The Despotism of Francis

vs.

the Benevolence of God

 

WHY DOES GODS ALLOW IT?

 

We do not argue that Seat of Saint Peter is empty — which is to say that we are not Sedevacantists (from the Latin “sede vacante”, “the chair being vacant”)

Indeed, we maintain that the Chair is, in fact, occupied.

That it is presently occupied by a heretic, pantheist and madman in no way invalidates the statement that the papacy is indeed occupied. Some popes have been saints. Some have been scoundrels. Jorge Bergoglio, regrettably, is certainly among the latter.

The “Cathedra Petri” is not and has never been empty (apart, of course, from the interregnum between the death of a pope and the nomination of his successor — the longest of which was 3 years (1268-1271) With Francis occupying the Cathedra Petri since 2013 however, this position has become increasingly untenable. At what point does a man — including a pope — cease to be in communion with the Church? At what point does he cease to be Catholic? If he does not hold what the Church teaches, what Sacred Scripture teaches, what Sacred Tradition teaches, what the authentic Magisterium of the Church has taught for 2000 years — in what sense do we hold him to be in communion with what he has openly repudiated — even suppressed?
 

Is the Pope Catholic?

Many Catholics and non-Catholics have, for some time now, nevertheless asked themselves what was once an amusing question intended to be a litmus test for the faithfulness of a Catholic. “How can you possibly question her fidelity to the Church? She’s as Catholic as the pope!” This, of course, presupposes that the pope is the paradigmatic Catholic entrusted with preserving and promoting Catholic teaching, dogma, the Sacred Deposit of Faith, the authentic and unbroken Catholic Magisterium, and a millennia of Catholic Tradition.

This question can legitimately be asked —  but without anticipating a positive response. Indeed, under the papacy of Francis, to be “as Catholic as the pope” is to be an uncertain, uncommitted Catholic, unsure of the credentials of the Catholic Church and uncertain of the morality historically predicated of Her and derived from Sacred Scripture. A non-creedal Unitarian Universalist would be more in keeping with the mind of Francis than Catholicism as it has been historically understood.

Before we attempt to make sense of this apparent paradox, (actually an Hegelian Dialectic) there are  a few things that we must be clear about; harsh as they may appear, they are quite nearly incontrovertible:

Francis is not a proponent of Catholicism , but an ideologue whose primary concern is an elusive and esoteric notion of “encounter” with all that is alien to Catholicism and most often antagonistic toward it — a program of assimilating other cultures by repudiating Catholic dogma and identity. For Francis there is nothing specific in the way of identity — essentially there is no differentiation—nothing is unique, nothing idiomatic: it is only sameness expressed in other terms that can never be incongruent. Uniqueness is anathema — even if that means sacrificing millennia old Catholic beliefs inseparable from the unique identity of Catholicism. Catholicism is an obstacle and if it is not consonant with every other belief system, it is Catholicism that must yield. Remember the absurd “Encounter Groups” which proliferated in the 60’s? (not coincidentally the era of Vatican II) These were even more flexible than Francis’s obscure — and rigid vision of the notion of Encounter. Yes, “rigid!” — the very epithet that Francis solely reserves for Traditional Catholics.

“Faced with cultural, ethnic, political and religious differences, we can close ourselves in a rigid defense of our so-called identity or open ourselves to the encounter with the other and cultivate together the dream of a fraternal society”, Francis pleaded.”
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/francis-orban-trade-jibes-at-historic-meet
 

To clearly understand the predicament into which Francis’s papacy has placed us, we must first come to terms with what are called:

I.  God’s Active Will and

II. God’s Permissive Will

Let us look at paradigms of each.
 

•  God’s Active Will is always, in and of itself, absolutely good, for it is integral with God Himself Who is all-Good.
   

• God does not actively will “relative” goods — that is to say, goods limited by other considerations and apportioned only as possibility allows.
  
  • In Himself pure actuality (there is no potentiality in God: He cannot potentially be “more” than what He actually is), there is nothing that can constrain His active willing, as though He were compelled to will lesser goods within a spectrum of possible goods to which He is confined.
  
  • God is absolutely free — without limitation or confinement; for these concepts are impossible to predicate of God as omnipotent. Each and every expression of God’s active will is ordered to the unmitigated good. “God is light, and in Him there is no darkness.” (1 Saint John 1.5).
  
  • Our first paradigm would actually be two-fold: the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments: Exodus 20:2–17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–21) and the Sermon on the Mount (Saint Matthew, chapters 5- 7) in which we find the Active Will of God: “This is what I want you to do and to refrain from doing.” This is God’s express will.
   

The Permissive Will of God  

The most succinct definition of the next paradigm — the Permissive Will of God — is as follows:

In light of God’s conferring Free Will on man (God’s creation of man without this perfection would consequently be an imperfect creation by an all-good and all-powerful God, for freedom of will is an incontestable good — the privation of which results in an amoral world in which there is nothing meritorious and nothing blameworthy — much as we understand the operations of a machine that cannot do otherwise than its designer intended — a mere automaton to which we cannot ascribe any moral predicates.

As a consequence, man, possessing the perfection of free will, is free to choose what he wills, good or evil, and not what God wills. The same freedom may align man to God’s Express Will (he chooses to do what he knows God commands him to do — rather than that which he may otherwise be inclined to do — which is to say that his own will is freely aligned with the perfect will of God — before which he can plead no ignorance). What is more, God cannot revoke this perfect gift of free will without simultaneously abrogating that singular perfection with which He endowed man — and then re-create man as imperfect (without a free will).

However faithfully or unfaithfully a pope executes his Petrine Office is largely determined by the man. He may be good or he may be evil. In either case — even given the exalted office conferred upon him — he is withal and necessarily exercising his own free will. Even a pope is free to do what he wills, rather than what God wills. He can incorporate and exercise the legitimate responsibilities of his office, or he can be despotic and utterly ignore them. It is up to the man.

WHY?

That God may actively or permissively will the Petrine Office to be occupied by the feckless despot Jorge Bergoglio as a scourge to a perverse and faithless generation, a generation which, unable to make God in their image, contrived to make His Vicar in their image instead — is altogether and increasingly likely.

We must equally remember two episodes, one from the Old Testament, and one from the New Testament in which we find God bringing good even out of evil:

In Genesis 15.18-20 we find the Patriarch Joseph thrown into a dry well to die by his eleven brothers, to whom he said when they were reunited, 

“You thought evil against me: but God turned it into good, that he might exalt me, as at present you see, and might save many people.”

Pilate surely believed that it was in his power to crucify Christ or to free Him — but Jesus responds:

“Thou shouldst not have any power against Me, unless it were given thee from above.” (Saint John 19.11)

These are two striking examples of God’s Permissive Will — not simply respecting the free will He conferred upon man, but of His power to bring a seemingly impossible good out of the evil devices of men. Most often we do not see the end to which his benevolent, Permissive Will, is directed — and may not in this life at all. We are left with the assurance by Saint Paul:

“And we know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good, to such as, according to His purpose, are called to be saints.” (Romans 8.28)

It is true that Jorge has uttered some things good and true — but because one utters some things that are true and good, we cannot infer that the one saying them is himself good ... or true.
 

An Apposite and Frightening Paradigm

Here our paradigm is no one less than Satan, who himself quoted Scripture in the Temptations of Christ (Saint Matthew 4.1-11) What he said was true in his unsuccessful attempts to seduce Christ from redeeming the souls of men, but because he quoted directly from Holy Scripture itself in no way mitigates his evil.

Some things that Bergoglio (Francis) says are both good and true (many are also evil and unjust) — and just as Lucifer can take the form of an angel of light ^*, so Francis can take the form of an apostle of Christ!
 

He can quote Scripture, too …

______________________________

^*“For such false apostles are deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light.” (2 Corinthians 13-14

 

Geoffrey K. Mondello
Editor
Boston Catholic Journal
 

   Printable PDF Version

Comments? Write us:  editor@boston-catholic-journal.com

 

---

 

 

The Demonic Perversion of the Confessional
 

and the Perpetuation of
 Homosexuality in the Priesthood

 

“Archbishop Carlo Viganò claimed that Pope Francis “continued to cover” for McCarrick, and not only did he repeal the sanctions imposed by Benedict, but also made McCarrick “his trusted counselor.” He claimed that McCarrick, the former archbishop of Washington, advised the pope to appoint a number of bishops in the United States , including Cardinal Blaise Cupich of Chicago, Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark, and Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego.” [all homosexual advocates — ed.]

Francis’ Response?

 

“I Will Not Say a Single Word”

“Pope Francis said [Aboard the papal plane, Aug 26, 2018 / 15:30 pm] that he will not comment on claims by a former Vatican ambassador to the U.S. that the pope knew about allegations against Archbishop Theodore McCarrick and reinstated him in ministry. The pope said people should make up their own minds about the claims. Asked whether it was true that Archbishop Carlo Viganò, the statement’s author, had informed him in 2013 about McCarrick’s alleged sexual misconduct with priests and seminarians, and if it was true Benedict XVI had previously imposed sanctions on the former cardinal, the pope said he was distracted by the previous question and would have preferred to talk about the trip. ... “I read the statement this morning, and I must tell you sincerely that, I must say this, to you ... I will not say a single word on this.” *

Why ... why did Francis refuse to reply to the shocking accusations brought about by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò with these infamous words? Twice he claims that he “must” say nothing about the accusations. “Must”. He does not say “I choose not to ...”, or “I would prefer not to ...” — but that he “MUST not”. Francis chose his words very carefully.

Why?
This question has baffled countless Catholics, journalists, and reporters concerning the widespread Abuse Scandal of Predatory Homosexual Priests. There is an answer — an answer that is at once conspicuously cogent, compelling, and credible. In fact, it may be the answer to the most salient question surrounding the worst scandal that has ever plagued the Roman Catholic Church in the 2000 years of Her history:
 

How was this possible?
Dr. Taylor Marshall, philosopher and director of the New Saint Thomas Institute, has provided us with a uniquely insightful answer which, when fully explicated, answers not only this vexing question concerning Francis, but the vicious mechanism by which homosexual predation within the clergy flourished and continues to be perpetuated.

The Answer is Breathtaking! The Sacrament of Penance — the Confessional — the very means established by Christ to renounce and repudiate sin and re-establish the soul to a state of grace consonant with God — has been perverted to become both the means and the end of perpetuating sin! Imagine, the devil has spuriously co-opted a Sacrament! The object is to perpetuate homosexuality in the the priesthood — and to destroy it — and with it, Christ’s Holy Catholic Church! How was this possible?

Manipulating the Seal of the Confessional!

 

 

---

 

 

NON HABEMUS PAPAM
 

 

 

1958 —the Year of the Last

Authentic Catholic Pope

 

It is typically the prerogative of the  Protodeacon of the College of Cardinals who ceremoniously proclaims the election of a new pope with the words “Habemus Papam!”, or “We have a Pope” — following a conclave of Cardinal Electors who nominated him.

With something far more profound and painful than “regret”, we have come to acknowledge what had become increasingly obvious — and which found its clearest expression, its culmination, in the neo-pagan “papacy” of Jorge Bergoglio (“Francis”).
 

The See of Rome is no longer Catholic, as Catholicism had been understood and practiced for the 2000 years preceding Vatican II

That is to say, it had ceased to be identifiably and authentically Catholic following that calamitous consistory known to us as “Vatican II” which occurred between October 11, 1962 until December 8, 1965. Since that initial and unprecedented defection of Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli — “John XXIII” — together with what appear to have been at least latently apostate cardinals who nominated him to implement a Modernist agenda replete with the heretical ideologies that define it — and which Saint Pope Pius X had clearly enumerated in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis in 1907, stating that Modernism is the “synthesis of all heresies”, and therefore unequivocally antithetical to the One, True, Holy Catholic Church of the preceding 2000 years.

As a matter of public record and verifiable assertions, Jorge Bergoglio is merely the de facto “pope” of what is, in every aspect, a new religion altogether; a secularized religion that superficially resembles the authentic Catholic Church as it existed prior to 1962 — which it definitively renounced — while choosing to retain a simulacrum of it.

 

 

---

 

 

Some
Questions and Answers

about
Authentic Catholic Teaching