Bergoglio scandal

Bergoglio's God of surprises to man: "You complete me" - Sunday 4th to Saturday 10th, June 2017

This week there is no point even pretending that there was a selection of stories from which to pick the most meaningful. Towering head and shoulders above anything else is the absurd notion floated by Bergoglio that God "cannot be without us".

Reading that I was reminded of the scene in the movie Jerry McGuire - one of the more wholesome movies made over the past 2 decades, if we ignore the fornication and slight male nudity. The iconic scene from the movie is in most people's minds where the lead character says to him "You had me at hello. You had me at hello."

That scene though is preceded by a very moving sequence whereby, having returned  home early from his business trip in an attempt to reconcile with his wife, he is forced to embarass  himself in front of a women's study group, where the women spend their time consoling themselves on account of what men have done to them.

He enters the room saying "I am looking for my wife", then after a long expalanation about why the biggest night of his life was nowhere what it would have been because there was an emptiness, he confides that it is because he did not get to share it with her. "You complete me", he says, to a room full of bawling women. It is to that statement that she responds with that he had her at hello.


I'll get back to that scene in a moment, but I would like to divert to another scene in another more expensive but not as memorable movie, actually a series of movies. These movies are a take on the old Roman story of Persius, and they are The Clash of the Titans and its sequel, The Wrath of the Titans.

As I have not studied Greek mythology I cannot vouch for the fidelity of the Hollywood version to the original, but the relevant part of the story goes roughly as follows. Zeus made man and sent Hades to the netherworld, presumably on account of some family feud. They were 3 siblings, along with Poseidon, and together they had imprisoned their father, Kronos, in Tartarus, the prison built purposely to hold him who had to be stoped by his 3 sons after he tried to destroy the world. This is the plot of the second film, in which Zeus has been held captive in Kronos.

If a god being held captive sounds a bit far-fetched a bit more plot-ine will help. The gods in this mythoology need the prayers of men to sustain their power. Sinze Zeus built men out of his goodness, he feeds on their hopes and dreams. Hades, who controls the netherworld, feeds on their fears. The stronger the fears of men, the stronger Hades gets, and conversely the more men pray to Zeus in hope, the stronger he becomes. That's the plot of the first movie.

In the second movie, men have stopped praying to the gods, and the gods have become weak. They have become so weak, in fact, that they have become mortal. Unlike human beings, whose souls live on after death, the gods die into emptiness, making their death all the scarier. This brings us back to Bergoglio.

I picture Bergoglio having a movie night, on one of his sober nights (I assume he must have them) and somebody proposing that they watch a bit of Greek/Roman mythology, what with "While in Rome" and all. So someone pops in one of the Titans movies, presumably the second one since it is the one which shows the gods' need for man, and given that Bergoglio seems to have slept through all of his theology classes, he comes out thinking that he has found "serene theology", only second to Kasper's "theology on the knees". Since the man believes that all religions are equally good, he is not bothered with the fine details and so he hatches up a homily which takes the best of the Titans movies and Jerry McGuire, and comes out with the notion that God needs man.

Now, if Bergoglio were not hamstrung by the fact that the canon of Scripture has been declared cloased and immutable, he would probably have gone ahead and rewritten Genesis, and the first words of God to man would have been not "Go forth and multiply" but "You complete me".

As it is, he has to settle for one of his infamous homilies, and not willing to make it too obvious that he stole the homily from a movie, the words that come out of his mouth are instead:

Dear brothers and sisters, we are never alone. We can be far, hostile; we can even say we are ‘without God.’ But Jesus Christ’s Gospel reveals to us that God cannot be without us: He will never be a God ‘without man’; it is He who cannot be without us, and this is a great mystery! God cannot be God without man: this is a great mystery!

There is a non-heretical way of reading some of what he said, and at least one theologian has made the point that the incarnation means that God cannot be without man since Christ assumed a human nature. That would, however, betray the thrust of Bergoglio's theology, which is that we really do not owe God anything, and God is always chomping at the bit to absolve us of sin since in Kasper's words, mercy is central to God's being. He is essentially nothing but a big mercy machine, so obviously to have any utility he would need man, otherwise he would have nobody to forgive. The theologian in question finds no way to read the statement that God cannot be without us in a Catholic sense. In fact, not even a world champion gymnast would be able to do enough gymnastics to find any...

Doctrine to a fool is as fetters on the feet, and like manacles on the right hand

A while back I had intimated that I would write a 3-piece exposé on Bergoglio and his agenda. When I opened the article which I had begun writing, I noticed that the timestamp read

2015-09-07 22:39:09 +0200

In other words, this is a piece which has been more than 1 year in the making; shameful stuff. One would think given such a revelation that it will be long. One would be wrong.

In fact, I have abandoned the original idea totally and only aim to highlight what I think is my input into the dreadful pontificate of a faithless ravenous incompetent duplicitous Argentinian Jesuit who manipulated his way into the top of the mediocrity-promoting NOChurch. Hmm, here I was thinking I would work up to that,  but evidently, hand me a keyboard and I can't stop writing what I really feel about Bergoglio, just like hand Bergoglio a microphone and he can't stop talking about how much he hates God's Holy Church.

Before I get too worked up, I thought I might try to explain why I never really got around to writing the piece, whose unfinished version I shall leave unedited in order to kind of hint at what I had in mind.

Basically, there are 4 primary reasons for why I abandoned the idea, although the struggle to abandon it was a long back-and-forth tale:

  1. However much it might seem the case, no faithful Catholic (and I do make a genuine attempt at being faithful) likes to write about Bergoglio and what the modernists are doing to the Church. It is disheartening, and frankly, a lot of us feel it distracts us from the real mission to which Christians are entrusted - that of proclaiming the Gospel. I genuinely would like to write about positive news, or at least positive things, of which there is no shortage. That being the case, we cannot simply ignore the errors being fed to the unsuspecting, which is why many faithful Catholics feel themselves reluctantly bound to write about the unfortunate Bergoglio pontificate.
  2. A growing realisation that no matter how many scandals and heresies Bergoglio spouts, far too many will refuse to see that he is an enemy of the Church. They either do not have the faith or the love for truth to learn about what the Church actually teaches. Embracing the whole of the Catholic faith is a daunting prospect, not least because it forces us to leave our comfort zones and actually engage in spiritual warfare, often to the detriment of our social relationships or economic opportunities. It is far easier to be a NOChurch Catholic with no idea that much of what one defends has been condemned by the Magisterium and actually is still condemned, though tolerated (even promoted) by people who have no authority to change what the Church actually proclaims (since the message comes from Christ) so settle for confusing the faithful either through misleading them or leaving them in ignorance.
  3. The fact that in most of the faithful Catholic circles (i.e., traditionalists) the idea of Bergoglio as an enemy of Christ and His Holy Church is now a mainstream opinion. In fact, it is a mainstream opinion even among believing Novus Ordo Catholics, who for the most part cannot bring themselves to make excuses for the man any more. When I originally planned to write this, those who had concluded that Bergoglio was an enemy were a small and shunned minority - basically Mundabor, a few others and I - even the Remnant couched its criticisms in soft gloves. Now though, there is no shortage of articles and writers listing Bergoglio's crimes against the faith, many of whom are more eloquent, learned and thorough than I am. Some of those articles are linked at the bottom of this piece. The gloves have truly been taken off,
  4. The sheer volume of the insanity coming from the man and his comrades in arms make it impossible for me to keep up, and would have made any article showing examples of his assult on Catholicism outdated nearly as soon as it was published.

With that out of the way, I would still like to think I can make a small contribution to the debate not by highlighting what Bergoglio is doing - his agenda, as it were - but in sifting out his overall strategy.

Now you might be wondering: Why write anything about this if you abandoned the plan? To this I answer that it is for 2 reasons:

  1. I would like to think of myself as a man who keeps his word, so if I write that I shall do something then I either do it or at the very least offer an acceptable reason for refraining.
  2. With Bergoglio on his way to this God-forsaking country for his heresy jumboree, I felt duty-bound to at least wrap this up, not least because I intend to write about the heresy fest, and anything I write about that will make more sense in lieu of what I have to write.

So here is my small contribution to the greatuer unpacking-Bergoglio debate. Basically, I have Bergoglio's actions down to a 3-pronged attack on the pillars of the Church:

  1. Attack the doctrines, dogmas and teachings of the Church
  2. Attack the defenders of the faith and the hierarchichal structure created by Our Lord, especially the papacy
  3. Attack the family

 Those are the 3 pillars upon which all of Bergoglio's actions are based, his 3-pronged armada aimed at the barque of St. Peter, our Holy Mother Church. In fact, with these in mind anything which seems odd, creepy, stupid or downright  perverse on his part soon begins to make sense.

I'll just pass over them in brief.

Attack the doctrines, dogmas and teachings of the Church

Whether it is in his promotion of adultery, his attack on the holy institution of marriage, sacrilege in the form of Holy Communion for lechers or non-Catholics, insulting the Blessed Virgin Mary,...

Pages

Subscribe to Bergoglio scandal