Browse By

“First Vespers for the ‘protection of Creation’, yes. First Vespers for the Coming of Our Lord, no.”

Apparently, Francis Bergoglio doesn’t like First Vespers of Advent.

Well, we already knew that he generally doesn’t much like the religious part of religion.


More and more people are waking up to the self-evident fact that Bergoglio simply isn’t a Catholic, and that he wants to place himself as the head of an entirely new religion-free religion. He has already abolished or ignored multiple liturgical celebrations of the Catholic year, and has invented quite a lot of new stuff that bears very little relation to the Catholic religion. I hadn’t heard about the “First Vespers for the protection of Creation”… or maybe I did and it just got drowned out in the avalanche of monstrous, anti-Catholic novelties, horrifying blasphemies and heresies pouring out of the Vatican for the last 44 months.

The fact that there are millions of lay Catholics, and nearly the entire episcopate, perhaps most priests and religious all eagerly running after his New Paradigm – almost as if they had been prepped to embrace it for, oh, I don’t know, maybe the last few decades – demonstrates that he is NOT THE PROBLEM. He’s nothing more than the final expression of the new religion that has been systematically injected into the Mystical Body of Christ since 1965.

The one most important aspect of the success of this New Paradigm has been stealth. It has masqueraded as Catholic, its apologists and promoters have called its various blasphemous tenets by Catholic names. The process required first that the Catholic faithful not receive any instruction that might tend to contradict it or alert them to its presence. Once their religious knowledge had been drained to nothing, this New Paradigm could be inserted in its place in a smooth transition that hardly anyone would notice. And hasn’t it worked brilliantly!

Indeed, Modernism was so diabolically clever one might be inclined to think that it was not entirely of human origin… perhaps. But its main vector was lies, distortions, confusion and deception. This is why I have said so many times that Bergoglio is not the problem; he could very well be the solution.

His very brazenness is perhaps the only thing that will alert the remaining believers (there aren’t many) to their danger.

As I said at the Remnant in 2015:
The trouble with this idea is that Francis isn’t an anomaly; he’s a predictable result of the Neomodernism that has infested the Church since the close of Vatican II. The commenter’s idea is that he is an isolated and inexplicable outlier, something like a tick that has just dropped onto the Church at random and who can be burned off once discovered by saner heads. If that were the case, if there were any saner heads available, he wouldn’t have been elected pope in the first place.

Pope Francis is not the problem. Neomodernism is the problem. Pope Francis is more like the fruiting body of the cordyceps mycelium that has infested every last corner of the Catholic Church’s ecosystem. In the natural world, in the forest floor the mycelium are pervasive, but because of all the other processes at work in the soil, the various chemical processes, bacteria, insects, temperature, etc., it isn’t possible for them to utterly take over the whole ecosystem of the forest and kill and eat every other growing thing in it. Unfortunately, the Church’s theological ecosystem doesn’t work the same way, though I think this is more or less how most “conservative” Catholics think it does.

In the analogy that, I swear, just popped unbidden suddenly into my weird brain – probably because of too many nature shows as a kid – Pope Francis is the cordyceps fruiting body that is sprouting out of the infested body of the host of the papacy. The spores of Neomodernism have been bursting out of him since his first moment on the loggia.

Here are some observations from an Italian blogger, the Chronicles of Papa Francesco…

First Vespers for the “protection of Creation”, yes. First Vespers for the Coming of Our Lord, no.

Abolished the First Vespers of Advent in the presence, and guided by the Supreme Pontiff Francis (*). An oversight? No! A huge undertaking, a trip, an urgent visit? No! Simply, the Holy Father does not consider them important while on the contrary, imposed to the whole Church the obligation of the celebration of Vespers for Creation of September 1.

Put it this way, and not through our personal opinions, or vision, subjective interpretation of the facts, as well as for a series of decisions taken by Pope Francis. And no mistake, no mention of liturgical abolition in the Church, but the presence of the Supreme Pontiff in liturgical events, for the faithful, vital.

– Abolished the public papal Mass for the Solemnity of the Assumption into Heaven August 15;

– Abolished the Eucharistic Adoration with the Pontiff during papal visits or WYD, in meetings with young people;

– Imposed on the Church of the First Vespers for Creation of September 1, in the presence of the Supreme Pontiff;

– Abolished the First Vespers of Advent in the presence of the Supreme Pontiff;

– Abolished the greeting (genuflecting) of the Blessed Sacrament by the Supreme Pontiff, during visits to the churches;

– Abolished the Eucharistic Adoration during religious meetings in St. Peter’s Square. During the Year of the Jubilee of Mercy he has not made a single adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, publicly;

– Abolished the presence of the Supreme Pontiff at the public Procession of Corpus Christi in Rome, when the Popes of the past, prisoners in the Vatican City, limited themselves to it in the Piazza, so as not to miss this valuable testimony to the faithful: Peter humbly kneeling before the King of kings.


7 thoughts on ““First Vespers for the ‘protection of Creation’, yes. First Vespers for the Coming of Our Lord, no.””

  1. Rory Donnellan says:

    Yes, all of the postconciliar Popes have been infected with varying degrees of modernism, but Pope Francis exhibits the disease in full-blown form: it’s like comparing a mild cold to a terminal case of rabies!

  2. GracieLou says:

    This is a little thing compared to the spiritual nightmare we’re living, but thank you for referring to that person as Bergoglio. I prefer BOGO (hat tip Benedict) but I’m mean…so. Saint Francis has suffered enough, what with a namesake city being practically synonymous with Sodom and all those bad fluff songs, prayers and garden art. He must have done a lot of good in his life to merit this much martyrdom after death, kind of like the prophet Elisha who got that one last miracle when someone fell on his grave.

    Off-topic but you have to wonder about St. Christopher, 3rd century helper saint, Christ-bearer, protector from demons. That old legend where one day he decided to try to serve “the greatest king there was”. He went to the king of Canaan who was said to be the greatest, but one day he saw the king cross himself at the mention of the devil. Since the king feared the devil, Christopher went to look for the devil. He came across a band of marauders, one of whom declared himself to be the devil, so Christopher decided to serve him. But when he saw his new master avoid a cross and found out that the devil feared Christ, he left him, served Christ and was eventually beheaded. And of course that beautiful story about him carrying a little child across the river who got heavier and heavier who turned out to be so heavy because he was the child Christ who carries the world and so St. Christopher as a Christian had the world on his shoulders. I’m sure the Vat II people were totally right and not working in the interest of Stan in declaring him a myth even though a church in Croatia has his skull in a gold-plated reliquary. I keep a Christopher medal in my car just in case…but I’m a weirdo like that.

  3. Evangeline says:

    Hopefully the four Cardinals will take the dubia to the next level. So many hopes and prayers are on the actions of those men.
    God help them, and protect them from the Mafioso.

  4. Gary says:

    The ultimate goal of modernism is the removal of the supernatural from the Faith. The “religious experience” and the elevation of this earthly life over the reality of God. No God, no binding moral law. No heaven, and most important of all, no hell. I shudder to think that the Vatican and the bishops might be venturing down this demonic path. I still cannot believe it, but indications certainly are not good.

  5. Andrew Dunn says:

    I regrettably have to question whether Bergoglio believes in the Real Presence. Dear God, forgive me if that’s a sin but what kind of priest – especially one called to sit on the Chair of St. Peter – pulls away from Advent Vespers? Oh yeah, that’s right, the same kind of priests (plural) who built churches with tabernacles off to the side and allowed lay people to distribute Our Lord to people in the hand like a big communal meal at the cafeteria. Adding to my questioning of Bergoglio’s faith in the source and summit of the Catholic Faith, what on earth is he doing here with a plastic beach ball on the alter? St. John Vianney, pray for us!

  6. Hilary White says:

    Thanks Paul, but I’m not new.

    Space (and tediousness) prevents me listing the crimes of the entire modernist freakshow since it appeared in the 19th century, and we can argue till the Parousia over what really caused it, going all the way back to Occam’s Nominalism if you want, but the current situation burst onto the scene in its current forthright manner at the close of the Council.

  7. Paul Goings says:

    1965? If only! No, I’m afraid that the groundwork was laid long before, by men who didn’t foresee what their (well-intentioned) innovations would eventually pave the way for.

Comments are closed.