Posted on 07/30/2017 6:00:31 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
orge Bergoglio is the first Jesuit to become pope and may end up the last Jesuit to be pope, in light of the havoc that he is wreaking upon the Church. But who knows? After all, he is stacking the college of cardinals with liberal appointees in the hope that they will elect a modernist clone in the next conclave.
In any case, it was exceedingly reckless that the cardinals chose a Jesuit to lead the Church at the very moment that that religious order was at its most corrupt and theologically flaky. This fact alone will give Gibbonian historians in the future fodder for works on the decline and fall of the modern Catholic Church.
Bergoglio had entered the Jesuit order around the time of the revolutionary ferment of the “spirit” of Vatican II precisely because he wanted to push liberal revolution in the Church. A left-wing political activist who had been mentored by a Paraguayan Communist, Bergoglio naturally gravitated to the Jesuits as they abandoned orthodoxy for “social justice” (which just meant the promotion of socialism) and trendy psychobabble. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the signature phrases of this pontificate — “Who am I to judge?” and “Inequality is the root of all evil” — come from a Latin American Jesuit immersed in the liberalism of the 1960s.
Pope Francis has described himself as “undisciplined,” implying that that made him an odd fit for an order founded by the militaristic St. Ignatius of Loyola. But in the 1960s it was that lack of discipline that made him a perfect fit. The Jesuits were busy turning their back on St. Ignatius and all of his “reactionary hang-ups.” Ignatius’s Spiritual Exercises had been replaced by the works of Sigmund Freud. Vatican II-era Jesuits were infamous for inviting destructive psychologists like Carl Rogers to hold seminars for them on “non-directive therapy”(repentant Carl Rogers assistant William Coulson once said to me that the purpose of those sessions was to make the priests “feel good about being bad”).
Pedro Arrupe, the disastrously permissive leader of the Jesuits as it plunged into socialism and modern morality in the 1960s and 1970s, saw Bergoglio as a rising liberal star within the order and elevated him to the top Jesuit position in Argentina at the mere age of 36. Arrupe used Bergoglio as one of his liberal enforcers against restless conservative Jesuits. At a worldwide gathering of Jesuits in the early 1970s, at which Arrupe blessed the liberal trajectory of the order, he asked Bergoglio to run off some Spanish Jesuits who had petitioned the Vatican for relief from Arrupe’s modernist dictates. Bergoglio complied.
If the future casts its shadow backwards, as Malcolm Muggeridge used to say, one catches a glimpse of it in these biographical details. Bergoglio was in on the ground floor of the revolution in the Church and bided his time until he reached the papacy. Safely ensconced within it, he then began throwing plums to his fellow liberal Jesuit revolutionaries.
“I was never a right-winger,” he said in an interview with Jesuit editors — the same interview in which he declared the Church too “obsessed” with abortion and gay marriage.
The Jesuit Antonio Spadaro, one of Pope Francis’s closest advisers, led that interview. Spadaro is openly heterodox, saying perhaps most famously that under the caring-and-sharing pontificate of Francis two plus two no longer equals four. In other words, the new orthodoxy is heterodoxy.
Not a month passes without some dismal announcement about this or that heretical Jesuit receiving a promotion under Pope Francis. I have already written about the Venezuelan communist and relativist he installed as the head of the Jesuit order.
In April, Pope Francis turned the Jesuit James Martin — who has just published a book trashing the Church’s teaching on homosexual behavior — into a “consultor to the Vatican’s Secretariat for Communications.” Martin brings some weighty credentials to the position; he once served as chaplain to the “Colbert Report.”
Last week Pope Francis sacked the head of the Church’s doctrinal office — Cardinal Gerhard Muller, who had annoyed Francis by not supporting Communion for adulterers — and replaced Muller with a Spanish Jesuit, the pliable Archbishop Luis Ladaria.
An excited New York Times turned to the aforementioned James Martin for insight into the meaning of it all. “This gives the pope the chance to finally place his own man in a very important spot,” said Martin. “For many admirers of Benedict, Cardinal Müller was the last link to Benedict’s way of doing things.”
Translation: the modernist Jesuit captivity of the papacy continues apace.
The Impopester has a mission, destroy the moral authority of the Catholic Church and prepare his flock for slaughter by muslims.
The only thing which saved the church from those sorry popes was the Protestant Reformation which broke the political power of the church enough to force it to concentrate on the restoration of spiritual and moral authority.
Fortunately, it was able to muster its forces to defeat the Muslim navies at Lepanto and invading armies at the gates of Vienna when the world of Islam took disunity in the Christian world as a weakness they could exploit.
Sadly, most of the traditionalist Cardinals are staying silent in the face of this evil onslaught. Whether it is cowardice or blind adherence to the desire to be meek and prayerful, their silence is allowing this gang of perverted thugs to run roughshod over 2000 years of Church teaching.
The last Pope?
when the world of Islam took disunity in the Christian world as a weakness they could exploit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They are doing it again.
Worst possible time to have an apostate Pope.
It would be a hoot if some rogue clueless muslim offed Buh-jigilo because he thinks Buh-jigilo is Christian.
The libs would die from the cognitive dissonance of it all.
They would be sad that this libhole pope was offed, but they would also have to respect the commitment that the muslim demonstrated.
The libs would be so confused.
It would have to be a rogue clueless muslim, because the smart ones know he’s helping them in their conquest of the West.
The reason we will have to depend on a coalition of Protestants, conservative Catholics, Mormon, Jews and possibly others . . . or the second coming of Jesus Christ.
I'm not sure the College of Cardinals has the will or even the ability to remove an apostate Pope.
The Lord moves in mysterious ways . . . his wonders to perform.
Exactly. B’gurgle-oh is in league with Islam. And most of Islam knows it.
I’m not fan of Francis but the Reformation was the worst thing to happen to Christianity since Christ walked the earth. The Catholic Church has been around for 2,000 years and has had bad popes before. Christ said he would never abandon the church and He never will.
From what I have read over the years, much written by Jesuits, I think they are far left of liberal. They are authoritarian socialists - communists.
In America though, many Americans including many Catholics are ARMED. So the Muslims have better learn to mind their p’s and q’s.
Would it SURPRISE YOU that a number of traditional Catholics have been BLOGGING their anger about this Pope?
Look for this Pope to step down now that he is 80.
William F. Buckley’s quote about how he’d rather be governed by the first 100 names chosen from the Manhattan phone book comes to mind.
One of the Catholic Church’s greatest strengths has been that it is not a democracy. Some of our Protestant brethren have fallen victim to the shortcomings of this when Biblical truths became the subject of up-or-down votes.
However, in this instance the people making the decisions are such insular head-up-their-you-know-wheres elitists, that I think we might be better off letting 100 random Catholics choose the Pope.
Without the reformation, the Medicis and their ilk would have destroyed the church thorough their political intrigue and corruption. The church owes Martin Luther and others like him a great debt of gratitude for turning them away from secular government back to a concentration on the spiritual.
For the record, I would NOT include John Calvin among those others because he was obsessed with political power to the extent that his followers were killing Catholics (and other Protestants which disagreed with them) at the same time Catholic navies were beating back Muslim invaders at Lepanto and Catholic armies were doing the same at the gates of Vienna. I would include most other Protestant reformers including the softer branches of Calvinism such as Roger Williams, John Lathrop and others.
This article is absurd. No wonder, the writer quoting the NYT which was informed by Martin! The pope’s “own man,” enforcers, 60’s liberals, few facts, many generalizations, seems like a cowboy and indian cartoon. I am no defender of jesuits, but this is trash writing. If you wish to be ready to defend your TLM, be discerning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.