Skip to comments.They Adored HIM
Posted on 04/14/2020 3:38:40 PM PDT by ebb tide
And entering into the house, they found the child with Mary his mother, and falling down they adored him; ...
- Matt. 2:11
In this, Gaspar, Melchior, and Balthasar were of one mind: adoration of the Child was the single purpose of their long and arduous journey from the East.
Like the pillar of fire that led the children of Israel by night (Ex. 13:21), the miraculous "star" which constantly "went before them" (Matt. 2:9) signalled the Divine nature of their trek and the fulfilment of the great Messianic prophesies of the time with which they were doubtless familiar.
"Where is he that is born king of the Jews?" they asked. "For we have... come to adore him." (Matt. 2:2) And so they did. Having finally reached at their destination, they adored the Child as the prophesied God-King.
Forgive the repeated emphasis of the obvious. In the aftermath of Mother Earth-idolatry at Scamazon, as demonic reverberations of "Pachamama" rumble onwards and outwards from Rome, we are obliged to underline this Divine task allotted to the Magi. For, when God entered human history, their assigned role was to flag the first rule of salvation history: viz., adoration of Him singular.
Since "the religion of the Magi was fundamentally that of Zoroaster" (Catholic Encyclopaedia), they might easily have packed some figurines, carvings or other pagan orientalia.
Instead, "...falling down... they offered him gifts; gold, frankincense, and myrrh...." [Matt. 2:11]
No syncretic sharing of the Divinity here.
No dialogue with Joseph about his 'special' Child and His place in the pantheistic pantheon of 'special' gods.
Awestruck, they simply fell: prostrating themselves before the WORD made flesh, and HIM alone.
Again, due to the ongoing occupation of the Vatican by demonic legions operating through infiltrators, hirelings, cowards and worse (CO passim), our baptismal duty to honour this Supreme Command and sine qua non for salvation must now be recalled and stressed at every opportunity.
Just as its transgressors (and enablers) must be named and shamed, lest their endless scandals and heresies go unchallenged to our eternal shame.
Happily, as noted last month, the Modernist rape of our holy Faith is now so open and utterly shocking that even some influential neo-conservatives hitherto lukewarm and/or papolatrous are increasingly up in arms.
To see these orthodox souls finally triggered by egregious goings-on under Francis, and now by the Pachamama outrage he sanctioned, is a providential sign: the Francis Effect properly understood.
Not just a Modernist but a Modernist Jesuit (i.e., the worst of the worst), Francis is 'merely' acting out the final logical phase of Modernism that St. Pius X warned would finally usher in atheism and the annihilation of all religion.
As traditional organs like Christian Order have argued for decades, the ecumenical/syncretical sins of John Paul II and Benedict XVI were a vital part of that demonic trajectory. Decried for identifying them as 'moderate Modernists' facilitating the downward spiral, we do not expect apologies and thanks on that score anytime soon. Especially not from the usual cultish suspects for whom power and influence trumps all: the Neocatechumenate, Opus Dei, et. al..
The blithe and complicit communique issued by the latter at the outset of the Synod was par for the course. Clearly untroubled by the occult nature and syncretic purpose of Scamazon, wildly flagged by its now infamous working paper (Instrumentum laboris), Fr Marco Vanzini of Opus Dei's Italian press office waxed lyrical that "Unity in dialogue, in faith and in charity will be the best witness and the best service that the Church can give the world on the privileged occasion that the Amazon Synod offers us." What self-serving toadies they are.
Not to be outdone, ultra-neo-con outfits like Catholic Answers for the most part a reliable source for Catholic truth-seekers turned somersaults trying to downplay and rationalise the Pachamama idolatory; defending the indefensible even to the shameful playing of the hackneyed racist card to discredit critics.
In a 25 October post, exasperated by such stupefying non-reaction by neo-conservatives, American commentator Rod Dreher wrote:
Last night, I had an exchange on Twitter with a couple of Catholics, including Catholic News Agencys excellent editor J.D. Flynn, who wondered why I write in such a crisis mode about events in the Christian world. My answer is: look around you! The crisis is real.
Let me repeat it in a slightly different framing: In the last 24 hours, the Catholic world has seen the Pope call these Amazonian statues by the Mother Earth goddess name Pachamama lament their theft from a church, celebrate their recovery, and suggest that they might be present at Mass at St. Peters Basilica on Sunday. It has also seen the former doctrinal chief of the Catholic Church [Cardinal Müller] denounce these statues as idols, and call the placing of them inside a Catholic Church as a violation of divine law. If that doesnt tell you that the Catholic Church is in a severe crisis at its very summit, what will it take?
Perhaps it is just the usual false-charity and/or false prudence that leads these devout but wrongheaded souls to weaken the resolve of others?
Maybe their sensus fidei has finally tanked after years of shoring up the post-conciliar Counter Church while their Catholic subconscious screamed "complicity!"
Or, is their silence before papally-sanctioned pagan idolatry some kind of twisted, unconscious quid pro quo for their own papal idolatry?
Whatever the case, this elementary Catholic understanding of the papal office, reiterated in the wake of the Pachamama Papacy by no-nonsense Dutch priest Cor Mennen, continues to pass them by:
Does not the Gospel make clear to us that it is only the profession of faith of Peter (and the professing Peter) that is the rock upon which Christ builds His Church, but that the same Peter is a danger for the Church when he lets himself be led by human considerations and not by the will of God?
Not only is that true and balanced explanation simplicity itself, it is also "clearly the case with Francis," as Fr Mennen pointed out, referencing the "idolatrous ceremony" in the Vatican Gardens as the "summit of deviation from the will of God."
Unlike neo-con papolators, Fr Mennen rightly places the First Commandment above the papacy,not vice versa. Hence his natural Catholic alignment with those he considered rightly "horrified" by the ceremonies involving the Pachamama statues.
Moreover, Pope Francis himself, he further noted, made no attempt to disown the little wooden idols, freely identifying them as "Pachamama." And this, said Mennen, was no "superficial error" on the Pope's part because he had signed the Abu Dhabi document heretically stating that the "diversity of religions" is "willed by God."
Before their relentless rebuke of papal critics, one wonders how many heresies and scandals a pope must spew forth and act out before neo-cons the vast majority of orthodox faithful come to their Catholic senses? As Dreher said: "what will it take?"
Is there any limit? Will they ever join righteous denunciations of unrighteous papal behaviour?
I fear that these are rhetorical questions. Just as I fear that arch-Bergoglianista Alberto Melloni, Director of the John XXIII Foundation for Religious Studies in Bologna, is right to claim that the lukewarm neo-con majority support idolatrous Scamazon.
"We have a small, noisy minority and a large silent majority..." he smugly informed the liberal Atlantic. "The noisy minority is struggling, with a certain success, to represent themselves as half of the Church, and they are not. Theyre not even half the College of Cardinals, not even half the episcopate."
Pachamama as Liberal Continuum
If neo-conservatives were to reflect on the implications of Melloni's boast, they might identify the "silent majority" as synonymous with their silent complicity in the liberal takeover that has led to Scamazon idolatry. Like "dumb dogs not able to bark" [Isaiah 56:10] they were mute before syncretic acts perpetrated by John Paul II, for instance. As when he typically expressed satisfaction with his public participation in the prayer and ritual of animists. "The prayer meeting in the sanctuary at Lake Togo was particularly striking," he said. "There I prayed for the first time with animists." [La Croix, 23 August 1985].
Lest we forget the full horror of John Paul's active participation in that pagan worship at a "sacred forest" in Togo, his own newspaper reported how, upon his arrival at this place, "a sorcerer began to invoke the spirits: Power of water, invoke you. Ancestors, I invoke you."
Following this invocation of "spirits," the Pope was presented "with a receptacle full of water an flour. [He] first made a slight bow and then dispersed the mixture in all directions. In the morning he had performed the same action before Mass. That pagan rite [!] signifies that he who receives the water, symbol of prosperity, shares it with his ancestors by throwing it on the ground." [LOsservatore Romano, Italian edn., 11/8/85, p. 5].
Despite a litany of similar egregious scandals, papolators pursued the canonisation of John Paul II; easily achieved without the forensic Devil's Advocate that the selfsame pontiff airbrushed out of the canonisation process without a whimper from his "Santo Subito! cheer squad.
Blurring Fr Mennen's simple distinction between infallible 'professing Peters' (the sacred office) and 'compromised post-conciliar Peters' (the human occupants), they foolishly indulged two popes who should have been read the Riot Act.
Instead, bewitched by their orthodox leanings, neo-cons ludicrously lionised them as ecumenical and liturgical travesties piled up. And so the Modernist march through the Church continued until March 2013, when chickens from the far end of the Modernist spectrum came home to roost with a fearful vengeance.
Essentially, that is the beneficial difference between then and now: the relentless full spectrum-Modernism that has burst into view with Francis.
Combining constant tirades against defenders of Catholic Tradition with the zealous embrace of opponents of that sacred Tradition (abortionists, sexual perverts, Communists, et. al), it has proved a Modernist papal bridge too far.
Suddenly, pre-Francis blinkers have slipped to reveal the reality of the total chaos in the Church either left unchecked or facilitated by his 'moderate' predecessors.
As Christ purifies His Church, this Francis Effect is His gift; insofar as the free pass conservatives routinely granted John Paul II and Benedict XVI due to their worthy works and attributes, is gradually being withheld from their irredeemable successor.
The age-old masonic designs on the Chair of Peter, constantly flagged by traditionalists as the driving force behind the Council and post-conciliar 'renewal', is now impossible for them to wave away as rad-trad conspiratorial obsession. Realised/personified before their very eyes, they are rethinking and reversing.
Popular commentator Taylor Marshall is indicative. A convert and Thomistic scholar once prey to papolatry and defence of Francis, he effectively renounced his neo-conservatism once and for all by penning Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within (2019), which draws and elaborates upon the copious traditionalist literature on the topic.
Amid the encircling gloom, this orthodox awakening is cause for Christmas celebration.
But it must not be exaggerated.
Decades of Modernist conditioning have taken a massive toll on hearts and minds in every nook and cranny of the Church. Not least in the pivotal arena of biblical scholarship.
There, the Catholic party has capitulated to spurious Protestant historical-critical methods, helping suppress the Petrine Primacy (Mt 16:18-19), and reducing the Catholic Church to just one of the thousands of Christian faith traditions. This speaks to Francis' degradation of the papal office in general, and his preferred title (Bishop of Rome) in particular. It also points to the liberal continuum that paved the way for Pachamama to trump earlier papal travesties (Assisi, Koran-kissing, etc.).
As a biblical scholar recently put it to the present writer:
Devout Catholics were dismayed at the sight of Cardinals, even Pope Francis, looking with apparent approval, if not reverence, upon the Pachamama on display at the Vatican. But should this be surprising after five decades of instruction in virtually all Catholic colleges, universities and seminaries in the U.S. and elsewhere that the Gospels were probably not written by the evangelists, but anonymously a generation later?
Channelling Paul VI, even as the situation festered on his watch, Benedict XVI lamented in Jesus of Nazareth (2007) that after four decades of such instruction, seeking friendship with Jesus was in danger of "clutching at thin air." A further decade on, his successor now peddles that textbook historical-critical deconstruction. Recent reports state that Francis informed his journalistic mouthpiece Eugenio Scalfari, an elderly atheist and mason, that Christ the man simply "disappeared" and came forth from the tomb "in the semblance of a spirit." ,
Writing last month in the Italian daily La Repubblica, Scalfarialleges that Pope Francis told him about the Resurrection of Jesus:
He was a man until he was placed in the tomb by the women who recomposed his body. That night, in the tomb, the man disappeared and came forth from the grotto in the semblance of a spirit that met the women and the Apostles while still preserving the shadow of the person, and then he definitely disappeared.
Earlier, in October, Scalfari also claimed that Francis had denied the divinity of Jesus, stating that the Pope "conceives Christ as Jesus of Nazareth, a man, not God incarnate. Once incarnated, Jesus ceases to be a God and becomes a man until his death on the cross." (This recalls Father John Hardon's privately expressed view that papal favourite Cardinal Kasper also denies the Incarnation.)
"When I happened to discuss these phrases," said Scalfari, "Pope Francis told me: They are the definite proof that Jesus of Nazareth, once he became a man, even if he was a man of exceptional virtue, was not God at all."
In response, the Vatican Press Office issued its usual pathetic retort, claiming that Scalfari's papal quotations reflected his own views more than those of the Pope. But as Italian journalist Antonio Socci responded in turn: "Scalfari continues to attribute to Bergoglio quotes that contain unheard-of theological enormities and no one from the Vatican cares in the least of denying, nor do they tell Scalfari to stop.Catholics think: those who keep silent agree."
Indeed they do. Which is why Cardinal Müller and Archbishop Viganò called on Francis to personally address Scalfari's claims.
"Christians expect a clear answer from the Pope himself," protested Viganò. "The thing is too important; it is essential: Yes, I believe that Christ is the Son of God made Man, the only Saviour and Lord. All Christians await this clarification from him, not from others, and by virtue of their baptism have the right to have this response."
Absolutely. Yet if Francis ever bothered to issue a clarification, who would believe such a serial deceiver? Scalfari would win that battle of contradictory claims hands down.
Thus, neither Francis nor burgeoning Pachamama worship (see inside back-cover) exist in a vacuum.
Joined at the hip, they are not shocking new developments. Both represent the advanced stage of a decades-long Modernist progression that will press on to its apocalyptic denouement barring divine intervention. Or as Archbishop Viganò put it: the "Amazon paradigm," aimed at fundamentally "transforming" the Catholic Church, is aligned with a "globalist" agenda, and "serves as a catwalk to ferry what remains of the Catholic edifice towards an indistinct universal religion."
Since weare the "remains" of that "Catholic edifice" the traditional "remnant" that has "remained true" [Rom. 11:5] we are also the last obstacle obstructing and slowing this "catwalk." Hence Jorge's unhinged denunciations of our traditional piety and fidelity to that Obstacle: Tradition.
While it is a grace and privilege to belong to this remnant, our numbers would expand exponentially if just a modest number of the large neo-con constituency joined us. Like their revered role models Karol Wojtyla and Joseph Ratzinger, however, even the best of them have been corrupted and compromised by the long liberal march through our Catholic institutions.
After he published a detailed critique of one spurious biblical hypothesis in The Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Quarterly (titled "Jesus emerges from the historical-critical fog"), my correspondent above, for example, received no response whatsoever from the neo-conservative FCS readership (either in support of his critique or in defence of the hypothesis he dismantled).
Because "many of them," he says, "teach this errant, faith-undermining hypothesis."
As a measure of the height, depth and breadth of the neo-con malaise, we need only consider that a grand total of 7 ecclesiastics (4 bishops and 3 cardinals) immediately issued pointed public statements condemning the 4 October Pachamama idolatry.
Doubtless a few more came forward, and a smattering of orthodox priests surely had their say in parish pulpits and newsletters worldwide. But the lack of spontaneous universal outrage reflected once again the hollowed out Church produced by the same Modernist continuum that disoriented John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and leeched away whatever Catholic faith Jorge Bergoglio once possessed leaving a syncretic shell of a pope:
A Vicar of Christ, moreover, who, during a Vatican audience in February 2017, happily bowed his head and allowed an Argentinian shaman to lay on hands and pray over him (i.e., attach her demons to him)
All that sadly said, let us thank God that those virile prelates who did protest did not hold back. Both Bishop Schneider's pointed commentary and Prayer of Reparation are reprinted herein. While these snippets and paraphrases adapted from other condemnations reported by LifeSiteNews also give us great heart:
Bishop Rudolf Voderholzer (Germany) delivered a 31 October homily referring to "the veneration of natural fertility in the form of the personified Mother Earth, the 'Pachamama'." He pointed out that it was Christ Himself who brought "newness" because He brings Himself. In his "newness," Jesus Christ walks toward the "natural' religiosity" of all men, but then "purifies it at the same time and gives them the unsurpassable, divine answer." "In Christ," he continued, "all religions are 'lifted up,' 'lifted up' in a three-fold sense: abolished, lifted up, and preserved.
As an example, Voderholzer quoted Origen who pointed out that the Jews took golden vessels and statues referring to the cult of the Pharaohs from Egypt but then melted them and turned them into golden vessels honouring the God of Israel.
Cardinal Gerhard Müller (Germany) told EWTN that the "great mistake was to bring the idols into the church, not to put them out, because according to the Law of God Himself the First Commandment idolism [idolatry] is a grave sin and not to mix them with the Christian liturgy." He added: "to throw it out, can be against human law, but to bring the idols into the church was a grave sin, a crime against the Divine Law."
Cardinal Walter Brandmüller (Germany; one of the two remaining dubia cardinals) also lauded the removal of the Pachamama statues from Santa Maria in Traspontina, praising the 'removalists' to the skies: "These two young men who threw these tasteless idols into the Tiber have not committed theft, but have done a deed, a symbolic act as we know it from the Prophets of the Old Covenant, from Jesus see the cleansing of the Temple and from Saint Boniface who felled the Thor Oak near Geismar," he said. "These two courageous 'Maccabees' who have removed the 'horrors of the devastation of a holy site' are the prophets of today."
Archbishop Viganò stated that "The process of the internal mutation of the faith, which has been taking place in the Catholic Church for several decades, has seen with this Synod a dramatic acceleration towards the foundation of a new creed, summed up in a new kind of worship [cultus]. In the name of inculturation, pagan elements are infesting divine worship so as to transform it into an idolatrous cult."
He insisted that clergy and laity alike "cannot remain indifferent to the idolatrous acts that we witnessed. It is urgent that we rediscover the meaning of prayer, reparation and penance, of fasting, of little sacrifices, of the little flowers, and above all of silent and prolonged adoration before the Blessed Sacrament."
Cardinal Jorge Urosa Savino (Venezuela) stated: "The syncretism evident in the ritual celebrated around an immense floor covering, directed by an Amazonian woman and in front of several ambiguous and unidentified images in the Vatican gardens this past October 4, should be avoided." He added that "the reason for the criticism is precisely because of the primitive nature and pagan appearance of the ceremony and the absence of openly Catholic symbols, gestures and prayers during the various gestures, dances and prostrations of that surprising ritual." He concluded, "This type of syncretism should be avoided entirely."
Bishop Emeritus José Luis Azcona Hermoso (Brazil) condemned the pagan rituals with the Pachamama statues as "demonic sacrilege." He said in a 20 October homily that "Mother Earth should not be worshipped because everything, even the earth, is under the dominion of Jesus Christ. It is not possible that there are spirits with power equal or superior to Our Lord or of the Virgin Mary." He turned up the volume as he went on:
"The invocation of the statues before which even some religious bowed at the Vatican (and I wont mention [to] which congregation they belong), is an invocation of a mythical power, of Mother Earth, from which they ask blessings or make gestures of gratitude. These are scandalous demonic sacrileges, especially for the little ones who are not able to discern."
"Pachamama is not and never will be the Virgin Mary. To say that this statue represents the Virgin is a lie. She is not Our Lady of the Amazon because the only Lady of the Amazon is Mary of Nazareth. Lets not create syncretistic mixtures. All of that is impossible: the Mother of God is the Queen of Heaven and earth."
Bishop Marian Eleganti (Switzerland) condemned the "scandal" and the rank complicity of the Pope himself who both apologised for the Pachamama idols having been taken and thrown into the Tiber River, and said that they were displayed in a church "without idolatrous intention." Even if one accepts the Pope's recent words that the statues have no intended idolatrous meaning, said the Bishop, "there would still remain the scandal that, at least, it looks like such [idolatry] and that the Rock of Peter [the Pope] is not at all getting worried about it." On the contrary, he noted that the Pope "even defends those rituals conducted in the Vatican Gardens" which are "alien to Christianity."
Acts of Reparation
Meanwhile, lest it be passed over as so much fuss about nothing in a Church inured to sacrilege and blasphemy, priests of faith and fortitude near and far also spoke out and/or acted to draw attention to the supernatural Force 10 hurricane represented by the Scamazon idolatry.
Locally, a reader from the Portsmouth diocese advised that her parish of St. Mary's in Gosport, a church administered by traditional Franciscans, held an all-night vigil of prayer as an Act of Reparation.
While in Mexico City, a priest of the diocese, Fr. Hugo Valdemar burned effigies of Pachamas as he led the faithful in prayers of atonement. Standing next to an altar boy who was holding an image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, he explained what was about to take place:
The most blessed Virgin [Mary] of Guadalupe, as we know, is a young woman who is pregnant. She has Jesus in her womb whom is to give birth to the new continent (the new world). She says that she comes to grant her love to all the inhabitants of this entire continent (not just Mexico). She is pregnant and carries Jesus who will bring us the Gospel and drive away the darkness of idolatry and the devil.
Fr. Hugo then picked up one of the Pachamama effigies and, holding it next to the image of Our Lady, explained the difference between the two.
A friend exorcist says that this idol (Pachamama) is actually the figure of the antichrist. It is a blasphemy and parody of Mary. Pachamama is pregnant but carries the antichrist to give birth to him in the Masonic church, to destroy the sacraments, which is to return to idolatry and superstition. So, this antichrist who is to give birth to a church with an Amazonian face is an abomination, it is a contradiction to Church doctrine, which is the dynamic into which these idolaters want to enter into now.
So, in sign of repugnance to the offences that they made to the most Blessed Virgin Mary in Rome, in her church of Traspontina, we, as a protest and as a sign of reparation, burn this satanic idol of the Pachamama. The priest then dropped the Pachamama into the fire where it was consumed by the flames. Two more effigies were later burned. [LifeSiteNews, 4/11/19]
War and Victory!
Before such Catholic conviction one can only shout "Hallelujah! Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!" For, truly, this is civil war to the death.
And for those who still don't believe it, who still regard such talk as so much dangerous hyperbole finally consider the opposed pontifical viewpoint as personified by Bishop Erwin Kräutler, bishop emeritus of the Diocese of Xingu, Brazil, and Fr. Paulo Suess, a Brazilian professor of Missiology and one of the key authors of the Synod's occult working document.
As reported in German Catholic newspaper Die Tagespost, speaking on 30 October to an audience in Bregenz, Austria, during a presentation of his ominously titled book, Renewal Now (2019), Kräutler said the Pachamama statues were a "form of expression of the indigenous people," which could be "integrated into our liturgy. ... And if it is for many a divinity," he added, "then it is an attack upon the soul of a people to throw them into the Tiber."
In the same diabolic vein, responding to the claim that the Vatican gardens ceremony was a pagan rite, Suess shot back, "So what... it is nevertheless a pagan worship of God.[!] ... One cannot dismiss the pagan [rite] as nothing." He then made this ludicrous comparison between generic paganism and the actual worship of devils: "What is pagan? In our big cities, we are not less pagan than those there in the jungle. One should reflect upon this."
Rather, over Christmas, let us reflect upon this cosmic war between the Church of Jesus, Mary and Joseph, and the Counter-Church of Pope Francis, Bishop Kräutler and Fr Suess.
As the diabolic disorientation of the latter spirals ever more rapidly into naked diabolism, the Nativity recalls this battle we were born and baptised to fight with the perseverance of the Magi, the faith of idol-burning Fr Valdemar, and the courage of Pachamama commando Alexander Tschugguel. Set in the shadow of Herod's wrath, the serene tableau reminds us of our duty to the Child, renews our commitment to the long haul, and reaffirms our total confidence that victory is already ours. For, every year, in every age, Bethlehem signals the beginning of the end for Satan and his "useful idiots" especially those within the Church; today in the ascendancy.
In condemning their "Amazon paradigm," Archbishop Viganò put it simply and well:
For all of us Catholics, the landscape in the Holy Church is becoming darker by the day. If this satanic plan is successful, Catholics who adhere to it will in fact change religion, and the immense flock of Our Lord Jesus Christ will be reduced to a minority.
This minority will likely have much to suffer but with Him it will conquer.
Back to Top
You needed to post this twice?
First post, I failed to provide a link and I have asked the mods to delete it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.