Thursday, January 3, 2019

Holy Politics

"Holy politics" sounds sacrilegious just like any other holy whatever.  This title was inspired by Bergoglio even though he did not use these words.  On January 1, as part of his Angelus address, he said [1]:

And here we return to the icon of today’s feast, from which we started: the icon of the Holy Mother of God, who shows us the Son, Jesus Christ, Saviour of the world. He is the Blessing for every person and for the whole human family. He is the source of grace, mercy, and peace. Therefore, the holy Pope Paul VI decided that the first of January should be the World Day of Peace; and today we celebrate the fifty-second Day, whose theme is: Good Politics Is at the Service of Peace. We must not think that politics is reserved only to rulers: we are all responsible for the life of the “city,” of the common good; and politics is also good in the measure in which each one does his part at the service of peace. May the Holy Mother of God help us in this daily commitment.

This blogger could very well be blind since he is unable to see even a hint of politics in the humility of the Blessed Mother and in the "grace, mercy and peace" of Christ, yet he sees Bergoglio as a deft political player in that he justified his playing of politics, in addition to linking political peace to Christ's peace and ultimately to a prayer to the Mother of God in his Angelus quoted above.  The peace of Christ, as this blogger understands it, is not a worldly peace.  The Lord said [2]:

Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. 

If everyone has within oneself Christ's peace at all times, then there will be no turmoil, no strife, no violence and no war.  Bergoglio chose not refer to the above-quoted words of Christ when he spoke of peace.  This could be purposefully done for his political convenience and expediency.

By omitting Christ's words on peace and by linking secular world peace to Christ's peace in his Angelus, is Bergoglio trying to deceive and confuse people by twisting the words of Christ just as the Serpent had deceived and confused Eve by twisting God's first and only commandment in the Garden of Eden?  Quoted below without references was the exchange between Eve and the Serpent [3]:

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Is there a difference between Bergoglio's and the Serpent's craftiness in that the Lord's words had been perverted to achieve their ends?

Another observation here is that Bergoglio referred to Paul VI as "the holy Pope Paul VI" in his Angelus as opposed to Saint Paul VI even though Paul VI was canonized on October 14, 2018, [4] by Bergoglio himself.  Was it a posthumous insult, professional jealousy or simply that Bergoglio truly did not believe Paul VI to be saintly at all?  Is Bergoglio's deliberate refusal to address Paul VI as a saint [5] a further example of his craftiness?

At some point someone would have to begin laying the groundwork for the arrival of the Antichrist that leads to the Second Coming of Christ.  Why not now and why not a crafty Bergoglio?  Who else could be in a better position and do a better job?



[1] https://zenit.org/articles/angelus-address-on-the-solemnity-of-mary-mother-of-god-and-the-52nd-world-day-of-peace/
[2] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14%3A27&version=NIV
[3] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3&version=NIV
[4] https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2018-05/pope-paul-vi-canonized-october-14.html
[5] This blogger has no opinion on Paul VI's saintliness.

No comments:

Post a Comment