Russia: Politics & Faith-The Inside Story

kremlin

Blogger, Benedict Carter writes:

Apparently Russia is now a Christian country and Putin, the champion of Christian values, is in Syria solely to protect the Christian population. Putin is the Traditionalist’s friend because he has banned homosexuality. He should be supported simply by virtue of his enmity to our own godless Western leaders. Orthodoxy is a safe haven for the Traditional Catholic as the Catholic Church lurches towards apostasy in the form of liberal Protestantism, rampant Modernism and (soon) open schism. Fr. Malachi Martin said that “salvation will come from the east” so this means that Modernism in the Church and Vatican II will be swept away by Russia and then true religion will be restored. After all, according to Joanna Bogle and others, Russia has already been converted. (Funny that the period of peace doesn’t seem to have accompanied this conversion Joanna, but I suppose we can’t have everything).

Over the last eighteen months to two years these views have been heard more and more openly on some Traditionalist sites and blogs. Sadly, what these views have in common is that they are so full of factual inaccuracies, false assumptions and ignorant claims that this latest blip on the Traditionalist radar constitutes a material danger and really should be dismissed before it becomes an accepted part of the global Traditionalist mind-set.

The Remnant in the USA has on several occasions pushed the ideas in question. Although to be fair to him Michael Matt, the Remnant’s Editor, has in one or two recent articles rowed back somewhat from his earlier position (which tended to canonise Putin and ascribe to him a divine mandate of some sort), nevertheless he has led the way in promoting the trend in question, even banning posters who sought to balance his and others’ speculation and even pagan-like numerology (the 100 years meme) with a dose of Russian reality.

My objective is to show that these views about Russia are all false, resting as they do on a total lack of understanding of the current nature of Russia and of its so-called Christian revival. Suffering from a sense of helplessness and even despair at the vacuity of Western policy, and the state of the Church and society, it is my contention that those who hold these views are investing an inchoate hope in a “false Messiah” and that this hope will surely be dashed. Indeed, ultimately I hold that those who place their hope in Putin and Russia are guilty of a serious spiritual fault in that they are putting their trust in politics and in a man rather than in Jesus Christ.

My own interest in this subject comes from my own long association with Russia. Having been a student of its literature and history from my early teenage years, in the middle 1990’s I started what was to be a twelve-year plus period living in the former USSR. During that time I lived for nearly three years in Central Asia and then more than ten years in Moscow. I speak Russian, I am married to a Russian, I owned a business in Russia, I know the history of the country and of the Russian Orthodox Church. The years I spent there changed me profoundly. Russia will be part of me until I die. I therefore consider myself well-qualified, at least amongst Traditionalists, to comment on Russian affairs.

Since 1991, it’s true that around 6,000 churches have been built or rebuilt. Ancient monasteries and convents again contain many religious. It is normal for many Russian Orthodox to attend Easter and Christmas liturgies and popping into a church to light a candle is an unremarkable activity. Around 75% of Russians are now baptised. The country’s leadership appear with high prelates on TV on important feasts and all dutifully make the Sign of the Cross (albeit badly) at the appropriate moments. There is a genuine piety to be found among believers. And as everyone knows, Russia has enacted a law preventing the advertising or marketing of homosexuality. All this is of course to be applauded. But does it mean that Russia is now a Christian country? What is the state of Russian society? This should tell us how real is Russia’s Christian life.

State of Russian Society

  • According to a Moscow Times survey, only 1% of the population attends the Divine Liturgy on Sunday. This is almost exclusively the old, particularly the women. The same picture is found in another study (http://tinyurl.com/q5r8xvb).
  • Another Moscow Times survey from last year showed that both trust in the Moscow Patriarchate and support for the building of a new church in one’s immediate locality have plummeted. Has indeed the high-water mark of the restored Patriarchate been reached within twenty-five years of the fall of the Communist regime? It may be so: I am told by one Catholic religious in Moscow that the number of students in Russian Orthodox seminaries has drastically fallen in the last two or three years. (Source: http://tinyurl.com/hu365zo).
  • While the excellent law against homosexual “propaganda” certainly exists, so do gay clubs. Homosexuality is not criminalised nor is its practice restricted in any way. (Source: http://tinyurl.com/z56lzmd).
  • Abortions continue by the million. Both Ukraine and Russia have debated banning abortion in their respective parliaments but neither have done so. (Source: http://tinyurl.com/jm55enf).
  • AIDS cases are now in excess of one million and are rising fast. Drug-resistant TB has broken out of the prisons where it was nurtured for decades and is now rife among the general population. (Source: http://tinyurl.com/hbqgb6u).
  • Drug use is decimating the younger generations in the cities, particularly in Siberia and other places riven by poverty and is growing out of any control. (Source: http://tinyurl.com/zeq85q6).
  • The moral leadership of the government is nil. Putin and those close to him are thieves, knaves, plunderers and looters on a scale beyond the imagination. The very language they use between themselves is the colourful (and utterly vile) “blatnoi yezik”, or “thieves tongue” of the “vor v zakone” (thieves-in-law, aka the mafia).
  • Putin has not conducted any reform of Russia’s economy which would eventually benefit the poorest. The reason is that if he did, his entire system would be in danger of collapse and his power with it. The pigs with their snouts in the trough would get rid of Putin before they allowed other pigs to take their place. Battles between oligarchs are at the moment controlled by Putin as the top Godfather, but if too many pigs lost their place at feeding time that control might be lost. Billions upon billions of dollars are at stake. Some thoughtful Russians I know now worry about civil war conducted between rival oligarchic armies fighting for control of Russia’s natural resources.
  • Crime as ever pervades Russian life. Life expectancy, particularly for men, is static at around 60 due to alcoholism, a collapsed health service and hopelessness. Corruption pervades Russian life. There is no rule of law as understood in the West. Innocence is lost at a very young age (Source: http://tinyurl.com/zgkbch9).
  • Many Russians are turning to eastern sects, philosophies and religions. Buddhism, Indian “spirituality”, Siberian shamanistic paganism: all these are growing in popularity. (Source http://tinyurl.com/zdwfkjz).

State of the Orthodox Church

As ever, the Orthodox Church is the creature of the State. It has been so since even before the Church’s submission to Tsar Peter and his suppression of the Patriarchate. Imagining the Russian Orthodox Church without the crutch of the Russian State is impossible. In return for the State’s provision of tax benefits, cash, Presidential and Prime Ministerial time and constant TV exposure, the Church plays the part of chief cheerleader for the Russian regime. It has always been thus and it certainly is now. Both parties gain but one does wonder who or what the Russian Orthodox Church really worships. Is it the Holy Trinity or the Russian State?

For some, the Russian State undoubtedly comes in first place. For Father Vselovod Chaplin for example, America is Satan, Britain is his chief demon and God demands nuclear warfare against both. And, according to Chaplin, Russian women should have their reign of debauchery ended by the practice of universal female genital mutilation. This oaf has said so many mad things that the so-called philosophy of “Eurasianism”, as developed and taught by Alexander Dugin, seems almost sane in comparison. For Dugin, by the way, the SS was the perfect society and as usual for fanatics of Slav nationalism, the chief enemy for him is the Anglo-Saxon, which means Britain and America. Today’s Russia is semi-fascist and so is its national Orthodox Church.

There is much else that is deeply rotten in the Russian Orthodox Church. Apart from the very ugly nationalist ideology and greed for material reward (remember the Patriarch and his $450,000 watch?), anti-Catholic sentiment remains very high. As told directly to me by a Catholic priest in Russia (and confirmed by an Anglican), some years ago the Catholic Archdiocese in Moscow had to go through the local Anglican vicar to arrange meetings with the Patriarchate. The Catholic side would state what subjects it wished to discuss, the Patriarchate would say how many BMWs and Mercedes it wanted in return for the meeting. (Ecumenism Russian Orthodox style …).

No, the Russian Orthodox Church inspires no confidence. It is this body that is to save the West? I think not. In fact, despite its high position in State and society, it may well have already entered a period of decline only two decades after the fall of Communism.

Putin

Putin is lauded as a strongman who runs rings around Western leaders and makes them look foolish. There can be no doubt that he is a clever man. But consider: if you do not operate by the norms of international law, if you are prepared to lie and cheat your way to your objectives, it is an easy thing to surprise those who do operate by the norms of international law and those who do more or less, in their dealings with each other, tell the truth and act honestly. Thus Putin is a very strong tactician but no strategist. Russia may contain much of genius but in global terms, whatever its showing in Syria (a Russian success only possible because Obama reneged on his “red line” promise) its influence is that of a regional power.

Led by thugs and gangsters, Russia has no vision beyond its own preservation. This indeed is the real key to understanding Russian policy. Russia is an almost-failed State governed by serial liars, thieves and Secret Police operatives. I can personally confirm that FSB officers still, to this day, have a statuette of Felix Dzerzhinsky, the mass murderer who founded the CHEKA, on their desks.

Is Putin a believer? He may be, it’s truly difficult to say. I think he probably is, but that this belief does not prevent him from doing all manner of murder in the interests of his true god who is Mother Russia. God for the Orthodox is a strongly Slavic nationalist deity.

Did Putin ask the Pope to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart? I do not believe it for a moment. The Orthodox Church is extremely hostile to Fatima and Putin would not antagonise the Patriarchate unnecessarily. Nevertheless, does Russia have a role to play in the cosmic battle currently being fought? Yes, it does: Our Lady has told us so. If the Consecration does not come as Heaven wished it, then instead of being converted, Russia may well play the part of being the instrument of God’s punishment on an unfaithful, godless world which has long since been soaked in Russia’s own atheistic, Bolshevik errors. It is interesting that some pre-Revolutionary Orthodox prophecy supports a very old traditional reading of Scripture which states that Gog and Magog is Russia.

We can see I think that the real attraction of Putin to Traditionalists is that he provides clarity whereas our own leaders are mired in leftist social engineering (through mass immigration) and political correctness, and thus are imposing on us a revolutionary globalist ideology that is straining our system and very civilisation to the limit. Similarly, the attraction of the Orthodox Church to many Traditionalists is the beauty of its liturgy and music. But do either of them offer the West anything that we cannot better find by restoring what has been taken, both from our society and from the Church? I strongly believe not.

The waters have been badly muddied for the Traditionalist by those useful idiots in the modern Church who hold that Fatima is fulfilled and Russia has already converted. Aside from the asinine suggestion that Our Lady would be pleased by the conversion of Russia to a schismatic sect, the reality of Russian society today cannot but exclude the possibility of Fatima’s completion. I myself am not so hard on this question as many Traditionalists: I am quite able to accept that the 1984 Consecration might have led to the fall of Communism and a partial conversion of Russia; however, this was not what Our Lady requested, desired or promised. That there is no period of peace is self-evident. So the likes of Joanna Bogle not only fool themselves but sadly many others too and the popularity of Putin among so many Traditionalists is at least indirectly and in part due to this false Fatima propaganda.

Following Putin and trusting in Russia is a dangerous temptation and one that must be resisted. The true solution to our woes, which are real, is the restoration of a truly Catholic (= Christian) civilisation, not the adoption, out of despair, of a rotten schismatic and heretical Orthodox one.

Comments invited…

A New Mercy: Mercy As “Way of Life”…

What Religion Is This?

by Christopher A. Ferrara
November 8, 2016

 

Mercy, said Francis, is not God's forgiveness of sin through Baptism or the absolution of a repentant sinner in the confessional, in the manner Christ ordained when He commissioned His Church (cf. John 20:23). Rather, he opined, "the mystery of mercy is not to be celebrated in words alone, but above all by deeds, by a truly merciful way of life marked by disinterested love, fraternal service and sincere sharing."

“The mystery of mercy is not to be celebrated in words alone, but above all by deeds, by a truly merciful way of life marked by disinterested love, fraternal service and sincere sharing.”

In a brief address to an “inter-religious audience” at the Vatican on November 3, Francis spoke on “the theme of mercy,” but without a single reference to the King of Mercy, Jesus Christ, the sole merciful savior of mankind, nor any reference to the sacraments of the Church that Christ established precisely to show His mercy toward men of good will. 

Alluding vaguely to “the Christian message” while saying absolutely nothing about the grace of repentance that must precede the grace of justification and the regeneration of the soul of fallen man, Francis sketched instead a concept of mercy seemingly designed to accommodate any and all religions, so-called.

Mercy, said Francis, is not God’s forgiveness of sin through Baptism or the absolution of a repentant sinner in the confessional, in the manner Christ ordained when He commissioned His Church (cf. John 20:23). Rather, he opined, “the mystery of mercy is not to be celebrated in words alone, but above all by deeds, by a truly merciful way of life marked by disinterested love, fraternal service and sincere sharing.”

What does this have to do with Divine Mercy for the sinner who repents and turns to God, which was supposedly the theme of the Year of Mercy now concluding? The address seems instead to conflate Divine Mercy with human acts of kindness devoid of any motive of supernatural grace.

Indeed, Francis goes on to say that “The Church increasingly desires to adopt this way of life, also as part of her ‘duty to foster unity and charity’ among all men and women…” The Church is depicted as an organization that has only recently begun to discover fully what mercy means! It means, according to Francis, a “way of life” — again, without reference to Divine Mercy toward repentant sinners.

Mercy as a “way of life” — rather than a divine action toward the sinner — is something that anyone, no matter what he believes, can possess. Thus, says Francis, “[t]he religions are likewise called to this way of life, in order to be, particularly in our own day, messengers of peace and builders of communion, and to proclaim, in opposition to all those who sow conflict, division and intolerance, that ours is a time of fraternity.”

Note well: “the religions” are referenced indifferently, as if they were all on equal footing with respect to the quality of mercy, which is reduced, in essence, to social work and brotherhood.

Continuing this indifferentist, pan-religious refrain, Francis declares that “mercy” as he conceives it — quoting himself — is that quality which is “more open to dialogue, the better to know and understand one another; eliminates every form of closed-mindedness and disrespect; and drives out every form of violence and discrimination (Misericordiae Vultus, 23). This is pleasing to God and constitutes an urgent task, responding not only to today’s needs but above all to the summons to love which is the soul of all authentic religion.”

Not a word here about the supernatural grace of charity obtained and maintained through the sacraments instituted by Christ, nor the divine action involved in God’s mercy thus obtained. Rather, again, we see only an appeal to do-goodism depicted as the “soul of all authentic religion.”

As Francis further declares (once again quoting himself), “mercy” also means the practice of environmental conservation:

Mercy extends also to the world around us, to our common home, which we are called to protect and preserve from unbridled and rapacious consumption. Our commitment is needed for an education to sobriety and to respect, to a more simple and orderly way of life, in which the resources of creation are used with wisdom and moderation, with concern for humanity as a whole and coming generations, not simply the interests of our particular group and the benefits of the present moment. Today in particular, ‘the gravity of the ecological crisis demands that we all look to the common good, embarking on a path of dialogue which requires patience, self-discipline and generosity'” (Laudato Si’, 201).

So, “authentic religion” now expands to include not merely the one and only religion that God established, but also any and all religions whose adherents do good, including caring for the environment. “Mercy” thus defined would therefore be an element, according to Francis, of virtually all religions that advocate doing good:

“The theme of mercy is familiar to many religious and cultural traditions, where compassion and nonviolence are essential elements pointing to the way of life; in the words of an ancient proverb: ‘death is hard and stiff; life is soft and supple’ (Tao-Te-Ching, 76). To bow down with compassionate love before the weak and needy is part of the authentic spirit of religion, which rejects the temptation to resort to force, refuses to barter human lives and sees others as brothers and sisters, and never mere statistics. To draw near to all those living in situations that call for our concern, such as sickness, disability, poverty, injustice and the aftermath of conflicts and migrations: this is a summons rising from the heart of every genuine religious tradition. It is the echo of the divine voice heard in the conscience of every person, calling him or her to reject selfishness and to be open….”

When Francis finally gets around to mentioning Divine Mercy, he appears to make God’s forgiveness of sin available to anyone who practices mercy on a human level whether or not it involves an act of supernatural charity motivated by divine grace:

“How important this is, when we consider today’s widespread fear that it is impossible to be forgiven, rehabilitated and redeemed from our weaknesses. For us Catholics, among the most meaningful rites of the Holy Year is that of walking with humility and trust through the door – the Holy Door – to find ourselves fully reconciled by the mercy of God, who forgives our trespasses. But this demands that we too forgive those who trespass against us (cf. Mt 6:12), the brothers and sisters who have offended us. We receive God’s forgiveness in order to share it with others. Forgiveness is surely the greatest gift we can give to others, because it is the most costly. Yet at the same time, it is what makes us most like God.”

But, as the Church has always taught, in fallen man the imago Dei — the likeness to God — can be restored only by the grace of justification following the grace of repentance for sin. And the ordinary means of justification are Baptism and, after Baptism, absolution of mortal sin by way of Confession, about which Francis has nothing whatever to say to an audience desperately in need of the helps only the Church that Christ established can provide.

Thus does the Catholic faith — the one, true, divinely revealed religion — fade into insignificance in the grand scheme of “authentic religion” reduced to doing good and forgiving others without any obligation to assent to revealed truth, avail oneself of the divinely instituted sacraments, or indeed profess any particular religious belief at all. Catholics may be reconciled in their Catholic way (certainly not by merely walking through a Holy Door with humility and trust), but anyone who simply forgives, on a human level, attains the divine likeness.

Driving home the point, lest anyone miss it, Francis concludes by declaring: “May the religions be wombs of life, bearing the merciful love of God to a wounded and needy humanity; may they be doors of hope helping to penetrate the walls erected by pride and fear.” All religions “bear the merciful love of God,” no matter what errors or superstitions they involve. All that matters, according to Francis, is that their adherents show forgiveness and brotherhood toward others and care for the environment.

Referring to the recent debacle of the Pope’s visit to Sweden to “commemorate” the Protestant Rebellion launched by Luther, the respected traditional Catholic scholar Roberto de Mattei observed: “What surfaced during the ecumenical meeting between Pope Francis and the World Lutheran Federation on October 31st in Lund, seems to be a new religion.”

A new religion indeed. And certainly not the religion established by God Incarnate in the one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. But then, as Pius XI warned about those who would embrace the then-nascent “ecumenical movement” with its pan-Christian gatherings:

“Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.

As the human element of the Church has come to accept and participate not only in pan-Christian but also pan-religious spectacles, such as this address by Francis, we can consider Pius XI’s warning a prophecy fulfilled, along with the prophecy undoubtedly contained in the integral Third Secret of Fatima.   Source – fatima.org

Comment:

Well, we’ve had a new Mass, new catechism, new rosary, new canon law, new morality,  blah blah, so why not a new “mercy”? 

ISIS: Pope “Naïve”: Our War IS Religious! And We Will ALWAYS Hate You!

Islam crescent and starGREENThe Islamic State terror group has come out publicly to reject Pope Francis’ claims that the war being waged by Islamic terrorists is not religious in nature, assuring the pontiff that their sole motivation is religious and sanctioned by Allah in the Qur’an.   

In the most recent issue of Dabiq, the propaganda magazine of the Islamic State, ISIS criticizes Pope Francis for his naïveté in clinging to the conviction that Muslims want peace and that acts of Islamic terror are economically motivated.

“This is a divinely-warranted war between the Muslim nation and the nations of disbelief,” the authors state in an article titled “By the Sword.”

The Islamic State directly attacks Francis for claiming that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Quran are opposed to every form of violence,” saying that by doing this, “Francis continues to hide behind a deceptive veil of ‘good will,’ covering his actual intentions of pacifying the Muslim nation.”

Pope Francis “has struggled against reality” in his efforts to portray Islam as a religion of peace, the article insists, before going on to urge all Muslims to take up the sword of jihad, the “greatest obligation” of a true Muslim.

Despite the obviously religious nature of their attacks, the article states, “many people in Crusader countries express shock and even disgust that Islamic State leadership ‘uses religion to justify violence.’”

“Indeed, waging jihad – spreading the rule of Allah by the sword – is an obligation found in the Quran, the word of our Lord,” it reads.

“The blood of the disbelievers is obligatory to spill by default. The command is clear. Kill the disbelievers, as Allah said, ‘Then kill the polytheists wherever you find them.’”

The Islamic State also reacted to Pope Francis’s description of recent acts of Islamic terror as “senseless violence,” insisting that there is nothing senseless about it.

“The gist of the matter is that there is indeed a rhyme to our terrorism, warfare, ruthlessness, and brutality,” they declare, adding that their hatred for the Christian West is absolute and implacable.

The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam. Even if you were to pay jizyah [tax for infidels] and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you.

In a recent press conference, Pope Francis told journalists  that the world is at war. “But it’s a real war, not a religious war,” he said.

“It’s a war of interests, a war for money. A war for natural resources and for the dominion of the peoples.”

“Every religion wants peace,” he said.  Source Breitbart.com  –  Fox News report here

Comment: 

Click here to read Pope Francis’ remarks refusing to link the ISIS terrorist campaigns with Islam, while at the same time not pausing to draw breath before accusing Catholics of violence.  With a “friend” like this, who needs enemies? 

So, what do we have here?  Let’s see: ISIS is angry that Pope Francis insists on describing their religion as a religion of peace, while Catholics like myself are incensed at being insulted by a Pope who thinks we’re as guilty of violent behaviour as any terrorist, when what he is really describing are the sins and crimes committed by individual Catholics for their own reasons, nothing to do with the Faith.   He’s living proof that you just can’t please all of the people all of the time, or even some of the people some of the time – and, as they’ve now spelt out to him in words of one syllable, he’s just never going to please ISIS – so let’s hope he gives up playing at being a diplomat and starts preaching the truths of the Catholic Faith, because that is the ONLY raison d’être for his office.  

I would suggest that if Papa Francis wants to be a negotiating diplomat for ISIS, then he ought to resign and apply for the job but it’s clear now that the ISIS assessment of Pope Francis is among the growing body of opinion that, to quote ISIS, Pope Francis is out of touch with reality.  To put it mildly.  

Is Pope Francis Trying to Destroy Western Christian Civilisation? Really?

From The Denziger-Bergoglio blog:

Francis’ universal prayer intention for the month of July is:

That indigenous peoples, whose identity and very existence are threatened, will be shown due respect” (Vatican Radio, July 6, 2016).

The intention for evangelization is: That the Church in Latin America and the Caribbean, by means of her mission to the continent, may announce the Gospel with renewed vigor and enthusiasm. (Zenit, July 7, 2016)

These intentions proposed by Francis during the month of July warrant commentary.

In reflecting upon prayer, we recall the Gospels narrations of the numerous occasions when Jesus prayed, and especially, the mandate that he gave us to pray with the seven petitions of the Lord’s Prayer, the prayer par excellence. After all, true prayer is praying as Jesus did, and in keeping with what he taught.

For, as Saint Augustine amply teaches, “if we pray rightly, and as becomes our wants, we say nothing but what is already contained in the Lord’s Prayer. And whoever says in prayer anything which cannot find its place in that gospel prayer, is praying in a way which, if it be not unlawful, is at least not spiritual; and I know not how carnal prayers can be lawful, since it becomes those who are born again by the Spirit to pray in no other way than spiritually.” And after a long list of examples, the same Doctor of the Church ends: “And if you go over all the words of holy prayers, you will, I believe, find nothing which cannot be comprised and summed up in the petitions of the Lord’s Prayer. Wherefore, in praying, we are free to use different words to any extent, but we must ask the same things; in this we have no choice” (Saint Augustine, Epistle 130, no.12/22).

Of course, these seven primordial petitions in the Lord’s Prayer may be spread out into many others…however, that “indigenous people be shown due respect” is a prayer intention which seems to stray completely off-track, above all coming from the Chair of Peter. And it is dangerously mistaken in what it insinuates…

The indigenous girl with the defiant attitude at the microphone is, in reality, a mediocre actress wearing television studio make-up. And some of the images of the so-called native peoples portray shocking barbarism or sensuality. Francis calls for respect for their ways of life and threatened traditions, presenting these aberrant figures of doubtful authenticity as models.

slide0040_image086Respect what traditions? Cannibalism, polygamy, incest, idolatry and Satanism? He does not come right out and say it, but subliminally insinuates. It appears that Bergoglio professes belief in an immaculate conception of these poor individuals, among whom the light of the Gospel has not yet shone in its full splendor.

While Francis goes about destroying century-old catholic traditions in protocols, liturgies and customs that developed within the light of the Gospel, he wishes to indiscriminately save all pagan traditions – traditions which gradually would die off by their own inglorious dynamism.

Why should a specific culture or tradition be saved? We know that the Church is immortal; but weFore-tribe-mandon’t confess the belief that the indigenous peoples are or should also be. In Noah’s time, the survival of those peoples’ way of life of was not in God’s intentions, nor those of his prophet…

These life-savers that the Bishop of Rome continually throws to these poor people, besides being anti-Christian, are also contradictory, since his policy of welcoming refugees into Europe — at any price and without discernment — leads to a renunciation of the western Christian identity of countries clearly at risk of succumbing to the avalanche of fanatical Muslim barbarity. This factor doesn’t seem to bother Francis, but rather appears to spur him on, as the Denzinger-Bergogolio has already pointed out in one of its studies (Note of Dz-B_EN: see here)

In Evangelii Gaudium, Francis encourages Europeans to not be afraid of losing their own culture:

Migrants present a particular challenge for me, since I am the pastor of a Church without frontiers, a Church which considers herself mother to all. For this reason, I exhort all countries to a generous openness which, rather than fearing the loss of local identity, will prove capable of creating new forms of cultural synthesis.(Apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium, no. 210, November 24, 2013)

Why does Francis want “new forms of cultural synthesis” only for the Christian European peoples? Are the indigenous peoples perhaps a superior race that may not undergo any kind of “cultural synthesis”? Or it is perhaps because such “cultural synthesis” allows Francis to do away with the remains of Western Christian civilization? Read entire article from The Denzinger-Bergoglio here

Comments invited…   

EU Migration – Charity or Betrayal?

EUPassportFlagBlogger, Andrew Paterson reports on the Joint Statement issued by the Heads of Caritas Europa and the Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) Europe and submits his correspondence with them, for our comment…       

While interior ministers meet tomorrow and Friday to discuss EU migration policies, people trying to reach the safety of Europe continue to die en route. Caritas Europa and Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) Europe calls on European leaders to alter its restrictive approach to migration. Policies focused on deterrence, including the agreement with Turkey, are not stopping people from trying to reach our countries. Instead, they prolong suffering and push people into the hands of smugglers and traffickers, who find even more dangerous entry routes.  Read the entire statement here

In the above Joint Statement, the Heads of Caritas and JRS quote Pope Francis in support.  I sent them a long diatribe pointing out errors and that they were betraying the West, the Church, and the people of Europe. I challenged them to publish my letter and refute it – so far they have not done so.

My letter (see below)  is quite long:  

My response:

To: “jnmayer@caritas.eu” “Jean-Marie.Carriere@jrs.net” 9 June 2016, 17:24

Subject: Migrants and the European Union

I note that you have yesterday, 8th June 2016, made a joint statement, in the name of your organisations, requesting the EU to remove the barriers to migrants arriving in Europe.

There are a number of reasons why these barriers should not be removed.

It is fair and reasonable, and an act of Christian charity, to assist refugees. However, it has been demonstrated that assistance to refugees is best provided as close to home as possible, preferably in a close neighbouring country. Lebanon and Jordan have taken very considerable numbers swelling the combined population of 14 million to around seventeen million. A sudden unplanned increase in population of over 20% puts a huge strain on the resources of these two fairly fragile countries. It would be a good thing to support these countries, and others, to the greatest extent possible in caring for refugees in situ, until such time as these genuine refugees may return home. It is here and in their own countries that assistance should be given, and not in any other manner or place.

The migrants who are illegally pushing their way into Europe are not, in the main, refugees. Approximately 90% of these migrants are superficially economic migrants who are seeking better conditions for themselves. They are leaving safe countries in order to push their way into countries where they will receive the benefits of housing, education, health care and a weekly income without doing anything in return. They will make no contribution to the countries which they invade because they are incapable of doing so. A German study has suggested that two-thirds of migrants are functionally illiterate in their own language.

They will therefore be an ongoing costly burden on the economies of the countries which receive them. This burden will increase as under “human rights” legislation enacted in most European countries they will be allowed to bring in family relatives increasing fourfold the numbers of such people, all wholly dependent on the largesse of those on whom they impose. In the not too distant future this will certainly become clearly seen as an unsustainable drag on the economies and citizens of those countries.

The economic migrants should receive no assistance as they are acting illegally and out of worldly selfishness at the very least. They are superficially economic migrants indeed, but many and probably most are jihadists, mobilised to invade. It would be overly disingenuous to avoid seeing this vast movement of Muslims for what it is, an invasion of the West. It is the jihad in action. Around 80% of these migrants are young men of military age. If these young men wore uniforms and carried black banners it would be clear beyond any doubt that they constitute an army. They are an army of Islam.

Their intention is that of Islam and that intention is, as it has always been, to take over the world, by fire and sword, or any means available.
They are not armed as they travel, it is true, but that is no disqualification. When soldiers of the British Army fly in passenger transport aircraft of the RAF their weapons do not fly with them. The weapons travel in other transports.
Their weapons will arrive later, but soon.
These men have mobile phones, an expensive item for penniless migrants, and a difficult one, considering that they have no income and no fixed abode. Have you not considered this?

The armies of Islam have attacked Europe in the past, and have held territories including Spain and Hungary for many long decades, suppressing the Faith in these regions. By great effort and determination and at great cost in money and blood the Muslims were expelled from Europe and their repeated attempts to conquer were met with courage and the sword. These defences of Christendom were just that. Without the actions of Charles Martel, Don John of Austria, Jan Sobieski of Poland and Graf von Starhemberg and many other brave and faithful men, the entirety of Europe would have fallen. Catholicism would have been crushed and the flowers of science, medicine and technology would never have bloomed, and countless Animated-Flag-EUmillions of souls would have been lost to God.   

Your exhortation to allow this modern army of Islam into the West is a betrayal of the West, of Europe and of civilisation. It is a betrayal of the Catholic Faith. The Catholic Church gives great importance to the Magisterium, which is backed by the historical teachings, thinking, debates and decisions of the theologians and clerics, of the Church Fathers, handed down the centuries since Christ founded His Church. This now reposes with the Pope and Bishops in union as you know. Yet the theological deposit of Faith would likely have perished without the strength of those who defended it by force of arms.

Why then do you give no importance to the actions of the Catholic heroes who defended the Church and the West? Why do you negate and spurn their heroism as if it was not only nothing, but even wrong? Why can you set yourself as having greater understanding and having a superior vision of the Church by attempting to reverse the actions of those Catholic soldiers who gave their lives that we might live in the freedom that we have now. A freedom that now permits you to embrace the enemies of the Bride of Christ?

The teaching of the Church in respect of “human rights” does not go so far as the modern human rights activists and lawyers would insist.

In 1942 Pius XII said, (men have):
“the right to maintain and develop one’s corporal, intellectual and moral life and especially the right to religious formation and education; the right to worship God in private and public and to carry on religious works of charity; the right to marry and to achieve the aim of married life; the right to conjugal and domestic society; the right to work, as the indispensable means toward the maintenance of family life; the right to free choice of a state of life, and hence, too, of the priesthood or religious life; the right to the use of material goods, in keeping with his duties and social limitations.”

And also:
“That each person has a right to a government which will protect these rights,

And also:
“The right to existence, the right to one’s good name, the right to one’s own culture and national character, the right to develop oneself, the right to demand observance of international treaties, and other like rights, are demanded by the law of nations, dictated by nature itself.”

Nowhere does His Holiness say that the “human rights” of contumacious interlopers take precedence over the “human rights” of the citizens of established and civilised countries.

It should be obvious then, that the “human rights” expounded by the United Nations and substantially endorsed by the Holy See do not include the right to forcibly or clandestinely enter another country and steal and defraud.

They also most certainly do include the right to defend one’s country and one’s people against invaders who would reshape its culture and character. That these migrants are even now changing both the culture and character of the countries of Europe is incontrovertibly true. This is no surmise as hideous evidence of this exists in France, the United Kingdom and many other countries and does not need to be searched out. It is plain and evident.

You say, “Like Pope Francis, Caritas dreams of a Europe that acknowledges the necessary contribution of migrants to our societies and commits to respecting the dignity of every human being,” (Jorge Nuño Mayer, Secretary General of Caritas Europa).”

This is, without further qualification, utter nonsense. It is not any the less nonsense because the Holy Father supports it. On the contrary, in this vague way he has fallen into error and leads others astray.

You make requests of the Ministers of the Countries of the EU as if it were proper for them to give away willy-nilly the countries of the people of Europe. You make a case that the “human rights” of economic migrants extend to the right to make forcible demands that they be supported by the hapless citizens of Europe.

It would be no surprise if the supine and pusillanimous EU leaders cave in to all demands, even offering more of other peoples’ wealth. The incontinent demands of the importunate migrants are subtended by the moral blackmail of our secular leaders. The faith of the politicians who have Europe in their blind amoral grip is a faith in money. They forget that their responsibility is primarily towards their own citizens and so act against them.

Why do you side with the forces at work against the moral core of Western Christianity?
Why do you speak of encouraging the foot-soldiers of Islam to enter and overpower us?
Why do you work to betray all that we have striven to build over centuries?

I encourage and challenge you to publish this letter and refute it if you can.

Regards,

Andrew Paterson

Reply from Jorge Nuno Mayer, 14 June

Dear Mr. Paterson,

Thank you for sharing your concerns. Indeed Caritas in the Middle East and in many places around the world – where hatred is pushing people to flee from war, violence or hunger – are providing help to refugees coming from neighbouring countries. Those Caritas organisations are being supported by local staff and volunteers and also by Caritas organisations from all around the world. The Caritas family is committed to peace and supporting people in all the neighbouring countries.

But Caritas is there to implement the programme of the Good Samaritan, i.e. to help people in need wherever they are, without asking for their background. Also the Good Samaritan has not asked about the background, believes or behaviour of the beaten person. Let me also tell you that our experience at grassroots level in many European countries working with refugees and migrants doesn’t coincide with your figures and opinions. Caritas is attending many families, women, children, but also young men who are also suffering and are not attended by any other institution. We Christians believe in the message of Jesus, who commanded us to love, especially the poor, the migrants and even our enemies. Only the practice of love will bring peace to our world. Only the practice of love will bring the message of the Gospel to the last corner of the world, especially to the people who don’t believe in love. In our advocacy towards the EU and the governments we defend not an open borders model, but a humane treatment of any human being – humane treatment on their journey, at the borders, in our countries -, especially for the weakest in our societies. The Social Teaching of the Catholic Church through the different great Popes we had over the last decades has been very clear; Caritas doesn’t separate from this Teaching, we put it into practice.

Kind regards,

Jorge Nuño Mayer
Secretary General

Now, what Mr Mayer says sounds exactly as it should, in line with a desire to assist those less fortunate. However, Europe is on the cusp of a demographic disaster. If we let people in, muslims, to add to the many millions here then within twenty years we will have destroyed the Europe in which we grew up. On a practical note migrants dilute the assets available for care of the population, and depress the wages of the natives. (No wage rises in 10 years in UK.)

Comment:  

Is it basic Christian charity to welcome incomers no matter whether they are refugees or economic migrants, or do you agree with Andrew that by essentially advocating unrestricted migration to EU countries,  Caritas and JRS are ” betraying the West, the Church, and the people of Europe”?   

SSPX: Bishop Fellay Interview…

Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the SSPX, told the Register May 13 that he is “persuaded, at least in part, by a different approach,” in which, he believes, Pope Francis is placing less weight on the Council and more emphasis on “saving souls and finding a way to do it.”

According to Bishop Fellay, the Vatican is telling the Society, through nuanced words, that it is now possible to question the Council’s teachings on religious liberty, ecumenism, and liturgical reform “and remain Catholic”.

In a three-part video interview, Bishop Fellay gives a rundown of the reconciliation process with Rome, discusses the Society’s motivations and whether the SSPX will continue to be critical of aspects of the post-conciliar Church after reconciliation.  Source

Part 1/3

Part 2/3

Part 3/3

Comments invited…

Yoga: Paying Homage To Hindu Deities

yogaposeToday, I enjoyed a conversation over lunch with a some Catholics from various parishes in Glasgow, including a young woman who was thoroughly informed about the New Age Movement and its impact on Catholics in this archdiocese and beyond. Unfortunately, I had an appointment so had to leave before the end of the chat, and without, therefore, taking in all of the detail, but, from what I did hear of this young woman’s own experience of parishioners who are deeply committed to the New Age phenomenon, it seems that it warrants our attention.  The spread of New Age-ism has worried the  Vatican sufficiently, for the Pontifical Council For Culture to issue a document on the matter: “Even if it can be admitted that New Age religiosity in some way responds to the legitimate spiritual longing of human nature, it must be acknowledged that its attempts to do so run counter to Christian revelation…”

 I’ve heard plenty of people defend Yoga, saying it helps them relax and is good exercise. But it is more than simple body exercise – it is Hindu prayer using body postures – click Here

Yogaprayerpostures

 

                                                    

Comment…

 

Have you noticed the advertisements forNew Age groups – under various guises, mostly Yoga classes – in church porches and in bulletins?  The fact that bookshops are filling their shelves with “New Age” material is one of the concerns found in the Vatican Document, A Christian Reflection on the New Age     

Should we be concerned? One priest in England was concerned enough to hit the headlines in 2012 – from the BBC to the Telegraph and plenty of headlines in between – click here to read the Catholic Herald report.  Will Yoga destroy the Faith of Catholics who participate in it, or is it possible to be a “New Age Catholic”?