A CALL FOR VIOLENCE TO PROMOTE THE GREATER REVOLUTION

Rome, March 9, 2015:  Students of theology at Rome, who are catholic, have long experience in “reading” what their professors are saying.  This is because the current climate of Modernism, and the persecution of Catholic seminarians which is attendant upon keeping it in power, makes a woeful variety of the forms of dishonestly flourish under its pallid “sun” of error.

Modernism, as Catholics know and recognize, is the error which says there is nothing religious but what comes from the sentiments of the human heart. It is a species of atheism, of the kind apt to be found in those who pretend to be religious.  It is a very apt and useful error for the ecclesiastical parasite, the priest-careerist or the hierarchical climber, because it absolves from all conscience and morality and thus enables any compromise necessary to ascend to ever greater depths of moral depravity and power.

In classes at the Pontifical faculties at Rome, the Modernist is easily recognized by his inability to speak sincerely and straightforwardly, his use of metaphors, indirect symbols, passing remarks, to key to his audience the “secret” meaning of his lecture, and allow it to be understood correctly.  Few modernists omit this method, because it is so useful and successful; it leaves them in a strong position from where they can with difficulty be accused of being heretics, and one in which those who espouse heresy, can understand what they should be understanding in a certain sort of coded language or discourse.

The talk at Ognissanti is a perfect example of this method, but since this method is rarely recognized for what it is, let us unpack it for those Catholics who have the blessing never to have been “initiated” into it by attending a Pontifical university or seminary class.

First, the very occasion of the talk provides the context.  The Modernists who pushed to dump the original schema for Vatican II and who controlled the entire implementation of the texts of the Council into which they wrote nearly all their own errors, find no greater occasion to rejoice but the anniversaries of their revolution.  The 50th anniversary of the first mass in the vernacular, as was celebrated on Saturday March 7th, is just such an occasion.

It would be enough for the Pope to celebrate the occasion, even though he scrupulously avoided using the actual ritual Pope Paul VI used on that day, 50 years ago:  no, no! such a liturgy, that of 1965, is much too much like the Traditional Latin Mass, of the “preconciliar era”.  To have used that liturgy, would have been to confirm what Pope Benedict XVI often spoke about, the necessity to reconcile the 2 liturgies.  But since “reconciliation” presupposes equality, and since Modernists deny the legitimate spiritual equality of the Old Rite — they actually deny the totality of the legitimate spiritual quality of that rite — there could be no question about using the liturgy of 1965. That would send the “wrong” message, in their minds, to their followers.

Thus, the significance of the day of March 7 and the use of the Novus Ordo for the 50th anniversary.

Significant too, is the Cardinal of whom this church is assigned among the Sacred College:  Cardinal Walter Kasper, chief theologian of “Team Bergoglio” and papally authorized proponent of the Kasper thesis, which holds that it is mercy to abandon 2000 years of Christian teaching which bars public and impenitent sinners from reception of the sacraments.

All of these 3 circumstances already say all which the Modernists need to say.  Their con-catenation means that unless their agenda is explicitly denounced in the Homily for the celebration, that agenda is in fact explicitly affirmed by the silence.

Let us now examine the text of the talk to see what else can be gleaned.

As the Modernists would be very inclined to fear that Traditionalists would be apt to criticize this talk — there were even rumors in Rome that the Vatican was obsessed that traditional Catholics would stage a demonstration against the Anniversary — we have to look closely to see what is intended to be seen only by initiated Modernists.

Quotations are from our unofficial English translation of the homily…see previous Blog post for citations.

+ + +

Holy Mass at the Roman Parish of Ognissanti, on the Via Appia Nuova

Homily of Pope Francis

3rd Sunday in Lent

Saturday, March 7, 2015

On the occasion of the feast of the Jewish Passover, Jesus went to Jerusalem.  Arriving at the Temple, he does not find people who seek God, but people who are conducting their own business:  merchants of animals for the offering of sacrifice, money-changers, who exchange the “impure” money, bearing the image of the Emperor, with the money approved by the religious authority to pay the annual temple tax.  What do we find when we take ourselves there, when we go to our temples?  I give you this example:  The unworthy commerce, source of ill-gotten gain, provokes the energetic reaction of Jesus.  He overturns their tables and throws their money to the ground, he drives the merchants away, saying to them:  « Don’t make the House of my Father a market! » (John 2:16).

Note, from the start, that the Pope founds his entire homily on the comparison between the Jewish liturgy and the Christian liturgy.  This is the standard Modernist reading of the liturgical aggiornamento:  Just as the Jewish liturgy was ignorant and superficial, the Christian inspired and interior; so the old Mass was obsessed with appearances and rules, the reformed Liturgy is open and free and unvexing.

Note that the Pope uses the current Italian version of the Gospels, which erroneously translates the Greek, οἶκον ἐμπορίου, as “market”, when in fact is means “house of business”, that is, “covered market place”.  (The actual mercantile practices in the Gospel text took place, not in the Temple, but in the Courtyard of the Gentiles, the most exterior part of the outer area, in which even Gentiles who were believers could enter.  No part of the Mosaic Law forbade trade in this area.  Contrariwise, the Mosaic Law, of which Jesus as God is the author, precepted the offering of sacrifices to God: the support of the Temple by the annual tax, too, was a customary obligation of the entire Jewish People, to which Jesus never objected.)

In fact, the use of the Jewish – Christian parallelism to fault the old liturgy and praise the new, is a form of antisemitism which we would expect from a Lutheran faithful to Luther’s bigotry against both the Jewish People and the traditional Mass, the kind of theological bigotry propounded in liberal Germany theological institutes, such as those from which Cardinal Kasper may draw his racially tinged concepts of African Bishops, as Edward Pentin exposed during the recent Extra-Ordinary Synod on the Family.  But let’s not allow our expectations or history to get in the way of the evidence.

Referring to the words of Jesus in John 2:16, the Pope continues:

This expression does not only refer to the traffic which was being practiced in the courtyards of the Temple.  Rather, it regards the type of religiosity.  The gesture of Jesus is a gesture of “cleaning”, of purification, and the mentality which He expresses can be found in the texts of the Prophets, according to which God does not take pleasure in an exterior cult wrought through material sacrifice and based upon personal interest (cf. Isaiah 1:11-17; Jeremiah 7:2-11).  This gesture is a call back to authentic worship, to the correspondence between liturgy and life; a call which is valid for every epoch and even for us today.  That correspondence between liturgy and life.  The liturgy is not something strange, over there, far off, and one during which I think of many things, or pray the Rosary.  No, no.  There is a correspondence, between the liturgical celebration and what I then carry on in my life; and on this (path) one must go further ahead, one must journey onward.

Here the pope abandons the common reading of this passage in the Fathers, which attributes Jesus’ ire not to the mercantile operations per se, but to the corruption which had crept into it, such as not exchanging coins at the fair value, or selling animals for sacrifice at inflated prices; all of which defrauded the honest Jew who came to worship God, especially the poorer ones. (Remember that Jesus’ family was so poor that, at His  birth, Joseph could only afford 2 turtle doves for sacrifice not the customary lamb).

To use this text while avoiding the condemnation of the sin of the exploitation of the poor, is a very notable exception for the man who is Pope Francis: seeing that he has railed against this for his entire Pontificate.  This omission, therefore, should be seen as significant: namely that the true message of his homily is aimed at something else.  We can see what that is, in the text paragraph of his talk:

The conciliar Constitution, Sacrosanctum Concilium, defines the liturgy as « the first and indispensable source from which the faithful can draw the true Christian spirit » (n. 14).  Which means to reaffirm the essential link which unites the life of the disciple of Jesus with liturgical worship.  This is, above all, not a doctrine to comprehend, or a rite to fulfill; it is naturally also this but in another manner, it is essentially diverse:  it is a source of life and of light for our journey of faith.

That is, he is going to speak about the liturgical renewal, not about Jesus cleansing the Temple, per se.  The Pope continues:

Moreover, the Church calls us to have and to promote an authentic liturgical life, so that there may be a harmony between what the liturgy celebrates and what we ourselves life in our own existence.  It treats of how to express in life what we have received by means of the Faith and what which have celebrated (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 10).

The Church does nothing of the kind, actually.  Vatican II did not impose any obligation on anyone in the Church, since it established no canons or anathemas not even promulgated a new liturgy.  The Novus Ordo came into being only in 1969, and its authors were the Consilium established by Pope Paul VI, not by the Council Fathers.  Nor did it even attempt to be faithful to the document, which the Pope just cited.  The Pope could have mentioned this, but he did not: and his silence is significant.  He is affirming that his intentions are to continue in that line of misrepresenting the Council as Pope Paul VI did.

The Pope continues:

The disciple of Jesus does not go to church only to observe a precept, to feel okay with a God who should not “trouble” him much.  “But I, Lord, go every Sunday, I fulfill …, don’t mix yourself up with my life, don’t bother me”.  This is the mentality of so many Catholics, so many.  The disciple of Jesus goes to church to encounter the Lord and to find in his grace, working in the Sacraments, the strength to think and act according to the Gospel.  On which account, we cannot delude ourselves into thinking that we can enter the house of the Lord and “cover ourselves over”, with prayers and devotional practices, comportments contrary to the requirements of justice, of honesty or of charity towards our neighbor.  We cannot substitute with “religious gifts” what is owed to our neighbor, putting off a true conversion.  The cult, the liturgical celebration, are the privileged place to heed the voice of the Lord, which guides us along the road of righteousness and Christian perfection.

Notice the dichotomy between the “disciples of Jesus” and “too many Catholics”.  If you think the Pope is literally saying that “many Catholics” are not “disciples of Jesus”, you are correct!  The truth is, however, that when one speaks properly, “Catholics” are the only disciples of Jesus that there are! for they are the only ones who take Him as seriously as He Himself insisted to be taken.  So what is the Pope getting at?  We must understand, that while it appears that he is using words in their proper sense, he is not; thus we must consider that he is not, if we are to understand him aright.

Secondly, if one considers the many scandalous deeds and actions of Pope Francis, as Pope and before in Argentina, we can rightly say that we find his words astounding: because he is condemning “many Catholics” for doing what he himself is notorious for doing, yet omitting that he is also at fault for that.  What kind of “authentic Christian life” is that?

We must understand, therefore, that in this homily, the Holy Father has no intention of presenting a call to authentic Christian life, rather, his goal is to attack it. For his actions speak louder than his words and give them context, even if that is politically incorrect to say. If his intentions were otherwise, he would publicly repent of his bad example and many scandalous words and deeds during the last 2 years as Pope. He did not. That is significant.

Therefore, the true reading must be, that the authentic Christian life which seeks interior conversion for the sanctification of the exterior life, is to be rejected, and in its place one should implement what the aggiornamento gave us, the appearances of a renewal, which have visibly altered the liturgies of the Church, but have entirely abandoned the interior man, especially the interior of many priests and bishops, to interior corruption, to hypocrisy, superficiality etc., the very same things the Pope appears to be condemning.

The Pope continues:

This regards the fulfillment of a journey of conversion and penitence, to take from our life the scars of sin, as Jesus did, by cleansing the Temple of petty interests.  And Lent is the favorable time for all of this, it is the time for interior renewal, for the forgiveness of sin, the time in which we have been called to rediscover the Sacrament of Penance and of Reconciliation, which causes us to pass from darkness to the light of grace and friendship with Jesus.  There is no need to forget the great strength which this Sacrament has for the Christian life:  it makes us grow in union with God, it makes us reacquire the lost joy and to experience the consolation of feeling ourselves personally welcomed by the merciful embrace of God.

The error of Luther was to seek God in the confirmation of his own personal “will” to be saved, founded in a fiducial faith.  This error gave rise to the sentimentalism of Protestantism, which puts the experience of faith in the place of dogmatic faith; to which error there followed unbridled free thought in matters of religion, since “faith” no longer required intellectual assent to defined propositions or to revealed truths.  What remained from Protestantism was consumed by Modernism, where sentiment alone remains.  Thus Modernists go to church to get a feeling, a consolation, just as the pope is proposing for “disciples of Jesus”.  Thus, we have our true key to read the Papal homily: The “disciples” are Modernists, the Jews are the Traditionalists, the pre-conciliar Catholics, who refuse the Aggiornamento.

The pope continues this line of thought, in his concluding remarks, where he calls for the continued revolution in the Church.

Dear brothers and sisters, this Church was constructed thanks to the apostolic zeal of St. Luigi Orione.  It is precisely here, that, fifty years ago, blessed Paul VI inaugurated, in a certain sense, the liturgical reform with the celebration of the Mass in the language spoken by the people.  I auger that this circumstance may revive in you all the love of the house of God,  In her, may you find great spiritual help.  Here you are able to experience, every time you wish to, the regenerative power of personal prayer and of community prayer.  Listening to the Word of God, proclaimed in the liturgical assembly, it sustains you in the path of our Christian life.  You meet together here between these walls, not as strangers, but as brothers, capable of giving one another a hand freely, because you have been built up in love through Christ, the foundation of hope and the fundament of pledge for every believer.

Him, Jesus Christ, the Corner Stone, do we embrace in this Holy Mass, renewing the resolution to commit ourselves for our own interior purification and for the interior cleansing of the spiritual edifice of the Church, of which each of us is a living part in force of our Baptism.  Amen.

To a simple Catholic it might seem that the Pope is saying something quite different than what we have expounded, but take it from a student of 3 pontifical faculties, that is  just what it is intended and crafted to appear to mean to a simple Catholic.

Thus, in summation, we can say, that the homily as presented is calling for greater violence against the “Jews”, that is the traditionalists — Jesus cleansing the Temple, is after all a prime example for the justification for violence* — and in favor of the Aggiornamento of the Church ever more deeply, and thus in favor of the Kasper Thesis, the heretical thesis of divorcing the Sacraments from the observance of the moral law, the thesis promoted by Cardinal Kasper, who is the Cardinal patron of the very church in which this homily was given.

____________________

* Remember, it is a mortal sin of sacrilege to use scripture for an evil purpose or to interpret it in a sense contrary to the common opinion of the Fathers of the Church.  The true example given by Our Lord in the Temple, is that as God’s Divine Son He has the right to cleanse His own Church from corruption, and this He surely will do, even before the great day of His Final Return. And that it is a grave offense to the Divine Majesty of His Father, that the uses of the places dedicated to the worship of God, as He commanded it, be stained with moral corruption.  In other words, the example of Our Lord in the temple gives us the exact opposite indications as that which the Pope promotes, because it is diametrically opposed to the impiety of Modernism, to the hypocrisy of the pink mafia, and to the objectives of Free Masons and the Progressive Movement, and the adaptation of liturgy to life, such as the Aggiornamento has been applied.