Cartoon Jorge

There are simply not enough hours in the day to keep up with what seems to be Jorge Mario Bergoglio's preternatural ability to repeat every theological error imaginable with so little effort or forethought.

That is, Jorge Mario Bergoglio just speaks whatever "pops" into his head, already filled to the brim with a mish-mosh of heretical propaganda he learned in his days as a Jesuit scholastic and seminarian. Remember, it was when denying the very Divine Constitution of Holy Mother Church thirteen and one-half months ago that the Argentine Apostate admitted that his "thoughts," such as they are, came to him rather randomly during his daily sessions of the Ding Dong School Of Apostasy:

Jesus has, “the capacity to suffer with us, to be close to our sufferings and make them His own,” said Pope Francis, who began his reflections with the encounter between Jesus and the widow of Naim, of which Tuesday’s Gospel reading tells. He pointed out that Jesus, “had great compassion” for this widow who had now lost her son. Jesus, he went on to say, “knew what it meant to be a widow at that time,” and noted that the Lord has a special love for widows, He cares for them.” Reading this passage of the Gospel, he then said, that the widow is, “an icon of the Church , because the Church is in a sense widow”:

“The Bridegroom is gone and she walks in history, hoping to find him, to meet with Him – and she will be His true bride. In the meantime she - the Church - is alone! The Lord is nowhere to be seen. She has a certain dimension of widowhood ... and that makes me makes me think of the widowhood of the Church. This courageous Church, which defends her children, like the widow who went to the corrupt judge to [press her rights] and eventually won. Our Mother Church is courageous! She has the courage of a woman who knows that her children are her own, and must defend them and bring them to the meeting with her Spouse.”

The Pope reflected on some figures of widows in the Bible, in particular the courageous Maccabean widow with seven sons who are martyred for not renouncing God. The Bible, he stressed, says this woman who spoke to her sons “in the local dialect, in their first language,” and, he noted, our Mother Church speaks to us in dialect, in “that language of true orthodoxy, which we all understand, the language of catechism,” that, “gives us the strength to go forward in the fight against evil”:

“This dimension of widowhood of the Church, who is journeying through history, hoping to meet, to find her Husband… Our Mother the Church is thus! She is a Church that, when she is faithful, knows how to cry. When the Church does not cry, something is not right. She weeps for her children, and prays! A Church that goes forward and does rear her children, gives them strength and accompanies them until the final farewell in order to leave them in the hands of her Spouse, who at the end will come to encounter her. This is our Mother Church! I see her in this weeping widow. And what does the Lord say to the Church? “Do not cry. I am with you, I’ll take you, I’ll wait for you there, in the wedding, the last nuptials, those of the Lamb. Stop [your tears]: this son of yours was dead, now he lives.”

And this, he continued, “is the dialogue of the Lord with the Church.” She, “defends the children, but when she sees that the children are dead, she cries, and the Lord says to her: ‘I am with you and your son is with me.’” As he told the boy at Naim to get up from his deathbed, the Pope added, many times Jesus also tells us to get up, “when we are dead because of sin and we are going to ask for forgiveness.” And then what does Jesus “when He forgives us, when He gives us back our life?” He Returns us to our mother:

“Our reconciliation with the Lord end in the dialogue ‘You, me and the priest who gives me pardon’; it ends when He restores us to our mother. There ends reconciliation, because there is no path of life, there is no forgiveness, there is no reconciliation outside of Mother Church. So, seeing this poor widow, all these things come to me somewhat randomly - But I see in this widow the icon of the widowhood of the Church who is on a journey to find her Bridegroom. I get the urge to ask the Lord for the grace to be always confident of this “mommy” who defends us, teaches us, helps us grow and [teaches] us to speak the dialect.” (Reflecting on our Mother Church.)

This heresy came to Jorge Mario Bergoglio "randomly," demonstrating once again his complete contempt for the actual nature of Holy Mother Church's Divine Constitution:

Let this Feast therefore be one of joy, and let us expect from it the most abundant blessings. All the hymns and canticles of this solemnity express the thought that on this day our Lord will show Himself more gracious than ever. The Church, it seems, should have celebrated Corpus Christi on Holy Thursday, since the Eucharist was instituted on that day. But she could not have duly expressed her joy on that day of mourning; the Passion begins in Holy Thursday, and it is impossible to rejoice at the thought of death which predominates during the solemn days of Holy Week.

Corpus Christi was also postponed until after the Ascension because sad farewells had still to be bidden and a painful separation effected. It was put off until after Pentecost so that, filled with the graces and joys of the Holy Ghost, we might be able to celebrate with all possible splendor the Feast of the Divine Bridegroom Who dwells among us.

CORPUS CHRISTI is the most solemn Feast of the Church. The Church is the Bride of our Lord in all His risen glory, not of Jesus Christ at His birth or His death; when these last two mysteries took place the Church was not yet in existence. Of course she follows her Divine Bridegroom to the Crib and accompanies Him in His sufferings, but of these mysteries she has only the remembrance and grace. But Jesus Christ lives with His Church in His Sacrament.

People who have never set foot inside one of her churches think she is widowed. They look upon her as a corpse, and upon her temples as places where only death and suffering are spoken of. But today the very ones who never attend her solemn festivals will see her in all her wealth and beauty, in a natural attractiveness which God, her Bridegroom, will enhance with His presence. What magnificence in the processions as they pass by! What reverence in the faithful as they kneel down! ! The Church shows to everyone her Bridegroom in the radiant monstrance. Ah! Who today will presume to say she is widowed? Her friends are in adoration and her enemies tremble. Jesus shows Himself to all men; He gives His blessing. to the good; He looks on sinners with compassion; He calls them and draws them to Himself. The Council of Trent calls this Feast the triumph of faith, and rightly so. It is also the triumph of the Church through her Divine Bridegroom. (THE REAL PRESENCE.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio has not stepped foot inside a truly Catholic church in decades now. His false church, replete with its false doctrines and false, sacramentally barren liturgical rites that have the power to save and sanctify no one at any time for any reason, is widowed. It is a corpse as it leaves a trail of dead souls in its wretched wake, a veritable foretaste of Hell with its grotesque, monstrous "officials" who are content to reaffirm hardened sinners in lives of utter, twisted perversion to such an extent that they being praised by many such poor creatures, including the hideous Elton John (see Pope Francis should be canonised for reaching out to those steeped in unrepentant perverse sins against nature).

Jorge Mario Bergoglio never attends Holy Mother Church's solemn festivals to see her in all her wealth and beauty. Quite the contrary, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has contempt for the Catholic Church's solemn festivals and condemns them for their wealth and beauty, making sure as well to mock and revile those who find in them the closest thing to Heaven that one can experience in this passing, mortal vale of tears. Indeed, Senor Bergoglio has gone to great lengths to perscute the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate for the willingness that some of them had to stage the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, which he hates because it expresses and protects a Faith which he abors in the belief that it is "narrow," "sick, "closed-in-on-itself" and not "open to God's surprises.

Joge Mario Bergoglio, of course, is never at a loss to find ways to blaspheme God, up to and including the denial of His very Omnipotence by claiming that the Creator all things could not willed everything that exists out of nothing by, that He, Whose pure intelligence ordered all that exists, both seen and unseen, in all of its infinite variety, beauty and perfection, is incapable of having acted as is recorded in the Book of Genesis.

Here is a report of what he said on Monday, October 27, the Vigil of Saints Simon and Jude, at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences:

VATICAN CITY (RNS) Pope Francis on Monday (Oct. 27) waded into the controversial debate over the origins of human life, saying the big bang theory did not contradict the role of a divine creator, but even required it.

The pope was addressing the plenary assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which gathered at the Vatican to discuss “Evolving Concepts of Nature.”

“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said.

“He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment.”

Fancis said the beginning of the world was not “a work of chaos” but created from a principle of love. He said sometimes competing beliefs in creation and evolution could co-exist.

“God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life,” the pope said. “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

Unlike much of evangelical Protestantism in the U.S., Catholic teaching traditionally has not been at odds with evolution. In 1950, Pope Pius XII proclaimed there was no opposition between evolution and Catholic doctrine. In 1996, St. John Paul II endorsed Pius’ statement.

Some wondered if Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wanted to change that when he and some acolytes seemed to endorse the theory of intelligent design, the idea that the world is too complex to have evolved according to Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn of Vienna, a close associate of Benedict, penned a widely noticed 2005 op-ed in The New York Times that said “Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense — an unguided, unplanned process … is not.”

Giovanni Bignami, a professor and president of Italy’s National Institute for Astrophysics, welcomed Francis’ comments, saying he had buried the “pseudo theories” of creationists.

“The pope’s statement is significant,” Bignami told Italian news agency Adnkronos. “We are the direct descendents from the Big Bang that created the universe. Evolution came from creation.”

Giulio Giorello, professor of the philosophy of science at Milan’s University degli Studi, said he believed Francis was “trying to reduce the emotion of dispute or presumed disputes” with science.

Francis made his speech while unveiling a bust in honor of Benedict, his predecessor, at the Vatican.

“Benedict XVI was a great pope: great for the power and penetration of his intellect, great for his significant contribution to theology, great for his love of the church and of human beings, great for his virtue and piety,” he said. (Evolution ... is not inconsistent with the notion of Creation.)

As time is at a premium, a few points will be made for the sake of brevity.

First, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has shown us once again that he does not believe in God as He has revealed Himself to us through His one and only true Church, the Catholic Church, she who alone has the entirety of the Deposit of Faith and who alone has the Treasury of Graces by which to sanctify men as she applies the merits won by her Divine Founder, Invisible Head and Mystical Spouse, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross to men in all ages.

Second, Jorge Mario Bergoglio's dismissal of even the possibility that the Book of Gensis recounts the Creation of the world in a reliable manner is an act of utter blasphemy against the very Omnipotence of God and against the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, under Whose infallible Divine inspiration each book of Sacred Scripture was written, including the Book of Genesis.

Third, insofar as God's Omnipotence is concerned, suffice it to note that the Fourth Latern Council, which met under the authority of the great Pope Innocent III, who gave the initial approvals for both the Order of Friars Minor and the Order of Preachers, in the year 1215, issued the following concerning God's attributes, including, of course, Omnipotence:

We firmly believe and simply confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immeasurable, almighty, unchangeable, incomprehensible and ineffable, Father, Son and holy Spirit, three persons but one absolutely simple essence, substance or nature {1} . The Father is from none, the Son from the Father alone, and the holy Spirit from both equally, eternally without beginning or end; the Father generating, the Son being born, and the holy Spirit proceeding; consubstantial and coequal, co-omnipotent and coeternal; one principle of all things, creator of all things invisible and visible, spiritual and corporeal; who by his almighty power at the beginning of time created from nothing both spiritual and corporeal creatures, that is to say angelic and earthly, and then created human beings composed as it were of both spirit and body in common. The devil and other demons were created by God naturally good, but they became evil by their own doing. Man, however, sinned at the prompting of the devil.

This holy Trinity, which is undivided according to its common essence but distinct according to the properties of its persons, gave the teaching of salvation to the human race through Moses and the holy prophets and his other servants, according to the most appropriate disposition of the times. Finally the only-begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ, who became incarnate by the action of the whole Trinity in common and was conceived from the ever virgin Mary through the cooperation of the holy Spirit, having become true man, composed of a rational soul and human flesh, one person in two natures, showed more clearly the way of life. Although he is immortal and unable to suffer according to his divinity, he was made capable of suffering and dying according to his humanity. Indeed, having suffered and died on the wood of the cross for the salvation of the human race, he descended to the underworld, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. He descended in the soul, rose in the flesh, and ascended in both. He will come at the end of time to judge the living and the dead, to render to every person according to his works, both to the reprobate and to the elect. All of them will rise with their own bodies, which they now wear, so as to receive according to their deserts, whether these be good or bad; for the latter perpetual punishment with the devil, for the former eternal glory with Christ.

There is indeed one universal church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice. His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been changed in substance, by God's power, into his body and blood, so that in order to achieve this mystery of unity we receive from God what he received from us. Nobody can effect this sacrament except a priest who has been properly ordained according to the church's keys, which Jesus Christ himself gave to the apostles and their successors. But the sacrament of baptism is consecrated in water at the invocation of the undivided Trinity -- namely Father, Son and holy Spirit -- and brings salvation to both children and adults when it is correctly carried out by anyone in the form laid down by the church. If someone falls into sin after having received baptism, he or she can always be restored through true penitence. For not only virgins and the continent but also married persons find favour with God by right faith and good actions and deserve to attain to eternal blessedness. (Fourth Latern Council. Constitution on the Confession of Faith.)

This is a stinging refutation, issued by a general council of the Catholic Church that met under the infallible protection and guidance of God the Holy Ghost, against all that Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes about God. Bergoglio believes the falsehoods about God that he does precisely because he, an imposter on the Throne of Saint Peter, lacks the infallible protection and guidance of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost.

The Fourth Lateran Council's Constitution on the Confession of Faith serves also as a refutation of Jorge Mario Bergoglio's false, heretical contention that God the Holy Ghost abides in Protestants to "guide" them in their own false religious sects, each of which is loathesome in the sight of the Most Blessed Trinity:

First of all, I want to thank you for your courage. Yesterday I was at the door of the synod hall with a Lutheran bishop. I said, “You’re a brave man! In a previous age they burned Lutherans here... !” [laughter]!

This is a meeting that was organized by Tony [Palmer]. He was very excited by this meeting. And I was too. And I am grateful to Archbishop Robert Wise and to Emiliana, who have chosen to carry the torch, this dream which was Tony’s: this dream of being able to walk in communion. We are sinning against Christ’s will, because we continue to focus on our differences; our shared baptism is more important than our differences. We all believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. We all have the Holy Spirit within us, which prays within us.! (The Ark Community: Transcript of Jorge's "Off the Cuff" Remarks.)

In other words, Protestants have the infallible guidance of God the Holy Ghost, Who is, Jorge would have us believe, pleased with Protestant liturgical services. This is heresy and blasphemy at the same time, ignoring entirely Bergoglio's grotesque caricature and misrepresentation of Holy Mother Church's defense of the intergrity of the Holy Faith in the wake of the lecherous and drunken Father Martin Luther's revolution that he undertook on October 31, 1517, to reaffirm himself in his life of debaucherous womanizing and drinking.

So much for Pope Pius IX’s Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1968, Pope Leo XIII’s Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 29, 1894, and Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, Pope Pius XI’s Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928, and Pope Pius XII’s Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943:

It is for this reason that so many who do not share 'the communion and the truth of the Catholic Church' must make use of the occasion of the Council, by the means of the Catholic Church, which received in Her bosom their ancestors, proposes [further] demonstration of profound unity and of firm vital force; hear the requirements [demands] of her heart, they must engage themselves to leave this state that does not guarantee for them the security of salvation. She does not hesitate to raise to the Lord of mercy most fervent prayers to tear down of the walls of division, to dissipate the haze of errors, and lead them back within holy Mother Church, where their Ancestors found salutary pastures of life; where, in an exclusive way, is conserved and transmitted whole the doctrine of Jesus Christ and wherein is dispensed the mysteries of heavenly grace.

It is therefore by force of the right of Our supreme Apostolic ministry, entrusted to us by the same Christ the Lord, which, having to carry out with [supreme] participation all the duties of the good Shepherd and to follow and embrace with paternal love all the men of the world, we send this Letter of Ours to all the Christians from whom We are separated, with which we exhort them warmly and beseech them with insistence to hasten to return to the one fold of Christ; we desire in fact from the depths of the heart their salvation in Christ Jesus, and we fear having to render an account one day to Him, Our Judge, if, through some possibility, we have not pointed out and prepared the way for them to attain eternal salvation. In all Our prayers and supplications, with thankfulness, day and night we never omit to ask for them, with humble insistence, from the eternal Shepherd of souls the abundance of goods and heavenly graces. And since, if also, we fulfill in the earth the office of vicar, with all our heart we await with open arms the return of the wayward sons to the Catholic Church, in order to receive them with infinite fondness into the house of the Heavenly Father and to enrich them with its inexhaustible treasures. By our greatest wish for the return to the truth and the communion with the Catholic Church, upon which depends not only the salvation of all of them, but above all also of the whole Christian society: the entire world in fact cannot enjoy true peace if it is not of one fold and one shepherd. (Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868.)

Weigh carefully in your minds and before God the nature of Our request.  It is not for any human motive, but impelled by Divine Charity and a desire for the salvation of all, that We advise the reconciliation and union with the Church of Rome; and We mean a perfect and complete union, such as could not subsist in any way if nothing else was brought about but a certain kind of agreement in the Tenets of Belief and an intercourse of Fraternal love.  The True Union between Christians is that which Jesus Christ, the Author of the Church, instituted and desired, and which consists in a Unity of Faith and Unity of Government. (Pope Leo XIII, referring to the Orthodox in Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 20, 1884.)

Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is "the root and womb whence the Church of God springs," not with the intention and the hope that "the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government. Would that it were Our happy lot to do that which so many of Our predecessors could not, to embrace with fatherly affection those children, whose unhappy separation from Us We now bewail. Would that God our Savior, "Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,"[29] would hear us when We humbly beg that He would deign to recall all who stray to the unity of the Church! In this most important undertaking We ask and wish that others should ask the prayers of Blessed Mary the Virgin, Mother of divine grace, victorious over all heresies and Help of Christians, that She may implore for Us the speedy coming of the much hoped-for day, when all men shall hear the voice of Her divine Son, and shall be "careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

The devil himself has told us that he, not God, is the author of Protestant liturgical rites and prayers:

It is indeed a remarkable fact that, as the devil made use of Luther, an apostate monk, to abolish the Mass and deny the Real Presence; in like manner, God made use of His arch-enemy, the devil, to prove the Real Presence. He repeatedly forced him publicly to profess his firm belief in it, to confound the heretics for their disbelief, and acknowledge himself vanquished by Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. For this purpose, God allowed a certain Mme. Nicola Aubrey, an innocent person, to become possessed by Beelzebub and twenty-nine other evil spirits. The possession took place on the eighth of November, 1565, and lasted until the eighth of February, 1566.

Her parents took her to Father de Motta, a pious priest of Vervins, in order that he might expel the demon by exorcisms of the Church. Father de Motta tried several times to expel the evil spirit by applying the sacred relics of the holy cross, but he could not succeed; Satan would not depart. At last, inspired by the Holy Ghost, he resolved to expel the devil by means of the sacrament of Our Lord's Body and Blood. Whilst Nicola was lying in a state of unnatural lethargy, Father de Motta placed the Blessed Sacrament upon her lips, and instantly the infernal spell was broken; Nicola was restored to consciousness, and received Holy Communion with every mark of devotion. As soon as Nicola had received the sacred Body of Our Lord, her face became bright and beautiful as the face of an angel, and all who saw her were filled with joy and wonder, and they blessed God from their inmost hearts. With the permission of God, Satan returned and again took possession of Nicola.

As the strange circumstances of Nicola's possession became known everywhere, several Calvinist preachers came with their followers, to "expose this popish cheat," as they said. On their entrance, the devil saluted them mockingly, called them by name, and told them that they had come in obedience to him. One of the preachers took his Protestant prayer book, and began to read it with a very solemn face. The devil laughed at him, and putting on a most comical look, he said: "Ho! Ho! My good friend; do you intend to expel me with your prayers and hymns? Do you think that they will cause me any pain? Don't you know that they are mine? I helped to compose them!"

"I will expel thee in the name of God," said the preacher, solemnly.

"You!" said the devil mockingly. "You will not expel me either in the name of God, or in the name of the devil. Did you ever hear of one devil driving out another?"

"I am not a devil," said the preacher, angrily, "I am a servant of Christ."

"A servant of Christ, indeed!" said Satan, with a sneer. "What! I tell you, you are worse than I am. I believe, and you do not want to believe. Do you suppose that you can expel me from the body of this miserable wretch? Ha! Go first and expel all the devils that are in your own heart!"

The preacher took his leave, somewhat discomfited. On going away, he said, turning up the whites of his eyes, "O Lord, I pray thee, assist this poor creature!"

"And I pray Lucifer," cried the evil spirit, "that he may never leave you, but may always keep you firmly in his power, as he does now. Go about your business, now. You are all mine, and I am your master."

On the arrival of the priest, several of the Protestants went away -- they had seen and heard more than they wanted. Others, however, remained; and great was their terror when they saw how the devil writhed and howled in agony, as soon as the Blessed Sacrament was brought near him. At last the evil spirit departed, leaving Nicola in a state of unnatural trance. While she was in this state, several of the preachers tried to open her eyes, but they found it impossible to do so. The priest then placed the Blessed Sacrament on Nicola's lips, and instantly she was restored to consciousness. Rev. Father de Motta then turned to the astonished preachers, and said: "Go now, ye preachers of the new Gospel; go and relate everywhere what you have seen and heard. Do not deny any longer that Our Lord Jesus Christ is really and truly present in the Blessed Sacrament of the altar. Go now, and let not human respect hinder you from confessing the truth." (Father Michael Muller, C.SS.R., Exorcism of Nicola Aubrey.)

Our Lady herself has demonstrated her displeasure with the protesters who compose the ranks of the false sects of Protestantism:

Heaven was watching over Pierre and after seven years, on March 25, 1656, Our Lady appeared to him. On that day, Pierre was working in the field and saw a Lady standing far away on a little hill. The Lady wore a white dress, a blue mantle and had a black veil over her head, which partly covered her face. As the Lady came toward Pierre, she suddenly picked up speed and in a flash, she stood beside him. With her beautiful, sweet voice, the Lady spoke to Pierre, "God be with you my friend!"

For a moment, Pierre stood in amazement. The Lady spoke again, "What is being said about this devotion? Do many people come?"

Pierre replied, "Yes many people come."

Then the Lady said, "Where does that heretic live who cut the willow tree? Does he not want to be converted?"

Pierre mumbled an answer.

The Lady became more serious, "Do you think that I do not know that you are the heretic? Realize that your end is at hand. If you do not return to the True Faith, you will be cast into Hell! But if you change your beliefs, I shall protect you before God. Tell people to pray that they may gain the good graces which, God in His mercy has offered to them." (See: If You Do Not Return to the True Faith, You Will Be Cast Into Hell!)

Jorge Mario Bergolgio's belief in God and His Divine Revelation is not shaped by the Catholic Faith.

Then again, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has told us that he does not believe in God. He believes in “three persons,” not God:

"He accompanies us and teaches us to pray. And our prayer should be Trinitarian. So often [people ask]: 'But do you believe?': 'Yes! Yes! '; 'What do you believe in?'; 'In God!'; 'But what is God for you?'; 'God, God'. But God does not exist: Do not be shocked! So God does not exist! There is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, they are persons, they are not some vague idea in the clouds ... This God spray does not exist! The three persons exist! Jesus is our companion on the journey who gives us what we ask; the Father who cares for us and loves us; and the Holy Spirit is the gift, the extra gift from the Father, that our consciousness does not dare to hope for. (Cartoon Jorge at Santa Marta: What we dare not hope for”.)

Although the Vatican’s Ministry of Propaganda revised this text in another posting on the Vatican News website (see That More of God, a video recording of Jorge’s screed at the October 9, 2014, session of Ding Dong School at the Casa Santa Marta verifies the fact that the man most people in the world believe is “Pope Francis” and thus a true and legitimate successor of Saint Peter actually uttered the words “So God does exist!” and the words “This God spray does not exist” (see God Does Not Exist!).

Here is a catechism lesson for Cartoon Jorge that can be found in the Baltimore Catechism:

13. Q. What is God? A. God is a spirit infinitely perfect.

14. Q. Had God a beginning? A. God had no beginning; He always was and He always will be.

15. Q. Where is God? A. God is everywhere.

16. Q. If God is everywhere, why do we not see Him? A. We do not see God, because He is a pure spirit and cannot be seen with bodily eyes. (I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.)

Lest one think that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is alone in disbelieving the existence of God, Whose very omnipotence he denied lately, it must be remembered that his predecessor, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, expressed the phenomenal belief that Protestant “theologians” who denied the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ nevertheless could be counted as “believers” in a “Christian manner”:

Up to the very end of his conference, Card. Ratzinger resolutely continues on this road of agnosticism and now logically comes to the most disastrous of conclusions. He writes:

In conclusion, as we contemplate our present-day religious situation, of which I have tried to throw some light on some of its elements, we may well marvel at the fact that, after all, people still continue believing in a Christian manner, not only according to Hick's, Knitter's as well as others' substitute ways or forms, but also according to that full and joyous Faith found in the New Testament of the Church of all time.

So, there it is: For Card. Ratzinger, "Hick, Knitter, and others" who deny the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, His Church, His sacraments, and, in short, all of Christianity, continue "despite everything" "believing in a Christian manner," even though they do so using "substitute forms of belief"! Here, the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith leaves us wondering indeed, just what it is he means by "believing in a Christian manner."

Moreover, once the "preambula fidei" have been eliminated, that "full and joyous Faith of the Church of all time" which seems [for Card. Ratzinger] to be no different from modern-day apostasies other than by its style and total character, is utterly lacking in any rational credibility in comparison with and in relation to what he refers to as "substitute ways or forms" of faith. "How is it," Card. Ratzinger wonders, "in fact, that the Faith [the one of all time] still has a chance of success?" Answer:

I would say that it is because it finds a correspondence in man's nature…..There is, in man, an insatiable desire for the infinite. None of the answers we have sought is sufficient [but must we take his own word for it, or must we go through the exercise of experiencing all religions?]. God alone [but Whom, according to Card. Ratzinger, human reason cannot prove to be truly God], Who made Himself finite in order to shatter the bonds of our own finitude and bring us to the dimension of His infinity [...and not to redeem us from the slavery of sin?] is able to meet all the needs of our human existence.

According to this, it is therefore not objective motives based on history and reason, and thus the truth of Christianity, but only a subjective appreciation which brings us to "see" that it [Christianity] is able to satisfy the profound needs of human nature and which would explain the "success" [modernists would say the "vitality"] of the "faith" ["of all time" or in its "substitute forms," it is of but little importance]. Such, however, is not at all Catholic doctrine: this is simply modernist apologetics (cf. Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi), based on their affirmed impossibility of grasping metaphysical knowledge (or agnosticism or skepticism), which Card. Ratzinger seemed to want to shun in the first part of his address.

Now we are in a position to better understand why Card. Ratzinger has such a wide-open concept of "theology" and of "faith" that he includes everything: theology as well as heresies, faith and apostasy. On that road of denial of the human reason's ability of attaining metaphysical knowledge, a road which he continues to follow, he lacks the "means of discerning the difference between faith and non-faith" (R. Amerio, op. cit., p.340) and, consequently, theology from pseudo-theology, truth from heresy:

All theologies are nullified, because all are regarded as equivalent; the heart or kernel of religion is located in feelings or experiences, as the Modernists held at the beginning of this century (Amerio, op. cit., p.542).

We cannot see how this position of Card. Ratzinger can escape that solemn condemnation proclaimed at Vatican I: "If anyone says...that men must be brought to the Faith solely by their own personal interior experience...let him be anathema" (DB 1812). (Cardinal Ratzinger. This article, by the way, appeared in a publication of the Society of Saint Pius X, Si, Si, No, No in January of 1998.)

The mind of Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI lives in a fog of perpetual contradiction and paradox that he uses to obfuscate, distort and misrepresent the very nature of God and His Divine Revelation and of the Divine Constitution of Holy Mother Church.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s mind, such as it is, is shaped by emotionally-driven shibbloeths that make of God nothing other than an empty shell into which can be poured whatever comes randomly into one's skull of full mush (my apologies to the fictional law professor, Charles Kingsfield) to tickle the ears of the people according to the changing fashions of the moment. Bergoglio shows himself to be a disciple of the biological and theological evolutionist par excellence, the late Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., which is why he believes his "god" to be so "full of surprises" that can even bridge such "silly" things as doctrine, about which no one except, of course, "excellent theologians" in "each camp" seems to care, including God Himself. 

Bergoglio's predisposition to believe in the disproved ideology of biological evolutionism is thus premised on his belief that God Himself is "evolving," which is why doctrine must "evolve" and that the liturgy must "revolve" so as to be "open" to those "surprises" that God is said to have in store for us. In this, of course, the Argentine Apostate is one in mind and in heart with the very man he praised at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences meeting, namely, his predecessor as the executive director of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who said the following to priests when vacationing in northern Italy in July of 2007:

In his talk with the priests, the Pope spoke of the current debate raging in some countries, particularly the United States and his native Germany, between creationism and evolution.

"They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other," the Pope said. "This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favour of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such."

But he said evolution did not answer all the questions. "Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question 'where does everything come from?'" (Ratzinger Says  Listen to the Earth.)

Doctrinal evolutionism. Liturgical evolutionism. Biological evolutionism. Each of these is near and dear to the heart of the Modernist named Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, which is why it might be useful to provide you with several passages from late Gilbert Keith Chesterton's Orthodoxy , which was published in 1908 before his conversion of Catholicism to demonstrate various strands of modern thought, including evolutionism, were negations of thought and of a reality no matter what form they take.

At any street corner we may meet a man who utters the frantic and blasphemous statement that he may be wrong. Every day one comes across somebody who says that of course his view may not be the right one. Of course his view must be the right one, or it is not his view. We are on the road to producing a race of men too mentally modest to believe in the multiplication table. We are in danger of seeing philosophers who doubt the law of gravity as being a mere fancy of their own. Scoffers of old time were too proud to be convinced; but these are too humble to be convinced. The meek do inherit the earth; but the modern sceptics are too meek even to claim their inheritance. It is exactly this intellectual helplessness which is our second problem. (Gilbert Keith Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908, Chapter III.)

Chesterton’s razor-sharp analysis of the effect of modern “philosophy,” such as it is, on the mind of human beings is even more relevant today as we see people who cannot reason their way logically to conclusions that they can hold with the certainty that comes with conviction. God has given us the ability to think, but the thinking process must founded in logic, not in the irrationality on acting on the suggestion made by the last person with whom one spoke without taking the time that is needed to engage in sustained and systematic study to reach a conclusion that one can hold in order to defend it when challenged.

Moreover, I can attest from my recent two-month foray into what passes for “higher education” these days that the plutocrats who run the asylums they misname as “colleges” cannot countenance the idea that there are species of men still alive on the face of the earth who believe in objective truth, no less in Truth Incarnate Himself, and who believe it is their obligation to teach in accord with what they believe. “Neutrality” is demanded in order to provide “balance,” but the “balance only winds up feeding the psychic disease wrought remotely by the Protestant Revolution and proximately by the flood of naturalistic ideologies and philosophies that followed in its wretched wake.

The ever-evolving “religion” of the likes of Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio sees “change” and inconstancy and contradiction as the very lifeblood of its doctrines, liturgies and pastoral practices. Behold the race of madmen that have been created as a result!

Back to the inestimable Chesterton:

The last chapter has been concerned only with a fact of observation: that what peril of morbidity there is for man comes rather from his reason than his imagination. It was not meant to attack the authority of reason; rather it is the ultimate purpose to defend it. For it needs defence. The whole modern world is at war with reason; and the tower already reels.

The sages, it is often said, can see no answer to the riddle of religion. But the trouble with our sages is not that they cannot see the answer; it is that they cannot even see the riddle. They are like children so stupid as to notice nothing paradoxical in the playful assertion that a door is not a door. The modern latitudinarians speak, for instance, about authority in religion not only as if there were no reason in it, but as if there had never been any reason for it. Apart from seeing its philosophical basis, they cannot even see its historical cause. Religious authority has often, doubtless, been oppressive or unreasonable; just as every legal system (and especially our present one) has been callous and full of a cruel apathy. It is rational to attack the police; nay, it is glorious. But the modern critics of religious authority are like men who should attack the police without ever having heard of burglars. For there is a great and possible peril to the human mind: a peril as practical as burglary. Against it religious authority was reared, rightly or wrongly, as a barrier. And against it something certainly must be reared as a barrier, if our race is to avoid ruin.

That peril is that the human intellect is free to destroy itself. Just as one generation could prevent the very existence of the next generation, by all entering a monastery or jumping into the sea, so one set of thinkers can in some degree prevent further thinking by teaching the next generation that there is no validity in any human thought. It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. If you are merely a sceptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, “Why should ANYTHING go right; even observation and deduction? Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?” The young sceptic says, “I have a right to think for myself.” But the old sceptic, the complete sceptic, says, “I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all.”

There is a thought that stops thought. That is the only thought that ought to be stopped. That is the ultimate evil against which all religious authority was aimed. It only appears at the end of decadent ages like our own: and already Mr. H. G. Wells has raised its ruinous banner; he has written a delicate piece of scepticism called “Doubts of the Instrument.” In this he questions the brain itself, and endeavours to remove all reality from all his own assertions, past, present, and to come. But it was against this remote ruin that all the military systems in religion were originally ranked and ruled. The creeds and the crusades, the hierarchies and the horrible persecutions were not organized, as is ignorantly said, for the suppression of reason. They were organized for the difficult defence of reason. Man, by a blind instinct, knew that if once things were wildly questioned, reason could be questioned first. The authority of priests to absolve, the authority of popes to define the authority, even of inquisitors to terrify: these were all only dark defences erected round one central authority, more undemonstrable, more supernatural than all—the authority of a man to think. We know now that this is so; we have no excuse for not knowing it. For we can hear scepticism crashing through the old ring of authorities, and at the same moment we can see reason swaying upon her throne. In so far as religion is gone, reason is going. For they are both of the same primary and authoritative kind. They are both methods of proof which cannot themselves be proved. And in the act of destroying the idea of Divine authority we have largely destroyed the idea of that human authority by which we do a long-division sum. With a long and sustained tug we have attempted to pull the mitre off pontifical man; and his head has come off with it. (Gilbert Keith Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908, Chapter III.)

Catholics who are trapped in the thought and logic-killing machine known as the counterfeit church of conciliarism are at one with non-Catholics in the world as most people alive today have been taught that everything is matter of “opinion” and is subject for further “clarification” and “modification” as future circumstances might require. As Chesterton noted in the next few paragraphs, the ideological of biological evolutionism plays a direct role in this state of things:

Lest this should be called loose assertion, it is perhaps desirable, though dull, to run rapidly through the chief modern fashions of thought which have this effect of stopping thought itself. Materialism and the view of everything as a personal illusion have some such effect; for if the mind is mechanical, thought cannot be very exciting, and if the cosmos is unreal, there is nothing to think about. But in these cases the effect is indirect and doubtful. In some cases it is direct and clear; notably in the case of what is generally called evolution.

Evolution is a good example of that modern intelligence which, if it destroys anything, destroys itself. Evolution is either an innocent scientific description of how certain earthly things came about; or, if it is anything more than this, it is an attack upon thought itself. If evolution destroys anything, it does not destroy religion but rationalism. If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time. But if it means anything more, it means that there is no such thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as a man for him to change into. It means that there is no such thing as a thing. At best, there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and anything. This is an attack not upon the faith, but upon the mind; you cannot think if there are no things to think about. You cannot think if you are not separate from the subject of thought. Descartes said, “I think; therefore I am.” The philosophic evolutionist reverses and negatives the epigram. He says, “I am not; therefore I cannot think.”

Then there is the opposite attack on thought: that urged by Mr. H. G. Wells when he insists that every separate thing is “unique,” and there are no categories at all. This also is merely destructive. Thinking means connecting things, and stops if they cannot be connected. It need hardly be said that this scepticism forbidding thought necessarily forbids speech; a man cannot open his mouth without contradicting it. Thus when Mr. Wells says (as he did somewhere), “All chairs are quite different,” he utters not merely a misstatement, but a contradiction in terms. If all chairs were quite different, you could not call them “all chairs.” (Gilbert Keith Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908, Chapter III.)

Alas, belief in the disproved ideology of evolutionism has led to such a world of illogic and irrationality that young men are incapable of answering a simple question posed to them by a professor who refuses to maintain “neutrality”: “If human beings evolved from apes, why aren’t human beings evolving at present? Why haven’t they turned into some other kind of species?” Indeed, as professor was wont to say during his teaching days that ended recently after a brief revival off-Broadway, shall we say, “Those who believe that they are descended from apes wind up like acting like apes over time. Belief in evolutionism leads to devolution of human behavior.” Just a look at the state of things in the world and in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, which is continuing devolve into a cartoon of tribal pantheism of the likes found yet in some parts of Africa and Oceania today.

The next passages from Chesteron discussed man’s love of “progress,” which is, of course, hailed incessantly by the conciliar revolutionaries:

Akin to these is the false theory of progress, which maintains that we alter the test instead of trying to pass the test. We often hear it said, for instance, “What is right in one age is wrong in another.” This is quite reasonable, if it means that there is a fixed aim, and that certain methods attain at certain times and not at other times. If women, say, desire to be elegant, it may be that they are improved at one time by growing fatter and at another time by growing thinner. But you cannot say that they are improved by ceasing to wish to be elegant and beginning to wish to be oblong. If the standard changes, how can there be improvement, which implies a standard? Nietzsche started a nonsensical idea that men had once sought as good what we now call evil; if it were so, we could not talk of surpassing or even falling short of them. How can you overtake Jones if you walk in the other direction? You cannot discuss whether one people has succeeded more in being miserable than another succeeded in being happy. It would be like discussing whether Milton was more puritanical than a pig is fat.

It is true that a man (a silly man) might make change itself his object or ideal. But as an ideal, change itself becomes unchangeable. If the change-worshipper wishes to estimate his own progress, he must be sternly loyal to the ideal of change; he must not begin to flirt gaily with the ideal of monotony. Progress itself cannot progress. It is worth remark, in passing, that when Tennyson, in a wild and rather weak manner, welcomed the idea of infinite alteration in society, he instinctively took a metaphor which suggests an imprisoned tedium. He wrote—

“Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change." He thought of change itself as an unchangeable groove; and so it is. Change is about the narrowest and hardest groove that a man can get into.

The main point here, however, is that this idea of a fundamental alteration in the standard is one of the things that make thought about the past or future simply impossible. The theory of a complete change of standards in human history does not merely deprive us of the pleasure of honouring our fathers; it deprives us even of the more modern and aristocratic pleasure of despising them. (Gilbert Keith Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908, Chapter III.)

Ratzinger/Benedict and Jorge the Cartoon Apostate both believe that the “past” is the “past.”

The German Modernist by way of the New Theology believes that papal encyclicals and the pronouncements issued by curial congregations were valid in the “particulars they contained” only in the circumstances that gave rise to them.

The Argentine Apostate is much less ethereal in his view of things: he simply likes “change” for its own sake. Stasis is just not any fun for Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his fellow agents of revolutionary change that is nothing other than a destroyer of the souls of men and of right order in their nations.

Chesterton also touched upon pragmatism, which is the chief cornerstone of American education, championed as it was by John Dewey, who was an associate, supporter and an admirer of the insidious work of none other than Margaret Sanger, the founder of what become “Planned Parenthood." Pragmatism seeks to produce "results" without looking for root causes, which explains why pre-formatted "learning modules" have replaced old-fashioned lectures based upon a professor's mastery of the subject matter in many community colleges and the whole panoply of "for profit" corporate universities that have proliferated in the past twenty years:

This bald summary of the thought-destroying forces of our time would not be complete without some reference to pragmatism; for though I have here used and should everywhere defend the pragmatist method as a preliminary guide to truth, there is an extreme application of it which involves the absence of all truth whatever. My meaning can be put shortly thus. I agree with the pragmatists that apparent objective truth is not the whole matter; that there is an authoritative need to believe the things that are necessary to the human mind. But I say that one of those necessities precisely is a belief in objective truth. The pragmatist tells a man to think what he must think and never mind the Absolute. But precisely one of the things that he must think is the Absolute. This philosophy, indeed, is a kind of verbal paradox. Pragmatism is a matter of human needs; and one of the first of human needs is to be something more than a pragmatist. Extreme pragmatism is just as inhuman as the determinism it so powerfully attacks. The determinist (who, to do him justice, does not pretend to be a human being) makes nonsense of the human sense of actual choice. The pragmatist, who professes to be specially human, makes nonsense of the human sense of actual fact.

To sum up our contention so far, we may say that the most characteristic current philosophies have not only a touch of mania, but a touch of suicidal mania. The mere questioner has knocked his head against the limits of human thought; and cracked it. This is what makes so futile the warnings of the orthodox and the boasts of the advanced about the dangerous boyhood of free thought. What we are looking at is not the boyhood of free thought; it is the old age and ultimate dissolution of free thought. It is vain for bishops and pious bigwigs to discuss what dreadful things will happen if wild scepticism runs its course. It has run its course. It is vain for eloquent atheists to talk of the great truths that will be revealed if once we see free thought begin. We have seen it end. It has no more questions to ask; it has questioned itself. You cannot call up any wilder vision than a city in which men ask themselves if they have any selves. You cannot fancy a more sceptical world than that in which men doubt if there is a world. It might certainly have reached its bankruptcy more quickly and cleanly if it had not been feebly hampered by the application of indefensible laws of blasphemy or by the absurd pretence that modern England is Christian. But it would have reached the bankruptcy anyhow. Militant atheists are still unjustly persecuted; but rather because they are an old minority than because they are a new one. Free thought has exhausted its own freedom. It is weary of its own success. If any eager freethinker now hails philosophic freedom as the dawn, he is only like the man in Mark Twain who came out wrapped in blankets to see the sun rise and was just in time to see it set. If any frightened curate still says that it will be awful if the darkness of free thought should spread, we can only answer him in the high and powerful words of Mr. Belloc, “Do not, I beseech you, be troubled about the increase of forces already in dissolution. You have mistaken the hour of the night: it is already morning.” We have no more questions left to ask. We have looked for questions in the darkest corners and on the wildest peaks. We have found all the questions that can be found. It is time we gave up looking for questions and began looking for answers. (Gilbert Keith Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908, Chapter III.)

Ah, we live in a world of such pretense today, do we not?

Most Catholics alive think that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is the Catholic Church and believe that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is the “progressive” “pope” while Joseph Alois Ratzinger was the “traditional” or “conservative” “pope.”

All of this is but the result of the inability to think clearly in a world of such error, a world that lacks a superabundance of Sanctifying and Actual Graces as a result of the liturgical barrenness of the conciliar rites. Indeed, Joseph Ratzinger, who lives in a fog of contradiction and paradox, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who is such an anti-intellectual that he takes jab at his pseudo-intellectual predecessor, are products of the errors that have been unleashed by the very forces of Protestantism that both have celebrated and have found “useful” to their “understanding” of what they think is the Faith.

Lest anyone cite Pope Pius XII’s cautious openness on biological expressionism expressed in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, as some kind of “proof” that the likes of "Saint John Paul II," Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Cartoon Jorge's own support for the disproved ideology of biological evolutionism represents some kind of "legitimate development of doctrine" in line with the thought of the late John Henry Cardinal Newman, it must be pointed out that our last true pope took a more cautious view in 1953.

Moreover, the late Mr. Gerard Keane's Creation Rediscovered reports that Pope Pius XII expressed "serious reservations about the scientific credibility" of evolutionism in an address delivered to the First International Congress of Medical Genetics, September 7, 1953:

In recent works on genetics one reads that the connection between living things cannot be explained better than by supposing a common genealogical tree. It is, however, necessary to remark that what we have here is an image, a hypothesis, not a demonstrated fact. . . . If most researcher workers speak of genealogical descent as a fact, they are premature in doing so. Other hypotheses are possible [in addition to that of evolution] . . . [Besides] scientists of repute have pointed out that in their opinion one cannot as yet say what is real and exact meaning of terms such as "evolution," "descent" and "transmission"; that we know of no natural process by which one being can beget another of a different kind; that the process by which one species begets another is altogether unintelligible, no matter how many intermediate stages be supposed; that no experimental method for producing one species from another has been found; and finally that we have no idea at what stage in the evolutionary process the hominoid suddenly crossed the threshold of humanity  . . . [In conclusion] one is forced to say that the study of human origins is only at its beginnings: there is nothing definitive about present-day theory. (Quoted in Gerard Keane, Creation Rediscovered, p. 201.)

As we know, of course, everything in true science since 1950 has debunked evolutionism, making endorsements of it by the likes of Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Cartoon Jorge Mario Bergoglio to be all the more laughable and inexcusable. Then again, why should the conciliar revolutionaries be any more interested in true scientific studies than they are about the actual truths contained in the immutable Sacred Deposit of Faith?

Although each of the conciliar “popes” has attacked the integrity of Faith, Worship and Morals in a variety of ways, we can see now that each has been a “place setter,” if you will, for Cartoon Jorge, a man who has no patience for “dogmas” and whose verbiage displays nothing other than a “religious sense” that is totally subjectivist. It is this subjectivism, condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, which explains how he can reaffirm non-Catholics in their false religions to the point of their possible eternal perdition for their unbelief and why, of course, he must attack as “corrupt,” “sick and “dead” those Catholics who believe that truth about God and His Sacred Deposit of Faith are objective truths that are beyond the capacity of any person of the face of this earth to alter or to make irrelevant on the grounds of subjective considerations.

Cartoon Jorge is merely voicing a “man on the street” kind of theology reminiscent of the “man on the street” interviews that the late Steve Allen conducted with characters played by Don Knotts, Louis Nye, Pat Harrington, Jr., Tom Poston and Bill Dana (“My name eees Jose Jiminez”). Jorge is the “man on the street,” a man who believes it is his mission to bring what he thinks is the Catholic Faith in “line” with what the “people” believe, especially those who steeped in lives of unrepentant sin, including those that cry out to Heaven for vengeance. His beliefs, though, are from Hell, and no one in the “resist while recognize” movement or in the “conservative” “This is what ‘Francis’ really meant to say” alternative universe in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism can cite a single true Sovereign Pontiff who has ever thought, spoken, written and acted in the manner of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

This, however, is the very crux of the matter.

Although those who attack sedevacantism so regularly are prone to state that a papal vacancy has never lasted longer than thirty months in the past, thereby making a vacancy of fifty-six years to be “impossible,” they reason, why they do not seem to grasp is that there is no precedent in the history of the Catholic Church for fifty-six years of “papal” words and deeds that have been manifestly contrary to the truths of the Holy Faith and, of course, detrimental to the eternal and temporal good of the souls for whom Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood to redeem during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday.

As we know, however, the counterfeit church of conciliarism is not the Catholic Church. The counterfeit church of conciliarism is but the instrument of Antichrist to do away with the last bastions of Catholicism in preparation for the triumph of the One World Ecumenical Church and his own reign over men.

We must trust in Our Lady’s intercessory power during this troubling times, praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits. There will be the Triumph of her Immaculate Heart one day. All we need to do is bear the present share of suffering with joy and gratitude for having been kept alive to plant a few seeds to help souls to recognize the truth of our ecclesiastical situation and thus to flee from everything to do with the conciliar church, which is headed a present by a cartoon figure of apostasy, heresy, blasphemy and utter vulgarity, Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady, Queen of the Most Holy Rosary and of All Saints, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

All the Saints, pray for us.