Search This Blog

Saturday, January 18, 2020

Pope Francis Papacy Timeline: 2019

There's not much difference between a mosque
and a cathedral. Besides God wills diversity of
religion! See February on Abu Dhabi.
For other years documenting Pope Francis' papacy go here.

I continue to work on the papal timeline, but decided to skip from 2015 to 2019 since last year gave us such a bumper crop of scandals! Yes indeed, 2019 was a banner year for Pope Francis undermining the faith of our fathers with the help of his confreres!

What an understatement!

The pope follows his own advice to "make a mess" and made a mess big time in 2019! But that may be a blessing because, as evil positions itself center stage with fanfare of trumpets, rainbow banners, pagan symbols, idol worship, etc. more people are "woke"


Who could ever imagine even five years ago seeing worship of idols in the Vatican Garden including planting a tree using soil with God-knows-what mixed into it? Hopefully, if it contained blood, it wasn't the blood of unborn children offered to Pachamama and other Amazon idols. To see that bowl representing "Mother Earth" placed on the altar during the final Mass of the Amazon synod was sickening.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. So let's hit highlights (or lowlights) of 2019:

January 2019: 

January 22-27: World Youth Day in Panama -- Pope Calls for Sex Education: Another grenade launching plane interview took place on the return flight from World Youth Day. Pope Francis called for sex education in the schools. In view of the horrifying experience with explicit, Planned Parenthood style contraceptive-abortion-gender fluid education in America's public schools, parents were shocked by this recommendation. It also brought to mind the filthy and explicit sex ed program developed and promoted by the Vatican in association with the 2016 World Youth Day. Many, including some psychologists suggested the program could be used to "groom" children for sex abuse.

February 2019: 

February 4: Document on "Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together" also called the Abu Dhabi statement signed by Pope Francis and the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, Ahmad Al-Tayyeb. While much of the document is a testament to religious tolerance and non-controversial, it contained a bombshell paragraph promoting syncretism and containing the erroneous statement that God wills the "diversity of religion" which is clearly refuted by the Great Mission given to the Apostles to go forth and convert the entire world in the name of the Holy Trinity.  The paragraph reads:
 Freedom is a right of every person: each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression and action. The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives. Therefore, the fact that people are forced to adhere to a certain religion or culture must be rejected, as too the imposition of a cultural way of life that others do not accept;
 When Bishop Athanasius Schneider asked the pope personally and explicitly if he meant the "permissive will" of God, the pope replied that, “You can say that the phrase in question on the diversity of religions means the permissive will of God.” But he has never corrected or clarified the statement, so the confusion and the easily misinterpreted sentence continue to promote syncretism, i.e., that all religions are essentially the same. Unfortunately, this kind of confusion is typical of Pope Francis and appears to be a deliberate pattern, just like the statements in interviews with the atheist reporter, Eugenio Scalfari, which have resulted in so much controversy.

Fr. Thomas Weinandy also weighed in on the controversy in an interview with LifeSiteNews:
LifeSite spoke with Capuchin Father Thomas Weinandy, a member of the Vatican’s International Theological Commission and former chief of staff for the U.S. Bishops’ committee on doctrine, about the controversy. 
In 2017, Fr. Weinandy wrote a letter to Pope Francis (which was subsequently made public) saying his pontificate is marked by “chronic confusion” and warning that teaching with a “seemingly intentional lack of clarity risks sinning against the Holy Spirit.” 
In our interview with the Fr. Weinandy on the Abu Dhabi statement, he identifies what he believes is its most problematic element, and offers his perspective on both on the Pope’s private clarification to Bishop Schneider and his public remarks at this week’s general audience.
“What I find very sad and scandalously troubling” he added, “is that, in the midst of it all, Jesus is being insulted. He is reduced to the level of Buddha or Mohammed when in fact he is the Father’s beloved Messianic Son, the one in whom the Father is well pleased.” 
Even with the Pope’s informal clarification at this week’s general audience, Fr. Weinandy points out that, “more than likely, the vast majority of the media and many other theologians and bishops will continue to interpret the original document in the manner that, as God willed Judaism and Christianity, so he also willed other religions – full stop.”
Fr. Weinandy says while he believes Pope Francis is motivated by a “noble desire” to “foster mutual understanding” and “undercut some Islamic factions that foster terrorism,” his signing the Abu Dhabi statement “has doctrinal consequences well beyond what he may have envisioned or desired.”  
“There still persists some lack of clarity,” he says, “since Pope Francis has not directly repudiated the original statement as it appears in the Abu Dhabi document. In the end it is still quite confusing, and unnecessarily so.” 

From January - December 2019

 Chinese Catholics get the Hobnailed Boot! Cardinal Zen continues to fight the Vatican's mistaken agreement with the Communist government of China.





September 2019

September 10: Even before the Amazon synod convened, reports surfaced that the pope allowed married deacons in the Amazon to say Mass. Rome journalist Sandro Magister reporting for the Italian weekly L'Espresso wrote:
For a few days a video has been circulating on the web in which an Italian priest of the highest rank, among those closest to Jorge Mario Bergoglio, says that in the Amazon the celebration of the Mass by married deacons is already a de facto reality, authorized by the local bishops. And Pope Francis, informed of the matter, is alleged to have said:”Go ahead!” 
The author of this revelation is not just anybody. He is Giovanni Nicolini, 79, an esteemed priest of the archdiocese of Bologna, which has as its archbishop that Matteo Zuppi whom a few days ago Francis promoted as cardinal.
Fr. Nicolini is currently a national ecclesiastical assistant of the Catholic Associations of Italian Workers, ACLI, and was previously director of Caritas of Bologna, in addition to being a parish priest in the neighborhood next to the prison. A priest of the poor, of the imprisoned, of the immigrants: this is his best-known profile. 
But even before this he was a spiritual son of Giuseppe Dossetti (1913-1996), a leading politician in postwar Italy and then, as monk and priest, a protagonist of Vatican Council II along with Cardinal Giacomo Lercaro....
Moreover, Fr. Nicolini is connected to that influential progressive Catholic think tank known as the “school of Bologna,” which had its founder in the same Dossetti and has in Church historian Alberto Melloni and in Bose monastery founder Enzo Bianchi its current mainstays and gurus, both of them ultra-Bergoglians.
Magister links to the video which is in Italian, but he also quotes the exact transcript from Nicolini who was asked the next day whether the pope really said it. He replied, "I do not have proof, it's just 'word of mouth." In view of his position and influence, it seems probable that the "mouth" spreading the "word" was Cardinal Zuppi. And anyway, if it was just a rumor, wasn't it scandalous to spread it?

October 2019

October 6 - 27: Amazon Synod -- I've written plenty about the Amazon Synod and I'm not going to rehash it all here. The Instrumentum Laboris was awful and if you really want to read about it you can join Topsy and Tuptim over coffee and see their analysis. For the rest, here's the Amazon Synod search results on the blog.

December 2019

December 12 - Pope Calls Greta Thunberg, global warming poster teen, a "great witness" to the Church's environmental teaching. He appreciates her proselytizing for the earth religion!

December 31 - While the pope is visiting the Vatican nativity scene, a distraught Asian woman grabs his hand and begs, "Why destroy their faith? Why destroy the Chinese? [Look for] the Chinese [feelings]. [Talk] to me!" The media focuses on the hand-grabbing and completely ignores the message. In view of the disaster the Vatican has caused by its ostopolitik policy with the Communist Chinese government, this borders on media malpractice. But for sure, Francis and his secretary of state Parolin want the focus off China.

17 comments:

BrotherBeowulf said...

My Dear,

You can call it whatever you want. But in substance it is clearly anti Catholic. Hence honesty & truth in advertising warrants something else.

Antipope Francis Timeline.

False Pope Timeline.

Antipapacy Timeline.

But not Pope Francis anything.

The Pope is Benedict.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

I have no authority to determine that Pope Francis is not the legitimate pope or that he is an anti-pope. Cardinal Sarah and Pope Emeritus Benedict both refer to him as the pope. I imitate them.

Anonymous said...

"Loony land VA?"
Susan
I just saw this link on CM in the comment section.
"Wenski"and others in Florida....

https://gawker.com/5825254/the-catholic-churchs-secret-gay-cabal

BrotherBeowulf said...

I think I may have some good news for you Madame.

You have the authority, my dear Mrs. Kreitzer. It is called right reason. Your authority in Holy Mother Church may be little to none--same as a dumb sheep like me--but you are the skipper of your soul, and of your little flock.

You also have that authority that comes from baptism, and the Holy Spirit, Who is like Christ Himself the Spirit of Truth.

I'd say your extended flock includes your readership as well. Therefore while you are not an official churchman like Bransfield, Rossi, Wuerl and Queen Nile, and the innumerable coven of the Homosexual Network Strangling the Church supporting and led by Francis--the mere fact of which leads me to question their authority--I'd say that's in your favor.

Can you think of a class mire discredited in America than the Catholic bishop.

Some may have authority; some fewer may respect believe and fearlessly speak Truth. But most are a laughingstock.

You are not, however. Use your God-given gift if reason. Think it through. Can Stang-wielding, pachamama idol worshipping, Hell-denying, sodomy-enforcing member of the H. N. S. C. as well as the St Gallen mafia--which most likely forced Pope Benedict off St Peter's seat and illegally elected Cardinal Bergoglio--can said cardinal Bergoglio truly be the Successor of St Peter today, as against the other pope in town who is actually simply Catholic.

It's clear after seven years in the desert that to follow Bergoglio leads to Hell. Will you do so because a corrupt bishop tells you you must?

BrotherBeowulf said...

P. S. True as you say, Cardinal Sarah does so refer to Francis. Pope Benedict seemingly does as well. Each may have his reasons at present.

They may be mistaken. You may have noticed that Archbishop Viganò in his Gänswein testimony last week refers to Benedict as the Supreme Pontiff. No one has shown more courage than he in this age of apostasy.

Anonymous said...

I converted from Evangelicalism very much based on the Magesterium and the non-schism aspect of the Church that Protestant sects constantly undergo. To watch the comments that Benedict is still the Pope - it undermines the very process and integrity I appreciated in my search for truth. This pope, Francis, might be a bad pope but he is the Pope selected in the same way as all the others. Benedict himself has said Francis is the Pope.

It gets very "cafeteria style" adherence or allegiance when laypersons deem this man not just unfit or out of line, but simply not the Vicar of Christ.

Henry VIII chose that. Martin Luther chose it. The separated brethren as Cardinal Gibbons referred to the Protestants will see this un-Pope Francis mentality as proof that Roman Catholics are imbeciles and now have two popes, etc.

That is hardly reason, however, to be diligently true to the fact that Francis was chosen at the conclave. As a man, whatever, but as Pope Francis, you really know better? Is the God you claim the church represents in charge or not?

My faith is so rattled in recent years by personal garbage, but I still hold to what I learned in RCIA with the awesome Rev Christopher Buckner answering one question after another with wisdom and humility. One of my classmates was raised agnostic and had no idea who Adam and Eve were! She is a medical doctor. He was patient and I learned so much about church hierarchy.

When he was removed from Distance U, did you hear him being disobedient and speaking against his bishop? The man lives to teach and minister. Yet he never lashed out or disobeyed.

My point is, if you are orthodox and especially love the Latin Mass, isn't this the time to speak with reserve and practice the faith in things unseen? I have always looked to cradle Catholics for info and history. Many of them now are the very ones speaking so hatefully about this pope.

If I were searching and asking now, this might turn me away. If all I find is more schism and ire, why convert?

My adult children grew up in the Church. I have grandchildren that would not exist if the young couple had not met in our little country parish.

I simply cannot grasp saying you are devout and using language like I have found here about this pope. It defies the "Amen" at Holy Eucharist, it seems.

So my question is, orthodoxy that seems and sounds schismatic?? And I ask respectfully, How do they go together?

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

Brother Beowulf,

I do have a "God-given gift of reason," but it warns me not to set myself up as an authority who can decide for myself who is or is not sitting on Peter's chair. God knows. I trust in Him to use the Church HE established to set things right. In the meantime, I pray and fast for "the pope" and fight for the truth. If the pope is Francis then I'm praying for him. If it is Benedict, I'm praying for him. It seems to me that if I reject Francis because I don't like him and what he stands for I'm doing the same thing Henry VIII did when he set himself up as head of the Church in England.

There are too many times in history where individuals using their "human reason" have reached disastrous conclusions for the faith: Martin Luther, Henry VIII, Bishop Arius, Abbot Jean du Vergier de Hauranne, Bishop Nestorius, etc., etc. All of them knew better than even God Himself where the truth lay. I'm not going down that path. As the saying goes, "It's above my pay grade."

So I choose to obey all things that I can coming from Rome when they are in accord with the continuous magisterium and teaching of the faith through the ages. For the rest -- I pray and expose error to the degree that I can.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

Anonymous,

Thank you for your comment. My daughter gave us a plaque for Christmas with a quote from Mr. Rogers: “There are three ways to ultimate success: The first way is to be kind. The second way is to be kind. The third way is to be kind.” Many of us, in our zeal, neglect to remember to act in charity. May 2020 be a year where we all grow in that essential virtue.

Susan Matthiesen said...

To Anonymous @ 9:07pm, Jan 18...(3rd comment from the top),

The article you linked is 9 years old and I read it way back then. I have vague recollections of speaking to Sharon Bourassa at some point before that article was written about something but I cannot remember.

Isn't it amazing that Favalora (pictured in the article) and Bergoglio both have that same degenerate looking liberal face?

Anonymous, are you Brandon Thorpe?

Aqua said...

Mary Ann Kreitzer,

You claim you do not have the authority to decide who sits on St. Peter’s Chair, yet you DO claim authority to decide which occupant’s directions (commands) to the Faithful you will follow or not.

“Pope” Francis is very clear as to what his will for the Faithful is, as the “Successor of St. Peter”, supposedly speaking in the name of God and the Magisterium (which he has renamed the Francis Magisterium). These directives are not really optional in a Church in submission to the Pope and the world’s Bishops in union with him. And I am quite certain that it is just a matter of time before these directions (commands) of the Pope and Bishops in union with him are directed to Priests at the Parish level to convey to the Faithful (you and me) under penalties of obedience. That time of truth is coming.

I presume that when the time comes to sign the document (for instance) demanding obedience to, say, the Indifferentist theology that God wills all religions; gender ideology perhaps; adulterers must be admitted to communion; that you will not sign and schism at that point as such things are clearly against Dogma and sacrilegious.

Why then, do you not feel within your rights as well, as a soul before God, to judge “One Pope At A Time” - retired Popes, previous Popes in retirement: not Scriptural, not Dogmatic, never seen in Church history, presented from nowhere with no Magisterial supports. My judgements of heresy (the Baals on the High Altar are the worst) are driven by the congruent belief from simple observational fact: the prior Pope’s resignation statement retained the Munus and gave away the Ministerium; all he has done since then is in alignment with that truth.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

You are mistaken, Aqua. I follow the teachings, i.e., DOCTRINE of the Church taught through the ages in a consistent manner by the magisterium in union with the pope -- no matter who the occupant of the chair of Peter is. I don't see much union at present between the pope and the bishops. His Amazon Synod, for example, was a select group of his dissident supporters that cut out most of the descendants of the apostles.

When Pope Francis upholds the DOCTRINE of the Church, I support what he says. When he sows confusion, I point it out. The "Francis Magisterium" is a fiction, hence I don't follow it.

There was much persecution of the faithful bishops and priests during the Arian heresy. Our age is similar. We need to be as faithful as St. Athanasius. I certainly agree with you about the "Baals on the High Altar." Frankly, I think Pope Francis is evil. He is certainly not the first downright evil pope, but I still don't see myself with any authority to say he is NOT the pope. I will leave that to the canon lawyers, the cardinals, and the bishops who have both the authority and the obligation to correct things and protect the doctrine. I, on the other hand, can only try to pursue and point out the truth of the evil things Francis is doing that conflict with the doctrine.

But I'm not really interested in arguing about this. Why do you care so much that I condemn Pope Francis and declare him an anti-pope or whatever it is you expect me to do?

Aqua said...

Why do I care?

Because Catholics must be united behind the Pope and all Bishops in union with him.

That is the cornerstone of the Faith. It matters about as much as anything matters. Literally, nothing else matters on earth in comparison. This is Jesus Christ’s Vicar!

And you say you can make judgements about Doctrine contrary to the Pope, but you cannot make a judgement about the strange title Pope “Emeritus” (still Pope but retired) which has no place at any point in 2,000 years of Catholic history. Which title is the product of a “resignation” in which the Munus was retained and the Ministerium was given away - also never seen in 2,000 years of Church history. Catholics don’t do “unprecedented” and “unsupported”.

I say you (as in you, me, every 1 Billion living Catholics before God) can make judgements about *both* Doctrine *and* (especially) who is the Pope (why one and not the other?) because they should be clear as crystal and in accord with 2,000 years of Magisterium.

We must know who is the Pope! It must be clarified and without doubt. That is our right (Christ gave him to us). And it is our duty to demand it. They must explain from Sacred Tradition why we have two Popes and justify what they have done. If it is divinely ordained and within Magisterial bounds, that should not be hard to do, nor should the question be resented as presumptuous.

Why can’t anyone answer the question (prove “Emeritus” from Tradition) without getting angry?

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

Joan of Arc is one of my favorite saints. During her trial she was asked about the pope.

Fifth session: Thursday, March 1, 1431
Following the usual disagreements over the oath, the session then turned to certain letters exchanged between herself and the Count of Armagnac concerning which of the three Papal claimants was the true Pope. Joan stated that she "believed in our Holy Father the Pope at Rome" and that she "had never written nor caused to be written anything concerning the three sovereign Pontiffs".

Hmm...so Joan called them the "three sovereign pontiffs." I'll stick with her. I "believe in the Holy Father the Pope at Rome" whoever he is. And I will let Gpd, the canon lawyers, and the magisterium figure it all out.

What makes you think I'm angry? I'm just baffled that people are so insistent that everybody must come to their conclusion that Francis is not the pope. I keep reading the opinions on both side and frankly I find it mind spinning and confusing.

To me, it is enough to struggle to "Act justly, love tenderly, and walk humbly with God." Part of that humble walk is recognizing my own limitations and not setting myself up as an authority about something I'm not qualified to answer. I simply don't know whether Francis was elected legitimately or Benedict's resignation was properly done. And if someone doesn't know something, to demand that they take a position on what they don't know seems to me to be unreasonable. You clearly are less confused, but your comments haven't made things any clearer for me.

Aqua said...

It’s hard to know what to say when the opposing view is “A - It doesn’t matter. And B - it can’t be done”.

Ok.

Anonymous said...

It would surely be "charitable" for this Pope to shut down both of these Orders .Both were Founded by frauds.

https://apnews.com/d71dbfb06b1065b2e9f910c2581371e2

https://akacatholic.com/another-opus-dei-numerary-sex-abuse-case-2/

Anonymous said...

Aqua, have you ever heard of the Didache?
In His divine Judgement ,Our lord saw to it that it was discovered in an archeological dig of an ancient Christian community in Turkey , I believe.
Later , at other Early Christian sites more were unearthed , ALL stating the same advice about how to live according to Christ's Word given to the inhabitants of these first Christian communities long before the Bible was compiled.
The writings are said to be copied from the words of Jesus' visiting Apostles and Disciples.
I think it is prudent to ask ourselves exactly which church today still adheres to these teachings and to enlighten ourselves in these confused times.
God's Timing is perfect.

https://www.ancient.eu/article/904/the-didache-a-moral-and-liturgical-document-of-ins/
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

Anonymous said...

Sorry , I forgot to mention that copies of the "Didache" began to surface in the Early Christian sites being excavated in the 1980's.
Just mentioning this because in the seventies and eighties Catholics were beginning to suffer with confusion and changes to Tradition , Scriptural interpretation and the Mass along with clerical sex abuses starting to surface.
This is why I believe Our Dear Lord in His Mercy allowed His teachings to surface in the simplest and clearest of directives transmitted by His First Apostles.
Nota Bene :Grave sins include the sexual perversions along with adultery and fornication. False Prophets are clearly defined as those who have an interest in riches.