Bergoglio Attempts to Use the Blessed Virgin Mary to Brown-nose Muslims

Amici, a Chairde,

You-all may have heard that Jorge Bergoglio (styled Pope Francis by the world's bishops) has come up with an idea to use the Blessed Virgin Mary as a tool to somehow make friendly with Islam. When I first heard of it, I thought yep, another utterly idiotic Bergoglian attempt brown-nose   Muslims, as apparently the Abu Dhabi Declaration a couple of years ago wasn't enough brown-nosing for him. (Bergi's attempts at brown-nosing Rome's Jewish leadership a couple of years ago got him a sharp smack-down for his efforts. They were happy with the photo op, but rebuffed him when he proposed a commission to study religious issues.)

But then I read this important Raymond Ibrahim article linked to above. Yes, I know a lot about Al-Islam, and I know Muhammad is portrayed as a sex-crazed maniac, endlessly copulating in the Islamic carnal "Garden of Allah" afterlife. FYI: formal Muslim teaching: Allah himself is supposed to make the libido of any Muslim man many, many times greater than any non-Muslim man, and if one is admitted to the Garden of Allah, one spends eternity in endless copulation with 72 virgins, as one is helpless to do anything else. (Their virginity is magically renewed while you sleep off your exertions, and the women folk you had in life have to look on your sexual feats all day.)

And I know that, as Ibrahim writes in the article above, "Islam does not treat Biblical characters the way Christianity does." If you ever take the time to read the Koran, trust me, you'll not be impressed, that is if you can make your way through the constant confusion, endless repetitive verbiage and bowdlerized Biblical stories. But even I, Ibn Donud al-Karul, didn't know about Muhammad's sexual boasting regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Any Catholic (or concerned Christian) needs to read Ibrahim's article. Understand: Bergoglio is stressing using the Blessed Virgin Mary to cuddle up to Islam, but Islam teaches Muhammad boasts he'll be (the Arabic word translates as the usual coarse English word for brutal intimate-sexual-relations contact) the B.V.M. in the next life. Yes, this was apparently a Muhammadan boast. This whole idea of Bergoglio's is thus beyond obscene. (N.B. She has been appearing in Muslim lands, esp Egypt, but she's on a Crusade – to coin a term – for conversion, and to support beleaguered Christians.)

And I mean this boast of Muhammad is apparently a well-established Muhammadan hadith. I quote from the article:

Nor is this just some random, obscure hadith.  None other than Dr. Salem Abdul Galil — previously deputy minister of Egypt's religious endowments for preaching — affirmed its canonicity in 2017 during a live televised Arabic-language program.  Among other biblical women (Moses's sister and Pharaoh's wife), "our prophet Muhammad — prayers and be upon him — will be married to Mary in paradise," Galil said.  

If few Christians today know about this Islamic claim, medieval Christians living in Muslim-occupied nations were certainly aware of it.  There, Muslims regularly threw this fantasy in the face of Catholic and Orthodox Christians who venerated Mary as the "Eternal Virgin."  Thus, Eulogius of Cordoba, an indigenous Christian of Muslim-occupied Spain, once wrote, "I will not repeat the sacrilege which that impure dog [Muhammad] dared proffer about the Blessed Virgin, Queen of the World, holy mother of our venerable Lord and Savior. He claimed that in the next world he would deflower her."

"Ibn Donud" again:

Enough is enough. Write your bishop; send him a copy of this article linked to above, if possible, but at least provide the link, etc., and simply demand – for the honor of God and our Notre Dame – that the bishop repudiate this move of Bergoglio's.

And basically, this whole spiel about there being a "dialogue" between the "three Abrahamic faiths" is nonsense because neither Jews nor Muslims (committed ones) WANT such an exchange! Jews loathe Christianity precisely because it is attractive enough to turn Saul of Tarsus into St. Paul! Ditto with Islam. They therefore want to keep Christianity at arm's length, and weak and divided, withered and dwindling.

And that in turn is because Christianity has a much stronger "narrative" (it's called "the Gospel") than either Judaism or Islam has. In Christianity, God is the Absolute Being of the Philosophers, but all absolute love, as well, and the Logos, the Logos – the Word of Creation Who became a human being to elevate, to recreate ("you are a new creation in Christ" as St. Paul continuously writes) humanity, in order to save some of humanity, i.e. those who freely embrace Him and who participate in His New Covenant, the Most Holy Eucharist.

That's infinitely better than Judaism with its 613 laws to follow, it's you-have-to-be-born-of-a-Jewish-mother-to-be-a-Jew, its unique blend of nationalism, tribalism, and religion, and of course the Gospel is a heck of a lot better than Al-Islam, the Submission to a sexual maniac prophet of a chaotic deity that resembles Azathoth, the insane Lovecraftian deity, far more than anything resembling the God of either the Old or New Testaments.

1. This is "the Kicker" about ecumenicism.
   
2. The major teaching, thought, concern, notion, focus of Jews is pure survival.
   
3. Their long history is full of people trying to kill them off or convert then to paganism, and now they're sandwiched between Christianity and Islam.
   
4. They are NOT going to "dialogue", not remotely.
   
5. And of course Islam is Christianity's "kill shot", denying directly the Incarnation and condemning the Jewish/Christian Covenant teaching, that God enters into treaties, contracts, covenants, with creation and humanity. 

Bergoglio is an aging avatar of the '60s, thinking '60s thoughts, praying in the very 60s/70s dated Novus Ordo, and still following the ecumenical will-o-wisp. It's pathetic, really.

A word about the Jews...

I can't imagine how the Jews (i.e., Jewish religious leadership of the various Jewish sects) would react to this idea of Bergoglio's. As noted above, he tried to get too chummy with the local Roman Jewish leaders and they gave him the shove. And as I detail above, they do NOT want to get too chummy with Christians – they're are ever, always, eternally afraid of conversion.

Also, they have lost respect for Catholicism. That's to be expected when you apologize to someone repeatedly about something you're not guilty of. In Strasbourg in March of 1988, John Paul II issued a massive apology to Jews, despite the fact that on 6 September 1938, Pius XI asserted: "Antisemitism is unacceptable. Spiritually, we are all Semites". ("Spiritually, we are all Semites" was a famous papal statement, indeed.) Then Pius XII, in his very first Encyclical, Summi Pontificatus of 20 October 1939, warned against theories which denied the unity of the human race and against the deification of the State, all of which he saw as leading to a real ‘hour of darkness’.

So John Paul's apology achieved what, exactly? Pretty much it forbade Catholics from witnessing to Jews, something that would have absolutely horrified St. Paul, who clearly taught that Jews who didn't accept Christ would be eternally lost. (Read Paul in Romans or Galatians for that.)

In December 2015 two important religious documents appeared: the Orthodox Rabbinic Statement on Christianity, which was issued by 25 rabbis, as well as the document about the Christian-Jewish Dialogue that was created by the Papal Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, the latter being issued exactly fifty years after the Vatican II Council’s declaration, starting with the words Nostra Aetate, ‘On the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions’.

The Jewish statement is long, but here is an example; the rabbis write:

2.    We recognize that since the Second Vatican Council the official teachings of the Catholic Church about Judaism have changed fundamentally and irrevocably. The promulgation of Nostra Aetate fifty years ago started the process of reconciliation between our two communities. Nostra Aetate and the later official Church documents it inspired unequivocally reject any form of antisemitism, affirm the eternal Covenant between G-d and the Jewish people, reject deicide and stress the unique relationship between Christians and Jews, who were called ‘our elder brothers’ by Pope John Paul II and ‘our fathers in faith’ by Pope Benedict XVI. On this basis, Catholics and other Christian officials started an honest dialogue with Jews that has grown during the last five decades. We appreciate the Church’s affirmation of Israel’s unique place in sacred history and the ultimate world redemption. Today Jews have experienced sincere love and respect from many Christians that have been expressed in many dialogue initiatives, meetings and conferences around the world.

Oh? Church teaching has changed fundamentally and irrevocably?

Basically, the rabbis deny the entire foundation of Christianity, in that there's no New Covenant, but rather that the old covenant between God and the Jews is eternal. They clearly reject the Christian teaching that the Old Covenant has been transfigured ("transubstantiated", one might say) from the Passover Seder to the Holy Eucharist. The many rabbis who signed this statement clearly understand that the Catholic Church no longer tries to convert Jews (the Vatican had had an office just for the purpose of converting Jews, but that was dissolved after Vatican II). The rabbis wrote:

6.    Our partnership in no way minimizes the ongoing differences between the two communities and two religions. We believe that G-d employs many messengers to reveal His truth, while we affirm the fundamental ethical obligations that all people have before G-d that Judaism has always taught through the universal Noahide covenant.

(N.B. The Noahide covenant is a Jewish interpretation of God's commands to Noah post Flood, which the Jews have developed into a scheme that allows non-Jews some sort of participation in the afterlife. I've been assured by Jews online that we goyim have a place in Heaven if we keep the Noahide covenant, but NOT if we try to convert Jews; I've been told very clearly that any Christian who tries to convert a Jew – whether successful or not – will go to the deepest part of Hell. That's where the former Saul of Tarsus is, per Jewish teaching. Think about it. (Yeah, we can dialogue with these guys. /sarc)

So, we're "partners" now, not adversaries. The same sort of "ecumenicism" permeated all of Vatican II concerning Protestants. But the basic human psychology of it is devastating. Not only does the Church no longer teach that one has to partake of the Most Holy Eucharist to be saved (see St. John's Gospel, chapter 6, or the Institution narratives, or St. Paul in 1 Cor 11, etc., etc.), but the Church has clearly said one doesn't have to even acknowledge Christ to be saved. The Church apparently now formally sees everyone (ultimately, of course, Hindus and Buddhists, etc., as well) as all having their place in the Divine scheme of things, and of course that's the same teaching Bergoglio signed onto with the Abu Dhabi Declaration between the Church and Islam (signed February 4, 2019). 

Psychologically speaking, who wants to belong to a Church (or any institution) that is so hopelessly bowing and scraping to all and sundry? Especially when the all and sundry just laugh at them for being so milquetoast? As a great friend of mine, a classic New York Jew he was, too, taught me: never apologize! His example was if your wife walks in on you and the maid in bed, you stoutly assert that you were looking for the salad fork! :D (When his brother married a "Jewish princess", he told me, the fountains of the Savoy in Manhattan flowed champagne. But he married a Puerto Rican, and his family disowned him.)

Needless to say, none of this is Biblical Christianity as revealed by the Church's teaching for the past two millennia, none of it is Catholicism in all of the Church's teaching (East and West) for the past 2,000 (minus 60) years, and though it is "warm and fuzzy" for aging hippies like Bergi, it results in Christians being mocked by Jews and Muslims. Why? We clearly no longer believe what we've said was absolute dogma for two millennia.

So, finally, the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Jews? How's that going to help?

The Jews were the Chosen People precisely to be the Womb of the Messiah. The most important Jew who ever lived, and the single most important human being ever born, was a teenage Jewish girl in the backwater town in a backwater province of a backwater of the Roman Empire. It was for that girl that all the generations of Jews – and before them the Israelites, on back to the Hebrews to Abraham, and on back to God promising the Fallen Eve that He would rise up from her seed one who wold crush the serpent's head. For that teenage Jewish girl freely undid the "no" of sinful Eve.

Trying telling the rabbis that, and see how far it gets you.

Finally, with the Jews, so many sects exist today (they had four major ones even in Christ's earthly days, remember: Sadducees, Pharisees, Zealots, and Essenes), and after all, a large portion of Jews today aren't "religious" (as they themselves say), such that you never know where you are with them. There's an old saying, "You have three Jews; you have four opinions." Any rabbi can say X, another can say Y, and you can chose between them. Really, they're more like Protestants than even the Muslims are. (Well, I suppose that's a toss up.) In general, of course, despite His Mother's status as being a Jew, they deny Christ being even a prophet, which the Muslims have traditionally taught. Still less do they teach He is Yeshua Hamashiach, Jesus the Messiah. In fact, they have traditionally taught the worst sort of things about Yeshua of Nazareth, that he was drunk and a charlatan. The Talmud was created post-70 A.D. in part to argue against Christianity.

So bringing His Mother into that is going to help, how?

All a fevered dream of an old "spirit of Vatican II" hippie. Write your bishop and do not tolerate it. Enough is enough.

An Préachán