Remember that time Pope Benedict invited Cardinal Biffi to preach about the Antichrist being an Ecologist?

YEP.

Pope’s Retreat Preacher Speaks on Antichrist as a “pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist”

VATICAN CITY, March 1, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Papal watchers are wondering what message Pope Benedict XVI was giving when he selected retired Bologna archbishop Cardinal Giacomo Biffi to preach the annual Lenten retreat to the Pope and the top members of the Vatican…

This year’s selection…created a stir since Cardinal Biffi, while he is known for orthodox faith and frank words, is most well known, at least in the secular media, for his preaching on the Antichrist.  In fact, the Times of London reported in 2004 that the Cardinal described the Antichrist as “walking among us”.

The Lenten retreat did not disappoint.  Cardinal Biffi picked up on his oft repeated theme of the Antichrist, basing his remarks on the works of Vladimir Soloviev, a Russian religious philosopher who has received praise from Pope Benedict prior to his elevation to the pontificate.

Quoting Soloviev, the Cardinal said “the Antichrist presents himself as pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist.”

“He will convoke an ecumenical council and will seek the consensus of all the Christian confessions, granting something to each one. The masses will follow him, with the exception of small groups of Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants,” he said according to a Zenit translation of a Vatican Radio summary here: http://www.radiovaticana.org/it1/Articolo.asp?c=120479 . (Feb. 20, 2017 – Translation is not longer available on Zenit and the only Zenit report on the 2007 retreat mentions only the first day’s talk and not the later one on the Antichrist)

In his “Tale of the Antichrist” Solovyov foresees that a small group of Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants will resist and will say to the Antichrist: “You give us everything, except what interests us, Jesus Christ”.   For Cardinal Biffi, this narrative is a warning: “Today, in fact, we run the risk of having a Christianity which puts aside Jesus with his cross and resurrection.”

The 78-year-old cardinal added that if Christians “limited themselves to speaking of shared values they would be more accepted on television programs and in social groups. But in this way, they will have renounced Jesus, the overwhelming reality of the resurrection.”

The cardinal said he believes that this is “the danger that Christians face in our days … the Son of God cannot be reduced to a series of good projects sanctioned by the prevailing worldly mentality.”

The preacher of the Spiritual Exercises added that “there are relative values, such as solidarity, love of peace and respect for nature. If these become absolute, uprooting or even opposing the proclamation of the event of salvation, then these values become an instigation to idolatry and obstacles on the way of salvation.”

Cardinal Biffi affirmed that “if Christianity—on opening itself to the world and dialoguing with all—dilutes the salvific event, it closes itself to a personal relationship with Jesus and places itself on the side of the Antichrist.”

Cardinal Biffi’s reflections, in fact, are very similar to remarks Pope Benedict made last Fall in a meeting with Swiss Bishops.  While Pope Benedict did not speak of the Antichrist, he spoke of a new false or “substitute” religion, calling it also a “successor” of religion.

“Modern society is not simply without morality, but it has, so to speak, ‘discovered’ and professes a part of morality”, the Pope told the Swiss bishops. “These are the great themes of peace, non-violence, justice for all, concern for the poor, and respect for creation.”

However, the Pope warned that these “great moral themes” have “become an ethical complex that, precisely as a political force, has great power and constitutes for many the substitute for religion, or its successor.”

“It is only if human life is respected from conception to death that the ethics of peace is also possible and credible,” concluded the Pope. “It is only then that non-violence can express itself in every direction; only then that we truly welcome creation, and only then that we can arrive at true justice.”

And then, twelve years later, this happened:

Pope Francis proposes adding ‘ecological sin’ against ‘common home’ to catechism

VATICAN CITY, November 15, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Pope Francis said today that he is thinking about adding the “‘ecological sin’ against our common home” to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

“We have to introduce―we are thinking about it―to the Catechism of the Catholic Church the sin against ecology, the ‘ecological sin’ against our common home, because a duty is at stake,” Pope Francis told his hearers. The Argentinian pontiff made the remark in a speech he gave today to the 20th World Congress of the International Association of Penal Law in Rome.

Don’t worry, Antipope Bergoglio is far too crude, far too stupid, and far too, um, *unattractive* to be the Antichrist. But he sure is paving the way, like a good Forerunner should.

Screenshot 2019-11-17 at 08.41.54

“Using canon law as a cudgel against theological opponents”

Earlier this year, an essay appeared at the “A Sign of Hope” blog by Charlie Johnston, which was in response to another post where he had printed some disparaging remarks about the “Benedict is Pope” crowd. After first questioning motives, he then makes a nonsensical conflation of ontology with politics. It got my attention.
Here is the passage, followed by my comment, followed by a new development.
Comment thread HERE.

Excerpt from Mr. Johnston: “Even those who advocate for it (Pope Benedict’s invalid resignation) would know very well that it was NOT mounted out of love for rigorous application of procedure, but as a fig leaf over a political coup against an inconvenient Pope. Once that precedent is established, you have politicized canon law as a tool to be used as a cudgel against theological opponents. Open that Pandora’s box and you have created all sorts of new opportunities for the evil one to make mischief and attack the Church.”

My comment: “Charlie, with respect, I guess that depends on whether you believe in objective reality. The evil one hates objective reality, being the Father of Lies and all that. We are called to seek reality by assenting to revealed truths and by acknowledging observable data through our rational intellect.

“Let’s set aside the entirety of canon law for a moment, and simply consider the observable facts. Benedict didn’t resign the Office, neither in the original Latin declaratio, nor in his spoken word as he delivered it in Latin (video easily searchable). Then he created a number of peculiar novelties specific to his “new role”, and even lied about some of them, e.g. “No other clothes were available.” He continues to be addressed as His Holiness and continues to do things that only popes do, like go by his papal name and impart his apostolic blessing. The situation is entirely unprecedented in the history of the Church. There is tremendous confusion, souls are at risk, and people are losing their faith over this (or rather, what has been born of this).

“Let’s go back to his not resigning the office, but only the active ministry. If that happened, which it did, or rather it’s what he tried to do, the effect would be that he resigned none of it (per Canon 332.2). Whether he intended to split the papacy, or he intended to retain the whole thing, the effect is the same. But we don’t even need to explore intent. He didn’t resign the office; that’s the ontological reality. Neither cardinals nor anyone else has the power/jurisdiction to “accept” a pope’s resignation (also per Canon 332.2). Their acceptance of it, or willingness to go along, has zero effect on ontological reality. And so, the conclave they convoked was invalid (per Canon 359).

“Reality is not determined by popular vote, otherwise Arianism would be a matter of dogmatic certainty.”


 

I wish only fraternal charity to Mr. Johnston, and I acknowledge the good work he does. But then I discovered that, after locking the combox, he changed the relevant passage of his original post to read as follows:

“The whole idea (Pope Benedict’s invalid resignation) is based on a minority interpretation of canon law. If there were an actual deficiency, it would need to be clear, compelling, and indisputable. Otherwise, it would rightfully be seen as the fig leaf covering over a coup against an inconvenient Pope. Set that precedent and you will never see the end of rival factions seeking advantage in legalisms rather than the large truths of the faith. It would reduce the College of Bishops to roving bands of rival warlords. Frankly, I think it a satanic seduction to a “fix” of current controversies that would permanently enfeeble and introduce disorder into the hierarchy.” HERE

“Introduce disorder into the hierarchy…” <raises hand> YES, Charlie, it was 100% Miss Barnhardt who introduced disorder into the hierarchy on 19 June 2016. Hierarchy solid as a rock before that.

Dear readers, compare the edited passage with the original at the top of this page. I’m sorry, but if you edit something in order to change the entire meaning, even on a blog, you need to call it out as an update and point out the edited portion.

Open letter to Charlie: In this edited passage, it seems you’ve gone from castigating our motives and means, to acknowledging the possibility that this “minority interpretation of canon law” could actually be true, if it could be shown clearly (ahem HERE, HERE,  and HERE), but oh it’s probably just a bunch of warlording legalisms. Essentially, you are saying:

“This minority interpretation had better be clear and compelling, otherwise it’s satanic.”

REALLY?

Well, I am seeing a LOT of things that look satanic these days, but they always seem to be coming from Team Bergoglio.

Screenshot 2019-11-05 at 12.19.08Screenshot 2019-11-05 at 12.27.59Screenshot 2019-11-05 at 12.28.53Screenshot 2019-10-19 at 12.50.56

via vaticannews.va:

The first chapter of Our Mother Earth…highlights the need to protect our common home through the union of “the whole human family in the search for a sustainable and integral development”. This premise is developed in the second chapter…Pollution, global warming, climate change, and loss of biodiversity, the effect of uncontrolled exploitation, are destined to grow exponentially if there is no change of direction in the short term. We need an “environmental conversion”, Pope Francis (sic) says, that is possible through the promotion of a truly ecological education that would create, especially in the young, a renewed awareness and ultimately a renewed conscience.

In the new article that concludes Our Mother Earth, Pope Francis (sic) turns his gaze upwards, in order to offer an even wider vision of a discourse that is not focused solely on the concern for the protection of the environment…In this final chapter, Pope Francis (sic) develops the “theology of ecology” in a profoundly spiritual discourse.

Creation is the fruit of God’s love…especially for man, to whom He has given the gift of creation, as a place in which “we are invited to discover a presence”. He continues:

 “This means that it is for humanity’s capacity for communion to condition the state of creation […] It is therefore humanity’s destiny to determine the destiny of the universe.”

What fresh hell is this?

Screenshot 2019-09-18 at 06.06.54

Given the diabolical inversion of truth that flows so freely through this man (now including demon worship), I can’t imagine how bad this book must be. Not ordering it to find out. Will have to rely on the editorial description:

Notice with him it’s never the Holy Spirit, it’s just ‘Spirit.’ And ‘Spirit-filled’ even suggests the plural. I mean, if we are going to have an Antipope lead the Antichurch straight to Hell, what better way than to stir up the spirits? ¡Hagan lío!

“Learn how to rebuke the devil.” This is so dangerous. The laity should not be directly engaging demons at all, let alone engaging Satan himself. Trust me, you’ll lose. The laity must engage God, or God through the intercession of the saints, whom we then ask to engage the demons. Binding prayers, wherein demons are directly commanded to leave a person or place, are only for trained exorcists who have received apostolic authority to use them. That’s right, even priests should not be engaging in these prayers, without having received specific permission and authority from the local bishop.

Not hyperbole: If millions of people were to actually buy this book and start directly engaging with demons and the devil, the resulting spiritual destruction would be incalculable. In fact, one would have a tough time dreaming up a more devastating tactic to be deployed by the probable False Prophet forerunner of the Antichrist.

I will need to write a follow up post, because there are several people in Tradland who don’t understand this (and who should know better), and are encouraging these binding prayers for use by the laity.

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, cast into hell Satan and all evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

Antipope of Ecology and Integral Vegetative Accompaniment

Time for a re-post! It’s from three years ago, so I’ve cleaned it up a bit. Have a great weekend!

——————————–

Wherein the backyard barbeque becomes mortally sinful, with all its paper plates, plastic cups, kids running through the sprinkler…

 

How can anyone, at this point, take the Catholic Church seriously?  Can you imagine trying to evangelize a soul who is hungering for what is supposed to be the Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth?

I renew my dialogue with “every person living on this planet” (Laudato Si’, 3) about the sufferings of the poor and the devastation of the environment. God gave us a bountiful garden, but we have turned it into a polluted wasteland of “debris, desolation and filth” (ibid., 161).

The memory of why I couldn’t ever manage to get through Laudato Si’ when it first came out just came rushing back:  It is physically nauseating to read.

The perpetual genuflection to Goddess Earth now includes the enumeration of non-recycling as a capital sin, and mandating ecology as both a spiritual and corporal work of mercy.  You can’t make this stuff up. HERE

Let us learn to implore God’s mercy for those sins against creation that we have not hitherto acknowledged and confessed…we can acknowledge our sins against creation, the poor and future generations…we are called to acknowledge “our contribution, smaller or greater, to the disfigurement and destruction of creation.” This is the first step on the path of conversion.

The first step on the path of conversion is to embrace the utterly false ideology of man-made global warming? It’s as if the people writing all this made bets with themselves as to who could contribute the most ridiculous claim.

As individuals, we have grown comfortable with…a “disordered desire to consume more than what is really necessary” (Laudato Si’, 123), and we are participants in a system that “has imposed the mentality of profit at any price, with no concern for social exclusion or the destruction of nature.” Let us repent of the harm we are doing to our common home. After a serious examination of conscience and moved by sincere repentance, we can confess our sins against the Creator, against creation, and against our brothers and sisters. “The Catechism of the Catholic Church presents the confessional as the place where the truth makes us free.”

Has any other document, in the history of the Church, universally condemned all of humanity for committing a particular sin?  Does Antipope Bergoglio really believe that every single person possesses a disordered desire to consume more than what is necessary? Would taking up an entire floor of a hotel as your personal living space fall into this category? And apparently it’s not venial, nope, most def MORTAL SIN, for it requires sacramental confession to be absolved.

Examining our consciences, repentance and confession to our Father who is rich in mercy leads to a firm purpose of amendment.

We laff. How come we didn’t see that phrase in Chapter Eight of Amoris Laetitia?

This in turn must translate into concrete ways of thinking and acting that are more respectful of creation. For example: “avoiding the use of plastic and paper, reducing water consumption, separating refuse, cooking only what can reasonably be consumed, showing care for other living beings, using public transport or car-pooling, planting trees, turning off unnecessary lights, or any number of other practices” (Laudato Si’, 211).

Wherein the backyard barbeque becomes mortally sinful, with all its paper plates, plastic cups, kids running through the sprinkler, the big black trash bag, charcoal and lighter fluid, leftovers, bug spray (“other living beings”), patio lights, and any number of other practices. Confessing in kind and number is going to be tough. I might need a notepad.

Bergoglio and his toadies continue their relentless rage against the First Commandment.  They choose to worship Goddess Earth instead.  That is, when they aren’t worshipping Man instead.  Notice the dichotomy at play:  Worshipping man requires subjugating God.  Worshipping Goddess Earth requires subjugating Man.

When people start coming into the confessional saying, “Bless me Father, it’s been two weeks, I left a light on,” how will good priests express their unity to the Petrine See? How can the source of unity be the vector of schism? May I suggest to Father, “THOSE AREN’T SINS, HE’S NOT THE POPE.”

Bergoglio must be exposed as a usurper, charged, removed, and Pope Benedict be acknowledged as the one and only living pope since April 2005.

 

“Grant that I be found worthy, Lord, to shed my blood for the union and obedience to the Apostolic See.”

Arouse in Your Church, O Lord, the spirit with which blessed Josaphat, Your Martyr and Bishop, was filled when he laid down his life for his flock; so that, by his intercession, we, also moved and strengthened by the same spirit, may not fear to lay down our lives for our brethren.

Collect, Feast of Saint Josaphat, Martyr (14 Nov, 1962 calendar)

Josaphat was his religious name. His real name was John Kunsevich, born in present day Ukraine and later a Ruthenian Orthodox archbishop in Poland during the 16th century, who lead his archeparchy into union with Rome under the Union of Brest.

His insistence on unity with the pope, not to mention his zeal and asceticism, drew the ire of many enemies. He was so hated, that Orthodox, Protestants, and pagans conspired together to murder him, and they got their wish upon instigating an angry mob on 12 November 1623. He was shot, his skull smashed to bits with axes, wild dogs set upon him, then weighted with stones and thrown into the Dvina river. Catholics would later recover his body, which now resides at St. Peter’s in Rome.

He is a martyr not just for the faith, but specifically for unity with the one true pope, even unto death.

“I rejoice to offer my life for my holy Catholic faith. Grant that I be found worthy, Lord, to shed my blood for the union and obedience to the Apostolic See.” HERE

Screenshot 2019-11-14 at 13.41.49
Martyrdom of Josaphat Kuntsevych (c. 1861)  Józef Simmler

 

Then he saith to them: “But whom do you say that I am?”

UPDATE 13:12 MST. From “Aqua,” a frequent combox contributor:
“Luke 12:54-57. Jesus tells His disciples, they not only can, they must use their God-given grace, intellect, wisdom and judgement to make judgement and know Truth, standing there staring them in the face, so as to follow and act:
54 And he said also to the people, When ye see a cloud rise out of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is.
55 And when ye see the south wind blow, ye say, There will be heat; and it cometh to pass.
56 Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth (the weather); but how is it that ye do not discern this time?
57 Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?”

“For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.”

2 Tim 4:3-4

As mentioned in a post a few weeks ago, God gave us a rational intellect and sensory perception, and He taught us to use these things together to discern reality (Matthew 16:13-20Mark 8:27-30Luke 9:18-20John 6:66-71). There is no greater reality in the universe than Jesus Christ, God Incarnate. What did He expect of His disciples when it came to the question of His true identity? He expected them to use their rational intellect and sensory perception to FIGURE IT OUT.

And Jesus came into the quarters of Cesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ. Matt 16:13-20

And Jesus went out, and his disciples into the towns of Caesarea Philippi. And in the way, he asked his disciples, saying to them: Whom do men say that I am? Who answered him, saying: John the Baptist; but some Elias, and others as one of the prophets. Then he saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Peter answering said to him: Thou art the Christ. And he strictly charged them that they should not tell any man of him. Mark 8:27-30

And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples also were with him: and he asked them, saying: Whom do the people say that I am? But they answered and said: John the Baptist; but some say Elias: and others say that one of the former prophets is risen again. And he said to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answering, said: The Christ of God. Luke 9:18-20

After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him. Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known that thou art the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve? And one of you is a devil. Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray him, whereas he was one of the twelve. John 6:66-71

So now we are being asked to FIGURE IT OUT in terms of how it could be, that for 2000 years, Satan was prevented from overtaking the Petrine See by a rigorous supernatural enforcement of the Petrine Promises (Matt 16:18-19, Luke 22:31-32), but the supposed current occupant is somehow capable of heresy, apostasy, and idolatry; and has officially approved adultery, fornication, and cohabitation?

And yet, now we see another attempt to correct an apostate antipope, while still trying to stay in union with him:

November 12, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – An international group of 100 priests and lay scholars published a statement today to protest the pagan worship of Pachamama that took place last month during the Amazon Synod in Rome with Pope Francis’ (sic) active participation and apparent support…

  • On October 4, Pope Francis (sic) attended an act of idolatrous worship of the pagan goddess Pachamama. (1)
  • He allowed this worship to take place in the Vatican Gardens, thus desecrating the vicinity of the graves of the martyrs and of the church of the Apostle Peter.
  • He participated in this act of idolatrous worship by blessing a wooden image of Pachamama. (2)
  • On October 7, the idol of Pachamama was placed in front of the main altar at St. Peter’s and then carried in procession to the Synod Hall. Pope Francis (sic) said prayers in a ceremony involving this image and then joined in this procession. (3)
  • When wooden images of this pagan deity were removed from the church of Santa Maria in Traspontina, where they had been sacrilegiously placed, and thrown into the Tiber by Catholics outraged by this profanation of the church, Pope Francis (sic), on October 25, apologized for their removal and another wooden image of Pachamama was returned to the church. (4) Thus, a new profanation was initiated.
  • On October 27, in the closing Mass for the synod, he accepted a bowl used in the idolatrous worship of Pachamama and placed it on the altar. (5)

Pope Francis (sic) himself confirmed that these wooden images were pagan idols. In his apology for the removal of these idols from a Catholic church, he specifically called them Pachamama (6), a name for a false goddess of mother earth according to pagan religious belief in South America.

Some visual aids, as I’ve posted before:

Maybe, just maybe, when you see the abomination, you should check your base premise.

He is not the pope. How could he be?

Scolding an apostate antipope isn’t going to get the job done. It’s true that stunts like this can be helpful in terms of getting the word out, and even the MSM is starting to pick up on things. Ross Douthat openly questioning who is the legitimate pope, in the New York Times, is certainly Overton Window worthy. So thank you, sort of, to everyone who laid out the horrid details and signed their names to the protest, but I’m afraid it’s just not good enough.

FIGURE IT OUT.

 

 

+Stika and stones may breaka my bones…

Do yourself a favor. If you have Twitter, check out this thread. It will make your day.

“Shut up, you stupid spotlight seeking, lustful self-certain opinion thruster, laynothing blogger.”

I came not to bring peace, but the sword!