Jorge Bergoglio: O Invasor.

O excelente escritor Christopher Ferrara escreve um artigo em que defende com firmeza teológica e histórica o Papa Francisco como um invasor da Igreja Católica que deseja moldá-la a sua ideologia. Eu tenho um amigo que também ama a Igreja Católica e conhece sua história que recorrentemente denomina o Papa Bergoglio como invasor.

Ferrara começa seu artigo dizendo que virtualmente não existe nenhum conservador católico que defenda o Papa Francisco. Realmente.

Eu fui um dos primeiros a ver sérios problemas com Bergoglio, logo na sua primeira entrevista como Papa, que foi dada ao Fantástico, no Brasil, para o jornalista Gerson Camarote, quando o Papa disse que não se preocupava com a  religião que a escola tinha o que importava era a educação da criança. Desprezando séculos de educação cristã. Aquilo abriu meus olhos e desde lá, infelizmente, perdi meu apreço total a Bergoglio, a ponto que eu simplesmente o considero um herético.

Durante esse período, vi muitos conservadores que eu costumava acompanhar tentando defender o Papa Francisco diante de seus inúmeros problemas. Pouco a pouco esses conservadores foram se calando até aceitarem o fato que estavam diante de um terrível pontificado.

Ferrara faz um texto completo usando diversas fontes como São Tomás de Aquino e São Roberto Bellarmino e também usando as próprias palavras de Jorge Bergoglio prometendo subverter a Igreja.

Sendo um invasor que provoca perdição das almas, São Roberto Bellarmino diz que não é necessário autoridade nenhuma para atacá-lo, todos têm a obrigação de fazer isso.

Bellarmino está se referindo a um dos preceitos mais basilares da Teoria da Guerra Justa, que tratei amplamente no meu livro sobre essa teoria milenar, o de que para se fazer guerra justa é necessário que uma autoridade (estatal ou eclesial) a autorize. Sendo um invasor, no entanto, entra em jogo a própria sobrevivência (terrena ou eterna), não se pode esperar por autoridade.

Aqui vai parte do excelente texto de Ferrara:

The Pope Who Would Destroy the Church

Written by  Christopher A. Ferrara

At this point in the ever-worsening Bergoglian Debacle, Pope Bergoglio would appear to have no remaining staunch defenders in the neo-Catholic establishment, save a couple of unhinged, vituperative outliers with a penchant for obscene ranting, both of whom finally had to be shown the door by EWTN’s National Catholic Register.   This is a papacy only a nutter can continue to defend as soundly orthodox.

The sense of the now almost unanimous non-traditionalist constituency opposing the madness of this Pope is ably summed up by  Dr. Douglas Farrow, a theology professor at McGill University, writing for Catholic World Report concerning what he calls “the troubling Bergoglio pontificate”:

The critics are right that the revolution is wrong. This is not reform; it is not even conversion. It is conquest. If it is not stopped, the gates of Hades will prevail against the Church, which will die out everywhere just as it is dying out in the lands of the revolutionaries themselves. We must appeal to Heaven to stop it and be prepared to help stop it, confident in our Lord’s promise that those gates shall not prevail and that his Church will not fail.

One could not find a harsher assessment at a sedevacantist website, yet it appears on the pages of a resolutely “mainstream” publication that could never be accused of the dreaded “radical traditionalism.”

Farrow’s image of conquest is quite striking.  Indeed, we have a Pope who seems bent on conquering the Church in order to level it to the ground and rebuild it according to his own dystopian “dream” of what she should be, which represents the distilled essence of a degenerate neo-Modernist Jesuitism combined with the cunning maneuvers of Argentine-style power politics. Recall Bergoglio’s own statement of intent in Evangelii Gaudium (EG), a sprawling 288-paragraph personal manifesto unlike anything in the history of the papacy:

I dream of a “missionary option”, that is, a missionary impulse capable of transforming everything, so that the Church’s customs, ways of doing things, times and schedules, language and structures can be suitably channeled for the evangelization of today’s world rather than for her self-preservation. 

That Bergoglio sees an opposition between his “dream” and the Church’s self-preservation evinces more than the evident hubris. As he told his friend Eugenio Scalfari during that infamous interview with La Repubblica, shortly before EG appeared, not nearly enough has been done to remake the Church since Vatican II: “The council fathers knew that being open to modern culture meant religious ecumenism and dialogue with non-believers. But afterwards very little was done in that direction. I have the humility and ambition to want to do something.”  It seems we are dealing with something of a maniac who, having somehow ascended to the Chair of Peter, poses an unprecedented clear and present danger to the Faith. 

The furious activity of this Pope, who seems bent on a conquest of the Church which, were it not stopped, would indeed mean, just as Farrow says, that the gates of Hell had prevailed against her and that she would die out everywhere, brings to mind that famous citation from the works of Saint Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), Doctor of the Church, in his massive compendium Controversies of the Christian Faith.  In Book II of his volume On the Sovereign Pontiff, Bellarmine addresses various objections to the power of the papacy including the following:

It is lawful for anyone to kill a Pontiff, if he invades any territory unjustly: for that reason, it will be much more lawful for kings or a Council to depose a Pontiff, if he should disturb a commonwealth, or endeavor to slay souls by his example.

To which Bellarmine responds as follows:

I respond firstly by denying the consequent, because no authority is required to resist an invaderand defend oneself, nor is it necessary that the one who is invaded should be a judge and superior of the one who invades; rather, authority is required to judge and punish. Therefore, just as it would be lawful to resist a Pontiff invading a body, so is it lawful to resist him invading souls or disturbing a state, and much more if he should endeavor to destroy the Church. I say, it is lawful to resist him, by not doing what he commands, and by blocking him, lest he should carry out his will; still, it is not lawful to judge or punish or even depose him, because he is nothing other than a superior. See Cajetan on this matter, and John de Turrecremata.

[Cfr. Controversies of the Christian Faith, trans. Ryan Grant (Mediatrix Press: 2015), p. 303. Cfr. also,Controversies of the Christian Faith, trans. Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J. (Keep the Faith: 2016), Third General Controversy on the Sovereign Pontiff, Book II, p. 835]

Note an aspect of Bellarmine’s judgment often overlooked: that resistance to a wayward Roman pontiff who attacks the Church is not a matter of usurping authority but rather one of simple self-defense. Note also that Bellarmine does not regard as impossible the prospect of a Pope who would “endeavor to destroy the Church.” He says, rather, that no authority would be needed to defend souls or the Church against such a Pope.  Quite the contrary, one would have a duty to resist such a Pope and the failure to resist him could would be culpable as what Saint Thomas calls “indiscreet obedience” to a superior, meaning obedience to any command that is “contrary to God or to the rule they [religious] profess, for obedience in this case would be unlawful.” [Cfr. Summa Theologiae, II-II, Q. 104, art. 5]. 

Leiam do texto mais clicando aqui.