Sunday, October 13, 2019

Francis and the watering down of the supernatural faith of Catholicism

From Les Femmes:

"Remember when Pedro Arrupe was removed as Superior General of the Jesuit Order by Pope John Paul II? No? No memory of that?

It's no use consulting the Internet for validation. It has no memory of that event. However both Wikipedia and a few articles from the leftist Jesuit magazine, America, say that Arrupe "resigned". The Jesuits won't admit that John Paul II removed Arrupe. They say that Arrupe resigned due to his failing health. They say that Arrupe was going to recommend American Jesuit Vincent O'Keefe, S.J., as his replacement when instead John Paul II "intervened" and appointed two other Jesuits, Paola Dezza and Giuseppe Pittau, to oversee the Society of Jesus until a new Superior General could be elected.

In fact, the cold hard truth is that on October 5, 1981, Pope John Paul II rightfully removed Pedro Arrupe, S.J.,  forever from the Generalate, which in turn, moved O'Keefe from his post as Vicar General of the Society and from all hope of being elected General by a subsequent Congregation. Then he (JPII) firmly and resolutely appointed Dezza and Pittau as overseers until such time (two years later, September of 1983) a new Superior General could be elected.

The Pope did this because of Arrupe's mass secularization of the Society of Jesus, the deterioration of obedience to the pope and disaffection from the papacy. The rot had spread too far and too deep. Pope John Paul II was angry. He was going to take no more of it. The Jesuits under Arrupe had set their faces resolutely against the pope, and indeed the very concept of the papacy in the Catholic Church - that is, until now with a Jesuit "pope", Jorge Bergoglio, S.J., who is one of their own.

Now the papacy is OK. Now the pope must be obeyed. Now it is we who disagree who must be dismissed - totally dismissed - removed for Francis said that if we do not obey his pagan rites we will all be in Arrupe was basically in schism from/against John Paul II.

Admitting that Arrupe was removed by John Paul II would put a blight on Arrupe's memory and definitely impact his being raised to the altar of sainthood which is already in the process - by the Jesuits. And approved - by Jorge Bergoglio, S.J. Pedro Arrupe is now Servant of God Pedro Arrupe, S.J. How do you like them apples? If we know the right people at the right time we too will be fast tracked to sainthood. But beware - don't think about becoming a saint by defying Jorge Bergoglio like Pedro Arrupe defied two popes - both Paul VI and John Paul II. We can only be a saint today by taking part in pagan rituals, bowing down to naked fertility goddesses and verbally denying the existence of hell and the divinity of Christ.

Holding pagan rituals in the Vatican Gardens and the denial of the divinity of Christ are more than equal to what Pedro Arrupe did to the Society of Jesus, for which he - Arrupe - was removed. Therefore, for his horrifying disobedience to Our Lord and His Bride, the Church, Jorge Bergoglio, S.J., also must be removed.

What Pedro Arrupe did to the Society of Jesus is step by step what Jorge Borgoglio is doing to the Catholic Church. A MUST READ on this subject is Malachi Martin's book The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church (ebook link!) If Malachi Martin lived now, he could write another book: Bergoglio: The Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church."


Malachi Martin, in his book “The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church,” says that, “Those who..know the history of Liberation Theology..may point out that Gutierrez’s work [Father Gustavo Gutierrez, author of A Theology of Liberation] was inspired by a 1968 Conference of Latin American bishops at Medellin, near Bogota, in Colombia, where the delegates highlighted the plight of the poor, and the needy to remedy their awful conditions…

Essentially, Liberation Theology is the answer to that summons to the Church codified so many years before by Maritain – to identify itself with the revolutionary hopes of the masses. The difference, perhaps, insofar as there is one, is that while Maritain adopted a theology of history built on a misapprehension of Marxist philosophy, Liberation Theologians adopted a theology of politics built on Soviet tactics. In essence, the propagators of Liberation Theology took the current of theological thought developed in Europe and applied it to the very concrete situations in Latin America. Suddenly, theological and philosophical theory became the pragmatic proposals and actual programs for changing the face of all social and political institutions in Latin America….

Liberation Theology turned its back on the entire scope of Scholastic Theology, including what was sound in Maritain. It did not base its reasoning on papal teaching, or on the ancient theological tradition of the Church, or on the Decrees of the Church’s Ecumenical Councils. In fact, Liberation Theology refused to start where Councils and Popes had always started: with God as Supreme Being, as Creator, as Redeemer, as Founder of the Church, as the One Who had placed among men a Vicar who was called the Pope, as Ultimate Rewarder of the Good and Punisher of the Evil. Rather, Liberation Theology’s basic presumption was ‘the people,’ sometimes indeed ‘the people of God.’ ‘The people’ were the source of spiritual revelation and religious authority. What mattered in theology was how ‘the people’ fared here and now, in the social, political, and economic realities of the evolving material world. The ‘experience of the people was the womb of theology,’ was the consecrated phrase.

At one stroke, therefore, Liberation Theology unburdened prepared and restless minds from an entire panoply of ancient concepts, dogmas, and mental processes governed by the fixed rules of Thomistic reasoning, and from the directives of the authoritative voice of Rome…Liberation Theology was no theology in the Roman Catholic sense of the word. It was not primarily about God, about God’s law, about God’s redemption, about God’s promises. Liberation Theology was interested in God as revealed today through the oppressed people. In God for himself, practically speaking, no genuine Liberation Theology was interested.

The second promise of Liberation Theology was even more exciting than freedom from Rome’s theology..” (The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church, pp. 308-309).

Under the banner of “liberation,” many in the Church’s hierarchy began to enlist the Church’s resources to advance the Marxist plan of revolution. Having abandoned the Church’s supernatural mission – building the Kingdom of God, these confused clerics began to turn exclusively toward a new goal: that of building a new world centered on man, a City of Man.

Fr. Martin explains how the Jesuits succumbed to this apostasy: “Classical Jesuitism, based on the spiritual teaching of Ignatius, saw the Jesuit mission in very clear outline. There was a perpetual state of war on earth between Christ and Lucifer. Those who fought on Christ’s side, the truly choice fighters, served the Roman Pontiff diligently, were at his complete disposal, were ‘Pope’s Men.’ The ‘Kingdom’ being fought over was the Heaven of God’s glory. The enemy, the archenemy, the only enemy, was Lucifer. The weapons Jesuits used were supernatural: the Sacraments, preaching, writing, suffering. The objective was spiritual, supernatural, and otherworldly. It was simply this: that as many individuals as possible would die in a state of supernatural grace and friendship with their Savior so that they would spend eternity with God, their Creator…

The renewed Jesuit mission debased this Ignatian ideal of the Jesuits. The ‘Kingdom’ being fought over was the ‘Kingdom’ everyone fights over and always has: material well-being. The enemy was now economic, political, and social: the secular system called democratic and economic capitalism. The objective was material: to uproot poverty and injustice, which were caused by capitalism, and the betterment of the millions who suffered want and injustice from that capitalism. The weapons to be used now were those of social agitation, labor relations, sociopolitical movements, government offices…” (The Jesuits, p. 478).

In this light, we can better understand Pope Francis' speech before Congress. The Pope called on Americans to open themselves to the world and not to see things in terms of good and evil, the righteous and unrighteous.  This, of course, is unscriptural. (See 2 Corinthians 6: 14, 15 and Ephesians 5: 11 for example).

As Fr. Vincent Miceli, S.J., explained in his essay on Call to Action entitled “Detroit: A Call to Revolution in the Church”: “The following are some of the demands the Church simply cannot fulfill for such is not her mission: 1. Wipe out poverty, ignorance, prejudice and war. 2. Democratize the whole world. 3. Stop the sale of arms everywhere. 4. Back the E.R.A. as a constitutional amendment. Like her Saviour, the Church will not turn stones into bread, thereby becoming the Mother of Socialism or a millennium of this world..’

"..the 'theologies of liberation', which reserve credit for restoring to a place of honor the great texts of the prophets and of the Gospel in defense of the poor, go on to a disastrous confusion between the 'poor' of the Scripture and the 'proletariat' of Marx. In this way they pervert the Christian meaning of the poor, and they transform the fight for the rights of the poor into a class fight within the ideological perspective of the class struggle. For them the 'Church of the poor' signifies the Church of the class which has become aware of the requirements of the revolutionary struggle as a step toward liberation and which celebrates this liberation in its liturgy." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Instruction on Certain Aspects of the 'Theology of Liberation,'" No. 10).

The supernatural faith of Catholicism is being watered down for the sake of a new humanitarian religion.  Dialogue is key for this new religion which has abandoned the notion that we must, "Let love be without dissimulation. Hating that which is evil, cleaving to that which is good." (Romans 12: 29).


Alec said...

And now we have Sarah saying that those who oppose this heretic are outside the Church. Apparently this bright light is unaware that the Church has had more than 30 anti-Popes. Were those who opposed these anti-Popes "outside the Church" as well?


How about Cardinals Burke and Brandmuller? Are they "outside the Church" as well?

Barbara Jensen said...

The problem is that many people, good clerics among them, see their highest allegiance to the 'pope'. This is not our highest allegiance. Fidelity to the fullness of the Faith is our supreme and first duty. It is this error that is behind the thinking that the beautiful buildings titles, prestige, and artifacts of religion are more important than fidelity to the fullness of the Faith. Bergoglio is trashing our precious Faith and the so-called bright lights are pondering and pondering the situation. The true Church will go underground and all the externals will be held by the heretics. it is already happening before our eyes. Believe me, this is where the men get separated from the mice.

Paul Anthony Melanson said...

Cardinal Sarah is simply mistaken.

Father Linus Clovis makes the point that,“Obedience is owed to the pope, but the pope owes obedience to the word and the apostolic tradition. We have to obey the pope, but the pope himself must obey the written word. He must obey the tradition. He must respond to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Obedience is owed to the pope, but it is the duty of the pope to give the character of possibility to this obedience. The pope has to facilitate our obeying him, by himself being obedient to the Word of God. Pope Felix III told us, ‘an error that is not resisted is approved. A truth that is not defended is suppressed.’ So we have an obligation to resist error, and we must do everything that we can to promote the truth.”

Mike said...

Bergoglio needs to go. He's not faithful to Catholic Tradition. He is supposed to be the Custodian of the Depositum Fidei, its protector, not its demolisher.

TLM said...

How can anyone now question whether this man that occupies the Chair of Peter is truly the Pope? Put aside the question of an invalid conclave. His heresy, no....his APOSTASY has rendered him devoid of the Papacy. His worshipping of pagan idols not only in the Vatican Gardens but in St. Peter's itself not more than 50 meters away from the bones of St. Peter alone seems to have rendered him invalid. His silence in the face of the 'Scalfari interview' is his answer to the question: "Do you Jorge Mario Bergoglio believe that Jesus Christ the second person of the Trinity, the Father, SON, and Holy Ghost, is the GOD MAN? Yes or No? His complete silence screams NO! How much more 'proof' does ANYONE need?

TLM said...

Oh and just a little update that is off subject. (well kind of, and kind of not) Fr. Thomas Reese S.J. asked the Synod 'Fathers' yesterday about the new 'Amazonian' mass (notice the purposeful small 'm') they are batting around at the Synod and what it might look like. Yep....coming right up! THAT I do believe, will be the authentic 'ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION'.

Site Meter