On February 2nd, Bergoglio said this in a homily: “We cannot pretend not to see these signs and continue as if nothing had happened, repeating the same old things, dragging ourselves through inertia into the forms of the past, paralyzed by fear of change. I have said it many times: today, the temptation to go backwards, out of security, out of fear, to preserve the faith, to preserve the founding charism… It is a temptation. The temptation to go backwards and preserve “traditions” with rigidity. Let’s get this straight: rigidity is a perversion, and underneath all rigidity there are serious problems.”
This statement is something which comes straight out of the 1960’s, an era that Bergoglio never left. I know, because I was in the modernist seminary in the late 1960’s, and any objection to the changes of Vatican II was termed “rigid.” I was called rigid constantly. It was a time when “everything was coming up roses,” that is, when there was a tremendous optimism about the direction of the Church, and expectation that the modernization of Catholicism would bring people into the churches in droves.
You can see from his comments that Bergoglio is living in the dream-world of the 1960’s. He does not realize that the Novus Ordo is losing adherents at a very high rate, that the young people are not interested, that most who call themselves Catholics either do not attend church or hold to heresies, or both. He is blind to the emptying of seminaries and religious houses, and to the doctrinal and moral perversions which are taking place in the ones which
Yet for some reason he has on the brain lately the complete suppression of anything traditional. He wants this despite the fact that it is the conservative congregations which are attracting young vocations, and the traditional Latin Mass which is forming the most fervent Catholics.
The Modernists are just like the socialists. These latter say, despite the miserable failure of socialist states since 1917 (e.g. North Korea), that socialism or communism (a difference only of degree) never really had a chance. Likewise the Modernists, who are as paleozoic as Bergoglio’s wrinkled and fallen face, are still convinced that the modernization of the Church is the way to go, and hold that all the Church needs is a another dose of Modernism from a huge hypodermic needle. Then the jour de gloire will arrive for this 1960’s revolution, now sixty years of age, and soon ready for Social Security.
So now rigidity (= the Catholic Faith) is termed a perversion. It is therefore in the same category as sodomitic sex acts, bestiality, sadomasochism, and indeed anything which is contrary to nature, and which invited brimstone from heaven.
The word perversion comes from a Latin word pervertere which means to ruin, destroy, overturn. So we are to conclude that adhering to traditional doctrine and liturgy is to ruin, destroy, and overturn Roman Catholicism.
Can anyone seriously entertain the thought that this man has the Catholic faith? Can any reasonable person think of him as the head of the Catholic Church?
The truth is that Roman Catholicism is by its very nature traditional, since it must remain substantially the same in all of its essential elements until the end of time, just as Christ founded it. This doctrine of indefectibility, as it is called, does not exclude accidental changes, for example, changes in fasting laws. But the Church could not do away with the necessity of mortification, as this would be contrary to the deposit of faith.
So the central question always remains: Are the changes of Vatican II substantial or accidental? The answer to this question determines everything we should think and do in this period of the Catholic Church.