Pope Francis

COMMENTARY: How The KGB Created Liberation Theology

Red Pope Francis is a member of Liberation Theology. It is important to understand who created this movement and why because Bergoglio was not canonically elected, instead he is a Soviet agent who was chosen to finish up the destruction of the Catholic Church that began long ago. Now more than ever, Catholics need to realize that we are being persecuted and we are entering a time where our Faith will be put to the test. We have no guide from the Church and those who follow this false prophet are selling their souls to the devil. 

Pope Francis

“How the KGB created Liberation Theology,” Source: patheos.com

In general, could you say that the spreading of Liberation Theology had any kind of Soviet connection?

Yes. I learned the fine points of the KGB involvement with Liberation Theology from Soviet General Aleksandr Sakharovsky, communist Romania’s chief razvedka (foreign intelligence) adviser – and my de facto boss, until 1956, when he became head of the Soviet espionage service, the PGU1, a position he held for an unprecedented record of 15 years.

On October 26, 1959, Sakharovsky and his new boss, Nikita Khrushchev, came to Romania for what would become known as “Khrushchev’s six-day vacation.” He had never taken such a long vacation abroad, nor was his stay in Romania really a vacation. Khrushchev wanted to go down in history as the Soviet leader who had exported communism to Central and South America. Romania was the only Latin country in the Soviet bloc, and Khrushchev wanted to enroll her “Latin leaders” in his new “liberation” war. . . .

Was the Theology of Liberation a movement somehow “created” by Sakharovsky’s part of the KGB, or it was an existing movement that was exacerbated by the USSR?

The movement was born in the KGB, and it had a KGB-invented name: Liberation Theology. During those years, the KGB had a penchant for “liberation” movements. The National Liberation Army of Columbia (FARC), created by the KGB with help from Fidel Castro; the “National Liberation Army of Bolivia, created by the KGB with help from “Che” Guevara; and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), created by the KGB with help from Yasser Arafat are just a few additional “liberation” movements born at the Lubyanka — the headquarters of the KGB.

The birth of Liberation Theology was the intent of a 1960 super-secret “Party-State Dezinformatsiya Program” approved by Aleksandr Shelepin, the chairman of the KGB, and by Politburo member Aleksey Kirichenko, who coordinated the Communist Party’s international policies. This program demanded that the KGB take secret control of the World Council of Churches (WCC), based in Geneva, Switzerland, and use it as cover for converting Liberation Theology into a South American revolutionary tool. The WCC was the largest international ecumenical organization after the Vatican, representing some 550 million Christians of various denominations throughout 120 countries.

The birth of a new religious movement is a historic event. How was this new religious movement launched?

The KGB began by building an intermediate international religious organization called the Christian Peace Conference (CPC), which was headquartered in Prague. Its main task was to bring the KGB-created Liberation Theology into the real world.
The new Christian Peace Conference was managed by the KGB and was subordinated to the venerable World Peace Council, another KGB creation, founded in 1949 and by then also headquartered in Prague.
During my years at the top of the Soviet bloc intelligence community, I managed the Romanian operations of the World Peace Council (WPC). It was as purely KGB as it gets. Most of the WPC’s employees were undercover Soviet bloc intelligence officers. The WPC’s two publications in French, Nouvelles perspectives, and Courier de la Paix, were also managed by undercover KGB – and Romanian DIE2  – intelligence officers. Even the money for the WPC budget came from Moscow, delivered by the KGB in the form of laundered cash dollars to hide their Soviet origin. In 1989, when the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse, the WPC publicly admitted that 90% of its money came from the KGB3.
How did the Theology of Liberation start?
I was not involved in the creation of Liberation Theology per se. From Sakharovsky I learned, however, that in 1968 the KGB-created Christian Peace Conference, supported by the world-wide World Peace Council, was able to maneuver a group of leftist South American bishops into holding a Conference of Latin American Bishops at Medellin, Colombia. The Conference’s official task was to ameliorate poverty. Its undeclared goal was to recognize a new religious movement encouraging the poor to rebel against the “institutionalized violence of poverty,” and to recommend the new movement to the World Council of Churches for official approval.
The Medellin Conference achieved both goals. It also bought the KGB-born name “Liberation Theology.”
***
‘Official persecution’ of faithful Catholics under Pope Francis has begun,” Source: 

lifesitenews.com

CHILE, September 18, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — An “official persecution” of faithful Catholics has now begun under the Francis pontificate, wrote a Catholic scholar in a recently published article.

“The official punishment of a Catholic thinker for the sole crime of defending an orthodox doctrine,” wrote Professor Claudio Pierantoni, signifies the “beginning of the official persecution of orthodoxy within the Church.”

Pierantoni is a scholar of patristics and professor of medieval philosophy at the Universidad de Chile in Santiago.

He wrote in defense of Dr. Josef Seifert, who earlier this month was removed from a Catholic university in Spain by Archbishop Javier Martínez Fernández after raising some questions about the Pope’s 2016 Exhortation Amoris Laetitia.

The article was published Sept. 9 in the German magazine of philosophy and theology Aemaet.

Pierantoni said Seifert was removed from the university after highlighting a single sentence in the Pope’s Exhortation that, explained Pierantoni, Seifert saw as a “potential source of the destruction of the whole moral teaching of the Church and even of all natural Law.”

Seifert had argued in his article that if Pope Francis believes that adultery — to quote the exhortation — “is what God himself is asking” of couples in “irregular” situations, then there is nothing stopping any other intrinsically evil act, such as contraception and homosexuality, from eventually being justified.

It was because of this one statement that Seifert wondered if the Exhortation was not a ticking “theological atomic bomb” that had the capacity to destroy all Catholic moral teaching.

In his removal of Seifert, Archbishop Martínez stated that the article “damages the communion of the Church, confuses the faith of the faithful, and sows distrust in the successor of Peter, which, in the end, does not serve the truth of faith, but, rather, the interests of the world.”

Image
Archbishop Martínez Fernández | Dr. Josef Seifert

Vatican expert Sandro Magister commented that the removal of Seifert from his teaching post might go down in history as “perhaps the most dramatic legacy of Amoris Laetitia.”

Pierantoni criticized the Archbishop for his statement which he said “displays a truly surprising naiveté…of the present situation of the Church.”

“First of all, in order to affirm that someone is ‘damaging the communion of the Church’ in some matter, one must previously assume that some kind of communion, regarding the subject we are discussing, actually exists in the Church,” he said.

“Now, what bishop, what priest, what educated and informed person in the Catholic Church today is unaware that there exists no subject at present more disputed and submerged in such horrifying confusion as this one?” he added.

Pierantoni said that while confusion within the Church already existed prior to the release of the Exhortation, with its publication “relativistic currents of thought and ‘situation ethics,’ which the previous three Popes had tried hard to stop, have now surreptitiously entered the pages of an official papal document.”

“Things have thus reached the point that one of the most outstanding and lucid defenders of the previous Magisterium during more than three decades, personally supported and encouraged in his philosophical enterprise by St. John Paul II as one of his most precious allies in the defence of the infallible moral doctrine of the Church, Josef Seifert, is now dismissed and treated as an enemy of the communion of the same Church,” he said.

Pierantoni also criticized the Archbishop’s claim that Seifert’s article “sows distrust toward the successor of Peter.”

“Archbishop Martínez seems to be unaware…[that] by allowing into an official document affirmations that are contradictory to essential points of the previous Magisterium, and of the millenary doctrine of the Church, Pope Francis has directly thrown upon himself the utter distrust of an immense number of faithful Catholics. The disastrous consequence is that distrust is thereby thrown, in the minds of many, upon the Papacy itself,” he said.

“So, what is the real cause of this distrust? Can it really be Josef Seifert’s solid and consistent effort to oppose the error of situation ethics, a commitment to which he has devoted almost his entire life and that of the institution he founded, in faithful service to the Church and to the Word of God? Or must it not be due to the fact that this very error, contrary to the whole Christian tradition (a tradition so recently reaffirmed in an Encyclical as solemn and important as [Pope St. John Paul II’s] Veritatis Splendor) has now been allowed to creep into a papal document?” he added.

Following the lead of Cardinal Raymond Burke, Pierantoni argued that Amoris Laetitia (AL) does not require assent from Catholics because it “can in no way be considered true Magisterium.”

Pope Francis, he said, states clearly in the opening of his Exhortation that there are — to quote the Exhortation — “various ways of interpreting some aspects” of the teaching and “drawing certain consequences from it” (AL 3).

“Now, this is of course very different from anything that could be considered a ‘magisterial teaching’: not only does a statement like this preclude any attempt to considering AL’s doctrine an infallible teaching, but it also precludes considering it even as authentic magisterium, at least in those parts that present novelties or even contradictions to the previous Magisterium,” he said.

Pierantoni argued that it is because the Pope knows that his Exhortation is not magisterial teaching that he has refused to correct various bishops groups around the world who have interpreted his work in contradictory ways. For instance, the bishops in Germany allow communion for adulterers based on their interpretation of the Exhortation, while the bishops across theborder in Poland do not – based on their interpretation.

Pierantoni said that Archbishop Martínez is “officially persecuting a most orthodox Catholic thinker” on the “false” assumption that the Exhortation is magisterial teaching when the Pope’s own words suggest otherwise.

He said Seifert’s removal was not simply “discrimination,” but an “official persecution based on a papal document.”

“It would be hard, in modern Church history, to find another example of this. We would have rather to go back to the ancient Christological controversies when entire and vital sections of the Church – sometimes including the Papacy – were captured by heresy and thus persecuted the orthodox,” he said.

“By officially punishing a Catholic thinker for the sole crime of being orthodox, he unwittingly confirms, and throws into clear relief, the practical schism we are suffering from in the Catholic Church, because of grave errors that have managed to creep into a papal document,” he added.

Pierantoni concluded that a “faithful defender of orthodoxy” such as Seifert could not be punished as if he were a “menace to ecclesiastical communion and an enemy of the Pope” without Pope Francis himself “actively contributing to the confusion between the Magisterium and his private opinions.”

“In the light of this, it is all the more necessary and urgent that some kind of ‘formal,’ or, maybe better, filial’ correction to the Pope, finally appear. And may God grant the Holy Father an open heart to hear it,” he concluded.

 

STAY INFORMED!!

Sign-up for the latest posts delivered to your e-mail

Read previous post:
VIDEO: US Opens 1st Military Base In Israel Ever!

What is the real purpose of this US Miltary base in Israel? The IDF says the base "represents the long-standing...

Close