MUST READ:

When Mystery Babylon is no longer so mysteriously: The Diabolical Vatican Jesuit Popes are no longer hiding their Anti-Christ Pagan New World Order Religion : Pachamama and the Whore at Vatican’s Amazon Synod November, 2019

Pope Francis’s diabolical Love affair with Pagan Pachamama idols: When Pope Francis’s deaf and dumb Pachamama Idols were robbed and dumped in the river

 https://watchmanafrica.blogspot.com/2020/05/pope-franciss-diabolical-love-affair.html  

The Harlot called Rome and its diabolic Higher Committee of Human Fraternity : Pope Francis joins Muslim leaders in calling for world day of prayer to end the coronavirus: May 14: day for peoples of all religions to pray, fast and do charitable works to end coronavirus

https://watchmanafrica.blogspot.com/2020/05/pope-francis-joins-muslim-leaders-in.html

When Pope Francis’ paganism baffles even Catholics: When silly Catholics think they can reform the catholic church : The catholic church is rotten with pagan filth, you cannot reform it : Just get out of mystery Babylon

Former Black Pope Dives into Hell: Jesuit superior general Adolfo Nicolás has died in Tokyo: When the diabolic Jesuits elect new leader, a Latin American Black Pope like the Jesuit ‘White’ Pope Francis

A Jesuit Becomes the Pope of Rome: Unveiling what lies inside the pope curtain

 

The Jesuits, Their Pope, and the Plan to Fundamentally Change the Roman Catholic Institution

http://www.biblebasedministries.co.uk/2020/03/14/the-jesuits-their-pope-and-the-plan-to-fundamentally-change-the-roman-catholic-institution/   

The Jesuit Plan to Change the RC Institution, PDF format

The Jesuit pope Francis I, and the Jesuit Order, are following a careful plan to radically change and reshape the “Church” of Rome: to modernise it and make it more acceptable to the world, even though this necessitates altering or re-interpreting various long-accepted Romish doctrines and practices.


  This is recognised and admitted by well-placed men within the Vatican hierarchy.  One of them is no less a person than Benedict XVI, the so-called “pope emeritus”.  This is why in 2019 he blasted the “temptation” to create a “new Church” as a devilish temptation, and said that the “Church” of Rome must remain faithful to what it has always held and taught.[1]

 Another who sees what the Jesuits are doing is the archbishop, Carlo Maria Viganò.  In 2013 he told Francis that the Jesuit Order in the U.S. had played a key role in secularising influential Roman Catholic universities there, and had frequently been in the forefront of an effort to change Roman Catholic teaching.  He said that if Francis could rein in the Jesuit Order, reform it, and restore it to “orthodoxy”, this would be a great gift to the Roman Catholic institution in the U.S. and worldwide.[2]
  Of course Francis did no such thing and had no intention of doing it.  As a faithful Jesuit himself, he would not oppose the orders of his Jesuit general, the “black pope” who is the real power in the Vatican.  Francis supports the Jesuit plans to the hilt.
  The Jesuits, while always professing obedience to the pope of the day, have always gone their own way, doing just as they pleased, obeying only their own general.  Their profession of obedience to the pope is merely for public consumption.  They are a law unto themselves.  And they have frequently changed both tactics and direction so as to advance their own vision of what the Roman Catholic institution should be.  What is happening today is merely another such change.  But it is a profound one, with far-reaching implications globally.
  And this plan, which is now coming to fruition, was hatched centuries ago! 
  Very few realise this, but Viganò does.  In 2019 he said: “Certainly it is a project, if you will, that goes back centuries, in particular, to the creation in the middle of the 1700s of freemasonry.  But of course this project was very deceptive, and oriented, or even included in some way, the forces of some members of the Church.  So this process was able to infiltrate in some way into the Church…. But this process became strikingly evident in modern times.”[3]
  Viganò was correct in believing that the Jesuit plan goes back centuries, and that Freemasonry was involved.  However, what he apparently did not know was that Freemasonry itself was, and is, under Jesuit direction.  True, it infiltrated the “Church” of Rome; but in actual fact the Jesuits themselves brought Masonic notions into the “Church” because they manipulated Masonry.  It is an error to assume, as so many do, that Freemasonry and Roman Catholicism have always been implacable enemies.  It all depends on which Roman Catholics one refers to.  Although some Jesuits were and are under orders to openly fight against Freemasonry, others were and are secretly working with it.  The Jesuits promoted the internationalist/Communist doctrines of Masonry because they controlled them – and they have used these doctrines to great effect in their plans for the world.  Viganò, then, was incorrect in assuming that only “some members of the Church” were involved with Masonry – there were a great many of them, particularly Jesuits.

But he was correct in discerning that it was the Jesuit plan to fundamentally alter the teachings and direction of the Roman Catholic institution, and that this plan was centuries old.
  Some years before the Second Vatican Council in the early 1960s, the Jesuits began to embrace extreme liberal and Socialist/Communist policies and practices which in times past were anathema within Roman Catholicism.
  The world changed rapidly in the post-World War Two years, politically, socially and morally.  The Jesuit Order discerned that the modern world would pass the Papal system by unless that system changed with the times and embraced what the world had now embraced.  This is how the Papacy had always held on to its members, and how it has always sought to gain more members.  Roman Catholic journalist Robert Moynihan wrote: “While the Jesuits of prior centuries, beginning with their founder, St. Ignatius, had won eternal glory for their affirmation that the life of men is finally in the transcendent realm, in that Kingdom of God which is beyond our sight… many Jesuits of our time… increasingly concluded that they needed to engage the injustices of this life, this world, and to bring to humans the physical bread made of wheat, not the metaphysical bread consecrated and mystically transformed into the life-giving body of the Lord Jesus Christ.”[4]
  To this end, the Jesuits manipulated the Second Vatican Council, or Vatican II as it is known, in the 1960s.  This Council brought about a revolution of thinking and theology within the Roman Catholic system.  The pope at the time was John XXIII, a pro-Communist pope, which suited the Jesuits well.  They were behind many of the Council’s radical documents.  They were ushering in a new order.
 Viganò said: “At the beginning of the Second Vatican Council, in 1962, a maneuver was able to nullify the decision taken by the general assembly of the bishops in St. Peter’s Basilica.  The bishops had rejected a proposal to put aside the schemas which had been prepared by the various offices of the Roman Curia, in order to draft new schema.
  “The maneuver to nullify the decision came especially through the offices of one very prominent member of the Society of Jesus [the Jesuits], Cardinal Augustin Bea.  He and others were able to convince Pope John XXIII to set aside the prepared schemas and replace them with other schemas prepared by theologians especially from northern Europe, Hans Küng, Karl Rahner, and others.  This was the beginning of an opening, the first break in the wall of the procedure that had been established, in the process of creating a new Church.”[5]
  Hans Küng was a Swiss Roman Catholic priest and theologian – but a liberal in theology, an advocate of interfaith dialogue and more, who rejected papal infallibility and was forbidden to teach theology.  Although not officially a Jesuit, he studied at a university operated by the Jesuits and is on record as having said, “No doubt that’s the reason it is so often said I am a Jesuit.  I’m quite flattered, of course.”[6]  Whether a Jesuit or not, he was a most useful tool in their hands.
  Karl Rahner was a German Jesuit priest and theologian, a liberal who was very influential at the Second Vatican Council, despite having been previously forbidden from publishing or lecturing without advance permission from Rome because of his views on the Roman Catholic eucharist and on Mariology.
  It is evident, therefore, that Jesuit behind-the-scenes intrigue gave certain liberal and Socialist Jesuit and Jesuit-oriented priests great influence and authority over the Second Vatican Council, which resulted in a huge shift in the approach of the Vatican to the world, to other religious institutions, and to Papist doctrine itself.  As Viganò said, they were literally “creating a new Church”.

  The Roman Catholicism of the post-conciliar world was radically different in many respects from that of the pre-conciliar world, in Rome’s approach to the world: to politics, economics, social issues, etc.  This was the Jesuits’ plan all along.
  At first, and for a couple of decades after Vatican II, there was massive disruption, even disarray, within the ranks of the Jesuits, and in other religious orders.  Vatican II turned Roman Catholicism on its head, and many Jesuits and others were simply unprepared for the rapid changes which were taking place.  Jesuit priest Paul Shaughnessy wrote: “Almost overnight the pope’s light infantry [the Jesuits] became a battalion in which every man decided for himself which war he was fighting.  The result was an institutional nightmare: confusion and cowardice at the top; despair, rage, and disillusionment in the ranks.  American Jesuits went from 8,400 members in 1965 to 3,500 today [in 2012].”[7]  Although top Jesuits had manipulated and hugely influenced Vatican II, the Jesuit rank and file were not prepared for the massive upheaval it caused in their own ranks, not to mention throughout the Roman Catholic world.  For some years there was huge confusion and disillusionment.  Large numbers even left the priesthood.  The world they knew – the pre-Vatican II world – had been turned upside-down.  Only a comparative few were privy to the sinister reasons for these changes.
  In time, however, the long-term purpose of the Jesuits began to manifest itself, and things stabilised.  But Roman Catholicism now looked very different from what it had before Vatican II.  And things were going to change even more in the decades to come.  A seismic shift had occurred.  The aftershocks would be huge.
  After Vatican II the Jesuits continued to develop and expand their pro-Communist and doctrinally liberal agenda.  Moynihan wrote: “attracted by the task of conforming the [Roman Catholic] faith to the assertions of modern science, influenced by the speculations of Jesuits like Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and Fr. Karl Rahner, many tended increasingly to regard these Popes [i.e. Paul VI, John Paul I and II, and Benedict XVI], and their curias, as attached (regrettably) to a set of myths about Christ and his ‘Good News’ which (regrettably) prevented the Catholic Church, and the Jesuit order as the vanguard movement in the Church, from leading humanity into an era of social and political justice that would be endlessly postponed if the shackles of mysticism were not broken.”[8]
  This is why the Roman Catholicism of today is in many respects so different from that of the 1950s and earlier.  On paper, most of the old, traditional Roman Catholic beliefs are still there – but they are no longer given paramount place in Roman Catholic teaching.  The Jesuits have seen to it that the modern “Church” of Rome focuses primarily on issues of liberal/Socialist/Marxist politics, economics, and social justice.  The emphasis is now on this world, the making of a supposedly better world in the here and now, rather than on teaching about a world to come.  Spiritual theology is out; political liberation theology and social justice issues are in.
  Viganò said: “Essentially, the Jesuits came to believe that they had a different mission than their predecessors, a mission to struggle for justice in society, and not primarily to convert and save souls….  They came to believe that fighting for social justice should become their chief mission, not preaching Christ crucified.  So, almost imperceptibly at first, they turned away from the Gospel, replacing Christ with an ideal of social and economic justice.  That ideal, expressed in theological terms as Liberation Theology, was heavily influenced by Marxism, and that led to further deviations and departures from our tradition.  In this way, the greatest order in the Church was seduced.”[9]
  Again, Viganò was right about what had influenced the Jesuits in modern times.  But he was also wrong – and not just about the fact that the Jesuits ever preached the Gospel (for of course neither they, nor any other priests of Rome, ever have).  Yes, the Jesuits came to believe that in the world today they must “struggle for justice”, using Marxism disguised as “Christianity” in the form of the diabolical teachings of Liberation Theology.  And yes, they knew that this would be a different mission from that of their predecessors – but different only because changed times required them to follow new tactics!  It was a different mission as regards its approach and its tactics, but the same mission the Jesuits have always had: to conquer the world for the Papacy by any means.  Their belief is that by engaging in modern “social justice” causes, they will“convert souls” (to Romanism, not to true Christianity of course).
  That this mission of the Jesuits in modern society was and is an integral part of the Jesuit plan for world conquest is shown by the following words, spoken by the Jesuit general Pedro Arrupe in an address to the Jesuit Order in 1975: “The problem lies precisely in this, that that equilibrium and integration must be kept; thus it happens that activities that seem most distant from the priesthood, because they seem more secular or material, are assumed, integrated, directed and vivified by the very priestly character of the apostolic man.”[10]

“Activities that seem most distant from the priesthood, because they seem more secular or material, are assumed, integrated, directed and vivified” by Jesuit priests!  But the important thing to understand is that this is not something new with the Jesuit Order: this is how they have always operated.
  Arrupe went on: “Therefore, that sacerdotal character that leads us to total identification with Christ and deeper union with Him automatically leads us to evangelize just as Christ Himself did, that is, by means of the cross; and in that evangelization to promote and accomplish properly the work of justice.”  Arrupe was saying that Marxist “social justice” causes were now a part of the Roman Catholic “gospel” and that therefore the Jesuits should be up to their dog-collared necks in them.  And he added this:
 “Is our General Congregation ready to take up this responsibility and carry it out to its ultimate consequences?  Is it ready to enter upon the more severe way of the cross, which surely will mean for us a lack of understanding on the part of civil and ecclesiastical authority and of our best friends?”
  Read that last part again!  The Jesuit general was saying to his shock troops that even those within the Roman Catholic hierarchy would not understand their “mission”, but that they must press ahead anyway.  And is not this precisely what Francis I has done, in obedience to his orders?
  The Jesuits suffered setbacks under the pontificate of John Paul II, and they had major issues with Benedict XVI’s pontificate, but they were determined to have their own way in the end.  They continued to influence the entire Roman Catholic institution in a Communist direction, just as they had from the 1960s onwards.  And their plans culminated with the election of one of their own, the Jesuit cardinal Jorge Maria Bergoglio, in 2013.
  Viganò stated in 2019 that the Francis pontificate represented the achievement of a Jesuit plan dating back 60 years, i.e. to the beginning of the 1960s and the radical change which occurred with the pontificate of the Communist pope, John XXIII, and the Second Vatican Council.  Ponder the words of this knowledgeable archbishop of the Roman Catholic institution:
 “Let’s consider the history of the Jesuits…. What we are now seeing is the triumph of a 60-year-old plan, the successful execution of a well-thought out plan to bring a new sort of thinking into the heart of the Church, a thinking rooted in elements of Liberation Theology containing strands of Marxism, little interested in traditional Catholic liturgy or morality or theology, but rather focused on ‘praxis’ in the field of social justice.  And now this plan has achieved one of its supreme goals, with a Jesuit on the See of Peter”.[11]
  Jesuit priest Paul Shaughnessy wrote: “The German theologian Karl Rahner was able to exhort his fellow Jesuits: ‘You must remain loyal to the papacy in theology and in practice, because that is part of your heritage to a special degree, but because the actual form of the papacy remains subject, in the future too, to an historical process of change, your theology and ecclesiastical law has above all to serve the papacy as it will be in the future.’  See the move?  Our current Jesuits are all loyal to the papacy, but to the future papacy – that of Pope Chelsea XII, perhaps – and their support for contraception, gay sex, and divorce proceeds from humble obedience to this conveniently protean pontiff.”[12]
  This quote is very revealing.  It shows that the Jesuits have a long-term objective: to change the Papacy into an extreme Socialist/Communist institution.  They were, as the priest quoted above states, loyal to the Papacy – but to the Papacy they envisaged for the future!  They were loyal to their vision of what the Roman Papacy should be.  With typical Jesuit casuistry, they often worked in direct disobedience to previous popes of the modern era, yet were able to justify this by arguing that they were obeying what those popes should have been telling them to do!
  And the Papacy they envisage for the future is a very different one from what it has been in past centuries.  They envisage a Papacy that is in step with modern society, and therefore permits priestesses; supports sodomy and sodomite priests; downplays divorce; is comfortable with contraceptives; and a whole host of other “progressive” positions.  That is why they manipulated things in 2013 so that one of their own members was elected as the first-ever openly Jesuit pope.  A man who rapidly, but with great care and subtlety for the most part (the occasional slips notwithstanding), began the process of radically altering the very nature of the Papacy.
  In this article brief mention will be made of just three major changes which the Jesuits are instituting:  changes to the definition of the family; the acceptance of “other roads” to God; and the acceptance of radical environmentalism.  This is because the western world has now radically changed with regard to all three.  But more could be added: the embracing of violent Marxism; planned changes to the priesthood; the alliance with the UN; etc.


  Francis has come out in subtle but definite attacks on the institution of the family.
  The powerful secretary of state in the Vatican, the cardinal Pietro Parolin, admitted that Francis is changing the very definition of, and approach to, the family – and that it was being resisted by many Roman Catholics – when he said: “After all, the document Amoris laetitia arose from a new paradigm that Pope Francis is pursuing with wisdom, prudence and even patience.  Probably, the difficulties that have arisen and still exist in the Church, beyond some aspects of the [document’s] content, are due precisely to this change in attitude that the Pope asks of us.  A paradigm shift, inherent in the very text itself, which is asked of us: this new spirit, this new approach!”[13]
  Divorce is an assault on the family.  On divorce, Francis has relaxed the strong prohibitions of traditional Roman Catholicism.  It clearly reveals the new direction in which the Jesuits are taking the “Church” of Rome.
  Abortion is another assault upon the family.  It has also always been an issue on which the Roman Catholic leadership has spoken out forthrightly.  Often hypocritically, but forthrightly.  Yet Francis, at the very time in history when abortion is becoming even more widely accepted throughout the world, has not taken the strong, unequivocal position against abortion which his predecessors did.  A definite “softening up” process is under way.
  Sodomy is yet another assault on the family.  Jesuit priest Paul Shaughnessy wrote, “In 1999 the American Jesuits decided to give priority to the recruitment of gays (under the rubric of ‘men comfortable with their sexuality’), and the majority of American formatores, Jesuits in charge of training, are homosexuals as well.”[14]  Francis has definitely begun to broaden the concept of the “family” itself, to open the way for possible acceptance of sodomite “marriage” in the future, among other things.
  The reason for this shifting of the entire Papal system towards the acceptance, and even embracing, of sodomy is because this is what the world itself has done now; and to remain relevant in this world, Rome (as she has always done) will change with the times.
  Adam Littlestone-Luria, historian at the University of California, Berkeley, wrote in September 2017: “With his new political and theological approach, Pope Francis is doing something truly revolutionary – he is reshaping the fundamental identity of Catholicism in the 21st century…. the pope’s open-minded acceptance of the legitimacy of other roads to God represents more than grudging acceptance of an increasingly diverse and secular reality.  It heralds a fundamental shift in the church’s aspirations.”[15]
  Other popes before him, since Vatican II, embraced the interfaith movement – but none so radically or wholeheartedly as Francis.  He has taken the interfaith movement to an entirely new level.
  As the Vatican’s 2019 Amazon Synod drew near, conservative Roman Catholic theologians increasingly viewed it with deepening alarm.  Viganò said, “Where is the Christian [i.e. Roman Catholic] message here?”  And: “In fact, the figure of Christ is absent.  The Synod working document testifies to the emergence of as post-Christian Catholic theology, now, in this moment.  And this is very troubling.”[16]
  A German cardinal, Walter Brandmüller, a leading Roman Catholic historian, wrote the following in June 2019 in strong criticism of the preparatory working document for the Amazon Synod to be held in October 2019: “In principle, we must ask why a synod of bishops should deal with topics which, at best… relate only marginally to the Gospels and the Church.  Clearly, there is an encroaching interference here by a synod of bishops into the purely secular affairs of the Brazilian state and society.  What do ecology, economy, and politics have to do with the mandate and mission of the Church?  More importantly: what professional expertise authorizes an ecclesial synod of bishops to express itself on such topics?…

  “Furthermore, throughout the Instrumentum Laboris one finds a very positive assessment of natural religions, including indigenous healing practices, etc., even mythic-religious practices and cult forms.  In the context of the call for harmony with nature, for example, there is even talk about ‘dialogue with the spirits’….
  “It has to be emphatically stated that the Instrumentum Laboris (for the upcoming October 6-27 Synod on the Amazon Region) contradicts the binding teachings of the Church on decisive points, and is therefore to be qualified as heretical.  Inasmuch as the fact of Divine Revelation is here even being questioned or misunderstood, one must also speak of apostasy.”[17]
  That a leading cardinal-historian of the Roman Catholic institution dared to come out openly and speak of heresy and apostasy on this matter of the Amazon Synod indicated the depth of feeling which the Jesuit pope was stirring up in those leading Papists who held to the traditional teachings and practices of the Roman Catholic institution, and opposed what the Jesuits were seeking to do to their “Church”.
  Incredibly, the following words have been attributed to Francis I:
  “It is not to be excluded that I will enter history as the one who split the Catholic Church.”
  The words are attributed to Francis by journalist Walter Mayr, writing in 2016. Francis was said to have spoken them to members of his inner circle, and they were later repeated to Mayr.  The Vatican neither confirmed nor denied the remark.[18]
  Whether or not Francis said those words, he definitely said the following on September 10, 2019, while on the papal plane during a press conference on board – and they show that it is entirely possible he really did say what is attributed to him above: “I am not afraid of schisms, I pray that there will be none, because what is at stake is people’s spiritual health.  Let there be dialogue, let there be correction if there is an error, but the schismatic path is not Christian…. A schism is always an elitist separation stemming from an ideology detached from doctrine.  It is an ideology, perhaps correct, but that engages doctrine and detaches it…. And so I pray that schisms do not happen, but I am not afraid of them.”[19]
  What is going on?
  A Roman Catholic commentator using the pseudonym “Luxsit”, on the website Lifesitenews, hit the nail on the head.  Obviously a conservative Papist, this commentator wrote: “I think it is likely we [i.e. conservative Roman Catholics] are being set up to be labeled the scapegoat ‘schismatics’ when the Vatican officially becomes apostate (and the real schismatics), though the groundwork was laid decades ago.  In the eyes of the world, that will support the Vatican’s claims that anything orthodox is ‘outside the Church.’”
  Responding to this comment, another likeminded Papist, under the pseudonym “Borghesius”, wrote: “I believe you are spot on here.  The liberals could have split off from the Church at any time in the previous 4 pontificates: they have been in a de facto schism ever since the (dissenting) response to Humanae Vitae.  But Francis gives them the opportunity, and they want it to appear, that THEY are Church and the Catholics are splitting off from them.  That way they get the money, power, property, and can claim to be the Catholic church when by belief they are nothing of the sort.”[20]
  Remembering these comments were written by Papists and that according to Scripture, both sides – conservative and liberal Papists – are heretical, and that Rome is not becoming apostate but never has been Christian in any sense, they are still correct in that conservative, traditional Papists are being set up to be labelled as the “schismatics”; that as liberal, Jesuit-manipulated Papists increasingly come to dominate and control all aspects of the life of the “Church”, traditional, conservative Papists will be rejected as being schismatics, heretics and unorthodox.

So is a split actually possible?
  According to well-informed Vatican journalist, Robert Moynihan, it is.  He wrote: “In fact, several indications suggest that a break – a schism – between conservative Catholics and Pope Francis (and his top advisors) may be imminent.”[21]  And if it occurs, it will be precisely because of the direction the Roman pope has been taking the “Church” ever since he was chosen as pope.
  It would appear that for Roman Catholics who have themselves imbibed the liberal/Socialist spirit of the age, Francis is doing a very good job, and they are content with the way he is leading the “Church”.  But voices are being raised in criticism of him and the direction he is going.  At this stage these voices are confined mostly to a small number of conservative Roman Catholic websites, most of which are based in the United States, although others are to be found in Italy, Spain, England, Poland, etc.  But in addition to these, opposition to Francis has been building up even within the Vatican itself, and there is a small group of cardinals and bishops who increasingly speak out against him.
  Only time will tell.  But these are momentous times for the Papacy, and for the entire Roman Catholic world.
March 2020
Shaun Willcock is a minister, author and researcher.  He runs Bible Based Ministries.  For other articles (which may be downloaded and printed), as well as details about his books, audio messages, pamphlets, etc., please visit the Bible Based Ministries website; or write to the address below.  If you would like to be on Bible Based Ministries’ email list, to receive all future articles, please send your details.
This article may be copied for free distribution if it is copied in full
ENDNOTES:
[1]. Robert Moynihan, The Moynihan Letters, September 9, 2019.  Article: “A New Church?”  MoynihanReport@gmail.com.
[2]. Robert Moynihan, The Moynihan Letters, September 9, 2019.  Article: “A New Church?”  MoynihanReport@gmail.com.
[3]. Robert Moynihan, The Moynihan Letters, September 9, 2019.  Article: “A New Church?”  MoynihanReport@gmail.com.
[4]. The Moynihan Letters, October 6, 2019.  Article: “The Jesuits, Part #2.”  MoynihanReport@gmail.com.
[5]. Robert Moynihan, The Moynihan Letters, September 9, 2019.  Article: “A New Church?”  MoynihanReport@gmail.com.
[6]. Claude-Francois Jullien, Commonweal, April 9, 1971.  Article:  “An Interview with Hans Küng.” www.commonwealmagazine.org.
[7]. Weekly Standard, June 3, 2002.  Article: “Are the Jesuits Catholic?”  Quoted in The Moynihan Letters, October 6, 2019.  Article: “The Jesuits, Part #2.”  MoynihanReport@gmail.com.
[8]. The Moynihan Letters, October 6, 2019.  Article: “The Jesuits, Part #2.”  MoynihanReport@gmail.com.
[9]. Robert Moynihan, The Moynihan Letters, September 26, 2019.  Article: “The Jesuits, Part 1.”  MoynihanReport@gmail.com.
[10]. Robert Moynihan, The Moynihan Letters, September 26, 2019.  Article: “The Jesuits, Part 1.”  MoynihanReport@gmail.com.
[11]. Robert Moynihan, The Moynihan Letters, 31 July 2019.  Article: “Jonah.”  MoynihanReport@gmail.com.
[12]. Weekly Standard, June 3, 2002.  Article: “Are the Jesuits Catholic?”  Quoted in The Moynihan Letters, October 6, 2019.  Article: “The Jesuits, Part #2.”  MoynihanReport@gmail.com.
[13]. Pietro Parolin, in an interview with Vatican News, January 11, 2018.
[14]. Weekly Standard, June 3, 2002.  Article: “Are the Jesuits Catholic?”  Quoted in The Moynihan Letters, October 6, 2019.  Article: “The Jesuits, Part #2.”  MoynihanReport@gmail.com.
[15]. Adam Littlestone-Luria, The Washington Post, September 24, 2017.
[16]. Robert Moynihan, The Moynihan Letters, 31 July 2019.  Article: “Jonah.”  MoynihanReport@gmail.com.
[17]. Robert Moynihan, The Moynihan Letters, September 11, 2019.  Article: “The Matter of Schism.”  MoynihanReport@gmail.com.
[18]. Walter Mayr, Der Spiegel, December 23, 2016.
[19]. Robert Moynihan, The Moynihan Letters, September 11, 2019.  Article: “The Matter of Schism.”  MoynihanReport@gmail.com.
[20]. Robert Moynihan, The Moynihan Letters, September 11, 2019.  Article: “The Matter of Schism.”  MoynihanReport@gmail.com.
[21].  Robert Moynihan, The Moynihan Letters, September 11, 2019.  Article: “The Matter of Schism.”  MoynihanReport@gmail.com.

The Roman Pope Backtracks on Married Priests and on Priestesses… Or Does He?

http://www.biblebasedministries.co.uk/2020/04/20/the-roman-pope-backtracks-on-married-priests-and-on-priestesses-or-does-he/  

The Roman Pope Backtracks on Married Priests and Women Deacons, PDF format

In my 2019 article, The Vatican’s Amazon Synod: Blazing a Jungle Trail to World Government,[1] I showed how the Vatican, through this synod, was preparing Roman Catholics for a future possible relaxation of the Roman Catholic position on priestly celibacy, and on the eventual possible acceptance of deaconesses and then priestesses.  Yet in his post-synodal document, entitled Querida Amazonia, Francis appeared to backtrack from these possibilities and to re-assert the traditional Romish doctrine.
  But did he really?
  Before answering this, I will quote two relevant sections from my previous article:
Preparing Roman Catholics for a Future Relaxation of Priestly Celibacy
  “Another purpose behind the Amazon Synod was to start the process of preparing Roman Catholics for a future relaxation of the doctrine of priestly celibacy.  This will come as a surprise to many.  After all, what possible connection could there be between Indian tribes in the Amazon and priestly celibacy?
  “Ah, but there is.  In the vast Amazon region, there are not enough priests for all the Roman Catholics among the many tribes…. when the Synod was under way, the proposals started flowing – from those within the hierarchy of the ‘Church’ of Rome, be it noted! – to address the scarcity of priests in the Amazon region, including proposals to revise the formation programme for candidates to the priesthood, to start new ministries for ‘lay men and lay women’, to ordain married men of ‘proven virtue’, and to ordain women deacons…[2]
  “When it became known that this was going to be proposed at the Synod it caused a worldwide stir among Roman Catholics, as some believed it meant the first step towards eventually permitting married priests.  Francis denied it, but his denials mean nothing.  What, then, was going on?  It is really quite simple, but also very Jesuitical in its craftiness.
  “The fact is, it is not only the Amazon which faces this problem.  In many parts of the world there are not enough priests, to a large extent because of the obstacle of celibacy.  Men do not want to enter the priesthood and remain celibate.  Priestly ordinations have been declining drastically in recent times.  Something had to be done.
  “The answer: to start preparing the Roman Catholic faithful for an eventual relaxation of the requirement for priestly celibacy.  But because this would not be popular among traditionalist Roman Catholics, it would have to be introduced gradually.  And the best way to do it would be to point to some remote part of the world where there are few priests, and begin to initiate changes there, where such changes would not affect Roman Catholics elsewhere, but which could later be adopted everywhere as the concept gradually became more acceptable.  In other words, the Amazon region would become a gigantic field test.  Rome could point to the region and say, ‘There are just too few priests there.  We have to do something!  Let’s grant certain married men some priestly powers.’  Then, as this becomes accepted, it will be extended to other parts of the world…
  “Rome plans to maintain its doctrine of priestly celibacy, but is creating various exceptions to the rule.  And all so as to maintain its grip on the people!  In a day and age when celibacy is rejected more than ever before, this appears to the Vatican to be the solution.
  “Lest any think that the above is merely this author’s interpretation of the Synod, read carefully the following, written by the Romish cardinal, Walter Brandmûller, who saw right through the real Jesuitical intent of the Synod.  In his critique he made no bones about it: ‘It is impossible to conceal that the “synod” intends, above all, to help implement two most cherished projects that heretofore have never been implemented: namely, the abolition of priestly celibacy and the introduction of a female priesthood – beginning with female deacons.’[3]  Well, perhaps not the complete abolition of celibacy – but certainly the introduction of a married priesthood alongside a celibate priesthood.
  “After the Synod Peter Turkson, a cardinal from Ghana, said: ‘This issue will probably be made the subject matter of a more detailed study with a view to the Church taking a consistent position, not only in view of the Amazon, but of the universal Church’ (italics added).[4]  It becomes very clear that the Amazon Synod was just the beginning, a clever way to introduce the subject to the worldwide Roman Catholic population, to get them used to the idea gradually, by harping on, firstly, about the ‘pastoral needs’ in the vast Amazon region with too few priests, and then secondly, by pushing the point that really what the Amazon needs is what the universal ‘Church’ needs…

“Pedro Barreto, Jesuit cardinal and president delegate of the Synod, said: ‘At no time was celibacy called into question.  Let this be very clear: celibacy is a gift of God for the Church and it’s going to be kept.  What has been talked about is the possibility that married persons be able to receive Priestly Ordination – they are two different things’… 
  “And so we see how it will progress: first the Amazon; then places like the Congo; and finally the hierarchy will begin to say, ‘But you know, the same situation really exists even in Europe, and North America!  After all, we are short of priests everywhere; it is time to ordain married men under certain conditions, so that we can have enough priests to serve our communities throughout the world’…
  “[The Jesuits] have… always been prepared… to bend or discard Romish doctrine and practice if it will further their aims among a heathen people…. If priestly celibacy stands in the way of Amazonian Indians or modern westerners receiving the Romish ‘gospel’, then the Jesuits will find a way around it….  they have… accepted that it is time to modify the Romish doctrine of priestly celibacy because for too long it has stood in the way of many people accepting Romanism – especially in the wake of the worldwide priestly sex scandal.  They want to gradually get their people used to the idea that celibacy should eventually be optional – and they have chosen the vast Amazon region as the place to begin this change, precisely because they can point to the Indians there and say, ‘See?  They need priests, but celibacy stands in the way!  We must change the rules on celibacy.’  And eventually the Amazon experiment will be rolled out worldwide.
Roman Catholic Priestesses in the Future?
  “In the same way as the Synod was used to test the waters with regards to married men performing certain priestly functions, it was also used to test the waters regarding women doing the same. In the modern world this issue has become extremely important to liberal priests and bishops.  They know the Papal institution is shedding members, because the equality of the sexes is now a reality throughout the western world, and the prohibition on women priests appears to be a chauvinistic anachronism from a bygone age.  The hierarchy has to find a way around this.
  “The working document for the Synod called for the bishops to ‘identify the type of official ministry that can be conferred on women, taking into account the central role that they currently play in the Amazonian Church.’[5]  Note two things from this quotation.  First, the bishops were to discuss some kind of official ministry for women.  This was revolutionary.  Second, over and over it was repeated that women in the Amazon region already play a central role in the life of the Roman Catholic ‘Church’.  By repeating this constantly, it was drummed into Roman Catholic heads that since it was already a fait accompli, it should now simply be recognised officially.
  “The Jesuitical cunning behind this approach is evident.  For the fact is that Roman Catholic women in many parts of the world play the central role in ‘Church’ life.  Therefore, if they can be granted more powers in the Amazon region to begin with, this will inevitably lead to them being granted more powers in other parts of the world, and eventually throughout the Papal institution.  Possibly even priestesses!
  “This is the Jesuit plan to fundamentally alter the Papal institution so that it conforms even more to the world, so as to be acceptable to it.
  “After the Synod the cardinal and president delegate, Pedro Barreto, said regarding women’s ministry: ‘The topic was touched upon, but Pope Francis himself felt that perhaps it wasn’t touched upon in great depth.’[6]  Perhaps so, but the fact that it was raised at all was a good beginning as far as the hierarchy was concerned.  The subject was introduced, and now the global Roman Catholic population knows it is something that is going to be considered in the future.  The softening-up process has begun.
  “And note the following words of his, which are extremely significant: ‘there are women religious, in very remote areas, which a priest cannot reach, and they baptize, they are present in religious marriages, they take part in the liturgy, in Communion, in practice they are already Deaconesses, and people perceive it very well.  Now, in regard to the Sunday “para-liturgy,” they do the homily and sometimes, no matter how much they explain to the people that it’s not a Eucharistic Celebration, the simple people say, “We are happy, Monsignor, because these little mothers celebrate a beautiful Mass,” no matter how much one explains to them…. So, in practice, it’s already happening.’

“Think of what this man was saying.  It truly shows that the Papacy of Francis I is a liberal Papacy,  willing to cast aside even the most cherished Roman Catholic doctrines, just so long as this will enable the Papacy to maintain and indeed expand its influence in the world.”
Francis’ Post-Synodal Document Appears to Reject Married Priests, or Priestesses, in the Future
  In Francis’ post-Synodal “Exhortation”, Querida Amazonia, he appeared to squash any idea of married priests, or priestesses.  To many this was an odd and unexpected reaction to the Amazon Synod’s proposals, especially as Francis had supported the Synod so fully.  What was going on?
  His document was a very lengthy one, in which he addressed various aspects of the Synod’s official document.  Most of what he said was about various other matters which arose out of the Synod.  But eventually he dealt with the matter at hand.  Let us examine what he wrote:[7]
  “Efforts need to be made to configure ministry in such a way that it is at the service of a more frequent celebration of the Eucharist even in the remotest and most isolated communities… [I]t is important to determine what is most specific to a priest, what cannot be delegated.  The answer lies in the sacrament of Holy Orders, which configures him to Christ the priest.  The first conclusion, then, is that the exclusive character received in Holy Orders qualifies the priest alone to preside at the Eucharist.  That is his particular, principal and non-delegable function…. The priest is a sign of that head and wellspring of grace above all when he celebrates the Eucharist, the source and summit of the entire Christian life.  That is his great power, a power that can only be received in the sacrament of Holy Orders.  For this reason, only the priest can say, ‘This is my body’.  There are other words, too, that he alone can speak: ‘I absolve you from your sins’…. These two sacraments lie at the heart of the priest’s exclusive identity.”
  Ignoring at this time the utterly unbiblical nature of everything in the above paragraph, from priests to the mass to the priest supposedly forgiving sins, let us focus solely on what the Roman pope was saying about the Romish priesthood.  He was asserting nothing but official Romish doctrine.  The priest is, by his ordination, given power (according to Rome) which is not given to any other human being.  He has the power to supposedly change bread into the body of Christ (the doctrine of transubstantiation), and the power to supposedly forgive sins.  No one else has such power, according to Rome – and Francis was merely echoing received Romish doctrine.
  But what must not be lost sight of is the first sentence in the paragraph above!  “Efforts need to be made to configure ministry in such a way that it is at the service of a more frequent celebration of the Eucharist even in the remotest and most isolated communities”.  This was further emphasised in Francis’ next paragraph: “In the specific circumstances of the Amazon region… a way must be found to ensure this priestly ministry.  The laity… need the celebration of the Eucharist because it ‘makes the Church’…. every effort should be made to ensure that the Amazonian peoples do not lack this food [the mass] of new life and the sacrament of forgiveness.”  Note: not once did he say anything either for or against married priests!
  Now there are only two ways in which this “need” for priests can be met.  Either far more priests need to be sent into remote places – something which Francis knows will be extremely difficult, in fact impossible, to accomplish, so long as priestly numbers are so low, for priests are spread very thinly worldwide.  Or – the Romish laws and methods for making priests must be relaxed or changed, for example by dropping the requirement for celibacy or a male-only priesthood!
  Which one was Francis advocating?
  He certainly appeared to be advocating the first.  For he went on to say: “This urgent need leads me to urge all bishops, especially those in Latin America, not only to promote prayer for priestly vocations, but also to be more generous in encouraging those who display a missionary vocation to opt for the Amazon region.”  And this is what upset so many liberal priests, who want a relaxation of the celibacy laws and for men to be ordained as priests even though they do not meet the strict requirements demanded of priests before now.
  But of course Francis would say this, wouldn’t he?  After all, this is official Papist doctrine, and he is the pope!  A pope would be expected to say such things.  And being a Jesuit, he may say one thing – the official line – while possibly plotting quite another.  For in the entire lengthy document, although Francis did not affirm the proposal for married priests, he did not close the door to it either!
  “Priests are necessary,” he wrote, “but this does not mean that permanent deacons (of whom there should be many more in the Amazon region), religious women and lay persons cannot regularly assume important responsibilities for the growth of communities, and perform those functions ever more effectively with the aid of a suitable accompaniment.”

With these words, Francis held out the likelihood of a time to come when deacons, nuns, and even ordinary Papists would carry out an increasing number of functions at present reserved for priests.  But again, he did not actually close the door to married priests at some time in the future.
  And what about priestesses?
  Francis stated: “This summons us to broaden our vision, lest we restrict our understanding of the Church to her functional structures.  Such a reductionism would lead us to believe that women would be granted a greater status and participation in the Church only if they were admitted to Holy Orders.  But that approach would in fact narrow our vision, it would lead us to clericalize women, diminish the great value of what they have already accomplished, and subtly make their indispensable contribution less effective.”
  Here Francis was being very cunning.  Within the Romish system many liberal voices have been raised, calling for priestesses.  But Francis proceeds with Jesuitical caution.  Rome has firmly maintained, despite the cacophony of voices calling for a change, that only men may be priests.  It has maintained this even as, one after another, “Protestant” denominations caved in to the liberal agenda and began to ordain “pastoresses”.  For Rome to now change course on this issue, the impression would be given that it was merely following the Protestants, playing catch-up with their supposedly “enlightened”, “progressive” approach.  This would not look good, considering that Rome claims to be the only true Church, the “mother Church”, the one possessing the fulness of divine revelation.  It would not look good to suddenly change course and say, in effect, “We were wrong, we’ve seen the error of our ways, we will now ordain priestesses.”
  By choosing his words very carefully at this point, Francis sought to make Roman Catholic women feel that they are valuable, and that their contributions are great without the need to be ordained as priests.  He was saying in effect, “You women have served our Church so well, for so long, without being ordained, bringing your unique gifts to the Church, gifts which no man could bring.  To ordain you would be like saying your ministry within the Church cannot be complete unless you are ordained as priestesses as well – and we don’t want you to feel that way.”
  This was cunning enough.  For doubtless he is hoping that Roman Catholic women will say, “Our pope is right.  We don’t need ordination to serve God.  We’re doing a great job just as we are!”  If they take this approach, all well and good – Rome will not be under pressure to ordain women.
  On the other hand, however – Francis’ words do not actually close the door, categorically and forever, to eventual priestesses within the Roman Catholic system!  Read his words again: he could have been far stronger, far firmer, categorically stating that never, never, never would Rome ordain women to its priesthood.  But did he?  No.  His language was very mild.  Therefore if Roman Catholic women, despite what he has written, continue to clamour for female ordination, and the calls become louder and more insistent, Rome will be able to turn around and say, “Well, Francis did not actually forbid it.  He merely raised concerns.  He didn’t want women to feel that they had to be ordained to be useful to the Church.  But if they would still like to be ordained notwithstanding this concern, he didn’t forbid it.”
  Do you see the Jesuitical cunning?
  And in fact his next words in the document only serve to confirm this:
 “Jesus Christ appears as the Spouse of the community that celebrates the Eucharist through the figure of a man who presides as a sign of the one Priest…. The Lord chose to reveal his power and his love through two human faces: the face of his divine Son made man and the face of a creature, a woman, Mary.  Women make their contribution to the Church in a way that is properly theirs, by making present the tender strength of Mary, the Mother…. without women, the Church breaks down…. This shows the kind of power that is typically theirs.”
  Without going into the sheer unbiblical nature of the Roman pope’s heresy at this point regarding Mary, it is clear that Francis was buttering Roman Catholic women up.  He was saying to them, “Look at how powerful you already are in our Church!  You don’t need the priesthood as well.”  But it still was not an outright prohibition.  Doubtless he feels the time is not right, now, for priestesses.  But a little further down the line?  If that day comes, his words do not forbid it outright.
Reaction to His Document “Disappoints” Francis
  Francis told a group of bishops that he was disappointed with the reaction to his post-synodal document.  As one bishop put it, “You could see his consternation when he said that for some people it was all about celibacy and not about the Amazon.”[8]  And this was surely one of his reasons for downplaying the issue: the Amazon Synod was about many other issues (as my previous article on the Synod shows), and he wanted these to be emphasised, not the issue of ordination.  The ordination issue was deliberately raised at the Synod to test the waters – but that was all.  It was never the Vatican’s intention to change Roman Catholic teaching about ordination at that time.

Significantly, Francis’ post-synodal document on the Amazon has been declared to be part of Rome’s “magisterium” – i.e. “officially a kind of Church teaching” – whereas the Amazon Synod document itself is not.[9]  This distinction is very important.  “The final document [of the Synod], consisting of proposals made and voted by the Synod Fathers, has the weight of a synodal final document,” a cardinal explained, whereas the pope’s post-synodal document, “reflecting on the whole process and its final document, has the authority of ordinary magisterium of the Successor of Peter.” 
  When Roman Catholics speak of “the Word of God”, they do not only mean the Bible.  They mean the Bibles, plus“Church Tradition”, plus the “Magisterium”.  Thus Roman Catholics are to believe that Francis’ document is now part of what Rome calls “the Word of God”!  This is blasphemous, and on its own would be sufficient to reveal that Roman Catholicism is not in any way a Christian church.
  But the point right now is this: the suggestions made in the Synod’s final document remain in discussion only, “as proposals made by the Synod”.  This means that Roman Catholics are not required to believe, or even agree with, the proposals, or regard them as teachings of the pope.  His post-synodal document, however, they do have to believe and agree with!
  In other words, it is as I said in my previous article on the Amazon: it was an ideal and opportune time to drop into the mix some important proposals about married priests and about priestesses, to see what the reaction was like from the Roman Catholic faithful.  It was a testing of the wind, although not the main purpose of the Amazon Synod.  Well, the wind has been tested, and the pope of Rome has spoken.  He has made it clear that for now, there will be no married priests, and no priestesses, for the Amazon region; but he has not actually shut the door forever.  It is cracked open just enough that, if the need should ever become really urgent, Rome could change its position on both these things.  It hopes it will never have to, but it leaves the door open in case the time ever comes when the clamour for change grows too loud, and the choice becomes one of losing many members or changing centuries-old practice.  The Jesuits are past masters at doing the latter.
  Leaving aside the obvious heretical Romish teaching that abounds in this next quotation, pertaining to the false “Church” of Rome, the following by the editor of The Southern Cross, the Roman Catholic weekly of southern Africa, sums it up well: “[Francis] decided to leave all options open by not addressing the issue of viri probati [the model of the ordination of married men in particular circumstances] at all.  Some have called that a cop-out, others have celebrated the pope’s (non)-decision as a victory for the status quo.  It is neither of those things.  On the contrary: the pope issued a clear challenge to the Church’s culture of clericalism in which all leadership and all power is tied to priests.  By not approving the ordination of viri probati and women deacons… the pope is saying that generally power in the Church needn’t and shouldn’t be tied to clerical position…. In calling for new models of seeing, thinking and acting in the Church, Pope Francis is inviting the Church to follow the Holy Spirit into unchartered waters.”[10]
The Biblical Truth
  Of course, the New Testament is crystal clear that only men are to be pastors (1 Tim. 2:11-14; 1 Tim. 3:1,2,5; Tit. 1:5,6).  And the New Testament does not teach that there is a special priestly class!  There are pastors and teachers (Eph. 4:11; Phil. 1:1), but these men are not priests in any special sense.  All believers are priests (Rev. 1:6).  But these biblical truths are not stated here so as to give any impression that Romanism is somehow a Christian church with some errors, and that it could therefore reform and implement biblical changes!  It is a decidedly unchristian religion, in exactly the same boat as Hinduism, Islam, Judaism or Buddhism.  These biblical truths are stated simply to contrast Bible Christianity with false “christianity”.
Conclusion
  As I wrote at the conclusion of my article on the Amazon Synod:
  If the Papacy continues along its present trajectory in the years to come – in other words, if the seismic shift occurring under the Francis pontificate continues without being stopped by some kind of conservative, traditionalist backlash – the Roman Catholic institution of the near future will be a very different one, in all kinds of ways, from what it was in the past.  Rome boastfully claims it never changes.  This is a lie.  It has changed in the past, and it is changing again now.  Only time will tell what it will look like a few years down the line.  But of this much we may be certain: in a rapidly-changing world, it must change with the times in order to maintain its hold on its people.  It is not opposed to the world, but very much a part of it.  And the Jesuits who run it are past masters at “becoming all things to all men”, not in the true biblical sense, but in the sense of pleasing the worldly with devilish lies to keep them chained to the feet of the Roman pope.
April 2020
For further reading:
The Vatican’s Amazon Synod: Blazing a Jungle Trail to World Government, by Shaun Willcock.  Bible Based Ministries, November 2019. Available here:
http://www.biblebasedministries.co.uk/2019/11/28/the-vaticans-amazon-synod/
Shaun Willcock is a minister, author and researcher.  He runs Bible Based Ministries.  For other articles (which may be downloaded and printed), as well as details about his books, audio messages, pamphlets, etc., please visit the Bible Based Ministries website; or write to the address below.  If you would like to be on Bible Based Ministries’ email list, to receive all future articles, please send your details.
This article may be copied for free distribution if it is copied in full
ENDNOTES:
[1]. The Vatican’s Amazon Synod: Blazing a Jungle Trail to World Government, by Shaun Willcock.  Bible Based Ministries, November 2019.  Available on our website: www.biblebasedministries.co.uk.
[2]. The Southern Cross, October 16 to 22, 2019.  Article: “Synod: Increase Role of Women, Laity in Ministry.”
[3]. The Moynihan Letters, September 11, 2019.  Article: “The Matter of Schism.”  MoynihanReport@gmail.com.
[4]. The Southern Cross, October 30 to November 5, 2019.  Article: “Cardinal: Ordination of Married for Further Study.”
[5]. The Southern Cross, September 25 to October 1, 2019.
[6]. Zenit.org, October 30, 2019.
[7]. Zenit.org, February 12, 2020.  Article: “No Openings for Married Priests Nor Women Deacons in Pope’s Post-Synodal Exhortation on the Amazon ‘Querida Amazonia’”.
[8]. The Southern Cross, February 26 to March 3, 2020. Article: “Why Pope Francis is Disappointed by Reaction to Amazon Document.”
[9]. The Southern Cross, February 26 to March 3, 2020.  Article: “Exhortation is Part of Church’s Magisterium.”
[10]. The Southern Cross, February 26 to March 3, 2020.  Editorial: “Silence of Pope’s Cry.”