On August 25, 1910, Pope St. Pius X (r. 1903-1914) issued arguably one of the most significant (albeit lesser known) documents of his glorious pontificate: Notre Charge Apostolique (French, “Our Apostolic Mandate”). It is a letter, addressed to “the French Archbishops and Bishops” of the day, concerning Le Sillon (“The Furrow”), a once-Catholic social movement in France that had degenerated into a dangerous vehicle for Modernism among the working class (for further background, see here and here).
The opening lines of St. Pius X’s letter read:
“Our Apostolic mandate requires from Us that We watch over the purity of the Faith and the integrity of Catholic discipline. It requires from Us that We protect the faithful from evil and error; especially so when evil and error are presented in dynamic language which, concealing vague notions and ambiguous expressions with emotional and high-sounding words, is likely to set ablaze the hearts of men in the pursuit of ideals which, while attractive, are nonetheless nefarious.”
This saintly Pontiff understood and took seriously his duty to “protect the faithful from evil and error,” and more specifically, from “dynamic language…concealing vague notions and ambiguous expressions with emotional and high-sounding words” that express “ideals which, while attractive, are nonetheless nefarious.”
Are not these characteristics identified by St. Pius X strikingly similar to the words and deeds of Pope Francis? Indeed, the current Roman Pontiff is notorious for his use of “dynamic” (i.e. progressivist) language (e.g. “Who am I to judge?”), “vague notions” (e.g. “self-absorbed promethean neopelagianism”), and “ambiguous expressions” (e.g. divorced and “remarried” Catholics can receive the sacraments “in certain cases”).
I analyzed these and other issues related to Pope Francis in my latest video interview with Cliff Kincaid, Founder and President of America’s Survival, Inc.:
Our discussion centered around the film Pope Francis: A Man of His Word, exploring the many examples of propaganda found therein, including the inaccurate portrayal of St. Francis of Assisi as the “proto-typical hippie”, the emphasis on “Mother Earth”, the push for virtually unrestricted immigration, and overall support for the agenda of the Global Left – an apparent alliance with the enemies of Christ – in opposition to the Church’s divine mandate to convert “all nations” (Matt. 28:19).
We also delved into the deeper issue of analyzing what is motivating Pope Francis to pursue this agenda, that is, the agenda given to him by the “St. Gallen Mafia” who got him elected (including Cardinal Theodore “Uncle Ted” McCarrick, the 87-year-old Archbishop Emeritus of Washington, D.C. who was just removed from public ministry due to a “credible and substantiated” allegation of sexual abuse).
In answer to Cliff’s question concerning that agenda (“What do they want to accomplish?”), I described the situation in terms of Modernism (the subject of an important conference today in Rome), explaining that Pope Francis and his backers “have been infected with that Modernist heresy” and thus they want “to fundamentally transform the Church into something that she is not.” In essence, they want to establish the “One-World Church” mentioned by St. Pius X in his letter on the Sillon:
“And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! This organization, which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy; neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions; and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak and of all those who toil and suffer.” [emphasis added]
 Ibid., pp. 263-264.