Saturday, December 9, 2017

the new evangelization in Australia

Thanks to the reader who wrote, telling us to view the videos from the Australian Catholic Youth Festival (ACYF).  We couldn’t distinguish the ACYF from a protestant tent revival other than grown men dressed as bishops making fools of themselves and a priest with face paint on for adoration because the novus ordo’s adoration isn’t cool enough unless it has an aboriginal flair to it.  What passes for the faith in the Novus Ordo is an emotional laded experience with the participants dressed immodestly as they make a mockery of sacraments of the Church with their new, man-made, and ‘improved’ post-Vatican II versions.  How sad...

If one so wishes to watch this monstrosity in its fullness they can by clicking on the following links:

...otherwise one can watch the toned down highlight video and the two bishops videos below to get an idea of this travesty of the Catholic faith.

lowlights of the Australian Catholic Youth Festival

tsunami of grace

the present reality of the novus ordo mess 

Thursday, December 7, 2017

dancing in the new evangelization

Jerusalem & ‘the status quo’

Frankie the Yid

“I wish to make a heartfelt appeal to ensure that everyone is committed to respecting the status quo...”

— Don the shabbos goy

“In the meantime, I call on all parties to maintain the status quo..”

‘the status quo’

Jerusalem’s population broken down by religion: Jews, Moslems, and Christians (1910-2005)

Israel persecutes Christians by confining them to concentration camps and replacing them with Noahide approved Moslems


The demon possessed going crazy over Christians

 — Theodor Herzl’s promises on Jerusalem —

The excerpts below are from The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, Volumes I-V (1960) edited by Raphael Patai & translated by Harry Zohn. (click here to read online) They were brought to our attention by Phillip Weiss in his article, Republicans want Jerusalem? Herzl promised pope, kaiser and sultan to leave it outside Jewish state.

• May 7, 1896 • Herzl’s intermediary to Sultan Abdulhamid II of the Ottoman Empire
 Volume I, pp. 345-6

• May 19, 1896 • Herzl to papal nuncio, Antonio Agliardi
 Volume I, p.353

 • June 17, 1896 • Herzl recounting meeting with a Turkish official
 Volume I, pp. 371-2

• October 7, 1898 • Herzl meeting with German ambassador, Count Philipp Eulenberg
Volume II, p. 691

• October 9, 1898 • Herzl recounting promise to the Grand Duke of Baden
 Volume II, p. 698

• October 31, 1898 • Herzl about his only visit to Jerusalem
 Volume II, p. 747

• May 8, 1901 • Sultan Hamid’s envoy says to Herzl
 Volume III, p. 1093 

• August 11, 1903 • Herzl meeting with Count Witte
 Volume IV, p. 1532

• January 23, 1904 • Herzl meets with the Holy See’s secretary of state, Cardinal Merry del Val
Volume IV, pp. 1593-4

 • January 26, 1904 • Herzl meets with Pope Saint Pius X
  Volume IV, p. 1604 

So much for keeping their word...

...however Israel celebrated Trump’s recognition by 
maintaining ‘the status quo’ as they shelled the 
Gaza Strip (aka concentration camp) like 
they have done so many countless times!

Bombs away!

 Don’t worry though, the Israelis will continue to scapegoat their goy Judas goats for carrying out their machinations for Talmudists are the eternal victims.

The mind of Bergoglio

Jorge Mario Bergoglio Una biographia intellettuale (Jorge Mario 
Bergoglio An Intellectual Biography) by Massimo Borghesi

excerpts from

After the many narrative biographies of Pope Francis, here is the first one that rightly bears the title of “intellectual biography.” Its author, Massimo Borghesi, is professor of moral philosophy at the University of Perugia and has been very close to Jorge Mario Bergoglio since long before he was elected pope, on a par with that circle of friends whose best-known name is that of the vaticanista Andrea Tornielli, all of them belonging to the Roman branch of Communion and Liberation that was headed by the priest Giacomo Tantardini.

But in addition to coming from Borghesi’s pen, this book is also the offspring of the spoken word of Pope Francis himself, who on four occasions - the two most recent being on March 13, 2017, the fourth anniversary of his pontificate - sent to the author audio recordings that are repeatedly cited in the text and all aimed at identifying the sources of his formation.

It is a biography, therefore, that is in part an autobiography as well. And it is motivated precisely by a revelation made here for the first time by Bergoglio himself, according to whom at the origin of his thought is the French Jesuit theologian Gaston Fessard - a brilliant scholar of Hegel without being a Hegelian - with his 1956 book on the “dialectic” of the “Spiritual Exercises” of Saint Ignatius.

It is in fact above all from Fessard - as Borghesi confirms and substantiates - that Bergoglio got his markedly antinomian thinking, so fond of contradictions. But then came other prominent authors to reinforce this way of thinking, Erich Przywara and Henri de Lubac, both of them also Jesuits, Alberto Methol Ferré, an Uruguayan philosopher, and above all, but belatedly, Romano Guardini, with his youthful 1925 essay entitled “Der Gegensatz,” “Polar opposition,” on which Bergoglio wanted to base his doctoral thesis during the few months he spent studying in Germany in 1986, a thesis that was quickly dropped and never written.

Borghesi deftly illustrates the thinking of these great theologians and philosophers. To them he adds, among the inspirations to whom Bergoglio himself says he is a debtor, other first-rate stars like Michel de Certeau and Hans Urs von Balthasar. And he does all he can to demonstrate how in the writings of Bergoglio both far and near in time, before and after his election as pope, the genius of his teachers lives again.
The little known, Fr. Gaston Fessard was a friend of Teilhard de Chardin 
whom he corresponded with as well as Gabriel Marcel, Raymond Aron, 
Emmanuel Mounier, Claude Levy-Strauss among others.  Cardinal Henri 
de Lubac was an admirer.

It is true that Francis himself revealed three years ago, to the Argentine authors of another biography of his, that the chapter of “Evangelii Gaudium” with the four postulates is the transcription of a piece of his uncompleted doctoral thesis on Guardini.

But to see how this student exercise of his - an exercise now upgraded as pontifical magisterium - inevitably falls apart if its is subjected to the slightest elementary analysis, one gets the impression that the gap between Bergoglio and his celebrated teachers is truly very profound:


As for the nature of the Church as "complexio oppositorum,” meaning a combination of institution and event, of mystery/sacrament and word, of individuality and community, of interiority and public worship, the pontificate of Francis shows how he does not at all love this reciprocal enrichment between opposites, but on the contrary wants to suppress or disregard that which in one or the other opposition he sees as static or obsolete. His coldness toward the liturgy is plain for all to see, as is his insensitivity to the category of the beautiful and his underappreciation of doctrine and institution.

It must be said - and Borghesi recognizes this - that Bergoglio has never studied and assimilated the entire work of his teachers, but has only read a few isolated things, taking pointers from them in his own way.

And this explains the nonhomogeneity of his writings, magisterial as well, in which he combines the most diverse materials.

But it explains even more the gaping discrepancy between his illustrious teachers and the concrete figures of whom Pope Francis avails himself as his confidants and ghostwriters: from the Jesuit Antonio Spadaro, a rhetorical yarnspinner, to the Argentine Víctor Manuel Fernández, a theologian with a less than mediocre reputation, who revealed himself to the world with a first work entitled “Sáname con tu boca. El arte de besar,” and yet was encouraged by his friend who had become pope to go so far as to transcribe into “Amoris Laetitia” whole sections of his confused articles from a dozen years before, on family morality.

Another sign of confusion is the equal “preference” that Francis reserves for the two French theologians dearest to him, de Lubac and de Certeau, showing that he is unaware that de Lubac broke with de Certeau, his former pupil, and leveled harsh criticism against him: he accused him of being a “Joachimite” infatuated, like the visionary medieval friar, with a presumed golden age of pure spirit, free from any constraint of the ecclesiastical institution.

Moreover, in the “intellectual biography” of Bergoglio written by Borghesi, there are glaring omissions. There is total silence on Walter Kasper, in spite of the fact that Francis declared himself to be a reader and admirer of his from his first “Angelus” after being elected pope, and then rewarded him with boundless praise - for knowing how to do “theology on one’s knees” - and also promoted him as theologian-guide of the turning points on the matters of marriage and divorce and the primacy of the local Churches over the universal Church.

Nor is there so much as a word on Rodolfo Kusch, the Argentine anthropologist whose concept of people Francis recently said he had assimilated. And this in spite of the fact that in Borghesi’s book there are many pages on Bergoglio’s “populism.”
source: L’Espresso: Settimo Cielo di Sandro Magister, All Bergoglio's Teachers, Even Though He Goes His Own Way

We at Call Me Jorge... would add that this book also leaves out the influence of Chasidic philosophy from which Francis draws heavily.  This shows up most strongly in his regular inversions of the Gospels due to his reading them through Talmudic lenses and when he chastises the common Catholic pewsitter with a verbal barrage (Neopelagian!, Pharisee!, spiritual mummy!, petitioner for certainty in all things! creed reciting parrot Christian!, etc...) for dare resisting his revolutionary changes.  If one is ever confused at what Francis has said, from that he wants “shepherds living with the smell of the sheep” to “But Lord, throw a banana peel in front of them, so that they will take a good fall [into sin]” the place to begin is with the extreme depravity of Hasidism.

More on Francis and Hasidism:

Tuesday, December 5, 2017

Francis receives a tongue lashing from a Cardinal

‘We elected you to make reforms, not to destroy everything.’

Francis had a private audience with this cardinal 
three days after the incident was reported in the media.

Last Friday, Italian Marco Tosatti reported on his blog (bold is ours for emphasis),
“And, if what we have learned from two different sources is true, perhaps it is an annoyance also shared in the Vatican. A cardinal of great renown, an ex-diplomat, and one with an important curriculum as the head of Congregations and other important offices in the Secretariat of State, has reproached the Pope for his actions, saying in essence: ‘We elected you to make reforms, not to smash (destroy) everything.’ The news spread itself around the Vatican because the conversation, if it can be called a conversation, took place at high decibel levels, which overwhelmed the fragile barrier of the doors and the walls. The cardinal in question was one of those who supported the candidacy of Jorge Mario Bergoglio in the conclave of 2013.”

 Cardinal Leonardo Sandri like Francis hails from Argentina.

Today the German website,, identified the mystery cardinal as none other than Francis’ fellow countryman,
“Francis received his compatriot Leonardo Cardinal Sandri. The cardinal, born like Francis in Buenos Aires, is the son of Italian immigrants but seven years younger than the pope. Ordained priest in 1967, he was secretary to the then Archbishop of Buenos Aires and sent to Rome in 1971 to attend the Diplomatic Academy of the Holy See. He joined the State Secretariat in 1974 and served as Apostolic Nuncio in Venezuela from 1997 to 2000, then in Mexico for a few more months, to be appointed as a substitute to the State Secretariat by John Paul II at the end of 2000. As such, he announced in April 2005 the death of the Polish Pope.
In 2007, Pope Benedict XVI appointed him. became Prefect of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches and elevated him to the cardinal's office in the same year. In 2013 he was in the conclave to the voters of his compatriot Jorge Mario Cardinal Bergoglio. One of not a few cardinals who supported the archbishop of Buenos Aires, contrary to the legend, that Bergoglio's election was an uprising against the Roman Curia.”
source:, Franziskus! Wir haben dich nicht gewählt, damit du alles zerstörst

Francis can’t seem to help but sow discord and chaos as he continues on with his revolutionary program.

Who knew that Amoris Laetitia and its fall out would be so entertaining?

Monday, December 4, 2017

The Pope Video — Season 2 Episode 12

The ‘humble’ hypocrite blathers once again...

...which is why Francis said of the Tridentine Latin Mass
“I find that it is rather a kind of fashion [in Czech: 'móda']. And if it is a fashion, therefore it is a matter that does not need that much attention. It is just necessary to show some patience and kindness to people who are addicted to a certain fashion.
and later further explained,
“we can affirm with certainty and with magisterial authority that the liturgical reform is irreversible.”
So much for Francis ‘honoring his elders’ by transmitting the Faith entrusted to him from previous pontiffs.  Instead Francis brainwashes his pewsitters with a man-centered humanistic Noahidism, honoring the type of elder which Jesus warned us not to follow.

John Selden — the Noachide Laws as the basis for International Law

John Selden lived in Renaissance England (1584-1654) during the reigns of Queen Elizabeth I, King James I, King Charles I, the Protector’s Privy Council, and Oliver Cromwell. He was a polymath with a specialty as an English jurist, a Member of Parliament, a scholar who knew Hebrew and possessed a keen interest in rabbinical exegesis.  When he was arrested on charges of conspiracy and sedition against King Charles I and imprisoned in the Tower of London, John chose to pass his time by studying the Babylonian Talmud.  Interestingly, Selden was strongly opposed to Cromwell’s attempt to readmit the Jews into England.  He had a negative attitude toward the Jews, despite being pro-usury and his near obsession with and appreciation of Talmudic rabbinics.  In his six works he often cited Maimonides, Nissim ben Reuven of Girona, Onkelaus, Rabbi Moses Cotzensus, Obadiah ben Abraham Bartenura, etc...  Selden used the Seven Noahide Laws as the basis for international law.  Sir Isaac Newton had copies of John Selden’s works in his library.  Even though he wasn’t a Catholic, his contributions towards the movement and adoption of the anti-biblical and anti-Christian Noahide Laws were so significant we decided to post about them.

John Selden (1584-1654) was, among the men of Renaissance England, the most educated expositor of rabbinic literature. At a time and in a country in which the average man believed Jews to be misanthropic, usurious and dishonorable, John Selden set out to research the sacred texts of rabbinic Judaism with sympathy and interest. He wrote no less than six full-length treatises on rabbinic law. The third of these works, De Jure Naturali et Gentium Juxta Disciplinam Ebreorum (1640), was an examination of the concepts of natural law and the ius gentium as they were taught in the rabbinic tradition.

At the heart of Selden’s presentation is an analysis of the rabbinic concept of the Noahide laws, a code of seven laws which God purportedly gave to mankind at creation. Legend has it that these laws were transmitted to posterity by Noah and his sons after the flood and that they have served ever since as the fundamental moral code that governs all humanity. The laws include six prohibitions and a duty. They are a ban on idolatry, blasphemy, murder, theft, sexual immorality, and a specific form of animal cruelty – the eating of a limb of an animal that is still alive. The one duty included in the list is the injunction that every community should establish a court of law. Selden extrapolates much from these laws and in the course of a digressive work of research into rabbinic lore generates a template for ethics, family law, government, international law and religion (for a rabbinic source on this material see Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkot melakim u-milhamot 8:9-10:12)

This last point – that the Noahide law provided for the religious life of non-Jews – leads to one of the most interesting discussions in the work. Selden believed that the Temple of Jerusalem was designed to permit the children of Noah, that is, the mass of mankind who observe the Noahide commandments, to participate in Temple worship alongside the children of Israel.
source: Library of Congress, John Selden As An Early Modern Maccabee

(click images to enlarge)

 pages 28-29

 page 30

 page 32

 pages 34-35

page 36
source: Jewish Political Studies Review 6:1-2 (Spring 1994), John Selden and the Biblical Origins of the Modern International Political System by Abraham Berkowitz