Sidebar
Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Pope: “It is the Communists Who Think Like Christians”

During this week where Americans have been distracted by the unexpected upset of a presidential election that could very well change the course of our collective future, Pope Francis has been busy making political statements of his own.

In yet another interview with Eugenio Scalfari (see our standard rebuttal to “you can’t trust Scalfari!” here), this exchange was reported to have taken place:

You told me some time ago that the precept, “Love your neighbour as thyself” had to change, given the dark times that we are going through, and become “more than thyself.” So you yearn for a society where equality dominates. This, as you know, is the programme of Marxist socialism and then of communism. Are you therefore thinking of a Marxist type of society?

It it has been said many times and my response has always been that, if anything, it is the communists who think like Christians. Christ spoke of a society where the poor, the weak and the marginalized have the right to decide. Not demagogues, not Barabbas, but the people, the poor, whether they have faith in a transcendent God or not. It is they who must help to achieve equality and freedom”. [emphasis added]

One of the most hotly contested criticism of Pope Francis is that he is ideologically aligned with Marxists. We’ve covered some of the connections before, so I won’t rehash them here. What seems fair to say is that this is the most direct admission yet that Francis identifies his program of social justice as something compatible with Communism – itself an intrinsic evil.

Pope Francis receives a crucifix fashioned into a communist hammer and sickle from Bolivian president Evo Morales.
Pope Francis receives a crucifix fashioned into a communist hammer and sickle from Bolivian president Evo Morales.

Of course, this seems all of a piece. On the eve of the US Presidential election — which featured the most pro-abortion candidate for the presidency in this nation’s history — Francis was busy meeting with his friend Emma Bonino, Italy’s most famous and prolific abortionist. They got together to talk about the migrant crisis, something so close to his heart that he not only overlooks Bonino’s crimes and calls her one of Italy’s “greats”, he also used it to take a swipe at then presidential candidate (now president-elect) Donald Trump, saying:

Christians should not give into the temptation to build walls, even in the face of “hateful and cowardly attacks,” a reference to global terrorism.

“Dear Brothers and Sisters,” he said, “all walls fall.”

When Francis was asked directly by Scalfari what he thinks of Trump, he responded:

“I do not pass judgment on people and politicians, I simply want to understand the suffering that their approach causes the poor and excluded”.

Today, the theme of migration arose yet again, as it was reported that Francis will infuse a refugee theme into the Vatican’s nativity display:

Measuring an astounding 55 feet wide, the Nativity scene will feature 17 figures dressed in traditional Maltese attire as well as replica of a “luzzu,” a Maltese boat.

The boat, the Vatican’s governing office said, “not only represents tradition – fish and life – but also, unfortunately, the realities of migrants who in those very waters sail on makeshift boats to Italy.”

On matters that should, it seems, be at least as close to the heart of the pope as the plight of refugees, there have instead been bizarre developments over the past few days. Jan Bentz of LifeSiteNews reports that under new papally-approved statutes, members of the Pontifical Academy for Life “will no longer be required to sign a declaration that they uphold the Church’s pro-life teachings.” The Academy is also expanding its focus to protection of the environment.

“The Academy has a task of a prevalently scientific nature, directed towards the promotion and defense of human life (cf. Vitae Mysterium, 4). In particular, it studies the various aspects that relate to the care of the dignity of the human person at the different ages of existence, mutual respect between genders and generations, the defense of the dignity of each single human being, the promotion of a quality of human life that integrates material and spiritual value, with a view to an authentic ‘human ecology’, which may help to recover the original balance of Creation between the human person and the entire universe (cf. Chirograph, 15 August 2016).”

Bentz comments:

The surprise is the inclusion of the word “gender” instead of the more specific and less loaded word “sex,” as well as the consideration of the quality of a human life in a dependent relation with the “entire universe.” This leaves the door open to all kinds of modern trends, such as elevating animal life to equal standing with human life, or putting the idea of a sociological gender before the natural sex of a person. At the same time, the ambiguous “original balance of Creation” is introduced, which needs further theological exposition in order not to be mistaken for a pagan idea of the cosmos.

And in a new interview included in a book that collects Francis homilies and addresses from his time as the Archbishop of Buenos Aires from 1999 to 2013, Francis’ views on the Mass are brought to light:

Asked about the liturgy, Pope Francis insisted the Mass reformed after the Second Vatican Council is here to stay and “to speak of a ‘reform of the reform’ is an error.”

In authorizing regular use of the older Mass, now referred to as the “extraordinary form,” now-retired Pope Benedict XVI was “magnanimous” toward those attached to the old liturgy, he said. “But it is an exception.”

Pope Francis told Father Spadaro he wonders why some young people, who were not raised with the old Latin Mass, nevertheless prefer it.

“And I ask myself: Why so much rigidity? Dig, dig, this rigidity always hides something, insecurity or even something else. Rigidity is defensive. True love is not rigid.”

The question of how closely Francis aligns himself with Communist ideology will no doubt continue to be debated. His priorities as the leader of the Catholic Church, however, have become increasingly clear.

328 thoughts on “Pope: “It is the Communists Who Think Like Christians””

  1. More sewage from the mouth of the wolf. When he has friendly meetings with a big promoter of abortion as the US is voting against a candidate who is also a big promoter of abortion and many other evils, he does not deserve for people to listen to him. When the only presidential candidate he appeared to criticize was Donald Trump, because of his position on immigration, and (I believe) Our Lady herself interceded for us and helped us defeat Hillary Clinton, his credibility is ZERO.

    He wonders why some people who weren’t raised with the old Mass prefer it? Well, we don’t want something “cool” that basically reminds us of everything else in our day to day life. We want something transcendent, something that reminds us that we were made for heaven. Sure, there is some rigidity out there. Also, anyone who goes to the Latin Mass enough, especially in big cities, is going to run into one of the crazies, and believe me, I know they’re not pleasant. That’s not because of the Latin Mass, that’s because there are crazy people in the world and some of them do go to church.

    Reply
  2. Bergolio continues to promote the cult of man over the cult of God. His disdain for the true Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is obvious. The Novus Ordo is the liturgy of man and should be avoided. I am not sure why my fellow traditionalists still defend this heretical rite and encourage its attendence when no true mass is available.

    Reply
    • Stop encouraging people to Violate the Precept of attending Mass on a Holy Day of Obligation: The Novus Ordo is both Valid and Licit, therefore it is illicit (as in illegal as in grievously sinful) to willingly skip Mass altogether in order to avoid the Novus Ordo. If you would bother to actually listen to them (your fellow traditionalists) you would know why they still defend and encourage attending the Novus Ordo when they can’t get to a Tridentine Mass.

      You are in grave error and in danger of full blown Schism and Hell. Repent.

      Reply
      • Is that so?

        Francis’ Novus Ordo Jubilee of Prisoners at St. Peter’s Basilica (6 November 2016) was a Mess
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlgauhExBF0

        …and yes that was right in front of Francis.
        Starring — Issam, the Moslem altar boy! Convicted of sexual assault!
        https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4Ewni9QO_Dk/WCUaI5_wgOI/AAAAAAAAKbk/fPZyLecHUIwnBuXN6kOGuyY-2a0bEyyJgCLcB/s1600/issam.jpg
        Issam is center and looking at the camera.

        Issam a prisoner of the Busto Arsizio penitentiary had a special role to play. Before the Novus Ordo Mess began, he alone washed the hands of Francis in the sacristy. Issam asked one request, on the trip, of his warden — to bring along his Moslem prayer rug and say his prayers. He did this once on the way from the prison to the Vatican and once somewhere on the premises of the Vatican! Issam, a 34 year old ‘refugee’ hailed originally from Morocco but was smuggled 20 years ago into Italy from Libya. Once he arrived in Europe, he entered school and graduated then he became an alcoholic and drug addict who committed a slew of crimes to feed his addictions. Issam said, “It seems strange to say but being in prison has saved me. I was arrested six years ago for a heap of crimes and I still have four more years to be served. Behind bars I was strengthened in the Muslim faith that I had since childhood and this has changed me: now I study [the Koran], I do not do drugs, I do not drink and I have found inner peace.” When the prisoners met Francis, Issam was chosen by his fellow inmates to present Francis with the gift they had made for him in the prison’s bakery — a chocolate key of St. Peter’s. Asked why he wanted to be an altar boy Issam replied, “To make people understand that we Muslims are different from what some would have you believe: we are for peace,” and continued later, “If the popes pray in mosques why shouldn’t I do it in the Vatican? I remain Muslim but together we can pray for each other, for peace, for the world. And this Sunday, I did this.” Of Francis he excitedly said, “His words took away my breath away. He prayed for us prisoners. We heard him say we are no longer the last, the excluded.” Don’t expect Issam to abandon his false religion and convert anytime soon, “I remain a Muslim but I believe in dialogue and respect.”

        Source:.
        repubblica.it/vaticano/2016/11/07/news/intervista_musulmano_chierichetto_papa-151546408/

        .repubblica.it/vaticano/2016/11/07/news/intervista_musulmano_chierichetto_papa-151546408/

        Reply
        • This doesn’t prove a thing to the Novus Ordo being invalid or illicit in and of itself. Offered poorly and fraught with banality, but Valid and Licitly Offered (if it is offered in accord with it’s own rubrics, if not then illicitly offered but still Validly, unless the Consecration is rendered invalid by a defect of Matter, Form or Intent of the Sacerdot.) and OBLIGATORY for all Catholics who are unable to attend a Tridentine Mass and yet are in need of fulfilling the Precept of the Church to Attend Mass on all Holy Days of Obligation.

          Reply
          • Negative. With all due respect, and in all (true) charity I tell you, you are wrong.
            But this is off-topic and for another discussion. Please desist. I will not speak of this any further. Steve and Onepeterfive are doing a lot as it is. God bless.

          • I don’t need to desist from assisting souls from ceasing to harm themselves or seriously mislead others. Someone wrote something they should not have written (and they ought to know better than to write it after it has already been discussed) so I corrected them out of fraternal charity. You waded into the discussion with a video of a Novus Ordo Mass that was scandalously offered by the Holy Father at St. Peters as proof that the Novus Ordo itself is non obligatory to Catholics because it is invalid and illicit in and of itself, which of course the video and the muslim do not equal that.

            http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/11/rorate-exclusive-letter-exchange.html

            Read Mr. McCaffery’s response to the Msgr…its very good.

            If a Novus Ordo only person was stuck where there was only a Tridentine Mass to attend to fulfill his obligation, would he be permitted to skip Mass altogether because he subscribes to the Mass of Pope Paul VI? NO! But are there Novus Ordo only orientated priests who would tell him its ok, not binding since it’s not the Ordinary Form, but something Extraordinary therefore not obligatory…you bet. And they would be guilty of leading that soul into serious sin.

            Well, Novus Ordo only Priests aren’t the only ones who say erroneous and stupid things….

            Yes, I agree with you that 1P5 and Steve are doing great things for the faithful.

            May God Bless You,

            Fr. RP

          • Father I respectfully disagree and believe you are greatly mistaken and to validate my point I will use two examples. The first is Archbishop Schneider who was told as a young man not to go to any Masses that support Communion in the hand and he himself has given the same advice as a matter of public sacrilege that no one can take part in. How many Novus Ordos don’t have Communion in the hand? Well under 1%.

            The second would be my avoidance of the Novus Ordo for my children’s sake in which I caved because of an illness and the children’s desire to go to Mass. The children were so horrified and scandalized that my young daughter asked if the people believe that God is in Holy Communion and then she proceeded to ask me if the priest believes in God. This comes from a seven year old girl. She saw the evil that we can’t see because we are spiritually blind to the incredible evil that happens before us daily creating apathy.

            We are the frogs in boiling water, not children who see the evil that we do not. Could there be a licit Novus Ordo? Of course, but it would be like drinking poison in order to find clean water. How much poison can you drink before you realize that you are ineffectual and emasculated against blasphemies and scandal against the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in order to find a good Novus Ordo? Reason would posit against the such a needle in haystack mentality of finding a licit Novus Ordo.

            “Better die in battle, than live to see our race and our sanctuary overpowered.” 1 Mac 3:59
            Can we say the same? Or is our apathy too strong to die in battle than see our sanctuaries overpowered?

          • If you asked Bishop Schneider if it’s ok to skip one’s obligation because someone received Holy Communion in the hand at Mass do you actually think he would say yes?

            If he did he would be in grave error. Furthermore, I agree that you need to teach your children and expose them to reverence, however you also need to help them learn to offer their suffering for the sake of those poor souls who are impious. Jesus is asking you to suffer with Him from time to time even at Mass, teach your children that they can offer their suffering for the conversion of those poor fools (most of which have been lead astray from their infancy.)

            Bring them to the Tridentine Mass as often as possible and teach them the Faith, but don’t teach the error that Mass is only Holy to God if the people are Pious. That’s not True: Jesus is offered to the Father at every Valid Mass, even illicit ones and He is infinitely Holy. All of the people there, including the Priest can be in a state of Mortal Sin and irreverent and oblivious to His Presence in the Blessed Sacrament, and He is still present and Offering Himself to the Father through the Words of Consecration.

            We are in grave and seriously difficult times, so we must be strong in the Faith and courageous, we must persevere in prayer and perhaps most of all posses longanimity.

            May God Bless You and help you to fight the good fight unto eternal life.
            .

          • Dearest Father I appreciate your kindness but again I strongly disagree based on the example and teaching & example of St. Anthony Maria Claret. St. Anthony Mary Claret took all of the priests to Havana except 2 and the people were outraged because they had no Mass (and this was the Traditional Mass) and his response? Better to have no priests than bad ones as it’s easier to convert pagans than heretics according to the Angelic Doctor. He took away their Masses and sacraments for a greater good. He was not wrong and Cuba flourished under him.

            How can a 7 yr old unprompted ask me if the priest believes in God after seeing a Novus Ordo? I’m left with telling her that sacrilege isn’t important am I not? It is one thing if one outside the fold commits sacrilege another one someone uses the sacred for sacrilege. I would be culpable of destroying my children’s faith, the same thing that happened to all of my brothers and sisters who no longer believe.

            So yes, St. Anthony Mary Claret is my example, confirmed by Archbishop Schneider who told Catholics they cannot go to Mass with the sacrilege of Communion in the hand and confirmed by my unprompted 7 year old. I used to agree with you, and argue like you almost to the letter, but my children so scandalized told me it would be better if there were no priests than bad ones and take them all from their parishes as St. Anthony taught us just 150 years ago.

          • As I already stated, raise your children in the True Faith and whenever possible devoutly attend the Tridentine Mass (etc) but please teach your children the Truth: The priest and the people do not have to do everything perfectly or even be Holy for Christ’s Grace to come to them through the Mass. Check around your area and you will find some Priests who offer a more reverent Novus Ordo than whatever is going on at the Parish nearest you and take them there when you have to, but do not teach them to be their own authority and reject the Legitimate authority of the Church.

            And the people in your example had no Mass to attend, so their was no violation of the Precept of the Church….

          • Dear Mike,

            Please understand that I understand your distress, I share it! Please consider this below, I wrote it a couple of days ago and posted it for someone else:

            “No it isn’t permissible for you to knowingly refuse to fulfill your OBLIGATION to attend Mass on a Holy Day of Obligation (Sunday’s are automatically Holy Days of Obligation) If the Mass is knowingly invalid, then of course you are not obligated to attend it because it isn’t a Mass.

            Please consider what I am about to say: The Mass isn’t for the fulfillment of your psychological or emotional needs, it’s the Worship of God the Father through God the Son in God the Holy Spirit and that Worship is consummated in the Unbloody Sacrifice of the Eucharist when the Priest consumes the Body and the Blood of Christ (hence in some places it is customary to ring the bell again at that point.) That’s why we go to Mass to be apart of that (everything else is secondary) and if it is Validly offered, even irreverently, then that Holy Worship/Sacrifice takes place every-time.

            Were the Blessed Virgin and Sts. Mary Magdalene and John serenely at peace at Calvary? NO they were not, they were in extreme pain and deep sorrow. When you are at an irreverent Mass (this can happen in many ways, the Priest is an ass, the servers are totally incompetent to the point of great distraction, the people are both zombies and cheering audiences at a show, the Choir/Band(!!!!!) is HORRIBLE etc…) you are actually sharing in the suffering of Jesus and the Saints at Calvary. Should there be any irreverent Masses? NO!!! Are there? Yes, unfortunately there are many of them.

            If Jesus appeared in a crowd of people and they all ignored Him or mocked him (ecce homo) etc…would you refuse to stay with Jesus? Of course not, you would kneel down and give Him the worship that is His due and He in turn would shower you with the graces He has to give to those who Love Him.

            When you are at an irreverent Mass know that you are experiencing just some of the Pain of Calvary and Jesus is asking you if you will suffer with Him and for Him and not abandon Him to those who are mocking Him. Will you?

            Stop focusing on yourself and start asking God for the Grace to suffer out of Love for Jesus. For the sake of sanity and your children attend the TLM that is an hour away as often as is possible (please know that these can be irreverent too, you might just not know it: God isn’t honored by mechanical body movements, he is honored by True Devotion and Holy Obedience from the Heart) but when you cannot make it there, then you must resolve to go and Suffer with Jesus out of Love for Him and the Conversion of that priest and those irreverent people. Offer every painful moment and then thank God for giving you the Love and Courage to suffer with Him and for the salvation of those who are most desperately in need of it. Do like Saint Therese did and ask Jesus for all of the graces He has to give to those present who are refusing them: He will shower you with His Graces and offer you a higher place at the Eternal Wedding Feast.

            How many people have abandoned Jesus to His enemies or at least to buffoons, simply because they don’t like__________(insert anything) about the local Mass, so they stay home in their self-righteous indignation and refuse to go and Love Jesus: “I’m not going to Calvary! Don’t you know that most of the people their including Caiaphas the Priest are horrible! Yeah, sure there are a few decent people there, but they shouldn’t be! Don’t they know that that place is an abomination to God! They are not honoring God!!! I’m not going, I’m staying home…out of love for God…I’m leaving Jesus alone there…out of Love for God.”

            I have been at Mass where I intentionally stayed even though it was HORRIBLE BEYOND BELIEF simply because I choose to Love Jesus there when no one else was, I didn’t want to abandon Him there surrounded by those dogs without someone to suffer with and for Him out of Love. It ended up being a very great blessing as it caused me to stop focusing on ME and stay focused on Him out of Love for Him, not out of Love for me.

          • For some reason my response to you below this one copied the same paragraph of the original post over and over again! That was not my intent!!! (Indirect defect, not direct 😉 I have corrected it below…

          • Fr. RP, when did the Church determine that intent simply had to be to intend what the Church does? I ask because it is my understanding that baptisms done in heretical sects were done conditionally in the Catholic Church for converts. It seems that the Church had a different understanding of “intent” and only changed it after VII. If the understanding of intent did change with everything else, then it would explain a good bit to me.

            Thanks.
            MichaelP

          • No, the Church still does conditional baptisms ( I have done them) for those who are either dubiously baptized (so, either the Matter, Form or Intent are questionable) ) or there is no proof of a valid Baptism. Then conditionally baptize.

            If the baptism is known to be invalid: example A) I baptize you in the name of the redeemer, sanctifier, unifier, or I baptize you in the Name of Jesus: B) Baptizing someone with Grape Nehi: C) The Minister doesn’t intend to do what Jesus/Church intends with Baptism or the one being Baptized doesn’t believe in the efficacy of the Baptism, then the Baptism isn’t conditional it is simply Baptism.
            Hope that helps

          • Yes, it helps but your reply only addresses the form and matter. What if the heretical sect did not believe in Original Sin or the efficacy of baptism? Let’s say the form and matter are exactly what the Church requires but the intent to wash away Original Sin is not present? Did the Church always hold that the intent is good if the person simply wanted to do what the Church does, or did the specific intent of washing away sin need to exist prior to Vatican II? Today, intent to wash away Original Sin does not need to be present for a valid baptism.

            Thanks.

          • Well that is an interesting question and I will have to research that to be clear, however one can argue soundly that under the intention of doing ‘what the Church intends’ or even doing what ‘Jesus Intends’ the intent to wash away original sin (etc) is included in the intention, even if the person doesn’t believe in original sin. They would need to have a direct defect (not an indirect or ignorance) as in actually not intending to wash away original sin. If they are holding the intention of not washing away the stain of original sin then that baptism would be invalid. That is a direct defect of Intention.

            this is why the Church is constantly updating the list of sects that She doesn’t recognize as having a valid Baptism.

          • Michael, the teaching on intent is as old as the hills and is closely associated with the principle of “ex opere operato”. This was taught first by St Augustine in his controversies against the Donatists and then infallibly at the Council of Trent to counter the errors of Luther who taught that the vailidity of sacraments was dependent upon the worthiness of the minister (“ex opere operanTIS” – taught first by Peter of Poitiers d. 1205 in relation to the efficacy of sacraments of the Mosaic covenant).

            The basic logic which distinguishes Catholic sacramental theology from Protestant theology, is that the sacraments are primarily the work of Christ Himself and so as long as the minimal conditions are present for validity then they are indeed valid sacraments and their efficacy is not dependent in any way upon the personal worthiness of the clay-vessel minister who administers them. Where the principle of “ex opere operantis” does apply is in the reception of the grace of the sacrament by the recipient i.e. the recipient must be properly disposed in terms of faith and morals to receive the full benefits of the fruit or grace of the sacrament.

            Thus, if my wife had been on her death-bed while giving birth to our last child who was also in danger of death, and I was not with her (not that my life would have been worth living if I had allowed that situation to arise!) she could have asked an atheist midwife to baptize the baby and as long as she intended to do what the Catholic Church did then it would have been a fully valid baptism – irrespective of whether she personally believed in the existence of original sin or not. The point being that whoever the minister is, the One who is really conferring the baptism in reality is Our Lord Himself. Naturally, Christ cannot confer an invalid sacrament.

            I believe that it was one of the Popes Innocent who first taught at length on this matter in regards to a convert Jew who administered baptism to himself for lack of the presence of a Catholic. I can’t for the moment recall exactly which Innocent it was though. It is actually quite difficult to have an intent that would invalidate a sacrament – the intent has to be clearly and manifestly something which is very different from what the Church does.

            Imagine the chaos if the validity of a sacrament were dependent upon the disposition of the minister in terms either of his faith, morals or both. None of us would have certitude about the validity of any sacrament EVER.

    • The Novus Ordo is often more like performance art than worship of almighty God, but I have no doubt it’s valid. Insipid quite often, but valid.

      Reply
        • Hi Tom, I think Fr. RP is saying that since the NO mass is valid and licit(I’m not clear who determined this), that means that Christ in this unbloody representation of Calvary, is SUBSTANTIALLY present in the Eucharist. So no matter how disgusting the “celebration” of NO mass is, it is still the Holy Mass. And it’s up to the participants to struggle to worship Christ in this mess.

          However, I still have a problem with the tone of his response to you above. This is his dogmatic side coming through, which leaves no room for discussion of all the horrendous problems the NO poses for Catholics who follow his advice. Even Bishop Schneider, one of the few good guys, rejects Fr. RP’s premise about the New Mass. He then claims that Bp Schneider is wrong. Is he infallible now? Fr. never expands, never goes into detail to SHOW why the Sedes/ultramontaines are wrong. We’re just supposed to take his word for it. And it’s unacceptable to provide links to support his attitudes. If he is so SURE, well then enlighten us. It shows that he has an arrogant side. I think there a bit of “Holier than thou” in Fr. RP’s soul.

          There’s no Sheppards any more, with few exceptions, just cowardly bishops who may or may not be Catholic.And thousands of priests who don’t know the faith, don’t practice the faith, and for not a small number the mass is a free for all.

          To go through the many Trad blogs and comboxes, I am always left with the impression that faithful Catholics are hang ing on by their fingernails. Some are Sedes, some hold a range of Trad convictions, some are befuddled. Yet Fr. RP doesn’t bother to look at this mess for which the NO mass is so much to blame. Yet this is all passed over in silence, at least in this post. And God help us if we should decide on the evidence of our senses and intellects, in the EXTERNAL FORUM, that “Pope” Francis is an enemy of Christ.

          Reply
          • Tom, thank you for your advice in this most confusing of times in Church history. I wish I could still be so sure of the Church the way I used to. But my eyes have been opened up and it is apparent to me that the Church is being attacked by the synthesis of all heresies, modernism. All that has come since V2 is in doubt. That is why I cling to tradition. In tradition we are safe and protected from all error. I do understand why it is hard for good Catholics to suddenly even consider skipping mass on Sunday, its not in our DNA.

  3. Rigidity is defensive. True love is not rigid.”
    PF should practise what he preaches. It is he who is rigid & insecure. He shows no love or consideration for Christ’s sheepfold, only for those outside it- Atheists, Pagans, Abortionists, Communist Dictators et al. He is the epitome of all the evil VII brought to this world. Only Divine intervention can rid us of him & his cronies. Remember Fr. Amorth’s words -The Vatican reeks of Satan. It is quite unfathomable to watch the Hierarchy sit back & allow this man to trash Christ’s Church on earth & the past two thousand years of Catholic Doctrine, showing much respect for Luther and their lesbian bishop & none for his own priests & people. Satan has them all in his clutches. Maybe the results of the American Election will get some minds thinking more deeply about their future – no CC, no money (except Soros’s) no elevated positions, no bishops’ palaces, no high living, in fact no need for any of them including the present pontiff.

    Reply
      • This is why we need the revelation of the Third Secret of Fatima (I.e. the exact words of Our Lady, NOT the Vision) and the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

        As I’ve said before, God will give us peace on His terms, not ours. If I remember correctly, the only time that God laughs in Scripture is when His enemies think they can outsmart Him. (It’s in Psalms if I remember correctly.)

        Reply
        • I do believe I’ve read in more then one Catholic prophecy book that at some point, we will have an anti-pope sitting on the Chair of Peter and that he will have a deep hatred for Christ’s church…….

          Reply
          • However, God will resolve it in the end. Our duty is to keep the Faith and share it with others (even though it’s getting tougher to do so.)

            Lord, have mercy!

            O Mary, conceived without sin, Patroness of the United States of America, pray for us who have recourse to Thee.!

            St. Joseph, terror of demons, pray for us!

          • Yes, this Pope is at the least an anti-pope. Every daythat passes there is a new (and more bold) interview snippet or commentary he makes, where he twists Scripture and/or Church teaching. He is very cunning, masking his words with a false “compassion” and interspersing his phraseology with a certain lack of clarity that leaves it open to interpretation. I disagree that we have to sit passively by, wringing our hands, because this is “God’s will”. Of course we pray, but we have to FIGHT for our true faith. Call, write, email your parish priests and bishops. Hold their feet to the fire on upholding the true teachings of Jesus and the Magisterium. You all on this blog are very intelligent and articulate. Put those skills to good use. You can debate all day on this blog amongst yourselves; it’s time to take action! We are the remnant Army, soldiers of Christ. The battle has begun..
            now I’ll step down from my soapbox..?

    • This will happen, possibly in the next 15 to 20 years. The Vatican II flower power generation of clerics have to first go to the judgement seat and then maybe, perhaps we’ll get a holy pope, one worthy of the title of “saint”.

      Reply
      • Well, I likely won’t be here to live under the safety of that holy pope. Please, God, let my children and grandchildren still be a part of the Church.

        Reply
  4. The Pope thought he was cleverly correcting Scalfari’s remark about His views being in line with Marxism by pointing out that Marxist views are inline with Christianity: as in Christianity came first and Marx got his good ideas from Christianity, not the other way around. Of course he undoes himself with his not so clever clever response, for he proves that he believes that Marxist economic views are Christian, when in fact they are condemned by Christianity as being inhumane and contrary to both the Natural Law and Divine Revelation.

    Proverbs 18:7:

    A fool’s mouth is his ruin,
    and his lips are a snare to himself

    Reply
      • Long past time. and Yet I must remember that Divine Providence is permitting this to happen, therefore I must humbly accept the Will of God and put my trust in Him and ask Him to help me each day to carry out His will on earth as it is in Heaven.

        Reply
          • Both 🙂

            And I didn’t say I was waiting on Divine Providence…I said I was accepting it and trusting in it and seeking to God’s will on earth as it is done in Heaven.

          • Dear Father,

            Please tell us how the faithful laity can be of support to our holy priests?

            I know prayer is a must, but what else is of support to you and others like you?
            What are the things we say that can bring more stress, event though that is not the intent and what are the things we do not say or do that so help you know you are supported?

          • First, you must pray everyday for your priests to Love God above all Things, with all of their might, heart, mind, and being and then to Love their neighbor (parishioners) as themselves. Especially the ones who always are on the look out for the slightest error Father may have made so that they can attack (BIG PROBLEM.) Many times people accuse Father of saying or doing things he never did or said, I know been there and done that too many times.

            Second, if there super busy check to see if they are eating properly, I don’t mean quantity (some laity think that every priest need 4 pounds of sweets a day!) but quality. Many priests are unhealthy because they eat pre-processed food on a regular basis and much of it late at night (supper at 8 or 9 at least four times a week.) Maybe get a group of people who offer to bring meals over, or come over and cook or invite Father (when he has time) to your place to eat. And when he is there, don’t complain about how horrible things are at the Parish…

            Third, see if they need help with maintaining the rectory, office and Church: no parish should have hired people to clean the Church!!! It’s the house that God has given them to care for.

            Fourth, if you are grounded in the Faith and can make time, volunteer to help with the Catechetical program (many people in it may not be qualified and yet that is all Father has) etc…

            Fith: donate to 1P5 and other good sources of information for Catholics and tell them about 1P5 etc…

            If you just ask Father if anything needs doing, he might be so overwhelmed that he doesn’t know where to start and so he will say everything is fine. Check yourself, look around etc…and then offer specific things that look like they need doing.

        • I agree with Fr. and I think only Divine Intervention can save our church now because I believe this world of ours including the church has gone too far with sin and Almighty God is letting this happen especially since our Government & the Governments of the World has kicked HIM out and ushered in the Diabolical. It takes about 200yrs before a Great and powerful Nation falls, we have surpassed and are now at 220…… the time is close at hand ………….

          Reply
  5. Every day I read articles like this lamenting how bad the situation has gotten in the concilior church and everyday I hear the same people who lament, defend and encourage attendence at the source of all this suffering — The Novus Ordo.

    Reply
    • With respect, Tom, I despise the Novus Ordo in the form one encounters in 99.9% percent of U.S. parishes, where insipid music, quasi-heretical homilies, “we-are-Church” liturgy, and utter disdain for the sanctity of the Holy Eucharist abound. That being said, however, I don’t have the authority as a layman to declare that the Novus Ordo is an invalid form of the Mass. I simply do not, as much as I wish I could.

      Believe me, Tom, I have struggled with this ever since I first realized just how bastardized the NO actually is in comparison to the Latin Mass. And I have even contemplated the same conclusion you have reached: How can such an obviously flawed rite be pleasing to God?

      EDIT:
      But to simply recuse myself and my family from our Sunday obligation, no matter how painful it may be to fulfill it . . . I cannot bring myself to do that. In a perfect world, assisting at Mass would not be an occasion of suffering and strife. But we do not live in a perfect world; I simply try to offer it up as a reminder of the suffering Christ endured for our sins on the cross.

      Reply
      • The validity argument is a red herring. The truth is the Novus Ordo is harmful to your faith. Why would anyone put their faith and the faith of their family at risk.

        Reply
        • Tom, the problem is that the Novus Ordo has been promulgated by a legitimate Pope. Therefore, it has to be relegated to the dustbin of history by a legitimate Pope and/or an ecumenical Church council. You and I do not have the power to render it null and void. I agree 100% that any liturgical act that is totally at the mercy of the whims and preferences of the celebrating priest, as the Novus Ordo Mass is, has serious issues.

          Reply
          • You missed my point, the argument as to its validity is not of any concern to me. I and pratically everyone in this forum agree how horrible it can be. I simply ask, why do you go to something that can harm your faith. It is not a sin to protect your soul and the soul of your family from the source of the destruction of our faith. There are plenty of other ways to sanctify Sunday and Holy Days if you cant get to a TLM. Most of you in this forum are being legalistic about your Sunday obligation instead of understanding the reason for the law. The ultimate law is the salvation of souls. The law is to save your soul. You dont save it by being a slave to the law. Geez you wouldve thought Christ was pretty clear on this subject, yet here we are 2000 years later still fighting over the law. Folks, if its bad for your soul its not from God. Pure and simple. The Novus Ordo is rotten to the core and everyone in this forum knows it yet cant man up and admit it.

          • You are legislating against the Church’s legislation and on your own authority. And I shan’t address this anymore.

  6. And I ask myself: Why so much rigidity? Dig, dig, this rigidity always hides something, insecurity or even something else. Rigidity is defensive. True love is not rigid.

    Francis’s ongoing quest to remake the Church in his own image continues, ladies and gentlemen. He castigates each and every member of his own “basket of deplorables” by accusing them of excessive rigidity, while failing to see the irony in just how rigid he himself is being by speaking in such blanket and absolute terms.

    For the record, according to Francis, the following groups are too “rigid”:

    –Traditionalists for preferring the “rigidity” of the classical Mass;
    –Priests who say the classical Mass, as they are “rigidly” making themselves slaves to its “rigid” rubrics, rather than injecting their own personalities and idiosyncrasies into the liturgy;
    –Those who actually try to follow the Church’s teachings on sexual morality;
    –Mothers who trust in God’s providence and delight in carrying and giving birth to as many children as He sees fit to give them;
    –Fathers who sacrifice their own material wants and desires in order to support said children they have happily received from the Almighty;
    –Confessors who seek not to “accompany” their flocks in gradually leading them to the Faith (making the necessary compromises to avoid making anyone too “upset” and “sad”), but to save their souls by treating sin as the objective evil it actually is;
    –Christ Himself for His “rigid” condemnation of adultery, divorce and remarriage, and countless other “not nice” and “pastorally unfriendly” statements.

    Is there anyone with an actual functioning brain who can look at this list and deduce that all these people are wrong and this pontiff is correct? Are there really still people so willing to place the man in white above Christ Himself that they can look at this list and still find excuses for the insults that flow from this pontiff’s lips?

    If being a faithful Catholic means “accepting whatever the pope says without question, even when it blatantly contradicts received Tradition”, then being Catholic has lost all meaning. It’s arbitrary and relative and I want no part of it.

    Reply
    • When it comes to objective truth and matters of intrinsic evil, Catholics are supposed to be “rigid”. Doesn’t Pope Francis know that?

      Reply
      • Oh, Paul. If there is one thing we have learned from AL, it’s that Francis doesn’t believe in “intrinsic evil” or “objectivity”. It’s all relative, baby.

        The man really should have been an existentialist. Black turtlenecks seem more his scene than white cassocks, anyway.

        Reply
          • I have them too, and I wear them for funerals and in the winter months. (Black actually absorbs and retains heat, which IMHO is another reason why priests should wear their cassocks.)

      • He doesn’t believe in hell. He’s crazy! I can’t keep up with his heresies.

        He just said this a few days ago. He’s Loco or he wants to destroy the faith. Or he’s been smoking too many magic mushrooms:

        “The ‘children of heaven and resurrection’ are not a privileged few, but they are all [ALL?] men and all women, because the salvation brought by Jesus is for everyone. And the life of resurrection will be similar to that of the angels, that is, everyone immersed in the light of God, completely dedicated to His praise, in an eternity full of joy and peace.” – Francis prayed the Angelus on Sunday 11/6/16 in St. Peter’s Square.

        Reply
  7. The remark about Communists has to be the most stupid uttered in this alarming papacy. In eight words the pontiff aligns himself with a movement that, according to calculations of Stéphane Courtois in The Black Book of Communism, has murdered one hundred million innocent victims. Can anyone imagine the world’s reaction if some historian unearthed a letter of Pius XII in which, commenting on the orderliness of Germany in the mid 1930s, he said “It is the Nazis who act like Christians”? Francis’ statement is no less cavalier, reckless, and callous.

    Reply
    • He befriends communists, abortionists, atheist…
      That man is downright frightening.
      p.s. Fr. RP I don’t think sedevacantism is an example of poor reasoning. It’s a valid hypothesis considering all that is unclear: can there be two popes? Does collusion invalidate a papal election? Can a manifest heretic be pope? I don’t have the answers, but I do feel the questions are valid.

      Reply
      • And I said average Sedevacantist not all. Also there are not two Popes, whatever any of the vaticanistas think and no matter who they are, there can be only one.

        The Church has to openly declare the Pope a manifest heretic after putting him on trial for being a heretic in order for him to loose his office and the Holy See the become Vacant. That hasn’t happened has it? And collusion doesn’t invalidate a Papal election: it seems I remember Steve gave and excellent refutation of this on 1P5 somewhere.

        Reply
        • And who is going to do this deposing? There is no authority on earth to depose a Pope. A pope deposes himself when he falls into heresy. No declaration is needed and there are no authoritative sources other than your own opinion that can refute what I just stated. Because what I just stated is traditional authoritative church teaching and not my opinion. You are the one who is legislating and claiming authority you do not possess.

          Reply
          • In the meantime, how are we to avoid the heretic as Divine Law commands? “We cannot avoid our own head” as St Robert Bellarmine pointed out, while at the same time we must avoid the heretic. It’s not an option, it’s a command. Therefore, an heretical claimant to the papacy must automatically lose his office, and the faithful are able to recognise the fact, warn others of the threat to their Faith, but at the same time cannot bind others as a Council can. We don’t sit under the authority of heretics and lose our souls until the Church declares what has already happened. We are to flee from dangers to the Faith.

        • I’ve read it. It is good, but…
          This is really a fact issue.
          A marriage can be valid or null. Even though the true can only be known after a lengthy process, the marriage was either valid or null all along.
          The same goes for a crime. If you kill an innocent willingly, then you’re a murderer. You may be convicted one day, or never. You’re still a murderer.
          Now this pope. You cannot say, as Fr. RP is inferring, that he is the pope until he isn’t.
          He is or he is not.
          Just like being a murderer is a matter of fact, not of law.
          I rest my case.

          Reply
          • However, murderers are generally tried in a court of law, have defense counsel and etc. We are not the judge and jury of PF. That belongs to the hierarchy, not us.

            The Remnant website http://www.remnantnewspaper.com has the Urgent Appeal to Pope Francis at the top of their website. It’s been translated into a dozen languages besides English and is extensively researched and footnoted. If you agree, then sign it and share it with others.

          • If PF is the Pope, then the heirarchy do not have any authority to depose him at all. The only way he can be deposed is by falling into heresy by himself, and God deposes him by Divine Law.

            If he is a public heretic, then God has already deposed him and he is not the Pope.

            This might help.

            He can’t be a public heretic and the Pope. It’s either/or, just as any one of us cannot be a public heretic and a Catholic. Take your informed pick. I am not binding anyone either way, by the way.

          • Wrong. Not my opinion either, actually following Doctors of the Church and Saint Theologians. You are making a logical error of false analogy.

        • If you go to the Suscipe Domine forums and look up a poster called Nazianzen, he takes the book and its authors to task on many points. It is good to read someone who knows the issues as well as Salza and Siscoe do and show where the book fails. Always get both sides. Stay balanced.

          Reply
          • You might have to register. I was recommended having a look at the threads on the subject. There are people on both sides who post thoughtful comments. It goes into much more depth than is possible in a comments box on this blog, since this is not properly a forum. It is a good idea to see both positions. You could maybe try the homepage and click on the S… thesis under the Church Courtyard.

    • Do you want to know what is really sad? I want to agree with you about this being the stupidest thing he has uttered up to this point, but he has said so many absolutely stupid things that I am not actually sure if this is the stupidest…I want it to be, but there’s just too great a catalog of stupid utterances to be sure.

      Reply
          • Thank you both for your answers and, FMShyanguya, no need for apologies; my count tells me not one pundit in the US (or anywhere else for that matter) saw what was happening. In that vein, I’d like to take use of this forum to post a letter about the election I wrote some friends the other day. It’s not really off topic since it addresses the question of Communism in the 1930s. Here it is:

            All of you know I have participated in the Trump revolution (that IS what it is in reality) since the beginning. No, actually I “participated” even before it began. I link Trump directly with Pat Buchanan who offered revolution a quarter of a century ago, and I was enthusiastic for Pat when he challenged old man Bush and the politburo of the GOP.

            In a sense, the street toughs and hooligans (sponsored I know by the arch criminal Soros) in Portland, LA, etc. this week are aware of the massive change worked Tuesday, more so than perhaps many average citizens. While the rioters think of themselves as progressive, though, they really represent the Ancien Régime, and Mrs. Clinton plays (a very sordid) Marie Antoinette. They are defending a social order that is in its death throes, decayed beyond redemption.

            Some who cannot accept the corrupt Clinton find it equally impossible to subscribe to Trump. Many of them voted third party or even refused to vote. I’m not blind to what they fear, viz. the imperfections and blemishes of the Trump movement, but I look at it differently. Perhaps I can best illustrate with a historical comparison.

            Had I lived in Spain in the mid 1930s, I would most certainly have joined the Franco forces, even if I’d been aware then of just who were Franco’s allies (Hitler & Mussolini), or had been magically aware of what would follow the Civil War (i.e. the death of about 200,000 people by Francoist firing squads). Why? Because, even with the most limited information available then, I would have seen that Franco’s enemies were far, far worse than he (the history of Republican Spain is among the most abhorrent human stories we know), and because there was simply no other realistic alternative. The most morally acceptable course of action back then was to end the bloodshed as quickly as possible by defeating the Republic militarily. In other words, the “imperfections” of the Franco forces and later of his regime weighed much lighter on the scales than the monstrous reality of Republican Spain and what would have inevitably ensued following on its military victory.

            That is exactly how I see the Trump movement: any disturbing aspects of it are far more acceptable in the short run than a continuation of leftist-nihilist domination of national politics under the mantle of the Democrat Party. Militancy in the Trump movement represents my attempt to live this historical hour by being as wise as a serpent.

          • Mahalo!
            *
            About to finish reading PAWNS In The Game by Commander William Guy Carr [https://www.amazon.com/Pawns-Game-International-Conspiracy-Exposed/dp/B000OEDWNY/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1478975452&sr=1-8&keywords=Pawns+in+the+Game], so your comment reinforces my understanding of his chapters on the Spanish Revolution, The Civil War in Spain, Franco, and The Revolutionary Reign of Terror.
            *
            God bless you and yours and his work at your hands and may the Trump revolution [President-elect calls it “a movement”] be in accordance to his will.

        • I’m with you guys… and isn’t it sad we even have to have this conversation? That we’re actually at a point that there are so many stupid things he’s said, that when he blatantly supports communism (which his predecessors but especially Pope John Paul II spent so much energy fighting!) we can’t say it’s the stupidest thing for sure.

          Reply
      • You can say THAT again Fr.!! Wondering if anyone is keeping a running list of the eyebrow raisers Francis has come out with. There would be enough of them to fill VOLUMES!

        Reply
      • Are you playing safe? A pope can say stupid things about how wonderful the world is today, about the weather, about a “new springtime”, et. al, And never be guilty of heresy. But surely much of what PF says and does is closer to the diabolical than stupidity.

        Reply
          • In reference to your comment to Johnny Curedents – Not the “stupid” things Jorge says. It’s his rebellion against God. Stupid things don”t send souls to hell. and Bergoglio’s soul is doomed if he does not repent.

            You said to Tom A that he is in danger of “schism and hell”. Because he sees the corruption of the NO mass, even if it is “valid and Licit”. And you preach at him in that self-righteous way you project. Yet not a word from you of the danger of hell that Bergoglio is in, to say nothing of this reprobate leading countless misguided Catholics to hell with him. Don’t you care for the salvation of this apostate “pope”? Or is your main concern to play safe and hide behind “stupid” adjectives like “stupid”, too vague and harmless to disturb this illusory false peace, where you don’t have to stick your neck out. This stinks of hypocrisy.

          • Like I thought, your just being special. Where is your reproof of Johnny C for using the word stupid? See, I was responding to his post and just kept his language and I told the truth with a little gallows humor, it seems everyone but you got that.

            Before you accuse me of not being concerned about damnation for Pope Francis, read my posts: I have been saying things since early on in his pontificate. And I preach and teach my people from the Ambo as well, not just on the internet.

            and Tom A is in serious danger. I did not rebuke him for seeing corruption in the Novus Ordo, I rebuked him for teaching grave error: the Novus Ordo is a propitiatory sacrifice and that is what the Church teaches and intends:

            CCC:

            1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ’s Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present.185 “As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which ‘Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed’ is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out.”186

            1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: “This is my body which is given for you” and “This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood.”187 In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he “poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”188

            1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

            [Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper “on the night when he was betrayed,” [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.189

            1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.”190

            One is obligated to attend to one’s obligation of which the Church has clearly taught that attending the Holy Mass on Holy Day’s of Obligation is obligatory.
            Everyday I am on the verge of being removed from my pastorate or being forced to resign because I do not waver on teaching the Catholic Faith and pointing out serious errors of certain prelates so that the flock in my charge are not left a prey to their teeth.

            Today is Sunday, the day of the Lord: let us prepare to meet Him.
            May God bless you,
            Fr. RP

          • I keep you in my prayers everyday Father. These people you have to deal with should be on your side, yet they are foolish. I’ve learn so much from you and appreciate all you do. I wish you had your homilies recorded so I can listen to more of them. Thanks for being a faithful priest. God bless.

          • In the “external forum” is Jorge Bergoglio, based on his 3 years as “pope”, in danger of eternal damnation, Or not? Is he an enemy of Christ or not? Yes or No? I’m not familiar with your other posts. So settle it for me. Have you explicitly stated in other posts that Francis is not just “stupid”(stupid like a serpent), but is teaching heresy and leading souls to hell, and doing incalculable damage to Christ’s church. that because of him the church is in unofficial schism. It is hypocritical for you to warn Tom A about hell and leave this scoundrel Bergoglio with the tag of “stupid”. Unacceptable. The ball is in your court. SHOW me I’m wrong, The “internal Forum” is best left to God for the extent of his betrayal of Christ and His church.

            “are you mentally inept or just being special?” Your sarcasm does not put you in a good light. I have no idea what you are talking about. And I never said that the NOM is not a valid mass. Even though some reputable scholars do believe it’s invalid, not all of them sedes. So you don’t have to quote the CCC. Just give me a few links or your quotes from your posts where you didn’t just use evasive language to complain about this man Jorge. “It seems that everyone but you got that” in reference to your so called “gallows humour”. — That’s called wishful thinking. And lets face it, there’s an awful lot of Catholics, who don”t know where to turn, who will grasp at any straw because of the demonic arrogance of Bergoglio who demands that the church be re-made in the image and likeness of his monumental ego. I see no humility in you. You are on the defensive. You attack. And you justify yourself.

          • I applaud you for standing for the faith even if it puts you in danger of retribution from your superiors. On the point of our disagreement, I feel we will just have to disagree.

            PS- if your superiors were true Catholics you would not be in danger of losing your pastorate. They are not, they are imposters and are no more Catholic than a Lutheran or pagan.

          • Please Fr, not so fast.

            Professor Gustavo Corbi of Argentina wrote an article entitled “Propiciatorio” which was published at Buenos Aires 24th April 1996.

            He pointed out that the first edition of the CCC had NO reference to the Mass as a propitiatory Sacrifice. Absolutely none whatsoever. Just like the Novus Ordo Missae itself.

            Anyway, like cockroaches scuttling to find a hiding place when the lights go on, the second and subsequent editions of the CCC had paragraphs 1364, 1365, 1366 and 1367 quietly inserted. The paragraphs you quote here. Now it looks like they say what they have said about the Mass all along.

            They did the same trick for the May 1970 revision of the 1969 General Instruction on the Roman Missal, where the original had a defective and outright heretical definition of the Mass in paragraph 7:

            “7. The Lord’s Supper, or Mass, is the sacred meeting or congregation of the people of God assembled, the priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason, Christ’s promise applies eminently to such a local gathering of holy Church: ‘Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst’ (Mt. 18:20).”

            When it was pointed out that this was heresy, in light of Session XXII of the Council of Trent, they “fixed” it by throwing a few “Tridentine” words into the mix, alongside the protestant and modernist expressions, to keep the conservatives happy, while cunningly allowing their original heretical ideas to remain intact. This was due to what Consilium member Fr Emil Lengeling called “the cleverness of the revisers”.

            Sitting quietly on the sidelines all along is the Novus Ordo Missae itself. While all the fights over heresy and Catholicism were being waged in changes to the general Instruction and in the CCC, the Missal itself is still devoid of any clear expression that the Mass is a propitiatory Sacrifice, the same as Calvary, renewed on the altar under the appearance of bread and wine. It has never been updated to make it clearly Catholic, and so it cannot be licitly celebrated or attended, because Catholics may only assist at a Catholic rite of Mass. It is still a vague, protestant Lord’s Supper celebration.

            If you want to fight the errors of our time, but refuse to start by pointing out the defective, and therefore unsuitable and non-Catholic nature of the Novus Ordo Missae itself, you are still playing into the hands of the worst enemies the Church has ever had to face.

          • Dear Fr.

            Another point regarding the Novus Ordo Missae.

            It does not express what the Church believes and teaches regarding the Mass. It is a theological parallel of a protestant Lord’s Supper service. This much is beyond dispute.

            So, if or when you use it to celebrate Mass, I cannot be certain that you have the intention to do what the Church does. You might have the correct intention in the internal forum (and you probably do), but the use of the new missal does not make that intention manifest in the external forum to anyone else, because it fails to clearly express the renewal of Calvary on the Altar.

            Because there is a manifest defect of intention in a Priest using the Novus Ordo Missae, I am forbidden to attend it, because the faithful are not permitted by the Church to attend sacraments or rites that are invalid, doubtful or even only probably certain. There must be moral certainty regarding the Sacraments. I am not saying it is invalid per se. I just don’t know if the intention of the Priest is there.

            The only way I can be sure you have the intention to do what the Church does at Mass is if you use the Roman Missal codified by Pope St Pius V, which makes the Priest’s intention to do what the Church does manifest in the external forum.

    • What Bergoglio said about Communism wasn”t just “stupid”. It was heretical. Do you admit to yourself that he is an enemy of Christ? I recognise you from previous posts, and often thought you’re very insightful. but I don’t remember if you expressed in plain words that this “pope” is an apostate in the PUBLIC FORUM.

      Reply
      • No, I have not said that and for a very good reason: such a judgment is far above my pay grade. I don’t like many of the things Francis says nor do I like the company he keeps, and I think his papacy is an unmitigated disaster. Beyond that, though, I feel compelled to defer to others more skilled in these matters than I. I also think we should all pray for the man daily. He is clearly in need of prayers.

        Reply
        • For the first year of Francis’ pontificate, I just assumed he was different, more pastoral. Then I started to pray more seriously about what he was doing and, like you, I felt unworthy to judge this man. Later I thought that he must be at least a material heretic. But I can no longer put off making the most radical judgement about him without insulting my reason. What he does and says puts him beyond the “pale”. Although I’m naturally sceptical of revelations and seers, it’s possible he could even be the “false prophet” foretold in scripture. There is every reason to fear the church is caught up in the “great apostasy”, also foretold in scripture. Is the church in for a great physical chastisement? Since the spiritual chastisement has been going on since the opening chapters of modernism at the end of the 19th century? Vat ll giving it a more dramatic turn.

          Reply
          • I can neither deny or affirm your judgment, Tom, and that is why I have suspended judgment. Naturally, since my assessment of the man’s conduct is so negative, I look askance at everything he does and says. Personally I think he is in the running to be named the pope who has done the most damage to the Church since its founding.

    • >Stéphane Courtois in The Black Book of Communism, has murdered one hundred million innocent victims

      Lol, how many has the church and capitalism and feudalism murdered? The number would be in the billions. What about the tens of millions of native americans? The millions of Chinese? The widespread slavery, sex trade and human trafficking carried out by the Church involving millions in Asia during the 20th century alone?

      The Black Book of Communism has also been completely debunked.
      Also funny, Jesus was a Socialist. It is clear in the New Testament Jesus disdain for the exploitation of people, the accumulation of Wealth above people. Jesus words on wealth and power are clear, but you Christians use absolutely pathetic “get out of jail free” cards like Jesus saying “under God anything is possible”, a blatantly sarcastic remark punctuating that no matter what, rich men, those who accumulate wealth at the cost of others, will never enter heaven.

      Also how stupid are you? Communism is an ideology based around equality, liberation and love of all of humanity, the end of imperialism, the end of subjugation, the end of poverty, the end of inequality, the end of racism, the end of class, the end of ones worth being based on wealth and instead ones worth based on whatever they can do to contribute to their fellow man. Nazism and Fascism are incredibly reactionary belief systems based on dominance, racial and national superiority, machismo, patriarchy, strength in wealth, social darwinism, genocide.

      It’s funny, the Church, a supposed spokesperson for Christ, sided with the Fascists against those fighting for equality, for the poor and instead handed socialists, the poor, children, over to raping and murdering thugs like Franco. But like always, the Church has always cared about it’s power first and foremost and the words of Jesus Christ have been stomped on. How would Jesus react to a bunch of elitist pedophile twats spouting bigotry in gold lined robes and gucci slippers and engaging in one of the largest banking systems on earth which subjugates huge amounts of the earths population to poverty?

      You so called Christians could only wish to be like us Communists in regards to being close to Jesus. Considering I doubt many on this board are followers of Liberation theory, I can rightfully call you all hypocrites of the highest order.

      Reply
      • I read your first paragraph only, just enough to see your “math.” That told me all I really need to know about you, viz. –how can I put this charitably? — that you’re a perfect moron, the kind who votes regularly for the Democrat Party in this country and for assorted left-wing parties in other countries where the vote is permitted. Have a nice day.

        Reply
    • Nonsense. The Pope, he is well within a long history of Christian Communism (the view that the teachings of Christ support communism as the ideal social system), and is in good company, other well known proponents of Christian communism include Thomas Hagerty, Ernst Bloch, Diane Drufenbrock, Camilo Torres.

      The concept and practice of communism is not synonymous with the Nation States that may have attempted to implement some interpretation of it. As Marx envisioned it, communism is a classless society without the State, where decisions are made democratically. Communism is not an alternative to democracy, only to capitalism–it in fact expands democratic ideals to their fullest possibility, in freeing the individual as its goal. Nowhere in these principles of communism, as laid out by Marx and others, can one find the idea that someone else decides for you what you do and what you can say. Many people call themselves communists because they believe in the form of society that Marx and others proposed, not because they supported Soviet Russia, or any other repressing regime. To imply that the idea of communism is synonymous with support of the oppression found in such regimes is to be ignorant of what true proponents of the political philosophy actually stand for.

      But aside from the obvious fact that this is not communism, try to apply your anti-communist ‘body count’ methods to capitalism and you can see how this (black book of communism) pure propaganda and if its methods were turned around to indict capitalism, there is no comparison: Noam Chomky just addressed point here comparing “Communist” China to “Capitalist” India which was a study done by prof. Sen: http://spectrezine.org/global/chomsky.htm:

      “He observes that India and China had “similarities that were quite striking” when development planning began 50 years ago, including death rates. “But there is little doubt that as far as morbidity, mortality and longevity are concerned, China has a large and decisive lead over India” (in education and other social indicators as well). He estimates the excess of mortality in India over China to be close to 4 million a year: “India seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years than China put there in its years of shame,” 1958-1961 (Dreze and Sen).

      In both cases, the outcomes have to do with the “ideological predispositions” of the political systems: for China, relatively equitable distribution of medical resources, including rural health services, and public distribution of food, all lacking in India. This was before 1979, when “the downward trend in mortality [in China] has been at least halted, and possibly reversed,” thanks to the market reforms instituted that year.

      “We therefore conclude that in India the democratic capitalist “experiment” since 1947 has caused more deaths than in the entire history of the “colossal, wholly failed…experiment” of Communism everywhere since 1917: over 100 million deaths by 1979, tens of millions more since, in India alone. The “criminal indictment” of the “democratic capitalist experiment” becomes harsher still if we turn to its effects after the fall of Communism: millions of corpses in Russia, to take one case, as Russia followed the confident prescription of the World Bank that “Countries that liberalise rapidly and extensively turn around more quickly [than those that do not],” returning to something like what it had been before World War I, a picture familiar throughout the “third world.” But “you can’t make an omelette without broken eggs,” as Stalin would have said. The indictment becomes far harsher if we consider these vast areas that remained under Western tutelage, yielding a truly “colossal” record of skeletons and “absolutely futile, pointless and inexplicable suffering” (Ryan). The indictment takes on further force when we add to the account the countries devastated by the direct assaults of Western power, and its clients, during the same years.”

      “Socialism” and “communism” which have no substantial differences are NOT synonymous with one party rule, nor authoritarian rule. But both are defined by their hyper democratic nature. Neither can be dismissed because of the tragedies of 20th century attempts to achieve them (and neither should those attempts be disparaged). For most of their existence, they were practicing State Capitalism that was undemocratic, and whose legitimacy was based on providing the bread and butter basics (goulash communism), but the State ran and controlled enterprises for profit, and political and economic control, among an elite for a system that was in competition with their rival empire and power center in the West. Even folks like Friedman readily admitted that the USSR was just a different mode of capitalism but delivered through different channels. Yes, we don’t want anything to do with that, again. I agree. But if you think that was real “communism” or “socialism” then you drank the cool aid they were selling–not me. The reality is that fake communism has nothing to do with real socialism, just as our fake democracy has nothing to do with real democracy. As Marx wrote, winning the battle for socialism is winning the battle for democracy (right in the communist manifesto).

      The Marxist idea of distribution of wealth is based on the reality of how wealth is created. Wealth currently goes to the individual who control the means for collecting it, or in some cases, stealing it. Allowing the rich to get richer by extracting wealth out the economy serves them at the expense everyone else and the system becomes increasingly unstable. Marx was an economist and his major contribution was his analysis of capitalism and its contradictions, the ones that lead to increased exploitation of workers and the general degrading of individuals and society. A truly Marxist economy would be one in which every one has a representative voice in how the economy is run. And the economy operates in a manner that provides for human needs rather than profits. None of the so-called communist countries were Marxist in that workers did not really have a voice or representative role. Decisions were made by and for an elite class which is not much different from the way things are moving in this country. As wealth concentrates in fewer and fewer hands democracy fade. The country was founded and the Constitution written for a country with a large proportion of small property owners, farmers, shopkeepers, merchants and craftsman. In an age in which international corporations are growing and expanding in power, the capitalist based representative democracy is becoming an ineffectual shadow, because they end up representing money more so than your interests. A recent Princeton study concluded as much, as capitalism undermines democracy and turns it into a plutocracy run by oligarchs serving big corporations with the State serving their interests (Military Industrial Complex, anyone?), the interests of the 99% get pushed aside.

      Humans–we–have lived for most of our existence under a communism (communal, sharing, egalitarian societies) before setting down into private property. Also, most families operate as communist social relations (healthy ones). Next time you see someone happy and alive, thank communist relations (your family giving everything you need simply based on the fact that you need it and should get it as your human right even if it doesn’t make someone richer.

      Reply
  8. Is the opposite not also true? Rigidity of the post Vatican II folks.I’d say they are most Rigid of all…..I know priests who threw out the bells that are often rung a the epiclisis, and the words of institution…. just so another priest would not ask someone to ring them….etc……
    was it not a rigid mindset that allowed altar girls, communion in the hand, which tore out great works of are from Sanctuaries, destroyed churches etc……in the name of a not called for change of Vatican II ?
    And if the Pope really said that communist think more like Christians, then he was never living in Communist Russia, or Albania, or Poland was he?

    Reply
    • The rigidity with which he has attempted to impose his views on Communion for public permanent adulterers far outweighs any rigidity I have found among people who are simply trying to be faithful to the teaching we have received from the apostles. I suspect that this is just another example of his narcissistic projection.

      Reply
  9. JORGE IS OUT OF CONTROL!
    He doesn’t care about History.
    He doesn’t care about the truth.
    He doesn’t care about Scriptures.

    I’m telling you, I know who he. I am 100% certain that he is a Double Agent! Nobody is a free agent. You either work for Christ or Satan. There is no other alternative! Therefore, he is a Double Agent. Now, who is his human master? That’s the question!

    Reply
    • “Now, who is his human master?”.

      George Soros’ Open Society Foundation funded $650,000 for Pope Francis’ appearance before the UN and his trip to Philadelphia for that World Meeting of Families shindig. That nugget of information was gleaned from recent Wikileaks.

      Reply
        • I think a psychiatrist would have a field day with Pope Francis. I can’t figure out if he’s diabolically influenced, or if he’s slipping into dementia, or if he is a covert modernist, or if he is the product of terrible religious formation, or a combination of all four of those factors. When he speaks, he doesn’t come across as an educated man. His writings (if he in fact even wrote them himself…) are confused and obtuse. Sometimes he appears to be very sly ….which is a valuable survival trait in politically volatile Argentina. Pope Francis has said that he enjoys being the pope, and I think that is because he loves an audience. Basking in attention is his thing, so perhaps narcissism is his “master”.

          Reply
          • I’ve read that he has a brain tumor. If so, that could be a very significant factor as to why he is incoherent in his talks. Occasionally I’ve heard his homilies. They sound orthodox, and then he says something that makes your sensus Fidei go on red alert, and it’s like “Whoa! Where did that come from?”

            Quite frankly, I’m afraid for him.

          • Yes, he is full of himself! To the point that he is rejecting the Great Commission of Our Lord. I think that this is truly diabolical.

      • Even Freemasonry is infiltrated by the most insidious of the secret societies, the Illuminati. My research is that at the very top are 13 multi-generational satanic families. At the head is the most well known the Rothschilds. And that’s why you have heard me refer to the beast being in Europe. Obviously it doesn’t appear that he receives instructions directly from the Rothschilds. The person through whom he gets his instructions would have to be handler close to him at Casa Santa Marta or perhaps hidden and known to him alone because we learned early on from Fr. Lombardi that he and others didn’t even know Pope Francis’ schedule which he sets himself.
        *
        It is good to recall that the foundation of the Illuminati is credited to Adam Weishaupt, who was a Jesuit. It is my theory that the Jesuits were infiltrated very soon after the foundation of the Order of the Illuminati and perhaps that’s why the Order of the Jesuits for a period of time ran afoul of the Church. He may perhaps have an old master among the Jesuits or in the Freemasonry Masonic lodges in Argentina.

        “The Illuminati had …a plan …they decided on a most ambitious line of conduct. It would form and control public opinion. It would amalgamate religions by dissolving all the differences of belief and ritual that had kept them apart; and it would take over the Papacy and place an agent of its own in the Chair of Peter.” (p. 7-8)
        These Plans were written in 1776.

        And

        In secret correspondence uncovered by the Bavarian government, Weishaupt had written to a fellow high-ranking Illuminist: “We will infiltrate into that place [the Vatican] and once inside we will never come out. We will bore from within until it remains nothing but an empty shell.” He further boasted that one day the Illuminati “will place one of our own” on the throne of Peter. – Cf. The Illuminati, the Pope, and the Secret Societies

        Reply
  10. I’m now of a mind to say it’s not primarily about Bergoglio anymore. It’s about the bishops and others who continue to remain silent.

    Reply
    • Including Pope Emeritus Benedict who feels that the ” goodness of Francis” ” is the place that makes me feel safe”. I would think it’s those Sig Sauer p226 pistols carried by the Swiss Guard that would make me feel safe in that part of Rome.

      Reply
      • Pope Benedict is more disturbed than ennamoured by this pope. He was not permitted to attend the funeral of Cdl. Meisler and remarked that he hadn’t anticipated being assigned to a cloisterage in retirement. He wrote a powerful eulogy nonetheless and commented about the Church being in the position of a capsized ship. Those who love and Respect Pope Benedict are finally realizing who Francis is—The Dictator Pope.

        Reply
    • Many are hirelings, some Nicodemus’s and the rest are not (anywhere near) of the same cloth as the martyrs of our One True Faith. OK, I certainly question the strength of my own faith and don’t know if I would have, when the time comes, what it takes to give up my life for the Lord, but I didn’t choose (or better put, wasn’t called) to accept the purple or red cincture! If only a couple of dozen bishops/cardinals, which is only a fraction, banded together and with one voice declared “enough, away with you” this would create a sufficient storm to make a noticeable difference. I can understand (humanly speaking) how a lone bishop may want to stay under the radar without backup, but a collective that has each other back’s along with the Holy Ghost would be a force to be reckoned with. What else could possibly be stopping them? An overemphasised and exaggerated application of “prudence”. Come to think of it, I wonder what the outcome would be if St Michael exercised the same kind of “prudence” when dealing with the disobedience and hate of Lucifer.

      Reply
    • You are right.

      We are led by faggots. Look, God can even use faggots, but they have to cooperate with His grace.

      So say the doctrines of our faith.

      Reply
      • RTHEVR,

        Do you mean damp faggots, therefore unsuitable bundles for burning, or are you using the term to mean those with the cross of homosexual attraction?

        Reply
        • Do you mean that those with homosexual attraction do make suitable bundles for burning? I don’t think we can go back to the days of Savonarola.

          Reply
          • Deacon Augustine,
            “Faggots” as I remember the meaning of the term, is “bundles for burning; cigarettes”. I don’t think that’s the sense in which RTHEVR means the term, though. I think he means “those with homosexual attraction”, whether he would state it so clearly or not. I’m not proposing to put anyone to the stake.

          • I’m sure he is – its just that my twisted sense of humour could not resist the way your question had been phrased! 😉

          • “faggots” could mean “aberrant sexual perverts” especially those attempting to claim their perversion is beneficial in some way

    • I came across an interesting assertion a while back: the trouble in the Church is a result of the unwillingness on the part of the Popes – from Pius XI on to this one – to actually do what Mary wants by consecrating Russia. Accordingly, disobedient Popes = disobedient Cardinals/Bishops = disobedient priests = disobedient lay people. Its an interesting idea and sounds plausible. The challenge for us little laypeople is that we can’t consecrate Russia.

      The best we can do it would seem is to 1. pray for the consecration and the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart before its too late and 2. resist those priests and Bishops to their faces as Paul described doing to Peter in Galatians. Don’t just go the passive route of not putting money in their collection plates, but also call them out for their unending insipid “be nice ’cause Jesus was nice” homilies, their RIGIDITY on only using the novus-sorta (as my son calls it) Mass and their unyielding desire to be “relevant”, i.e. just go with the flow, not actually shape, mold and bend culture to the will of Christ the King, but just react to it, and sing their silly pop songs so they can be cool.

      Make the Catholic Church Great Again [and here come the Trumpian exclamation marks]!!!!

      Reply
      • Yes, when you go to a parish like that speak up. Also, you can vote with your feet by going elsewhere. When you leave one of those sappy “nice” parishes that go along to get along and not concerned with saving souls and you move to a parish that is not just a feel nice social club, it also sends a message. A big part of the Faith is taking the Lord at His word, and believing in His promises. In the case of Fatima it was , Our Lady who made some pretty strong promises. If the popes had had strong enough faith in our Lady’s promises they would have consecrated RUSSIA to her Immaculate Heart.

        Reply
      • Two of the four Dubia cardinals have died this past year—Caferra and Meisner. More than a year has past and this pope’s “sidekick” Cdl. Walter Masper who’d served as adm. asst. to heretical Hans Kung, says that the pope has spoken on AL (to Argentina officially) meaning that Communion should be given to those living openly in sodomy, adultrry (remarried – unannulleds) and fornication (cohabits) in violation of Canon Law 915, Scripture and the Ten Commandments.

        Reply
    • When you realize this guy was elected the whole situation appears much more grim. Significant purging needs to happen.

      Reply
  11. This does not surprise me given the fact that I had a gut awful feeling about him the night of his election. I can say for a fact that I’ve not been wrong. This guy is a heretic and how dare he call the ‘holy Latin mass,’ rigid..! Obviously he knows nothing about holiness the way he prances all over the world clamoring for attention. Humble, he’s not! He’s a phony! Since when does he think that the Catholic church is his to do what he pleases. He’s supposed to be a “humble shepherd leading his flock to the church Jesus Christ Himself founded. This man has not let go of his Socialist background and now, pushing it on the holy Catholic church. He needs to step down! One more thing, didn’t Our Lord ‘state’ that, “the poor will always be with us.” No one can totally get rid of poverty in this world and yes, we do have to give to those less fortunate but not by Communism…!

    Reply
    • And they really do not care about the poor [cf. Judas]. If they did, Obama would not be persecuting the Little Sisters of the Poor, who are caring for the poor. This is how evil and twisted they are, using our own Christian values for their agenda when they care nothing of those values.

      Reply
    • I thought he looked malevolent the instant I saw his face. When he KNELT for a blessing from the crowd, I knew he was a demagogue.

      Reply
  12. Jorge is like Columbo. You think he is stupid or makes stupid remarks but he is just cleverly promoting his freemasonry Marxism. Jesuits are not stupid. Notice the complete consistency across all plausible deniable sources. He promotes indifferentism and sin, as does freemasonry. The apostate Church does not notice and the few faithful prelates provide wimpy responses. Praying the daily rosary is essential for survival.

    Reply
  13. By God allowing Pope Francis to sit on the throne of St. Peter, what has He accomplished? He has allowed us to understand the extent to which the human part of the mainstream Catholic Church has failed. If we had received another “conservative” conciliar Pope we would probably been able to believe that things were going to continue to gradually improve. But now we have a thoroughly modern(ist) Pope completely formed in the Spirit of Vatican 2 and the New Mass beclowning himself on a daily basis revealing the extent of the rot in the human part of the mainstream Church. For example, outside of Pope Francis I would have never grasped the reality that most Priests and Bishops simply do not care that many millions have fallen away from the faith, thus jeopardizing their immortal souls. We every asinine utterance emanating from his mouth Pope Francis builds the fire in the heart of the faithful for a complete and immediate recovery of the true faith, not some gradual, dialectical, “moderate” renewal.
    Make the Catholic Church Great Again!!!!

    Reply
  14. Anecdote
    For @Mooselodge [since you are the one I started sharing anecdotes with] and all.

    Btw I have to thank the crisis in Church that was brought to the fore by Pope Francis for having led me to discover the EF in my diocese. So while we want things to get better right away, God does bring good from evil and will rescue us in his time. In fact Revelation in times of persecution says “Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.” [Rv 22:11]

    Back to the anecdote. Because of Pope Francis, God led me to discover the EF. I have met some families there, large and wonderful Catholic families. I just go there once a month on First Saturdays [they also have a weekly Mass on Sundays] and during Christmas and Easter. The rest of the time is Mass at my OF parish. I asked one father of the family [just lost his eldest son in a car accident, so please say a prayer for them], how he started coming to EF. He told me that it was via his very young children. They were attending RE [=Religious Education post VII vs. Catechism] and the teachers there were teaching them that there were no angels and they told their dad/parents that they could no longer go there. That family is that one which hosts an FSSP priest from Nebraska for our Christmas and Easter liturgies. I give this anecdote precisely because Pope Francis’ words against the youth who love the EF. Perhaps through him the enemy is attacking those children of the Church who God will use to revive the Church.

    Reply
  15. OMG, so commies and homos are passed judgement when it comes to this “Pope” but European christians are called into question about their behaviour. Gee sorry, for not being a commie or homo, I will make a conservative effort to the confession box.

    Reply
  16. He would be more magnanimous if he rode the sedia gestatoria once in a while and got rid of those protestant-plain vestments. I’m sick of looking at them.

    Reply
  17. Sayeth Bergoglio: “Christ spoke of a society where the poor, the weak and the marginalized
    have the right to decide. Not demagogues, not Barabbas, but the people,
    the poor, whether they have faith in a transcendent God or not. It is
    they who must help to achieve equality and freedom”.

    Does anyone know a piece of scripture in which the poor have the right to “decide” economic matters? Does Christ urge anywhere in the New Testament the poor “whether they have faith in a transcendent God or not” should determine what we to owe to Caesar?

    It’s alarming to think that a Pope who should have some memory of liberation theology, the Cultural Revolution, the Soviet Gulag and other horrors hatched in the name of “scientific socialism” (solidly atheist in creed of course) believes they were Christian at heart. Frankly it’s even worse for Bergoglio to slander the name of Christ by attributing ideas to him that don’t exist in scripture – and ignore the great emphasis Christ put on the importance of faith over and again throughout the gospels.It certainly appears that Bergoglio will lie about Christ to make a remarkably shallow point about contemporary economic policy – which – in one form or another – is market oriented in every country in the world. (Cuba would be broke without sex tourism and tobacco sales – not what Fidel had in mind in 1960.)

    It may be worth remembering that Bergoglio is from Argentina. That’s the home of fantasyland politics/economics crafted by Juan Peron and his wives. It spawned a vicious Marxist urban insurgency which in turn triggered the infamous “dirty war.” And let’s not forget the war for the Malvinas/Falklands – the most ridiculous military enterprise since 1945. And post military-rule Argentina has had a whole series of governments that mock democracy and have brought perpetual economic debacle to a land that should be very rich. In Argentina, a close look at the truth would drive a sane and honest person mad. It would be the perfect seed-bed for a blizzard of shallow and pathetically wrong ideas concerning the meaning of economic equality. One must wonder if the Pope would prefer a world that was equal in its poverty – it would be a perfect place for a man who thinks the poor are superior to everyone else in virtue and wisdom. And no doubt they brim with mercy.

    The bishops have a very hard time opposing Bergoglio. It is vital that the lay faithful reject this man’s bizarre and misguided teachings openly at every opportunity. The world’s Cardinals must know that when the time comes that the faithful long not for a new pope, but for a liberator.

    Reply
  18. Where is the outcry against such patent Communist propaganda? We need rebellion in the Church by those on the side of God against this devilish interloper. Where are the courageous Cardinals and Bishops who will help us take our Church from the powers of darkness? Until such leadership arrives it us up to the orthodox laity to light candles of truth in the enveloping gloom. Thanks be to God that people like Steve Stojec are holding these candles on high.

    Reply
    • It’s the Cardinals who have landed us in this mess – they are the problem. They elected him with the precise aim to overthrow the CC from its foundations & that is what he is doing. They have no intention of letting him go & a great many of our Bishops are in cahoots, having been appointed by him or his predecessors who were NWO supporters as much as he only not so blatant about it.

      Reply
      • Agree. We need divine intervention for sure. Let us hope God delivers a message to Pope Francis and all the clergy—-and soon. That sound you don’t hear are all the dying souls being poisoned and killed by a faithless clergy.

        Reply
  19. The Sacrifice of The Cross, Is The Sacrifice of The Most Holy and Undivided Blessed Trinity; “For God so Loved us, that He sent His only Son…”

    Reply
  20. Well to play devil’s advocate here in some regard, there is some christian values found in communism in it’s pure form. The problem that immediately arises however, is that the desire for power and subjugation sabotages whatever good it could do. Therefore it will ALWAYS fail. I would like to see a world where no one goes hungry, everyone has clean water, a home, medical care for everyone, free flow of knowledge, universal love and kindness. What Man refuses to admit is that this is not going to be possible, EVER, until the Son of Man returns in His Glory. Why?, because we are all flawed beyond any true goodness we can give/sustain. Perhaps instead of foolishly trying to create a false heaven on Earth, we should be like the Jews of old and fervently start praying for our Deliverer, our Savior, to return. The difference this time is we know His name, and it is Jesus Christ. When a multitude of voices cry out to God for His return, to end our sinful, hate filled, cruel world and to live fully according to His Word, God just might oblige sooner than later and end this continuous loop of disgustingness.

    Reply
    • There is no pure form of communism. Communism was dreamed up to deliver a supposedly equal distribution of whatever was produced amongst the population. More capable people were expected to work to their utmost to ensure a large production. People with lesser abilities were expected to work as far as they were able too. Human beings would not accept such a system with no rewards for extra work so personal effort stagnated. The Soviets were able to produce their share of millionaires despite communism. So better we kill off this idea of “pure communism”.

      Reply
  21. We already know Franci is hopelessly bound by his South American experience and slant on existence. I doubt there will ever be another SA bishop elected as pope, based on his runaway mind and mouth..

    He will have a great deal to account for when he meets Jesus. “But who are we to judge?”

    We should consider, I guess, that Francis speaks from a completely different set of political values than we do. He has no training or experience in capitalism or democracy, or even (evidently) the basic knowledge that propelled our founders like Jefferson and Madison. I even question his knowledge and experience with Communism; it must be very shallow, and unaware of the destruction to human life (and to the life of the Church) in Europe and Asia……as well as is evident in Cuba and Venezuela. But when one’s basic political education is under self-serving dictators (Argentina), anything else, even communism, may look better in a simple-minded way.

    And, from a semantics point of view, what we KNOW as “Communism” is not communism; it is dialectical materialism, a far cry from real communism, which we know was practiced in the early Church. Francis, as is his wont, ignores the “black and white”, so he may speak in the grey shades of his knowledge and experience.

    I have no doubt Francis completely understands early church communism, and has probably preached on it on many occasions. It is a worthwhile pursuit for a “perfect” world, where EVERYONE works for the common good. But it is truly foolish to equate political communism to the early Church. No one in his right mind believes that political system will actually work, especially with the desire of most governed people to do as little as they can get by with. Selfishness and greed will always triumph, given opportunity and encouragement.

    So, as with his treatise on global warming, we are left with a sincere man, who has accomplished the Peter Principle (not referring to St. Peter, of course!). He is (again) “out of his depth”.

    Jus’ sayin’…………………

    Reply
    • “And, from a semantics point of view, what we KNOW as “Communism” is not communism; it is dialectical materialism, a far cry from real communism, which we know was practiced in the early Church”.

      This is a false assumption. Pure communism is a state in which there is NO private property, and all property is held in common (hence the word “communism”). Pure communism also embraces the idea of the “dictatorship of the proletariat”, which is a totally egalitarian democracy without elitist leaders or managers.

      The early Church refutes the concept of a “pure form of communism” because there was clearly leadership (Peter and the Apostles), and a hierarchical chain of command (bishops, priests, deacons, laity). The early Church was NOT a total democracy in which decisions were made by vote. Private property was also retained. Contributions to the church community were voluntary in nature. Charitable contributions were held in common (but distributed under the guidance of Church leaders). If you read the account of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5: 1-11), their sin was not the retention of private property, but their fraudulent claims that they had donated all the real estate sale proceeds to the Church.

      Reply
      • Sorry. You are confusing communism with democracy, which are unconnected. This is what the Church means, and at one time practiced, about true communism: From Acts, Chapter 2:
        Communal Life.*
        42
        They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers.
        43
        Awe came upon everyone, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.
        44
        All who believed were together and had all things in common;
        45
        they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one’s need.

        Reply
  22. Recently while meditating in prayer, it came to me, that original sin was the decision by Adam and Eve to determine for themselves what is right and wrong (the tree of knowledge, of good and evil). As we decide for ourselves what we believe or not (good and bad), we do the same thing. There is only one way of determining good and evil, God. So why does Francis think he can determine for the Church what is good and bad. His job is to only promote what God has revealed through the Bible and his Church. Yet he continues to do what Satan promoted in the garden of Eden.

    Reply
  23. This is the kind of mindset that allows “peaceful protesters” to display Communist flags (“With Lenin to inspire us and Stalin to guide us”, an oldie but goodie from the ’40’s, just sayin’) with no sort of aplomb, much less outrage from the Ted Baxters and DNC hacks who run the mainstream media these days! (Jeff Zucker call your office!) I remember about 30+ years ago when some leftist intellectual type name Susan Sontag gave a speech in which she noted the Fascistic nature of Communism and the Marxoids hooted and hollered! Kyrie Eleison Christe Eleison

    Reply
    • 1982. She said that “Communism IS Fascism.” She also said that people who had been reading Reader’s Digest for a generation knew much more of the truth about Communism than people who had been reading the Nation or the New York Review of Books.

      Reply
  24. That’s it then… I’m officially excommunicating myself. I’ve been drifting away little buy little for years, but now it’s clear that these people aren’t smart enough from me to allow them to have any influence on my life. So-long suckers.

    Reply
  25. I’m surprised that nobody has mentioned the fact that “the people” were the ones that wanted Barabbas. Also, you don’t get much more “marginalized” than being nailed to a cross on the outskirts of town. This stuff is incredible. Also, Our Lord still is the poorest of the poor and the marginalizest of the marginalized in the Blessed Sacrament. Alone in most of the world’s Tabernacles, ignored by both priests and “people” before during and after most of the Holy Masses, at the mercy of irreverent and sometimes downright evil priests and people who receive Him sacrilegeously.

    Reply
  26. “Why so much rigidity?” E – gads!!!

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5f0206abcbf7608adf872ec9211d8d0d209eab9f1b31c691d8a0989a5bff1f36.jpg

    THE
    HOLY
    MASS

    The Holy Mass that cannot die
    Was said amidst the oaks
    While pin-oak leaves came floating down
    Around the simple folks

    Who knelt upon the acorn floor
    All dotted nutty brown
    The acorns cracked and old knees snapped
    Yet still there was no sound…

    But the tinkling of the golden bells
    As the White Host Son rose high
    On priestly limbs like mighty oaks
    They branched up to the sky

    And in that wood I laughed with joy
    Amongst the souls bowed down
    For the mighty oak was once a nut
    That RIGIDLY held its ground.

    So good young souls like acorn nuts
    Must burrow all around
    And be the seeds that sprout new oaks
    O’er old bad men earth bound…

    Where the Holy Mass, that cannot die
    Is said around the oaks
    While pin-oak leaves come floating down
    For the WHOLE Faith, Catholic folks!

    Reply
  27. When not long ago you were set on seeing the glass as half-full, not half-empty, I saw that you lack discernment.
    Do not forget, what you seem to be seeing clearly at this moment.
    What comes from our Lord, is clear.
    What has been coming from Jorge Bergoglio, even back in Argentina, is also clear, and it contradicts the Word of God.
    Bergoglio is now introducing a new commandment – love your neighbour more than yourself. It is the only way he can continue to demand from Christians that they self-destruct, so that economic migrants, young Muslim men (wearing best athletic footwear and equipped with high-end phones), can breed with European women by the orders of the “pope”. These are his poor. He worships these demanding, ungrateful “poor”. It is a clear case of idolatry, Bergoglio’s gods, the poor, no longer need a transcendent God. As long as they are convinced to take from the infidels, the dogs, what Islam teaches is due to them, we will have unity and peace.

    Jesus Christ is an obstacle.

    We must see the glass as empty. The vessel that Bergoglio is, is full of Bergoglio. There is no room in there for the Holy Spirit.

    Reply
  28. “I do not pass judgment on people and politicians, I simply want to understand the suffering that their approach causes the poor and excluded”. And how about some first wives!!!

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cb18d69393ebe57bbe45806493bf110c8fadd0264779c72b915067a00474e66a.jpg

    BURNT
    OFFERINGS

    My church she is a Catholic
    But some see Henry’s view
    It really doesn’t matter that
    Hank killed some Saints, a few.

    He also had oh, several wives
    And took some of their heads
    But Church of England called him first
    That stallion of all beds.

    Carthusians, smarthusians
    In habits hung around
    Quiet not like Campion
    Beth brought that braggart down.

    And merry, Margaret Clitherow
    Oh, what a cheeky dame
    Hiding priests behind her skirts
    Liz crushed her little game.

    Then Thomas More, oh what a bore
    They pleaded some did cry,
    “Let horny Hank play his bed prank
    Just nod and wink an eye!”

    Some Bishops say, “That’s long ago.
    Those times are of past scene.”
    Now, “Who are we to judge?” They ask
    “Just make sure you go green!”

    And on some Altars relics
    From martyred by Hank’s lust –
    Bishops bent with sin’s intent
    Will burn us ash to dust.

    Reply
  29. I hope I am incorrect in my reading of the section of Pope Francis’s interview relative to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass in which he calls it an ” exception” which exists thanks wholly to the magnanimous action of Pope Benedict. In view of the fact that Pope Francis has recently performed what some call a “purge” of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and the fact that Pope Benedict no longer wields any power I find Francis’s words extremely ominous.

    Reply
  30. Currently reading Windswept House. According to the author, Malachi Martin this should not surprise us. In this “novel” written in 1996, by an author who died in 1999, the story goes that a 3 point plan would be implemented to move the world to a New Order. Step 1. Convince the world’s bishops to understand that their own interests would be better met in a globalist economy with one world order leadership. Have them back away from offensive concepts that will not blend well with other religions. Step 2. Implement the rule that popes must resign at the same age as every other bishop, projecting the idea that the Bishop of Rome is no more important than any other. 3. Establish an organized conclave to appoint a likeminded and compliant new pope willing to support the New Order.

    It is hard to read this now and not recognize many things that Martin wrote about. I don’t think there is any doubt anymore that this Vatican is off the rails. That a pope might resign isn’t as odd as one thinks, if you are willing to accept that this was planned long in advance for the purpose of promoting the goals of Freemasonry.

    Reply
  31. I am reminded of Pope Leo XIII’s prophecy and his prayer to St. Michael

    The St. Michael Prayer

    Saint Michael the Archangel,
    defend us in battle;
    be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
    May God rebuke him, we humbly pray:
    and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host,
    by the power of God,
    thrust into hell Satan and all the evil spirits
    who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.
    Amen

    Reply
      • Agreed, except that it is less and less astonishing that THIS Pope does it.

        You {if you are not ordained} and I now must sit and wait as the testing of the ordained continues.

        What we are seeing is a test of the faith of God’s priests and bishops.

        We will see who stands for Christ and who stands for Satan.

        So far the silence is not encouraging, but give them time. After all, they don’t have wives to spur them on.

        Reply
  32. How is it that Joseph Stalin, who was a good Christian (using the Pope’s reasoning) ended up being expelled from the seminary while Jorge Bergoglio, a thinly veiled Communist sympathiser, ended up not just becoming a priest but the Pope himself? Sometimes I wish the Lord wouldn’t move in quite such mysterious ways.

    Reply
  33. On a related note, I see that Fr. Z has punted on this. He’s said nothing about the Pope’s remarks concerning young people and the traditional Latin Mass, nor the current “communists think like Christians” kerfuffle.

    Maybe he will. He needs to.

    Reply
    • We must remember that our good and holy priests, and Fr. Z., is one of them, are SUFFERING through this more than we can even imagine.

      It so drains one’s soul to have this constant stream of ” crap”, coming from one’s Pope.
      That is why, once in awhile, we, the laity have to give these good men some slack, and let our righteous anger be enough for the moment. I cannot even imagine the distress dear Fr. Z. is going through right now.

      Now, as for the cardinals who WEAR the RED…….that is another matter.

      Reply
  34. The Pope reminds me of Judas priest.. Judas who was a priest.

    Then one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, he that was about to betray him, said: Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?

    Now he said this, not because he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and having the purse, carried the things that were put therein. Jesus therefore said: Let her alone, that she may keep it against the day of my burial. For the poor you have always with you; but me you have not always. (John 12:4-8)

    I guess pope Francis is a thief as well, stealing not gold but the honour that is due to God alone.

    Who knoweth the power of thy anger, and for thy fear Can number thy wrath? So make thy right hand known: and men learned in heart, in wisdom. Return, O Lord, how long? and be entreated in favour of thy servants. We are filled in the morning with thy mercy: and we have rejoiced, and are delighted all our days. We have rejoiced for the days in which thou hast humbled us: for the years in which we have seen evils.
    Look upon thy servants and upon their works: and direct their children. And let the brightness of the Lord our God be upon us: and direct thou the works of our hands over us; yea, the work of our hands do thou direct.

    Reply
  35. “I do not pass judgment on people and politicians, I simply want to understand the suffering that their approach causes the poor and excluded”.

    Did Pope Francis ever consider that the poor and “excluded” would vote for Trump?

    “The surprise is the inclusion of the word “gender” instead of the more specific and less loaded word “sex,” as well as the consideration of the quality of a human life in a dependent relation with the “entire universe.” This leaves the door open to all kinds of modern trends, such as elevating animal life to equal standing with human life, or putting the idea of a sociological gender before the natural sex of a person.”

    I take it that Pope Francis the Humble read the First Chapter of Genesis and found it wanting. God didn’t not exactly know what he was doing when he created Male and Female.

    Reply
  36. After the Trump victory Bergoglio will attempt to profile himself as the “spiritual” leader of the Global Left. And perhaps he’ll be foolish enough to get actually mixed up in politics if Trump succeeds in erecting the planned wall between Mexico and the US. For “immigration” is one of Bergoglio’s important issues, because it is his main instrument in destroying Catholicism and Western culture. However, there is an effective way for Trump to silence this derailed Pope. He should pressure Italy to end its concordate with the Vatican!

    Reply
      • I know, but the Trump election changes a lot. Under Obama the Pope and the US President could easily work in tandem, as would have been the case after a Clinton victory. Things are much different now. If Bergoglio wants to continue his leftist course he has to seek other political allies. This seems to imply that he has to become become the focal point of organizing a world-wide opposition against Trump. This is a far more riskier political adventure than just leaning on the powerful shoulders of the US under a leftist presidency. If Bergoglio falls into this trap, Trump may be able to convince Italy to end the Concordate in return for assistance in its financial problems.

        Perhaps it will never come to that, but just to circulate press rumours about this possibility may be enough to silence the Pope, which would be a victory for Catholic conservatives and traditionalists. If one thing is needed today it is to make this Pope practically powerless and voiceless. And since Catholics can not do this, it would be a blessing if the US under Trump would do this for us. Bergoglio is a bully and he often bullies us, but in Trump we may have found someone who could bully the Pope, if necessary. And that would be delicious, wouldn’t it?

        Reply
  37. “It it has been said many times and my response has always been that, if anything, it is the communists who think like Christians.”

    This is really Pope Francis speaking candidly as a S.American Jesuit. Such a belief is, at its core, what so many Jesuits in South and Central America have had for the past nearly 40 years. None of this is new, and should not be surprising.

    Reply
  38. Why quote Scalfari if you don’t believe him to be trustworthy? And are you aware Ratzinger (*mimicking the childish ‘Bergoglio’ usage) said Democratic Socialism is the closest to Catholic teaching?

    Reply
  39. He’s got it so backward it’s embarrassing. Barabbas was the revolutionary insurrectionist. He was the prefigurement of the Jewish Bolshevik movement.

    Reply
  40. I have no authority to say he’s not the Pope; but he certainly is not a Pope worth listening to if you would like to keep the Faith. I have no authority to say Bergoglio is a heretic for I know not his heart, but material (and actual) heresy spews from his mouth on a daily basis. The lack of response from Clergy and Catholics only proves to me that the true Faith of Jesus Christ is almost lost, if indeed it could be.May these days be shortened.

    Reply
  41. Why is PF so rigid about the Latin Mass ? Why does it surprise him that young
    people might prefer genuine worship?
    If Communists think like Christians then what in heavens name is wrong with
    Christians ?

    Reply
  42. This pope is despicable. How did we go from one of the most amazing men to ever live, a man who worked to defeat the commies, Karol Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II), to this communist trash Francis??

    Reply
  43. For its first hundred years or so, Christianity was a radical idealist socialist movement that sought to overturn the existing social order and it was mostly practiced by slaves. I think it makes sense for Catholics to practice their religion in a progressive way, since the vast majority of them are working class people. Also because the majority of Catholics are from oppressed nations in Latin America and Africa. There’s a lot of social justice oriented content in the bible.
    Engels, On the History of Early Christianity https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/

    Reply
  44. The best Pope yet, and he is correct. Communism is a wonderful ideal of mankind treating each other as the family we really are–we are all closely related in fact, even if our society divides people into haves and have nots, into white and black, etc. Normal human beings treat their family with communitarian relations, as communists–not capitalists, which would be very anti-social, sociopathic. Caring, kindness, compassion, wanting to give without expecting anything back, just taking what you need, not being greedy, etc. Are these not the values we practice within our family? It is a vision of a moral society, with a morality–not profit–in command of the economy. Marx called this, Socialism, as winning the battle of Democracy, in his Manifesto. Indeed, studies show the .01% get their priorities always over those of the interests of regular people. We definitely need to move in that direction, expanding democracy so that we can redistribute back to the people all this ill gotten wealth concentrated at the top in historic rates of inequality. And we need the ideals of the Enlightenment, of Humanism, which is in the tradition of Marxism (its culmination in many ways), to be the politics that guide us in building a much better, more humane, and decent society where the weak are not crushed by the powerful, where People count no matter where they happen to be born or with how much wealth. The Pope is correct and I stand with him on this point.

    Reply
    • You’re an ignoramus, pure and simple. Communism was responsible for the deaths of at least 100,000,000 innocent people in the 20th century, probably many more. Anyone who doesn’t know that fact isn’t worth listening to. Those who praise the evil notion of Communism as you do are despicable apologists for mass murder. And a pope who says something this stupid is a marvel to behold. One has to wonder what he could possibly be thinking, where his dangerous naiveté comes from. He is more culpable than ignorant Catholics in the pews like you.

      Reply
      • Careful who you call an ignoramus, as it may apply to yourself. And rarely is it so pure and simple, as you seem to think. If only the world were so white and black. Luckily, reality is not so simple, and our ignorance of that reality is huge. You might disagree but it’s rather arrogant of you to call those you disagree with as “stupid.” Make an argument, sure, but don’t insult and pretend you know everything and those who don’t share your narrative must just be ignorant, etc. This view says a lot about your lack of knowledge on the subject, as least that you have not yet engaged with those who disagree with your take on the history of communism.

        First about the Pope, he is well within a long history of Christian Communism (the view that the teachings of Christ support communism as the ideal social system), and is in good company, other well known proponents of Christian communism include Thomas Hagerty, Ernst Bloch, Diane Drufenbrock, Camilo Torres. Contrary to your view, they regard it as a supreme good, and this argument is not based on ignorance. You may not agree, but don’t assume they are ignorant. Rather, you should assume you are. And as far as mass murder, that is rather absurd.

        The concept and practice of communism is not synonymous with the Nation States that may have attempted to implement some interpretation of it. As Marx envisioned it, communism is a classless society without the State, where decisions are made democratically! Communism is not an alternative to democracy, only to capitalism–it in fact expands democratic ideals to their fullest possibility, in freeing the individual as its goal. Nowhere in these principles of communism, as laid out by Marx and others, can one find the idea that someone else decides for you what you do and what you can say. Many people call themselves communists because they believe in the form of society that Marx and others proposed, not because they supported Soviet Russia, or any other repressing regime. To imply that the idea of communism is synonymous with support of the oppression found in such regimes is to be ignorant of what true proponents of the political philosophy actually stand for.

        But aside from the obvious fact that this is not communism, try to apply your anti-communist ‘body count’ methods to capitalism and you can see how this is pure propaganda. Noam Chomky addressed point here comparing “Communist” China to “Capitalist” India: http://spectrezine.org/global/chomsky.htm

        “We therefore conclude that in India the democratic capitalist “experiment” since 1947 has caused more deaths than in the entire history of the “colossal, wholly failed…experiment” of Communism everywhere since 1917: over 100 million deaths by 1979, tens of millions more since, in India alone. The “criminal indictment” of the “democratic capitalist experiment” becomes harsher still if we turn to its effects after the fall of Communism: millions of corpses in Russia, to take one case, as Russia followed the confident prescription of the World Bank that “Countries that liberalise rapidly and extensively turn around more quickly [than those that do not],” returning to something like what it had been before World War I, a picture familiar throughout the “third world.” But “you can’t make an omelette without broken eggs,” as Stalin would have said. The indictment becomes far harsher if we consider these vast areas that remained under Western tutelage, yielding a truly “colossal” record of skeletons and “absolutely futile, pointless and inexplicable suffering” (Ryan). The indictment takes on further force when we add to the account the countries devastated by the direct assaults of Western power, and its clients, during the same years.”

        “Socialism” and “communism” which have no substantial differences as the use of one or the other term is a matter of preference and history. Neither refer to merely expanded welfare states. Neither is synonymous with one party rule, nor authoritarian rule. But both are defined by their hyper democratic nature. Neither can be dismissed because of the tragedies of 20th century attempts to achieve them (and neither should those attempts be disparaged). For most of their existence, they were practicing State Capitalism that was undemocratic, and whose legitimacy was based on providing the bread and butter basics (goulash communism), but the State ran and controlled enterprises for profit, and political and economic control, among an elite for a system that was in competition with their rival empire and power center in the West. Even folks like Friedman readily admitted that the USSR was just a different mode of capitalism but delivered through different channels. Yes, we don’t want anything to do with that, again. I agree. But if you think that was real “communism” or “socialism” then you drank the cool aid they were selling–not me. The reality is that fake communism has nothing to do with real socialism, just as our fake democracy has nothing to do with real democracy. As Marx wrote, winning the battle for socialism is winning the battle for democracy (right in the communist manifesto).

        The Marxist idea of distribution of wealth is based on the reality of how wealth is created. Wealth currently goes to the individual who control the means for collecting it, or in some cases, stealing it. Allowing the rich to get richer by extracting wealth out the economy serves them at the expense everyone else and the system becomes increasingly unstable. Marx was an economist and his major contribution was his analysis of capitalism and its contradictions, the ones that lead to increased exploitation of workers and the general degrading of individuals and society. A truly Marxist economy would be one in which every one has a representative voice in how the economy is run. And the economy operates in a manner that provides for human needs rather than profits. None of the so-called communist countries were Marxist in that workers did not really have a voice or representative role. Decisions were made by and for an elite class which is not much different from the way things are moving in this country. As wealth concentrates in fewer and fewer hands democracy fade. The country was founded and the Constitution written for a country with a large proportion of small property owners, farmers, shopkeepers, merchants and craftsman. In an age in which international corporations are growing and expanding in power, the capitalist based representative democracy is becoming an ineffectual shadow, because they end up representing money more so than your interests. A recent Princeton study concluded as much, as capitalism undermines democracy and turns it into a plutocracy run by oligarchs serving big corporations with the State serving their interests (Military Industrial Complex, anyone?), the interests of the 99% get pushed aside.

        Humans–we–have lived for most of our existence under a communism (communal, sharing, egalitarian societies) before setting down into private property. Also, most families operate as communist social relations (healthy ones). Next time you see someone happy and alive, thank communist relations (your family giving everything you need simply based on the fact that you need it and should get it as your human right even if it doesn’t make someone richer.

        Reply
        • Anyone who cites Noam Chomsky and (later) the murderous renegade priest Camilo Torres loses the argument right there. You are a Communist. OK, but don’t try to pretend that bloody creed has anything to do with Catholicism. (Oh, and, like most leftists, you suffer from verbal diarrhea.)

          Reply
          • Logical fallacy, since its the message, not the messenger that matters, and therefore only you are losing the argument–since you are avoiding dealing with the content due to the messenger. But, its gets better, because Chomsky is only quoting the famous Indian economist, Dr. Amartya Sen and his comparative study of China and India. But nice try!

            About Prof. Sen, he actually won the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, and is currently the Professor of Economics and Philosophy at Harvard University. Also, fellow at the University of Cambridge, and known as the “the Mother Teresa of Economics” for his work on “famine, human development theory, welfare economics, the underlying mechanisms of poverty, gender inequality, and political liberalism.” He is a trustee of Economists for Peace and Security, and has received over 80 honorary doctorates. While his study was particularly well regarded, the point he makes in comparing Mao’s revolution to India’s was not widely reported.

            But when we look at these far-rightist claims such as you are citing, what jumps out is the complete lack of any consistent historical standard for the way capitalism is judged with the way they judge attempts of communism. For example, “Communism” blamed for people in China who died of famine, but capitalism is not held responsible for the way people died of famine in Ireland in 1847—even though Lord Russel shut down shut down the relief programs set up by Peel with the Tories because they believed that they would interfere with the market. The Great Leap Forward is is held responsible for the deaths of millions in China, but not British imperialism, described by Mike Davis in his book “Late Victorian Holocausts.”

            Back to Amartya’s Sen’s study, its interesting because even putting aside the complicated reasons and historical conditions that help provide an explanation and understanding for why things happened the way they did, if we apply a very simple standard to the capitalist world, looking at their “body count” it exposes a glaring double standard—not even touching upon the profound differences, either, with what one society was trying to do.

            Noam Chomsky is quoted because he references this study that the mainstream ignored, and he was arguing against a typical form of right-wing anti-communism, specifically ‘the Black Book” that you cite and rely on. Again:

            “…we might want to turn to the other half of Sen’s India-China comparison, which somehow never seems to surface despite the emphasis Sen placed on it. He observes that India and China had “similarities that were quite striking” when development planning began 50 years ago, including death rates. “But there is little doubt that as far as morbidity, mortality and longevity are concerned, China has a large and decisive lead over India” (in education and other social indicators as well). He estimates the excess of mortality in India over China to be close to 4 million a year: “India seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years than China put there in its years of shame,” 1958-1961 (Dreze and Sen).

            In both cases, the outcomes have to do with the “ideological predispositions” of the political systems: for China, relatively equitable distribution of medical resources, including rural health services, and public distribution of food, all lacking in India. This was before 1979, when “the downward trend in mortality [in China] has been at least halted, and possibly reversed,” thanks to the market reforms instituted that year.

            Overcoming amnesia, suppose we now apply the methodology of the Black Book and its reviewers to the full story, not just the doctrinally acceptable half. We therefore conclude that in India the democratic capitalist “experiment” since 1947 has caused more deaths than in the entire history of the “colossal, wholly failed…experiment” of Communism everywhere since 1917: over 100 million deaths by 1979, tens of millions more since, in India alone. The “criminal indictment” of the “democratic capitalist experiment” becomes harsher still if we turn to its effects after the fall of Communism: millions of corpses in Russia, to take one case, as Russia followed the confident prescription of the World Bank that “Countries that liberalise rapidly and extensively turn around more quickly [than those that do not],” returning to something like what it had been before World War I, a picture familiar throughout the “third world.” But “you can’t make an omelette without broken eggs,” as Stalin would have said. The indictment becomes far harsher if we consider these vast areas that remained under Western tutelage, yielding a truly “colossal” record of skeletons and “absolutely futile, pointless and inexplicable suffering” (Ryan). The indictment takes on further force when we add to the account the countries devastated by the direct assaults of Western power, and its clients, during the same years.”

            So what this study showed was that, contrary to the western popular opinion, if we take only India alone, we find India has MILLIONS of more deaths per year attributable to the capitalist system in India, over what China suffered through.

            So if someone says that Mao’s policies and the revolution, land reform, etc. all led to those millions of deaths, what about the deaths that would have happened if it had NOT been for Mao’s policies, which were routine in China’s history? That comparative study with India gives a picture of what China would have looked like if it had not been for Mao’s policies. Millions MORE deaths. So, instead of blaming Mao for ‘killing millions” or that his policies resulted in the deaths of millions, one could convincing argue instead that Mao’s policies saved millions of lives! I quote, again, Noam Chomsky: “He estimates the excess of mortality in India over China to be close to 4 million a year: “India seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years than China put there in its years of shame,” 1958-1961 (Dreze and Sen). So by this argument, Mao in fact saved close to 4 millions lives a year.

            And, of course, they neglect to mention the positives. Mao led the Chinese revolution which lifted millions out of poverty and illiteracy. It was in fact the largest transition out of poverty in human history. We never hear claims that say Lincoln “sanctioned the killing of 3 million people” due to this Civil War. By using the same standards, Communism does not come off as a murderous creed, but one as Camilo Torres recognized is a just vision of liberation against exploitation and the oppression created by the capitalist system.

        • Can’t find here the BS you sent this morning, only the Disqus notification, but it doesn’t matter since I won’t read it anyway. Get something to treat your diarrhea. From the looks of your “product,” it seems to be getting worse.

          Reply
          • It makes sense that you don’t want to read. It shows. I, on the other and realize the importance of not shutting myself down to opposing view points and narratives. Greenhouse plants quickly go into shock when exposed to the outside. Also, your failure to do so, just reinforces a “cocooning” that breeds dogmatism and is more likely than not to be full of serious shortcomings. So far, it fits the bill. And lastly about the verbiage, its good to read more and think more. We are lacking that in our society.

            About dismissing the argument because of an author (Chomsky) is a logical fallacy, since its the message, not the messenger that matters, and therefore only you are losing the argument–since you are avoiding dealing with the content due to the messenger. But, its gets better, because Chomsky is only quoting the famous Indian economist, Dr. Amartya Sen and his comparative study of China and India. Are you going to ignore him too? 🙂 Before you answer, consider something about Prof. Sen. He actually won the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, and is currently the Professor of Economics and Philosophy at Harvard University. Also, fellow at the University of Cambridge, and known as the “the Mother Teresa of Economics” for his work on “famine, human development theory, welfare economics, the underlying mechanisms of poverty, gender inequality, and political liberalism.” He is a trustee of Economists for Peace and Security, and has received over 80 honorary doctorates. While his study was particularly well regarded, the point he makes in comparing Mao’s revolution to India’s was not widely reported.

            But when we look at these far-rightist claims such as you are citing, what jumps out is the complete lack of any consistent historical standard for the way capitalism is judged with the way they judge attempts of communism. For example, “Communism” blamed for people in China who died of famine, but capitalism is not held responsible for the way people died of famine in Ireland in 1847—even though Lord Russel shut down shut down the relief programs set up by Peel with the Tories because they believed that they would interfere with the market. The Great Leap Forward is is held responsible for the deaths of millions in China, but not British imperialism, described by Mike Davis in his book “Late Victorian Holocausts.”

            Back to Amartya’s Sen’s study, its interesting because even putting aside the complicated reasons and historical conditions that help provide an explanation and understanding for why things happened the way they did, if we apply a very simple standard to the capitalist world, looking at their “body count” it exposes a glaring double standard—not even touching upon the profound differences, either, with what one society was trying to do.

            Noam Chomsky is quoted because he references this study that the mainstream ignored, and he was arguing against a typical form of right-wing anti-communism, specifically ‘the Black Book” that you cite and rely on. Again:

            “…we might want to turn to the other half of Sen’s India-China comparison, which somehow never seems to surface despite the emphasis Sen placed on it. He observes that India and China had “similarities that were quite striking” when development planning began 50 years ago, including death rates. “But there is little doubt that as far as morbidity, mortality and longevity are concerned, China has a large and decisive lead over India” (in education and other social indicators as well). He estimates the excess of mortality in India over China to be close to 4 million a year: “India seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years than China put there in its years of shame,” 1958-1961 (Dreze and Sen).
            In both cases, the outcomes have to do with the “ideological predispositions” of the political systems: for China, relatively equitable distribution of medical resources, including rural health services, and public distribution of food, all lacking in India. This was before 1979, when “the downward trend in mortality [in China] has been at least halted, and possibly reversed,” thanks to the market reforms instituted that year.

            Overcoming amnesia, suppose we now apply the methodology of the Black Book and its reviewers to the full story, not just the doctrinally acceptable half. We therefore conclude that in India the democratic capitalist “experiment” since 1947 has caused more deaths than in the entire history of the “colossal, wholly failed…experiment” of Communism everywhere since 1917: over 100 million deaths by 1979, tens of millions more since, in India alone. The “criminal indictment” of the “democratic capitalist experiment” becomes harsher still if we turn to its effects after the fall of Communism: millions of corpses in Russia, to take one case, as Russia followed the confident prescription of the World Bank that “Countries that liberalise rapidly and extensively turn around more quickly [than those that do not],” returning to something like what it had been before World War I, a picture familiar throughout the “third world.” But “you can’t make an omelette without broken eggs,” as Stalin would have said. The indictment becomes far harsher if we consider these vast areas that remained under Western tutelage, yielding a truly “colossal” record of skeletons and “absolutely futile, pointless and inexplicable suffering” (Ryan). The indictment takes on further force when we add to the account the countries devastated by the direct assaults of Western power, and its clients, during the same years.”

            So what this study showed was that, contrary to the western popular opinion, if we take only India alone, we find India has MILLIONS of more deaths per year attributable to the capitalist system in India, over what China suffered through.

            So if someone says that Mao’s policies and the revolution, land reform, etc. all led to those millions of deaths, what about the deaths that would have happened if it had NOT been for Mao’s policies, which were routine in China’s history? That comparative study with India gives a picture of what China would have looked like if it had not been for Mao’s policies. Millions MORE deaths. So, instead of blaming Mao for ‘killing millions” or that his policies resulted in the deaths of millions, one could convincing argue instead that Mao’s policies saved millions of lives! I quote, again, Noam Chomsky: “He estimates the excess of mortality in India over China to be close to 4 million a year: “India seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years than China put there in its years of shame,” 1958-1961 (Dreze and Sen). So by this argument, Mao in fact saved close to 4 millions lives a year.

            And, of course, they neglect to mention the positives. Mao led the Chinese revolution which lifted millions out of poverty and illiteracy. It was in fact the largest transition out of poverty in human history. We never hear claims that say Lincoln “sanctioned the killing of 3 million people” due to this Civil War. By using the same standards, Communism does not come off as a murderous creed, but one as Camilo Torres recognized is a just vision of liberation against exploitation and the oppression created by the capitalist system.

        • Get a grip on yourself, man; your verborrhea is clearly out of control, bordering on pathological. Look, if it helps cure you, I didn’t and won’t read one word of this latest screed. In other words, you’re talking only to yourself, mon ami. You do know what that indicates about people, right?

          Reply
          • On the contrary, my refutations of your claims are easy and fun for me, so not just for your benefit (bring a horse to water but can’t make him drink)–but for anyone else who might read. You are not alone, and its not just about you, its about the merits of the argument, its about truth vs lies. You can remain ignorant, and that is your right, but I will always speak up against ignorance and you should not take offense, but welcome such engagement, at least within a democratic culture. As citizens, that is our duty. The idea that something is wrong about lengthy writing (and trust me, I held a lot back), is the true sickness here, the true pathology: the avoidance of intellectual discourse while maintaining a dogmatic set of beliefs. Pathological it is, indeed. But that is your symptom, not mine. Keeping it short because Im short on time, not because I don’t have (or should not) a lot more to say. 🙂

          • The answer is yes, because sounds are vibrations, which can exist independently of our ability to hear them or be their hear them. If you put your head deeply into the sand, does that change the objective reality around you?

  45. The problem is that “Francis” is not referring to Marxism as it actually exists in the real world, but to how Marxists imagine it exists in some ideal state (that they all uniformly claim has “never been tried”). It shows that not only is the man ignorant of the specious nature of Marxist doctrines themselves, but that he is ignorant of the bad faith and amoral methods the Marxists use. The residue of Marxism is not economics, it is resentment. Economic Marxism was discredited by the Italian and German national unifications and the collapse of continental pacifism before World War I. The economic derivations were accordingly replaced with explicitly political ones in the Soviet period. The collapse of Political Marxism has witnessed the replacement of its political derivations with cultural, ethnic and racial substitutes. The residue of resentment, whether toward the Bourgeoisie, the Reactionaries, or the Racists remains. The kernel of this resentment is 2000 years old. It’s right in front of everyone’s face if they would have the eyes to see.

    Reply
  46. An absolute tonne of whine whine whine in this comments section from losers.

    “Communism isn’t compatible with christianity” the screech, over and over and over again… And yet not a single one of these comments justifies or even attempts to offer explanation for that position with a genuine understanding of what socialists want and why it is completely compatible, as is visible in much of latin america, as is visible in Cuba.

    The reality of this comments section is that it’s full of people that have no idea what socialism is, and several literal actual fascists misleading the good-natured and well-meaning catholics who can’t recognise them.

    Stop being led astray like fools.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...