Is Pope Francis right to think he will “go down in history” as a Schismatic? Gulp!

Extracts below, from Christian Order February 2018 editorial: Francis is So Bad, He’s Good  

 

If we speak explicitly, …what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly.” (Pope Francis)

“Let what you say be simply `Yes’ or `No’; anything more than this comes from evil.”       (Jesus Christ)

As underlined last month, the filthy fingerprints of the Father of Lies are now all over the Vatican (aka Sodomy Central). Hiding in plain sight, his ‘signature’ is not only apparent in orgiastic eruptions, however. It is also clear and ever present in the leitmotif of this papacy — deception.

This devilish modus operandi is expressed in the slithering papal strategy above, confided by Francis to his Special Secretary for the 2014/15 Sinods, Archbishop Bruno Forte. In October 2014, it was Forte who penned the infamous text calling for the Church to “value” homosexuality. And it was Forte who subsequently revealed that his boss had told him:

“If we speak explicitly about Communion for the divorced and remarried, you don’t know what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly, do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.”

Far from “evil”, as Our Lord Himself designated such deceit, Forte found this papal ploy so clever (“typical of a Jesuit,” he sniggered) and so appealing, that he had no qualms whatsoever recounting it during a May 2016 conference on the equally deceitful Amoris Laetitia.

Wherever we look, it’s that sort of papacy. There was even a deceptive symmetry about the Pope’s Christmas message and subsequent stroll across St. Peter’s Square to view the Vatican Nativity. After vespers in St. Peter’s, having just bewailed a “wasted and wounded” year of “lies and injustices” (perpetrated by everyone except himself, of course) our pontifical hypocrite then visited and complimented a subversive depiction of Bethlehem; a ‘wound, lie and injustice’ that passed without papal comment, despite (or because?) it involved a blasphemous nudge and wink to the sodomitic culture he has cultivated.

Pink provocations

Under the pretext of clothing the naked, the life-size nativity featured a naked man lying on the straw right opposite the manger. He was being offered a cloth by a pilgrim, but as one of countless outraged onlookers truly observed, he was “too much a poster boy for the local gym to be a man in need of corporeal mercy.” Indignant Catholics were not alone in voicing their disgust. Even ultra-liberal Facebook drew the line. It rejected an advert centred on the scene with the following explanation: “Your ad can’t include images that are sexually suggestive or provocative”!

Unlike Francis, who blithely praised the Nativity as “inspired by the works of mercy,” its creator, Antonio Cantone, at least displayed signs of a conscience, albeit a guilty one. “It is not a campy nativity,” he pouted, before conceding that it did contain “provocations.” You might say! As Ann Barnhardt discovered:

It turns out that the whole Vatican Nativity scene was made in the Sanctuary of Montevergine, a Benedictine monastery outside of Naples. The Sanctuary of Montevergine has long been notoriously and blasphemously claimed as a mascot and meeting place for sodomites and transvestites.

[In 1256], a false story was started by sodomites that two sodomite men, after being caught, convicted and condemned to death by exposure for their sickening capital crimes by being tied to a tree, were miraculously saved by the Virgin of Montevergine, whereupon the two sodomites… wait for it… promptly celebrated by sodomizing each other because their “love” had been ratified by the Queen of Heaven, or something.

Blasphemy of the sickest and most demonic sort. This blasphemy spread, and now the Sanctuary of Montevergine is used by Italian sodomites as a mascot for gay pride marches and drag queen conventions. The biggest gay pride march at the Shrine of Montevergine, happens, even more blasphemously, on February 2, the Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin.

So the Vatican Nativity scene was made at the Shrine of the so-called “Gay Madonna”, and there is an image of the Icon of the Madonna of Montevergine in the Vatican Nativity scene itself – a CLEAR SIGNAL to the sex perverts that the scene is a bow to them.
So, to all the people who remarked that the figure of the Blessed Virgin in the Vatican Nativity scene looks really, really masculine, almost like a man in drag, I think you have
been vindicated.

Just as Freemasons on every continent, but especially in Italy, imprint their occult symbols on monuments, buildings and structures of every kind, so the inclusion in the Vatican Nativity of male erotica, a masculine Madonna and, in one corner, a replica of the Icon of Montevirgine — known in Italy as “The Gay Madonna” and “The Madonna of the Drag Queens” — were Pink Mafia ‘calling cards which cried out: We’re everywhere! Subverting! Deceiving! Defiling all that is holy, wholesome, innocent and pure!

Such ‘pink provocations’ are now legion and flagrant.

Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia has even befouled his coat of arms with the ‘gay’ rainbow (yet another beautiful symbol the sodomites co-opted to corrupt). He has no fear of papal rebuke since he was chosen by Francis to head the Pontifical Council for Life despite his public support of the homosexual political movement; support he further signposted by commissioning a homosexual artist to adorn his former cathedral in Terni with a massive “homo-erotic” mural featuring an “erotic” depiction of Christ.

Painted by Argentinian sodomite Ricardo Cinalli, the pornographic mural depicts an almost nude Christ figure lifting two nets filled with contorting human figures, including a nude depiction of Paglia himself. Cinalli confirmed that Paglia had approved every stage of the work. He added that Paglia had drawn the line only at depicting the figures in the act of copulating, but agreed “that the erotic aspect is the most notable among the people inside the nets.”

Creepy Curia

Thus, forever fixated on political deceptions and lies, our worldly pontiff happily ignores the deceit, mendacity and associated perversions tearing the Church apart. He ignores them because he facilitates and personifies those very traits — as the Forte revelation, the Paglia appointment and a Curia stacked with his creepy placemen make crystal clear.
Aflame with radical Modernism, Vatican Congregations, Pontifical Councils and Institutes, and other curial bodies are all billowing forth the smoke of Satan. Cleansed of orthodox heads and advisers they are now run by sinister figures like Francesco Coccopalmerio (Legislative Texts), Pio Vito Pinto (Roman Rota) and the aforementioned Vincenzo Paglia (Council for Life/Theological Institute for Marriage and Family Sciences), to name just a few. Yet if there is ‘something of the night’ about all these men, and so many other Bergoglian appointees beyond Rome, it goes double for the man who appointed them. 

Schismatic agenda

Modernism alone does not account for Francis. Quite apart from doctrinal issues, he exudes a pungent combo of mental illness, complicity and blackmail. How else to account for the unhinged rants, the perverts he coddles, and, above all, the noxious path to formal schism he is not only set upon but talks of treading? Der Spiegel of 23 December 2016 reported him having said, “It is not impossible that I will go down in history as the one who split the Catholic Church.” A boast that flags his instability, it is not, however, an idle one. Daily reports confirm what we all sense: that his cherished place in history (infamy more like) is nigh.  [Emphasis added -Ed.]

Among several schismatic snippets filed at the time of writing, Bishop Bode, Vice President of the German Bishops’ Conference, wants to bless active homo pairs because he feels that “it is difficult to say from the outside whether someone is in the state of mortal sin.” [LifeSiteNews, 10/1/18] Yet in order to comprehend sodomy as mortally sinful behaviour, and so conform himself to the plain-speaking counsel of Christ, it is not so difficult for His Lordship simply to Google the hard science on destructive sodomitic fruits. Like his pontifical role-model, however, the Bishop “won’t speak plainly.” Instead, he babbles. “We have to reflect upon the question as to how to assess in a differentiated manner a relationship between two homosexual persons,” he proclaims. “Is there not so much positive and good and right so that we have to be more just?”

As Jesus taught, this sort of evasive, convoluted verbiage — ideological blather that will not countenance a “yes” or “no” — “comes from evil.” And schism is its evil end. To read the rest of this devastating editorial, click here…

Comments invited… 

And to subscribe to Christian Order (recommended) click here

47 responses

  1. De toute façon, la “Réforme Conciliaire” disparaîtra par extinction!

    In any case, the “Conciliar Reform” will disappear by extinction!

  2. “devastating editorial” is right! That was what is called shooting from the hip!

    I note the Christian Order editor mentions “mental illness” on the list of things that explain this pope. I think mental illness has to be there when people in such high office completely turn against the very things they are supposed to believe and teach. It’s either that or they’d be outright liars, pretending to believe. I can’t think that is the case with this pope, bad as he is. I think there’s confusion and pride and possibly some mental illness, but I doubt if he could keep up such a pretence for years, although I don’t know. I get really confused myself trying to work out how this pope’s mind works, LOL!

    One thing I do think, however, is that he will definitely go down in history as a schismatic, a pope who caused another schism (always assuming he doesn’t repent first and make reparation before he dies.)

    • Lily,

      I’m not so sure that the choice is between mental illness and being an outright liar.

      It seems to me that the very nature of this crisis in the Church is that the hierarchy, up to and including recent popes, have fallen into error and actually believe that they are right in “reading the signs of the times” in such a way that the Church has to change. They fail to understand that “reading the signs of the times” means recognising that the world has gone further and further from God and, thus, the Church, in all her members, must stand up, all the more strongly and speak clearly, to correct the heresies around us, and to combat the immorality – especially the sexual immorality – now endemic in society because souls are being led in the direction of Hell.

      Very frustrating. It’s like talking to Mormons on the doorstep. They are totally convinced that the Catholic Church fell into error and the Reformation was essential and their own particular sect is from God. It is the same type of conviction that drives Modernists to believe that their mission is to make the Church adapt to the modern world – not the other way round.

      It’s called (drum roll…) diabolical disorientation….

      Which is why only Our Lady of Fatima’s Message, fully implemented, will turn things around. Bring on the Consecration of Russia!

      • Editor,

        I tend to agree with that – it’s not about him being evil or mentally ill, but completely disoriented in his beliefs.

        Fatima really is the answer – I think it was Father Gruner who said in is Fatima Crusader “only she can help you now.”

        • I completely agree that Fatima is the answer. Nothing will change until the Consecration of Russia is done properly.

      • I wonder to what degree “diabolical disorientation” actually means “diabolical possession,” given the utter irrationality, complete dishonesty and totalitarian brutality of the Left (of which Francis is allegedly the world’s current leader).

        • RCA Victor,

          I take your point – but, surely, we can’t know with certainty about “possession” while we can definitely identify “disorientation” – and recognise when it comes from the Devil.

          I now await, with bated breath, that perfect word combination…

          “I agree”… 😀

      • Editor,

        It’s called (drum roll…) diabolical disorientation….

        I didn’t know you had taken up a musical instrument….

    • Lily like nearly all on here am Sick of the Lavender Mafia and it’s works . As for Francis. Who is this Man . He most certainly is not serving the Office of Pope . He most definitely though serves the office Of Marxism. So really who is he and how did the Sodomites become so entrenched in our Catholic Church. Is it purely power from below that drives this LGBTQ2WXYZ bandwagon along which is literally tearing our Society’s apart especially God Help Them All these Children who are going to have these Horrific so called Sex Change operations. As for Francis God Help Our Church ,av actually as it says above to hear this Man talk in what was not Babble yet .

          • RCA Victor,

            LOL!

            I do know that bloggers call the LGBT people “pink” and “lavender” – I just wonder why the two colours!

            • Josephine,

              I think Editor explained once that we Yanks use “lavender,” while across the pond you use “pink.” Maybe we should compromise in the interests of ecumenism and just use “rainbow”! That is, if Editor doesn’t throw a coconut at us first!

              Or perhaps she was just referring to Cdl. Cocco-nut Palmerio…

              • RCA Victor,

                You really are getting too quick off the mark, for my liking. “rainbow… interests of ecumenism” – brilliant! A real case for the Supreme Court 😀

  3. I think Francis will go down in history as another Judas, who applied the final (we hope) kiss of betrayal; the first kiss being accomplished 50+ years ago, at Vatican II.

    Roberto de Mattei has an excellent article related to this one: https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2018/11/de-mattei-crisis-in-church-historical.html#more

    (Although he confused me with one statement, saying that St. Peter “celebrated the first Mass.” I thought Our Lord celebrated the first Mass at the Last Supper – ?)

    • RCA Victor,

      That statement about St Peter/first Mass reminds me of the claim that “Peter founded the Church…” published in a church bulletin or ten…

      Will check out the Rorate Caeli article later, but thank you for that alert. It’s so easy to imbibe statements like that, without always noticing them.

    • RCA Victor

      That’s a fantastic article by Robert de Mattei. I am copying this bit which really did make me think – I’ve never thought before about what the world was like before WWI broke out (that sounds silly but I mean I didn’t think of it in the way he puts it in the article, in the context of the crisis in the Church.)

      “We ought to reread the memoirs of the Austrian writer Stefen Zweig (1881-1942), Die Welt von Gestern (The world of yesterday).

      Zweig writes in this book: “If I try to come up with a convenient formula to describe the time preceding the First World War – the period I grew up in – I believe the most concise possible would be to say that it was the age of certainty. In our almost millenary, Austrian Monarchy everything seemed to be eternal and the State itself appeared to be the supreme guarantee of this continuity. (…) Everything in the solid Empire appeared to be sound and immovable and in the highest position there was the venerable old Sovereign; (…). No one was thinking about wars, revolutions and upheavals. Any radical act, any violence, appeared then to be impossible in the age of reason”[2]. ”

      That is so amazing and he goes on to give the contrast up between revolution in the world and the Church up to and including Vatican II.

      I’ll need to read it over again to make sure I’ve not missed anything but it’s a really great article, really makes you think.

      • Fidelis,

        I’m currently reading the edited memoirs of Moritz Rosenthal, one of the greatest pianists of the late 19th – early 20th century. His anecdotes of life in Poland and Europe (I’m in his young life in the 1870s so far) echo exactly the excerpt you posted above.

  4. The Christian Order editorial is superb. I agreed with everything, but there was just one disappointment – he quoted Ann Barnhardt who doesn’t accept that the pope is the pope. That’s a pity because the editorial would not have lacked anything of its power, without her quote.

    One question: I’m not sure what the editor of CO means by “blackmail” in this part of the passage near the end: “he exudes a pungent combo of mental illness, complicity and blackmail.”

    If the pope the blackmailer, or is he being blackmailed? I don’t understand that, so any explanations would be very welcome!

    • Margaret Mary,

      Is the pope the blackmailer, or is he being blackmailed?

      I’d guess both, and I’d guess the German/Lavender Mafia apostate episcopates that got him elected have a dossier on him a foot thick. In other words, their message to him is the same as his message to his boot-lickers: you step out of line, we’ll out you.

      “Line,” in this case, means their agenda of destroying the Church from within.

      • RCA Victor and MM,

        I have it from the Editor of Christian Order himself that he was referring to the possibility of Pope Francis himself being blackmailed – not that he was blackmailing anyone.

        I suppose we’d need to know more about his living situation before he became pope to work out why that might be possible, but, anyway, my purpose is just to clear his name of being a blackmailer. That’s something at least, I suppose 😀

        • Editor,

          There are numerous rumors floating around in Argentina about Bergoglio’s tenure there – and all of them are scandalous and corrupt in nature. So it wouldn’t surprise me a bit to learn that the powers behind the throne (i.e. those who got him elected) have, as I said above, a nice thick dossier on him.

          • RCA Victor,

            That really is very scandalous. I’ll need to redouble my prayers for him. He’s a really dreadful pope.

    • Margaret Mary

      he quoted Ann Barnhardt who doesn’t accept that the pope is the pope. That’s a pity

      Recently, respected theologian Don Nicola Bux proposed that the resignation of Benedict XVI should be examined for validity. It seems this is a veiled threat to Francis.

      In an important interview that was overlooked last month, a Vatican theologian said that unless Pope Francis corrects himself and reaffirms Church teaching on morals, the faith, and the sacraments, “the apostasy will deepen and the de facto schism will widen.”

      To address the current crisis, he suggested that an examination of the “juridical validity” of Pope Benedict’s XVI’s resignation was in order to “overcome problems that today seem insurmountable to us.”

      https://pjmedia.com/faith/noted-vatican-theologian-calls-for-examination-of-validity-of-pope-benedicts-xvis-resignation/

      https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2018/11/19/the-validity-of-pope-benedict-vxis-resignation-must-be-questioned/

      • Gabriel Syme,

        I saw that report, but the fact remains that it’s not for any lay person to call a papal election into question. That is for the proper authorities and we have made the decision at Catholic Truth not to encourage such speculation, as it is leading to people losing the Faith. After years of thinking (wrongly) that we’ve had good popes in John XXIII, Paul VI, JPII and Benedict XVI, it has come as a shock to some to think that Francis is not only so bad, but probably not even a pope. They see the line of succession broken and it’s badly affected their Catholic Faith.

        We have people like Cardinal Burke, Bishop Schneider and Archbishop Vigano warning the Pope that he is causing damage to the Faith, and warning us to beware of his false teachings. That is about as much as we can expect and we are receiving this information in the context of the worst ever crisis in the history of the Church.

        Our task is to keep repeating that, in an effort to enable disturbed souls to be at peace and remember Our Lady’s promise that in the end her Immaculate Heart will triumph.

        Let those with the authority to do so, examine the last conclave – but it’s not for any lay person to do so. We can write to the Pope with our concerns and to those with authority to take action, but I would feel very uncomfortable leading discussions on the validity of Pope Francis’ election.

        Whether valid or not, he’s a disgrace. That’s really all we need to know for now.

        I would only add that it would help if the SSPX leaders spoke out frequently and strongly to keep reminding us that God has not, despite all appearances to the contrary, abandoned His Church, and it is disappointing that they are not doing that. Nevertheless, two wrongs don’t make one right, and I don’t think it helps at all for the laity to go beyond our Confirmation duty to defend the Catholic Faith – that means to speak up to proclaim true doctrine and morals – in order to cast doubt on the validity of the election of any pontiff. What possible good is that likely to do? We already have a poorly educated laity, after many years of no or false teaching in pulpits, Catholic schools and Catholic newspapers, so to add to the mix in this way, cannot do any good. On the contrary, it is likely only to succeed in undermining the papacy itself.

        I repeat – it’s one thing for those with the proper authority to look into the matter of the validity of a papal election. Lay people have no authority – and therefore no duty – to do so. It is not helpful for a lay person to become preoccupied with this subject… not least because, in the end, Pope Francis may (more likely than not) be found to have been duty elected in the 2013 conclave and have turned out to be just one more, sadly, very bad pope to add to the list of those already denounced in the Church’s history.

  5. I agree, that is a terrific editorial from Christian Order. Pulling no punches, I love it!

    I was horrified at most of it, especially this bit from the “pink provocations are now legend” passage:

    “Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia has even befouled his coat of arms with the ‘gay’ rainbow (yet another beautiful symbol the sodomites co-opted to corrupt). He has no fear of papal rebuke since he was chosen by Francis to head the Pontifical Council for Life despite his public support of the homosexual political movement; support he further signposted by commissioning a homosexual artist to adorn his former cathedral in Terni with a massive “homo-erotic” mural featuring an “erotic” depiction of Christ.”

    That is utterly horrifying. The likes of him will end up in Hell, no doubt about it, unless there is a massive repentance and about-turn before his death but the deeper someone falls into the sewer, the less likely that is, because they actually don’t even believe in Hell. That seems obvious.

    This quote from a great saint puts it clearly IMHO:-

    “He who does not acquire the love of God will scarcely persevere in the grace of God, for it is very difficult to renounce sin merely through fear of chastisement.” – St. Alphonsus Liguori

    • Jospehine,

      St Alphonsus wrote those words when the fear of chastisement was nearly universal. I am sure he would never have imagined a time when most Catholics – pope and bishops included – would believe that universal salvation is a given and that there is “good hope that hell is empty.”.

      The problem we have today is that the hierarchy have lost all holy fear of He who has the power to cast them into hell – this is why they act as though they will never be accountable to anybody.

        • That’s OK – I actually spelt my own name wrong at login, LOL! So, when I saw your apology it made me laugh!

      • Deacon Augustine,

        That’s very interesting – I didn’t know that about the St Alphonsus’ quote.

        I do agree, and it seems very obvious now, that the Pope and bishops have lost all “holy fear” of God – you are so right. They are just like the secular people in that they think there is nothing beyond this world. You’d think they would just head out of the Church and live in the world like everyone else, without any “duties” of office or faith. They are a real mystery, the lot of them.

        .

    • Olaf,

      Exactly what I was about to post when I saw yours. Spot on. They’ve no integrity whatsoever. They’ll make their living from the Church while attacking it all the way. No integrity.

      • It’s more than a case of “no integrity” although that is clearly so; they are parasites of the worst variety who should be purged (pardon the pun) in the most severe manner possible. Old fashioned enemas spring to mind!

%d bloggers like this: