You are currently viewing The Essence of Christianity according to Bergoglio

The Essence of Christianity according to Bergoglio

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Vague definition compatible with any religion…

The Essence of Christianity according to Bergoglio

On Tuesday, July 19, 2022, the Jesuit apostate running Vatican City (Jorge Bergoglio, aka “Pope Francis”) tried to impress the world by publishing a tweet concerning the “essence” of Christianity.

It is amazing that a man who detests Scholasticism as much as he does even knows what the notion of essence is. Or does he?

Fr. Bernard Wullener’s Dictionary of Scholastic Philosophy defines the concept of essence as follows: “what a thing is; the internal principles whereby a thing is what it is and has its specific perfections; quiddity; internal constitution of a thing” (p. 42; italics given). To ask what the essence of Christianity is, therefore, is to ask what makes Christianity Christianity.

Although he may be familiar with the concept of essence in general, he does not mind distorting the essence of Christianity. This is not surprising, however, considering that he is an existentialist who prefers “reality” over “ideas”, the concrete over the abstract, the practical over the theoretical.

We recall that in his first exhortation Evangelii Gaudium he enunciated the idea (ha!) that “realities are greater than ideas” (n. 231); and if we add to that his insufferable Naturalism that constantly tries to reduce the Catholic religion to little more than a divinely commanded humanitarianism with bad liturgy, it only stands to reason that he would present a definition of the essence of Christianity that is woefully insufficient and ultimately false.

Bergoglio on the Essence of Christianity

“Pope” Francis tweeted the following on July 19, 2022, at 7:30 am ET:

In case the tweet won’t display in some browsers, Francis wrote: “We must return to the essence of Christianity: the love of God, the driving force of our joy that sends us out to trod [sic] the pathways of the world, and welcoming our neighbour. This is the simplest and most beautiful witness we can give the world” (source). Giving these words the most benevolent interpretation possible, we can say that Francis reduces Christianity to loving God and helping our neighbor.

Now it is true, of course, that the greatest commandment is to love the Lord our God, and the second greatest is to love our neighbor as ourselves (see Mt 22:37-39). These commandments are not optional — our Faith will not save us if it is devoid of charity: “So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself” (Jas 2:17).

But look at what is missing. In Francis’ definition of what Christianity is, no mention at all is made of anything supernatural. (Although he mentions love of God, one can love God with only a natural charity, and this will not suffice for salvation.) Things such as Faith, hope, the soul, sin, grace, Redemption, salvation, death, judgment, Heaven, or hell are completely absent from Francis’ tweet, and aren’t even hinted at. Yet, Catholicism cannot be imagined without these.

Bergoglio’s apologists will no doubt rush to claim, rather conveniently, that the “Pope” meant to include all of these things under “love of God”, but whoever would say such a thing simply doesn’t know Bergoglio. Just in January of this year, he taught that Sacred Scripture “reveals God and leads us to man”, and that caring for others is more important than religious ceremony.

Francis has shown again and again that for him religion is ultimately about helping the needy, and God enters the picture only, or primarily, as the One who commands us to do it (and who “never tires of forgiving” us should we fail). That is why he doesn’t “care if [an] education is given by Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox or Jews. What matters is that [the] child receives an education and ceases to be hungry” (source).

In fact, in the offending tweet itself, the love of God is presented not for God’s sake, as if we ought to love Him because He is worthy of all our love, but for the sake of other people. At least that is the impression given, for he describes the love of God exclusively as “the driving force of our joy that sends us out to [tread] the pathways of the world”. Thus it is clear that Bergoglio immediately wishes to redirect the focus from God to man and the temporal world.

According to Francis, then, Christianity is essentially a humanitarian mission fueled by a love of God. But that is false. In essence, Christianity is about saving souls from the dominion of the devil and eternal damnation, and leading them to eternal supernatural happiness in Heaven.

The saintly Irish spiritual writer Fr. Edward Leen (d. 1944) explains how grave a mistake it is to think of our Lord as having become man so as to deliver us from temporal sufferings:

The [Gospel] passages that reveal Jesus in the exercise of works of mercy, in healing disease, in consoling grief and in overcoming death, are given an undue emphasis [by Naturalists]. In this way the central truth is obscured, the truth, namely, that the conflict of the Redeemer was primarily with spiritual evil and only incidentally with physical evil. His purpose was to banish from earth the ills that appear to God as such, not those that appear so to the pain-dreading nature of man… The gospel is not a record of a more or less successful philanthropic mission.

…To Christians, who persist in thinking that the function of Christianity is to provide men with good things and banish from their life evil things — understanding by good and evil what appear such to fallen human nature — life will speedily prove unintelligible. To men with such views the mystery of pain becomes insoluble. In the face of the harsh realities of existence their belief stands condemned. They have no answer to give to the ever-recurring question: if God is kind and good and tender towards human suffering, why does suffering continue to be not only for those that deserve it, but also for those who do not?

That Jesus, in His power and goodness, did not put an end to all human suffering shows that, in His eyes, suffering is not the real source of human unhappiness.

(Rev. Edward Leen, Why the Cross? [London: Sheed & Ward, 1938], pp. 54-56; italics removed.)

It is evident that Fr. Leen preached the true Gospel, which is focused primarily on the supernatural and only secondarily on the natural.

Interestingly enough, Fr. Leen’s observation that Naturalists “have no answer to give to the ever-recurring question: if God is kind and good and tender towards human suffering, why does suffering continue to be not only for those that deserve it, but also for those who do not?” is verified in none other than “Pope” Francis, who is on record stating more than once that he has no answer as to why God permits children to suffer.

Worse still, in his homily for Dec. 31, 2021, the apostate from Buenos Aires explicitly repudiated the idea that there is any supernatural purpose to suffering temporal ills. The man is simply not a Catholic.

The true Essence of Christianity and its Rejection by Francis

Let us now consider a real and substantial definition of Christianity’s essence.

First, we must clarify that the term “Christianity” really has no meaning apart from “Catholicism”, although it is sometimes used more loosely to include all those sects that have assumed the name “Christian” and claim to be following the teachings of Jesus Christ. Donald Attwater notes: “Since the rise of Protestantism the name [“Christian”] has been used in so many different sense as to have become almost meaningless…. The Church puts no definite official meaning on the word, as she does on Catholic” (A Catholic Dictionary, s.v. “Christian”, p. 94).

Be that how it may, the New Catholic Dictionary (1929) defines “Christianity” as

the religion of Christ; the faith which He has inspired; the teachings and moral practises inculcated by this faith; the spirit of justice, charity, of obedience to law, purity of morals, and sanctity of domestic life which characterize the manners of those who adhere to this faith; and the consequent character of the civilization which is known as Christian and which influences even those who have never believed in Christ or who have lost that faith.

(Condé B. Pallen, et al., eds., The New Catholic Dictionary [New York, NY: The Universal Knowledge Foundation, 1929], s.v. “Christianity”, p. 209)

Furthermore, Attwater’s Catholic Dictionary (1958) provides the following definition of “Catholicism”:

The system of faith and morals revealed by God to man through Jesus Christ, who founded a catholic, i.e., universal, Church as the depository of that revelation and as the common ark of salvation for all; the ecclesiastical system and organization of that Church.

(Donald Attwater, ed., A Catholic Dictionary [New York, NY: The Macmillan Company, 1958], s.v. “Catholicism”, p. 82)

All of this is quite clear and very much in harmony with common sense. It is the Modernists since Vatican II who have continually done all they can to ruin these strict and clear definitions, replacing them with insufferably vague notions that will mean different things to different people.

For example, they are quick to claim that “no one owns the truth” (Francis), or that “we do not possess the truth, the truth possesses us” (Benedict XVI); when the Catholic Church is precisely the depository of God’s Revelation (cf. Jn 14:16-17; 16:13), indeed the very “pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). In fact, the First Vatican Council taught clearly that “the doctrine of faith which God revealed … has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted” (Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Ch. 4; Denz. 1800). It is correct, of course, that some truths (especially those of natural reason, but even some revealed truths) can be found outside the Catholic Church, but there they can only be found mixed together with many heresies and other errors.

Out of all the false Vatican II popes, no one has shown a bigger aversion to the Catholic Faith being a body of dogmas and doctrines which must be given assent than Francis.

On Mar. 31, 2019, while visiting Morocco, he proclaimed that “being a Christian is not about adhering to a doctrine, or a temple or an ethnic group.” Of course that couldn’t be more wrong. A quick look at the New Testament shows us just how much being a follower of Christ has to do with adhering to doctrinal ideas:

And they were astonished at his doctrine. For he was teaching them as one having power, and not as the scribes. (Mk 1:22)

Jesus answered them, and said: My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. (Jn 7:16)

The high priest therefore asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine. (Jn 18:19)

And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers. (Acts 2:42)

And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. 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 5:27-28)

Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. (2 Jn 9-10)

I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. 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 4:1-4)

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. (2 Thess 2:14)

I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. (Gal 1:6-9)

Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. (Rom 16:17)

Which things also we speak, not in the learned words of human wisdom; but in the doctrine of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. (1 Cor 2:13)

These things proposing to the brethren, thou shalt be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished up in the words of faith, and of the good doctrine which thou hast attained unto. Till I come, attend unto reading, to exhortation, and to doctrine. (1 Tim 4:6,13)

If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to that doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing… (1 Tim 6:3-4)

Exhort servants to be obedient to their masters, in all things pleasing, not gainsaying: Not defrauding, but in all things shewing good fidelity, that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things. (Titus 2:9-10)

God’s own testimony on the matter is very clear.

Yet, on May 16, 2021, in a homily for Ascension Day, the same apostate pseudo-pope Francis again attacked this traditional and commonsensical notion of true Christian doctrine when he declared: “Keeping the truth does not mean defending ideas, becoming guardians of a system of doctrines and dogmas…”. That too is simply false — outrageously false! In fact, various magisterial pronouncements of Holy Mother Church refute Francis’ error.

The Vatican Council of 1870 made clear that “assent to the preaching of the Gospel” is precisely “consenting to and believing in truth” (Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Ch. 3; Denz. 1791), which is of the greatest importance because it is necessary for salvation.

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).

In 1910, 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 X is clearly tying the concept of dogma to the concept of truth, from which it follows that to defend dogma is to defend truth.

What Bergoglio contemptuously dismisses as mere “ideas” is what our Blessed Lord handed on to His Apostles either directly or by means of the Holy Ghost:

And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever. The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you. (Jn 14:16-17)

I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you. (Jn 16:12-13)

Francis’ pooh-poohing of ideas is also entirely hypocritical, of course, for obviously his own endless speeches, sermons, encyclical letters, and “apostolic” exhortations are filled to the brim with ideas, and pretty lousy and dangerous ones at that. Besides, his very contention that ideas aren’t worth much, is itself an idea. The human mind simply cannot escape ideas, and that is a good thing because without ideas we could have no rational knowledge even of concrete things.

Clever Francis knows how to play the Game

Now, Francis wouldn’t be Francis is he didn’t also know how to “play the game”, that is, how to employ sly Modernist tactics to inject his doctrinal poison while retaining some plausible deniability and making himself look innocent in the process. Pope St. Pius X knew about and denounced the Modernists’ infernal cunning, noting that they “wrap [their errors] in certain ambiguous terms, in certain nebulous expressions, in order always to leave a way open in their defense so as to avoid incurring an open condemnation and yet to take the unwary in their snares” (Allocution Accogliamo).

Francis’ assertion, quoted earlier, that “[k]eeping the truth does not mean defending ideas, becoming guardians of a system of doctrines and dogmas” does not end there but is followed by a few additional words. The complete sentence reads as follows: “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”. We omitted the latter half of the sentence earlier (and indicated this by means of an ellipsis) so as to treat the two affirmations separately.

Notice what Bergoglio does here: By saying what he says, and phrasing it in the manner he does, he introduces a contrast (using the conjunction “but”) between “defending ideas, becoming guardians of a system of doctrines and dogmas” and “remaining bound to Christ and being devoted to his Gospel”. Yet, these two concepts are by no means mutually exclusive, and in no wise do they have to stand in opposition to one another. It is Francis who places these two affirmations in gratuitous contrast to one another so he can dismiss the former while harping on the latter. Since the latter is more general than the former, and technically includes it, his apologists can easily defend him from the charge of heresy or error.

This devilish tactic deliberately obscures the fact that, when it comes to the truth of the Catholic Faith, it is precisely by “defending ideas [and] becoming guardians of a system of doctrines and dogmas” that we remain bound to Christ and devoted to His Gospel. That alone is not sufficient to be a genuine follower of Christ, it is true, for we must also remain in charity (cf. 1 Cor 13); but Faith is the indispensable foundation of that, without which no supernatural charity is possible: “But without faith it is impossible to please God” (Heb 11:6). As St. John the Apostle says: “The man who goes back, who is not true to Christ’s teaching, loses hold of God; the man who is true to that teaching, keeps hold both of the Father and of the Son” (2 Jn 1:9; Knox translation).

One may ask, then, just why Bergoglio drives an artificial wedge between defending truth and remaining attached to Christ and His Gospel. The reason is that he wants to water down the notion of Catholicism as revealed truth, as including clear and specific propositions to which the assent of Faith must be given, for only if he can succeed in getting people to separate the essence of the Catholic religion from a revealed body of objective truth, can the Great Apostasy succeed.

Harping on vague notions such as “encounter”, “love”, etc., is particularly suited to this infernal endeavor. And so in his homily for Ascension Day 2021, in which he sneered at truth as a system of doctrines and dogmas, he also asserted: “Truth, for the apostle John, is Christ himself, the revelation of the Father’s love.” Again we see a contrast being maintained where none exists, nor needs to exist. Yes, our Blessed Lord Himself is “the way, and the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6), but that just proves that to defend the truth is to defend Him!

Defining truth as “the revelation of the Father’s love” may not be incorrect, but it is clearly insufficient, for it is extremely vague and not specific enough, and therefore it needlessly opens the way to misunderstanding and confusion — which is, of course, precisely what is intended. This is one way Modernists like Francis soften, dilute, and undermine the Catholic Faith. They reject very clear and precise definitions and replace them with much more general ideas that do not necessarily stand in conflict with the precise definitions but allow plenty of room for other ideas that ought to remain excluded.

Thus, for example, one can indeed affirm as true that Jesus Christ is the revelation of the Father’s love, but it is much too broad for a definition. It does not get to the essence of who and what Jesus Christ is, for it does not make clear that Jesus Christ is the only-begotten Son of God, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity Incarnate, true God and true Man, the Redeemer of mankind, etc.

At the Service of the One-World Religion

The globalist one-world religion is currently being built, and the apostate Jesuit from Buenos Aires is doing his best to prepare his hapless sheeple to accept it.

To do that, he must get his followers to stop associating the essence of Christianity with objective, supernaturally-revealed truth, as we already noted. A fraternal humanitarianism is perfect as a counterfeit Catholicism — we have dubbed it the “gospel of man” — inasmuch as it is compatible with just about any religion and thus lends itself perfectly to dissolving the supernatural essence of the Catholic Faith. Besides, one can easily hijack various Scripture passages in support of it, make oneself look humble and holy by standing up for those in need, and of course it appeals pretty much to all people, for who could possibly be against helping the poor, the hungry, the forsaken?

Lest anyone should think that the idea of a one-world religion must be the product of the conspiratorial minds of some crazy bloggers, we must point out that Pope Pius X warned of precisely a dogma-less apostate religion back in 1910, when he condemned the French socio-political movement Le Sillon (“The Furrow”) for the errors it had embraced:

And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer.

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

There is no question that we are very far along in the establishment of this one-world religion, for it is clearly beginning to take shape. The foundations for a “Catholic” acceptance of it were laid by the false popes John XXIII and Paul VI with the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). It was John Paul II who watered the seeds laid by his predecessors and gave this unholy business a respectable facade. Benedict XVI was no better but managed to retain a somewhat conservative veneer in the process. It is Francis, however, who has really forged ahead on this at an incredible speed, especially with the 2019 Human Fraternity Declaration and the movement it has engendered, and the approval of the so-called Abrahamic Family House to be opened in Abu Dhabi in a few months.

To see once again the stark contrast that exists between the true Roman Catholic religion and the false Naturalist “gospel of man” preached by Bergoglio, the following lines from St. Pius X are particularly enlightening:

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; underlining added.)

In these words of the holy Pope Pius X, we see the true essence of Christianity shine forth. No, it is not a matter of “treading the pathways of the world to welcome our neighbor” — as if non-Catholics couldn’t do that just as well –, it is a matter of the walking the royal way of the Cross, which leads to a spiritual happiness on earth and an eternal happiness in Heaven.

One might say, then, that in the final analysis the essence of Christianity, of Catholicism, is the following of Jesus Christ (cf. Lk 14:27) with all that this properly entails. This means to love God above all things by embracing the religion He revealed and taught, by entering the Church He founded (the Roman Catholic Church, and no other), by subjecting oneself to His Vicar, and by obeying His commandments, which includes the love of neighbor for the sake of God, which makes us attentive to his spiritual and temporal needs. Only in following Christ in this manner is man raised from the natural to the supernatural plane, through the aid of divine grace, by which the “old man” is put to death, his sins are forgiven, and he becomes a sharer in the Divine Life — a “new man”, an adopted son of God and heir of Heaven, through the merits of the Redemption wrought by Jesus Christ.

In all of this, the supernatural character of Christianity is abundantly evident. In Francis’ definition, it is conspicuously absent. In fact, his definition is compatible with just about any religion, for he defined the essence of Christianity as “the love of God, the driving force of our joy that sends us out to [tread] the pathways of the world, and welcoming our neighbour.” What monotheistic religion would disagree with that and not teach the love God and encourage works of charity for others?

Keeping in mind that Francis considers all religions to constitute “different ways of coming to God”, one could see in this Bergoglian definition of the essence of Christianity also pretty much the essence of most other religions, or even of religion in general. In other words, it most certainly does not disclose the true essence of Christianity, that which makes the true religion to be what it is and distinguishes it from any other religion.

A Final Word

The same day he published his essence of Christianity tweet, July 19, Francis also issued a video message for the Second Pan-African Catholic Congress on Theology, Society and Pastoral Life. Although fairly brief, he still managed to include some blather in it that is so inane, it makes one’s head spin. The supposed “Pope of the Catholic Church” said:

Coming together to discern what God is telling us today, not only to meet challenging needs with certainty, but also to make African dreams come true (social, cultural, ecological and ecclesial dreams) is already a sign of an outgoing African Church.

Continue your efforts.

In my visits to Africa, I have always been impressed by the faith and resilience of these peoples. As I commented during my trip to the Central African Republic in 2015, “Africa always surprises us.” Bring out the best of you in these reflections so that the result will be a surprise, so that that African creation that surprises us all can be born.

Because Africa is poetry.

The wisdom of the African ancestors reminds us for this important call that “mountains never meet, but people do.” Let us continue on. Together. Accompanying one another, helping one another, and growing together.

(Source)

In other words, Jorge Bergoglio had nothing to say. Such utter pseudo-spiritual trash may make for a fun comedy night with friends, but it is wholly atrocious if considered to be a papal message containing Catholic thought.

One can see there the New Theology at work, specifically the false concept of revelation that considers God’s speaking to man not to have ended with the death of the last Apostle but as something that is continually unfolding throughout history and until the end of time. That was condemned by Pope St. Pius X in Lamentabili Sane, error n. 21: “Revelation, constituting the object of Catholic faith, was not completed with the apostles” (Denz. 2021).

When the same sainted Pope delivered an address to cardinals concerning the threat of Modernism in the Church (Apr. 17, 1907), he identified one of the characteristics of Modernists as “preaching a charity without faith, very accommodating to unbelievers, which unfortunately opens the way to eternal ruin for all” (Allocution Accogliamo). Does this not describe Bergoglio to a tee?

The holy Pope Pius knew about the great responsibility he bore before God to defend His Bride, the Catholic Church, from the infernal onslaught of the Modernists. In the same speech to cardinals he explained further: “You can see, Venerable Brothers, how We, who must defend with all our strength the deposit entrusted to Us, have reason to be in anguish in the face of this attack, which is not a heresy, but the synthesis and the poison of all heresies, which seeks to undermine the foundations of the faith and annihilate Christianity.”

How much the Vatican II religion, especially in the last nine years under “Pope” Francis, has contributed to undermining the foundations of the Faith and annihilating the essence of Christianity, has been amply documented on this web site and also, to an extent, in this very article. Roughly sixty years after Vatican II, they are now at the point of declaring that human fraternity is the savior of mankind and that God wills there to exist a diversity of different religions. With these ideas, there is nothing left of Catholicism, no matter how much incense they may use to try to make it more palatable.

How right St. Pius X was when he wrote in his landmark encyclical letter Pascendi Dominici Gregis, issued on Sep. 8, 1907, that Modernists “pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true meaning of religion…” (n. 13).

But that kind of perversion is infinitely worse than the sexual kind, and therefore far more to be feared, because it robs people not only of sanctifying grace but also of the very possibility of regaining it — for “without faith it is impossible to please God” (Heb 11:6).

Image source: youtube.com (screenshot)
License: fair use

Share this content now: