which we may never deviate (see Rom 16:17; 2 Jn 9); but by the experience of and interaction with the world!
- that the Church is no better than the world she tries to cure, and indeed sometimes even fails to cure herself
The blasphemies and heresies contained in these ideas are sickening! The fact that the letter was released on Nov. 21, 2024, the feast of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, only adds further insult to injury.
We will now proceed to refute Bergoglio with the timeless truths of the real Roman Catholic magisterium.
The True Roman Catholic Doctrine
In the ancient Apostles’ Creed we profess our belief in “the holy Catholic Church” (Denz. 1), and in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, too, we profess that we believe in “one holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” (Denz. 86).
The following quotes from various Catholic sources demonstrate the holiness of the Church, showing that, despite the sinfulness of many of her members, she herself is without any flaws (all underlining added for emphasis):
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it: That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish. (Ephesians 5:25-27)
Theologically, it is certain that the Church must be holy in every respect. (Fr. Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise [Wipf & Stock, 1955], p. 57)
For, to the Catholic Church alone belong all those many and marvelous things which have been divinely arranged for the evident credibility of the Christian faith. But, even the Church by itself, because of its marvelous propagation, its exceptional holiness, and inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good works; because of its catholic unity and invincible stability, is a very great and perpetual motive of credibility, and an incontestable witness of its own divine mission. (First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Chp. 3; Denz. 1794)
…although one of the Church’s marks is holiness because she is holy in her Founder, holy in her teaching, holy in the sanctity of a great many of her members, nonetheless she has also within her bosom many members who are not holy, who afflict and persecute and misjudge her. (Pope Pius IX, Allocution to Pilgrims from Savoy, Sept. 15, 1876; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 246.)
‘She is a garden enclosed, my sister, my spouse, a garden enclosed, a fountain sealed’ [Cant 4:12]. These words of Holy Scripture are applied, according to the Fathers, to the Catholic Church, the immaculate spouse of Christ…. (Pope Leo XIII, Decree Hortus Conclusus, Dec. 15, 1881; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 246).
In fact, only a miracle of that divine power could preserve the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, from blemish in the holiness of Her doctrine, law, and end in the midst of the flood of corruption and lapses of her members. (Pope St. Pius X, Encyclical Editae Saepe, n. 8)
Now all this array of priceless educational treasures which We have barely touched upon, is so truly a property of the Church as to form her very substance, since she is the mystical body of Christ, the immaculate spouse of Christ, and consequently a most admirable mother and an incomparable and perfect teacher. (Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Divini Illius Magistri, n. 101)
…the Church, although human faults can be found in her, is always the Church of Christ, and, as such, true and infallible in preserving and transmitting the sacred deposit of faith, that is, of truth and heavenly grace; and she is holy, in fact, the very same ‘Church of God, which He purchased with his blood’ [Acts 20:28]. God is always great and wonderful in his works, but He is especially to be considered so where his greatest charity is shown forth, where his most abundant redemption in our regard is made perfect, namely in the Catholic Church. (Pope Pius XII, Allocution to the Students of the Gregorianum, Oct. 17, 1953; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 695.)
And if at times there appears in the Church something that indicates the weakness of our human nature, it should not be attributed to her juridical constitution, but rather to that regrettable inclination to evil found in each individual, which its Divine Founder permits even at times in the most exalted members of His Mystical Body, for the purpose of testing the virtue of the shepherds no less than of the flocks, and that all may increase the merit of their Christian faith. For, as We said above, Christ did not wish to exclude sinners from His Church; hence if some of her members are suffering from spiritual maladies, that is no reason why we should lessen our love for the Church, but rather a reason why we should increase our devotion to her members. Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors. But it cannot be laid to her charge if some members fall, weak or wounded. (Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 66)
Note in particular Pope Pius XII’s last sentence: that the sinfulness of individual Church members “cannot be laid to her charge.” So much for Bergoglio’s “stained” and “wrinkled” church! No, the Church herself is spotless because she is the Bride of Christ, whose mission is to lead souls to Heaven (cf. Apoc 21:27), who alone possesses all the means of sanctification, the true doctrine, and salutary discipline, and who alone has been given by God power over the treasury of grace (see Mt 16:18; 18:18) and the right and authority to preach the Gospel (see Jn 20:21; Lk 10:16).
Christ did not establish a ‘Sinning Church’, as some Neo-Modernists would have us believe; He gave us a Church that can sanctify us precisely because, being His Bride, she is without spot or wrinkle!
We might point out here that this is not the first time the apostate from Buenos Aires has blasphemed the Church in this manner. He had said more or less the same at his general audience of Sep. 11, 2013, in which he also managed to blaspheme the Mother of God to boot:
As for the parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:30-35) to which Bergoglio makes reference, to him it is nothing more than a vivid call to practice the corporal works of mercy; whereas in reality, the parable is much more than that. It is in fact an allegory of fallen, sinful man being redeemed by Christ and sanctified through the ministry of the Church:
The traveller is Adam wounded, and all but dead in trespasses and sins. For Adam went from Jerusalem to Jericho when he fell from grace into the power of Satan. For the thieves are the evil spirits who tempted Adam and Eve to sin, and corrupted the souls of all with the lust of concupiscence. The priest and Levite represent the ancient law, which was unable to remedy the consequences of Adam’s fall.
The Samaritan is Christ, by whom men are rescued from sin and promised salvation. The beast is his human nature, to which the divine is united, and on which it is carried and borne. The inn is the Church, which receives all believers. The wine is the blood of Christ, by which we are cleansed from sin. The oil represents his mercy and pity. The host, who is the head of the inn, i.e. of the Church, is S. Peter. So S. Ambrose, Origen, and the Fathers.
Hear also Origen more particularly: “A certain preacher thus interprets the parable. The man who went down from Jerusalem is Adam. Jerusalem is Paradise, Jericho the world. The thieves are the powers which are against us. The priest is the law, the Levite, the prophets. The Samaritan is Christ. The beast whereon he sat, the body of the Lord, i.e. His humanity. The inn the Church. By the two pieces of money we may understand the Father and the Son, and by the host, the head of the Church, him to whom its governance is committed. The return of the Samaritan is the second coming of the Lord”; and this interpretation seems reasonable and true.
(The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide: S. Luke’s Gospel, 3rd ed., trans. and ed. by Thomas W. Mossman [London: John Hodges, 1892], pp. 260-261)
But then, this is probably a bit too ‘triumphalist’ for Bergoglio, who always likes to remain on the level of the natural. To him, it is the great supernatural truths of the Gospel that are but “a distraction, irrelevant to the important things in life”, which for him are chiefly caresses, alms, and soup kitchens.
Absurdity and Revolution
It is, of course, ironic that a man whose religion practically dates back no further than the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) — the footnotes in his letter alone give it away — and whose “irreversible” liturgy goes back to committee meetings held in the 1960s, should be lecturing Catholics on the importance of a proper understanding of Church history.
Amusingly, the fake pope warns of “covertly prefabricated histories that serve to construct ad hoc memories, identity-based memories and exclusionary memories.” What we need, he claims, is an understanding of history “that is indispensable for transforming the present world and transcending ideological distortions.” Whether that is perhaps itself an ideological distortion, he does not tell us. Nor does he explain what “transforming the present world” would entail, nor exactly what he wants the present world to be transformed into — although he has left no doubt over the last 11+ years that it’s definitely not a Catholic world he is interested in.
Quoting Vatican II’s insufferable Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Francis asserts that the Church…
is by no means unaware that down through the centuries there have been among her members, both clerical and lay, some who were disloyal to the Spirit of God. Today as well, the Church is not blind to the discrepancy between the message she proclaims and the human weakness of those to whom the Gospel has been entrusted. Whatever is history’s judgement on these shortcomings, we cannot ignore them and we must combat them assiduously, lest they hinder the spread of the Gospel.
(Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, n. 43; as quoted by Antipope Francis in Letter on the Renewal of the Study of Church History, Nov. 21, 2024.)
One cannot help but chuckle at Bergoglio’s pretense. He teaches unabashedly that the diversity of religions is God’s gift to mankind and that they are all different ways of arriving at God, and yet now he tries to assure us he is somehow concerned about anything that could “hinder the spread of the Gospel”! Whom does he think he’s kidding?
Before finishing his letter, Francis graces the reader with a number of “brief observations regarding the study of Church history”, of which the sixth (and penultimate) one, which he says “is very close to my heart”, is nothing short of explosive. It…
concerns the “cancelling” of insights from those whose voices were not able to make themselves heard over the centuries. This makes faithful historical reconstruction a difficult task. Here, I ask myself: is it not a privilege for the Church historian to bring to light as much as possible the popular faces of the “least important” and to reconstruct the history of their defeats and the oppressions they suffered, together with their human and spiritual riches, offering tools for understanding today’s phenomena of marginalization and exclusion?
(Antipope Francis, Letter on the Renewal of the Study of Church History)
Underneath this smooth-sounding talk that purports to ‘give a voice to the oppressed’ lies a most dangerous call for revolution. What Francis writes here is essentially the green light for every heretic, every dissident, every censored and censured cleric or layman in the history of the Church to be, effectively, rehabilitated. Thus, in one fell swoop, all of the Church’s safeguards against heresy and heretics would be removed, and the consequences would be disastrous, since there are good reasons why the Church prohibits bad books, silences dissenters, suppresses wayward movements, condemns errors, and anathematizes not just heresy but also heretics.
Don’t believe it?
We’ve seen previews of this dangerous nonsense already. To give just one example: Under ‘Pope’ Francis, Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, has been rehabilitated to the point of being called a “witness to the Gospel”. You can’t make this stuff up! In fact, in 2016 and ’17, Francis himself joined in celebrating the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Revolution (“Reformation”) and was happy to have on display during an audience a statue of Martin Luther made of chocolate that an ecumenical delegation had apparently brought him (see photo found on this page about halfway down). That’s the same Martin Luther who, under all true Popes since his time — beginning with Leo X, all the way up to Pius XII — was known to be a foul-mouthed, evil, blaspheming arch-heretic! In 2017 the Vatican was brazen enough to issue a postage stamp in honor (!) of the Lutheran Revolt, depicting Luther and his disciple Philipp Melancthon at the foot of the Cross!
Thus, when Francis advocates for a “renewal” in the study of Church history, specifically the kind that is “courageous” and takes into account “voices [that] were not able to make themselves heard over the centuries”, we can only imagine what will be its most rotten fruit.
Such a revolution in Church history would definitely be a fitting complement to the “paradigm shift” he called for in theology a year ago, and both together will take the infernal apostasy to unprecedented levels.
Under the pretext of renewing and refreshing the study of ecclesiastical history, Bergoglio is opening the floodgates to a complete reinterpretation of Catholic history. This, in turn, will open the floodgates to any kind of doctrinal aberration by removing the objective (and triumphalist!) testimony that history gives in favor of orthodoxy.
As of right now, the Vatican II religion still has that pesky problem of Church history testifying to the truth of genuine Catholicism, thereby exposing it for the sham it is. We can see this, for example, in the Vatican’s recent attempts to downgrade the Papacy into something acceptable to Protestants. The biggest hurdle standing in the way of that is, of course, the First Vatican Council (1870).
No doubt Bergoglio’s ‘renewed’ study of Church history will quickly deliver the desired results in that regard, relegating Vatican I to something that must be understood in the historical context in which it was held, but that cannot be transposed into our own day in the same sense and meaning, on account of the vastly different circumstances that now obtain between the Church and other ‘Christian communities’, thanks to ecumenism.
In short, we can expect that Francis’ proposed ‘renewal’ of ecclesiastico-historical studies will prove to be a Pandora’s box that will generate ‘courageous’ results for decades to come.
Image source: composite with elements from Shutterstock (Triff) and YouTube (screenshot)
License: paid and fair use
;
No Comments
Be the first to start a conversation