Rorate Caeli

Receive the... what?



Cardinal Bergoglio, Archbishop of Buenos Aires and, according to many reports, runner-up in the last conclave, kneels down and receives a... blessing from Protestant ministers (and from Raniero Cantalamessa...) in an ecumenical meeting in the Argentinian capital (June 19, 2006).

Tip from Radio Cristiandad.
Original image URL: http://www.lanacion.com.ar/anexos/imagen/06/533384.jpg

38 comments:

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

Good grief, there is a Capuchin at his side!

St. Francis even refused to meet with his friars who were suspect of heresy, what would he say now!

Sixtus V said...

Do you have link to this story? I'd like to see more, before the SSPXers run their rant track. You know cue up rant 26, "Kiss the Koran, blah, blah, the sky is falling... .

Simon-Peter said...

We're all phenomenologists now.

Simon-Peter said...

I have a three simple questions so that we can all get on the same page:

First:
Would all those who HAVE publicly kissed the Koran OR any other book inspired by the father of lies, please indicate in your next post.

Say:
Yes / Koran / Kiss or
Yes / Other / Kiss (and state the other).


Second:
Would all those who have publicly invoked him of whom it was said no greater was born of a woman to protect Islam or any other product of the father of lies please indicate in your next post.

Say:
Yes / Islam / invoke and or
Yes / Other / invoke (and state
the other).


Third:
If you have or would answer no to these questions, would you be so good as to state your reasons why.


thanks,
S-P.

Roger said...

Sixtus:
Here's the link to the story (in Spanish, of course)...

http://buscador.lanacion.com.ar/Nota.asp?nota_id=816217&high=Bergoglio


It was at some ecumaniacal meeting of charismatic "catholics" and pentecostals.

It's definitely indefensible. Such a sad day.

Simon-Peter said...

Roger, I watched this as it was unfolding back in Feb.
http://www.wcc-assembly.info/

This "blessing" (cursing) is nothing to the sodomite wimmin doing their thing in the university chapel (right in front of the altar no less) in Porto Alegre...all in the name of ecumenical dialogue during the WCC.

Simon-Peter said...

Ah....but wait, there's less.

http://www.cfnews.org/ecushrine.htm

A certain Archbishop-hireling Farrell is front and center here, as he was at the WCC heresy-fest here...http://www.wcc-assembly.info/...along with the good old Walter.

I wouldn't mind, but many of the things mentioned in the directory are already being done, certainly across the US.

In my own diocese, a certain Catholic Church was used recently for a celebration (note the use of that ambiguous / PROFANE word) of graduates from a local STATE high school. Present and speaking were a Jewish rabbi, and Muslim imam, and a Protestant minister. Of course the Church is not desacralized by this type of thing, sheesh, who could possibly think it?

Who could not?

I think I'll quote Lamentabili again, my favourite, number #24;

24. The exegete who constructs premises from which it follows that dogmas are historically false or doubtful is not to be reproved as long as he does not directly deny the dogmas themselves .
CONDEMNED

There's a principle embedded in here. Can you spot it?

Right...that's right, because it also applies to actions, and echoes certain words of the Son of God, if we don't believe Him for what He said, we ought to believe Him for what He DID.

Thus:
The Catholic who constructs premises, or persistently acts or fails to act where a positive duty lies, in ways from which it follows that dogmas are historically false or doubtful is not to be reproved as long as he does not directly deny by use of premise, or by act or omission, the dogmas themselves .
CONDEMNED

OR DOUBTFUL....OR DOUBTFUL...OR DOUBTFUL.

ThePublican said...

All right, noblesse oblige: the news are from my country, so here is the whole article translated in case the picture was not enough Take your Dramamine and read on -- Note: Bergoglio is a... Jesuit. Nuff said.

"Charismatic Catholics and Pentecostal Evangelicals were actors in a gesture undoubtedly considered [by them] as an important step towards Christian unity.

It was at the III Fraternal Meeting organized by the Creces foundation ([Acronym for] Renewed Communion of Evangelicals in the Holy Spirit) held at the Luna Park Stadium. Its principal orators were the Pope's preacher, the Italian Franciscan Raniero Cantalamessa -- arrived yesterday [T. Note: June 19] to the country to preach a retreat to the bishops - and the Italian pastor, Giovanni Traettino.

About 7,000 Catholic and Evangelical faithful participated in the disertations and praises during the entire day led by Marcos Witt, a Mexican preacher that has eight Grammy awards to his name for religious music.

The most emotional moment was the reception given by those present to Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, who gave a brief salutation and asked, as is his custom, for prayers for his person. The pastors took him seriously. The Cardinal knelt and all present asked for him -- who is, according to those present "one of the prophetic voices of the Nation" - [and] abundance of wisdom.

Bergoglio, who mingled among the people in the stands for two hours prior to his salutation, said that one could begin to see "a reconciled diversity".

Traettino affirmed that the destiny of Charismatics and Pentecostals is "to be a reconciliation factor in the Church and an instrument of unity". He agreed with Cantalamessa when he stated that unity in the Church is not an option, but a reality, "because God is one", and that the recognition of this will require a long road that, since yesterday, they stated, has been shortened." [end of article].

Argh. Sorry, must go take a shower. Feel like Beckham against Ecuador [that was for S-P!]. So there you have it all. Any doubts about the intercession of the Holy Spirit at the last Conclave?

Simon-Peter said...

Ah...Pub, I was hoping you'd step in.

Simon-Peter said...

What is sooooo interesting is that the blurb about this man has him down as, well, a "conservative" (actually, he probably is, you know what conservatives conserve, NOTHING, they just front for the liberals, they are themselves nothing but liberals in slow motion, liberals sans the soft dangling objects between the legs) a man who shuns the spotlight etc. I even read how he is a loyal follower of St. Ignatius.

Then I looked at the picture again. Then I tried to excuse his intention. Then I thought of St. Teresa de Jesus running off to be martyred by the Moors.

Ah, the universal Church. Nuncios committing sacrilege. Priests boffing Bishops. Archibishops kneeling to heretics and schismatics, not to be beheaded, as in England, you understand, but to receive a blessing, a blessing...do you think they even know what a blessing is??? Nope.

Still, one spin is "what do you expect? it has been ever thus."

Pass me my a corset for I fear my sides have split.

Yes, poor David...it IS strange though that Mr. Rooney seemed to do better when he went back to his traditional long sleeves, and yet he is a Lancashire lad like myself who sweats bullets if it gets above 70f, but David Surreal Madrid Beckham upchucking after he changes into short sleeves.

Pub: England 4 Port 1 (Rooney Hat trick).

Beltrán María Fos said...

Nothing different could be expected from Bergoglio, a jesuit who always goes where the sun warms up...he who is suspected of having treasoned many of his subjects when he was the provincial of his order, during the last war between comunists and the republic (that´s the true story of it, a big part of the clerics were allies to the comunist terrorists who desolated the country in the 60´s ande 70´s.) has recently called "martyrs" a few passionist priests that where killed during that war, because of their subversive activities. A little detail, our president is a formes "montonero", that is to say a former and not only "former" terrorist. Bergoglio seeks popularity, he doesn´t care about God, and much less about the faithful he must care from the wolves. He is, above all, a politician. And he thinks he can play that game. The problem is that he has too many things to hide and in some way he doesn´t want to loose the economic help of the stat (as subsidies to the education), and that´s the greatest weapon for the government. A government that is advancing in every initiative against the faith and the natural order (homosexual marriage, abortion, sterilization,expulsion of the military bishop, sexual education, etc.). Bergoglio is playing the role of an ally, not an oponent. In fact it seems that the only worry of the bishops (reunited in the bishops conference) is the "social problem", that is, work, economy, social exclusion, etc. In a few words, the theology of Judas, the theology not of the kingdom of God, but of the rest.
The ultimate plan of the progressivists is to exclude the Church from the place of honour and primacy she has had in the life of our contry. One of the best ways to achieve that goal is to make her look as equal to the other religions. In fact, we must suffer more and more frequently the presence in public acts, not only of the representatives of the Church, but of the other religious communities. Ecumenism and inter religious dialogue, together with "solidarity" (in replacement of charity) are part of our eclesiastical agenda and Bergoglio is the leading actor of this drama. The conscuences are obvious:people is loosing their faith, and abandoning the church to go to the different sects.

Simon-Peter said...

Oh this gets better...2 Argentinian Catholic lawyers weighing in.

We keep talking about going on vacation to the Arg. I'll expect free room and board :-).

Simon-Peter said...

In return, I'll show you how to really play football ;-).

"If you can't get the ball, get the man, but whatever you do, get one of them."

I must admit that I AM biased, I think most English are, UNTIL you play us, because 1. we always fight, and 2. we always lose the game. So good luck, and

Germany 0 2 Argentina (Crespo, Tevez)

proklos said...

Oh Your Eminence! Please give me a rule of life such that if I follow it I may evangelize the world. The Cardinal Bergoglio answered gravely : " My Son! You should adopt the rule that I follow: If you can't beat them, join them!"

AmemusAthanasium said...

Anna Katherina Emmerick (1823) "I saw many pastors cherishing dangerous ideas against the Church. . . . They built a large, singular, extravagant church which was to embrace all creeds with equal rights Evangelicals, Catholics, and all denominations, a true communion of the unholy with one shepherd and one flock. There was to be a Pope, a salaried Pope, without possessions. All was made ready, many things finished; but, in place of an altar, were only abomination and desolation. Such was the new church to be, and it was for it that he had set fire to the old one; * but God designed otherwise."
(Rev. Karl Schmoeger, The Life and Revelations of Anne Catherine Emmerich, Vol. 2, pp. 352-53; available at www.tanbooks.com)

Simon-Peter said...

2 Maccabees Chapter 7 (1-42).

Pshaw...just a bunch of fanatics, right? Like the Servites and Mercedarians.

Fanatics, who needs 'em? Right?

Quis ut Deus?

S.H. said...

Right, because any Pope named Sixtus would have allowed the Koran to be kissed by any Catholic without some sort of legal punishment.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

Dear Sixtus V,

Since this Pope was a Franciscan, I would beg you for the sake of his name, to get another nickname.

Though he was not a saint, nevertheless, out of respect for him, I would ask it as a sign of charity to the Order of St. Francis.

MacK said...

As I said elsewhere, The LOrd is pruning in His vineyard. There is still a long pathway to tread. Apostasy from the head of the church reveals Our Blessed Saviour calling to us from The Sacred Scriptures to heed the signs of the times, to test the prophets and to be vigilant, lest we ourselves fall into temptation.

Poor deluded archbishop. Poor deluded charismatics. The spirit of the last pontiff lives on in these pathetic spectacles.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

Dear Simon Peter,

There is no Holier Image in all of creation that than of the Holy Face of Jesus.

I commend you on your devotion.

However, such a holy thing should not be used as an Avatar on a Blog, because that is a trivial use, and holy things should not be used trivially, as Our Lord commanded.

If you only understood the awesome responsibility in the sight of the Eternal Father for everything you write under the banner of that Most Sacred Face!

I beg you for your salvation, put it on your blog, but don't use it as your personal Avatar.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Simon-Peter said...

Good morning Brother,

Would any mandylion be acceptable?

I would ask whether my fault is in the order of malum in se or malum prohibitum.

My intent was not in the least trivial.

Our Lord has stated that whosoever looks upon His face (with love) consoles Him. I am not sure how my responsibility increases over that where I am already indwelt. My use of the Holy Face here was simply an extension of a present reality in my own life. The first thing you'll see when you enter my house is a 5 foot statue of Our Lady of Fatima with Rosary and Scapular, the next, a very large framed print of the Holy Face taken from the shroud. Holy face medals, Holy Face Cross, Holy Face oil, smaller Holy Face pictures and cards all over. Reparation for blasphemy. When we move into our new house (soon) there'll be three framed prints...

In addition, it is the sister and preceeding devotion to Fatima. Not only that it affords opportunities when asked why...as I already have.

Thus one can mention the blood in the shape of a 3 and a 1, and EX314 over the lip...

Hmmmmmm.

Right, that's it, done.

Thankyou.

Janice said...

This question is addressed to beltran maria fos:

Is Cardinal Bergoglio still a supporter of liberation theology? And did the cardinals that gathered for the conclave know this? I read somewhere that he held the key to the papal election because he got enough votes to block Cardinal Ratzinger's election, but backed out by the fourth vote.

Sorry for my ignorance on this matter. But I cannot understand what was so attractive about Cardinal Bergoglio at the last conclave.

Sixtus V said...

My dear Stephen and Brother,

In the words of the original Sixtus, "Noli me tangere." He was the bane of brigands. My personal favorite quote is, "While I live, every criminal must die." He reformed the papal state and laid down the law. I'm sure Stephen he would have been equitable with the punishment.

Sixtus V

Sixtus V said...

Pablo vi,

Welcome to the fray and a day we remember St. Paul no less! Now everyone let's recite article X of the Profession of the Tridentine Faith, with an emphasis on the obedience part, and no crossing your fingers in the back row - you know who you are!

Sixtus V

Sixtus V said...

Let's tarry for a moment in the uncharitable rush to judgment and suppose that this protestant minister is simply a material heretic with votum Ecclesiae. His prayer for the cardinal will be heard by our High Priest who intercedes for us with the Father. Now are you all saying one can't ask a Protestant, Orthodox, or SSPXer to pray for us? Now lets take this a step farther. Suppose the cardinal's humility causes those Protestant in the audience to find something attractive in the sign of humility and examine the teachings of the Church and, thus, starts them on a path of reunion with the Church. Perhaps charity will heal the wounds of Christian division, or maybe you all are right that he should have said to him that he was a no good heretic and he didn't need his prayers.

Sixtus V

Screwtape said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Screwtape said...

OH SIXTUS!

When I was too young to remember it, I received a "Patriarchal Blessing" from a Mormon "Elder." (My relatives told me.)

If you saw the "good" that it did me for most of my life, you might change your mind. I lived a life that was carnal, sensual, and devilish to the best of my ability.

The Church knew what it was doing when it condemned such activity - the blessings by infidels, I mean.

On the other hand, when I grew old enough to remember past things, I left Mormonism as I would leave the plague. Post hoc ergo procter hoc? Blessed, after all?

Yeah, but not by that "Patriarch." (Every "Ward" has one.)

You're wrong wrong wrong, but so what else is new?

Sixtus V said...

My dear NGB,

Umm, Mormons aren't Christian... .
There's the whole problem of Adam and Eve being the gods of this universe and Jesus being their first born spirit baby, ect, ect, ect. I rejoice you that you accepted the God's grace and left that cult.

Sixtus V

Iosephus said...

Disgusting, what's shown in that photograph.

ThePublican said...

Sixtus,

I think it is a matter of charity and justice (and prudence). Of charity because charity seeks the union of the soul with God and therefore it can hardly be united to that it does not know and Whose will it does not follow. As charity cannot exist without Truth first, it is not charitable to lead a heretic to think that he is in the good graces of God even though outside the Church. Of justice (i.e. doing God's Will, assuring that God's Will is done) because instead of seeking a conversion of souls such gestures perpetuate the illusion that salvation is possible outside the Church (I am no Feneyite so I mean this the way the Church does). We must logically presume that the heretic is outside the Church, not that some secret intention keeps him in union with it and the cardinal is appealing to such secret intent. You presuppose some larger intent on the Cardinal's part, but would that not be tolerating error for some higher good? That is, would that not violate the principle that it is never licit to do an evil that a good may come out of it?

So, rather than dabbling in uncharitableness a person confronted with the situation described in the article, would be in the right to presume the heretic to be outside the Church and therefore apply Church doctrine and act accordingly.

There is also that matter of the cardinal being, well, precisely that: a cardinal, a prince of the Church, a public figure whose example will be followed and will be used to teach Truth or error. That again clashes with Charity and Justice and clearly with prudence. I think it was F. J. Sheed who said that Judas' mistake was to seek forgiveness (or intercession) from those who could not give it to him: the Pharisees, whereas Peter went to the Source of forgiveness. That was a crucial difference. I think that example may apply here. Is the cardinal not going to the wrong side for help (and teaching others that such acts are profitable)? Having so much at his disposal, why do this? We could probably talk about the prudential value of his act and example as well... It is my understanding that a heretic's prayers are only good as to his own conversion but cannot have intercessory powers by the very fact of his being cut off from the Vine.

I am sure Br. Bugnolo and others better read than I and with sources close at hand will cite for you chapter and verse as to the Church's position on requesting heretics' prayers. My intent here is to think about the issue logically in light of the Truth.

Romano Amerio stated that the crisis in the Church of late is largely due to the modern belief that Charity can precede (or be done in spite of) Truth, when it is the Holy Spirit (Charity/Love) who proceeds from the Word (Truth) always, so Truth must always precede Charity for Charity to exist. That is the Trinitarian order. You realize that Romano Amerio's point was to show how a false sense of "tolerance" for error is always cloaked under love of neighbour or charity, and that such false sense of tolerance permeates much of the ecumenical and other movements these days confusing the faithful and doing nothing to bring back those outside the Church. All such gestures do is assure the "tolerated" neighbour's condemnation through ommission and human respect. It seems to me the Cardinal's actions suffer from this error. He left every non Catholic as much in the dark as before, every Catholic more in the dark than before and all assured that they are not in the dark when in fact they are.

What can be good or charitable about that?

Screwtape said...

SIXTUS

I give you a very bad time, because I believe you need the charity.

I must be consistent and give credit where credit is due.

You are absolutely correct about Mormons not being Christian.

Which didn't stop that blessing.

What do you do when you're a year old and the "Patriarch" shows up and your mother and father dump you into his hands. In the name of Christ, I was handed to the Devil. Nobody present had a clue!

My point, nevertheless, remains. The Vatican II approach that maintains the proposition that all we have to do is be nice and set a good example and the infidels will come rushing into hour airline hangars has been so long disproved it's surprising to find it advanced once more, especially in this venue. Your poor Novus Ordure is disappearing so fast that soon Father Trendy will be reduced to his breakfast under the balloons being desecrated on a park bench.

Screwtape said...

Congratulations to The Publican:

You did a good job, even if it was a little long-winded. You and Simon-Peter both need once in a while to take the advice of William Strunk and E.B. White to seek brevity.

Never mind this is the case of a kettle calling a fire black. Or hot. Or something.

My Master's Degree Thesis had to be blown to the tightness of burst because it was a fake from beginning to end. There are exceptions.

Is your name "Publican" after "I went into a a public 'ouse to get a pint o' beer; the publican 'e ups and says 'we serve no Redcoats 'ere . . . ?"

Screwtape said...

Ah, NGB just figured out the picture and all this commentary has been wasted.

It's obvious.

The "blessor" is aiming at a fly on the "blessee's" head.

Some irresponsible freak with Photoshop Elements erased the dot that was the fly.

We should now take bets on whether he missed.

Beltrán María Fos said...

Dear Janice:
As I told before, Cardinal Bergoglio is, above everything, a politician. That explains why he has not a doctrinal "corpus" and if he had one, as progressivists do not like very much the non contradiction principle, it would be very easy for him to change every conclusion into the negation of it. Listening to his sermons is a foretaste of purgatory, or even hell. He has the particular hability of speaking for hours to say nothing comprehensible. It is usual to see, in the morning after journals, the different speculations about the possible interpretations of his sermon of the day before. His mind is impenetrable. Maybe he doesn´t support the theology of the liberation, but who knows what he thinks about it? He rules or teaches by his attitudes. To give you an example: You may be sure that he w´ont punish a priest who preeches that doctrine, but in the contrary he punished severely (with expulsion of his parish) a priest who criticized bishop maccarone (the one who quit his charge only after he was caught in fragrant sodomy). Maccarone a leftist bishop, was one of the "friends" of the leftist government. Another one: when the military bishop adressed a letter to the minister of health, condemning the promotion of the abortion, letter that provoked the dismissal of the bishop provoking a diplomatic incident with the holy see, cardinal Bergoglio only supported him in a tepid way when Cardinal Sodano so commanded. This tips are enough to show how he moves in the political arena, allways in a politically correct way, except when Rome orderss him to act in a particular way and only if that order is sufficiently accompanied of a potential threat. I remember how we laughed (I mean, the well informed argentinian catholics) when little before the conclave we read in an european media that Bergoglio was considered a new Saint Pius X. They should have said a new Thomas Cranmer!!! but even that would be giving him much more credit than what he deserves.

MacK said...

When all is said and done, the poor cardinal is only imitating the false example set by the previous pontiff - kissing the ring of the invalid Archbishop of Canterbury; kneeling in mosques by church hierarchs; shamanistic "blessings" by hindu priestesses on the forehead of a pope and embraces for false books pertaining to other religions. They make for wonderful media opportunities but they certainly send out a wide variety of mixed messages - most of which are entirely misleading. Is the above the behaviour Our Blessed Lord asked of His Apostles - to go into the world and preach the Gospel of salvation, in the name of The Father, and of The Son and of The Holy Ghost?

Deo Gratias, St Francis refused the hospitality of the Sultan rather than compromise Christ's teaching to brush the dust off one's feet if the charity of the message of salvation is refused. Since VC II Catholics have been treated to an immense number of similar contradictory messages, in this respect, about being good Christians. No wonder even church leaders are confused these days.

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches: "All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists. Now man can make profession of his inward faith by deeds as well as by words: and in either profession, if he make a false declaration, he sins mortally" (Summa Theologica, Pars I-II, Q. 103., A. 4).
Rather the cardinal than I, in this case.


How anybody who perceives themselves Catholic can justify such unfortunate comportment is absolutely illogical. Comparable would be Our Blessed Saviour bowing to the teachings of the Pharisees & Saducees. This is the consequence of emotionalistic charismaticism which creates perverse protestant impulses in its followers. These amount to "signs and wonders" which mislead. It is only in this context and that of false modelling by religious "superiors" that such conduct is made explicable. For a Catholic it is essentially an ill-advised, irrational and unnecessary act. Sister Lucia was correct to have warned Catholics in the 1950s not to look to Rome for sound guidance in the faith.

Gratuitous indeed to refer to sound arguments against this genre of public behaviour as somehow unfair or stereotypical. It has to be stated with clarity, which of course is not a signal mark of modernistic approaches, when the blind lead the blind those who follow also fall into the pit as well.

Screwtape said...

Mack:

It's a mouthful that all should chew on, but I fear you are but feeding grass to the horses when all they want is cotton candy. The sad fact is that they've developed such a taste for it that even though it makes them sick, they still crave it. Some of them even prefer the feeling of being sick to feeling well. Then there are those so far gone they don't even realize they are sick and they want all of us to get nauseated with them.

I've given up trying - nonsense and contradiction has become their gander sauce.

I went through Academe in the '60's and didn't think I'd see the like again. Then I entered the Catholic Church and became acquainted with the Council of Glorious Memory, its minions and epigones. The pseudo- crypto- quasi-Marxists I had to deal with in the "Groves" have nothing on the Novus Odure crowd and its papolatry.

Didn't St. Paul say something about three strikes and you're out? The trouble is, these sods wouldn't know home plate if it bit 'em, and they think the umpire is their grandma.

Torque1492 said...

Some people in Argentinabelieve that main problem nowadays in this country is President Kirchner, who is instigating a thoroughly anti-catholic agenda. Truth is that the main problem here is Cardinal Bergoglio, who fails to preach the Truth, persecutes the orthodox priests and leads the flock to apostasy with his ecumaniacal gatherings. He is actually the Enemy N°1 of the Catholic Church in this country.

Screwtape said...

Torque 1492:

Ah, yes, and who in Rome is doing anything about it?

Certainly not the Rhine Maiden ostensibly in charge. Maybe he's too busy still "meditating."

Is anyone surprised that at the hands of OMIR Argentina is being handed the baton of martyrdom?

It is the helmsmen who are defying our Unholy Nonfather who are really guiding the Barque of Peter.