- Registrado
- 26 Ago 2013
- Mensajes
- 22.640
- Calificaciones
- 137.632
EL VATICANO ¡Todo aquí!
- AutorEleonora de Toledo
- Fecha de inicio
- Registrado
- 26 Ago 2013
- Mensajes
- 22.640
- Calificaciones
- 137.632
- Registrado
- 26 Ago 2013
- Mensajes
- 22.640
- Calificaciones
- 137.632
- Registrado
- 26 Ago 2013
- Mensajes
- 22.640
- Calificaciones
- 137.632
- Registrado
- 26 Ago 2013
- Mensajes
- 22.640
- Calificaciones
- 137.632
Carta de musulmanes convertidos al catolicismo al papa Francisco: “La ingenuidad frente al islamismo es suicida y muy peligrosa” – George Chaya
Decepcionados por los gestos equívocos de Francisco, se manifestaron confundidos y escandalizados por las alabanzas del Pontífice al Islam
(REUTERS)
Un grupo de 2600 ex-musulmanes bautizados católicos, como Magdi Allam, evalúan abandonar la Iglesia disgustados por lo que denominan “cobardía papal”.
Allam y un numeroso grupo de convertidos al catolicismo en los EE.UU. -no solo de ex-musulmanes- han denunciado el “super dogma” que propaga Francisco en el seno de la Iglesia: “Si no crees que el Islam es una Religión de la Paz, la Conferencia de Obispos Católicos de EEUU y la jerarquía eclesiástica vaticana te acosaran y silenciarán implacablemente tus ideas y conocimientos sobre la materia.
“El Papa ignoró nuestra súplica sincera, como ha ignorado a otros que cuestionaron respetuosamente su alejamiento de la enseñanza católica”, sostuvo Allam.
Como lo fue frente al nazismo y el comunismo, la ingenuidad frente al Islamismo es suicida y peligrosa
La carta comienza con un pasaje bíblico: “Déjalos; son guías ciegos y si un ciego guía a un ciego, ambos caerán en un hoyo “(Mateo 15:14).
Con la firma de 2600 conversos islámicos al catolicismo Magdi Allam envió al Papa la carta el 11 de enero pasado preguntando “¿Por qué cambia y distorsiona la realidad cuando se refiere al Islam?”.
La misiva, escrita en idioma árabe indica: “Santísimo Padre”. “Muchos de nosotros hemos intentado comunicarnos con Usted en distintas ocasiones y durante varios años, nunca hemos recibido el más leve reconocimiento a nuestras cartas y solicitudes de reuniones“. Somos un grupo de conversos islámicos al catolicismo que necesitamos que Usted responda una simple pregunta: ¿Por qué, literalmente, arriesgamos nuestras vidas para convertirnos en católicos si el Islam es “una buena religión en sí misma” como usted predica?. Esta es una pregunta que Usted se niega a respondernos a pesar de la infinidad de veces que señala lo importante que es estar cerca de los débiles y acompañar a aquellos que se acercan a la Iglesia. Los firmantes, necesitamos una respuesta de su parte para ayudarlo a comprender nuestra fe y por que dejamos nuestras vidas y todo atrás para escapar de un dogma que no nos humanizaba buscando respuestas en la fe católica.
¿Por qué, literalmente, arriesgamos nuestras vidas para convertirnos en católicos si el Islam es “una buena religión en sí misma” como Usted predica?
A usted no le agrada irse por las ramas, a nosotros tampoco, así que permítanos decir francamente que no entendemos sus palabras y enseñanzas sobre el Islam, como leemos en los párrafos 252 y 253 de Evangeli Gaudium, porque eso no explica que el Islam vino después de Cristo, y es una grosera equivocación que se presente como el cumplimiento de la Revelación (de la cual Jesús habría sido solo un profeta ) y es peor aun, que Usted la acepte.
Si el Islam es una buena religión en sí misma, como parece enseñar, ¿Por qué nos volvimos católicos? ¿Comprende usted la solidez de la elección que tomamos a riesgo de nuestras vidas? El Islam prescribe la muerte de los apóstatas (Corán 4.89, 8.7-11) ¿Lo sabe Usted? ¿Cómo es posible comparar la violencia islamista con la violencia cristiana? ¿Qué unión hay entre la luz y la oscuridad? ¿Qué asociación hay entre los fieles y los infieles?. Nosotros preferimos a Cristo y a nuestra propia vida en libertad.
Nuestra religión de nacimiento no nos ha ofrecido nada mas que la guerra desde fuimos niños
La carta hace un breve resumen de la idea de que el Islam y el Cristianismo pueden ser compatibles: “De hecho, mientras el Islam quiere que seamos su enemigo, lo somos, y todos nuestros pedidos de amistad no pueden cambiar nada. Para el Corán, los cristianos son solamente impureza (Corán 9.28), lo peor de la Creación (Corán 98.6), todos condenados al infierno (Corán 4.48), por lo que Allah debe exterminarlos (Corán 9.30). No debemos dejarnos engañar por los versículos coránicos considerados tolerantes, porque todos han sido derogados por el verso de la Espada (Corán 9.5), continúa el texto enviado por Magdi Allam.
Nuestra religión de nacimiento no nos ha ofrecido nada más que la guerra desde fuimos niños, en nuestros países nos enseñaron que el asesinato de los infieles era nuestro pasaje al paraíso. “No confundimos el Islam con los musulmanes, pero si para Usted el “diálogo” significa la voz de la paz, Usted no comprende que para el Islamismo es solo otra forma de hacer la guerra”, continúa la misiva.
Como lo fue frente al nazismo y el comunismo, la ingenuidad frente al Islamismo es suicida y peligrosa. ¿Cómo se puede hablar de paz y respaldar el Islam, como Usted hace sin escucharnos a los que padecimos desde pequeños su mandato siendo musulmanes?
Dejemos que aquellos que son cristianos sean felices con la Biblia y los musulmanes con el Corán. Pero que Usted como Papa indique el Corán como una forma de salvación, para nosotros que crecimos en ese ámbito de creencia es motivo de preocupación.
¿Deberíamos volver al Islam?. Nosotros nacimos en familias de esa fe y sabemos que el Islam no puede ser aliado en la batalla contra los poderes que quieren dominar y esclavizar al mundo, y sucede porque comparte la misma lógica totalitaria.
“Santo Padre: No dudamos que solo la proclamación de la Verdad trae consigo la salvación, la libertad y la justicia (Juan 8.32)”.
“La carta, que fue publicada por un diario cristiano copto que circula entre la comunidad egipcia y esta circulando en Internet, también contrasta la postura de países islámicos como Arabia Saudita o Egipto que “no dan la bienvenida a ningún refugiado”, mientras que el Papa Francisco predica la bienvenida a los inmigrantes, independientemente de que sean musulmanes, algo prohibido por el mandato apostólico: “Si alguien viene pero rechaza el Evangelio, no lo reciban entre ustedes ni lo saluden. El que lo recibe participa de sus malas obras “(Juan 1.10-11); “¡Si alguien te predica un Evangelio diferente, que sea maldito!” (Gálatas 1.8-9).
Los signatarios alertan del completo escándalo de la incapacidad del Papa de llevar a cabo su misión evangélica como el Vicario de Cristo. Ratificando que el discurso pro-Islam de su papado los lleva a deplorar el hecho de que los musulmanes no están invitados a abandonar el Islam, y que muchos ex-musulmanes, como el propio Magdi Allam, incluso están dejando la Iglesia, disgustados por su cobardía, y por las heridas de sus gestos, confundidos por la falta de evangelización y escandalizados por la alabanza al Islam que engañan a las almas inocentes.
Llevando el asunto más allá, advierten, también del peligro físico que la disposición del Papa hacia el Islam invita, indicando el resultado de que los cristianos no se preparen para una confrontación con el Islam, a la que Juan Pablo II, llamo (Ecclesia in Europa).
Tenemos la impresión de que no toma en serio a su hermano, el obispo Nona Amel, arzobispo católico caldeo de Mosul -en el exilio-, cuando nos dice: “Nuestros sufrimientos actuales son el preludio de los de ustedes; los europeos y los cristianos occidentales, deben miran nuestro padecer, pues sera su sufrimiento en el futuro cercano. El Obispo Amel denuncó haber perdido su diócesis y no contó con el apoyo de Francisco. La sede de suarquidiócesis ha sido ocupada por islamistas que quieren convertirnos o asesinarnos y Usted ha mantenido silencio, indica la carta.
Su Santidad, usted esta favoreciendo y acogiendo en su país a un número cada vez mayor de radicales islamistas. Usted también está en peligro. Debe tomar decisiones fuertes y valientes. Usted piensa que todos los hombres son iguales, pero el Islam no dice que todos los hombres sean iguales. Si no entiende esto rápidamente, se convertirá en la víctima del enemigo al que ha invitado a su casa. Esta es una cuestión de vida o muerte, y cualquier complacencia es traidora. No deseamos que Occidente continúe con la islamización ni que sus acciones contribuyan a ello. Entonces, ¿dónde iríamos a buscar refugio?.
En interés de la justicia y la verdad, la Iglesia debe sacar a la luz por qué los argumentos presentados por el Islam para blasfemar contra la fe cristiana son falsos. Si la Iglesia tiene el coraje de hacer eso, no dudamos, sostuvoAllam, de que millones, musulmanes y otros hombres y mujeres que buscan al verdadero Dios, se convertirían.
Como usted dice, Su Santidad: “El que no ora a Cristo, reza al Diablo”
Origen: Carta de musulmanes convertidos al catolicismo al papa Francisco: “La ingenuidad frente al islamismo es suicida y muy peligrosa” – Infobae
Decepcionados por los gestos equívocos de Francisco, se manifestaron confundidos y escandalizados por las alabanzas del Pontífice al Islam
(REUTERS)
Un grupo de 2600 ex-musulmanes bautizados católicos, como Magdi Allam, evalúan abandonar la Iglesia disgustados por lo que denominan “cobardía papal”.
Allam y un numeroso grupo de convertidos al catolicismo en los EE.UU. -no solo de ex-musulmanes- han denunciado el “super dogma” que propaga Francisco en el seno de la Iglesia: “Si no crees que el Islam es una Religión de la Paz, la Conferencia de Obispos Católicos de EEUU y la jerarquía eclesiástica vaticana te acosaran y silenciarán implacablemente tus ideas y conocimientos sobre la materia.
“El Papa ignoró nuestra súplica sincera, como ha ignorado a otros que cuestionaron respetuosamente su alejamiento de la enseñanza católica”, sostuvo Allam.
Como lo fue frente al nazismo y el comunismo, la ingenuidad frente al Islamismo es suicida y peligrosa
La carta comienza con un pasaje bíblico: “Déjalos; son guías ciegos y si un ciego guía a un ciego, ambos caerán en un hoyo “(Mateo 15:14).
Con la firma de 2600 conversos islámicos al catolicismo Magdi Allam envió al Papa la carta el 11 de enero pasado preguntando “¿Por qué cambia y distorsiona la realidad cuando se refiere al Islam?”.
La misiva, escrita en idioma árabe indica: “Santísimo Padre”. “Muchos de nosotros hemos intentado comunicarnos con Usted en distintas ocasiones y durante varios años, nunca hemos recibido el más leve reconocimiento a nuestras cartas y solicitudes de reuniones“. Somos un grupo de conversos islámicos al catolicismo que necesitamos que Usted responda una simple pregunta: ¿Por qué, literalmente, arriesgamos nuestras vidas para convertirnos en católicos si el Islam es “una buena religión en sí misma” como usted predica?. Esta es una pregunta que Usted se niega a respondernos a pesar de la infinidad de veces que señala lo importante que es estar cerca de los débiles y acompañar a aquellos que se acercan a la Iglesia. Los firmantes, necesitamos una respuesta de su parte para ayudarlo a comprender nuestra fe y por que dejamos nuestras vidas y todo atrás para escapar de un dogma que no nos humanizaba buscando respuestas en la fe católica.
¿Por qué, literalmente, arriesgamos nuestras vidas para convertirnos en católicos si el Islam es “una buena religión en sí misma” como Usted predica?
A usted no le agrada irse por las ramas, a nosotros tampoco, así que permítanos decir francamente que no entendemos sus palabras y enseñanzas sobre el Islam, como leemos en los párrafos 252 y 253 de Evangeli Gaudium, porque eso no explica que el Islam vino después de Cristo, y es una grosera equivocación que se presente como el cumplimiento de la Revelación (de la cual Jesús habría sido solo un profeta ) y es peor aun, que Usted la acepte.
Si el Islam es una buena religión en sí misma, como parece enseñar, ¿Por qué nos volvimos católicos? ¿Comprende usted la solidez de la elección que tomamos a riesgo de nuestras vidas? El Islam prescribe la muerte de los apóstatas (Corán 4.89, 8.7-11) ¿Lo sabe Usted? ¿Cómo es posible comparar la violencia islamista con la violencia cristiana? ¿Qué unión hay entre la luz y la oscuridad? ¿Qué asociación hay entre los fieles y los infieles?. Nosotros preferimos a Cristo y a nuestra propia vida en libertad.
Nuestra religión de nacimiento no nos ha ofrecido nada mas que la guerra desde fuimos niños
La carta hace un breve resumen de la idea de que el Islam y el Cristianismo pueden ser compatibles: “De hecho, mientras el Islam quiere que seamos su enemigo, lo somos, y todos nuestros pedidos de amistad no pueden cambiar nada. Para el Corán, los cristianos son solamente impureza (Corán 9.28), lo peor de la Creación (Corán 98.6), todos condenados al infierno (Corán 4.48), por lo que Allah debe exterminarlos (Corán 9.30). No debemos dejarnos engañar por los versículos coránicos considerados tolerantes, porque todos han sido derogados por el verso de la Espada (Corán 9.5), continúa el texto enviado por Magdi Allam.
Nuestra religión de nacimiento no nos ha ofrecido nada más que la guerra desde fuimos niños, en nuestros países nos enseñaron que el asesinato de los infieles era nuestro pasaje al paraíso. “No confundimos el Islam con los musulmanes, pero si para Usted el “diálogo” significa la voz de la paz, Usted no comprende que para el Islamismo es solo otra forma de hacer la guerra”, continúa la misiva.
Como lo fue frente al nazismo y el comunismo, la ingenuidad frente al Islamismo es suicida y peligrosa. ¿Cómo se puede hablar de paz y respaldar el Islam, como Usted hace sin escucharnos a los que padecimos desde pequeños su mandato siendo musulmanes?
Dejemos que aquellos que son cristianos sean felices con la Biblia y los musulmanes con el Corán. Pero que Usted como Papa indique el Corán como una forma de salvación, para nosotros que crecimos en ese ámbito de creencia es motivo de preocupación.
¿Deberíamos volver al Islam?. Nosotros nacimos en familias de esa fe y sabemos que el Islam no puede ser aliado en la batalla contra los poderes que quieren dominar y esclavizar al mundo, y sucede porque comparte la misma lógica totalitaria.
“Santo Padre: No dudamos que solo la proclamación de la Verdad trae consigo la salvación, la libertad y la justicia (Juan 8.32)”.
“La carta, que fue publicada por un diario cristiano copto que circula entre la comunidad egipcia y esta circulando en Internet, también contrasta la postura de países islámicos como Arabia Saudita o Egipto que “no dan la bienvenida a ningún refugiado”, mientras que el Papa Francisco predica la bienvenida a los inmigrantes, independientemente de que sean musulmanes, algo prohibido por el mandato apostólico: “Si alguien viene pero rechaza el Evangelio, no lo reciban entre ustedes ni lo saluden. El que lo recibe participa de sus malas obras “(Juan 1.10-11); “¡Si alguien te predica un Evangelio diferente, que sea maldito!” (Gálatas 1.8-9).
Los signatarios alertan del completo escándalo de la incapacidad del Papa de llevar a cabo su misión evangélica como el Vicario de Cristo. Ratificando que el discurso pro-Islam de su papado los lleva a deplorar el hecho de que los musulmanes no están invitados a abandonar el Islam, y que muchos ex-musulmanes, como el propio Magdi Allam, incluso están dejando la Iglesia, disgustados por su cobardía, y por las heridas de sus gestos, confundidos por la falta de evangelización y escandalizados por la alabanza al Islam que engañan a las almas inocentes.
Llevando el asunto más allá, advierten, también del peligro físico que la disposición del Papa hacia el Islam invita, indicando el resultado de que los cristianos no se preparen para una confrontación con el Islam, a la que Juan Pablo II, llamo (Ecclesia in Europa).
Tenemos la impresión de que no toma en serio a su hermano, el obispo Nona Amel, arzobispo católico caldeo de Mosul -en el exilio-, cuando nos dice: “Nuestros sufrimientos actuales son el preludio de los de ustedes; los europeos y los cristianos occidentales, deben miran nuestro padecer, pues sera su sufrimiento en el futuro cercano. El Obispo Amel denuncó haber perdido su diócesis y no contó con el apoyo de Francisco. La sede de suarquidiócesis ha sido ocupada por islamistas que quieren convertirnos o asesinarnos y Usted ha mantenido silencio, indica la carta.
Su Santidad, usted esta favoreciendo y acogiendo en su país a un número cada vez mayor de radicales islamistas. Usted también está en peligro. Debe tomar decisiones fuertes y valientes. Usted piensa que todos los hombres son iguales, pero el Islam no dice que todos los hombres sean iguales. Si no entiende esto rápidamente, se convertirá en la víctima del enemigo al que ha invitado a su casa. Esta es una cuestión de vida o muerte, y cualquier complacencia es traidora. No deseamos que Occidente continúe con la islamización ni que sus acciones contribuyan a ello. Entonces, ¿dónde iríamos a buscar refugio?.
En interés de la justicia y la verdad, la Iglesia debe sacar a la luz por qué los argumentos presentados por el Islam para blasfemar contra la fe cristiana son falsos. Si la Iglesia tiene el coraje de hacer eso, no dudamos, sostuvoAllam, de que millones, musulmanes y otros hombres y mujeres que buscan al verdadero Dios, se convertirían.
Como usted dice, Su Santidad: “El que no ora a Cristo, reza al Diablo”
Origen: Carta de musulmanes convertidos al catolicismo al papa Francisco: “La ingenuidad frente al islamismo es suicida y muy peligrosa” – Infobae
- Registrado
- 26 Ago 2013
- Mensajes
- 22.640
- Calificaciones
- 137.632
Bergoglio’s Boss? The Man whom the “Dictator Pope” obeys
January 22, 2018
Francis and the Pharisees
Bergoglio’s Boss?
The Man whom the “Dictator Pope” obeys
In his recent blockbuster The Dictator Pope, pseudonymous author Marcantonio Colonna argues convincingly that behind the mask of the gentle, merciful, humble, and always-smiling “Pope” Francis, there is in fact a ruthless dictator who rules by fear, a man who is a “manipulative politician and a skilful self-presenter”, as the official book description puts it.
As he has demonstrated time and again, the oh-so-humble “Bishop of Rome” knows very well that he wields full power and authority over the entire Vatican II Sect, being answerable to no one. And yet, could it be that even Jorge Bergoglio will take marching orders from a higher human authority, as it were?
On Jan. 21, 2018, the Italian paper Corriere della Sera published an interview with the Chief Rabbi of Rome, Riccardo Di Segni. This is the man to whom Francis sent a letter immediately upon his election as “Pope” in 2013, telling him he hopes to “contribute to the progress that relations between Jews and Catholics” have had since Vatican II (source).
At one point in his conversation, interviewer Aldo Cazzullo asks the rabbi what he thinks of “Pope” Francis. This is the response the Jewish leader gives:
He is a Pope who knows how to listen. I asked him to avoid mentioning the Pharisees as a negative example, since rabbinic Judaism derives from them; and he did. I asked him not to fall into Marcionism, and I think he is careful.
(Aldo Cazzullo, “Riccardo Di Segni: ‘Migrazione fuori controllo. Vittorio Emanuele III? Era meglio dove stava prima'”, Corriere della Sera, Jan. 21, 2018; our translation.)
Translation: Di Segni likes Francis because he does as he’s told. At the same time, it is not quite clear when Di Segni and Francis had their conversation about this because at least as of Jan. 9 of this year, the “Pope” was still talking negatively about Pharisees — always, of course, with a view to shaming Catholics by suggesting they are just like them.
In any case, Francis has a history of going out of his way to accommodate and honor the declared enemies of Jesus Christ, both before and since his “papal” election. We need but recall his deliberate hiding of his (travesty of a) pectoral cross during his visit with the Chief Rabbis of Jerusalem; his apostate affirmation that today’s Jews are still the Chosen People of God; his hosting of a “Day of Judaism” at the Vatican; his happy joining in the lighting of the Hanukkah menorah in Buenos Aires; his endorsement of Talmudic Judaism in a letter to Rabbi Abraham Skorka; his humiliation of Jesus Christ by using His holy Crucifixion as the punch line of a joke; his praise of Marc Chagall’s blasphemous White Crucifixion as his favorite painting; etc. Bergoglio’s admiration for those who pride themselves on rejecting Jesus Christ is mind-boggling. Francis even has a soft spot for the man our Lord called the “son of perdition”, Judas Iscariot.
Where are all those “conservative” Novus Ordos speaking out against all that, by the way? No open letters, no petitions, no public protests, no dubia, no conferences… No, apparently such things are reserved only for the more “exciting” issues involving the Sixth and Ninth Commandments… When it comes to the First Commandment, when it comes to sins of blasphemy, heresy, and apostasy, most of these people are curiously silent. What a shame!
By the way, in 1985, Di Segni had published the horrendously blasphemous text of the Toledot Yeshu in his book Il Vangelo del Ghetto (“The Gospel of the Ghetto”). In 2001 he was elected Chief Rabbi of Rome, and naturally both “Popes” John Paul II and Benedict XVI paid their obeisance to the man and his false religion. That Francis should do no less stands to reason.
So, ladies and gentlemen, this is where they’re at now: The “Pope” routinely denounces Catholics as “Pharisees”, and he doesn’t stop, reportedly, until a member of the real Pharisees complains that it makes them look bad.
You can’t make this stuff up.
Image source: Wikipedia
License: CC BY-SA 2.0
Share the knowledge!
January 22, 2018
Francis and the Pharisees
Bergoglio’s Boss?
The Man whom the “Dictator Pope” obeys
In his recent blockbuster The Dictator Pope, pseudonymous author Marcantonio Colonna argues convincingly that behind the mask of the gentle, merciful, humble, and always-smiling “Pope” Francis, there is in fact a ruthless dictator who rules by fear, a man who is a “manipulative politician and a skilful self-presenter”, as the official book description puts it.
As he has demonstrated time and again, the oh-so-humble “Bishop of Rome” knows very well that he wields full power and authority over the entire Vatican II Sect, being answerable to no one. And yet, could it be that even Jorge Bergoglio will take marching orders from a higher human authority, as it were?
On Jan. 21, 2018, the Italian paper Corriere della Sera published an interview with the Chief Rabbi of Rome, Riccardo Di Segni. This is the man to whom Francis sent a letter immediately upon his election as “Pope” in 2013, telling him he hopes to “contribute to the progress that relations between Jews and Catholics” have had since Vatican II (source).
At one point in his conversation, interviewer Aldo Cazzullo asks the rabbi what he thinks of “Pope” Francis. This is the response the Jewish leader gives:
He is a Pope who knows how to listen. I asked him to avoid mentioning the Pharisees as a negative example, since rabbinic Judaism derives from them; and he did. I asked him not to fall into Marcionism, and I think he is careful.
(Aldo Cazzullo, “Riccardo Di Segni: ‘Migrazione fuori controllo. Vittorio Emanuele III? Era meglio dove stava prima'”, Corriere della Sera, Jan. 21, 2018; our translation.)
Translation: Di Segni likes Francis because he does as he’s told. At the same time, it is not quite clear when Di Segni and Francis had their conversation about this because at least as of Jan. 9 of this year, the “Pope” was still talking negatively about Pharisees — always, of course, with a view to shaming Catholics by suggesting they are just like them.
In any case, Francis has a history of going out of his way to accommodate and honor the declared enemies of Jesus Christ, both before and since his “papal” election. We need but recall his deliberate hiding of his (travesty of a) pectoral cross during his visit with the Chief Rabbis of Jerusalem; his apostate affirmation that today’s Jews are still the Chosen People of God; his hosting of a “Day of Judaism” at the Vatican; his happy joining in the lighting of the Hanukkah menorah in Buenos Aires; his endorsement of Talmudic Judaism in a letter to Rabbi Abraham Skorka; his humiliation of Jesus Christ by using His holy Crucifixion as the punch line of a joke; his praise of Marc Chagall’s blasphemous White Crucifixion as his favorite painting; etc. Bergoglio’s admiration for those who pride themselves on rejecting Jesus Christ is mind-boggling. Francis even has a soft spot for the man our Lord called the “son of perdition”, Judas Iscariot.
Where are all those “conservative” Novus Ordos speaking out against all that, by the way? No open letters, no petitions, no public protests, no dubia, no conferences… No, apparently such things are reserved only for the more “exciting” issues involving the Sixth and Ninth Commandments… When it comes to the First Commandment, when it comes to sins of blasphemy, heresy, and apostasy, most of these people are curiously silent. What a shame!
By the way, in 1985, Di Segni had published the horrendously blasphemous text of the Toledot Yeshu in his book Il Vangelo del Ghetto (“The Gospel of the Ghetto”). In 2001 he was elected Chief Rabbi of Rome, and naturally both “Popes” John Paul II and Benedict XVI paid their obeisance to the man and his false religion. That Francis should do no less stands to reason.
So, ladies and gentlemen, this is where they’re at now: The “Pope” routinely denounces Catholics as “Pharisees”, and he doesn’t stop, reportedly, until a member of the real Pharisees complains that it makes them look bad.
You can’t make this stuff up.
Image source: Wikipedia
License: CC BY-SA 2.0
Share the knowledge!
- 37
- 3
- Registrado
- 26 Ago 2013
- Mensajes
- 22.640
- Calificaciones
- 137.632
Is it Adultery? In Portugal, YOU Decide!
January 23, 2018
I can’t believe it’s not adultery…
Is it Adultery? In Portugal, YOU Decide!
Roughly two weeks ago, the Vatican’s no. 2 in command, Secretary of State “Cardinal” Pietro Parolin, stated that with Francis’ infernal exhortation Amoris Laetitia, there had been introduced a “paradigm shift”. Although he cleverly chose not to elaborate on this concept, we are beginning to see precisely that: a shift from objective moral norms to situation ethics, according to which each individual decides what is right and wrong for his particular “concrete” case.
No matter the verbal contortions and the lipservice being paid to objective morality, it is clear that a subjective, individualized pseudo-morality is precisely what is intended with Bergoglio’s paradigm shift. We see this in the deliberately vague and ambiguous language used in the document itself, together with what ought to be said that is left unsaid; we see it in what is said behind closed doors; we see it in the refusal to clarify; we see it in the utter chaos that has erupted that Francis could end at any moment but chooses not to; we see it in the example the “Pope” himself gives in “blessing” adulterous unions; we see it in the praise and acceptance of those who draw the intended conclusions; and we see it in the toleration of and refusal to contradict those who take the principles a step further to argue that mortal sin may sometimes be not only permissible but even obligatoryto commit.
It is no accident that Pope St. Pius X, in warning against the Modernists, identified them as “the enemies of the Church” on account of not only “their tenets” but also “their manner of speech, and their action” (Encyclical Pascendi, n. 3). This is very important: Not only must we look at what they say but also how they say it, and what they do. If we apply this method to Francis, it does not take long to conclude that he is, in the words of Pope Pius X, among “the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church” (ibid.).
The latest news on the Amoris Laetitia kerfuffle comes from the Novus Ordo archdiocese of Braga, Portugal. On Jan. 17, 2018 its leader, “Abp.” Jorge Ferreira da Costa Ortiga, announced details concerning the implementation of Amoris Laetitia in his diocese at a press conference: The diocese has launched an “Office for Welcoming and Support to the Family” and issued two documents to put Amoris Laetitia into effect. Although these two documents are not yet available in English, a transcript of Ortiga’s presentation was released by the diocese in both the original Portuguese and in English translation:
We believe in the methodology’s soundness proposed by Pope Francis: to accompany, discern and to integrate. This means that couples have to be ready, for example, to accept that there are no pre- conceived answers or previously defined goals. If this were not the case, there would be nothing to discern. The couple of “remarried divorcees” and the spiritual director must accept that it isn’t a process to guarantee access to the sacraments, but rather a spiritual way to seek God’s will.
After several steps and a course of a few months, it will ultimately be up to the couple to take the decision before God. The spiritual director is responsible for monitoring the process and ensure that it runs with complete normality. As Pope Francisco says, “we are called to form consciences, not to replace them” (AL 37).
It’s not a matter of granting a general “authorization” to access the sacraments, but of a process of personal discernment, of the internal forum, accompanied by a pastor with regular meetings. This priest will help in the process of discernment in the light of the Church’s teaching.
(Archdiocese of Braga, “Criteria for running the Archdiocesan Service for Reception and Support to the Family”, n. 3; underlining added.)
All the fluffy verbiage found in the pretend-Archbishop’s speech is intended to make this all-determining “discernment process” look profoundly spiritual and doctrinally sound. However, it does not take a prophet to predict that the reality of it all will simply be this: The “irregular” couples will end up reading a bunch of boring documents, they will say some prayers, they will talk with the pastor and probably a few lay “counselors” — and ultimately they will all “discern” that in their particular case, there is no adultery; or even if there is, they can continue engaging in sexual relations because “for now [that] is the most generous response which can be given to God” and in fact “is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of [their] limits” (Antipope Francis, Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, n. 303). This will happen probably without a single exception.
By the way, what if the two “irregular” parties come to opposite conclusions in their discernment? It seems no one has thought of that scenario at all, but why not? Could it be that we all know that everyone will always “discern” the same thing, namely, that they can keep having relations? Perish the thought!
In any case, no matter what is actually discerned, this internal-forum process is contrary to the dogmatic decree of the Council of Trent: “If anyone says that matrimonial causes do not belong to ecclesiastical judges: let him be anathema” (Session 24, Canon XII; Denz. 982). It is a real shame that Pope Pius IV, who promulgated this Tridentine anathema, didn’t know about the panacean internal forum solution! Had this been known then, it would have saved King Henry VIII and Pope Clement VII a lot of trouble — and St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More a few heads!
Ironically, Fr. Ortiga has it exactly right when he says that if “there are no pre-conceived answers or previously defined goals”, then “there would be nothing to discern.” And that is precisely the case: There is nothing to discern because there are pre-conceived answers. They are the answers of the objective moral law, which is applicable at all times and everywhere, equally to all; all consciences must conform to it, and if they do not, then those consciences must indeed be “replaced”. Sometimes the truth is as simple and dull as: “…he whom thou now hast, is not thy husband” (Jn 4:18).
In his role as “Archbishop” of Braga, Fr. Ortiga is also the Primate of All Portugal. Whether the Bergoglio-Ortiga process will soon be adopted throughout the rest of the nation remains to be seen, but for now, it most certainly applies to the territory over which “Abp.” Ortiga wields his putative authority.
Ladies and gentlemen, ask yourselves: Is your carnal union matrimonial, blessed by God, and therefore an aid to your eternal salvation? Or is it adulterous, mortally sinful, and therefore putting you on the path to hell? In the Modernist archdiocese of Braga, you decide!
Share the knowledge!
January 23, 2018
I can’t believe it’s not adultery…
Is it Adultery? In Portugal, YOU Decide!
Roughly two weeks ago, the Vatican’s no. 2 in command, Secretary of State “Cardinal” Pietro Parolin, stated that with Francis’ infernal exhortation Amoris Laetitia, there had been introduced a “paradigm shift”. Although he cleverly chose not to elaborate on this concept, we are beginning to see precisely that: a shift from objective moral norms to situation ethics, according to which each individual decides what is right and wrong for his particular “concrete” case.
No matter the verbal contortions and the lipservice being paid to objective morality, it is clear that a subjective, individualized pseudo-morality is precisely what is intended with Bergoglio’s paradigm shift. We see this in the deliberately vague and ambiguous language used in the document itself, together with what ought to be said that is left unsaid; we see it in what is said behind closed doors; we see it in the refusal to clarify; we see it in the utter chaos that has erupted that Francis could end at any moment but chooses not to; we see it in the example the “Pope” himself gives in “blessing” adulterous unions; we see it in the praise and acceptance of those who draw the intended conclusions; and we see it in the toleration of and refusal to contradict those who take the principles a step further to argue that mortal sin may sometimes be not only permissible but even obligatoryto commit.
It is no accident that Pope St. Pius X, in warning against the Modernists, identified them as “the enemies of the Church” on account of not only “their tenets” but also “their manner of speech, and their action” (Encyclical Pascendi, n. 3). This is very important: Not only must we look at what they say but also how they say it, and what they do. If we apply this method to Francis, it does not take long to conclude that he is, in the words of Pope Pius X, among “the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church” (ibid.).
The latest news on the Amoris Laetitia kerfuffle comes from the Novus Ordo archdiocese of Braga, Portugal. On Jan. 17, 2018 its leader, “Abp.” Jorge Ferreira da Costa Ortiga, announced details concerning the implementation of Amoris Laetitia in his diocese at a press conference: The diocese has launched an “Office for Welcoming and Support to the Family” and issued two documents to put Amoris Laetitia into effect. Although these two documents are not yet available in English, a transcript of Ortiga’s presentation was released by the diocese in both the original Portuguese and in English translation:
- “Abp.” Ortiga’s Presentation: “Criteria for running the Archdiocesan Service for Reception and Support to the Family”
- “Abp.” Ortiga’s Presentation: “Critérios para o funcionamento do Serviço Arquidiocesano de Acolhimento e Apoio à Família”
- Announcement: “Archdiocesan Office for Welcoming and Support to the Family”
- Document: “Construir a Casa sobre a Rocha”
- Document: “Documento Orientador da Pastoral Familiar”
We believe in the methodology’s soundness proposed by Pope Francis: to accompany, discern and to integrate. This means that couples have to be ready, for example, to accept that there are no pre- conceived answers or previously defined goals. If this were not the case, there would be nothing to discern. The couple of “remarried divorcees” and the spiritual director must accept that it isn’t a process to guarantee access to the sacraments, but rather a spiritual way to seek God’s will.
After several steps and a course of a few months, it will ultimately be up to the couple to take the decision before God. The spiritual director is responsible for monitoring the process and ensure that it runs with complete normality. As Pope Francisco says, “we are called to form consciences, not to replace them” (AL 37).
It’s not a matter of granting a general “authorization” to access the sacraments, but of a process of personal discernment, of the internal forum, accompanied by a pastor with regular meetings. This priest will help in the process of discernment in the light of the Church’s teaching.
(Archdiocese of Braga, “Criteria for running the Archdiocesan Service for Reception and Support to the Family”, n. 3; underlining added.)
All the fluffy verbiage found in the pretend-Archbishop’s speech is intended to make this all-determining “discernment process” look profoundly spiritual and doctrinally sound. However, it does not take a prophet to predict that the reality of it all will simply be this: The “irregular” couples will end up reading a bunch of boring documents, they will say some prayers, they will talk with the pastor and probably a few lay “counselors” — and ultimately they will all “discern” that in their particular case, there is no adultery; or even if there is, they can continue engaging in sexual relations because “for now [that] is the most generous response which can be given to God” and in fact “is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of [their] limits” (Antipope Francis, Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, n. 303). This will happen probably without a single exception.
By the way, what if the two “irregular” parties come to opposite conclusions in their discernment? It seems no one has thought of that scenario at all, but why not? Could it be that we all know that everyone will always “discern” the same thing, namely, that they can keep having relations? Perish the thought!
In any case, no matter what is actually discerned, this internal-forum process is contrary to the dogmatic decree of the Council of Trent: “If anyone says that matrimonial causes do not belong to ecclesiastical judges: let him be anathema” (Session 24, Canon XII; Denz. 982). It is a real shame that Pope Pius IV, who promulgated this Tridentine anathema, didn’t know about the panacean internal forum solution! Had this been known then, it would have saved King Henry VIII and Pope Clement VII a lot of trouble — and St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More a few heads!
Ironically, Fr. Ortiga has it exactly right when he says that if “there are no pre-conceived answers or previously defined goals”, then “there would be nothing to discern.” And that is precisely the case: There is nothing to discern because there are pre-conceived answers. They are the answers of the objective moral law, which is applicable at all times and everywhere, equally to all; all consciences must conform to it, and if they do not, then those consciences must indeed be “replaced”. Sometimes the truth is as simple and dull as: “…he whom thou now hast, is not thy husband” (Jn 4:18).
In his role as “Archbishop” of Braga, Fr. Ortiga is also the Primate of All Portugal. Whether the Bergoglio-Ortiga process will soon be adopted throughout the rest of the nation remains to be seen, but for now, it most certainly applies to the territory over which “Abp.” Ortiga wields his putative authority.
Ladies and gentlemen, ask yourselves: Is your carnal union matrimonial, blessed by God, and therefore an aid to your eternal salvation? Or is it adulterous, mortally sinful, and therefore putting you on the path to hell? In the Modernist archdiocese of Braga, you decide!
Share the knowledge!
- 16
- Registrado
- 26 Ago 2013
- Mensajes
- 22.640
- Calificaciones
- 137.632
Fake Pope decries Fake News: A Critical Commentary
January 26, 2018
Message for World Communications Day
Fake Pope decries Fake News:
A Critical Commentary
Jorge Mario Bergoglio (aka “Pope Francis”) has the uncanny gift of inserting himself into every possible problem arising among human beings, except into those that the job description of the office he claims to hold actually require him to.
Clarifying that adultery is still a mortal sin that bars one from Holy Communion? Silence. Oversight in liturgical translations? Decentralized. Teaching fundamental theology? Boring. Watching over the purity of the Faith? Not his problem. Yet for every opportunity to promote “integral human development”, for every political conference, for every mudslide in Cambodia, Francis has something to say. It was no different this past Wednesday.
On the occasion of World Communications Day, the “Pope” released the following document:
We will now proceed to critically examine Francis’ text. It is full of gratuitous assertions and emotionally attractive but philosophically bankrupt ideas. Indeed, it is its very own example of fake news. We will not reproduce the text in full but will only quote the most salient parts, with our own commentary interspersed.
The “Pope” says:
The effectiveness of fake news is primarily due to its ability to mimic real news, to seem plausible. Secondly, this false but believable news is “captious”, inasmuch as it grasps people’s attention by appealing to stereotypes and common social prejudices, and exploiting instantaneous emotions like anxiety, contempt, anger and frustration. The ability to spread such fake news often relies on a manipulative use of the social networks and the way they function. Untrue stories can spread so quickly that even authoritative denials fail to contain the damage.
Francis is drawing a necessary connection between fake news and “appealing to stereotypes and common social prejudices, and exploiting instantaneous emotions”. But why should this be an essential characteristic of fake news? We are not told. The claim is gratuitous, that is, it is made without evidence, yet it is far from obvious. Prejudices can be right or wrong, just or unjust, reasonable or unreasonable. If a false news story does not exhibit any stereotypes or prejudices, does that mean it is not fake news? If the “instantaneous emotion” elicited is not one of anxiety, contempt, anger, or frustration but one of joy, laughter, or relief, does that make the misinformation any less fake?
The fake Pope continues:
The difficulty of unmasking and eliminating fake news is due also to the fact that many people interact in homogeneous digital environments impervious to differing perspectives and opinions. Disinformation thus thrives on the absence of healthy confrontation with other sources of information that could effectively challenge prejudices and generate constructive dialogue; instead, it risks turning people into unwilling accomplices in spreading biased and baseless ideas. The tragedy of disinformation is that it discredits others, presenting them as enemies, to the point of demonizing them and fomenting conflict. Fake news is a sign of intolerant and hypersensitive attitudes, and leads only to the spread of arrogance and hatred. That is the end result of untruth.
Here we find more unjustified assertions. Again Francis claims there is a necessary link between fake news and “discredit[ing] others, presenting them as enemies, to the point of demonizing them and fomenting conflict.” What necessary connection is there between these things and the scourge of misinformation? Discrediting others is not necessarily wrong — especially not if the other ought to be discredited. The same goes for enemies.
Let us turn for a moment to an episode in the Gospels where a certain Protagonist discredits others, presents them as enemies even to the point of demonizing them, and thus foments conflict. You may have read this passage before:
But woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men, for you yourselves do not enter in; and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites: because you devour the houses of widows, praying long prayers. For this you shall receive the greater judgment. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves. Woe to you blind guides, that say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but he that shall swear by the gold of the temple, is a debtor. Ye foolish and blind; for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? And whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gift that is upon it, is a debtor. Ye blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? He therefore that sweareth by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things that are upon it: And whosoever shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth in it: And he that sweareth by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you tithe mint, and anise, and cummin, and have left the weightier things of the law; judgment, and mercy, and faith. These things you ought to have done, and not to leave those undone. Blind guides, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you make clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but within you are full of rapine and uncleanness. Thou blind Pharisee, first make clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, that the outside may become clean. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men’s bones, and of all filthiness. So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just; but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; that build the sepulchres of the prophets, and adorn the monuments of the just, and say: If we had been in the days of our Fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore you are witnesses against yourselves, that you are the sons of them that killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell?
(Mt 23:13-33)
How’s that for discrediting and demonizing others? And yet, what we have here is a divinely inspired account of how God Himself communicated with certain sinners. In other words, what we have here is the greatest possible opposite of fake news. It is the Good News. Could it be that Francis is the one spreading disinformation here?
Yet preventing and identifying the way disinformation works also calls for a profound and careful process of discernment.
Ah, another discernment process! We should have figured. The last one he proposed, in Amoris Laetitia, is a sure-fire way of arriving at fake news about the validity of one’s marriage bond.
We continue with the world’s most famous apostate:
We need to unmask what could be called the “snake-tactics” used by those who disguise themselves in order to strike at any time and place. This was the strategy employed by the “crafty serpent” in the Book of Genesis, who, at the dawn of humanity, created the first fake news (cf. Gen 3:1-15), which began the tragic history of human sin, beginning with the first fratricide (cf. Gen 4) and issuing in the countless other evils committed against God, neighbour, society and creation. The strategy of this skilled “Father of Lies” (Jn 8:44) is precisely mimicry, that sly and dangerous form of seduction that worms its way into the heart with false and alluring arguments.
Don’t think for a minute that Francis actually believes Chapter 3 of Genesis to be literally and historically true. He’s just pretending for the moment because it’s expedient for the argument he’s making. The man is a 21st-century Jesuit.
He writes further:
This biblical episode brings to light an essential element for our reflection: there is no such thing as harmless disinformation; on the contrary, trusting in falsehood can have dire consequences. Even a seemingly slight distortion of the truth can have dangerous effects.
Yes indeed, that is so. But now apply that insight to how Francis treats doctrinal truth:
Back to Mr. Bergoglio:
Constant contamination by deceptive language can end up darkening our interior life. Dostoevsky’s observation is illuminating: “People who lie to themselves and listen to their own lie come to such a pass that they cannot distinguish the truth within them, or around them, and so lose all respect for themselves and for others. And having no respect, they cease to love, and in order to occupy and distract themselves without love they give way to passions and to coarse pleasures, and sink to bestiality in their vices, all from continual lying to others and to themselves.” (The Brothers Karamazov, II, 2).
Here we have to congratulate Francis. He found a way to include the word “bestiality” in a document about lying. That’s quite an accomplishment. Was this the trade-off for not bringing up those nasty c-words again he’d mentioned twice before?
We return to his text:
So how do we defend ourselves? The most radical antidote to the virus of falsehood is purification by the truth. In Christianity, truth is not just a conceptual reality that regards how we judge things, defining them as true or false. The truth is not just bringing to light things that are concealed, “revealing reality”, as the ancient Greek term aletheia (from a-lethès, “not hidden”) might lead us to believe. Truth involves our whole life. In the Bible, it carries with it the sense of support, solidity, and trust, as implied by the root ‘aman, the source of our liturgical expression Amen. Truth is something you can lean on, so as not to fall. In this relational sense, the only truly reliable and trustworthy One – the One on whom we can count – is the living God. Hence, Jesus can say: “I am the truth” (Jn 14:6). We discover and rediscover the truth when we experience it within ourselves in the loyalty and trustworthiness of the One who loves us. This alone can liberate us: “The truth will set you free” (Jn 8:32).
At first sight this may all sound very profound and noble because Francis indicates that only God is the source of all truth. How conservative!
But what about the rest of what he says? It would have been a perfect opportunity for him to repeat and then elaborate on the traditional definition of truth once provided by Aristotle and endorsed by St. Thomas Aquinas: Truth is “the conformity of thing and intellect”, that is, the conformity of the mind to reality (see Disputed Questions on Truth, q. 1, a. 1). This definition was always good enough for the Church, but is it good enough for Francis? Of course not. No, the enlightened Modernists know better than to repeat such peasanty black-and-white olden-day thought, and so Francis talks about how truth supposedly has something to do with leaning on something and claims it must be personally experienced — before kindly informing us that truth also has to involve a search for relationship:
Freedom from falsehood and the search for relationship: these two ingredients cannot be lacking if our words and gestures are to be true, authentic, and trustworthy. To discern the truth, we need to discern everything that encourages communion and promotes goodness from whatever instead tends to isolate, divide, and oppose.
Only someone like Francis could get away with putting out such utter rubbish. If a college student were to write this in a term paper, the professor would write in the margin: “gratuitous” and “you’re not proving your thesis, you’re only making claims.”
So Francis asserts: “To discern the truth, we need to discern everything that encourages communion and promotes goodness from whatever instead tends to isolate, divide, and oppose.” Aside from the question what this abstruse statement even means, we notice that he provides not a shred of evidence to back up his curious claim. Can truth not isolate, divide, and oppose? Why should that be a characteristic peculiar to falsehood?
Let us turn to the Scriptures once more. Our Lord Himself, who is “full of grace and truth” (Jn 1:14), warned that His doctrine would isolate, divide, and oppose people:
Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s enemies shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me.
(Mt 10:34-37)
Does this sound like it “encourages communion”?
The Bergoglian drivel continues:
Truth, therefore, is not really grasped when it is imposed from without as something impersonal, but only when it flows from free relationships between persons, from listening to one another.
Somehow, this “impersonal imposition of truth from without” worked really well for the Church for 2,000 years, especially for the Apostles. After simply preaching a sermon to people with whom he had no meaningful relationship (see Acts 2:22-36), Pope St. Peter made massive converts on the day of Pentecost: “They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls… And the Lord increased daily together such as should be saved” (Acts 2:41,47). Thank heavens they didn’t have Vatican II or the Novus Ordo Sect around in those days, else they would have started an interreligious dialogue and would still be talking today.
Returning now to Francis, it gets worse. The papal pretender has the chutzpah to come up with an entirely novel and pragmatic definition of truth:
Nor can we ever stop seeking the truth, because falsehood can always creep in, even when we state things that are true. An impeccable argument can indeed rest on undeniable facts, but if it is used to hurt another and to discredit that person in the eyes of others, however correct it may appear, it is not truthful. We can recognize the truth of statements from their fruits: whether they provoke quarrels, foment division, encourage resignation; or, on the other hand, they promote informed and mature reflection leading to constructive dialogue and fruitful results.
To disseminate such baloney in a document supposedly dedicated to truth is pretty audacious. Since when is the truth of an argument determined by the motive for which it is made? Quite simply, I can tell the truth for a bad motive, and I can tell a lie for a good motive. In both cases there is sin, but the nature of truth and falsehood is not touched in the slightest.
To claim, as Francis does, that truth uttered with the intent of discrediting or hurting another becomes a lie, is absurdity on stilts! Aside from that, we must repeat that the intention of discrediting someone is not necessarily wrong — some people simply ought to be discredited (such individuals as Martin Luther, Margaret Sanger, and Peter Singer come to mind). Even Francis would have to agree that not all discrediting of people is to be avoided, seeing that his entire ridiculous screed here has the purpose of discrediting the purveyors of fake news in the eyes of others.
Likewise, it is simply false to say that the truth of a statement is judged by its fruits. That is untenable philosophically and unjustifiable theologically. We may say it is, in fact, fake news, contradicted even by Divine Revelation: “For the word of God is living and effectual, and more piercing than any two edged sword; and reaching unto the division of the soul and the spirit, of the joints also and the marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb 4:12).
Next, Francis has an invitation to make:
I would like, then, to invite everyone to promote a journalism of peace. By that, I do not mean the saccharine kind of journalism that refuses to acknowledge the existence of serious problems or smacks of sentimentalism. On the contrary, I mean a journalism that is truthful and opposed to falsehoods, rhetorical slogans, and sensational headlines.
Now that’s just rich: Francis speaks out against “rhetorical slogans” and “sensational headlines”, when he is the biggest author of precisely those two things! Just think about how many headlines Francis has caused since 2013 because of his constant use of vivid slogans and idiotic remarks! From denouncing “self-absorbed Promethean Neo-Pelagians” and launching a “revolution of tenderness” to asking “Who am I to judge?”, there hasn’t been a dull day yet since Francis paid his hotel bill on Day 1 in front of running cameras.
We arrive now at the last part of Francis’ message for the 2018 World Communications Day. The “Pope” ends with a version of the famous so-called Prayer of Saint Francis, properly adapted to his new “journalism for peace” doctrine:
Lord, make us instruments of your peace.
Help us to recognize the evil latent in a communication that does not build communion.
Help us to remove the venom from our judgements.
Help us to speak about others as our brothers and sisters.
You are faithful and trustworthy; may our words be seeds of goodness for the world:
where there is shouting, let us practise listening;
where there is confusion, let us inspire harmony;
where there is ambiguity, let us bring clarity;
where there is exclusion, let us offer solidarity;
where there is sensationalism, let us use sobriety;
where there is superficiality, let us raise real questions;
where there is prejudice, let us awaken trust;
where there is hostility, let us bring respect;
where there is falsehood, let us bring truth.
Amen.
We interrupt this post for a brief moment so you can facepalm….
After all the drama that has transpired about Francis’ exhortation Amoris Laetitia, especially his refusal to answer five specific questions (“dubia“) to help bring clarity to what the document intends to teach, he now implores, “Where there is ambiguity, let us bring clarity”! You’ve got to hand it to Mr. Bergoglio: He’s got a sense of humor.
Now that we’ve examined Francis’ fake news against fake news, let’s be clear about something: Yes, the internet is full of false reporting. There is news that is distorted, inadequate, biased, exaggerated, flawed, and sometimes simply made up entirely. The rapid spread of information through social media tools such as Twitter and Facebook adds to the problem. At the same time, even mainstream news organizations around the globe have on occasion disseminated false information, whether unwittingly and by accident or with full deliberation. While it is important to keep in mind that not everything one sees, reads, or hears about somewhere is for that reason true and accurate, we must also take great care that any attempted cure for this will not be worse than the disease. What Francis is proposing here is a revolutionary redefinition of truth under the mask of peace and charity, custom-tailored to suit the Masonic-Naturalist agenda that seeks to gag or eliminate any remaining opposition.
Speaking of fake news, the Vatican II Church has been a veritable waterfall of theological and philosophical fake news since its inception after the death of Pope Pius XII. Here are some examples:
The upshot of all this is that fake news is indeed a problem, but the last entity on earth that could credibly complain about it is “Club Jorge” in Vatican City. Was it not “Fr.” Antonio Spadaro of La Civilta Cattolica, the famous fellow-Jesuit and bosom buddy of “Pope” Francis, who once claimed that in sacred theology, two plus two could equal five because it “has to do with God and real life of people” (see tweet here)? This effectively means that anything is possible in theology. And that’s exactly how the Modernist squatters in the Vatican have been acting since the last true Pope was taken out of the way.
What is Francis’ document against fake news ultimately aiming at? What does he think this “papal” message will actually accomplish? Is it perhaps a first step to the setting up of an Orwellian Ministry of Truth for the whole globe? Is it the initial “papal” endorsement? It is important to think long-term. Francis is a big fan of putting the necessary premises in place so he can draw their conclusions later. Already he is praising “those institutional and legal initiatives aimed at developing regulations for curbing the phenomenon….” Really, the one thing worse than having to sift through the news to tell the true from the false is to have the Freemasonic elites and other anti-Catholic oligarchs of the world tell us what is true and what is false!
And yet it is clear that the only way to effectively combat fake news is to impose censorship. Is this where all the obsession about fake news is headed?
Censorship is not wrong as long as it is Catholic censorship imposed by a lawful Catholic authority, ecclesiastical or civil. But such is only possible or desirable in a Catholic confessional state, not in any secular or otherwise non-Catholic nation, such as all countries of the world are at this point, including the United States. There is a reason why the Catholic Church requires that any writings on faith, morals, and related subjects receive the official approval from the diocesan authorities before they are allowed to be published (typically the nihil obstat and imprimatur); there is a reason why Holy Mother Church has an Index of Forbidden Books. These things are legislated in Canons 1384-1405 of the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope Benedict XV in 1917.
Presumptuously appealing to the “mature conscience of the faithful” and expressing a foolish “hope in the vigilant care of the individual Ordinaries and of the Episcopal Conferences”, “Pope” Paul VI in 1966 ordered the suppression of the Index of Forbidden Books (see Notification Post Litteras Apostolicas) and later reduced the required Church approbation for books to a minimum. Despite the typical specks of plausible deniability that are always included in a document like this, whether tucked away in a subordinate clause or buried in a footnote, it is clear that the Modernist Vatican has fostered the idea that Catholics ought not to be given a spiritual babysitter who tells them what is and isn’t safe for them to read.
And now they’re complaining about the proliferation of fake news.
Oh, the irony.
Image source: Wikipedia, modified
License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Share the knowledge!
January 26, 2018
Message for World Communications Day
Fake Pope decries Fake News:
A Critical Commentary
Jorge Mario Bergoglio (aka “Pope Francis”) has the uncanny gift of inserting himself into every possible problem arising among human beings, except into those that the job description of the office he claims to hold actually require him to.
Clarifying that adultery is still a mortal sin that bars one from Holy Communion? Silence. Oversight in liturgical translations? Decentralized. Teaching fundamental theology? Boring. Watching over the purity of the Faith? Not his problem. Yet for every opportunity to promote “integral human development”, for every political conference, for every mudslide in Cambodia, Francis has something to say. It was no different this past Wednesday.
On the occasion of World Communications Day, the “Pope” released the following document:
- Message for World Communications Day: “‘The Truth will set you free’ (Jn 8:32). Fake News and Journalism for Peace” (Jan. 24, 2018)
We will now proceed to critically examine Francis’ text. It is full of gratuitous assertions and emotionally attractive but philosophically bankrupt ideas. Indeed, it is its very own example of fake news. We will not reproduce the text in full but will only quote the most salient parts, with our own commentary interspersed.
The “Pope” says:
The effectiveness of fake news is primarily due to its ability to mimic real news, to seem plausible. Secondly, this false but believable news is “captious”, inasmuch as it grasps people’s attention by appealing to stereotypes and common social prejudices, and exploiting instantaneous emotions like anxiety, contempt, anger and frustration. The ability to spread such fake news often relies on a manipulative use of the social networks and the way they function. Untrue stories can spread so quickly that even authoritative denials fail to contain the damage.
Francis is drawing a necessary connection between fake news and “appealing to stereotypes and common social prejudices, and exploiting instantaneous emotions”. But why should this be an essential characteristic of fake news? We are not told. The claim is gratuitous, that is, it is made without evidence, yet it is far from obvious. Prejudices can be right or wrong, just or unjust, reasonable or unreasonable. If a false news story does not exhibit any stereotypes or prejudices, does that mean it is not fake news? If the “instantaneous emotion” elicited is not one of anxiety, contempt, anger, or frustration but one of joy, laughter, or relief, does that make the misinformation any less fake?
The fake Pope continues:
The difficulty of unmasking and eliminating fake news is due also to the fact that many people interact in homogeneous digital environments impervious to differing perspectives and opinions. Disinformation thus thrives on the absence of healthy confrontation with other sources of information that could effectively challenge prejudices and generate constructive dialogue; instead, it risks turning people into unwilling accomplices in spreading biased and baseless ideas. The tragedy of disinformation is that it discredits others, presenting them as enemies, to the point of demonizing them and fomenting conflict. Fake news is a sign of intolerant and hypersensitive attitudes, and leads only to the spread of arrogance and hatred. That is the end result of untruth.
Here we find more unjustified assertions. Again Francis claims there is a necessary link between fake news and “discredit[ing] others, presenting them as enemies, to the point of demonizing them and fomenting conflict.” What necessary connection is there between these things and the scourge of misinformation? Discrediting others is not necessarily wrong — especially not if the other ought to be discredited. The same goes for enemies.
Let us turn for a moment to an episode in the Gospels where a certain Protagonist discredits others, presents them as enemies even to the point of demonizing them, and thus foments conflict. You may have read this passage before:
But woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men, for you yourselves do not enter in; and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites: because you devour the houses of widows, praying long prayers. For this you shall receive the greater judgment. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves. Woe to you blind guides, that say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but he that shall swear by the gold of the temple, is a debtor. Ye foolish and blind; for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? And whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gift that is upon it, is a debtor. Ye blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? He therefore that sweareth by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things that are upon it: And whosoever shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth in it: And he that sweareth by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you tithe mint, and anise, and cummin, and have left the weightier things of the law; judgment, and mercy, and faith. These things you ought to have done, and not to leave those undone. Blind guides, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you make clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but within you are full of rapine and uncleanness. Thou blind Pharisee, first make clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, that the outside may become clean. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men’s bones, and of all filthiness. So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just; but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; that build the sepulchres of the prophets, and adorn the monuments of the just, and say: If we had been in the days of our Fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore you are witnesses against yourselves, that you are the sons of them that killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell?
(Mt 23:13-33)
How’s that for discrediting and demonizing others? And yet, what we have here is a divinely inspired account of how God Himself communicated with certain sinners. In other words, what we have here is the greatest possible opposite of fake news. It is the Good News. Could it be that Francis is the one spreading disinformation here?
Yet preventing and identifying the way disinformation works also calls for a profound and careful process of discernment.
Ah, another discernment process! We should have figured. The last one he proposed, in Amoris Laetitia, is a sure-fire way of arriving at fake news about the validity of one’s marriage bond.
We continue with the world’s most famous apostate:
We need to unmask what could be called the “snake-tactics” used by those who disguise themselves in order to strike at any time and place. This was the strategy employed by the “crafty serpent” in the Book of Genesis, who, at the dawn of humanity, created the first fake news (cf. Gen 3:1-15), which began the tragic history of human sin, beginning with the first fratricide (cf. Gen 4) and issuing in the countless other evils committed against God, neighbour, society and creation. The strategy of this skilled “Father of Lies” (Jn 8:44) is precisely mimicry, that sly and dangerous form of seduction that worms its way into the heart with false and alluring arguments.
Don’t think for a minute that Francis actually believes Chapter 3 of Genesis to be literally and historically true. He’s just pretending for the moment because it’s expedient for the argument he’s making. The man is a 21st-century Jesuit.
He writes further:
This biblical episode brings to light an essential element for our reflection: there is no such thing as harmless disinformation; on the contrary, trusting in falsehood can have dire consequences. Even a seemingly slight distortion of the truth can have dangerous effects.
Yes indeed, that is so. But now apply that insight to how Francis treats doctrinal truth:
- Francis: ‘Dialogue means Renouncing the Claim that our Ideas and Traditions Alone are Valid or Absolute’
- Francis: ‘The only Religious Certainty we have is that we are all God’s Children’
- Francis: “No One owns the Truth”
- Francis: “I feel like saying something that may sound heretical”
- Francis: “I’m not interested in converting Evangelicals to Catholicism”
- Francis denounces Converting the Orthodox as “Great Sin Against Ecumenism”
- Francis: “It is not right to convince others of your Faith”
- Francis doesn’t care if your child gets a Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, or Jewish education
Back to Mr. Bergoglio:
Constant contamination by deceptive language can end up darkening our interior life. Dostoevsky’s observation is illuminating: “People who lie to themselves and listen to their own lie come to such a pass that they cannot distinguish the truth within them, or around them, and so lose all respect for themselves and for others. And having no respect, they cease to love, and in order to occupy and distract themselves without love they give way to passions and to coarse pleasures, and sink to bestiality in their vices, all from continual lying to others and to themselves.” (The Brothers Karamazov, II, 2).
Here we have to congratulate Francis. He found a way to include the word “bestiality” in a document about lying. That’s quite an accomplishment. Was this the trade-off for not bringing up those nasty c-words again he’d mentioned twice before?
We return to his text:
So how do we defend ourselves? The most radical antidote to the virus of falsehood is purification by the truth. In Christianity, truth is not just a conceptual reality that regards how we judge things, defining them as true or false. The truth is not just bringing to light things that are concealed, “revealing reality”, as the ancient Greek term aletheia (from a-lethès, “not hidden”) might lead us to believe. Truth involves our whole life. In the Bible, it carries with it the sense of support, solidity, and trust, as implied by the root ‘aman, the source of our liturgical expression Amen. Truth is something you can lean on, so as not to fall. In this relational sense, the only truly reliable and trustworthy One – the One on whom we can count – is the living God. Hence, Jesus can say: “I am the truth” (Jn 14:6). We discover and rediscover the truth when we experience it within ourselves in the loyalty and trustworthiness of the One who loves us. This alone can liberate us: “The truth will set you free” (Jn 8:32).
At first sight this may all sound very profound and noble because Francis indicates that only God is the source of all truth. How conservative!
But what about the rest of what he says? It would have been a perfect opportunity for him to repeat and then elaborate on the traditional definition of truth once provided by Aristotle and endorsed by St. Thomas Aquinas: Truth is “the conformity of thing and intellect”, that is, the conformity of the mind to reality (see Disputed Questions on Truth, q. 1, a. 1). This definition was always good enough for the Church, but is it good enough for Francis? Of course not. No, the enlightened Modernists know better than to repeat such peasanty black-and-white olden-day thought, and so Francis talks about how truth supposedly has something to do with leaning on something and claims it must be personally experienced — before kindly informing us that truth also has to involve a search for relationship:
Freedom from falsehood and the search for relationship: these two ingredients cannot be lacking if our words and gestures are to be true, authentic, and trustworthy. To discern the truth, we need to discern everything that encourages communion and promotes goodness from whatever instead tends to isolate, divide, and oppose.
Only someone like Francis could get away with putting out such utter rubbish. If a college student were to write this in a term paper, the professor would write in the margin: “gratuitous” and “you’re not proving your thesis, you’re only making claims.”
So Francis asserts: “To discern the truth, we need to discern everything that encourages communion and promotes goodness from whatever instead tends to isolate, divide, and oppose.” Aside from the question what this abstruse statement even means, we notice that he provides not a shred of evidence to back up his curious claim. Can truth not isolate, divide, and oppose? Why should that be a characteristic peculiar to falsehood?
Let us turn to the Scriptures once more. Our Lord Himself, who is “full of grace and truth” (Jn 1:14), warned that His doctrine would isolate, divide, and oppose people:
Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s enemies shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me.
(Mt 10:34-37)
Does this sound like it “encourages communion”?
The Bergoglian drivel continues:
Truth, therefore, is not really grasped when it is imposed from without as something impersonal, but only when it flows from free relationships between persons, from listening to one another.
Somehow, this “impersonal imposition of truth from without” worked really well for the Church for 2,000 years, especially for the Apostles. After simply preaching a sermon to people with whom he had no meaningful relationship (see Acts 2:22-36), Pope St. Peter made massive converts on the day of Pentecost: “They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls… And the Lord increased daily together such as should be saved” (Acts 2:41,47). Thank heavens they didn’t have Vatican II or the Novus Ordo Sect around in those days, else they would have started an interreligious dialogue and would still be talking today.
Returning now to Francis, it gets worse. The papal pretender has the chutzpah to come up with an entirely novel and pragmatic definition of truth:
Nor can we ever stop seeking the truth, because falsehood can always creep in, even when we state things that are true. An impeccable argument can indeed rest on undeniable facts, but if it is used to hurt another and to discredit that person in the eyes of others, however correct it may appear, it is not truthful. We can recognize the truth of statements from their fruits: whether they provoke quarrels, foment division, encourage resignation; or, on the other hand, they promote informed and mature reflection leading to constructive dialogue and fruitful results.
To disseminate such baloney in a document supposedly dedicated to truth is pretty audacious. Since when is the truth of an argument determined by the motive for which it is made? Quite simply, I can tell the truth for a bad motive, and I can tell a lie for a good motive. In both cases there is sin, but the nature of truth and falsehood is not touched in the slightest.
To claim, as Francis does, that truth uttered with the intent of discrediting or hurting another becomes a lie, is absurdity on stilts! Aside from that, we must repeat that the intention of discrediting someone is not necessarily wrong — some people simply ought to be discredited (such individuals as Martin Luther, Margaret Sanger, and Peter Singer come to mind). Even Francis would have to agree that not all discrediting of people is to be avoided, seeing that his entire ridiculous screed here has the purpose of discrediting the purveyors of fake news in the eyes of others.
Likewise, it is simply false to say that the truth of a statement is judged by its fruits. That is untenable philosophically and unjustifiable theologically. We may say it is, in fact, fake news, contradicted even by Divine Revelation: “For the word of God is living and effectual, and more piercing than any two edged sword; and reaching unto the division of the soul and the spirit, of the joints also and the marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb 4:12).
Next, Francis has an invitation to make:
I would like, then, to invite everyone to promote a journalism of peace. By that, I do not mean the saccharine kind of journalism that refuses to acknowledge the existence of serious problems or smacks of sentimentalism. On the contrary, I mean a journalism that is truthful and opposed to falsehoods, rhetorical slogans, and sensational headlines.
Now that’s just rich: Francis speaks out against “rhetorical slogans” and “sensational headlines”, when he is the biggest author of precisely those two things! Just think about how many headlines Francis has caused since 2013 because of his constant use of vivid slogans and idiotic remarks! From denouncing “self-absorbed Promethean Neo-Pelagians” and launching a “revolution of tenderness” to asking “Who am I to judge?”, there hasn’t been a dull day yet since Francis paid his hotel bill on Day 1 in front of running cameras.
We arrive now at the last part of Francis’ message for the 2018 World Communications Day. The “Pope” ends with a version of the famous so-called Prayer of Saint Francis, properly adapted to his new “journalism for peace” doctrine:
Lord, make us instruments of your peace.
Help us to recognize the evil latent in a communication that does not build communion.
Help us to remove the venom from our judgements.
Help us to speak about others as our brothers and sisters.
You are faithful and trustworthy; may our words be seeds of goodness for the world:
where there is shouting, let us practise listening;
where there is confusion, let us inspire harmony;
where there is ambiguity, let us bring clarity;
where there is exclusion, let us offer solidarity;
where there is sensationalism, let us use sobriety;
where there is superficiality, let us raise real questions;
where there is prejudice, let us awaken trust;
where there is hostility, let us bring respect;
where there is falsehood, let us bring truth.
Amen.
We interrupt this post for a brief moment so you can facepalm….
After all the drama that has transpired about Francis’ exhortation Amoris Laetitia, especially his refusal to answer five specific questions (“dubia“) to help bring clarity to what the document intends to teach, he now implores, “Where there is ambiguity, let us bring clarity”! You’ve got to hand it to Mr. Bergoglio: He’s got a sense of humor.
Now that we’ve examined Francis’ fake news against fake news, let’s be clear about something: Yes, the internet is full of false reporting. There is news that is distorted, inadequate, biased, exaggerated, flawed, and sometimes simply made up entirely. The rapid spread of information through social media tools such as Twitter and Facebook adds to the problem. At the same time, even mainstream news organizations around the globe have on occasion disseminated false information, whether unwittingly and by accident or with full deliberation. While it is important to keep in mind that not everything one sees, reads, or hears about somewhere is for that reason true and accurate, we must also take great care that any attempted cure for this will not be worse than the disease. What Francis is proposing here is a revolutionary redefinition of truth under the mask of peace and charity, custom-tailored to suit the Masonic-Naturalist agenda that seeks to gag or eliminate any remaining opposition.
Speaking of fake news, the Vatican II Church has been a veritable waterfall of theological and philosophical fake news since its inception after the death of Pope Pius XII. Here are some examples:
- Martin Luther was a witness to the Gospel — fake news!
- elements of the Catholic Church exist in other religions — fake news!
- God may want adulterers to continue in their adultery — fake news!
- the United Nations is the last hope of mankind — fake news!
- heretics and schismatics have a divine mission to preach the Gospel — fake news!
- converting heretics to Catholicism is a sin — fake news!
- the existence of God cannot be proved by reason — fake news!
- God cannot be God without man — fake news!
- Christians ought not to fear the Last Judgment — fake news!
- the Church’s early martyrs died for religious liberty — fake news!
- the Church of England has validly ordained clergy — fake news!
- man-made global warming and climate change — fake news!
- no one is condemned forever because that is not the logic of the gospel — fake news!
- time is greater than space — fake news!
- abortion and brevity of conjugal life are grounds for annulment — fake news!
- the Talmudic Jews are Catholics’ “elder brothers in the faith” — fake news!
- the Luminous Mysteries are part of the Holy Rosary — fake news!
- the Novus Ordo worship service is the Catholic Mass — fake news!
- Our Lady of Fatima came to warn the world of what would ultimately be a failed assassination attempt on a man the world recognized as Pope — fake news!
- Muslims worship the same God as Catholics — fake news!
- hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of marriages declared invalid — fake news!
- Islam is a religion of peace — fake news!
- Joseph Ratzinger is a conservative, traditionalist, orthodox Catholic — fake news!
- every deceased supposed Pope since 1958 is a saint — fake news!
- genuine martyrdom is possible outside the Catholic Church — fake news!
- the Talmudic Jews have a valid covenant with God and are His Chosen People — fake news!
- John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis are Roman Catholic Popes — fake news!
The upshot of all this is that fake news is indeed a problem, but the last entity on earth that could credibly complain about it is “Club Jorge” in Vatican City. Was it not “Fr.” Antonio Spadaro of La Civilta Cattolica, the famous fellow-Jesuit and bosom buddy of “Pope” Francis, who once claimed that in sacred theology, two plus two could equal five because it “has to do with God and real life of people” (see tweet here)? This effectively means that anything is possible in theology. And that’s exactly how the Modernist squatters in the Vatican have been acting since the last true Pope was taken out of the way.
What is Francis’ document against fake news ultimately aiming at? What does he think this “papal” message will actually accomplish? Is it perhaps a first step to the setting up of an Orwellian Ministry of Truth for the whole globe? Is it the initial “papal” endorsement? It is important to think long-term. Francis is a big fan of putting the necessary premises in place so he can draw their conclusions later. Already he is praising “those institutional and legal initiatives aimed at developing regulations for curbing the phenomenon….” Really, the one thing worse than having to sift through the news to tell the true from the false is to have the Freemasonic elites and other anti-Catholic oligarchs of the world tell us what is true and what is false!
And yet it is clear that the only way to effectively combat fake news is to impose censorship. Is this where all the obsession about fake news is headed?
Censorship is not wrong as long as it is Catholic censorship imposed by a lawful Catholic authority, ecclesiastical or civil. But such is only possible or desirable in a Catholic confessional state, not in any secular or otherwise non-Catholic nation, such as all countries of the world are at this point, including the United States. There is a reason why the Catholic Church requires that any writings on faith, morals, and related subjects receive the official approval from the diocesan authorities before they are allowed to be published (typically the nihil obstat and imprimatur); there is a reason why Holy Mother Church has an Index of Forbidden Books. These things are legislated in Canons 1384-1405 of the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope Benedict XV in 1917.
Presumptuously appealing to the “mature conscience of the faithful” and expressing a foolish “hope in the vigilant care of the individual Ordinaries and of the Episcopal Conferences”, “Pope” Paul VI in 1966 ordered the suppression of the Index of Forbidden Books (see Notification Post Litteras Apostolicas) and later reduced the required Church approbation for books to a minimum. Despite the typical specks of plausible deniability that are always included in a document like this, whether tucked away in a subordinate clause or buried in a footnote, it is clear that the Modernist Vatican has fostered the idea that Catholics ought not to be given a spiritual babysitter who tells them what is and isn’t safe for them to read.
And now they’re complaining about the proliferation of fake news.
Oh, the irony.
Image source: Wikipedia, modified
License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Share the knowledge!
- 4
- Registrado
- 26 Ago 2013
- Mensajes
- 22.640
- Calificaciones
- 137.632
- Registrado
- 26 Ago 2013
- Mensajes
- 22.640
- Calificaciones
- 137.632
RORATE CÆLI
Se cierra Abadía trapense de Mariawald. Summorum derrocado por actual Vaticano
24/01/18 12:04 AM por RORATE CÆLI
El monasterio trapense de Mariawald, al norte de Renania del Norte-Westfalia, Alemania, era uno de los pocos monasterios del mundo que aplicaba la disposición presente en el artículo 3 del motu proprio Summorum Pontificum permitiendo la dedicación completa del monasterio exclusivamente para el rito tradicional.
Nosotros cubrimos esta importante noticia en el año 2008 (ver nuestra publicación de 2012), y en 2015 publicamos la traducción de una gran entrevista otorgada por el abad responsable de la implementación de este cambio, Dom Josef Vollberg.
El retorno a lo tradicional en Mariawald fue demasiado para el actual régimen vengativo instalado en Roma, el cual expulsó al abad en 2016, tal como reportamos en aquel momento.
Ahora, ha llegado el resultado inevitable: tal como reporta GloriaTV , están cerrando y desmantelando completamente la vieja abadía. Lo que no pudieron destruir las dos guerras mundiales lo consiguió el Bergoglianismo:
Cierra Abadía Trapense Tradicionalista de Alemania
La abadía trapense de rito tradicionalista en Mariawald, Alemania, cerrará sus puertas. El Vaticano, la Orden Trapense, y la Diócesis en Aachen en cuyo territorio se encuentra la abadía, lo han anunciado en Mariawald.
El monasterio ha estado habitado por trapenses desde 1909. Todos los empleados perdieron sus empleos. Los monjes serán transferidos a otros monasterios.
Durante este año, el monasterio y todas sus posesiones pasarán a manos de la diócesis de Aachen. El monasterio y la iglesia de Mariawald quizás permanezcan cerrados para siempre.
En una carta del 21 de noviembre de 2008, Benedicto XVI le había otorgado a la abadía el privilegio de regresar a las antiguas costumbres de la Orden Trapense tanto en liturgia como en vida monástica. Esto representaba especialmente un regreso al venerable rito antiguo. El Papa consideraba este proyecto como una “renovación de la Iglesia en el espíritu de la tradición”. Ahora esta renovación se ha detenido, sin haber podido despegar.
Es verdad que si bien la Iglesia sobrevivirá a pesar de todos los obstáculos, las casas religiosas, catedrales, y abadías habrán sido cerradas y destruidas muchas veces. Sin embargo, mantenemos la esperanza de que, así como las abadías azotadas por los salvajes de la Reforma y de la tormenta post-conciliar no pudieron permanecer para siempre, el actual régimen en el Vaticano tampoco lo permanecerá para siempre.
Iam enim hiems transiit; imber abiit, et recessit. Flores apparuerunt in terra nostra; tempus putationis advenit:vox turturis audita est in terra nostra;
ficus protulit grossos suos; vineæ florentes dederunt odorem suum. Surge, amica mea, speciosa mea, et veni:
columba mea, in foraminibus petræ, in caverna maceriæ, ostende mihi faciem tuam, sonet vox tua in auribus meis: vox enim tua dulcis, et facies tua decora.
(Traducido por Marilina Manteiga. Artículo original)
- Registrado
- 26 Ago 2013
- Mensajes
- 22.640
- Calificaciones
- 137.632
RORATE CÆLI
Lex orandi, lex credendi (misas con payasos y tango del cardenal Bergoglio)
04/01/18 12:01 AM por RORATE CÆLI
Un recordatorio de que nada de lo que está ocurriendo durante este pontificado debería sorprenderle, como nunca nos ha sorprendido a nosotros.
36470
- Registrado
- 26 Ago 2013
- Mensajes
- 22.640
- Calificaciones
- 137.632
HEMOS VISTO
De medio siglo de desacralización a Amoris laetitia (Peter Kwasniewski)
26/01/18 12:00 AM por Hemos Visto
Un descenso de 50 años hasta llegar a la nota 351: nuestra progresiva pérdida de sensibilidad ante la Sagrada Eucaristía
No es que nos hallamos despertado súbitamente un día de 2017 para encontrarnos frente a frente con sacrilegios eucarísticos promovidos desde lo alto. Lo que ha tenido lugar es un largo y lento proceso que nos ha dejado en el lugar en que estamos, y que ha consistido en la gradual disolución de la sacralidad del santo sacrificio de la Misa y, en el corazón de ésta, del Santísimo Sacramento, acompañada de una constante tolerancia institucional de los sacrilegios. Cincuenta años de desacralización han terminado en la temeridad de contradecir toda la Tradición católica acerca del más sagrado de todos los misterios de la Iglesia.
El primer gran paso fue permitir la comunión en la mano y de pie, un violento quiebre con la inveterada práctica, antigua de muchos siglos, de hacerlo adorando de rodillas ante la barandilla del altar y de recibirla en la lengua, como un pajarito es alimentado por sus padres, según se ve en innumerables pinturas medievales del pelícano que, hiriéndose, abre su pecho para dar de comer a sus pollos. El efecto más obvio que esto tuvo fue hacer creer a los fieles que la Eucaristía no es algo tan misterioso, después de todo. Si uno la puede tomar con la mano como un alimento cualquiera, es igual que una papa frita que se ofrece en una fiesta. El sentimiento de temor y reverencia ante el Santísimo Sacramento fue sistemáticamente disminuido y socavado con esta reintroducción modernista de una antigua práctica que había sido descartada, desde hacía mucho tiempo, por la sabiduría pastoral de la Iglesia. No fueron los fieles quienes pidieron abolir la costumbre de comulgar en la lengua y arrodillados: fue una imposición de los autodenominados “expertos” .
Un segundo paso importante fue permitirse que la comunión fuera dada por ministros laicos. Ello reforzó la percepción de que la Iglesia había abandonado todo eso de ser el sacerdote esencialmente diferente del laico, de ser la Misa un divino sacrificio, y de ser la Eucaristía el Pan de los Ángeles que sólo manos consagradas pueden tocar. Sí: todavía el sacerdote tenía que pronunciar las palabras mágicas, pero a continuación, Pedro, Juan y Diego podían encaramarse a tomar los bowls y las copas para distribuir a todos la insignia de membresía del club.
El efecto de estas “reformas”, y de otras parecidas (como el reemplazo del majestuoso y misterioso latín por el vernáculo cotidiano; la sustitución del órgano y del gregoriano por endechas con guitarra y piano; el darse vuelta el sacerdote hacia el pueblo, como anfitrión de un programa de conversación; la supresión de las barandillas de comunión del altar; el desplazamiento del tabernáculo desde el lugar central; el feísmo de los ornamentos y cálices, y mucho más) fue debilitar y corromper la fe del pueblo en que la Misa es un verdadero y auténtico sacrificio y en que la Eucaristía es el verdadero Cuerpo y Sangre de Jesús. No es para sorprenderse que, después de esto, la mayor parte de los fieles arrojara por la ventana el ayuno eucarístico y el confesarse como preparación para la comunión. ¿Acaso los propios pastores no actuaban como si ya no creyeran en estas cosas? ¿Qué se podía esperar, entonces, de sus ovejas?
Para decirlo brevemente, hemos vivido y sufrido medio siglo de erosión de los ritos y de contradicción de los símbolos de la fe de la Iglesia en los sublimes misterios del Cuerpo y de la Sangre de Cristo. Como se lamentaban Juan Pablo II y Benedicto XVI, existen escasas pruebas en nuestras comunidades de existir en ellas conciencia de la diferencia entre comuniones dignas e indignas, cosa que es una de las lecciones más básicas que se enseña a los niños en su catecismo.
En aquellos primitivos tiempos “pre-Vaticano II”, se enseñaba a los niños a practicar la virtud y a evitar el pecado mortal porque debían desear estar en situación de recibir al Señor y unirse a Él cada vez más estrechamente, hasta llegar a la gloria del Cielo, donde Lo poseerían para siempre. Se les enseñaba que si uno recibía al Señor en estado de pecado mortal, cometía un pecado todavía más grave. Se les enseñaba que hacer una buena confesión, con dolor de los pecados e intención de evitarlos en el futuro, era suficiente para corregir ese estado y recuperar la amistad de Dios. ¿Quién podría seriamente afirmar hoy que la mayoría de los católicos cree en estas cosas, o que siquiera puede reconocer –para qué decir comprender- estas ideas?
Hoy, al menos en ciertos países occidentales, casi todo el mundo va a comulgar cuando llega el momento de hacerlo. Es que eso es, simplemente, “lo que se hace en Misa”. Casi nadie se confiesa, casi nadie se abstiene de comulgar por tener conciencia de pecado, y es raro el sacerdote que predica alguna vez sobre la necesidad de estar correctamente preparados para comulgar (contrástese esto con el caso de San Juan María Vianney, que predicaba sin descanso sobre estas cosas, y que aumentó inmensamente el ardor de sus fieles por el sacramento de la confesión y por la comunión frecuente: no es por nada que este santo es el patrono de los párrocos; se supone que los patronos están ahí para ser imitados).
Así se preparó, diabólicamente, el terreno para el último acto, en que ha desaparecido, en la teoría y en la práctica, todo impedimento para comulgar. En un contexto general en que pocos católicos van a Misa y comulgan, parece un castigo cruel e inusitado dar un trato especial a un puñado de personas “casadas y divorciadas”: “A vosotros no se os permite comulgar, en tanto que los adolescentes que se masturban y fornican, las parejas que practican la contracepción, las familias que a veces se saltan la Misa dominical por hacer deporte, son todos bienvenidos a comulgar, como de costumbre”.
Este es el cuadro total que explica, a mi juicio, por qué los liberales o progresistas en la Iglesia son absolutamente incapaces de ver por qué pudiera alguien objetar el capítulo 8 de Amoris Laetitia con su nuclear nota a pie de página . Tales personas no creen realmente que la Misa es el verdadero y auténtico sacrificio que ofrece Jesucristo a la Santísima Trinidad; no creen realmente en la transubstanciación y en la Presencia Real; no creen realmente que uno come y bebe la carne y sangre de Dios; no creen que quien come y bebe indignamente, come y bebe su propia condenación, en tanto que quienes comen dignamente preparan su alma y su cuerpo para una resurrección gloriosa, como dice San Pablo.
Los “amoritas”, como podríamos denominarlos [Nota de la Redacción: “Amorites” llama el autor a quienes postulan que la Exhortación Amoris laetitia ha supuesto un verdadero cambio de paradigma en el acceso sacramental], ven “la Eucaristía” como una reunión fraterna, un acontecimiento social, una afirmación de la valía de lo humano, una “celebración” del “incondicional amor” de Dios, o como cualquier otro eslogan tipo “Hallmark” [Nota de la Redacción: se refiere el autor a los usuales mensajes presentes en las tarjetas de saludo hechas por esa marca estadounidense] que a uno se le pueda ocurrir. Dentro de los confines de esta teología horizontal y superficial, no hay lugar para exigencias ni prohibiciones: ¡cualquier cosa es bienvenida, todo vale! Y puesto que la Eucaristía es una comida que simboliza la acogida que Dios da al pecador, no hay razón alguna para excluir a nadie, cualquiera sea el motivo, de tomar parte en la “mesa de la abundancia”.
Amoris Laetitia encaja bien en esta trayectoria histórica más amplia, en virtud de la cual la Misa ha sido despojada de su realismo sacrificial trascendente, misterioso, ominoso y desafiante, y ha sido empujada continuamente en dirección a una comida ordinaria, con gente común y corriente que hace cosas ordinarias por una finalidad intramundana, con una forzada espontaneidad y una banalidad embarazosa que han sido incapaces de atraer el flujo de las multitudes que predijo Pablo VI. En una Misa así, ¿qué se puede hacer sino recibir la comunión? ¿A quién se le ocurriría asistir a ella sólo para adorar a Dios y contemplar su belleza? En el Novus Ordo prácticamente no hay oportunidades o incentivos para la adoración, y a la belleza no le ha ido mejor –por el contrario, mucho peor-. En esas circunstancias, es inconcebible que se interponga una barrera entre una comida gratis y un invitado que tiene de sí una buena idea por el simple hecho de estar ahí .
En realidad, la Misa es el sacrificio incruento de la Cruz, hecho presente en medio de nosotros, y es simultáneamente el vivificante banquete de bodas celestial de Cristo, ahora glorificado. La Eucaristía es el sacramento de la unión en una sola carne de la novia adornada por la gracia y del Novio, que es su única felicidad.
No me sorprende que, en las Misas tradicionales en todo el mundo, incluidos los Estados Unidos, se pueda observar dos fenómenos relacionados: una gran cantidad de fieles que se confiesan antes y durante la Misa, y una buena cantidad de ellos que se quedan en las bancas y no comulgan. Los triunfos interiores de los primeros, las luchas interiores de los segundos son conocidos sólo por Dios. Pero hay una cosa que es obvia: todos ellos han venido a adorarlo, como respuesta a Su majestad, a cumplir una solemne obligación de la virtud de la religión. Si están preparados o no para comulgar es una cuestión de un nivel diferente. Tal es la buena salud que prevalece en el ámbito de la Tradición; es la buena salud que pavimenta el camino hacia la santidad.
Peter Kwasniewski
(Fuente y traducción: Asociación Litúrgica Magnificat)
2419
De medio siglo de desacralización a Amoris laetitia (Peter Kwasniewski)
26/01/18 12:00 AM por Hemos Visto
Un descenso de 50 años hasta llegar a la nota 351: nuestra progresiva pérdida de sensibilidad ante la Sagrada Eucaristía
No es que nos hallamos despertado súbitamente un día de 2017 para encontrarnos frente a frente con sacrilegios eucarísticos promovidos desde lo alto. Lo que ha tenido lugar es un largo y lento proceso que nos ha dejado en el lugar en que estamos, y que ha consistido en la gradual disolución de la sacralidad del santo sacrificio de la Misa y, en el corazón de ésta, del Santísimo Sacramento, acompañada de una constante tolerancia institucional de los sacrilegios. Cincuenta años de desacralización han terminado en la temeridad de contradecir toda la Tradición católica acerca del más sagrado de todos los misterios de la Iglesia.
El primer gran paso fue permitir la comunión en la mano y de pie, un violento quiebre con la inveterada práctica, antigua de muchos siglos, de hacerlo adorando de rodillas ante la barandilla del altar y de recibirla en la lengua, como un pajarito es alimentado por sus padres, según se ve en innumerables pinturas medievales del pelícano que, hiriéndose, abre su pecho para dar de comer a sus pollos. El efecto más obvio que esto tuvo fue hacer creer a los fieles que la Eucaristía no es algo tan misterioso, después de todo. Si uno la puede tomar con la mano como un alimento cualquiera, es igual que una papa frita que se ofrece en una fiesta. El sentimiento de temor y reverencia ante el Santísimo Sacramento fue sistemáticamente disminuido y socavado con esta reintroducción modernista de una antigua práctica que había sido descartada, desde hacía mucho tiempo, por la sabiduría pastoral de la Iglesia. No fueron los fieles quienes pidieron abolir la costumbre de comulgar en la lengua y arrodillados: fue una imposición de los autodenominados “expertos” .
Un segundo paso importante fue permitirse que la comunión fuera dada por ministros laicos. Ello reforzó la percepción de que la Iglesia había abandonado todo eso de ser el sacerdote esencialmente diferente del laico, de ser la Misa un divino sacrificio, y de ser la Eucaristía el Pan de los Ángeles que sólo manos consagradas pueden tocar. Sí: todavía el sacerdote tenía que pronunciar las palabras mágicas, pero a continuación, Pedro, Juan y Diego podían encaramarse a tomar los bowls y las copas para distribuir a todos la insignia de membresía del club.
El efecto de estas “reformas”, y de otras parecidas (como el reemplazo del majestuoso y misterioso latín por el vernáculo cotidiano; la sustitución del órgano y del gregoriano por endechas con guitarra y piano; el darse vuelta el sacerdote hacia el pueblo, como anfitrión de un programa de conversación; la supresión de las barandillas de comunión del altar; el desplazamiento del tabernáculo desde el lugar central; el feísmo de los ornamentos y cálices, y mucho más) fue debilitar y corromper la fe del pueblo en que la Misa es un verdadero y auténtico sacrificio y en que la Eucaristía es el verdadero Cuerpo y Sangre de Jesús. No es para sorprenderse que, después de esto, la mayor parte de los fieles arrojara por la ventana el ayuno eucarístico y el confesarse como preparación para la comunión. ¿Acaso los propios pastores no actuaban como si ya no creyeran en estas cosas? ¿Qué se podía esperar, entonces, de sus ovejas?
Para decirlo brevemente, hemos vivido y sufrido medio siglo de erosión de los ritos y de contradicción de los símbolos de la fe de la Iglesia en los sublimes misterios del Cuerpo y de la Sangre de Cristo. Como se lamentaban Juan Pablo II y Benedicto XVI, existen escasas pruebas en nuestras comunidades de existir en ellas conciencia de la diferencia entre comuniones dignas e indignas, cosa que es una de las lecciones más básicas que se enseña a los niños en su catecismo.
En aquellos primitivos tiempos “pre-Vaticano II”, se enseñaba a los niños a practicar la virtud y a evitar el pecado mortal porque debían desear estar en situación de recibir al Señor y unirse a Él cada vez más estrechamente, hasta llegar a la gloria del Cielo, donde Lo poseerían para siempre. Se les enseñaba que si uno recibía al Señor en estado de pecado mortal, cometía un pecado todavía más grave. Se les enseñaba que hacer una buena confesión, con dolor de los pecados e intención de evitarlos en el futuro, era suficiente para corregir ese estado y recuperar la amistad de Dios. ¿Quién podría seriamente afirmar hoy que la mayoría de los católicos cree en estas cosas, o que siquiera puede reconocer –para qué decir comprender- estas ideas?
Hoy, al menos en ciertos países occidentales, casi todo el mundo va a comulgar cuando llega el momento de hacerlo. Es que eso es, simplemente, “lo que se hace en Misa”. Casi nadie se confiesa, casi nadie se abstiene de comulgar por tener conciencia de pecado, y es raro el sacerdote que predica alguna vez sobre la necesidad de estar correctamente preparados para comulgar (contrástese esto con el caso de San Juan María Vianney, que predicaba sin descanso sobre estas cosas, y que aumentó inmensamente el ardor de sus fieles por el sacramento de la confesión y por la comunión frecuente: no es por nada que este santo es el patrono de los párrocos; se supone que los patronos están ahí para ser imitados).
Así se preparó, diabólicamente, el terreno para el último acto, en que ha desaparecido, en la teoría y en la práctica, todo impedimento para comulgar. En un contexto general en que pocos católicos van a Misa y comulgan, parece un castigo cruel e inusitado dar un trato especial a un puñado de personas “casadas y divorciadas”: “A vosotros no se os permite comulgar, en tanto que los adolescentes que se masturban y fornican, las parejas que practican la contracepción, las familias que a veces se saltan la Misa dominical por hacer deporte, son todos bienvenidos a comulgar, como de costumbre”.
Este es el cuadro total que explica, a mi juicio, por qué los liberales o progresistas en la Iglesia son absolutamente incapaces de ver por qué pudiera alguien objetar el capítulo 8 de Amoris Laetitia con su nuclear nota a pie de página . Tales personas no creen realmente que la Misa es el verdadero y auténtico sacrificio que ofrece Jesucristo a la Santísima Trinidad; no creen realmente en la transubstanciación y en la Presencia Real; no creen realmente que uno come y bebe la carne y sangre de Dios; no creen que quien come y bebe indignamente, come y bebe su propia condenación, en tanto que quienes comen dignamente preparan su alma y su cuerpo para una resurrección gloriosa, como dice San Pablo.
Los “amoritas”, como podríamos denominarlos [Nota de la Redacción: “Amorites” llama el autor a quienes postulan que la Exhortación Amoris laetitia ha supuesto un verdadero cambio de paradigma en el acceso sacramental], ven “la Eucaristía” como una reunión fraterna, un acontecimiento social, una afirmación de la valía de lo humano, una “celebración” del “incondicional amor” de Dios, o como cualquier otro eslogan tipo “Hallmark” [Nota de la Redacción: se refiere el autor a los usuales mensajes presentes en las tarjetas de saludo hechas por esa marca estadounidense] que a uno se le pueda ocurrir. Dentro de los confines de esta teología horizontal y superficial, no hay lugar para exigencias ni prohibiciones: ¡cualquier cosa es bienvenida, todo vale! Y puesto que la Eucaristía es una comida que simboliza la acogida que Dios da al pecador, no hay razón alguna para excluir a nadie, cualquiera sea el motivo, de tomar parte en la “mesa de la abundancia”.
Amoris Laetitia encaja bien en esta trayectoria histórica más amplia, en virtud de la cual la Misa ha sido despojada de su realismo sacrificial trascendente, misterioso, ominoso y desafiante, y ha sido empujada continuamente en dirección a una comida ordinaria, con gente común y corriente que hace cosas ordinarias por una finalidad intramundana, con una forzada espontaneidad y una banalidad embarazosa que han sido incapaces de atraer el flujo de las multitudes que predijo Pablo VI. En una Misa así, ¿qué se puede hacer sino recibir la comunión? ¿A quién se le ocurriría asistir a ella sólo para adorar a Dios y contemplar su belleza? En el Novus Ordo prácticamente no hay oportunidades o incentivos para la adoración, y a la belleza no le ha ido mejor –por el contrario, mucho peor-. En esas circunstancias, es inconcebible que se interponga una barrera entre una comida gratis y un invitado que tiene de sí una buena idea por el simple hecho de estar ahí .
En realidad, la Misa es el sacrificio incruento de la Cruz, hecho presente en medio de nosotros, y es simultáneamente el vivificante banquete de bodas celestial de Cristo, ahora glorificado. La Eucaristía es el sacramento de la unión en una sola carne de la novia adornada por la gracia y del Novio, que es su única felicidad.
No me sorprende que, en las Misas tradicionales en todo el mundo, incluidos los Estados Unidos, se pueda observar dos fenómenos relacionados: una gran cantidad de fieles que se confiesan antes y durante la Misa, y una buena cantidad de ellos que se quedan en las bancas y no comulgan. Los triunfos interiores de los primeros, las luchas interiores de los segundos son conocidos sólo por Dios. Pero hay una cosa que es obvia: todos ellos han venido a adorarlo, como respuesta a Su majestad, a cumplir una solemne obligación de la virtud de la religión. Si están preparados o no para comulgar es una cuestión de un nivel diferente. Tal es la buena salud que prevalece en el ámbito de la Tradición; es la buena salud que pavimenta el camino hacia la santidad.
Peter Kwasniewski
(Fuente y traducción: Asociación Litúrgica Magnificat)
2419
