Sunday, December 1, 2013

It's NOT The Economy, Stupid!

 Antipope Francis has given us his first "apostolic exhortation" (whether this constitutes an encyclical in the Vatican II sect--your guess is as good as mine). When Bill Clinton ran for president of the USA in 1992, he campaigned on the slogan "It's the Economy, Stupid." He wanted to appeal to the perceived lack of attention to what really was wrong with the nation. Now, Antipope Francis would like us to think the same--the real problem with the world is NOT the lack of the True Faith, Morals and Sacraments---it's economic woes and not enough heresy and worldliness!

 Here are some of the "lowlights" of His Phoniness Frankie:

 1. Conform the Vatican II sect more to the world. In paragraph # 116 we read:
"Through inculturation, the Church "introduces peoples, together with their cultures, into her own community",90 for "every culture offers positive values and forms which can enrich the way the Gospel is preached, understood and lived".91 In this way, the Church takes up the values of different cultures and becomes sponsa ornata monilibus suis, "the bride bedecked with her jewels" (cf. Is 61:10)".92

Translation: If you want a bare-breasted woman to "do the readings" at the Novus Bogus service (like was done at a service by soon to be "St" JP II) no problem! It's the Tower of Babel revisited, with not only diversity in tongues, but everything else, leaving behind only the truly Catholic.

2. Traditionalists are condemned as "self-absorbed promethean neo-pelagians" (got that?)

 Paragraph # 94: ...
"...the self-absorbed promethean neopelagianism of those who ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past. A supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying."

Translation: True Catholics are "neo-pelagian" because we do not think everyone, even atheists, are saved. We are self-centered cretins attached to the things of the past (like True Faith and Morals). Instead of pushing the Vatican II Modernism, we classify others in need of God's One True Church as heretics, schismatics, apostates, and infidels to preserve the Truth and convert them to it. Kiss the "Motu Mass" and any other crumbs thrown at conservative Vatican II sect members to soon be gone forever.

3. "Homilies" by Vatican II priests should not concern Faith or morals but should sound like a social worker's call to help the poor.

Paragraph #  142:
"A preaching which would be purely moralistic or doctrinaire, or one which turns into a lecture on biblical exegesis, detracts from this heart-to-heart communication which takes place in the homily and possesses a quasi-sacramental character.."

Translation: Don't "obsess" over abortion or matters of Catholic dogma, make a "warm and fuzzy feel-good" talk about helping the poor, forgetting the words of Jesus Christ, "  "For the poor you have always with you: but me you have not always" (St. Matthew 26:11)

4. "Frankenchurch" must thrive!
Paragraph # 246: "To give but one example, in the dialogue with our Orthodox brothers and sisters, we Catholics have the opportunity to learn more about the meaning of episcopal collegiality and their experience of synodality. Through an exchange of gifts, the Spirit can lead us ever more fully into truth and goodness."
Translation: All religions are more or less true because they "participate" in the "Church of Christ" which Vatican II declared is not identical with the Roman Catholic Church. Your degree of participation depends on how many "elements" you possess. To have them all is best, but to have some is really good too. Frankie takes Vatican II to the next level. His sect does not "have all the elements," but can be lead "more fully" into the truth (!) through an "exchange of gifts" with bearded schismatic/heretics. God help us.

Paragraph #247:

"We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked, for "the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable" (Rom 11:29). The Church, which shares with Jews an important part of the sacred Scriptures, looks upon the people of the covenant and their faith as one of the sacred roots of her own Christian identity (cf. Rom 11:16-18). As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God (cf. 1 Thes 1:9)."

Translation: If the Old Covenant is still valid, Jesus Christ is not the Messiah and not God Incarnate. If Jews are not a foreign religion and do not have to serve the True God, then belief in Christ is not necessary to salvation. All this is pure heresy.

Paragraph # 252:"The sacred writings of Islam have retained some Christian teachings; Jesus and Mary receive profound veneration and it is admirable to see how Muslims both young and old, men and women, make time for daily prayer and faithfully take part in religious services. Many of them also have a deep conviction that their life, in its entirety, is from God and for God. They also acknowledge the need to respond to God with an ethical commitment and with mercy towards those most in need."

Translation: Islam has "sacred writings" because they have some "Christian teachings" (read: "elements"). Frankie has obviously skipped over important parts of the Koran, "Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)
"The God will say: 'Jesus, son of Mary, did you ever say to mankind 'Worship me and my mother as gods besides God?' 'Glory to You, 'he will answer, 'how could I ever say that to which I have no right?" (Surah 5:114)
"Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:27)
There was a reason that Pope Pius XI had placed in his Act of Consecration Of The Human Race To The Sacred Heart of Jesus these words:
"Be Thou King of all those who even now sit in the shadow of idolatry or Islamism,
and refuse not Thou to bring them into the light of Thy kingdom.
Look, finally, with eyes of pity upon the children of that race, which was for so long a time Thy chosen people; and let Thy Blood, which was once invoked upon them in vengeance, now descend upon them also in a cleansing flood of redemption and eternal life."

Frankie wants us to think that the problem with his sect is that they don't do enough for the poor. In reality, it's the total negation of dogmas and morals, and the invalidating of the sacraments, which leave mankind impoverished both spiritually and materially. When God's grace is removed, the will to do good to our neighbor lessens, and we are all poorer as a result. It's not the economy that matters, Frankie; it's the ONE TRUE FAITH which you constantly seek to utterly eradicate.



    1. No. 142 is worse than you intimate - he is stating that a warm and fuzzy homily is quasi-sacramental, whereas a homily that is concerned with faith and morals actually detracts from the alleged quasi-sacramental nature of a "true" homily.

      Since when did a homily assume a sacramental nature? Further, his claim on what kind of homily has a quasi-sacramental nature seems like it was written by the devil himself! According to him. the presbyter should NOT teach doctrine or morals even though, e.g., "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith" (Athanasian Creed). It would seem that a primary purpose of the homily is to instruct the faithful on the faith, since they must hold the faith to be saved.

      When viewed from this perspective, the statement sounds to me like a satanic mockery of what a homily should be! Is the "pope" possessed?

    2. A few more comments about 142. First, in 142, the author talks about “love” and that “love” should be the motivating factor behind the homily. He essentially suggests that obsession with doctrine or morals instead of “love” would be “unloving” and render the homily less “quasi-sacramental” (whatever that means).

      But this begs a question - what type of love is he talking about or, more importantly, should be talking about? The only type of love he should be talking about is CHARITY. A catholic should recognize immediately that the word “charity” has been left out of the English translation in this part and for good reason - because it would undercut his argument. The reason a homilist preaches about morality is because he is motivated by a charitable regard for his flock - he does not want them to sin. The author implies that those who preach “excessively” about faith or morals cannot be motivated by love, when in reality, they are motivated by charity.

      When viewed from this perspective this section is highly problematic. It is a subtle calumny against those who preach about doctrine and morals, suggesting that such preaching cannot be motivated by love. Further, the “love” the author is praising isn’t “charity” since it is NOT primarily concerned with the well-being of the other. If that so-called “love” was concerned with the well-being of the other it would command the preaching about doctrine and morals. It is more like an adolescent’s conception of love that only seeks to encompass that which is praiseworthy and lovable, and rejects anything that might be a source of discomfort.

      Second, just to point out how dishonest this section is, the author cites Romans 10:17. He talks about not excessively preaching about doctrine or morals and than cites this passage which states “faith comes from what is heard”. How can one have faith if the faith isn’t preached because to do so would be overly doctrinaire? Or, that only so much preaching about doctrine and morals should be attempted, because too much would be “unloving”?

      Third, the payoff to this passage appears in 150, when the author implies that those who preach excessively about doctrine and morals can be likened to the scribes and pharisees who lay heavy burdens on others but won’t lift a finger themselves. Is he suggesting that the morals taught by the Catholic Church are really just like the man-made customs developed by the jews of the old-testament to implement the commandments of the Almighty? Customs which in many cases ended up subverting the commandments of the Lord, so that many exceptions were made to the hard aspects of the law, and unnecessary but easily performed customs came to surround the easy parts of the law. Thus, the practitioners of the law could swallow a camel (the exceptions to the hard aspects of the law) but choke on a gnat (the easy aspects of the law. e.g. the dietary law).. Is he saying that Catholic moral teaching is in some cases a man-made accretion, or that it can become one when it is preached about excessively?

    3. Some excellent points and salient observations from this reader!

    4. Great article and comments from everyone.Its a sad day when layman would be better clergy than the vatican 2 sect invalid priest's / bishop's.