Carlos, as a 'pre-Vatican 2 Catholic' (born in '53) I believe you make many valid points about what happened in the Church during and after the Council.
Where I don't agree with you is in your assessment of Bergoglio. He is a globalist shill and pawn of the WEF, who has pushed the deadly jab and empty churches during the 'plandemic'. He is a climate change fanatic who constantly pushes the agenda of the Davos crowd and the worshipping of Mother-Earth Pachamama (which is the outright pantheism of Spinoza).
He has outlawed the TLM in his 'Traditionis Custodes'. Many traditional Catholics see him not as the Pope but as an antipope, with Benedict XVI still as the real Pope.
His ideology is that of the NWO and The Great Reset, whose real agenda is Darwinian Malthusianism, eugenics, and transhumanism.
Sorry to tell you, but you swallowed the Right-wing Modernist talk, bait, hook, line & sinker. If you read what the Vicar of Christ actually says and writes instead of relying on people who make a living of fostering disobedience you'll see it. I'd suggest you start reading his daily homily at the Vatican news service.
The only problem may be that, coming from a thoroughly Modern culture, you'll have a hard time making head or tail of what does not fit a Modern discourse, and that is basicaly all that comes from his mouth or pen.
Modern narratives are always either/or, and are based on predetermined sets of taboos (or, in Kantianese, categorical moral imperatives: stuff supposed to be evident if one thinks about it). However, there are always at least two (rightist and leftist) different sets of taboos, and when what somone says or does does not fit one set, Moderns immediately attribute him the other set. That is precisely what Right-wing Modernists like to do against papal authority. They did it quite stridently with St. JPII, they did it with Benedict (a tad more quietly, because the leftist Modernists attributed him the rightist set of taboos, and rightist Mods wanted to profit from that), and they do it in overdrive with Francis, who BTW has been the most generous of all Popes since the Council towards them. All these crazy accusations you repeated above are proof of that. You will never find anything remotely supporting any of them coming from him, although you will indeed find that nonsense repeated by a lot of professional right-wing pundits pandering to the confused baptised Right-wing Modernist. Not being a rightist does not make him a leftist: he is not a Modern, and thus he can be neither a leftist nor a rightist.
Oh, BTW he did not "outlaw the TLM with Traditionis Custodes"; quite the opposite, as a matter of fact. Traditionis Custodes, in fact, is what made it possible to have the weekly TLM in a big chapel where I live. What he did cut down was the dirty trick the schismatics were using: playing priests against their bishops by making them "demand their [absolute and individual - thus 100% Modern -] Right to celebrate the way they saw fit", in order to force a confrontation and inflame it until the priest was suspended of orders and virtually forced to join them. I saw it happen with two priests (one of whom I hoped to have as the chaplain of our community), and I know of many other sad repetitions of the same story.
Carlos, as a 'pre-Vatican 2 Catholic' (born in '53) I believe you make many valid points about what happened in the Church during and after the Council.
Where I don't agree with you is in your assessment of Bergoglio. He is a globalist shill and pawn of the WEF, who has pushed the deadly jab and empty churches during the 'plandemic'. He is a climate change fanatic who constantly pushes the agenda of the Davos crowd and the worshipping of Mother-Earth Pachamama (which is the outright pantheism of Spinoza).
He has outlawed the TLM in his 'Traditionis Custodes'. Many traditional Catholics see him not as the Pope but as an antipope, with Benedict XVI still as the real Pope.
His ideology is that of the NWO and The Great Reset, whose real agenda is Darwinian Malthusianism, eugenics, and transhumanism.
Sorry to tell you, but you swallowed the Right-wing Modernist talk, bait, hook, line & sinker. If you read what the Vicar of Christ actually says and writes instead of relying on people who make a living of fostering disobedience you'll see it. I'd suggest you start reading his daily homily at the Vatican news service.
The only problem may be that, coming from a thoroughly Modern culture, you'll have a hard time making head or tail of what does not fit a Modern discourse, and that is basicaly all that comes from his mouth or pen.
Modern narratives are always either/or, and are based on predetermined sets of taboos (or, in Kantianese, categorical moral imperatives: stuff supposed to be evident if one thinks about it). However, there are always at least two (rightist and leftist) different sets of taboos, and when what somone says or does does not fit one set, Moderns immediately attribute him the other set. That is precisely what Right-wing Modernists like to do against papal authority. They did it quite stridently with St. JPII, they did it with Benedict (a tad more quietly, because the leftist Modernists attributed him the rightist set of taboos, and rightist Mods wanted to profit from that), and they do it in overdrive with Francis, who BTW has been the most generous of all Popes since the Council towards them. All these crazy accusations you repeated above are proof of that. You will never find anything remotely supporting any of them coming from him, although you will indeed find that nonsense repeated by a lot of professional right-wing pundits pandering to the confused baptised Right-wing Modernist. Not being a rightist does not make him a leftist: he is not a Modern, and thus he can be neither a leftist nor a rightist.
Oh, BTW he did not "outlaw the TLM with Traditionis Custodes"; quite the opposite, as a matter of fact. Traditionis Custodes, in fact, is what made it possible to have the weekly TLM in a big chapel where I live. What he did cut down was the dirty trick the schismatics were using: playing priests against their bishops by making them "demand their [absolute and individual - thus 100% Modern -] Right to celebrate the way they saw fit", in order to force a confrontation and inflame it until the priest was suspended of orders and virtually forced to join them. I saw it happen with two priests (one of whom I hoped to have as the chaplain of our community), and I know of many other sad repetitions of the same story.