What is “Coercionism”?
Thanks for asking.
Coercionism is the insanity that will arise in the wake of the presence of Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI in the Basilica of Saint Peter yesterday, Saturday, February 22, 2014, the Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter in Antioch, the Commemoration of Saint Paul the Apostle and the Commemoration of the Vigil of Saint Mathias, as his successor as the universal public face of apostasy, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, elevated nineteen apostates to the conciliar “college of cardinals.”
Yes, those who are delusional enough to believe that Ratzinger/Benedict was “forced” to resign the conciliar Petrine Ministry on Monday, February 11, 2013, and then leave the Vatican, at least temporarily, seventeen days later are delusional enough to claim that their beloved “restorer of Tradition” just “had” to be present yesterday. Bergoglio had asked him to be present. How could the Antipope Emeritus have refused an offer that must, of course, be considered as coercive as Don Vita Corelone’s offer that one of his victims just cannot refuse? “Poor Benedict just had to make a good show of things.
Well, this is a pretty good show of things:
The delusional will probably say that this was all for public consumption, forgetting that their master of contradiction, paradox and complexity, Ratzinger/Benedict, had said a year ago that he would remain “hidden from the world” after his resignation. Well, perhaps this is one of this “contingent truths” that becomes “obsolete in the particulars” that it expresses with the passage of time. Yes, the “hermeneutic of continuity” can be used to sweep away almost any kind of inconsistency.
Here is a news story about the German New Theologian’s supposedly “surprise appearance” at yesterday’s elevation of apostates as members of the Conciliar Raccoon Lodge:
VATICAN CITY – Retired Pope Benedict XVI joined Pope Francis at a ceremony Saturday creating the cardinals who will elect their successor in an unprecedented blending of papacies past, present and future.
Benedict discreetly entered St. Peter’s Basilica surrounded by a small entourage and was greeted with applause and tears from the stunned people in the pews. He smiled, waved and seemed genuinely happy to be there, taking his seat in the front row, off to the side, alongside the red-draped cardinals.
It was the first time Benedict and Francis have appeared together at a public liturgical ceremony since Benedict retired a year ago and became the first pope to step down in more than 600 years.
The significance of his presence was multifold, signaling both continuity and even a sign of Benedict’s approval of the 19 men Francis had chosen to join the College of Cardinals, the elite group of churchmen whose primary job is to elect a pope.
Francis’ choices largely reflected his view that the church must minister to the peripheries and not be a self-reverential institution but rather a place of welcome and mercy. He named cardinals from some of the world’s poorest countries, Haiti, Burkina Faso and Ivory Coast among them, tapping many pastors like himself.
Saturday’s ceremony was also the latest step in the evolving reality of having two popes living side-by-side in the Vatican. Over the summer, the two men appeared together in the Vatican gardens to unveil a statue, but Saturday’s event marked one of the most important liturgical ceremonies a pope can preside over: the formal installation of new cardinals.
In that way, Benedict’s presence marked a first step in reintegrating him into the public life of the church after a period of being hidden away that began almost exactly a year ago with his Feb. 28, 2013 resignation.
With Saturday’s precedent, chances grew that Benedict would also appear at the April 27 canonization of his pope, John Paul II, and Pope John XXIII.
After processing down the central aisle at the start of the service, Francis went directly to Benedict, clasped him by his shoulders and they embraced.
The crowd erupted in polite applause again when one of the new cardinals, Secretary of State Pietro Parolin, greeted Benedict in his introductory remarks, saying “We are grateful for your presence here among us.”
Benedict, dressed in his white cassock with a long double-breasted overcoat, again smiled and waved.
Some people reached out to try to touch Benedict as he passed by, others tried to approach him to take his photo but were restrained by ushers.
The occasion for this historic first was Francis’ first cardinal-making ceremony to formally welcome 19 new “princes of the church” into the College of Cardinals. (Benedict joins Francis in cardinal-making ceremony.)
I once sat directly behind the then “Cardinal Ratzinger” in the Basilica of Saint Peter at what I thought was an Easter Vigil Mass on Saturday evening, April 15, 1995, as the man he would later “beatify,” Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, staged the service. And, yes, I even shook his hand at the ceremonial “sign of peace.” He is quite accustomed to sitting in the front row in the Basilica of Saint Peter as a “pope” conducts a conciliar ceremony. There was nothing “coercive” about Ratzinger/Benedict’s appearance in the Basilica of Saint Peter yesterday.
Moreover, Ratzinger/Benedict will not only be present on Sunday, April 27, 2014, Low Sunday, for the “canonizations” of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII and Wojtyla/John Paul II, it is my belief, perhaps mistaken, that Bergoglio will permit his predecessor to say a few words about the man he “beatified” on Sunday, May 1, 2011 (see “Connecting” with Betrayal, “Canonizing” A Man Who Protected Moral Derelicts, Celebrating Apostasy and Dereliction of Duty, To Be Loved by the Jews, Perhaps Judas Was the First to Sing “A Kiss is Just a Kiss”, Enjoy the Party, George, Enjoy the Party and Anticlimactic “Beatification” for an Antipope). Yet another “precedent” would be established if this occurred, demonstrating the “evolution” in the life of the two-headed “pope monster.”
For his own part, the current public face of apostasy continued to lash out against those who view the Holy Faith as an “ideology” as he had done the day before during the Ding Dong School of Apostasy at the Casa Santa Marta:
Today this same word is repeated, but now as an action, an action of Jesus which is ongoing: “Jesus was walking…”. This is something striking about the Gospels: Jesus is often walking and he teaches his disciples along the way. This is important. Jesus did not come to teach a philosophy, an ideology… but rather “a way”, a journey to be undertaken with him, and we learn the way as we go, by walking. Yes, dear brothers, this is our joy: to walk with Jesus. (At the Raccoon Lodge for the elevation of nineteen Brother Apostates.)
Antipope Emeritus Benedict XVI was not “coerced” into listening to this. He believes in the exact same heresy:
1971: “In theses 10-12, the difficult problem of the relationship between language and thought is debated, which in post-conciliar discussions was the immediate departure point of the dispute.
The identity of the Christian substance as such, the Christian ‘thing’ was not directly … censured, but it was pointed out that no formula, no matter how valid and indispensable it may have been in its time, can fully express the thought mentioned in it and declare it unequivocally forever, since language is constantly in movement and the content of its meaning changes. (Fr. Ratzinger: Dogmatic formulas must always change.)
1990: The text [of the document Instruction on the Theologian’s Ecclesial Vocation] also presents the various types of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms – perhaps for the first time with this clarity – that there are decisions of the magisterium that cannot be the last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. The nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times influenced, may need further correction.
In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last century [19th century] about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time [on evolutionism]. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church’s anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from falling into the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they became obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at their proper time.
(Joseph Ratzinger, “Instruction on the Theologian’s Ecclesial Vocation,” published with the title “Rinnovato dialogo fra Magistero e Teologia,” in L’Osservatore Romano, June 27, 1990, p. 6, cited at Card. Ratzinger: The teachings of the Popes against Modernism are obsolete)
It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church’s decisions on contingent matters – for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible – should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.
On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005.)
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI would have us believe that God the Holy Ghost, the very Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, kept us from “knowing” until the latter part of the Twentieth Century that certain decisions of Holy Mother Church contain “practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change,” which means that God the Holy Ghost misled the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council and Pope Saint Pius X and Pope Pius XII as they condemned the very view that he, Ratzinger/Benedict, says has been “learned” now. Ratzinger/Benedict would have us believe that God the Holy Ghost also failed Pope Pius IX, who condemned the following proposition in The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864:
8. They are free from all blame who treat lightly the condemnations passed by the Sacred Congregation of the Index or by the Roman Congregations. (Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864.)
As I keep trying to tell you, there is no space between Ratzinger and Bergoglio.
Pope Saint Pius X wrote as follows about those who make of the Holy Faith an “encounter” based on personal experience as they deny the falsify the character of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition:
It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: ‘These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts.’ On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ”Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason’; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ”The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.’ Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: ‘Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries — but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.’ (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
Can anyone assert that the conciliar “popes” have taught the same dogma and in the same sense and the same acceptation”?
It is because those who stubbornly oppose the canonical doctrine of sedevacantism, sometimes by the use of complete emotionalism and illogic without any reference to theological manuals or the writings of the Church Fathers, cannot say that this is so that they keep expanding what can be called the “circumference of error” that must be “tolerated” as part of “diabolical disorientation,” which, though used by Sister Lucia dos Santos but is not part of the Fatima apparitions, has no foundation in the defined teaching of the Catholic Church or with the Church Fathers. Such sophomoric efforts to deny the truth of our situation in this time of apostasy and betrayal leads Catholics into believing that it is possible for errors to be promulgated “officially” by a “pope” and his “bishops,” thus making a mockery of Holy Mother Church’s Divine Constitution.
As alluded to in yesterday’s article, There’s Been This Division, however, one has to believe that it is possible for a man to be elevated to the Chair of Saint Peter who is ignorant enough to refer to a Anglican charismatic evangelical, Tony Palmer, as his “brother bishop,” something that Jorge Mario Bergoglio did recently when he recorded a “private video” on Mr. Palmer’s iPhone at the Casa Santa Marta on January 14, 2014, to be played at something called the “Kenneth Copeland Ministries Conference” in Texas. According to a subtitle on the video that was found on an anti-sedevacantist website, Bergoglio said: “I am here with my Brother, my Brother Bishop” (see Francumenism: Mission Accomplished.) The same subtitle can be seen on other websites that have carried the video.
Catholic News Service also provided documentation of Bergoglio’s “brother bishop” remark, rendering it in a literal translation from the Italian spoken by the antipope as “bishop-brother:”
Addressing Palmer as “my brother, a bishop-brother” and saying they had “been friends for years,” the pope offered what he said were greetings “both joyful and full of longing” to participants in a forthcoming meeting of the Kenneth Copeland Ministries, a Pentecostal group that sponsors large prayer gatherings around the world. (Catholic News Service.)
It is interesting, however, that the Vatican website omitted the phrase “Brother Bishop” or “Bishop-Brother” entirely as it sanitized the words of the currently presiding apostate once the video had, as they say today, “gone viral.”
(Vatican Radio) Pope Francis sent a heartfelt message to a Pentecostal conference, held in the American state of Texas this past week. In his seven-minute message, the Pope said he would speak the language of the heart, which “is simpler and more authentic”. It is a language with a special grammar that has two rules, he said, to love God above all and to love the other.
News of the conference, he said, brought him both joy and longing—joy in the knowledge that the participants “have come together to worship Jesus Christ, the only Lord” and longing for Christian unity and an end to the separation between faith communities.
“We must encounter each other as brothers,” he said. “I am speaking to you as a brother…in a simple way… Let us allow our longing to grow.” He concluded by asking his listeners for their prayers. (Argentine Motor Mouth sends message to Pentecostal conference.)
While the Vatican did provide a link to the video that contains the subtitle with the phrase “Brother Bishop,” it is nevertheless telling that there was no reference to it or to the man on whose iPhone the video had been recorded, “Bishop” Tony Palmer.
Obviously, it matters not to Jorge Mario Bergoglio that Anglican orders were declared null and void by Pope Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae, September 15, 1896. No, the great theological and ecclesiastical destroyer named Walter Kasper, who addressed the conciliar consistory on Friday, February 21, 2014, handled that when addressing the Anglicans in England on May 24, 2003, during the glorious reign of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II:
As I see the problem and its possible solution, it is not a question of apostolic succession in the sense of an historical chain of laying on of hands running back through the centuries to one of the apostles; this would be a very mechanical and individualistic vision, which by the way historically could hardly be proved and ascertained. The Catholic view is different from such an individualistic and mechanical approach. Its starting point is the collegium of the apostles as a whole; together they received the promise that Jesus Christ will be with them till the end of the world (Matt 28, 20). So after the death of the historical apostles they had to co-opt others who took over some of their apostolic functions. In this sense the whole of the episcopate stands in succession to the whole of the collegium of the apostles.
To stand in the apostolic succession is not a matter of an individual historical chain but of collegial membership in a collegium, which as a whole goes back to the apostles by sharing the same apostolic faith and the same apostolic mission. The laying on of hands is under this aspect a sign of co-optation in a collegium.
This has far reaching consequences for the acknowledgement of the validity of the episcopal ordination of another Church. Such acknowledgement is not a question of an uninterrupted chain but of the uninterrupted sharing of faith and mission, and as such is a question of communion in the same faith and in the same mission.
It is beyond the scope of our present context to discuss what this means for a re-evaluation of Apostolicae Curae (1896) of Pope Leo XIII, who declared Anglican orders null and void, a decision which still stands between our Churches. Without doubt this decision, as Cardinal Willebrands had already affirmed, must be understood in our new ecumenical context in which our communion in faith and mission has considerably grown. A final solution can only be found in the larger context of full communion in faith, sacramental life, and shared apostolic mission.
Before venturing further on this decisive point for the ecumenical vision, that is a renewed communio ecclesiology, I should speak first on another stumbling block or, better, the stumbling block of ecumenism: the primacy of the bishop of Rome, or as we say today, the Petrine ministry. This question was the sticking point of the separation between Canterbury and Rome in the 16th century and it is still the object of emotional controversies.
Significant progress has been achieved on this delicate issue in our Anglican/Roman Catholic dialogues, especially in the last ARCIC document The Gift of Authority (1998). The problem, however, is that what pleased Catholics in this document did not always please all Anglicans, and points which were important for Anglican self-understanding were not always repaid by Catholic affection. So we still have a reception problem and a challenge for further theological work.
It was Pope John Paul II who opened the door to future discussion on this subject. In his encyclical Ut Unum Sint (1995) he extended an invitation to a fraternal dialogue on how to exercise the Petrine ministry in a way that is more acceptable to non-Catholic Christians. It was a source of pleasure for us that among others the Anglican community officially responded to this invitation. The Pontifical Council for Christian Unity gathered the many responses, analyzed the data, and sent its conclusions to the churches that had responded. We hope in this way to have initiated a second phase of a dialogue that will be decisive for the future of the ecumenical approach.
Nobody could reasonably expect that we could from the outset reach a phase of consensus; but what we have reached is not negligible. It has become evident that a new atmosphere and a new climate exist. In our globalized world situation the biblical testimonies on Peter and the Petrine tradition of Rome are read with new eyes because in this new context the question of a ministry of universal unity, a common reference point and a common voice of the universal church, becomes urgent. Old polemical formulas stand at odds with this urgency; fraternal relations have become the norm. Extensive research has been undertaken that has highlighted the different traditions between East and West already in the first millennium, and has traced the development in understanding and in practice of the Petrine ministry throughout the centuries. As well, the historical conditionality of the dogma of the First Vatican Council (1869-70), which must be distinguished from its remaining obligatory content, has become clear. This historical development did not come to an end with the two Vatican Councils, but goes on, and so also in the future the Petrine ministry has to be exercised in line with the changing needs of the Church.
These insights have led to a re-interpretation of the dogma of the Roman primacy. This does not at all mean that there are still not enormous problems in terms of what such a ministry of unity should look like, how it should be administered, whether and to what degree it should have jurisdiction and whether under certain circumstances it could make infallible statements in order to guarantee the unity of the Church and at the same time the legitimate plurality of local churches. But there is at least a wide consensus about the common central problem, which all churches have to solve: how the three dimensions, highlighted already by the Lima documents on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (1982), namely unity through primacy, collegiality through synodality, and communality of all the faithful and their spiritual gifts, can be brought into a convincing synthesis. (A Vision of Christian Unity for the Next Generation.)
This is simply apostasy of the highest order. Apostolic succession is not “an historical chain of laying on of hands running back through the centuries to one of the apostles”?
The perpetually binding nature of Apostolicae Cenae needs to be re-evaluated?
No member of the Catholic Church is free to assert such things and remain a Catholic in good standing (see Number 9, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)
The dogmatic decrees of the [First] Vatican Council are historically conditioned?
Oh, please do not even attempt to say that Kasper was not reflecting the exact view of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI on the “time-conditioned” nature of past dogmatic decrees and/or papal encyclical letters. As noted earlier in this commentary, Ratzinger/Benedict told us in his very words that he believes this precise thing, a proposition that has been condemned by that Vatican Council and to which he, Ratzinger, had to swear against in The Oath Against Modernism.
Ah, but this is why, you see, Walter Kasper does not believe that there is any need to seek with urgency the unconditional conversion of Anglicans to the Catholic Church, who he clearly believes have true bishops and true priests. It is simply up to the Lambeth Committee to chart its own “direction,” to determine, in Kasper’s words, whether Anglicans belongs more “to the churches of the first millennium -Catholic and Orthodox,” which leads to the second major error in Kasper’s recent remarks: that the patriarchies of the East constituted a separate “church” prior to the Greek Schism of 1054. No such “church” existed.
Lost in all of this willingness to subject immutable truths to the “historical-critical” method of Hegelian analysis is the fact that one is either a Catholic who assents to all of the truths contained in the Deposit of Faith, or he he is not. How absurd is it to ask Protestants to determine whether they belong to the Protestantism in which their sects had their origins? The Anglican “church” has no right from God to exist. It is a false religion. Its adherents are in need to be converted unconditionally to the Catholic Church. Those who have been received recently into the ranks of the counterfeit church of conciliarism from the Anglican sect were not required to make any kind of abjuration of error. All they had to do was to attest to their agreement with the conciliar church’s so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church, a document that has many problems (see The New Catechism: Is it Catholic? and my own Piracy, Conciliar Style).
Moreover, although Ratzinger/Benedict may not have used the word “brother bishop” when in the presence of layman Rowan Williams, he did treat him as a “brother bishop,” permitting Walker Kasper to inviting him to preach during an “international Mass” at the Shrine of Our Lady of Lourdes in Lourdes, France, on September 24, 2008, the Feast of Our Lady of Ransom, as he wore his miter along with his “brother bishops” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism (see the website of Dr Rowan Williams for a link to the sermon, replete with a very telling photograph). And, of course, the man whom some might want to believe was “coerced” into attending yesterday’s shindig at the Basilica of Saint Peter did attempt to give a “joint blessing” with Williams at Westminster Cathedral in Westminister, England, on Friday, September 17, 2010, the Feast of the Impression of the Stigmata on Saint Francis of Assisi:
Similarly, Non-Papa Bergoglio’s seven minute speech, “heartfully” delivered in Italian after he had spoken in English to introduce his remarks, on “Bishop” Tony Palmer’s iPhone is something that would make Non-Papa Ratzinger very proud:
“Two rules: Love God above all, and love the other (neighbor), because he is your brother and sister. With these two rules we can go ahead. I am here with my brother, my bishop brother, Tony Palmer. We’ve been friends for years.
He told me about your conference, about your meeting. And it’s my pleasure to greet you. A greeting both joyful and nostalgic (yearning). Joyful because it gives me joy that you have come together to worship Jesus Christ the only Lord. And to pray to the Father and to receive the Holy Spirit. This brings me joy because we can see that God is working all over the world. Nostalgic (yearning) because but…it happens, as within our suburbs. In the suburbs there are families that love each other and families that don’t love each other. Families that come together and families who separate themselves. We are kind of…permit me to say, separated.
Separated because, it’s sin that has separated us, all our sins. The misunderstandings throughout history. It has been a long road of sins that we all shared in. Who is to blame? We all share the blame. We have all sinned. There is only one blameless, the Lord. I am nostalgic (yearning), that this separation comes to an end and gives us communion. I am nostalgic (yearning), of that embrace that the Holy Scripture speaks of when Joseph’s brothers began to starve from hunger, they went to Egypt, to buy, so that they could eat.
They went to buy. They had money. But they couldn’t eat the money. But there they found something more than food, they found their brother. All of us have currency. The currency of our culture. The currency of our history. We have lot of cultural riches, and religious riches. And we have diverse traditions. But we have to encounter one another as brothers. We must cry together like Joseph did. These tears will unite us. The tears of love.
I am speaking to you as a brother. I speak to you in a simple way. With joy and nostalgia (yearning). Let us allow our nostalgia (yearning) to grow, because this will propel us to find each other, to embrace one another. And together to worship Jesus Christ as the only Lord of History.
I thank you profoundly for listening to me. I thank you profoundly for allowing me to speak the language of the heart. And I also ask you a favor. Please pray for me, because I need your prayers. And I will pray for you, I will do it, but I need your prayers. And let us pray to the Lord that He unites us all. Come on, we are brothers. Let’s give each other a spiritual hug and let God complete the work that he has begun. And this is a miracle; the miracle of unity has begun.
A famous Italian author named Manzoni, once wrote in his novel, of a simle man amongst the people, who once said this, “I’ve never seen God begin a miracle without Him finishing it well.” He will complete this miracle of unity. I ask you to bless me, and I bless you. From brother to brother, I embrace you. Thank you.” (Bergoglio Records Private Video for Kenneth Copeland Ministries Conference.)
All have “sinned,” Jorge?
Blessed Edmund Campion, S.J., “sinned” when he served Catholics as an underground priest in England during the persecutions unleashed by King Henry VIII’s daughter by Anne Boleyn, Queen Elizabeth I?
The other English Martyrs “sinned” when refusing to recognize the monarch as the “supreme head of the Church in England” and refusing to treat the Anglican sect as anything other than what it is, a hideous offense to God that is a den of the devil himself,” Mr. Bergoglio?
Saint Fidelis of Sigmaringen “sinned” when giving up his life at the hands of the hateful Calvinists on April 24, 1622, Francis the Talking Apostate?
Saint Francis de Sales, the Apostle of Charity, “sinned” when seeking the conversion of Calvinists, Senor Bergoglio?
As noted in many articles on this site, including the one published yesterday, what passes for the Catholic Faith in the Modernist, revolutionary mind of men such as the conciliar “popes,” including the retired Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and the hyperactive Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, is merely a projection onto God–couched in complexity, paradox and contradiction for Ratzinger/Benedict and expressed “from the heart” by Bergoglio–of their own conception of God. This is nothing other than pantheism by way of the rationalism of Modernity and Modernism.
There is no need to repeat the references to Pope Pius IX’s Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868, Pope Pius XI’s Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928 or Pope Pius XII’s Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943, that can be found readily in yesterday’s article, . Neither Ratzinger/Benedict or Bergoglio/Francis believe that there is any necessity to seek with urgency the unconditional conversion of non-Catholics to the bosom of Holy Mother Church. Both have treated the “clergy” of false religions as having a genuine mission from God to serve, sanctify and save souls.
No, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI was not coerced into showing up yesterday at the Basilica of Saint Peter to prove “resignationism” to be erroneous. He was there of his own free will.
What is even sadder, however, is that so many traditionally-minded Catholics freely choose to accept the legitimacy of men who are public heretics whose profession of a false religion, conciiarism, has placed them beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.
Today is Sexagesima Sunday. Lent begins in but ten days from now. Our preparations for the best Lent of our lives must intensify, especially as we offer up the suffering of the moment to the Throne of the Most Blessed Trinity through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary in reparation for our own sins and those of the whole world.
Remember, each Rosary that we pray helps to plant seeds for the conversion of souls and for the restoration of the Church Militant on earth. We pray our Rosaries with confidence in the intercessory power of the Mother of God, asking not to see the results as we beg her to help us go to Heaven despite our own best efforts to go to Hell.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death.
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.