Pope Bergoglio is a man in a hurry. It is almost as if he working on some sort of deadline to impose his designs upon the Church—a deadline of four years to be exact, as LifeSiteNews reminded us regarding an anonymous comment by one of the cardinals who voted for this disaster of a Pope: “Four years of Bergoglio would be enough to change things.”
The co-conspirators themselves have openly admitted the existence of a plot to elect Bergoglio to “change things” in the Church rapidly and “irreversibly” in ways exceeding even the catastrophic innovations of the past fifty years—or so they thought. Pope Benedict’s secretary, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, spoke of “a dramatic struggle” during the 2005 Conclave “between the “so-called ‘Salt of the Earth Party’ (named after the book interview with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) comprising ‘Cardinals Lopez Trujillo, Ruini, Herranz, Ruoco Varela or Medina’ and their adversaries: ‘the so-called St. Gallen group’ that included Cardinals Danneels, Martini, Silvestrini or Murphy O’Connor’ — a group Cardinal Danneels referred jokingly to as “a kind of mafia-club…” Another member of the “mafia-club” is Walter Kasper, the German arch-heretic who had fallen into obscurity until Bergoglio’s arrival on the scene.
With Bergoglio’s election at the 2013 Conclave the conspirators finally succeeded in achieving the proximate object of the conspiracy, but only after the hated Benedict XVI had been driven from the Chair of Peter, having semi-abdicated while clinging to his papal name, papal title, papal garb, papal insignia, and even the papal office in its supposedly “passive” versus “active” dimension. He thus became the first “Pope Emeritus” in Church history—a total novelty that in and of itself suggests Benedict is somehow still a Pope.
The conspirators have also succeeded in achieving a further object of the conspiracy: the admission of public adulterers to Holy Communion without an amendment of life, following a sham “Synod on the Family” in which were intimately involved none other than co-conspirator Kasper, whose heretical notion of “mercy” Francis began promoting immediately upon his election, and co-conspirator Danneels, the Modernist protector of a priest-rapist and a supporter of “gay marriage.”
And now the bimillenial Eucharistic discipline of the Church, integrally linked to her infallible teaching on the Eucharist and the indissolubility of marriage, stands divided along the fault lines Bergoglio has created. No less than the President of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio—whose name has a disturbing assonance with the name of certain bird—has just given an interview with Edward Pentin wherein he announces the new Bergoglian Rule: one who is living in an adulterous “second marriage” can be absolved and admitted to Holy Communion while continuing to engage in adulterous sexual relations, so long as he declares to his confessor something like “I want to change, but I know that I am not capable of changing, but I want to change.” So much for the constant teaching of the Church that absolution requires a “firm purpose of amendment,” which even the Catechism the very Pope that Francis declared a saint describes as “sorrow for and abhorrence of sins committed, and the firm purpose of sinning no more in the future.” Bergoglio will have none of that sort of merciless rigorism. As Coccopalmerio explains: “If you wait until someone changes their style of life, you wouldn’t absolve anymore anyone at all.”
But one might ask: How would a confessor know that the penitent who invokes the Bergoglian Rule and claims “I want to change but cannot” is sincere and thus should be absolved even though it is understood that he will continue to commit same sin? Not to worry, says Coccopalmerio: “You have to pay attention to what the penitent says. If you know — you can tell if he is misleading you.” You can tell! Really, you can!
Need I mention that the Bergoglian Rule flirts with the Council of Trent’s anathematization of Luther’s heresy that it is impossible to keep the Commandments even if one is in the state of grace? Then again, the difference between Bergoglian and Lutheran theology appears to be vanishingly small, which perhaps explains Bergoglio’s journey to Sweden to pay tribute to the arch-heretic’s “legacy.”
On February 24, during another rambling homily at Casa Santa Marta, Bergoglio told us yet again that a staunch defence of the moral law concerning matrimony is mere casuistry worthy of the Pharisees. In the Gospel According to Bergoglio, Jesus did not tell the Pharisees that divorce is unlawful: “Jesus does not answer whether it is lawful or not lawful; He doesn’t enter into their casuistic logic…. Casuistry is hypocritical. It is a hypocritical thought. ‘Yes, you can; no, you can’t.’”
Pope Bergoglio appears to have overlooked the same verses he has been ignoring for the past four years: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” Thus it would appear that even Jesus succumbed to the “casuistic logic” of the Pharisees, according to the Bergoglian Hermeneutic. So did God the Father when He declared: “Thou shalt not commit adultery” as well as “thou shalt not” do various other things enumerated in what were once known as the Ten Commandments, but have since been redefined—by Bergoglio in Amoris Laetitia—as the Ten Objective Ideals or the Ten General Rules (cf. AL nn. 300-305). This papacy has become such a mockery that it is now arousing open opposition from deep within the Catholic mainstream, which is finally awakening to the alarm “radical traditionalists” have been sounding for decades. In a piece entitled simply “This Disastrous Papacy,” Phil Lawler recounts how “something snapped” when he read Bergoglio’s claim that Jesus did not say “you can’t” to the Pharisees regarding divorce. He declares: “I could no longer pretend that Pope Francis is merely offering a novel interpretation of Catholic doctrine. No; it is more than that. He is engaged in a deliberate effort to change what the Church teaches.” The Bergoglian pontificate, he concludes, “has become a danger to the faith.”
But Bergoglio has much more danger in mind as he rushes to fulfil his megalomaniacal “dream” of “transforming everything, so that the Church’s customs, ways of doing things, times and schedules, language and structures can be suitably channelled for the evangelization of today’s world rather than for her self-preservation.” Nothing as trivial as the Church’s self-preservation—or God, for that matter—can be allowed to interfere with the apotheosis of Bergoglianism. Thus there are rumours (based on leaks from Casa Santa Marta, which tend to be accurate) of a new payload of blockbusters Bergoglio is planning to drop before he drops:
some sort of non-ordained “female deacon”;
a Novus-Novus Ordo, under construction by a secret commission, that would permit a form of intercommunion with Protestants;
the transformation of Catholic parishes into “ecumenical communities” administered not only by priests but also Protestant ministers on the theory that their ministries possess “partial” validity, as Coccopalmerio suggests at the end of his interview with Pentin.
Like a runaway train on a sharp curve, the Bergoglio Express has left the tracks. Now, even a significant number of the cardinals who made the mistake of voting for him at the 2013 Conclave can see the wheels coming off the train. With opposition and even outright mockery of Bergoglio rising everywhere, the Times of London, quoting Antonio Socci in Il Libero, reports in a headline story that “A large part of the cardinals who voted for him is very worried and the curia . . . that organised his election and has accompanied him thus far, without ever disassociating itself from him, is cultivating the idea of a moral suasion to convince him to retire…”
Socci observes that “Four years after Benedict XVI’s renunciation and Bergoglio’s arrival on the scene, the situation of the Catholic church has become explosive, perhaps really on the edge of a schism, which could be even more disastrous than Luther’s, who is today being rehabilitated by the Bergoglio church… The cardinals are worried that the church could be shattered as an institution. There are many indirect ways in which the pressure [to resign] might be exerted.”
It isn’t going to happen. Bergoglio will cling to power until his dying breath. As one Vatican insider (who prefers to remain anonymous) confided to the Times: “A good number of the majority that voted for Bergoglio in 2013 have come to regret their decision, but I don’t think it’s plausible that members of the hierarchy will pressure the Pope to resign. Those who know him know it would be useless. [He] has a very authoritarian streak. He won’t resign until he has completed his revolutionary reforms, which are causing enormous harm.”
But there is an auspicious development in all of this: The recognition that Bergoglio is running amok and that, to recall Lawler’s words, his pontificate “has become a danger to the
faith,” is now well established in the Catholic mainstream. The neo-Catholic knee-jerk defence of every papal word and deed (lest the traditionalist critique of the post-Vatican II innovation of the Church be in any way vindicated) is no longer operative, a few shameless diehards excepted. Intellectual honesty is blooming everywhere as Pope Bergoglio rubs the Church’s face in the ugly reality of what the post-conciliar revolution has been all about from the beginning: Quite simply, the end of Catholicism, if that were possible.
For the past four years, Bergoglio has been labouring to bridge the gap between concept and reality in these final stages of the revolution. But his cunning faux magisterium of the wink and the nod, the either and the both, the employment of subalterns to put forth what he is thinking while he maintains the thinnest pretense of plausible deniability, has been exposed for what it is: a fraudulent abuse of papal authority. Everyone knows this now. The question is: What are we to do about it?
When historical trends reach such a climax—what the historians call a “climacteric”—great reactions set in. But the Church is no mere human institution, guided solely by human movements. The reaction is this case will indeed occur on the human level in the form of growing resistance to Bergoglio’s madness. The infinitely greater element of the reaction, however, will come from on high, as Heaven itself intervenes when all seems lost. So Our Lady of Good Success assures us: “To test this faith and confidence of the just, there will be occasions when everything will seem to be lost and paralyzed. This, then, will be the happy beginning of the complete restoration.”
In this year of the centenary of the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima, we have good reason to hope that our heavenly rescue is near at hand, even if the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart may occur amidst the ruins of the visible Church and the body politic. But after all, what are such travails in view of the eternal felicity to which we are all destined if only we persevere