Pope Francis sums up his heresies

I’m only getting to this now as I’m busy with actually being a priest. I think it’s criminal that I or any priest has to waste time answering idiotic statements of Pope Francis, who has totally lost any objective claim to personal honor with the presentation in the Vatican Gardens of the Pachamama Idol and her male-Consort Idol. I make these comments below in a terrible rush early Sunday morning before the 6:00 AM Holy Hour of Adoration with Confessions up in church. My emphasis. [My comments.]

/// The full mid-flight papal presser question of Jason Horowitz (NYT) and answer of Pope Francis that I’m using as the basis for this was posted by Edward Pentin of the NCRegister on Tuesday Sep 10th, 2019 at 3:33 PM. ///

Jason Horowitz: On the flight to Maputo you acknowledged being under attack by a segment of the American Church. Obviously, there is strong criticism from some bishops and cardinals, there are Catholic Television stations and American websites that are very critical. And there are even some of your closest allies who have spoken of a plot against you. [Wow. I never heard of that. Is that baiting by the NYT?] Is there something that these critics do not understand about your pontificate? Is there something that you have learned from your critics? Are you afraid of a schism in the American Church? And if so, is there something that you could do – a dialogue – to keep it from happening?

Pope Francis: First of all, criticism always helps, always. When someone receives criticism, that person needs to do a self-critique right away and say: is this true or not? To what point? And I always benefit from criticism. Sometimes it makes you angry…. But there are advantages. Traveling to Maputo, one of you gave me that book in French on how the Americans want to change the Pope. I knew about that book, but I had not read it. Criticisms are not coming only from the Americans, they are coming a bit from everywhere, even from the Curia. At least those that say them have the benefit of the honesty of having said them. I do not like it when criticism stays under the table: they smile at you letting you see their teeth and then they stab you in the back. That is not fair, it is not human. [I use my name. You say you don’t like “Yes men’, Pope Francis, but +Christophe Pierre is demanding proofs of submission to the anti-Christ things that you do on a continual basis.]

Criticism is a component in construction, and if your criticism is unjust, be prepared to receive a response, and get into dialogue, and arrive to the right conclusion. [And there’s the fraud. Your dialogue partner is always wrong and will always have to change his mind, right?] This is the dynamic of true criticism. The criticism of the arsenic pills, instead, of which we were speaking regarding the article that I gave to Msgr Rueda, it’s like throwing the stone and then hiding your hand… This is not beneficial, it is no help. It helps small cliques, who do not want to hear the response to their criticism. Instead, fair criticism – I think thus and so – is open to a response. This is constructive. [That’s seems to be a blatant lie, Pope Francis. Why don’t you answer the Dubia?]

Regarding the case of the Pope: I don’t like this aspect of the Pope, I criticize him, I speak about him, I write an article and ask him to respond, this is fair. [Like the Dubia Cardinals? Pfft.]  To criticize without wanting to hear a response and without getting into dialogue is not to have the good of the Church at heart, it is chasing after a fixed idea, to change the Pope or to create a schism. This is clear: a fair criticism is always well received, at least by me. [That’s not true. You smash people down. You don’t confirm your brothers in the faith.] Secondly, the problem of the schism: within the Church there have been many schisms.

After the First Vatican Council, for example, the last vote, the one on infallibility, a well-sized group left and founded the Old Catholic Church so as to remain “true” to the tradition of the Church. Then they developed differently and now they ordain women. But in that moment they were rigid, they rallied behind orthodoxy and thought that the council had erred. [Such playing with language, turning words into their reverse meaning. The ‘Old Catholics’ (self-referentially inconsistent) were ultra-filthy-filthy liberals, rejecting what was always the truth of papal infallibility in matters of faith and morals.] Another group left very, very quietly, but they did not want to vote. Vatican II had these things among its consequences. Perhaps the most well-known post-conciliar split is that of Lefebvre. In the Church there is always the option for schism, always. But it is an option that the Lord leaves to human freedom.

I am not afraid of schisms, I pray that there will be none, because what is at stake is people’s spiritual health. [So, Pope Francis, why don’t you ever confirm your brothers in the faith?] Let there be dialogue, let there be correction if there is an error, but the schismatic path is not Christian. [And forever dialectical destructive one sided obliteration of the faith is not dialogue, is not teaching, is not confirming one’s brothers in the faith.] Let’s think about the beginnings of the Church, how it began with many schisms, one after the other: Arians, Gnostics, Monophysites… [And now we can add dialectical materialism and idol worship.] An anecdote is coming to mind that I would like to recount: it was the people of God who saved [the Church] from the schisms. The schismatics always have one thing in common: they separate themselves from the people, from the faith of the people of God. And when there was a discussion in the council of Ephesus regarding Mary’s divine maternity, the people – this is history – were at the entrance of the cathedral while the bishops entered to take part in the council. They were there with clubs. They made the bishops see them as they shouted, “Mother of God! Mother of God!”, as if to say: if you do not do this, this is what you can expect… The people of God always correct and help. [And the whole world is crying out for Jesus, the Divine Son of the Immaculate Conception, and you, Pope Francis, give them the demon-goddess Pachamama and her male-Consort in Vatican Gardens. What the hell are you doing, Pope Francis? Are you possessed.]

A schism is always an elitist separation stemming from an ideology detached from doctrine. [That sums up about 100% of what you do and say, Pope Francis. You will never say, with Jesus, to the adulterous woman: “Do not sin again,” will you? And why is that? Are you so much better than Jesus? You don’t trust His grace?] It is an ideology, perhaps correct, but that engages doctrine and detaches it… [But one can believe and be united with Jesus, but that’s exactly what you don’t believe. You think that truth and belief are mutually exclusive.] And so I pray that schisms do not happen, but I am not afraid of them. This is one of the results of Vatican II, not because of this or that Pope. For example, the social things that I say are the same things that John Paul II said, the same things! I copy him. [No, you do not. Look at what you’ve done to entirely destroy the JPII Institute for Marriage and the Family. The bigger the lie, the more believable it is, right?]

But they say: the Pope is a communist… [Yep. I say that. Objectively, that’s what you present. If it walks, talks and acts like a communist…] Ideologies enter into doctrine and when doctrine slips into ideology that’s where there’s the possibility of a schism. [It’s right at the top.] There’s the ideology of the primacy of a sterile morality regarding the morality of the people of God. [Being forgiven, walking with great peace and joy in the grace of our Lord, being introduced by Jesus to purity of heart and agility of soul and profound love of God and neighbor is not sterile. For you to insult those who are tabernacles of the Holy Spirit in such comprehensive terms may edge on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, Pope Francis. You should be careful of pushing such insults of the Holy Spirit.] The pastors must lead their flock between grace and sin, because this is evangelical morality. {I pastori devono condurre il gregge tra la grazia e il peccato, perché la morale evangelica è questa. // Los pastores deben guiar al rebaño entre la gracia y el pecado, porque ésta es la moralidad evangélica.} [“Must.” There it is. So violent. Being lukewarm is the best, you say? The Lord will vomit such out of His mouth, as He said. Always sin and merely pretending one is in friendship with God. How very self-referential, self-absorbed, Promethean, Pelagian…] Instead, a morality based on such a pelagian [For Pope Francis, Jesus is Pelagian.] ideology [For Pope Francis, Jesus is an ideology.] leads you to rigidity [For Pope Francis, Jesus is ‘rigid’.], and today we have many schools[!] of rigidity within the Church, which are not schisms, but pseudo-schismatic Christian developments that will end badly. [There is the school of Pope Francis. That will certainly end badly. Jesus will come to judge the living and dead and world by fire, including your Pachamama and her male-Consort-Idol.] When you see rigid Christians, bishops, priests, there are problems behind that, not Gospel holiness. [They are all damned sinners! Pope Francis is soooooooooo hooooooooooly!] So, we need to be gentle with those who are tempted by these attacks, they are going through a tough time, we must accompany them gently. [How very condescending. Vomit here. Pope Francis claims the moral high ground. He’s so nice! So balanced! But actually, this is exactly when things become violent. When we read of the martyrs who refused to offer worship to idols, we read of the ever so nice and balanced and judicious authoritative figure who begs in all reasonableness that the martyr-to-be simply offer a bit of incense and then all will be nice. But the martyrs went to their death, and, just to say, that authoritative figure who is claiming the moral high ground, and reason, and niceness, is the very one who will instantly and with great violence torture those martyrs to death, burning them alive, cutting them to pieces. Historically, we are at a time when we will start to see such persecution of those who witness to the love and truth of Jesus. More and more are on the run, such as Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, such as Father Paul Kalchik.]

The purpose of writing all this isn’t to make people have doubts or become cynical. It’s to say that not all are attacking the faith. There are so very many who are still believers. Just because the Pope is personally attacking the faith… well… who cares? That’s too bad for him. But no one needs to think that that’s more important than his own individual person before Jesus. What he says and does is not ever done as something infallible. No. And so, we pray for him, that when he turns, he will confirm his brothers in the faith.