Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Sticks out like a sore thumb: “Pope” Francis

A Big Mouth Open for Modernism:
The Bergoglio Manifesto

A Commentary on the “Papal” Interview

More Vatican II. Once you manage to get through all the Modernist drivel, that’s the essential message of the interview Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a.k.a. “Pope” Francis, gave to his fellow-Jesuit layman, the Rev. Antonio Spadaro, editor-in-chief of La Civilta Cattolica, published on September 19, 2013. (The full text of the interview, together with the most important quotes highlighted and links to sundry commentaries from various sources, can be accessed here: “Francis Makes a Mess”.)

Bergoglio is 100% a man of the Second Vatican Council, and in this 12,000-word interview he resuscitates all the old 1960’s liberal slogans and ideas to promote essentially a theological “flower-power” for his church. There is absolutely no doubt that Francis is Paul VI on steroids.

The true Catholicism of Pope Pius XII and all of Pius’ predecessors is entirely foreign and repulsive to Francis. To those who analyzed the previously-known facts about Bergoglio calmly and reasonably — as opposed to trying to force things through the stencil of a desired agenda (such as “Fr.” John Zuhlsdorf, Michael Voris, Christopher Ferrrara, and Michael Matt) — this is not surprising but simply the logical consequence of a Jesuit trained in the 1960s getting a chance to speak his mind.

Let’s hope that those who have been listening to the usual semi-traditionalist and neo-conservative spinmeisters will finally wake up and realize they’ve been following the wrong people. Spinning is of no use other than perhaps assuaging your own conscience and emotions, or of saving face with the readers of your blog if you’ve been pushing a certain position that simply isn’t based on facts but on wishful thinking.

Reading the entire interview Francis gave to the Rev. Spadaro is tough for a Catholic. Francis’ words are filled to the brim with typical Modernist poppycock, which is so appealing to the masses but so devoid of Roman Catholicism. He spews his errors using the usual tactics of vagueness, ambiguity, and contradiction, so as to successfully inject his Modernist poison into the minds of all, while often leaving just barely enough room for someone like “Father Z” to squeeze in an “orthodox interpretation” that just “must” be what the “Holy Father” was “really” saying.

But Pope St. Pius X alerted us over 100 years ago to these tactics. He told us that Modernists can be identified by “their tenets, their manner of speech, and their action” (Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi, par. 3), and he pointed out specifically that they “seem not unfrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful. But this is done deliberately and advisedly” (par. 18). Pope Pius VI, too, condemned and exposed the Modernists’ cunning schemes, whose nefarious ideas

“cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up to the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.”

(Pope Pius VI, Bull Auctorem Fidei, 1794)

As was to be expected, since the interview there has appeared an endless gamut of blog posts, articles, radio shows, and video clips of various “experts” and pundits “explaining” the content of the interview. You can pretty much find anything from “This is a revolution!” to “Relax, there’s nothing new here,” so the best thing to do is simply read the interview for yourself — and ask yourself if the words are those of an orthodox Catholic or of a liberal hippie theologian, always keeping in mind the above-quoted condemnation of Pius VI.

No doubt, all those who had been led to believe that Bergoglio was really a “conservative” bulldozer who likes to “bring the lumber” and “lay the smack down” (hello, Michael Voris?) immediately rushed to their favorite blogs and commentators to tell them that what the “Pope” said really wasn’t what he meant, and that once again it was all the fault of the big-bad “mainstream media” that “misrepresented” the oh-so-orthodox “Holy Father.” True, the mainstream media are liberal and they do tend to misreport things, but you cannot always lay all the blame on the media. At the end of the day, the message that is communicated is based on the text of what Francis said, and this is a text he himself proofread and explicitly approved for publication.

Meanwhile, several blog posts have appeared that illustrate the monstrous heretical, impious, and downright idiotic comments Francis made in his conversation with his fellow Jesuit, and it is these posts that really drive home the absurdity of the message Francis has given to the world:

In fact, one of these posts very nicely summarizes the absurd but typical Novus Ordo damage-control commentary seen on the internet these days:

For the next April Fool, I am thinking of writing a blog post with one of the following topics.

1)  The Pope confuses the faithful. This is good. We shouldn’t feel too safe in our certainties.

2) The Pope confuses the faithful. This is good. It reminds us that we need to pray for an orthodox Pope.

3) The Pope gives scandal to Catholics. This is good. Jesus did that with the Jews, too.

4) The Pope confuses the faithful. This is good. He must be saying something we need to hear.

5) The Pope confuses the faithful. This is good. Without growing pains, there would be no growth.

6) The Pope gives scandal to Catholics. This is good. It means the Holy Ghost has decided to make some “holy mess”.

7) The Pope gives scandal to Catholics. This is good. We must open new areas to God.

I must still decide which issue to tackle.

(Mundabor, “Ideas for the next April Fool”)

In the following bulleted paragraphs, we will provide some commentary on a select few particularly revealing, insightful, and frightful statements Francis made. An exhaustive commentary is not needed here, and has already been offered by Tom Droleskey at Christ or Chaos, in three installments: Francis: Apostle of Antichrist (1)Francis: Apostle of Antichrist (2)Francis: Apostle of Antichrist (3).

  • “I have never been a right-winger,” Antipope Francis says early on in the interview. Apparently he thought this needed clarification, lest anyone think he was an anti-liberal bulldog.
  • “The church sometimes has locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules. The most important thing is the first proclamation: Jesus Christ has saved you. And the ministers of the church must be ministers of mercy above all.” This is wonderfully nebulous, ooey-gooey liberal tripe that could have come straight from the mouth of Richard McBrien or James Martin. It is the typical Modernist juxtaposition of the Church’s “stringent rules” with the heart-warming “mercy of the Gospel”, with the desired effect of pitting the Church against Christ. This is what the world loves to hear. Yet, the truth is that the Church’s laws themselves — those of the True Catholic Church, that is — exist precisely in order to apply the mercy of the Gospel to souls through the right ordering of the life of the Church.
  • “The ministers of the Gospel must be people who can warm the hearts of the people, who walk through the dark night with them, who know how to dialogue and to descend themselves into their people’s night, into the darkness, but without getting lost. The people of God want pastors, not clergy acting like bureaucrats or government officials. The bishops, particularly, must be able to support the movements of God among their people with patience, so that no one is left behind. But they must also be able to accompany the flock that has a flair for finding new paths.” This is more fuzzy pseudo-theological junk that is devoid of any real substance. A “flair for finding new paths” is not something a true Pope would have ever agreed with, much less verbalized, and has been condemned again and again by the Popes of the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries as “dangerous novelty.” In fact, Pope St. Pius X opens his landmark anti-Modernist encyclical with this sentence: “One of the primary obligations assigned by Christ to the office divinely committed to Us of feeding the Lord’s flock is that of guarding with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith delivered to the saints, rejecting the profane novelties of words and the gainsaying of knowledge falsely so called. There has never been a time when this watchfulness of the supreme pastor was not necessary to the Catholic body, for owing to the efforts of the enemy of the human race, there have never been lacking ‘men speaking perverse things,’ ‘vain talkers and seducers,’ ‘erring and driving into error'” (St. Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi, par. 1). How true this is, today more than ever before!
  • “Religion has the right to express its opinion in the service of the people, but God in creation has set us free: it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person.” This is absolutely hysterical! It is perhaps the most idiotic thing the man has ever expressed. First, Bergoglio refers to “religion” in general, without so much as distinguishing the true religion from false religions, that is the rights of the Church vs. the rights of other religions. Secondly, instead of reasserting the Church’s mandate from Christ the Lord Himself to teach all nations in matters of Faith and morals (Mt 28:19-20), Francis instead merely speaks of a “right to express” an “opinion” (!), one that is shared equally by all religions (since he speaks of religion in general). When all is said and done, acc. to Francis, the True Church has no right to “interfere spiritually” in people’s lives! This is incredible! Who in his right mind can still believe this Modernist to be the Pope of the Catholic Church?! The True Church — not that Francis actually represents it, but he purports to — has a mandate from the Lord to “interfere spiritually” with the entire human race! Francis’ heresies are so outrageous that anyone with even just a shallow understanding of the Gospels can see through this bunk. What did Christ do if not “interfere spiritually” with people and tell His Apostles to do the same?! This isn’t the first time, by the way, that Bergoglio has made this ludicrous claim about “spiritual interference.” In his 2010 book On Heaven and Earth, which he co-authored with a Jewish rabbi, then-“Cardinal” Bergoglio stated that a Catholic priest “does not have the right to force anything on anyone’s private life. If God, in creation, ran the risk of making us free, who am I to get involved? We condemn spiritual harassment that takes place when a minister imposes directives, conduct, and demands in such a way that it takes away the freedom of the other person” (source). Bergoglio calls a priest admonishing a sinner “spiritual harrassment”?! This is absolutely retarded! What does Holy Scripture say? “Go, and now sin no more” (Jn 8:11) and “Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9-10). Bergoglio is as “Catholic” as the Dalai Lama!
  • “A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: ‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ We must always consider the person. Here we enter into the mystery of the human being. In life, God accompanies persons, and we must accompany them, starting from their situation. It is necessary to accompany them with mercy. When that happens, the Holy Spirit inspires the priest to say the right thing.” Bergoglio can’t even give a clear, orthodox, and morally sound answer to such a simple question as, “Do you approve of sodomy?” There is only one answer. One can only imagine how the heroically-virtuous Pope St. Pius X would have answered such a question, and contrast this with the humanist-Modernist hooey dished up by Mr. Bergoglio. No doubt the neo-con cheerleaders for Francis will focus all their hermeneutical energies on the last sentence where Francis talks about the Holy Ghost “inspiring the priest to say the right thing”, but this is just Bergoglio engaging in the Modernist method of “plausible deniability” so fiercely condemned by Pope Pius VI, as seen above.
  • “We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.” By these comments, Francis has stabbed all those Novus Ordos in the back who, in their good will and love of our Lord, have bravely defended Catholic teachings against abortion, contraception, liberalism, and other errors in the face of the most hateful, most virulent, most humiliating opposition. Indeed, Francis has spit in the face of Christ Himself. German journalist Giuseppe Nardi, who is of an indult/motu persuasion, relates that the day the infamous interview was released, he received a phone call from a pro-life activist friend, who was weeping over what he had been reading. Not only was Francis’ silence on “gay marriage” and abortion — with immediate horrific consequences in Brazil — more than merely accidental, it was actually a matter of deliberate “papal” strategy that Francis happily endorses. (See Nardi article here in a computerized translation.) ‘Quit talking about abortion and contraception all the time, and start helping out at the local soup kitchen.’ This is certainly something the Culture of Death has no problem with. Francis’ message to the world is one of conceding defeat on Catholic morals, and hence it came as no surprise that the baby butchers at NARAL posted a big “Thank-You” to His Phoniness on Facebook, which can be seen here. But this only comes as a surprise to those who actually believe Francis to be a Roman Catholic, which is not at all the case, as the man’s history shows clearly. At a time when the Western world is on the brink of complete moral chaos and steeped in the most horrific sins against purity, against innocence, against nature, and against all the laws of God and the right order of things, Bergoglio says, essentially, “Shift down a few gears and be ‘warm’ and ‘welcoming’ so people can detect the fragrance of the Gospel.” This is absolute… — well, the best word to use here is often abbreviated with the initials of Barbara Streisand. The fact that a day after the interview’s release, Francis condemned abortion, is just more of the same Modernist strategy that both affirms and denies the same thing in order to appear confused or misunderstood rather than deliberate and calculated.
  • “It is amazing to see the denunciations for lack of orthodoxy that come to Rome. I think the cases should be investigated by the local bishops’ conferences, which can get valuable assistance from Rome. These cases, in fact, are much better dealt with locally. The Roman congregations are mediators; they are not middlemen or managers.” Denunciations for lack of orthodoxy, really? Now how is that possible? Bergoglio has a great solution ready: ‘Quit making this Rome’s problem, and deal with it at the local level, darn it.’ He seems to concede Rome the right to give an “opinion” to the local bishops at least, so they get to act as “mediators” but not as “middlemen”… wait a minute — isn’t that the same thing?
  • “Vatican II was a re-reading of the Gospel in light of contemporary culture. Vatican II produced a renewal movement that simply comes from the same Gospel. Its fruits are enormous. Just recall the liturgy. The work of liturgical reform has been a service to the people as a re-reading of the Gospel from a concrete historical situation.” Yeah, exactly, look at the liturgy with its enormous “fruits” from that “concrete historical situation” of the late 1960s! Stunning indeed. Only morons would think there’s a problem, right? (See our page on the Holy Mass here and also Bergoglio’s liturgical chaos documented here.)
  • “Yes, there are hermeneutics of continuity and discontinuity, but one thing is clear: the dynamic of reading the Gospel, actualising its message for today — which was typical of Vatican II — is absolutely irreversible.” Sure, who doesn’t need an “updated” Gospel every few decades? You know, a “Gospel 2.0” had long been overdue. Come to think of it, there hadn’t been a “dynamic re-reading” of the Gospel in 1,900 years, so Vatican II came extremely late. Except, the irony is that Bergoglio himself is hopelessly stuck in a world of the past. For him, it’s still 1969. The Vatican II hippie theologians always forget that the 1960s are long past. It’s not this world anymore. So, by their own logic, Vatican II is actually irrelevant to today (which is, of course, why many are asking for a “Vatican III” — and Francis may just give it to them).
  • “Then there are particular issues, like the liturgy according to the Vetus Ordo [Traditional Latin Mass]. I think the decision of Pope Benedict was prudent and motivated by the desire to help people who have this sensitivity. What is worrying, though, is the risk of the ideologisation of the Vetus Ordo, its exploitation.” Oh, this is just priceless. Fully in line with his two immediate predecessors of unhappy memory, Francis concedes the permission of the Traditional Mass (well, the 1962 Roncalli missal, actually) to those of his flock who have a “sensitivity” in this regard. John Paul II called it a “nostalgia” or “attachment” to the Old Mass (see Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, 1988), and this is not surprising, as for the Modernists, “everything in their system is explained by inner impulses or necessities” (Pope St. Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi, par. 21). But when it comes to insisting on the Traditional Mass as a matter of the proper worship of Almighty God, as a matter of orthodoxy and of the right expression of the true Roman Catholic Faith against the heretical Novus Ordo worship service, then for this the otherwise oh-so-heart-warming Francis has no tolerance, for that would be an “exploitation” of the Mass for an “ideology” (um, yeah, the Roman Catholic Faith, actually). So, Francis will let you have your Latin Mass as long as you don’t allow the Lex Orandi to determine the Lex Credendi. And that’s how it’s been with the indult/motu Mass from the very beginning. The indult/motu Mass only exists to keep devout people who try to be orthodox Catholics from defecting either to the SSPX or to sedevacantism. That’s all. This is confirmed even historically, as the indult Mass arose out of the schism of the SSPX with the Modernist Vatican in the 1980s.
  • “God manifests himself in time and is present in the processes of history. This gives priority to actions that give birth to new historical dynamics.” Got it?! Where there are new historical dynamics, there you will find God. With such astute “guardians of orthodoxy” like this, who needs Modernists?! Michael Voris should be proud of these “clear” statements by the man he’s been painting as a great anti-Modernist. Somehow we suspect he won’t be quoting them anytime soon, however.
  • “If one has the answers to all the questions — that is the proof that God is not with him. It means that he is a false prophet using religion for himself. The great leaders of the people of God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt. You must leave room for the Lord, not for our certainties; we must be humble.” Ah, this is ultra-orthodox Modernism at its finest — castigating those who claim to have full knowledge of the truth — against the clear promise of our Blessed Lord (see Jn 8:32). But, says Bergoglio, Moses and other great leaders “always left room for doubt”, right? Well, what he doesn’t tell you is that they were reprimanded for their doubt! Hello?! Num 20:12, for example, says: “And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron: Because you have not believed me, to sanctify me before the children of Israel, you shall not bring these people into the land, which I will give them.” Or think of other famous scriptural examples of godly people entertaining doubt (Gen 19:17,26; Lk 13:25; Jn 20:25-27). Was God pleased? Of course not! Bergoglio the Modernist disguises as “humility” that which is in truth terrible pride, labeling the certain truth of God which He has communicated to us “our” certainties and making doubt equal to “leaving room for the Lord”. Despicable! Faith is the highest certitude we can possibly have because it is based on the authority of God revealing, and God can neither deceive nor be deceived (see Act of Faith).
  • “If the Christian is a restorationist, a legalist, if he wants everything clear and safe, then he will find nothing. Tradition and memory of the past must help us to have the courage to open up new areas to God. Those who today always look for disciplinarian solutions, those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal ‘security,’ those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists – they have a static and inward-directed view of things. In this way, faith becomes an ideology among other ideologies.” This passage must have the semi-traditionalists at The Remnant, Fatima Center, Catholic Family News, ChurchMilitant.TV, etc., hitting the ceiling. Bergoglio has just contradicted everything they stand for and seek to achieve. In particular, Francis loathes what he calls “restorationism” — in other words, traditionalists in the New Church that seek a “restoration of Tradition” (see also Francis’ previous disparaging remarks about “restorationists” in June ’13). It’s nothing short of poetic justice that Michael Voris, who has been trying to make people believe as though Francis supported his “ultra-orthodox” tough-guy approach to Novus Ordo Catholicism, has labeled his upcoming 2014 luxury cruise a “Restoration retreat” — not to mention all of Voris’ efforts to increase people’s “doctrinal security”. Oops!
  • “…[H]uman self-understanding changes with time and so also human consciousness deepens. The view of the church’s teaching as a monolith to defend without nuance or different understandings is wrong…. Even the forms for expressing truth can be multiform, and this is indeed necessary for the transmission of the Gospel in its timeless meaning.” More of the same old Modernist claptrap. True to the Modernist method, Bergoglio contradicts himself here, insisting on both a “timeless meaning” for the Gospel (that’s his intended loophole for plausible deniability) and yet also on “different understandings” being expressed in multiple “forms.” This idea that the truth is one thing and its expression is another is an old but still very cunning Modernist error. Angelo Roncalli — Antipope John XXIII — used it in his opening speech at the Second Vatican Council to allow for the floodgates of Modernism to open against the doctrinal fortress of the Church: “The substance of the ancient doctrine of the Deposit of Faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another” (John XXIII, Allocution Gaudet Mater Ecclesia, Oct. 11, 1962). Against this, we need but look at the strong condemnation of Pope Pius VI against those who would even so much as omit the term “Transubstantiation” to explain the Church’s dogma of the Real Presence of Christ, even though the explanation itself be entirely orthodox: “…since by an indiscreet and suspicious [!] omission of this sort knowledge is taken away both of an article pertaining to faith, and also of the word consecrated by the Church to protect the profession of it, as if it were a discussion of a merely scholastic question.” BAM! Pope Pius is emphatic and very clear that the language used by the Church is not simply one of many “forms of expression” that can be exchanged for others at will, but rather is chosen “to protect the profession” of the True Faith, so much so that any change in wording is ipso facto rendered suspicious and, indeed, as the Pope continues, “dangerous, derogatory to the exposition of Catholic truth [and] favorable to heretics” (Pius VI, Bull Auctorem Fidei, error no. 29; Denz. 1529). This, ladies and gentlemen, is what a real Pope says about these issues! The First Vatican Council, too, briefly touched upon the question of changing one’s “understanding” of timeless truths, decreeing: “…that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding” (Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius [1870], Ch. 4; Denz. 1800; italics added). Pope St. Pius X echoed this teaching when he condemned the Modernist error that “[t]he dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven” (Pius X, Syllabus of Errors Lamentabili Sane, error no. 22). Lastly,Pope Pius XII likewise condemned this Modernist line endorsed by Francis, upbraiding those who believe “that the history of dogmas consists in the reporting of the various forms in which revealed truth has been clothed, forms that have succeeded one another in accordance with the different teachings and opinions that have arisen over the course of the centuries” (Pius XII, Encyclical Humani Generis, par. 15).
    In addition to this, the following snippet from St. Pius X also condemns directly the error spouted by Francis: According to the doctrine of the Modernists “it is necessary that the primitive [religious] formulas be accepted and sanctioned by the heart; and similarly the subsequent work from which are brought forth the secondary formulas must proceed under the guidance of the heart. Hence it comes that these formulas, in order to be living, should be, and should remain, adapted to the faith and to him who believes. Wherefore, if for any reason this adaptation should cease to exist, they lose their first meaning and accordingly need to be changed. In view of the fact that the character and lot of dogmatic formulas are so unstable, it is no wonder that Modernists should regard them so lightly and in such open disrespect, and have no consideration or praise for anything but the religious sense and for the religious life. In this way, with consummate audacity, they criticize the Church, as having strayed from the true path by failing to distinguish between the religious and moral sense of formulas and their surface meaning, and by clinging vainly and tenaciously to meaningless formulas, while religion itself is allowed to go to ruin” (St. Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi, par. 13). Pius X is condemning Francis to a tee.
  • “…[W]e must not confuse the genius of Thomas Aquinas with the age of decadent Thomist commentaries. Unfortunately, I studied philosophy from textbooks that came from decadent or largely bankrupt Thomism.” This is a clear and forceful slap in the face of Holy Mother Church’s great scholastic-theological heritage, the bedrock of her theology, the great Thomists and Thomistic commentators. Of course, Francis here pays lip service to St. Thomas himself as he dismisses all those who studied and understood him best, just as the so-called “New Theologians” did when they proposed a “re-reading” of St. Thomas in “light” of ressourcement theology in the 1930s and ’40s, alleging that the Church’s greatest minds who had studied the Angelic Doctor inside and out didn’t really understand him at all. The most virulent opponent the New Theologians had before Vatican II was the saintly Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., who exposed their supposed “new theology” as nothing but a return to the errors of Modernism (see Fr. R. Garrigou-Lagrange, Where Is the New Theology Leading Us?). We respond to Francis’ dishonorable comments on Thomism by once again quoting the great St. Pius X, who wrote: “Against scholastic philosophy and theology [the Modernists] use the weapons of ridicule and contempt. Whether it is ignorance or fear, or both, that inspires this conduct in them, certain it is that the passion for novelty is always united in them with hatred of scholasticism, and there is no surer sign that a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the scholastic method. Let the Modernists and their admirers remember the proposition condemned by Pius IX: ‘The method and principles which have served the ancient doctors of scholasticism when treating of theology no longer correspond with the exigencies of our time or the progress of science'” (St. Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi, par. 42). BAM! These words sound like they were written directly for Francis himself. Bergoglio is simply a Modernist, not a Catholic, and this is abundantly obvious if one but studies the evidence.

But enough of this already. Bergoglio simply cannot stop talking, and what he says is anything but Catholic. People need to finally stop recognizing this theological monster as the Pope of the Catholic Church. He’s not! Papal elections aren’t like elections to the local country club: Divine law prevents the valid election of anyone who does not profess the true Roman Catholic Faith. Pope Paul IV, who reigned in the 16th century, spelled out clearly how the Divine Law applies to papal elections when the papal claimant is not a Catholic but a heretic:

[I]f ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;

(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;

(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;

(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.

(Pope Paul IV, Apostolic Constitution Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio [1559], par. 6; underlining added.)

Got it?! It’s not that difficult. Jorge Bergoglio is manifestly not a Roman Catholic, and hence not the Pope of the Catholic Church. The most salutary thing we can possibly do with regard to Mr. Bergoglio is recognize this fact in public and stop acting as though this man were a valid Roman Pontiff!

Mr. John Lane, a sedevacantist Catholic from Australia, has summarized the matter quite eloquently, speaking of all the papal impostors of the Vatican II Church:

“The entire force of the Conciliar revolt comes from the fact that it has apparently been imposed by the authority of the Church. How many bishops, priests, religious, and laymen, would have swallowed the lies of the heretics if they had not believed themselves bound to do so by the voice of Christ’s Vicar on earth? Questioning the authority of these men renders their revolution of doubtful authenticity.”

(John Lane, “Concerning an SSPX Dossier on Sedevacantism” [PDF], p. 65)

Bergoglio’s claim to the papacy is laughable, and the more people laugh at it, rather than take it seriously, the better. (For rebuttals to recent attempts at refuting the sedevacantist position, see our article The Chair Is Still Empty: Response to John Salza and also our post Pope? Nope!.)

The apostate liberation theologian Leonardo Boff was right when in March 2013 he said to all Novus Ordo ‘Catholics’ about Bergoglio, “You are in for a real surprise” (source). Indeed, a surprise it has been for them, and not a pretty one. He has caused moral, spiritual, theological, and liturgical chaos wherever he goes. In barely more than six months, he has denounced proselytizing, rebuked people for counting Rosaries, claimed that the Bride of Christ has flaws, taken away the Traditional Mass from the Franciscans of the Immaculate, allowed a publicly-exposed sodomite cleric to oversee the Vatican Bank, kissed men, women, and children left and right, endorsed the condemned immoral Tango dance, expressed his desire to be called “Jorge” instead of “Pope Francis”, overseen liturgical chaos at World Youth Day, told people to stop “judging” homosprofaned the altar at St. Mary Major, told Muslims they can obtain abundant spiritual fruit through the observance of Ramadan, and declared that the Church has never been in better shape than now. Really, you can’t make this stuff up.

This is the real Jorge Bergoglio, “Pope” Francis. He truly is “Chaos Frank.”

And he’s just getting started.