Tweet
“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
- Barack Obama, October 30, 2008
- Barack Obama, October 30, 2008
Since the "election" of the "New Pope", our True Christian™ staff of Pastors, scholars, theologians, and writers have repeatedly debunked the MSM created hyperbole concerning Pope Francis and the cathylick cult. New revelations prove once again that the Landover Baptist Church should be your only news source when it comes to matters of Faith and Salvation®.
Now it is revealed how a secret cabal of cathylick clergy "Mafia" LIEberals organized to install a known apostate to drive the cathylick church to unprecedented depths of depravity. Like Obama, Pope Francis set about to "fundamentally transform" the cathylick church. The Mary worshiping cult is indeed rotten to the core.
They gave Pope Francis four years to ‘make the Church over again.’ Here’s how he’s tried.
Blogs Catholic Church Wed Mar 1, 2017 - 4:27 pm EST
March 1, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) -- Four years ago, on March 13, 2013, an unknown Argentinian cardinal was elected to lead the Catholic Church. The election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio followed upon 35 years of clear, solid, orthodox teaching under the distinguished pontificates of Saint John Paul II (1978-2005) and Benedict XVI (2005-2013).
As white smoke emanated from the Sistine Chapel chimney that March evening, signifying the election of a new pope, faithful Catholics around the world were eager to see who their next leader would be. They did not know, nor could they possibly have known, the massive shake-up that awaited them.
However, a number of high-ranking prelates did know. Some even let it slip following the election that an influential group of liberal-minded cardinals had been in existence with the goal of influencing the conclave to elect Bergoglio. One cardinal even said he was part of the group. He referred to it as a “mafia.”
St. Gallen ‘mafia’
It was Cardinal Godfried Danneels, honored with standing alongside Pope Francis on the balcony on the night of his election, who revealed the existence of the St. Gallen group. It was Danneels who called it a "mafia" on account of its goal to drastically reform the Church to make it "much more modern."
. . .
The group allegedly lost its impetus in 2006 after failing to have their preferred candidate elected in the 2005 conclave. While the group has been accused of being involved in a plot that led to the resignation of Pope Benedict, these claims have been denied by former bishop of St. Gallen Ivo Fürer.
. . .
‘Four years of Bergoglio’
What liberal prelates like McCarrick, Murphy-O'Connor, and Danneels knew about Bergoglio’s capacity to “make the Church over again” has only slowly and confusedly become evident to faithful Catholics over the last four years, but especially in the last year. Based on a mistaken notion of papal infallibility, many Catholics have defended Pope Francis to the point of absurdity. But sober-minded Catholics who know the traditional teachings, history, and practices, are alarmed at the clear fact that many of the Holy Father’s actions and statements are at odds with what has gone before.
In Bergoglio’s four years as Pope Francis the four marks that set the Catholic Church apart from every other religion on the face of the earth, namely that she is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, have become obscured and even undermined.
. . .
- He has called for a “decentralized” Church, and allowed individual bishops’ groups to determine for their own “regional” churches what is moral and right. In this way, it is supposedly permissible for adulterers to receive Holy Communion in Germany while across the border in Poland it is gravely sinful.
- His ambiguous speeches and especially his papal writings have turned cardinal against cardinal, bishop against bishop, and lay-faithful against lay-faithful.
- He has refused to answer Church leaders earnestly begging for clarity on points of contention.
- He has allowed Catholic doctrine to be minimized in the name of religious “dialogue” with other Christian denominations with a history of hostility towards Catholic doctrine on marriage, the Eucharist, and the papacy.
- Under his leadership, the Vatican has even hailed Luther, the founder of Protestantism, as a “witness to the gospel.”
. . .
- His writings have been used by those closest to him to promote evil practices such as adultery and fornication as legitimate moral choices.
- His writings have also been used to defend the sacrilegious practice of giving Holy Communion to those living in objective grave sin (here, here, here, and here). Bishops and cardinals have defended this sacrilegious practice based on the Pope’s own arguments in Amoris Laetitia that emphasize “pastoral care” and “mercy” to the detriment of doctrine and truth.
- He has denounced “restorationist” orders bursting with young people and has destroyed one traditional order.
- He has resisted the traditional Latin mass and called the young people who love it “rigid.”
- He has accused Christians of “cowardliness” who zealously follow the Ten Commandments.
- He has consistently used coarse and degrading language to criticize and vilify those with whom he disagrees (here, here, and here).
- He has allowed St. Peter’s Basilica, a sacred Church building, to be desecrated by an occult light show projected on its facade.
- He has allowed sexually provocative dance troupes to perform on the steps of St. Peter’s Basilica.
- He has allowed the desecration of the Sistine Chapel by renting it out to the Porsche car company for a corporate event and has allowed it to be used as a venue for U2’s guitarist ‘The Edge.’
. . .
- He has oriented the Church’s mission towards worldly goals such as combatting climate change and reordering the world’s economic system.
- He has called Catholics to have an “ecological conversion” and to repent of “sins” against the environment.
- He has allowed the sworn enemies of the Church to openly exert their influence on her policies and programs (here, here, and here).
. . .
- He has elevated openly heretical bishops and cardinals who do not hold the unchanging faith as handed down through the ages from the Apostles.
- He has demoted and silenced high-ranking voices of orthodoxy within the Church.
- He has created an environment that allows bishops and cardinals and other prominent Church leaders to openly depart from perennial Church teaching and moral absolutes.
. . .
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/t...ain.-heres-how
Blogs Catholic Church Wed Mar 1, 2017 - 4:27 pm EST
March 1, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) -- Four years ago, on March 13, 2013, an unknown Argentinian cardinal was elected to lead the Catholic Church. The election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio followed upon 35 years of clear, solid, orthodox teaching under the distinguished pontificates of Saint John Paul II (1978-2005) and Benedict XVI (2005-2013).
As white smoke emanated from the Sistine Chapel chimney that March evening, signifying the election of a new pope, faithful Catholics around the world were eager to see who their next leader would be. They did not know, nor could they possibly have known, the massive shake-up that awaited them.
However, a number of high-ranking prelates did know. Some even let it slip following the election that an influential group of liberal-minded cardinals had been in existence with the goal of influencing the conclave to elect Bergoglio. One cardinal even said he was part of the group. He referred to it as a “mafia.”
St. Gallen ‘mafia’
It was Cardinal Godfried Danneels, honored with standing alongside Pope Francis on the balcony on the night of his election, who revealed the existence of the St. Gallen group. It was Danneels who called it a "mafia" on account of its goal to drastically reform the Church to make it "much more modern."
. . .
The group allegedly lost its impetus in 2006 after failing to have their preferred candidate elected in the 2005 conclave. While the group has been accused of being involved in a plot that led to the resignation of Pope Benedict, these claims have been denied by former bishop of St. Gallen Ivo Fürer.
. . .
‘Four years of Bergoglio’
What liberal prelates like McCarrick, Murphy-O'Connor, and Danneels knew about Bergoglio’s capacity to “make the Church over again” has only slowly and confusedly become evident to faithful Catholics over the last four years, but especially in the last year. Based on a mistaken notion of papal infallibility, many Catholics have defended Pope Francis to the point of absurdity. But sober-minded Catholics who know the traditional teachings, history, and practices, are alarmed at the clear fact that many of the Holy Father’s actions and statements are at odds with what has gone before.
In Bergoglio’s four years as Pope Francis the four marks that set the Catholic Church apart from every other religion on the face of the earth, namely that she is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, have become obscured and even undermined.
. . .
- He has called for a “decentralized” Church, and allowed individual bishops’ groups to determine for their own “regional” churches what is moral and right. In this way, it is supposedly permissible for adulterers to receive Holy Communion in Germany while across the border in Poland it is gravely sinful.
- His ambiguous speeches and especially his papal writings have turned cardinal against cardinal, bishop against bishop, and lay-faithful against lay-faithful.
- He has refused to answer Church leaders earnestly begging for clarity on points of contention.
- He has allowed Catholic doctrine to be minimized in the name of religious “dialogue” with other Christian denominations with a history of hostility towards Catholic doctrine on marriage, the Eucharist, and the papacy.
- Under his leadership, the Vatican has even hailed Luther, the founder of Protestantism, as a “witness to the gospel.”
. . .
- His writings have been used by those closest to him to promote evil practices such as adultery and fornication as legitimate moral choices.
- His writings have also been used to defend the sacrilegious practice of giving Holy Communion to those living in objective grave sin (here, here, here, and here). Bishops and cardinals have defended this sacrilegious practice based on the Pope’s own arguments in Amoris Laetitia that emphasize “pastoral care” and “mercy” to the detriment of doctrine and truth.
- He has denounced “restorationist” orders bursting with young people and has destroyed one traditional order.
- He has resisted the traditional Latin mass and called the young people who love it “rigid.”
- He has accused Christians of “cowardliness” who zealously follow the Ten Commandments.
- He has consistently used coarse and degrading language to criticize and vilify those with whom he disagrees (here, here, and here).
- He has allowed St. Peter’s Basilica, a sacred Church building, to be desecrated by an occult light show projected on its facade.
- He has allowed sexually provocative dance troupes to perform on the steps of St. Peter’s Basilica.
- He has allowed the desecration of the Sistine Chapel by renting it out to the Porsche car company for a corporate event and has allowed it to be used as a venue for U2’s guitarist ‘The Edge.’
. . .
- He has oriented the Church’s mission towards worldly goals such as combatting climate change and reordering the world’s economic system.
- He has called Catholics to have an “ecological conversion” and to repent of “sins” against the environment.
- He has allowed the sworn enemies of the Church to openly exert their influence on her policies and programs (here, here, and here).
. . .
- He has elevated openly heretical bishops and cardinals who do not hold the unchanging faith as handed down through the ages from the Apostles.
- He has demoted and silenced high-ranking voices of orthodoxy within the Church.
- He has created an environment that allows bishops and cardinals and other prominent Church leaders to openly depart from perennial Church teaching and moral absolutes.
. . .
Of all the unthinkable candidates, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is perhaps the worst. Not because he openly professes doctrines against the faith and morals, but because, judging from his work as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, faith and morals seem to have been irrelevant to him.
A sworn enemy of the Traditional Mass, he has only allowed imitations of it in the hands of declared enemies of the ancient liturgy. He has persecuted every single priest who made an effort to wear a cassock, preach with firmness, or that was simply interested in Summorum Pontificum.
Famous for his inconsistency (at times, for the unintelligibility of his addresses and homilies), accustomed to the use of coarse, demagogical, and ambiguous expressions, it cannot be said that his magisterium is heterodox, but rather non-existent for how confusing it is.
His entourage in the Buenos Aires Curia, with the exception of a few clerics, has not been characterized by the virtue of their actions. Several are under grave suspicion of moral misbehavior.
He has not missed any occasion for holding acts in which he lent his Cathedral to Protestants, Muslims, Jews, and even to partisan groups in the name of an impossible and unnecessary inter-religious dialogue. He is famous for his meetings with Protestants in the Luna Park arena where, together with preacher of the Pontifical House, Raniero Cantalamessa, he was "blessed" by Protestant ministers, in a common act of worship in which he, in practice, accepted the validity of the "powers" of the TV-pastors.
This election is incomprehensible: he is not a polyglot, he has no Curial experience, he does not shine for his sanctity, he is loose in doctrine and liturgy, he has not fought against abortion and only very weakly against homosexual "marriage" (approved with practically no opposition from the episcopate), he has no manners to honor the Pontifical Throne.
He has never fought for anything else than to remain in positions of power.
It really cannot be what Benedict wanted for the Church. And he does not seem to have any of the conditions required to continue his work.
May God help His Church. One can never dismiss, as humanly hard as it may seem, the possibility of a conversion... and, nonetheless, the future terrifies us.
A sworn enemy of the Traditional Mass, he has only allowed imitations of it in the hands of declared enemies of the ancient liturgy. He has persecuted every single priest who made an effort to wear a cassock, preach with firmness, or that was simply interested in Summorum Pontificum.
Famous for his inconsistency (at times, for the unintelligibility of his addresses and homilies), accustomed to the use of coarse, demagogical, and ambiguous expressions, it cannot be said that his magisterium is heterodox, but rather non-existent for how confusing it is.
His entourage in the Buenos Aires Curia, with the exception of a few clerics, has not been characterized by the virtue of their actions. Several are under grave suspicion of moral misbehavior.
He has not missed any occasion for holding acts in which he lent his Cathedral to Protestants, Muslims, Jews, and even to partisan groups in the name of an impossible and unnecessary inter-religious dialogue. He is famous for his meetings with Protestants in the Luna Park arena where, together with preacher of the Pontifical House, Raniero Cantalamessa, he was "blessed" by Protestant ministers, in a common act of worship in which he, in practice, accepted the validity of the "powers" of the TV-pastors.
This election is incomprehensible: he is not a polyglot, he has no Curial experience, he does not shine for his sanctity, he is loose in doctrine and liturgy, he has not fought against abortion and only very weakly against homosexual "marriage" (approved with practically no opposition from the episcopate), he has no manners to honor the Pontifical Throne.
He has never fought for anything else than to remain in positions of power.
It really cannot be what Benedict wanted for the Church. And he does not seem to have any of the conditions required to continue his work.
May God help His Church. One can never dismiss, as humanly hard as it may seem, the possibility of a conversion... and, nonetheless, the future terrifies us.
Comment