Bergoglio the racist. It’s called “projection”

In typical Marxist fashion, Bergoglio has determined that anyone who opposes the error at the Amazon Synod is really a bigot and a racist. 

What a disgusting, evil man.

What disgustingly effeminate Cardinal and Bishops that do not confront this man for his hatred of Christ and his flock.

For the record, my wife is African from Capetown, Irish, Dutch, and mostly Black and the blood in my veins is from Mount Lebanon.

Bergoglio is an evil monster. He is a sociopath. A bully and an abusive man.

"Francis excoriated certain “circles and sectors” who .. consider much of humanity a “lower-class entity” with scant “spiritual and intellectual life.” These unnamed individuals, the pope opined, hope out of racism or bigotry to withhold the Gospel."

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2019-11/pope-francis-interview-valente-mission-book.html?fbclid=IwAR3QGWNrmcndrD7f2JK1uJO_ipWYKh8pikdb23tf5KE6-MBvF0WCWAKfMBs

The Pope and mission: “Without Jesus we can do nothing”

At the end of the Extraordinary Missionary Month, we are providing a few extracts from the book-length interview of Gianni Valente from Fides News Agency with Pope Francis, in which the Pope emphasizes that “Either the Church evangelizes or she is not Church”. The book, published by Libreria Edictrice Vaticana and Edizioni San Paolo will be available in bookstores as of November 5th.

“The joy of the Gospel fills the hearts and lives of all who encounter Jesus”. Thus begins the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii gaudium, published by Pope Francis in November 2013, eight months after the Conclave during which he was elected Bishop of Rome and Successor of Peter. That programmatic text of his pontificate invited everyone to re-harmonize every action, reflection and ecclesial initiative with “the proclamation of the Gospel in today's world”. Six years later, the Holy Father called for an Extraordinary Missionary Month to be held in October 2019, and at the same time convened the Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops in Rome dedicated to the Amazon Region, with the intention of suggesting new  paths for the proclamation of the Gospel in the "green lung", martyred by predatory exploitation that violates and inflicts wounds “on our brothers sisters, and on sister earth” (Holy Father’s homily for the closing Mass of the Synod for the Pan-Amazon Region).

During this period, Pope Francis has included in his public discourses insistent references to the specific nature of the Church’s mission in the world. For example, the Holy Father has repeated numerous times that evangelization is not “proselytism”, and that the Church grows “by attraction” and by “witness” – a host of expressions all of which are oriented toward suggesting by association what is the dynamism of each apostolic work, and what its source can be.

Pope Francis speaks about all this, and much more, in the book-length interview entitled Without Him We Can Do Nothing: a Conversation about Being Missionaries in Today’s World. Here, Fides News Agency provides a few pre-publication excerpts.

Holy Father, you said that as a young man you wanted to go to Japan as a missionary. Can we say then that the Pope never became missionary?

I don’t know. I joined the Jesuits because I was struck by their missionary vocation, of always going to the frontiers. At the time I could not go to Japan. But I have always felt that to proclaim Jesus and His Gospel always involves a certain outgoingness and being on the move.

You always repeat: "A Church that is on the move". Many have picked up this expression, and sometimes it seems to have become a hackneyed slogan, used by a growing number of people who spend their time lecturing the Church on what she should or should not be.

"A Church on the move" is not a fashionable expression that I invented. It is Jesus’ command, who in the Gospel of Mark asks His followers to go into the whole world and preach the Gospel “to every creature”. The Church is either on the move or she is not Church. Either she evangelizes or she is not Church. If the Church is not on the move, she decays, she becomes something else.

What does a Church that does not evangelize and is not in movement become?

It becomes a spiritual association, a multinational that launches ethical and religious initiatives and messages. There is nothing wrong with that, but that is not the Church. This is the risk of any static organization in the Church. We end up taming Christ. You no longer bear witness to what Christ does, but speak on behalf of a certain idea of ​​Christ. An idea that you have appropriated and domesticated. You organize things, you become the little manager of ecclesial life, where everything happens according to an established plan, to be followed only according to instruction. But the encounter with Christ never happens. The encounter that touched your heart at the beginning doesn’t happen anymore.

Is mission itself an antidote to all this? Is the will and effort to “go out” on mission enough to avoid these distortions?

The mission, the "Church on the move", is not a program, an intention to be carried out by sheer force of will. It is Christ who makes the Church go out of herself. In the mission of evangelization, you move because the Holy Spirit pushes you, and brings you. And when you get there, you realize that He is already there, and is waiting for you. The Spirit of the Lord arrived first. He has already prepared the path for you, and is already at work.

In a meeting with the Pontifical Missionary Societies, you suggested that they read the Acts of the Apostles, as a habitual text to pray over. Why is it a narrative of the beginnings, rather than a “modern” strategic missionary manual?

The protagonist of the Acts of the Apostles is not the apostles. The protagonist is the Holy Spirit. The apostles are the first to recognize Him and testify to Him. When they communicate the decisions established by the Council of Jerusalem to the community in Antioch, they write: “We have decided, the Holy Spirit and us”. They realistically acknowledge that it was the Lord who daily added to their number “those who were saved”, rather than the persuasive efforts of men.

And is it the same today as it was back then? Has nothing changed?

The experience of the apostles is like a paradigm that is always valid. Just think of how things happen spontaneously in the Acts of the Apostles, without coercion. It is a human story, in which the disciples always arrive afterwards, they always arrive after the Holy Spirit has already acted. He prepares and works on hearts. He upsets their plans. It is he who accompanies them, guides them and comforts them in all the circumstances they find themselves living. When problems and persecutions come, the Holy Spirit works there too in an even more surprising way with His comfort, His consolations, as happens after the first martyrdom, that of Saint Stephen.

What happens next?

A time of persecution begins, and many disciples flee Jerusalem, going to Judea and Samaria. And there, while they are dispersed and fugitive, they begin to evangelize, though they are alone and without the Apostles who remained in Jerusalem. They are baptized and the Holy Spirit gives them apostolic courage. There we see for the first time that baptism is enough to become evangelizers. That’s what mission is. Mission is His work. There’s no point in getting agitated. There’s no need for us to get organized, no need to scream, no need for gimmicks or stratagems. All we need to do is ask to be able to repeat the experience today that makes us say, “We have decided, the Holy Spirit and us”.

And without this experience, what do the calls for missionary mobilization mean?

Without the Spirit, wanting to do mission becomes something else. It becomes, I would say, a plan to conquer, the pretext that we are conquering something. A religious, or perhaps an ideological conquest, perhaps carried out even with good intentions. But it’s another thing.

Quoting Pope Benedict XVI, you often repeat that the Church grows by attraction. What do you mean? Who attracts? Who is attracted?

Jesus says it in the Gospel of John, “When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself”. And in the same Gospel, he also says: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him”. The Church has always recognized that this is the proper form of every movement that brings us closer to Jesus and the Gospel. It is not a conviction, a rationalization, it’s not taking a position; not a pressure, or a constraint. It is always an attraction. The Prophet Jeremiah already said “You duped me, O Lord, and I let myself be duped”. And this applies to the apostles, to the missionaries, and to their work.

How does what you have just described take place?

The Lord's mandate to go out and evangelize comes from within, by falling in love, by loving attraction. One does not follow Christ, and even less become an evangelizer, because of a decision made sitting around a table, or by one’s own activism. Even missionary thrust can be fruitful only if it takes place within this attraction, and transmits it to others.

What is the meaning of these words with respect to the mission and the proclamation of the Gospel?

It means that if you have been attracted by Christ, if you move and do things because you are attracted by Christ, others will notice it without effort. There is no need to prove it, let alone flaunt it. Instead, anyone who thinks he or she is the protagonist or manager of the mission, with all the best intentions and declarations of purpose, often ends up attracting no one.

In the Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii gaudium, you recognize that all this can "can cause us to feel disoriented". It's like those who dive into the ocean not knowing what they will find. What did you want to suggest with this image? Do these words also concern mission?

Mission is not a tried and tested company plan. Neither is it a public spectacle organized to flaunt how many people are associated with it thanks to our marketing. The Holy Spirit works as He wills, when He wills and where He wills. And this can lead to "vertigo". Yet the high point of freedom rests precisely in this letting oneself be carried by the Spirit, renouncing the need to calculate and control everything. This is precisely how we imitate Christ Himself, who in the mystery of His Resurrection learned to rest in the tenderness of the Father’s embrace. Mission’s mysterious fruitfulness does not consist in our intentions, in our methods, in our impulses and in our initiatives, but rests precisely in this "vertigo": the "vertigo" we perceive when we hear Jesus’ words: “without me you can do nothing”.

You also often repeat that the Church grows “by witnessing”. What are you trying to suggest by insisting on this?

The fact that attraction makes us witnesses. This witness testifies to what the work of Christ and His Spirit have really accomplished in our life. After His Resurrection, it is Christ himself who reveals Himself to the apostles. It is He who makes them witnesses. In addition, this witness is not self-serving. We are witnesses to the Lord’s works.

Something else you repeat often, in this case in a negative sense: the Church does not grow through proselytizing, and the mission of the Church is not proselytism. Why do you insist on this so much? Is it to maintain good relations with other Churches and dialogue with other religious traditions?

The problem with proselytism is not only the fact that it contradicts the ecumenical journey and interreligious dialogue. There is proselytism wherever there is the idea of ​​making the Church grow by putting less emphasis on this attraction on the part of Christ and the work of the Spirit, focusing everything on any type of "wise discourse". Therefore, proselytism first of all cuts out Christ Himself and the Holy Spirit from the mission, even when we claim to speak and act nominally in Christ’s name. Proselytism is always violent by nature, even when it is hidden or exercised with white gloves. It does not tolerate the freedom and graciousness with which faith can be transmitted from person to person by grace. This is why proselytism is not only something of the past, of bygone colonialist times, or conversions forced or bought with the promise of material advantages. Proselytism can also exist today even in parishes, communities, movements, religious congregations.

So what does it mean to evangelize?

To evangelize means delivering Christ's own testimony in simple and precise words, like the apostles did. But there is no need to invent persuasive discourses. The proclamation of the Gospel can even be whispered, but it always passes through the overwhelming power of the scandal of the cross. And it has always followed the path indicated in the letter of the Apostle Peter, which consists in simply "providing reasons" of one’s hope to others, a hope that remains a scandal and foolishness in the eyes of the world.

How do we recognize a Christian "missionary"?

A distinctive feature is that of acting as facilitators, and not as controllers of the faith. Facilitating, making easy, without us placing obstacles to Jesus' desire to embrace everyone, to heal everyone, to save everyone, not being selective, not imposing "pastoral tariffs", not playing the part of the guard at the door controlling who has the right to enter. I remember parish priests and communities in Buenos Aires who set up many initiatives to facilitate access to baptism. In the last few years, they realized the number was growing of those not being baptized for various reasons, even sociological ones, and they wanted to remind everyone that being baptized is something simple, that everyone can request it, for themselves and for their own children. The path taken by those parish priests and those communities had one objective: not to add burdens, not to make claims, to remove any cultural, psychological or practical difficulties that could push people to postpone or drop the intention to baptize their own children.

In America, at the beginning of evangelization, missionaries discussed who was "worthy" to receive baptism. How did those disputes end?

Pope Paul III rejected the theories of those who claimed that the Indians were by nature "incapable" of accepting the Gospel and confirmed the choice of those who facilitated their baptism. They seem to be things of the past, yet even now there are circles and sectors that present themselves as ilustrados [enlightened], and even sequester the proclamation of the Gospel through their distorted reasoning that divide the world between "civilized" and "barbaric". What irritates them and makes them angry is the idea that the Lord might have a predilection for many cabecitas negras [a derogatory term]. They consider a large part of the human family as if they were a lower class entity, unable to achieve decent levels in spiritual and intellectual life according to their standards. On this basis, contempt can develop for people considered to be second rate. All this also emerged during the Synod of Bishops for the Amazon.

Some tend to drive a wedge between the transparent proclamation of the faith and social work. They say that we must not reduce mission to a type of social activity. Is that a legitimate concern?

Everything that is within the scope of the Beatitudes and the works of mercy is in agreement with mission, is already proclamation, is already mission. The Church is not an NGO, the Church is something else. But the Church is also a field hospital, where everyone is welcome, as they are, where everyone’s wounds are healed. And this is part of her mission. Everything depends on the love that moves the heart of those who do things. If a missionary helps dig a well in Mozambique because he is aware that those he baptizes and evangelizes need it, how can it be said that that work is separate from evangelization?

Today what are the new focusses and sensitivities to put into practice in the processes aimed at making evangelization fruitful in the various social and cultural contexts?

Christianity does not embrace only one cultural model. As John Paul II acknowledged, “while remaining completely true to itself, with unswerving fidelity to the proclamation of the Gospel and the tradition of the Church, Christianity will also reflect the different faces of the cultures and peoples in which it is received and takes root”. The Holy Spirit embellishes the Church, with the new languages of persons and communities that embrace the Gospel. Thus the Church, taking up the values ​​of different cultures, becomes “sponsa ornate monilibus suis”, “the bride  bedecked with her jewels”, of which the Prophet Isaiah speaks. It is true that some cultures have been closely linked to the preaching of the Gospel and to the development of Christian thought. But in the period we are living, it becomes even more urgent to bear in mind that the revealed message is not identified with a particular culture. And when meeting new cultures, or cultures that have not accepted the Christian proclamation, we must not try to impose a determined cultural form together with the evangelical proposition. Today, in missionary work as well, it is even more important not to carry heavy baggage.

Mission and martyrdom. You have often recalled the intimate bond uniting these two realities.

In Christian life the reality of martyrdom and evangelization both have the same origin, the same source: when the love of God poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit gives strength, courage and consolation. Martyrdom is the maximum expression of the recognition of and the testimony rendered to Christ, which represents the fulfillment of mission, of apostolic work. I always think of the Coptic brothers slaughtered in Libya, who quietly uttered Jesus’ name while they were being beheaded. I think of Saint Mother Teresa’s Sisters murdered in Yemen, while they were taking care of Muslim patients in a home for disabled elderly people. The sisters were wearing work aprons over their religious habits when they were killed. They are all victors, not "victims". And their martyrdom, to the point of the shedding of blood, illuminates the martyrdom that everyone can suffer in everyday life, with the witness rendered to Christ every day. It’s what can be observed when visiting old missionaries in their nursing homes. They are often battered by the life they have had. A missionary told me that many of them lose their memories and no longer remember anything about the good they did. "But it does not matter", he told me, "because the Lord remembers it very well".

Scalfari declares that Bergoglio denied Jesus' bodily resurrection!

“He was a man until he was placed in the tomb by the women who recomposed his body. That night, in the tomb, the man disappeared and came forth from the grotto in the semblance of a spirit that met the women and the Apostles while still preserving the shadow of the person, and then he definitely disappeared.”

https://rep.repubblica.it/pwa/robinson/2019/11/04/news/la_chiesa_secondo_un_laico-240244901/

The usual suspects will tell you again today, "Oh, Scalfari is old" thus implying he has dementia which is ageism. The man is clearly not suffering senility.

They will tell you "He takes no notes, or recordings." What did reporters do before the tape recorder or an iPhone? Doesn't take notes? So what. Prove he didn't. Maybe he did not but wrote everything down immediately afterwards. 

They will tell you that Bergoglio did not say this.

Based upon the horror of what we have seen for over six years now including the refusal to genuflect before the LORD in the Blessed Sacrament and the exaltation of a pagan earth mother idol, what else can we believe.

For this writer, I believe Scalfari.

Imagine that. Believing an atheist secular humanist over a Pope.

Yes, it is really that bad.

Zita Ballinger Fletcher has become a writer of toxic arrogance, lies and manipulation - What is her agenda?

No doubt, you've come across, if not read, a screed of hate, intolerance, distortion and satanic bile upon the Mass in its traditional form and language by a writer at the National "Catholic" Reporter. I've copied the articled below, the NCR can come and sue me for copyright violation. As I read it, I find actual physical reaction from doing so at the ignorance, the hypocrisy and the utter evil from the pen of this alleged "journalist and author." I had to stop and do nothing more than give it a scan. I had intended to do a parse of the whole thing. I simply cannot. The diatribe is filled with the same old shibboleths.

Rather than take the time, which I do not have, to give her screed and adequate response, I have instead decided to give you the response by the most qualified and erudite, Dr. Joseph Shaw.

http://www.lmschairman.org/2019/11/a-response-to-zita-ballinger-fletcher.html

As an adjunct to the above, there is always Eccles.

https://ecclesandbosco.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-toxic-tradition-of-latin-mass.html

However, let me state this. Fletcher, Ivereigh, Faggioli and the rest of this ilk are living in fear. They know that not only faithful Latin Mass attending Catholics, but those Catholics in the "Novus Ordo" world have woken up to the horror that is Bergoglio. Fletcher and her ilk know that the mainstream church is in collapse. There goal of a church to their own ends is collapsing. They and their rotten Bergoglio have overreached. It is delightful to watch. They fear what is coming. At the Latin Mass community where I chant and lead the choir each Sunday, we have doubled in size in three years. What parish has seen that happen? Last Sunday was rather difficult to chant, it was like a nursery school. (Parents, bring your little ones, but please, show respect to everyone else and attend the vestibule when they are disturbed.) But, this is one of those things that we put up with. Zita Ballinger Fletcher is a liar, an manipulator and a pompous trollop. She has an agenda. She has already lost.

* * *

Zita Ballinger Fletcher portends to be a journalist and the author of more than 10 fiction and nonfiction books including a fictional account of the Holy Mass in Latin and according to the Roman Missal of 1962. She writes on military history, genealogy and international affairs and has written articles for many publications including World War II History magazine, America's 1st Freedom magazine and the Gloucestershire Family History Society Journal (U.K.). She is fluent in German and has reported extensively on Germany's Catholic Church for Catholic News Service. Heretofore unknown, this ginger pagan and probable homosexualist and Wiccan sympathizer and Marxist has written for the National “Catholic” Reporter, a hit piece on the growing traditional Catholic Latin Mass movement.

In a previous era, the Latin Mass was merely a uniform and standard way of celebrating the liturgy in the United States. In the wake of much needed reforms instituted by the Second Vatican Council, the Latin Mass has become a rallying point for change-resistant sects within the church. The ultra-conservatism practiced by these Latin Mass groups is radical and narrow-minded. They utilize the Latin Mass structure to wield control over believers — particularly women, who are reduced to a state of discriminatory subjugation in Latin rites. The stubbornly resistant, anti-modern practices of these Latin Mass adherents border on cultism.

The Latin Mass fosters clericalist structures in the church. The liturgy — spoken in an ancient language no longer in modern vernacular usage — places all power in the hands of the priest. The priest keeps his back turned to the people for most of the ceremony. Aside from making occasional responses, the congregation plays no active part in worship. All people inside the church are expected to kneel on cue at various points. The priest is at the center of the spectacle. He is separated from the people he is supposed to serve by an altar rail — a barrier that gives him privileges. To receive the Eucharist, people must kneel at his feet.  

Meanwhile, the Latin tradition oppresses women. Women are expected — indeed, in some cases commanded — to wear skirts instead of trousers, cover themselves with long clothing and wear veils over their heads. No such rules exist for the men. It is discrimination, and therefore the Latin Mass actively endorses sexism. Instead of a unifying form of worship, the Latin Mass has become an instrument of oppression and a gathering point for Catholic fundamentalists.

In most cases, it is useless to politely disagree with people in the Latin Mass sect. Their attitude creates blindness — not only to true faith, but to their own behavior. They treat others with pride and animosity, but their conscience fails to kick in because they are convinced their way is holy and other ways are not.

Anyone who may accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about — a favorite indictment of the Latin Mass ideologues — would be wrong. My opinion is based on facts and personal experiences.

I grew up in a household of challenged but growing faith, which grew stronger over time. My parents were divorced. My mother was a fallen-away Catholic who hadn't been to church in over 30 years. In the branches of my family tree were relatives who might best be described as atheists, and others of a more traditional Christian type. My mother decided to return to the Catholic Church when I was young. From an early age, I believed in Christ and considered myself a Catholic — other relatives tried in vain to convert me to atheism while I was still in elementary school.

Maybe this sounds like the beginning of a happy story of faith and discovery. It was not. My family's journey into the Catholic Church was a long, tumultuous and unpleasant road punctuated by a series of awful mistreatments by Catholic clergy, religious, schools and parishioners. (It's a miracle that I'm still Catholic and became a Catholic journalist.)

The Latin Mass rears its veiled head in this unholy history at several points. The last Masses my mother remembered attending took place before the Second Vatican Council, so naturally she started going to Latin Masses when she returned to the church because they were familiar. The church was going to welcome us, she thought. The treatment we got was slightly shy of the Spanish Inquisition.

Needless to say, anything in the church looking remotely female was completely veiled. The people had the humor of a gallows crowd and the pastor, arrayed in lavish vestments, was more like a Renaissance baron. After over an hour spent every Sunday drowning in incense smoke and getting sneered at, we did not feel any closer to God.

Rules, also, were a strange issue. For example, the color red was forbidden to be worn in the church. A confessor there hit one of my family members with a "permanent daily penance"— a rosary every day, forever, to atone for an alleged life of iniquity. After some while of this torture, my mother spoke with a different priest about the unbearable situation. He advised her that genuine Catholic faith did not forbid wearing certain colors or allow priests to inflict a "lifetime penance" for sins. Immediately we stopped going to Mass at that parish.

But it wasn't the last time I would run into Latin Masses — or the Latin Mass sectarians, present today in many Catholic organizations.

After almost leaving the church as a teenager, I chose to stay Catholic by practicing my faith as a free agent — belonging to no parish, attending different churches for Sunday Mass. On one instance, a priest noticed I was showing up semi-regularly and approached me with a persuasive speech to convert me to the Latin Mass faction — disguising discrimination as encouragement. "You should come to the Latin Mass instead and wear a veil. Women look the most beautiful in church when they are veiled," he tried to persuade. "The long veils are the best kind — the really long ones, past the shoulders. I recommend that for you — you have such pretty red hair, but it would even look nicer if you wore a veil over it. I think the long kind would be best for you."

Most disturbing about this conversation was his effort to make repression sound positive. Of course it made no sense that my hair would somehow look better if people couldn't see it. Indignant, I asked him to explain why he thought I should consider covering my head.

"Because it's respectful," he replied solemnly.

When asked why it was disrespectful to show the hair that God gave me — and why men in church did not have to cover their hair — he was not able to answer. He reacted badly because I challenged his authority. Anyway, I had no intention of listening. I knew I was free to take my belief in God elsewhere. I never returned to that church afterwards. 

The priest's attitude towards veiling women is typical of Latin Mass cultists. They seem to believe that women look better in church when people can't see them. They try to sell the veil to girls as a symbol of feminine piety. They hold that covering up and hiding yourself is beautiful although such a practice is the very opposite of natural beauty.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter how pretty, lacy or colorful the veils may seem to potential wearers — the veils are meant to conceal female beauty and prevent people from noticing women. By promoting the veil, Latin Mass fundamentalists rob women of freedom, while trying to make it seem like a liberating choice. Their attitude is not much different from religious extremists in the Middle East and Asia.

Given such practices, it should come as no surprise that a contingent of men active within the sectarian Latin Mass environment have sexist worldviews. These types believe they are superior to women simply because they are male.

I cite two examples to support my view. One occasion that remains burned into my memory was when I attended Mass at a Catholic university. It was a busy Sunday and my schedule demanded I attend Mass at a particular time. I did not know it was a Latin Mass until I stumbled over the doorstep. The atmosphere was typically medieval. I was surprised to recognize some people there. One of them was a professor who was known to be a chauvinistic person. When I saw his wife, I was shocked — and suddenly realized the ugly extent of his prejudices. His wife was a mere ghost of a woman. She was covered from head to foot. Her dress was so long that it dragged on the floor. Even her entire neck and her hands were covered. She kept her head bowed and always walked behind her husband. She carried a rosary and looked physically weak — almost ill.

The professor, by contrast, looked swaggering and hearty. He strutted around and chatted with others in church as she followed him like a pale shadow. Seeing this, I believed I had witnessed a very dark side to the professor's spirituality. His religion was a mechanism of abusive control.

My second example concerns a younger Catholic age group — many of whom are apparently falling victim to the ultra-traditional Latin Mass ideology promoted in Catholic activity groups and on college campuses. A female acquaintance of mine, about my age, decided to brave the Catholic dating scene — a recipe for disaster, in my personal opinion. Among the stories I heard from her were of traditional Catholic males shopping for wives, asking her and other girls, "Are you willing to be veiled?" before agreeing to date them. These men did not want to associate with women whom they couldn't religiously dominate.

Men she met in this traditional Catholic peer group would interview girls about theology before deciding to spend time with them — they were arrogant and believed they were somehow morally superior to the women. Instead of standing up for her own dignity, she decided to cave into the pressure — go to traditional services and start wearing veils. I still don't understand why she wanted to associate with that group, or why she decided to give in to oppression.

It is very unfortunate that younger generations of Catholics seeking to deepen their faith are getting sucked into this vortex of toxic, traditional radicalism. I saw many young families at a Latin Mass recently when I was invited to attend a speaking engagement at a traditional church. I happened to arrive before Mass was quite over — having nowhere else to go before the event, and wishing to receive Communion, I decided to sit in on the Mass. Unsurprisingly I found myself surrounded by veiled women who entertained themselves in between kneeling bouts by casting disapproving glances at my leggings and earrings.

Looking around, I was astonished to see many college-aged men and women among the crowd. The priests seemed to be in their 30s. Clearly these people were too young to remember times before Vatican II. Yet something had drawn them here. Parental influence? Doubtful. It seemed to be a shared spirit of ultra-conservatism. I found it frightening to reflect on how the closed, Latin Mass mindset had managed to replicate itself over time and spread like a virus.

Unsurprisingly, while there I had another memorably bad experience. I asked to receive Communion in the hands. Most traditional-type priests I'd encountered in my lifetime would give me the Eucharist in the hands. Not this pastor. He literally made a scene at the altar and jerked the Eucharist away from me when I reached out to receive it — as if my hands would contaminate the very Jesus who, according to the Catholic faith, seeks Communion with my soul. I seriously considered walking out of the church at that point, but decided to receive the Eucharist instead since I wanted to pray. After Mass I gave the priests a piece of my mind.

Clericalism defined the response I received. When I informed an assisting priest that the pastor had been very rude to me at the altar and asked that my views be relayed, he replied: "I won't throw our pastor under the bus. He's the pastor. I refuse to tell him to correct his behavior," the priest said.

I reminded him that, as a priest, he was supposed to be of service and value my feedback as a believer. The priest took a step back and looked at me in astonishment, as if the notion of service had never occurred to him. "Very well. I'll tell the pastor what you said," he said condescendingly. "But I don't think he did anything wrong."

His attitude was a trademark example of the culture within the Catholic Church that encourages abuse. His first reaction was to default to absolute loyalty to his pastor, then dismiss my views. When pressed further, he flat-out denied all wrongdoing. To clericalists, complainers are always the problem — not those who belong to the herd, and certainly not clergy.

With feudalistic rigidity, the priest argued in defense of his pastor against the traditions of the "novus ordo"—a derogatory term used by Latin Mass cultists to denote regular English-language Masses. He said the Masses I regularly attended were invented "only 40 years ago" — as if that devalued them somehow —and insisted they were only "allowed to exist, but not standardly recommended." He claimed the church only allowed Communion in the hands "in extreme cases." Of course, I know this is not true. He capped his radical fundamentalist arguments by saying the Latin Mass is a solemn rite equal to Byzantine and Coptic rites and that rules cannot be changed for anyone. He accused me of being "rude" by expecting them "to change their rites."

I feel it necessary to point out — lest readers be confused by his illogicality — that the Byzantine and Coptic rites originate in the traditions of distinct Catholic churches in foreign countries. The Latin Mass, by contrast, is merely an extinct model of tradition practiced in the United States and other countries, and was never a separate church nor imported from a foreign country. Therefore the Latin Mass can be compared to Coptic and Byzantine churches as much as apples can be compared to oranges. No ancient Romans or native Latin speakers will be disenfranchised by changes made to the Latin Mass — just hardliners unable to let go of their particular ideology.

What I gained from this experience was a deeper recognition of how the Latin Mass foments the clericalist culture within the Catholic Church that Pope Francis is actively working to change.

In his homily earlier last month, Pope Francis warned Catholics against hypocrisy. He described hypocrisy as "appearing one way, but acting in another," and said that a hypocritical attitude "always kills."

Jesus did not tolerate hypocrisy, according to Pope Francis, but enjoyed unmasking it. "A Christian who does not know how to accuse himself is not a good Christian," the pope said.

The intolerant atmosphere of the Latin Mass stands in stark contrast to Pope Francis's description of what the Catholic Church is supposed to be. "The church is not a fortress, but a tent capable of expanding and offering access to everyone," said Pope Francis. "The church is 'going out' or it is not church, either it is walking, always widening its room so that all may enter or else it is not church."

Compassion defines true Catholicism. Radical traditionalists who cling to the pomp, ceremony and narrow-minded rituals of outdated Latin practices would do well to follow the advice of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 9: "Go and learn the meaning of the words, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'"

Fr. Mitch Pacwa dresses down Bergoglio!

"Knock it off. We are not stupid. We are not. This is an idol... Stop. You are talking about making an offering to a goddess." -Fr. Mitch Pacwa, S.J.

From Mundabor:

Also, please reflect on this: Father Pacwa describes a hierarchy composed of “gods of the mountains” first, “pachamama” (goddess of the earth) below them, and Jesus, Mary and the Saints below Pachamama. Is such a hierarchy not perfectly consistent with the beliefs of a man who refuses to genuflect in front of the Blessed Sacrament, denies the Divine nature of Our Lord whilst on earth, and – most recently – denies His bodily Resurrection? Actually, it seems to me that the behaviour is in line with this idolatry, and the only thing that speaks against it is that this man appears to have no faith at all, and the Pachamama stuff might just be the way he chooses to anger you like the stupid child he is.

Archbishop Viganò: ‘The abomination of idolatrous rites has entered the sanctuary of God’

Read the rest at:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/abp-vigano-the-abomination-of-idolatrous-rites-has-entered-the-sanctuary-of-god

Bishop Michael Hoeppner of Crookston, Minnesota is a Sodomitical Pervert Protector. Curious minds wish to know, does this mean he is one himself?

Every rotten filthy sodomite, every homosexual must be exposed and driven out of the holy priesthood of Jesus Christ. There is no such thing as a "chaste" sodomite!

Get out, you filthy abusive sodomite bastards!

Abused?

Come forward. 

Out. Them. All!

Go get them, Michael. Every single one!


https://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/vortex-bishop-busted-on-video

Susan From the Parish Council Is the Serviette at Institute of Christ the King Oratory!

Susan, the Fairy god-mother.

 

Bishop Schneider on the Amazon Synod, the Church, and keeping the faith

Priest burns Pachamama effigies in reparation for idol worship at Vatican

Archbishop Viganó: Apostasy Under Francis "Unprecedented"

https://gloria.tv/post/NAVQRm8MXaWg334pidTjeP6YM

Help Charlie Angus, M.P. to save his soul

Charlie Angus is a Canadian Member of Parliament.

Here is what he wrote on his Facebook.

To my Catholic readers.

Look up Charlie on Facebook. Preach to him the truth. Evangelise. Correct him with the love of Christ. Bring him home.

His soul is at risk but he is too blind by Marxist NDP ideology to see it.

• Me: Damn right. And if you were at Mass where I was and you went up and were given the Body of the Lord, I would have dressed you down after Mass and told you to repent and go to confession. All of us are unworthy, but you cannot support the murder of babies in the womb and then expect to to to Holy Communion. Either you are Catholic or you are not.
  
  It's your choice Charles. Get some spiritual direction on this or you face Jesus who's justice is mercy. Everyone who has been involved with abortion without repentance and amendment will face the Just Judge and may very well spend and eternity in Hell. Those who don't believe Hell exists will when they get there.
  
  As a Catholic brother, I have done my duty to you.

  • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 5m
• 

  Me: You were badly formed as a Catholic, Charles. But at your age with your intellect, they are no longer responsible, there is no lack of culpability on your part anymore. It is now your sin.
  
  Abortion is murder, plain and simple. Life begins at conception. "Thou shalt not commit willful murder" This is the Hebrew of the commandment. Killing of the unborn baby is murder, period.
  
  You have supported this position for decades publicly and you are culpable before God for this.
  
  Catholics in Canada bemoan your position because we care about you and your soul, not because we are haters.
  
  Please Charlie, get some proper spiritual direction.
  
  DM me, I will help you find a priest in Ottawa or Timmins.
  
  God bless you.

Poop Bergoglio's Pacha Mama Meets the god of Surprises

All Saints and All Souls

Yes, Bergoglio brought the demon to the Altar of God - even Robert Moynihan knows it now!

The mystery of the ritual...

So, what happened?

We know that, on Friday, Pope Francis was still entertaining the idea of displaying the Pachamama "statues" at the closing Mass of the Synod.

And we know that, in the end, the Pachamama carvings were not displayed.

We know — or think we know — that some bishops were murmuring that they would boycott the Mass if the Pachamama images were present.

So we know that these bishops felt the Pachamama images were problematic to the point of being idolatrous, images associated in some way with a type of pagan worship which they wished not to associate with.

And we know, as a Vatican Press Office spokesperson told me, that it was decided in the end that the Pachamama images would be "kept in the Synod Hall," and not brought over into the Basilica to be present at the Mass.

And yet, this final offertory gift, this bowl containing soil and several plants, was not only brought up to Pope Francis, but it was placed on the altar.

Somehow that seemed odd to me.

Is it usual to place an offertory gift on the altar?

I had never seen it before, or so it seemed to me.

What was that bowl, that collection of plants? What did it signify?

=================

Late on Sunday, I started to read about the rituals associated with Pachamama, the spirituality associated with Pachamama images — for the Pope had made clear that these images did represent Pachamama.

Some during the Synod said that Pachamama represents "Mother Earth," the source of all life, for indigenous Amazon culture.

At first glance, this seems innocent enough.

This earth is where we live, we come from the dust of the earth and return to it.

And we do burn and poison many things in nature, and clearly this is radically reckless, imprudent, arrogant, foolish and, yes, evil, for us to do.

It is not unlike going into someone's home and tearing up the place.

This is our home.

But is there something more in this "Mother Earth" veneration?

I found that a Spanish-born bishop in Brazil felt that the Pachamama rituals were un-Christian and in some way spiritually dangerous. (link)

“Mother Earth should not be worshipped because everything, even the earth, is under the dominion of Jesus Christ," said Bishop Emeritus José Luis Azcona Hermoso of the Brazilian city of Marajó in an October 20 homily at the cathedral in the state of Pará. “Pachamama is not and never will be the Virgin Mary. To say that this statue represents the Virgin is a lie. She is not Our Lady of the Amazon because the only Lady of the Amazon is Mary of Nazareth. Let’s not create syncretistic mixtures... The invocation of the statues before which even some religious bowed at the Vatican... is an invocation of a mythical power, of Mother Earth, from which they ask blessings or make gestures of gratitude. These are scandalous demonic sacrileges, especially for the little ones who are not able to discern."

And he added: "Here in the Amazon region we know the meaning of macumba or condomblè, which are quite prevalent here.”

LifeSiteNews writes: "Widespread in northeastern Brazil, macumba and condomblè are afro-Brazilian cults that involve propitiation of various gods and goddesses, dances, incantations and sacrifices." (link)

And then I learned that Bishop Athanasius Schneider, whom I have known for several years and who was here in Rome earlier this month — allowing us a chance to greet each other — had on October 26 issued an "Open Letter" calling on all Catholics "to offer acts of reparation, protest and correction for the use of the Pachamama statues" which he called "a new golden calf.” (link)

Schneider writes: "The example of Christ is of the utmost importance for all people who desire 'the true God and eternal life'; as St. John the Apostle exhorts us: 'Little children, keep yourselves from idols' (1 Jn 5:20-21). In our day, this message has special importance, for syncretism and paganism are like poisons entering the veins of the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church. As a successor to the Apostles, entrusted with care for God’s flock, I cannot remain silent in the face of the blatant violation of God’s holy will and the disastrous consequences it will have upon individual souls, the Church as a whole, and indeed the entire human race. It is therefore with great love for the souls of my brothers and sisters that I write this message."

And he continues: "On October 4, 2019, on the eve of the Amazon Synod, a religious ceremony was held in the Vatican Gardens, in the presence of Pope Francis and of several bishops and cardinals, which was led partly by shamans and in which symbolic objects were used; namely, a wooden sculpture of an unclothed pregnant woman. These representations are known and belong to indigenous rituals of Amazonian tribes, and specifically to the worship of the so-called Mother Earth, the Pachamama. In the following days the wooden naked female figures were also venerated in St. Peter’s Basilica in front of the Tomb of St. Peter."

And he continues: "The second-century apologist Athenagoras said about the veneration of material elements by pagans: 'They deify the elements and their several parts, applying different names to them at different times. They say that Kronos is time, and Rhea the earth, and that she becomes pregnant by Kronos, and brings forth, whence she is regarded as the Mother of all. Missing to discover the greatness of God, and not being able to rise on high with their reason (for they have no affinity for the heavenly place), they pine away among the forms of matter, and rooted to the earth, deify the changes of the elements' (Apol. 22)."

So I recalled again that, as lovely as this world is, and as much as we must be good stewards of it, it is not our eternal home, for we look "for that which is above."

============

An offering to Pachamama

Then, after further searching, I learned that a bowl of soil with plants in it is often connected with ceremonial rituals involving Pachamana.

There is one among many websites that describes the ritual (link):

"If it is difficult for you to move to a natural space to offer to Mother Earth, do not worry, you can perform your own ritual at home:

"- Use a bottle or flower pot full of dirt, there you proceed to make a hole, it is recommended to do it with your hands to connect with the energy of the ritual.

"- A kind of well is made, and food and drinks are poured for the enjoyment of the Pachamama.

"- The food option is extensive, one can place anything from fruits to Creole foods and seeds. In the case of drinks, chicha, natural juices, honey, wine, even coca leaves are suggested.

"- Then we proceed to cover it with dirt and flowers.

"Every year more people join in and they learn to leave our daily work and reflect and realize who we are, where we are and have this gesture of recognition and thanks to Mother Earth, which we say is humanity, the earth, the air, the animals, the water, the fire, which is everything that makes our life."

Also: "You should never miss something red, it is the favorite color of the Pacha!

So it seemed that the bowl of flowers presented at the offertory of the final Synod Mass, and then placed on the altar during the consecration, may have been connected with a ritual of veneration, and thanks, to Mother Earth, known as Pachamana...

So the images were not in the basilica, but perhaps an offering to Pachamana, in a bowl, was...

=====================

Several questions

On Monday I prepared an email of questions for Monsignor Guido Marini, the Master of Ceremonies for the Vatican.

I wrote:

Dear Monsignor Marini,

I would like to ask for a clarification, please.

At the closing Mass for the Synod, a small green plant was brought to the Pope for the offertory, by the last person, a lay woman. The Holy Father received the offer and then gave it to you. The Holy Father indicated with a couple of words (as one gathers from the video of the Mass) to bring the plant to the corner of the altar and leave the plant there during the ceremony, during the consecration. You then placed the plant there, at the corner of the altar.

I wanted to ask:

1) Is it a usual thing to place offerings on the altar during Mass? Has it happened in the past, in St. Peter's or anywhere else? Can you tell when, on what occasions? (Because it seemed unusual to me; I don't remember other similar occasions.)

2) Can you explain why this plant remained on the altar, but not the other offerings?

3) Did you know beforehand that this plant should be placed on the altar? Was the idea previously agreed upon with the Holy Father?

4) Can you tell what this plant was, what kind of plant, what it represented? A type of fruit or food or ...?

5) Can we know what was written on the container of the plant, and if there were other signs, and what those signs mean?

6) Can you tell where this plant and the container are now? Have they been preserved?

And here is the reply I received yesterday:

Dear Sir,

In reference to your e-mail, we wish to inform you that there is no particular information about the plant; we only know that it was planted at the beginning of the Synod and delivered to the offertory to adorn the altar.

Wishing you every good in the Lord, we send cordial greetings.

The Office of Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff

(to be continued)

What on earth is going on in Hamilton - it all seems rather queer, oh silly me, I forgot about Monsignor Crotch and is the term "Co-Pastors" short for "copulating?"

Bishop of Hamilton in Ontario

Ah, Hamilton. City of sulphur dioxide and stinking air, waterfalls, beautiful churches and Msgr Crotch and the CoPastors from the land of João Fernandes Lavrador.

Back in 1987 a great thing was happening in Ottawa at a church called St. Brigid's in Lowertown. I know all about it, I was there. The devil raised his head from a local parish against them, one that is filled with gaity and some pagon god named Omi and the silly pastors who one day end up in the Land of João and then bring their co-vivants to explore the crotches elsewhere.

Oh, there's sulphur in Hamilton all right, but it isn't from the steel mills.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/diocese-recommends-youth-ministers-read-books-by-dissidents-who-endorse-homosexuality-women-priests

Perverted Basilian Order loses appeal!

Happy Hands

The Ontario Court of Appeal has dismissed the two main components of a three-pronged appeal by the Basilian Fathers of Toronto concerning the awarding of $2.57 million in damages to a former St. Charles College student in the 1960s.

In its decision announced Friday, Justice Julie A. Thorburn, on behalf of the three-member court of appeal panel, did rule in favour of the Basilian Fathers on a third.

Critically, the ruling does not affect the $2.57 million awarded to former student Rod MacLeod.

William Hodgson Marshall sexually abused MacLeod more than 50 times while he was a student at St. Charles College from 1963-67, a school run by the Basilians.

Read the rest at:

https://www.thesudburystar.com/news/local-news/ontario-court-of-appeal-rejects-basilian-fathers-appeal

No Pack-A-Mama, eh? Not true, Bergoglio played you!

https://www.barnhardt.biz/2019/10/28/citation-for-at-home-indoor-offering-to-pachamama-demon-using-small-flower-pot/

Rejoice, there were no pagan idols, particularly the graven image of the pagan Amazonians Mother Earth, on display at St. Peter's yesterday during Mass.

Oh really? You think?

Not true friends, not true.

Your Bergoglio is gaslighting you, he is playing you making you think he never intended it or caved into the pressure. Oh, she was there alright, in the form of a plant and earth. The "Earth Mother" was present on the Altar of God, given in the Offertory procession. 

Of course, liturgical law in the GIRM for the modernist rite prohibits flowers on the mensa of the altar. In the proper Roman Rite they are on the "gradine."

Floral decorations should always be done with moderation and placed around the altar rather than on its mensa. (GIRM 305).

But in the Church of Bergoglio, "nothing will be the same again."

So glad I'm part of the Church of Christ, Catholic.