Why Is the Pope Like This?

We need to talk about the Pope, dear

viewer. Or more specifically, the most

polarizing and elucory figure in

Christian history. Depending on who you

talk to, you will get a completely

different opinion of who he really is.

To some, he is the most disastrous fall

from grace. Second to Satan himself,

being nothing short of a heretic, a

blasphemer, and an apostate from the

true Christian faith.

Yet to others, he represents the very

center of unity for all Christians

worldwide, leading charge in progressing

Christianity in a way that is more

adaptive, friendly to the times, and

finally blowing past all the

superstitions and rigidities of medieval

Christianity. Amid the myasma of hot

takes, there's one thing that everyone

can agree on that he is extremely

confusing. Yet the entire stated purpose

for his existence is to bring clarity on

Christian teaching. What gives? Why is

the pope increasingly aligning himself

with globalist and progressive

ideologies? And where is the pope

actually planning to take the Roman

Catholic Church in the long term?

Depending on what page you flip to in a

history book, the papacy can look like

completely different institutions. The

pope could be a heavy-handed ruler that

called crusades to defend Christendom

from Islamic invasions, who had the

unilateral right to appoint and depose

emperors, who was incapable of teaching

even the slightest of errors. And those

who denied this were said to be damned

to the eternal lake of fire. There's no

better example of this than Pope

Bonafice VI, the peak of papal power.

Claimed supremacy over emperors and

kings and saw himself so strongly that

he taught, "We declare, we proclaim, we

define that it is absolutely necessary

for salvation that every human creature

be subject to the Roman pontiff." Fast

forward to today and the Vatican signed

a document under Pope Leo I 14th

confirming that indeed Vatican 2 marked

a profound change in the church's

understanding and expression of her

relationship with followers of other

religions and Muslims apparently worship

and adore the one true God alongside

Catholics. The Pope even reflected his

mind in furnishing the Vatican library

with Muslim prayer rooms. Not merely a

change in tone, not merely a change in

diplomacy, a profound change in

understanding. And this is not an

isolated example. Capital punishment,

once taught to be a divinely revealed

aspect of natural justice, is now taught

to be morally inadmissible and a

violation of human dignity. The

Catechism of the Council of Trent says

that the civil authority has the power

of life and death and that the just use

of this power rather than violating the

commandment against murder is actually

an act of [music] obedience to it. The

Old Testament repeatedly prescribes

capital punishment. Paul says the civil

ruler does not bear the sword in vain.

Yet today, the Pope holds that capital

punishment is contrary to the very

gospel itself. The church that once

treated homosexual clergy with execution

now permits openly gay men to be

ordained as priests. But this is all

just the tip of the iceberg because

there is no doubt that something radical

must have happened between the past and

now. So, how did the Supreme Guardian of

Social Justice become the Supreme Social

Justice Warrior? Most people today would

have no idea that the pope was

originally one of modernity's greatest

enemies. And he made sure everybody knew

that. In 1864, Pius the 9th published

the syllabus of errors. And one of the

propositions he explicitly condemned was

the idea that the Roman pontiff can and

ought to reconcile himself and come to

terms with progress, liberalism, and

modern civilization. The pope was

explicitly trying not to become

compatible with modernity. And this

didn't begin in the late 1800s. French

Revolution, Rome condemned it. Liberal

religious freedom, Rome condemned it.

Communism, Pius the 9th didn't exactly

mince words. Communism is intrinsically

wrong. Contrast that to today's popes

praising and celebrating the Masonic

principles of the French Revolution. But

back then, Rome was not negotiating with

modernity. It was fighting it tooth and

nail. So by the early 20th century,

there was an enormous problem for the

revolutionary project. A huge and

growing portion of the western world

still belonged to an institution whose

highest authority explicitly condemned

liberalism, religious indifferentism,

socialism, communism and the entire idea

that Christianity needed to reconcile

itself with modern civilization. And

unlike Protestantism, Rome was highly

centralized. If Rome said no, hundreds

of millions of Catholics were also being

told no by the same authority. which

meant that if the modern world was ever

going to fully assimilate Catholic

civilization, one of two things had to

happen. Either Rome had to be defeated

or Rome itself had to change. But

theological change wasn't happening in a

vacuum. By the 19th century, the papacy

wasn't merely a church. It was also a

state with armies, diplomats, enormous

expenses, and equally enormous debts.

And in 1831, a financially desperate

papal government turned to the

Rothschild banking house for major

loans, which created an extraordinarily

awkward problem because Catholicism up

to that point had historically taken an

extremely hostile view [music] of usery.

Benedict I 14th Vik Prevenit condemned

taking profit merely for the fact that

money had been lent, meaning interest on

loans. Yet as Rome entered the modern

financial system, its practical

treatment of usery began to change. The

Vatican would later confirm this period

as a quote unquote clear development of

teaching. And money brought something

else, access. Internationalist

financiers like Carl Rothschild could

now personally negotiate with the pope

and even famously receiving the unusual

privilege of [music] kissing his ring

instead of his foot while using his

influence to press for better treatment

of Jewish people in the papal states and

even funding Jewish schools. This wasn't

a clear victory, however, because the

pope later reversed a lot of this and

there was quite a bit of internal

struggle. And this doesn't mean that the

Rothschild [music] simply bought the

pope. It means Rome was no longer

standing outside that emerging liberal

order that it once condemned. It was now

negotiating and becoming amicable to it.

But before we get to the radical fallout

of what would come in the 20th century,

something extremely important happens in

the opposite direction first. Before you

can get a Vatican 2, you need a Vatican

1. In 1870, Rome doesn't merely say that

the pope is important. Pastor Eternis

defines that the pope possesses full and

supreme jurisdiction over the entire

church and that this authority is

ordinary and immediate over every

individual church, bishop, and

Christian. And everybody is likewise

bound to submit to this power not only

in matters concerning faith and morals,

but also in those which regard the

discipline and government of the church

throughout the world, which violated

Nika's canon 6, speaking of Rome,

Alexandria, and Antioch preserving their

ancient regional jurisdictions. It also

defines papal infallibility when the

pope speaks ex cathedral meaning from

his chair with those definitions being

irreformable of themselves and not from

the consent of the church which violates

apostolic canon 34 which gives an

explicitly reciprocal model and the

timing is almost absurd because that

same year the papal states collapse.

[music]

Rome is losing its earthly kingdom to