Pope Spits At Faithful Catholics Again

Pope Spits At Faithful Catholics Again


It was just last week I wrote something similar. These diatribes are occurring with disquieting frequency. Yesterday’s occurred during Mass, when again the Pope decried the “rigid”: that is, those who abide by all the Church’s teachings. Have you ever noticed how many times he assails us, yet utters not one peep about those who play loosey-goosey with the teachings of Jesus Christ regarding faith and morals? Is all this “rigid is bad” talk part of a strategy to get us to swallow Amoralis Lamentia?

Three days earlier, we heard from him again about Jesus’s “tenderness” versus our “rigidity”. I could be wrong, but I don’t recall ever hearing about any saint going on so much about Jesus’s “tenderness”. I also fail to see how Jesus views our sins with tenderness. Our Lord hates sin for the dishonor it entails and for the harm it does to sinners. All this “tenderness” yammer makes Our Lord sounds like an effeminate sentimental squish. It’s almost blasphemous.

These are just the latest instances of him setting up false dichotomies between “rigidity” and “meekness/tenderness”. What I find particularly despicable is him accusing young Catholics of being “rigid”. Let’s face it; the young are dealing with a world that is literally hell-bent on dragging them from the One True Faith. They need to be strong, to be strident, to be the Church Militant. The operative word is “militant”. Our Lord did not establish the Roman Catholic Church to be:

church mellow

church mediocre

church meely-mouth

church milque-toast

church mushy

Why on earth is the pope joining the mob who seek to undermine the very salvation of our young people? In fact, he’s doing that to all faithful Catholics and those who need a strong Church that does stand firmly, even rigidly, against the sinful snares and wiles of this sin-sick world.

Pray for his conversion.

Get AQ Email Updates

13 comments on “Pope Spits At Faithful Catholics Again

  1. Its still beyond my very limited intellect to understand how a man who clearly isn’t Catholic could possibly be the Vicar of Christ.

  2. Quomodo , I feel the same way you do ! At some point when do people stop listening to him and throw him out ? He and the homos who elected him are not followers Of Our Lord or the Blessed Mother ! They are frauds and imposters if they do not follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and should not be listened to . Same goes for all these new Cardinals and Bishops this fraud has put in place . I do not know how to get rid of theses imposters. I am hoping the ” snake handlers ” bring a lot of Black Mambas to the Charismatic Galla , these clowns are hosting !

  3. “Its still beyond my very limited intellect to understand how a man who clearly isn’t Catholic could possibly be the Vicar of Christ.”
    “I feel the same way you do ! ”
    With all due respect, it is not about feelings, it is about facts.
    Fact 1: Christ did not promise *impeccability* to the successors of Peter. This means popes can sin. This means popes can be heretics. Christ promised infallibility, which means that popes could not teach heresy — but under certain very narrow conditions, and these conditions were *dogmatically* defined by Vatican I (Dz 1839). READ IT!
    Fact 2: As to a pope being a heretic (even a blatant and formal heretic, while still being pope), it is evident that he cannot be deposed by private judgment. If that could happen, that would mean that, at any given moment, *no one could know who was a real pope*, for Joe Blow could declare him heretical and deposed, for ABC reasons, while Joe Sixpack could declare him still pope, for XYZ reasons…and if each individual were forced to choose between the opinons of Blow or Sixpack — or their own opinions — there would be total chaos in the Church; no one would know who was a real pope.
    Stop listening to him? ABSOLUTELY.
    Publicly expose him for the lying hypocrite and pervert he is? ABSOLUTELY.
    Throw him out? Yes, but it must be done by legitimate authority, not Joe Blow or Joe Sixpack.
    Jesus Christ Himself allowed Peter to deny Him three times.
    Why should we think that Peter’s successors should be better than Peter?
    Jesus Christ Himself allowed the bishop Judas to betray Him to death.
    Why should we think bishops of today should not be allowed to do that?
    Just carry the damned Cross, and call it a day…
    a day of glory.
    The Judas priests, bishops, popes will have their reward — and so will we.

  4. I don’t know, NIN. No one on earth has legitimate authority over a Pope. If one recognizes another as Pope, then one has NO choice but to obey him without out right denying the Office of the Papacy. That is inconsistent, and inconsistency after all is not consistent with Catholicism.

    The position of ignoring a Bergoglio but still calling him Pope is a card short of being a Protestant.

    And you’re right: My ‘private judgment’ doesn’t count for a hill of beans. I have no authority whatsoever.

    So I content myself in wondering how an anti-Catholic like our boy Jorge could possibly be Pope, knowing my questions will be answered, if not before, then when I’ve died.

    • I don’t know either — and I’m pretty darned sure no one else does. There are some opinions, however, that recommend themselves over others, either by weight of authority or reason.
      There is a well respected and quite old tradition that the dogma “the First See is judged by no one” can be orthodoxly understood to have one exception, and that is heresy. Even popes have taught this (Hadrian IV and Innocent III). And this opinion continued to be held by theologians after Vatican I’s definition that the First See is judged by no one, without being censured by the Church.
      This particular question concerning the dogma has not been dogmatized, so we can believe it or not.
      Fr. Glieze clearly thinks that this tradition is wrong; that the pope can never be deposed. For an exposition of the tradition, see www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/articles.html, and go to the links for the articles on Deposing a Pope. Unfortunately, Fr. Glieze never mentions that his opinion is only his opinion, but proposes without qualification that he is right and that this tradition is wrong. His novel opinion does have its merits. I choose to believe the tradition, but even that doesn’t carry a capital T.
      Both Fr. Glieze and the tradition say that if a pope is teaching manifest error he can and must be resisted (or ignored, if you will).
      I think that ignoring Bergoglio is indeed a card short of being Protestant, but that missing card is a face card; a very important card. It’s called private judgment.
      The fundamental principle of Protestantism is that private judgment trumps all authority, even that of dogma. But Bergoglio obviously acts upon that very principle; he almost totally ignores Tradition (dogma), and his predecessors in general.
      So we are faced with a huge irony: the spectacle of a pope who, by his actions which speak louder than words, fully recommends that popes be ignored, while clearly insisting that his private judgment *not* be ignored — because he is the pope.
      It is exactly because we Trads are not Protestant that we must ignore this pope; it is exactly because this pope is Protestant that he must be ignored.

      • The resist and ignore position has more problems, though than the sede position. The first i think is hypocritical and does great damage to The first mark of the Church. Its not compatible with Catholicism. The second has no way out short of a Divine intervention. This is more compatible with Catholicism– mysteries being at Her core. I reject the first, but i dont embrace the second. Bad times we live in.

        • The *bleep* position is heresy, however because it denies the de fide teaching that the Church will always have a pope, and that Our Lord’s prayer for St. Peter guarantees that the papacy cannot fail in the Faith (Vatican I).

          And if Servitium wishes to chime in, I assume the *bleep* position is yet unwelcome here on AQ.

          • Cyprian, im trying to have an honest conversation. I dont profess or embrace the sede position. But to say that Jorge is Pope, and then ignore him goes against the entire Traditional understanding of the Papacy. It is incompatible with our Faith. I would like to ask, though, where it is written that the Church will always have a Pope? For certain, the Church always has Her head, Our Lord. As i pointed out above, the sede’s only answer to the question that if we have been without a Pope and Cardinals since the 60’s, how will a Pope be elected is a mystery to them– a Divine intervention. That answer is at least consistent with our Faith. I reject the resist the Pooe position as heretical and the sede position as untenable humanly speaking. I believe there has got to be a third position. But that eludes my small brain.

            • Cyprian, I’m trying to have an honest conversation.

              *Bleeps* generally don’t desire such, yet pretend that they do. They tend to make the argument (paraphrasing) “So, you say X is pope and you must be subject to him, right? Then you have to swallow all he says, including the Novus Ordo, etc, etc.” One can answer a *bleep* as many times as there are grains of sand on the shore, detailing all the Doctors and Saints on the obligations of Christian obedience, all to no avail.

              Is that where we’re at? Does someone need to supply yet again the Traditional teachings on what constitutes proper obedience of a subject to his superior?

  5. The person whom the Church recognizes as pope is pope. This is the abundant proof. If the Good God didn’t want him to be pope, then someone else would be. It’s that simple.

    Somehow, somewhere, possibly in the future, there is something in Bergoglio seen by God such that He allows this pontificate to continue. In the meantime, this pope is the scourge, a winnowing hoe that is cutting the Church to pieces. All those who choose perdition are being cut off from grace using Francis as their excuse. A deluge or cataclysm would be more merciful as it would cause many to reconsider and repent.

    I can’t see how this man can be pope, either. But that doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. I’m reminded of the rule of St. Ignatius, no. 13:

    “To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it, believing that between Christ our Lord, the Bridegroom, and the Church, His Bride, there is the same Spirit which governs and directs us for the salvation of our souls. Because by the same Spirit and our Lord Who gave the ten Commandments, our holy Mother the Church is directed and governed.”

    Finally, I would recommend ignoring anything he says unless he formulates his statement according to his apostolic authority and intends to bind us. He won’t do that because it reeks of rigidity. If he apologized and started speaking like a pope, then I’d listen, of course.

    • VERY interesting thoughts.
      I tend to agree with the first two paragraphs. St. Paul’s prophecies support the second in particular. For instance, II Thess. 2:7-11: “For the mystery of iniquity already worketh: only that he who now holdeth do hold, until he be taken out of the way. And then that wicked one shall be revealed: whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: him Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power and signs and lying wonders: And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish: because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth but have consented to iniquity.”
      Frankly, as to St. Ignatius, I think he is speaking here in a way which is very rash and imprecise. I am not the only one who thinks this. What if the white that I see is a defined dogma of the Church? Then, without question, if any hierarch whatever, pope included, says it is black, we must call bs on it.
      Of course, St. Ignatius was not speaking dogmatically, and did not have the power to do so, ever, not being a pope.
      Evidently, I’m fully on board with the ignoring thing. But I wonder if perhaps the most foolish hubris of this pope might not even stop, given the right circumstances, at attempting to define a heresy. Because Liberals, again, are always walking contradictions and compulsive hypocrites. Francis hates rigidity indeed — in others. He has plenty of it in himself. And given that he’s fully infected with the Protestant principle of private judgment, it behooves us to remember that while this principle rejects dogma, that’s only the dogma established by someone other than oneself; one’s private judgment, precisely in rejecting the dogma of some Other, establishes oneself as the dogmatizer.
      There was no one more rigidly insistent on imposing his private dogmas on the rest of the world than the founder of private judgment himself, that Hater of Truth, Martin Luther.

  6. The thing that Bergoglio hates the most, IMO, is to be ignored. He has a personality defect much like that of a child who wants attention and will do just about anything to achieve it. That’s my view of his pontificate so far and in line with the “tough love” approach I suggest ingoring him until he grows up. We can wrap ourselves in knots trying to figure out his motives and it will do us little good, indeed, it will drive us nuts. There may be a time when Our Lord says: “Enough!” but apparently that is not now.

  7. Cyprian, yes, that would be a good idea. Posting what it means, what the Pontiffs have taught regarding the Papacy, and the allegiance due to the office. That would he helpful.

Leave a Reply