Pope Picks 15 New Cardinals Reflecting Diversity

New York Times, January 4, 2015

Pope Francis named 15 new cardinals Sunday, selecting them from 14 nations including far-flung corners of the world such as Tonga, New Zealand, Cape Verde and Myanmar to reflect the diversity of the church and its growth in places like Asia and Africa compared to affluent regions.

Other cardinals hail from Ethiopia, Thailand and Vietnam.

None came from the United States and only three European nations received new cardinals–Portugal and Spain in addition to Italy. Cape Verde, Tonga and Myanmar gained cardinals for the first time.

Francis told faithful in St. Peter’s Square that the new batch of cardinals “shows the inseparable tie with the church of Rome to churches in the world.”

Five new cardinals come from Europe, three from Asia, three from Latin America, including Mexico, and two each come from Africa and Oceania.

With his picks, the Argentine-born Francis, the first pontiff from Latin America, made ever clearer that he is laying out a new vision of the church’s identity, including of its hierarchy. He looked beyond traditional metropolitan area for the “princes of the church” who will help advise him as goes forward with church reforms. Cardinals also elect his successor.

He has said repeatedly that the church must reach out to those on the margins.

The Vatican’s chief spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said the selection “confirms that the pope doesn’t feel tied to the traditional ‘cardinal sees,’ which reflected historic reasons in various countries.”


The pontiff ignored another tradition: limiting to 120 the number of cardinals under 80 and eligible to vote for his successor.

Counting the new cardinals, 125 cardinals will eligible to vote, although Lombardi noted, “he kept very close to it (120), so it was substantially respected.”


Notable among Pope Francis’ picks are churchmen whose advocacy styles seem to particularly capture matters dear to his heart.

Monsignor Francesco Montenegro, a Sicilian, was at his side when Francis made his first trip a few months into his papacy. Montenegro welcomed the pontiff to Lampedusa, a tiny Sicilian island whose people have helped thousands of migrants stranded by smugglers. The pontiff has repeatedly denounced human trafficking and urged more attention to people on the margins of society. He also has thundered against Mafiosi, and Montenegro’s Agrigento diocese includes towns where people have dared to rebel against Cosa Nostra.

The only native English-language speaker chosen by Francis is Archbishop John Atcherley Dew of Wellington, New Zealand. Summing up his own intervention at last year’s Vatican conference on controversial family issues, including gay marriage and divorced Catholics, Dew has said the church must change its language to give “hope and encouragement.”


Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • MekongDelta69

    Repeat after me, Pope:
    DIE-veristy is our strength”

  • superlloyd

    The cultural marxist Pope.

    • Cid Campeador

      I always wondered about the Gospel where Jesus is quoted as saying,”It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven”

      That sounded like something from The Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital.

      • Sick of it

        Really? Consider the poor preachers of the gospel who spread the faith all over the Earth. Then consider the disgustingly wealthy people at the Vatican who do everything they can to destroy it.

  • John Smith

    I am not religious.

    But this is not good for the white world. Eventually there will be virtually no white Cardinals.

    Obviously, this is more symbolic than anything.

    But unless we get things straightened out…soon…this is just another of many symptoms of our gradual, insidious dispossession, displacement and eventual extinction.

    • Bossman

      Seeing a black man dressed as a bishop of Rome makes Christianity ever more meaningless.

      • Reynardine

        We’ll see a black man as pope because a Hispanic opened those doors.


        • Americaandthewestshouldbewhite

          Sad but true.

  • D.B. Cooper

    A Nostradamus watercolor, possibly depicting women turning their back on the Catholic church.

    • John

      Nostradamus was a Brew.

    • LHathaway

      Western woman find the followers of the Prophet much more vibrant and interesting.

      • Bossman

        The followers of the Prophet believe that women’s place is in the kitchen and they should be whipped from time to time when they talk back or don’t behave properly.

        • Reynardine

          Unlike our great hispanic culture that believes a woman’s place is in the kitchen and she should be whipped from time to time when she talks back or doesn’t behave properly.

          (your grammar, as always, is atrocious).

          • Bossman

            If my grammar is “atrocious” why are you repeating my statement verbatim without any quotes around it and in many cases making it your own. Correct me if you can.

          • Because your statements are so laughably idiotic that the best way to mock them, and point out the utterly ridiculous nature of most, is simply to repeat them.

            You’re a brown joke, but no one is laughing. Noone is buying the junk that you’re selling, and no matter how often you make negative comments about negroes, you and your kind will never be accepted as anything other than the unwashed filthy brown unskilled invaders that you are.

            I get that its hard to accept, but simply being a rung above negroes on the evolutionary ladder doesnt make you equal to the races who long ago stepped off the ladder and into the elevator.

          • ElComadreja

            Blacks and Hispanics are notorious for having a low opinion of and abusing women.

        • LHathaway

          And yet, affirmative action females in the west are marrying them left and right. It’s not that he is more than worthy of an affirmative action job himself (heck, we’re all angry about the whole thing) it’s that they share similar interests.

  • Mary

    This is unsurprising, of course. The increasingly post-Christian West will be playing a smaller role in the increasingly post-Catholic Roman Catholic church. Somehow I doubt those third worlders Pope Francis champions so vigorously will be contributing very handsomely to the coffers that are valued so much.

  • David Ashton

    Theoretically the Church is open to “all nations” but this is just another example of the Nincompope’s fashionable PC posturing as he finishes the slicing of the branch on which the Papacy rests begun after Vatican 2. “Europe is the Faith” (Belloc).

    • Kenner

      ‘Nincompope’– ‘Francis the Talking Pope’….tsk tsk. — Is that any way to speak of our first female pope?

      • David Ashton

        Nice frock – who needs lesbian priestesses when you’ve got him?

        • Kenner

          He’s the first female pope the way Clinton was the first black president. Essence.

  • jayvbellis

    The tops of all tax exempt “Christian” in name only are all going anti White traitors.

    It’s not just this hideous anti White, pro Muslim, Liberation Theology Catholic Pope.

    The head of the Southern Baptists is Black African American, pro Sharpton, pro Trayvon.

    At’s life.

    Occident Dissent readers made the new anti White Pope, international traitor of the year….

    So go local.

    Small is beautiful.

    • Weisheit77

      Could you provide me with a few terms to google to back up your contention about the Southern Baptist leader. I grew up in the SB church but have been an apostate for two decades now. I’d just like to have the information because it would be hilarious! I remember the SB church that was riding high during the faux-conservative mood in the country during the Reagan era.

      • Katherine McChesney

        Fred Luter is the first black to lead the Southern Baptist Church. That denomination is Freemasonic and were members of the KKK. They hated blacks. Now, to keep their denomination from dying they’re pandering to blacks.

        • jayvbellis

          Pandering to Blacks and accepting the cultural Marxist PC lie that White people are evil and the cause of everything bad, this DOES NOT keep any denomination from dying.

          PC, anti White mainline Protestant Churches are the the ones dying.

          • Katherine McChesney

            “PC, anti White mainline Protestant Churches are the the ones dying.”

            Yes, they are. Furthermore, they’re no longer Christian either.

    • Sick of it

      You mean random people in charge of random organizations that actually do not influence the rank and file Baptist churches? Spoken like someone who knows nothing of Southern Baptists.

  • jayvbellis

    The White Romans should have thrown all these people to the lions.

    Wouldn’t it be great if there were still European lions and our bibles were the Iliad and the Aeneid ?


    Might Thor doesn’t turn the other cheek.

    • Bossman

      What about Zeus who liked to rape pretty boys?

      • Reynardine

        Are you saying Zeus is Hispanic?

        • Kenner

          No, that’s Jesus.

      • jayvbellis

        Zeus had a very, very small following, same as Brahma.

        The popular White gods were younger gods of action Thor, Vishnu.

        Also, female Gods were fun, sexy Diana goddess of the hunt was/is a good one.

        Just Remember we have religious choices. The choice isn’t between corrupt, anti White forms Judeo Christianity and being atheist , giving up and accepting being conquered and enslaved again by Islam.

        Sun worshipping, Nature worshipping is very White – we prefer beautiful trees to millions of bad NW a Third World people.

        • Bryce Armstrong

          Diana the goddess of the who prayed to Zeus that she would remain virgin her entire life and killed men for coming on to her?

          Also the Roman weren’t feeding Christians to lions, its just them trying to get in on the grievance racket.

  • TomIron361

    As a Catholic, I’m sick to my stomach when I see our leadership at every level of our church – rotten to the core.

    • See The Future

      As they have been for generations and generations before that.

      Stop donating and attending.

      • TomIron361

        More or less, I have left. But my wife is a devout Catholic and involved in certain groups in the church. While I’m old (71), I’m in good physical condition from a life of hard physical labor and I’m the only man around who can and will do physical work for these mostly women’s groups. I must support my wife’s activities. When I’m around, for the most part I never see the priests. That’s because there’s actual hands on work happening. Every so often I do go to some sort of shindig one of these groups is sponsoring. When I do, I hate seeing how the women gather around these no good priests like they were something special. I tell my wife this, but there’s no getting through to a former Catholic (12 yrs of school and 2yrs of Catholic nursing school) school girl.

      • Katherine McChesney

        They have been for CENTURIES. A murderous institution which genocided true Christians who refused to bow to the pope.

  • IstvanIN

    I see this from two sides:
    1) Cardinals from Tonga or Burma should probably be Tongan or Burmese.
    2) The more non-White Cardinals the more likely there will be a non-White Pope. That would be tragic.

    • Americaandthewestshouldbewhite

      That is his plan, to have a non white successor. God forbid if it is a black man.

      • See The Future

        You can almost guarantee this will happen.

      • Speedy Steve

        There is an Ethiopian Cardinal (which is ironic since they are primarily Orthodox) so there’s a distinct possibility.

    • See The Future

      There will be no more popes.

  • John

    The Catholic church basically committed suicide when they approved Vatican II back in the 60s and didn’t even realize it. They essentially threw several hundred years and quite a few Saints under the bus so to speak in order to pander to the Jews. The final draft of this document was largely influenced by one Jules Issac who demanded of the council, among other things,
    “The assertion that Jews are not responsible for the Death of Christ, for which the responsibility falls on humanity;
    – The removal or annulment of those
    Evangelical passages which mention the crucial episode of the Passion,
    and in particular that of St. Matthew whom Jules Isaac coldly treats as a
    liar and falsifier;
    – That the Church confess to shoulder all
    the wrongs that for two thousand years persist in a state of latent war
    between Jews and Christians and other men;”

    Yeah. Right. This pope is representative of the post Vatican II intellect that is driving the church and its policies today. With these thoughts in mind, the above article comes as no surprise. Should you care to research this issue further or verify my statements, they come from a 2 part article posted on the Occidental Observer’s website in 2013. Just do a search for “Vatican II” and it pops right up.

    • Katherine McChesney

      Rome killed Jesus Christ.

      • phillyguy

        Come on Katherine, your sounding like a follower of Jules Isaac, but I still love ya.

      • John

        Can’t ague that. But who, may I ask you was behind the crucifixion to begin with? Who was doing all the howling for Christ’s head on a platter or whatever the Romans would do? The crucifixion experts of course. Jesus did nothing that would have ticked off Rome. If you know any Roman history, especially their philosophy for governing, you’d realize this is true. You can see the modern version of this phenomena daily. Right now we see Rep. Scalise being crucified in the Brew media because he “allegedly” passed gas at a David Duke endorsed beer bash or some such nonsense. Once again, the more things change, the more they remain the same. Or more to the point “Jesus wept”.

        • Rhialto

          According to my copy of the Bible, Christ Jesus was killed as a Sacrifice for the sins of all men. Those who put their sins under His blood will be forgiven of their sins. This is basic Christian dogma.

          Only the Temple priests had Divine authorization to perform these sacrifices, but these priests were forbidden to kill humans. To finesse this roadblock, the priests got the Romans to perform the execution.

          • Johnny Harper

            The Jewish leadership (who were appointment by Rome) were against any insurrectionists.

            They thought Jesus was an insurrectionist after his Temple behavior. They went to have him executed due to this. Many thousands were crucified during this period of time. Pilate had no qualms of in crucifying tons of other Jews.

            The Pontius Pilate story was later modified to absolve Rome of some of the responsibility, since they non Jewish Christians needed to spread the religion inside of Rome/Greek lands.

            Not that complicated.

          • John

            Let’s see if I interpret this correctly… “The Jewish leadership…” otherwise known as the “Pharisees” then, known as “rabbis” today were opposed to Jesus’ “insurrection”. In other words, they didn’t like it when he questioned their authority, just as today’s rabbis . Autocratic little dictators, just like today’s rabbis. So they maneuvered someone else to do their dirty work… the crucifixion… because at that point they hadn’t fully mastered the false flag approach preferred in contemporary scenarios because there is more “plausible deniability”. Briefly, then, “not that complicated”. Yet another example of the more things change, the more they remain the same.

          • Johnny Harper


            The Gospels that were accepted at the Council of Nicea glossed over the differences between the Jewish sects.

            They were something like the Sunnis, Shias and Sufis in Islam. They didn’t get along.

            The Saduccees, Pharisees and Essenes didn’t get along with each other.

            The people who gave up Jesus were the “Saduccees” or temple leadership. They were appointed by the Romans due to Judea being occupied.

            The Pharisees were actually poorer Jews who hated the Saduccees who were seen as rich.

            There is speculation that Jesus was an Essene Jew.

            That is why the “Dead Sea Scrolls” were so controversial after being discovered in the 1940s.

            Also, there were 100s of Gospels. Many of them contradicted each other. The 4 Gospels in the NT were decided upon at the Council of Nicea.

            Who is to say the Gospels of the Ebionites (who were descendants of the actual Apostles of Jesus under the Jerusalem Church) wasn’t correct?

            A White Nationalist shouldn’t worship a Jewish Jesus then turn around and hate Jews. That is illogical.

            Maybe you should consider Thor or Zeus.

        • Cid Campeador

          Speaking of Scalise, did anyone see the O’Reilly interview with David Duke on the “Factor”.
          O’Reilly lambasted Duke (who as all Bill’s interviewees, barely got in a word), trying to indict him with the charge of Championing the rights of “Euro-Americans” as though it were a major atrocity.
          Bill came off as the Horse’s Ass that he really is.
          The segment before that had him declaring that Black Males commit more violent crimes than do White Males.
          HE suddenly decided to score some kiss up points; with whom i don’t know by savaging David Duke.
          Anytime the left needs an odious ICON of racism and hatred, the only person they can produce is David Duke.
          I’ve read his writings and he’s not what they’d really want him to be.

          • jayvbellis

            I thought Duke did well. He always does.

            Duke’s strong campaigns in the early 1990s has resulted in Louisiana and much of the South enacting Duke’s program, ending affirmative action, lowering the Black welfare birth rate, providing educational options besides terrible Black terrorized schools and defending White European Christian culture, opposing the war against Christmas.

            Duke was also right opposing Neo a con wars against Serbia, Russia, Iraq, Serbia, Iran.

            Duke was right…

            Yeah, he obsesses too much about the tribe,, gives Muslisms a free pass but no one is perfect.

            Thank you David Duke.

          • John

            I didn’t see it but I can say with certainty that David Duke was not on the program with him. To get an idea what would have happened to O’Reilly had this been the case, go to YouTube, search for “Duke vs. Blitzer” and watch that. As I said on these pages a few days ago, Dr. Duke hands Wolfie his rear end in this “interview”.

            “… decided to score some kiss up points; with whom i don’t know…”. His paymasters, who else?

        • Sick of it

          If anything, Jesus was the model citizen Rome would have wanted. It was the incestuous madmen who started the murder of Christians throughout Rome. Probably because they told the Emperor “you shouldn’t stick it to your sister”…

      • Winston_Jack

        Rome was merely the enforcer of the laws of the land in this
        case. The New Testament, (Book of Matthew) makes it pretty damn clear who vociferously agitated to have Jesus killed.

        And He tells us exactly what he thinks about them in John 8:44.

        Your statement is equivalent to blaming the weapon used instead of the murderer.

      • Johnny Harper

        Actually that is correct.

        Rome with the leadership of some of the Jewish temple authorities (who were under the control and supported by Rome). These were the same authorities that the masses of Jews turned on during the revolt against Rome that led to the destruction of the Temple.

        If the “Jews” collectively “killed Jesus”, then how come all of his apostles were Jews? Jesus himself was a “Jew”.

        Ergo, it is illogical to blame the “Jew” as a whole for the death of another Jew, whose “religion” continued due to his Jewish followers.

        The non Jewish Christians came many years later. There were no non Jewish Christians until well after Jesus’s death.

        In fact, the Jerusalem Church was run by Jews full until the destruction of the Temple.

        • Winston_Jack

          “Jesus himself was a “Jew”.”

          Wrong. Jesus was definitely NOT a Jew, and neither were his disciples. The term “Jew” didn’t appear in the English
          language until about the 12th century, and can be a mistranslation
          for Judahite.

          Judea and Galilee were two separate states and political
          entities. Jesus Himself was not a Jew (Judean) or resident of Judea, He was a Galilean or resident of Galilee (Matthew 26:69; John 7:41), and a Judahite or descendent of the Tribe of Judah. The Judeans (Jews) of prominence were not of the Tribe of Judah, but of Edomites.
          Pilate was being ironic when he wrote the sign “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Judeans” for the Cross (John 19:19). That is, “the Galilean who was King of the Judeans,” as in “Queen Victoria of England, Empress of India.” Jesus grew up in Nazareth in Galilee. His disciples were fishermen from the Sea of Galilee. And
          although He visited Jerusalem, he spent most of His life in his home country of Galilee. John 7:1, “After this Jesus stayed in Galilee; for He could not walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him.” His followers were constrained “for fear of the Jews” (John 7:13, 19:38, 20:19).

      • Cid Campeador

        The Pharisees and Sadducees saw Jesus as a threat to their “thing”.
        Pontio Pilato was trying to preserve his political appointment. By his showing lenience to Jesus it would have caused the indigenous population to rise up and the he would have had to answer to his superiors in Rome thereby ending his career. Diplomatic Duty in Judea was not a plum to be coveted.

      • Speedy Steve

        Only because the pharisees were too lazy to do it themselves.

    • DD-762

      As a former devout Roman Catholic, I consider the Church about as relevant as the British Royal Family.

      I follow Jesus as per the Gospels…period. How many times do we need the Gospels interpreted for us? The more I hear from the Vatican, the more complicated Christianity appears, IMHO.

  • Tarczan

    Pope Francis tweeted that “inequality is the root of social evil”. Not sin, but lack of material things. He is a dim-witted Marxist who will no doubt do his best to wreck the Church, ala Obama.

  • ZB01

    Francis is not Catholic, and therefore, is an anti-pope.

  • Americaandthewestshouldbewhite

    Read the book ‘The prophesy of Bella Dodd’ and it tells you how Bella Dodd was introduced to communism when she attended all women’s college in NYC and met Russian tribeswomen who were her teachers. She then tells how when she lost favor with her commie friend they threw her under the bus and then she goes back to the Catholic Church and becomes a Catholic again. She even tells Bishop Sheen that she was accused of being against the Negro and that is why they threw her under the bus. She even admits to the US Congress that she helped various communist priests become cardinals in the 30s. No wonder they ushered Vatican-2 and we have this mess.

  • Americaandthewestshouldbewhite

    The Cardinal from Chicago is a horrible choice.

  • Americaandthewestshouldbewhite

    Due to all the nonsense that goes on in the church, by that I mean welcoming third worlders, endorsing DIE-versity and multiculturalism and also other anti white stuff, I do not feel like going to church. However I feel that just because the priests and the other clergy make mistakes, I should not be angry with God and I still attend. I know other that have stopped attending church because of these and other reason.

    • See The Future

      The church has long been the tool to control the masses.

    • Screamin_Ruffed_Grouse

      I’m never angry with God, but churches are not His institutions, they are mens’. Made by men, for men. The Almighty has no need for them. Turns out, that’s something He and I have in common, actually.

  • BulgAryan

    How old is your Church?

    If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.

    If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to re-marry.

    If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.

    If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.

    If you are Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England, founded by Samuel Senbury in the American colonies in the 17th century.

    If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1606.

    If you are of the Dutch Reformed Church, you recognize Michelis Jones as founder because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.

    If you are a Methodist, your religion was founded by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1774.

    If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, New York, in 1829.

    If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

    If you are Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.

    If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as “Church of the Nazarene, Pentecostal Gospel,” “Holiness Church,” or “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past hundred years.

    If you are Roman Catholic, your church shared the same rich apostolic and doctrinal heritage as the Orthodox Church for the first thousand years of its history, since during the first millennium they were one and the same Church. Lamentably, in 1054, the Archbishop (Pope) of Rome broke away from the other four Apostolic Patriarchates (which include Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem), by tampering with the Original Creed of the Church, and considering himself to be infallible. Thus your church is just short of 1,000 years old.

    If you are Eastern Orthodox Christian, your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ, the Son of God. It has not changed since that time. Our church is now almost 2,000 years old. And it is for this reason, that Eastern Orthodoxy, the Church of the Apostles and the Fathers is considered the true “one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”

    • Americaandthewestshouldbewhite

      You got the last part wrong buddy, It was the Orthodox Churches that broke away from the Catholic church.

      • BulgAryan

        No desire of getting into ecclesial squabbling with a White brother, just two words: Filioque and Papal Infallibility and a picture: the Pope bowing in front of the Ecumenical Patriarch (never vice versa).

        • Americaandthewestshouldbewhite

          this pope is like Obama, bowing down in front of others and embarrasing the faith.

      • BulgAryan

        here’s the pic:

    • Anne T. Lincoln

      I might not share your view of history, if I were knowledgeable enough, but I have a favorable impression of the orthodox sects. I know someone who married a Greek Orthodox, and I loved the priest’s attitude, basically, we’ve been doing it this way for 2000 years, and if you don’t like it, screw!

    • Katherine McChesney

      Jesus did not found the Roman Catholic church as it was founded in 325AD by Constantine LONG AFTER Jesus died and was resurrected.

    • Johnny Harper

      That is untrue.

      The Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches weren’t founded until 325AD at the Council of Nicea.

      The whole “Christian” religion was actually Jewish. All of Jesus’s apostles were Jews. He only preached to Jews, etc. Jesus himself was a Jew who only came for the “house of Israel”, which was clearly mentioned in the Gospels.

      The “Jewish” Christians (aka Ebionites) were the actual founders of the Jerusalem Church that was the beginning of the “Christian” religion. They codified their texts in the Ebionite Gospels, which were later destroyed at the Council of Nicea (along with the Gnostic Gospels).

      Only later did the “Christian” church become non Jewish after the destruction of the Jewish Temple.

      The Gospels were only codified in 325AD at the Council of Nicea. This is where they did away with 100s of Gospels they didn’t “approve of” and only accepted the few that fit their idea of Jesus.

      The Eastern Church was part of the Eastern Roman Empire.

  • Chris R

    I turned away from the Catholic Church a long time ago. Not because of this but because I stopped believing in a god invented by the big book of Jewish myths. Christianity and its universalist turn the other cheek message is not our friend. Christianity is an import from the Middle East. It was never truly ours. It has been a part of our history and influenced a great deal of our culture. But the West is a Greek and Roman creation, not of the “Judeo-Christian tradition.” I feel no attachment to it and would rather see an atheist Europe before letting these people poison any more European minds.

    • Pro-Apartheid

      Congratulations, you are a Kaffir.

      • Germanic Depressive

        How do you figure?

        • Pro-Apartheid

          Go look up the origin of that word then you will understand.

    • Sick of it

      You’re getting exactly what you want, but it’s leading to the extermination of white people. Good job.

    • BlueSonicStreak

      This comment is two weeks old; but it is reflective of SO much of my own feelings about Christianity that I had to stop by and say, “right on.”

  • Germanicus

    Could the diversified picks for Cardinals concede a Realbiologik of ethnostatism? A battle, not a new one, has culminated in this Vatican II phase of Church history. This all affects you whether you have anything formally to do with the Church or not. At stake in this pitched battle is whether the Church–and the World–to be guided by an Aristotelian and Thomistic framework. For those who may be unfamiliar with the term, “Thomism” refers to the philosophical tradition originating with the13th Century philosopher and theologian, Thomas Aquinas. Thomas is one of the Church’s canonized Saints and is also considered by the Church to be its most revered human Doctor of Theology. Aquinas synthesized the known philosophical understanding of the world at the time. One could say that he is primarily an Aristotelian. This is not to say that he did not benefit from his penetrating understanding of Plato or that he failed to effectively incorporate Platonic notions of the ideal. Thomas, a Dominican, did not seem to get along well with certain Franciscans at the University of Paris and was canned twice. Had Thomas’ influence not prevailed, I doubt that we would have had a scientifically, politically and spiritually developed Western
    Civilization that developed when it did. Catholicism would have been a scripture-only version of the Church. Essentially, it would have in certain ways proceeded along the lines of protestantism. I can hear my separated brethren saying “Yeah! Wouldn’t it have been great!” But I do not think so. Aristo-Thomism is precisely what enables Christianity
    to engage any possible comers in a philosophical dialogue. The Aristotelian and other philosophical skeleton provides not only a rational scaffolding for the adroit muscular movements that Christianity can exert, but it also serves as a bridge which enables the Church to think and to communicate with other modes of thought without losing its essence. I multiple areas of politics it has been observed that the protestant reliance on a forensic version of sola scriptura, even in political and technical contexts, is utterly
    ineffective. The Jesuits, the order to which Pope Francis belongs, has had a rocky history of travel with Thomism. Pope Francis has excelled at–with seeming intentionality–eschewing the kind of clarity that one expects from a well-trained Thomist. He appears to be fond of publicly and informally dropping ideological bombs, but then retreats into magisterial tradition leaving others to explain “what he meant.” As Cardinal George observed, perhaps Pope Francis should himself explain, “What he meant.” It is difficult to imagine that this tactic is not somewhat deliberate. This Pope seems to be an get attention
    seeker. He acts in contradictory ways in his bureaucratic machinations. Addressing a crowd of youths, he told them to go out and to “mess things up.” This is a curious–even troubling–thing for a pope to say. Certainly one needs to unpack what he meant by
    “messing” things up, but it is certainly reasonable to infer an Alinskyan connotation. Pope Francis does in fact appear to be a methodological fellow traveler with Barack Obama. They both skillfully employ a Machiavellian use of administrative procedure that is lacking in restraint and is untroubled by its lack of consistent delineations. I am reminded of a comment made by Columbia law professor, Philip Hamburger–in another context–where he referred to tendencies in administrative overreach as “off-road driving” (Imprimis, 43(9), September, 2014). Of course, it is possible for Thomists to disagree. It should not be about the methods of thought, however, nor the primacy given to clear communication. The
    disagreements between Thomists can reasonably be assumed to be about initial assumptions and ends. In the case of Pope Francis, it is clear that he does not hold a vision of traditional Europeanism as one of preeminence in the Church or the World. It would be one thing if the Pope were boldly asserting that Thomism can be universalized. But if he his, he has not stated it so forthrightly so far. Instead, it appears that Pope Francis is experimenting with a catholicity (Gr. for “universality”) that withdraws from Thomism in order to adapt itself to other cultures. Perhaps this is a contentious point that I am making. Alright, then I welcome a countering view. On the other hand, can the center hold if my thumbnail summary is generally accurate? Will Pope Francis’ experimentation not tend to thwart the implementation of Thomism as a formative, educational force if Thomismis claimed to be simply one instance of multiple defining philosophies? If we are witnessing an (attempted at least) abandonment of Aristo-Thomism by the Church, is it an implicit confession that some peoples and cultures are not wired for the forethought
    that such a philosophy demands? Is the church’s adaptation to the culture it finds itself in taking a new direction in evangelistic adaptation? Now, no longer merely adopting accidental forms in order to blend in to the local customs, is the Church altering something essential that has animated its thought for centuries? Alasdair MacIntyre, in Dependent, Rational Animals argued for a re-discovery of traditionalism, but specifically a traditionalism grounded in biology. When I read the book a couple years ago, I assumed
    that MacIntyre intended to say that Man is, cross-culturally, essentially the same in his biology, and thus the traditions appropriate for Man are universally definable. Now, I am wondering if MacIntyre had not indeed snuck one in on us–or perhaps even surprised himself. Perhaps Dependent Rational Animals is an implicit argument for tailoring morality and traditions to a people with specific and differing biogeographic identities. That is, perhaps it is an argument that either directly, by coincidence, or by Zeitgeist the Vatican is following. But if this Realbiologik is the sophisticated endgame that Pope Francis is playing, or is doing so unwittingly, then it does not comport well with another of the favorite projects of churchmen: encouraging mass immigration. If Thomism must be distorted or discarded in order for the Church to match the non-European world, then perhaps
    the non-European world comprises a more profoundly different kind of people
    than one could imagine the Catholic clergy generally admitting.

    • Weisheit77

      Paragraph much?

      • Germanicus

        Weisheit77, possibly, but sentence little?

  • TL2014

    That Pope is apparently a hopeless idiot.

    • See The Future

      More likely senile.

      Idiot would be complimentary.

    • Katherine McChesney

      He thinks he’s equal to JEsus Christ.

  • Americaandthewestshouldbewhite

    Unfortunately the teaching of Christianity have been hijacked by liberals and they are using them to destroy the west.

  • Pro-Apartheid

    I can understand this decision. Europe is a liberal atheist society, they rejected Christianity long ago in favour of the atheistic cult. Why would the Catholic church want to stay in Europe when they have no support there?

    • Johnny Harper

      Good. Let them move to Africa then if they don’t like Europe.

      Nothing is stopping them.

  • Johnny Harper

    Nothing new here.

    The Catholic Church is all about open borders and flooding the West with Mexicans and Catholic brown people.

    Thank the Catholic Church for opening the borders to Mexicans. Also, thank them for harboring them in the Catholic Churches throughout the USA.

  • jayvbellis

    Latin Mass Catholic splinter churches hate all this modern, PC crap.

  • Rebecca

    Time to find another pro white Christian church.

  • Mark Hillyard

    The prophet Daniel interpreted the Babylonian Kings dream and when looking at the future Roman Empire he said, Dan 2:43 “As you saw the iron mixed with soft clay, so they will mix with one another in marriage,c but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay. 44And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed,”

    Other translation say “mingled with the seed of man” when talking about “mix with one another in marriage”. This mingling of the races was a main cause of the downfall of the Roman Empire. Today the Vatican is attempting to re-form the Holy Roman Empire and from some studies I’ve read the European plan for a United States of Europe is in large part the doing of the Vatican. However the whole plan is doomed to failure and we see this in it’s attempt at mixing all the races together. The idea is great for the Vatican but it needs to wipe the white race Caucasians or in my view and studied opinion Israel of the Great Nation and Great Company of Nations as stated by Jacob/Israel in

    Gen 48:18 And Joseph said to his father (Israel), “Not this way, my father; since this one is the firstborn, put your right hand on his head.” 19But his father refused and said, “I know, my son, I know. He also shall become a people, and he also shall be great. Nevertheless, his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his offspring shall become a multituded of nations.” 20So he blessed them that day, saying,…”

    This is also the same Stone Kingdom as promised in the Babylonian King’s dream…Dan 2:45 “just as you saw that a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. A great God has made known to the king what shall be after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure.”
    The Pope may or may not know that he is fighting against Almighty God but he is and the prophesied outcome is certain and one day the Papacy will be no more. It’s also interesting that the Roman Church lays claim to the Kingdom of God and is therefore a thief as this promise is only for the Israel people and not the present day anti-Christian Jews who also lay claim to the Kingdom. The Jews are only a small number of people at around 20-30 million people and Israel was destined to become a huge uncountable number of people…although hidden from the view of most people on Earth just as Jesus stated, “He who has eyes to see and ears to hear let him hear and see” the Kingdom of God is in your midst as Jesus is the King of that Kingdom.

  • Speedy Steve

    I guess the Western Church will need to re-think that 19th Century doctrine of papal infallibility, after all.

    • Germanicus

      There is nothing about papal infallibility here. In my piece above (I am told it was too lengthy), I pointed out that Pope Francis is expressly avoiding ex cathedra pronouncements. He does not play on the field of magisterial authority. He is a consummate politician, like Obama (and an unpleasant one for my taste). Papal infallibility has been invoked only a few times in history. The most absolute traditionalist Catholics would agree (in fact, they are the first to point out) that the Pope puts his socks on like everyone else when it comes to opinions on worldly matters like economics and ecology except for repeating very general principles of morality. In some sense, this restriction on papal authority that I think that you would approve of is at the core of why traditionalists reject the modernist, Post-Vatican II Church. It is the latter modernists that want to make up rules as they go and boot strap authority in order to implement all of their innovative ideas on mass immigration, homosexuality, and so on. The modernists are the ones akin to Obama and who display the greatest tendency towards acting unchecked. But ironically and by a forgivable confusion, it is the traditionalists that are visibly like the church that you imagine yourself criticizing, but is is their modernist opponents whose policies you most despise. I hope this helps. Am I off the mark or do you think my comment helped?

      • corvinus

        It doesn’t matter whether something is ex cathedra or not. A heretic cannot be Pope. Francis is not the Pope. He’s just squatting illegally on the throne.

        By your rule of thumb. John Paul II is actually a saint, since Francis did “canonize” him, despite the fact JP2 kissed the Koran, worshipped with snake worshippers in Africa, and got the mark of Shiva on his forehead.

    • corvinus

      As St. Robert Bellarmine has pointed out, heretics like Francis cannot technically be the pope, so there’s nothing wrong with the doctrine.