|
Post by RitaMarita on Mar 1, 2021 8:54:25 GMT -5
Article Text:
Rome does not have a Pope. The thesis that I intend to support can be summed up in these four words. When I say Rome, I am not only referring to the city of which the Pope is bishop. I say Rome to signify the world, to signify current reality.
The Pope, although physically present, is not really there because he is not acting like a Pope. He is there, but he does not fulfill his task of successor to Peter and vicar of Christ. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is there, Pierre is not there.
Who is the Pope? The definitions, depending on whether we want to privilege the historical, theological or pastoral aspect, can be different. But, for the most part, the Pope is Peter's successor. And what were the tasks assigned by Jesus to the apostle Peter? On the one hand, “feed my sheep” (Jn 21:17); on the other, "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Mt 16:19).
This is what the Pope must do. But today there is no one to do this task. "And you, once converted, strengthen your brothers in the faith" (Lk 22:32). This is what Jesus said to Peter. But today Peter does not feed his sheep and confirm them in the faith. Why ? Someone might say: because Bergoglio does not talk about God, but only migrants, ecology, economy, social issues. It's not that. In reality, Bergoglio also speaks of God, but out of all his preaching comes a God who is not the God of the Bible, but an adulterated God, a God, I would say, devoid of power or, better yet, adapted. To what? To man and his claim to be justified by living as if sin did not exist.
Bergoglio has certainly placed social issues at the center of his teaching, and with few exceptions he seems to be plagued by the same obsessions as a culture dominated by political correctness, but I believe that is not the underlying reason why Rome is without a pope. Even if you want to focus on social issues, you can still have a genuinely Christian and Catholic perspective. The question, with Bergoglio, is another, namely that the theological perspective is biased. And for a very specific reason: because the God of whom Bergoglio speaks to us is inclined not to forgive, but to exonerate .
In Amoris laetitia , we read that “the Church must accompany her most fragile children with care and attention”. I'm sorry, but that's not true. The Church must convert sinners.
We also read in Amoris laetitia that "the Church does not fail to value constructive elements in situations which do not yet or no longer correspond to her teaching on marriage". I'm sorry, but these are ambiguous words. In situations that do not correspond to his teaching, there may well be "constructive elements" (but then, in what sense?), However, the Church's task is not to value these elements, but to convert to the divine love to which we adhere by keeping the commandments.
In Amoris laetitia, we also read that the conscience of people "can not only recognize that a situation does not objectively respond to the general proposition of the Gospel, but it can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what is for the moment the generous response that one can offer to God, and discover with a certain moral certainty that it is the gift that God himself asks for amid the concrete complexity of limitations, although it is not yet fully the objective ideal ”. Again, the ambiguity. First, there is no "general proposition" of the Gospel to which one can more or less adhere. There is the Gospel with its very precise content, there are the commandments with their force. Second: God can never, absolutely never ask us to live in sin. Third: no one can claim to have "some moral certainty" about what God "demands in the midst of the concrete complexity of limitations." These smoky expressions have only one meaning: to legitimize moral relativism and to mock divine commandments.
This God who is committed above all else to exonerate man, this God in search of mitigating circumstances, this God who refrains from commanding and prefers to understand, this God who "is close to us like a mother who sings a lullaby ”, this God who is not judge but“ proximity ”, this God who speaks of human“ fragility ”and not of sin, this God bent to the logic of“ pastoral accompaniment ”is a caricature of God of the Bible. For God, the God of the Bible, is certainly patient, but not lax; he is certainly loving, but not permissive; he is certainly attentive, but not accommodating. In short, he is a father in the fullest and most authentic sense of the term.
The perspective adopted by Bergoglio seems, on the contrary, to be that of the world: which often does not totally reject the idea of God, but rejects the features which are less in accordance with the ambient permissiveness. The world does not want a real father, who loves to the point of judging, but a friend; or better still, of a traveling companion who lets things go and says "who am I to judge? "
I wrote on other occasions that with Bergoglio, a vision triumphs that overturns the true [Catholic] vision: it is this vision according to which God has no rights, but only duties. He does not have the right to receive a worthy worship, nor not to be ridiculed. However, he has a duty to forgive. On the contrary, according to this point of view, man has no duties, but only rights. He has the right to be forgiven, but not the duty to convert. As if there could be a duty of God to forgive and a human right to be forgiven.
This is why Bergoglio, painted as the Pope of Mercy, seems to me the least merciful Pope imaginable. In fact, he neglects the first and fundamental form of mercy which is his responsibility and his only responsibility: to preach the divine law and, in doing so, to show human creatures, from the height of supreme authority, the way to salvation and to God. eternal life.
If Bergoglio conceived such a "god" - which I write deliberately with a lower case, since it is not the One and Triune God that we worship - it is because for Bergoglio there is no fault of which the man must ask for forgiveness, neither personal nor collective, neither original nor current. But if there is no fault, there is no Redemption either; and without the need for Redemption, the Incarnation no longer has any meaning, nor a fortiori the saving work of the only Ark of salvation which is the Holy Church. We wonder if this "god" is not rather the ape of God, " la simia Dei ", Satan, who pushes us towards damnation at the very moment when he denies only the sins and vices with which he tempts us, can kill our soul and condemn us to the eternal loss of the Supreme Good.
Rome is therefore without a pope. But if, in the Vatican dystopia of Guido Morselli (the novel aptly titled Rome without the Pope ), it was so physically, because this imaginary pope had gone to live in Zagarolo, today Rome is without a pope in a very large way. deeper and more radical.
I already sense the objection: but how can we say that Rome is without a pope while Francis is everywhere? He's on TV and in the papers. He's been on the cover of Time , Newsweek , Rolling Stone , and even Forbes and Vanity Fair . It is present on websites and in an infinite number of books. He is interviewed by everyone, even by the Gazzetta dello Sport . Never, perhaps, has a Pope been so present and so popular. I answer: it's true, but it's Bergoglio, it's not Pierre.
It is certainly not forbidden for the Vicar of Christ to take care of the things of the world, on the contrary. The Christian faith is an incarnate faith and the God of Christians is a God who becomes man, who makes himself history, therefore Christianity avoids the excesses of angelism. But it is one thing to be in the world and another to become like the world. By speaking as the world speaks, and by reasoning like the world reasons, Bergoglio evaporated Peter and placed himself in the foreground.
I repeat: the world, our world born out of the 1968 revolution, does not want a real father. The world prefers the companion. The teaching of the father, if he is a real father, is tiring, because it indicates the way to freedom in responsibility. It is much more comfortable to have someone by your side who just keeps you company, without telling you anything. And that's exactly what Bergoglio does: he shows a God who is not a father, but a companion. It is no coincidence that Bergoglio's "Church on the way out", like all modernism, likes the verb "to accompany". It is a Church companion on the road which justifies everything (by a distorted conception of discernment) and, in the end, relativizes everything.
Proof of this is the success that Bergoglio has met with distant foreigners, who feel confirmed in their estrangement, while neighbors, disoriented and perplexed, do not feel at all confirmed in the faith.
Jesus is very explicit on the subject. "Woe to you when all men speak well of you". (Lk 6:26). "Happy are you when men hate you, when they cover you with shame, when they abuse you and despise your name as infamous, because of the Son of man" (Lk 6:22).
Every now and then a rumor circulates that Bergoglio, like Benedict XVI, is considering resigning. I believe he has no such plans, but the problem is quite different. The problem is that Bergoglio has become the de facto protagonist of a process of divestment of Peter's functions.
I have written elsewhere that Bergoglio has now become the chaplain of the United Nations, and I consider this choice to be of unprecedented gravity. However, even more serious than his adherence to the United Nations program and political correctness, he has given up speaking to us about the God of the Bible, and the God at the center of his preaching is a God who grants amnesty and not who forgives.
The crisis of the father figure and the crisis of the papacy go hand in hand. Just as the father, rejected and dismantled, transformed himself into a universal companion without any pretension to show the way, so the Pope ceased to be the bearer and the interpreter of the objective divine law and preferred to become a simple companion.
Peter thus disappeared just when we needed him most to show us God as someone whose fatherhood embraces everything: a loving father not because he is neutral, but because he judges; merciful not because he is permissive, but because he undertakes to show us the way to true good; merciful not because he is relativist, but because he wishes to show us the way of salvation.
I observe that the choice to appear, to which Bergoglio's ego surrenders, is not a novelty, but that it goes back in large part to the new anthropocentric approach of the Council, according to which the popes, bishops and Clerics put their person before their sacred ministry, their own will before that of the Church, their own opinions before Catholic orthodoxy, their own liturgical extravagances before the sacred character of the rite.
This personalization of the papacy has become explicit since the Vicar of Christ, wanting to present himself as "one of us", renounced the plural of humility by which he showed that he was not speaking in a personal capacity, but with all his predecessors and the Holy Spirit himself. Let us reflect: this sacred We, which made Pius IX tremble proclaiming the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and Saint Pius X condemning modernism, could never have been used to support the idolatrous cult of Pachamama, nor to formulate the ambiguities of ' Amoris laetitia or the indifferentism of Fratelli tutti .
With regard to the process of personalizing the papacy (to which the advent and development of the mass media made an important contribution), it must be remembered that there was a time when, at least until Pius XII included, the The faithful did not care who the Pope was, for they knew anyway that whoever he was, he would always teach the same doctrine and condemn the same errors. In applauding the Pope, they were applauding not so much the one who was on the holy throne at that time, but the papacy, the sacred kingship of the Vicar of Christ, the voice of the Supreme Pastor, Jesus Christ.
Bergoglio, who does not like to present himself as the successor of the Prince of the Apostles and who, in the Pontifical Yearbook , overshadowed the appellation of Vicar of Christ, implicitly separates himself from the authority that Our Lord conferred on Peter and his successors. And this is not a simple canonical question. It is a reality with the most serious consequences for the papacy.
When will Peter return? How long will Rome be without a Pope? No need to ask the question. God's purposes are mysterious. We can only pray to the Heavenly Father saying, “Your will be done, not ours. And have mercy on us sinners ”.
Original article in Italian: Roma senza papa. C'è Bergoglio. No, it's Pietro.
(Source: Aldo Maria Valli - Translation: FSSPX.News) Illustration 1: Jebulon, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons Illustration 2: Photo by form PxHere
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Mar 1, 2021 23:42:46 GMT -5
I was just listening to a talk on youtube with the Late Fr Hess...and all I could hear was a sedevacantist. Why is this so hard? I think folks get tripped up on the issue of not having valid cardinals and Bishops
|
|
|
Post by RitaMarita on Mar 5, 2021 6:22:16 GMT -5
Yeah... Sad that the author backtracked a bit. Apparently, some priest wrote to him telling him he was in peril of his soul...
I think part of the issue is obedience. A lot of people like the security of following those "in authority" and are afraid to go against the grain. I once saw something explaining that this was why almost no one stood up to Hitler. Most people are sheep not leaders.
And then in the traditional movement many of those who do stand up against the "papal issue" get overzealous and often keep going further and further condemning anyone that doesn't hold exactly what they do.
Ah... The world we live in!
I pray every day that I may live to see the end of all this and at least the beginning of the Restoration of Christendom.
|
|