29 May 2015


Jorge Bergoglio (Francis 1) and Benedict XVI: Who is the pope?

If one wishes to understand the mystery of the spiritual schizophrenia of the Conciliar popes, one must consider their personal history in the light of two chapters of Malachy Martin's Hostage to the Devil. 1. The chapter that relates of the possessed priest and the possessed exorcist. Both became possessed by having given their minds over to the heretical doctrines of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. 2. The chapter that relates how a girl rebelled against the teaching authority of the Church in school and became possessed because of her rebellion.

Those two chapters sufficiently shed light on the case of the Conciliar popes. They were/are not cold blooded infiltrators who entered the priesthood with the premeditated intention to destroy the Church. They were men of God who fell into the most ancient and original temptation, to eat the forbidden fruit of error in the vain and illusory pursuit of illicit knowledge. What they gained by their disordered intellectual pursuits was not superior knowledge; but the darkening of the intellect that made them become slaves to error; and allowed the demons to enter and possess them. This accounts for their duality of spirit which is in one moment Catholic, and then becomes heretical, gnostic, and even pagan. That is how we have ended up with the Church reduced to God's "Devastated Vineyard", presided over by the " Deux papes vermoulu" -- the "two worm eaten popes" foretold by Our Lady of La Salette.

Bergoglio's Religion: Naturalism, Rationalism, Deism

"First of all, you ask if the God of the Christians forgives those who do not believe and do not seek faith.

Given that—and this is fundamental—God's mercy has no limits if he who asks for mercy does so in contrition and with a sincere heart, the issue for those who do not believe in God is in obeying their own conscience."

The key words are: "those who do not believe and do not seek faith." Does God forgive them? Bergoglio says, "God's mercy has no limits . . . the issue for those who do not believe in God is obeying their own conscience" (!!!) and: "The goodness or the wickedness of our behavior depends on this decision"

Note also the moral relativism: "listening and obeying it [conscience], means deciding about what is perceived to be good or evil"

In fact, listening and obeying it, means deciding about what is perceived to be good or to be evil." (This is the basis of Bergoglio's "Who am I to judge?")

Bergoglio states with unmistakable clarity that one with no faith at all obtains forgiveness from God by obeying his conscience: "deciding about what is perceived to be good or to be evil."

For Bergoglio, the conscience is autonomous: the "Thou shalt not" commandments are nullified -- human dignity demands that the human person decides for himself what is right or wrong, without the tyranny of clericalism dictating to man's conscience, "Thou shalt not!"

Bergoglio's economy of salvation dispenses entirely with any need for faith -- faith is utterly superfluous. Salvation depends exclusively on following one's own autonomous conscience; and absolutely no one may dictate to that conscience by claiming to teach in God's name with divine authority.

This is Bergoglio's religion. It is as far removed from Christianity as heaven is from hell. Bergoglio's religion is not Catholicism -- it is Masonism in its purest form. His creed is essentially identical to that of the godless Enlightenment freethinker, Lord Shaftesbury (1671 - 1713): " The articles of Shaftesbury's religious creed were few and simple, but these he entertained with a conviction amounting to enthusiasm. They may briefly be summed up as a belief in one God whose most characteristic attribute is universal benevolence, in the moral government of the universe, and in a future state of man making up for the imperfections and repairing the inequalities of the present life." AH! The Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man. (Wikipedia). Shaftesbury's moral doctrine is that of the "Moral Sense", of which the two most basic principles are:

"1 that the distinction between right and wrong is part of the constitution of human nature; 2. that morality stands apart from theology, and the moral qualities of actions are determined apart from the arbitrary will of God."

Fr. Cornelio Fabro cites the verbatim quotation (Introduzione all"ateismo moderno) in which Shaftesbury declares that religion does not consist in believing tenets of revelation, but in morality. His religion was essentially Deism and Rationalism.

Lest anyone thinks Scalfari fabricated the quotation, here's a parallel passage in Bergoglio's sermon:

Francesco, il capo della Chiesa Cattolica Romana ha affermato che anche gli atei vanno in paradiso. Pochi giorni fa infatti, ha raccontato la storia di un parrocchiano Cattolico che chiese ad un prete se anche gli atei erano stati salvati da Gesù, ed ha detto:

‘Il Signore ci ha creati a Sua immagine e somiglianza, e noi siamo l’immagine del Signore, ed Egli fa del bene e tutti noi abbiamo questo comandamento nel cuore: fai il bene e non fare il male. Tutti noi. ‘Ma, Padre, questo non è Cattolico! Non può fare il bene’. Sì, può farlo …. ‘Il Signore ha redento tutti noi, tutti noi, con il Sangue di Cristo: tutti noi, non solo Cattolici. Tutti! ‘Padre, e gli atei?’ Anche gli atei. Tutti!’ …. Dobbiamo incontrarci facendo il bene. ‘Ma, Padre, io non credo, sono un ateo!’ Ma fai il bene: noi ci incontreremo là’ [in paradiso].

Ecco le parole in inglese così come sono state pubblicate dall’Huffington.’ Post:

“The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can… “The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!”.. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

Bergoglio On Heaven and Earth:

"As I am a believer, I know that these riches are a gift from God. I also know that the other person, the atheist, does not know that. I do not approach the relationship in order to proselytize, or convert the atheist; I respect him and I show myself as I am. Where there is knowledge, there begins to appear esteem, affection, and friendship. I do not have any type of reluctance, nor would I say that his life is condemned, because I am convinced that I do not have the right to make a judgment about the honesty of that person; even less, if he shows me those human virtues that exalt others and do me good."

Bergoglio does not believe in God in the proper sense of professing the dogmatically defined nature and attributes of God. No wonder that he says he doesn't "believe in a Catholic God". He really does not even believe in the God we profess in the Catholic creeds.

"On Heaven and Earth", Chapter 3 - "On Atheists" :

"We can say what God is not ... but we cannot say what He is. I would classify as arrogant those theologies that ... had the pretense of saying who He was".

Bergoglio's deistic notion of God logically precludes the affirmation of a precise body of doctrines supernaturally revealed by God. In his 9 October 2014 sermon, Bergoglio evokes a revelation of God that is experienced directly. Supernatural revelation as has been traditionally professed by the Church has no basis in Bergoglio's deistic philosophy; and therefore cannot logically fit into the framework of his Soteriology. One must not be fooled by his usage of traditional terminology: Deism is the philosophic basis of Modernist theology; and therefore it is of strict logical necessity that Modernists profess what Hans Küng calls "a Christology from below" -- and indeed, a Theology from below which conceives of divine revelation along the lines of the Enlightenment naturalism of Schleiermacher. Therefore, such terms as 'incarnation', 'revelation', 'Saviour', 'mystery', have a different meaning from that which the Church infallibly professes. Bergoglio professes the condemned heresy of Religious Liberty because it is a strict logical corollary of his deistic Modernism, which easily fits into its framework Paganism, as well as anthropomorphically modified monotheistic belief systems. What does not fit into the deistic framework is the notion of supernatural revelation of a transcendent Godhead. Hence, all religions are welcome in the Civilization of Love -- except One: the unreformed Catholic religion -- "the actual original faith, teaching, and tradition of the Catholic Church; which the Lord bestowed, the apostles proclaimed, and the Fathers safeguarded." (Athanasius ad Serapion) Outside of that faith there is no salvation (Profession of Faith, Vatican Council I); and unless one holds that faith integral and inviolate, he will without doubt perish in eternity (Athanasian Creed).

Bergoglio wants the remaining vestige of the Catholic Church to break up into a loosley knit denomination like the Anglican Communion. This breakup was foretold by St. Hildegard von Bingen nearly 900 years ago. This is the APOSTASY foretold in Scripture and at Fatima. 2 Thess. verse 3 says FIRST must come the "apostasy" (αποστασια); and then the "man of sin" (ανθρωπος της αμαρτιας): 3 μη τις υμας εξαπατηση κατα μηδενα τροπον οτι εαν μη ελθη η αποστασια πρωτον και αποκαλυφθη ο ανθρωπος της αμαρτιας ο υιος της απωλειας. The apostasy (αποστασια) is what is happening now. Its leader and standard bearer is Jorge Mario Bergoglio. The spiritual imperium of Rome is dissolved -- the katechon is removed: 6 και νυν το κατεχον οιδατε εις το αποκαλυφθηναι αυτον εν τω εαυτου καιρω 7 το γαρ μυστηριον ηδη ενεργειται της ανομιας μονον ο κατεχων αρτι εως εκ μεσου γενηται.

Thank you Jorge! Jorge has opened the doors of Rome wide to receive the "lawless one" -- the "man of sin". Our Lady of La Salette said: "ROME WILL LOSE THE FAITH AND BECOME THE SEAT OF THE ANTICHRIST". The obtuse knuckleheads of the Conciliar Reformed Sect deny what is happening on the basis of a logically misapplied generality -- the dogma of Indefectibility. They misapply the dogma to deny the explicit prophetic teaching of St. Paul! They think Our Lady was wrong in La Salette and Fatima -- yet the temporary removal of the spiritual Imperium of Rome and the pope is taught in Scripture: 6 And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way.

The ancient Fathers interpret this "katechon" to be the Roman Imperium, which since the collapse of the temporal Imperium has resided in the Roman Papacy, which is now "taken out of the way" by Jorge Bergoglio.

Ratzinger's Spinozism in his Einführung in das Christentum

Two years after Paul VI abolished the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Index of Forbidden Books) in 1966, the Rev. Prof. Dr. Joseph Ratzinger of Tübingen infamy published his first major work (of heresy) -- Einführung in das Christentum. Pius XII would have placed the book on the Index and would have had him removed from the Catholic faculty of Theology. Paul VI appointed the dissident Vatican II peritus Archbishop of Munich and made him a cardinal.

Ratzinger says the doctrine of the duality of body and soul is "obsolete". He says it is contrary to the unity of the person, of the "self". That is nonsense, and it is heresy. The unity of the human substance is preserved in virtue of the soul being the substantial form of the body.

Council of Vienne:

"Adhering firmly to the foundation of the catholic faith, other than which, as the Apostle testifies, no one can lay, we openly profess with holy mother church that the only begotten Son of God, subsisting eternally together with the Father in everything in which God the Father exists, assumed in time in the womb of a virgin the parts of our nature united together, from which he himself true God became true man: namely the human, passible body and the intellectual or rational soul truly of itself and essentially informing the body."

"We, therefore, directing our apostolic attention, to which alone it belongs to define these things, to such splendid testimony and to the common opinion of the holy fathers and doctors, declare with the approval of the sacred council that the said apostle and evangelist, John, observed the right order of events in saying that when Christ was already dead one of the soldiers opened his side with a spear. Moreover, with the approval of the said council, we reject as erroneous and contrary to the truth of the catholic faith every doctrine or proposition rashly asserting that the substance of the rational or intellectual soul is not of itself and essentially the form of the human body, or casting doubt on this matter. In order that all may know the truth of the faith in its purity and all error may be excluded, we define that anyone who presumes henceforth to assert defend or hold stubbornly that the rational or intellectual soul is not the form of the human body of itself and essentially, is to be considered a heretic."

The Fourth Lateran Council solemnly professed that the soul of Christ descended into hell and the body rose from the dead: "sed descendit in anima et resurrexit in carne". The Roman Catechism, teaching the infallible doctrine of the universal magisterium, declares that so long as the body of Christ remained in the sepulchure, his soul remained in hell.

God the Son remained hypostatically united to both body and soul while they were in the separated condition; the body in the sepulchre and the soul in hell. Ratzinger rejects the Catholic dogma of Christ's descent into hell, dismissing it as "mythological"; and says the descent into hell is to be understood to mean being in the state of death. This is heresy!

The term "resurrection", according to Ratzinger is not to be understood as a reuniting of the soul as the animating principle of the body; but an "awakening" of the self, the whole person, who exists eternally in the mind of God! Thus Ratzinger rejects the idea of the "resurrection of the body" to refer to the rising to life of the corporeal body, but the awakening of the whole self existing eternally in the memory of God, and thus eternally united to God.

Ratzinger hides his heresy behind his Augustinian mask, in the manner of Luther and Jansen -- none of them being authentically Augustinian in their theology.

The Catholic Church professes the "resurrection of the body" to mean the rising to life of the physical-corporeal body, as so pithily expressed by Augustine -- "illa ista caro".
Ratzinger's doctrine of resurrection conceived as a quasi-afterlife in the mind of God is not the Gospel of the Apostles and Evangelists; but is the "gospel" of Benedict XVI, which is also the "gospel" of Benedict Spinoza.

The human person cannot subsist in the mind of God any more after death than it did before birth; because the creature composed of potentiality and act does not subsist in the divine mode of being, which is actus purus.

Therefore the Ratzinger/Spinoza notion of the afterlife is logically inconceivable in the framework of Christian philosophy and theology -- it is intelligible only in the framework of the Spinozan philosophical system which gratuitously posits Thought and Extension as the two known eternal attributes of "Substance", which Spinoza calls "Deus sive Natura" (God or Nature).

Spinozan Pandeism is the philosophical basis of Ratzinger's reinterpretation of dogma -- yet he still attempts to adhere to dogma as the basis of faith; and insists on the radical necessity of faith. Bergoglio, on the other hand, dispenses entirely with the necessity of faith for salvation -- following one's own conscience suffices -- even if one's perverse conscience denies the duty to believe in God and obey the divine law. A belief system, such as Bergoglio's, which professes salvation without faith; constitutes a religion without faith, and as such, is the faithless and godless religion of apostasy.

Pope Benedict Did Not Resign The Papal Office, But Only Renounced The Active Ministry Of The Office

In order to understand the precise scope and extent of Benedict XVI's "renunciation" (not "resignation" or "abdication"), one must focus on his words which explain exactly what he renounced:

" Qui permettetemi di tornare ancora una volta al 19 aprile 2005. La gravità della decisione è stata proprio anche nel fatto che da quel momento in poi ero impegnato sempre e per sempre dal Signore. Sempre – chi assume il ministero petrino non ha più alcuna privacy. Appartiene sempre e totalmente a tutti, a tutta la Chiesa. Alla sua vita viene, per così dire, totalmente tolta la dimensione privata." ... " Il “sempre” è anche un “per sempre” - non c’è più un ritornare nel privato. La mia decisione di rinunciare all’esercizio attivo del ministero, non revoca questo."

"Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005. The real gravity of the decision was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord. Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church. In a manner of speaking, the private dimension of his life is completely eliminated." ... "The 'always' is also a "for ever" – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to renounce the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this."

Here Benedict XVI states explicitly that the gravity his decision to accept the papacy consisted in the fact that he was thereby engaged in a commitment, received from Christ, which is "for always", and his "decision to renounce the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this." Thus, Benedict did not renounce the Petrine office or its ministry, but only the active exercise of the ministry. He then goes on to say that he will no longer wield the power of office, but will remain "within the enclosure of St. Peter": " Non porto più la potestà dell’officio per il governo della Chiesa, ma nel servizio della preghiera resto, per così dire, nel recinto di san Pietro. San Benedetto, il cui nome porto da Papa, mi sarà di grande esempio in questo. Egli ci ha mostrato la via per una vita, che, attiva o passiva, appartiene totalmente all’opera di Dio." ("I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.") 

Hence, the intention expressed by Pope Benedict is to remain in the Petrine office and retain the passive aspect of its official service (munus), i.e. "the service of prayer"; and to hand over the active aspect of the munus, i.e. exercise of governance, to a successor, who will effectively fulfill the function of a coadjutor with power of jurisdiction. Thus, Benedict's clearly expressed intention was not to abdicate the office, but only to vacate the cathedra in the qualified sense of handing the seat of power of governance to one who will succeed him in the active governance, but not abdicating from the office itself. This solves the apparent mystery and explains why Benedict XVI refused to revert to being Cardinal Ratzinger; and why he retains his papal coat of arms and papal attire.

In his Declaration of Feb. 11, 2013, Pope Benedict states as the reason for his decision his waning energy and consequent inability to administer the official duties of the papacy due to advanced age: Conscientia mea iterum atque iterum coram Deo explorata ad cognitionem certam perveni vires meas ingravescente aetate non iam aptas esse ad munus Petrinum aeque administrandum.

However, he states his awareness of the spiritual nature of the official service, the munus of the petrine office; namely, it is not merely active and verbal, but is to be fulfilled to no lesser degree by praying and suffering: Bene conscius sum hoc munus secundum suam essentiam spiritualem non solum agendo et loquendo exsequi debere, sed non minus patiendo et orando. It is this passive function of the office that he expressly stated was his intention to retain in his above cited discourse of 27 Feb. 2013.

It was only the active service, the execution of the ministry regarding grave affairs of the Church and proclaiming the gospel, which he said he could no longer adequately perform: Attamen in mundo nostri temporis rapidis mutationibus subiecto et quaestionibus magni ponderis pro vita fidei perturbato ad navem Sancti Petri gubernandam et ad annuntiandum Evangelium etiam vigor quidam corporis et animae necessarius est, qui ultimis mensibus in me modo tali minuitur, ut incapacitatem meam ad ministerium mihi commissum bene administrandum agnoscere debeam.

Therefore, in the next sentence he declares his intention to renounce that ministry:Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse.

One notices the corrected Latin in this Vatican website version of the Declaratio. In the official document the word "commissum" was used, and not "commisso" as you can see in the sentence. This is one of two glaring grammatical errors in the document that, according to the canonical custom which remains in force, renders the juridical act null & void. The 1983 Code of Canon Law states explicitly that where there is no statute or custom ruling on some matter in the Code, the jurisprudence of the Roman Curia is to be followed*. The precedents go back to Pope St. Gregory VII, as I have explained in previous posts.

However, leaving aside the question of the Latin errors; the far more weighty consideration of the pope's intention not to abdicate the munus, but only to renounce the active ministry is decisive in determining the nullity of the act. It is patent that a pope who intends to renounce the active exercise of the Petrine ministry, but who expresses his intention to retain the passive service of the munus which he received on 19 April 2005, does not vacate the office. Hence, the intention to render the chair vacant is defective, since one who retains the passive exercise of the munus retains the munus, and therefore still occupies the chair.

* Can. 19 - Si certa de re desit expressum legis sive universalis sive particularis praescriptum; aut consuetudo, causa, nisi sit poenalis, dirimenda est attentis legibus latis in similibus, generalibus iuris principiis cum aequitate canonica servatis, iurisprudentia et praxi Curiae Romanae, communi constantique doctorum sententia.

The assertion made by some, that Jorge Bergoglio is the "vicar of Christ on earth" is highly problematical (to put it mildly). Not only was Benedict's renunciation canonically defective, but Bergoglio's election, according to some eminent canonists, canonically irregular.

Even more problematical is the matter of Bergoglio's belief system. He is no Christian, but a Deist who does not believe in objective moral standards, or supernatural dogmatic revelation. He is an infidel who rejects the necessity for faith in the revealing God.

Revelation, for Bergoglio, is obtained through phenomenological experience. His contempt for dogmatic Christianity is visceral. His "theology" is not the theology of the Catholic Church, but of the Deists, such as Lord Shaftesbury, Gotthold Lessing, and Friedrich Schleiermacher. By Catholic standards, Bergoglio is a heathen -- an unbeliever, an infidel. Such a one, even if he had been canonically elected, such a one is to be "cast out and trampled underfoot by men"; according to Innocent III (Sermo IV).

Father Paul Kramer, Easter Sunday, April 5, 2015.

Post a Comment