Money, money, money
Must be funny
In the rich man’s world
Money, money, money
Always sunny
In the rich man’s world
A-ha, ah
All the things I could do
If I had a little money
It’s a rich man’s world
Seems like the old adage of “follow the money” is very appropriate for the New Bergoglian Church with an Amazon Face, a Climate Change Face, the Face of the Poor and the Face of the Migrant invaders. Distribution of wealth is simply one aspect to their socialist shill game. It really seems to me that it is a hoax perpetrated on the faithful of the Catholic Church and a ruse to garner support for the deep pockets of the UN and other Western European Governments to support their NGO’s and naturally get lost along the way to the people that they are going to ‘accompany’ or ‘help’.
Donations are down by the faithful and the people do not go along with this present regime that never found a popular worldly endeavor that they don’t support and seem to be able to put a Biblical face on every scheme that they conjure up.
Think about it for a minute. The Church took its marching orders from the Germans during the Vatican II Council which funds them by their huge Church Tax. They are by far the richest pool of Catholic funds available to the Vatican. Well it seems that this is not enough to satisfy the present occupants but it is enough to let the Germans get away with whatever they want; including heresy and disobedience. If only Archbishop LeFebvre had that kind of money he would never have been excommunicated.
Let’s look at the issues that the world supports and yet the Church in Her Teachings would never have supported. Isn’t it interesting to see the Church turn a blind eye to the Teachings of the Faith in order to gain the support of the world?
- The Poor
- The Immigrants
- LGBT and Gender Issues
- Women’s Issues (generally this means contraception, abortion, and women priestesses among others)
- Global Warming
- Indigenous People of the Amazon
- Socialism, Marxism and Communism
- Ending Capitalism and supporting the redistribution of wealth
I’m sure that as more issues emerge and the more the UN and other nations support these efforts, the more the Faux Church with the Bergoglio Face will find some way to get money from these folks, support that which is immoral, and hide the rest for God knows what. After all we have no idea what in the world happens to the money after they get their hands on it. Our charities give their money to political and social groups that are anathema. But the Bishops keep on appealing to us to support them. Why? Because even if you don’t support them they will get money from the UN from Soros and other political pots of money that the Govt. has set aside for doing ‘good works’. It’s morally imperative that we help these poor and oppressed people, or planet or what have you.
Sadly it is all about money. If you didn’t already read or watch these, please do so:
All Along the Watchtower 
Don’t worry about it Scoop. The devil wants to destroy your peace of soul.
For this crisis to be resolved, the muddiness has first to be converted to clarity. The excesses of “Pope” Francis are part of this process. I think we’re getting close to a tipping point. I don’t know if you’ve seen the latest Scalfari bombshell but…
If either 1) Francis actually said that Jesus was not God, 2) he refuses to publicly deny that he said this, when it has been publicly alleged by his close friend, the atheist Scalfari, he is – as far as I can see – *without any doubt whatever* a public heretic, and loses his office ipso facto.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed by the words of scripture he is anathema. But I still hold that he has never been the Pope.
LikeLike
You might well be right, but that position has not been confirmed yet by the known facts or the judgement of the Church. We must proceed on what we know for certain – anything else is, I believe, dangerous at this stage.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Everything is dangerous at this stage; for who is the Church to pronounce said judgment? The homos, the unbelieving, the socialist/communists, the Sankt Gallen Mafia, the freemasons, the money grubbers? Are we to rely on the votes of the bishops that Bergoglio made for a decision on this along with the ones who plotted and schemed to get their man elected? Far too confusing and yet it is far too important not to make a determination for oneself.
LikeLike
Well, I can see it matters whether or not Francis is Pope. But I can’t see it makes much practical difference *why* Francis is not the Pope, whether he has ceased to be the Pope, or never was the Pope. Only a fool listens to foolish ravings, so sane Catholics have not hearkened to his false teaching, even when it was plausible that he had not publicly defected from the Faith.
If it were important to know that Benedict is still Pope, God would not permit this point to be obscured. But it is obscure.
It may be it is made manifest. Until such time, I don’t see what the desperate rush is to be certain. Seeking certainty where it is not offered is a recipe for despair or insanity. It happened to me – don’t let it happen to you.
LikeLike
The desperate rush is because we have no idea who is going to die first: and it will become very pertinent. It may work out fine, Benedict and then shortly thereafter Francis. But if the same crew or the one’s he made into the future electors vote at the next consistory will it be rigged or will it be led by the Holy Spirit? All are very serious situations that will confront us unless Francis is “undone” while still alive and all of his cardinals returned to their former status.
LikeLike
Humanly speaking, there is no realistic chance of preventing a “conclave” stacked by Satan (I mean, short of literally plotting to assassinate a large number of “Cardinals”).
Either God will intervene to resolve the situation, or we will have to suffer it for longer, and then He will resolve it. It must be resolved fairly soon, or the Church would fail, which is impossible.
You can’t, humanly speaking, fix a Church stacked with the devil’s picked men. Not within the moral law. No state is going to intervene in favour of the Faith. Might Matteo Salvini? I don’t know. Maybe. Very unlikely. But you and I certainly aren’t.
So in the event, what will happen is that the mess will be a short one or a long one, and in the end, when the Church has regained sanity, theologians will pick through the pieces at leisure and decide the matter.
What do we need to know: 1) heretics and apostates are bad, 2) a public heretic isn’t the pope, 3) we don’t maintain communion with heretics, 4) we don’t listen to what they say, 5) we do everything to undermine their erroneous teaching.
Unless Benedict flatly contradicts his own strong assertions that his resignation was valid, I don’t see how the Barnhardt hypothesis gets beyond “possible”. There is too much doubt to provide certainty at this stage. We cannot undo that, even if we strain every fibre of our intellect.
I note as a point of interest that after the Great Western Schism, juridical acts of antipopes were convalidated by the Church (including their creation of cardinals). Not saying that would have to happen again, just saying it might happen.
Too much uncertainty. Don’t fry your brain and worry your soul.
LikeLiked by 1 person
For my money the problem will not be solved in a short time at all: I am not counting on it coming during my lifetime.
The Barnhardt thesis doesn’t only depend on (what may have been a coerced statement) by Benedict. What it stands on is the substantial error of trying to step to the side and bifurcate the papacy. The circumstantial evidence is his ring, his dress, his apostolic blessings etc. The most direct is Benidict’s imprimatur on Ganswein’s statement about bifurcation of the papacy. None of it makes sense unless Benedict truly thought he could divide the papacy (which he pondered back in the 70’s and seemed to accept) or if he were coerced against his will and is being psychologically blackmailed by some means (perhaps schism) to do what he has done. It is more than confusing and if you believe Voris, more and more of the prelates in Rome are beginning to think along these lines. It may be the line of thinking that will ultimately prevail but even if it doesn’t it is not at all unlikely given what we know of the cunning and murderous types that a are roaming about the bath houses of Rome.
LikeLike
Too speculative. It may be that this is what Benedict had in mind – but his subjective reservation cannot change the reality that what he (freely) submitted was an effectual resignation accepted as such by all parties, and recognised by the Church.
How broad a concept is substantial error? If I sign a piece of paper willingly, thinking it to be a cheque, and it turns out to be a letter of resignation, that’s obviously substantial error.
If I’m a Hindu and I’m asked to baptise someone in extremis, and my understanding of this is completely wrong, but I try to comply with the request, I validly baptise because I intend what the Church intends (although I might be completely mistaken about what that is).
I don’t think this is cut and dried.
LikeLike
I never said it was cut and dried QVO. I am saying that it is worth examining and I wish that those who have showed ‘deafening silence’ should be looking at it. I know I am in a minority and it is my own private observation and belief. I am not trying to twist arms to accept my conclusion; only that we are being asked, in my opinion, to make a conclusion that does not destroy the faith or send people running for the hills. This is one of those options which must be made subjectively.
But to your point about what is substantial error; don’t you think an effort to bifurcate the papacy (retaining a portion of the munus) qualify in your mind? It does in mind but every man and woman in the Church will have to make peace with themselves and the Church any way that they can. Leaving cannot solve anything and supporting a series of Francis I, Francis II, Francis III is unacceptable.
LikeLike
I’m not against engaging in the speculation, so long as it doesn’t rob you of your peace of soul. The hypothesis is an interesting one, and I do not dismiss it; very possibly it is correct.
My point is that God does not ask the impossible of us. What is clear is sufficient basis for action; the rest we can leave in His hands, IF the alternative is disturbing our peace of soul.
I don’t personally find the distinction between the office and the exercise of the office very conclusive. It’s interesting, and suggestive, but it is not meaty enough to work with.
The ministry of a bishop is his episcopacy. If a bishop says, “I am resigning the episcopacy”, is it reasonable to believe that this means he is not tendering his resignation as a bishop?
He may think to himself; I still bear within myself the particular mark of a bishop; I still have an especial responsibility to exemplify a Christian life as a representative of the teaching Church; I still have an especial responsibility to pray for my diocese.
This does not mean he is still the ordinary of the diocese.
LikeLike
Of course, and the Bishop is the last mark given to the soul. The ex-Pope is a bishop. The munus of the Bishop of Rome is forever, as Benedict correctly stated. So he does not, when resigning retain any of the munus that belongs only to the pope. So why is he giving apostolic blessings? Why dress as Pope and have people kiss his ring? Can he declare that he has stepped to the side to keep part of the munus? It makes no sense. As a bishop (retired Pope) I would expect him to pray for the Church as every retired bishop and priest should.
I see a version in the Pope of the Nicholaites of Rev. 2:6,15). And no matter what we can garner from the many interpretations of what this means all seem to describe the Pope and those who are in his circle: gnostic, carnal, antifeminists (hatred for law . . . too rigid), pantheistic, etc. We aren’t sure exactly who they were even in modern scholarship but all the guesses are not very good. Sadly for Ephesus their hatred of them was the only thing that Angel praised.
And of course this latest debacle concerning the divinity of Christ while on earth is not just a slip of the tongue. If it were, the Vatican statement would have straightened it out. All it did was place the blame at a poor interpretation by Scalfari. We’ve seen enough of these and the poor response of the Vatican press to know that they like to keep things open ended. If the Pope didn’t say it, then tell us he didn’t and what he really did say. Sad times, my friend and this is the guy he give over 5 interviews with since becoming Pope and he won’t even meet with the 2 remaining bishops of the Dubai???? We all know that something is wrong and as what to do about it . . . is to talk about it . . . withhold our money and definitely stop following the new Church of the UN and their agenda.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ABOVE: antifeminist is what my computer typed when I typed: “antinomianists” . . . I hate that.
LikeLike
A man is a heretic, if he is happy to allow others to say he is.
LikeLike
Apparently he is quite happy with it as he was to sell out the Church in China, or whether or not he will create a schism in the Church. None of this disturbs his peace of mind and all of that makes me think that this is not a man who is validly guarding the deposit of faith.
LikeLike