Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Francis’ homily of April 4, 2017

Bergoglio blasphemes again:
Jesus Christ “made Himself the Devil”!

Only the horns and the tail are missing:
The Vatican’s Blasphemer-in-Chief Jorge Bergoglio

The blasphemies of Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope Francis”) are becoming ever more frightful. Just the other day we reported on his joke about the Most Holy Trinity (see here) during a private audience, and today we have another blasphemy to add to the ever-growing list: In his homily of April 4, 2017, Francis said that our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ “made himself the devil” for us!

To clarify right from the outset: Yes, he really said it (it’s on the Vatican web site). No, it’s not a mistranslation. And no, it’s not a misunderstanding either.

In Italy, this is front-page news already: The April 6 edition of the Italian daily secular newspaper Libero mentions it on page 1 with an article by Vatican journalist and author Antonio Socci — the man who once set out to debunk the idea that the Third Secret of Fatima had still not been fully released but in the course of his research discovered that it was indeed so. Here is a snapshot of the entire front page and the beginning of the Socci article in particular (click on each image for a larger version):


Socci, who is a native Italian speaker, also called attention to the matter on his Facebook page. His article in Libero is entitled,”‘That Devil Jesus’. Words of Bergoglio.” This article itself is not available online but the author just posted a follow-up article that was published in Libero today, Apr. 6:

What exactly did Francis say? The official summary (with copious verbatim quotes) of his April 4, 2017 sermon at the Casa Santa Marta appears in the Vatican’s own newspaper, Osservatore Romano, vol. CLVII, n. 79 (Apr. 5, 2017). It is also found on the Vatican web site:

An official and complete English translation of the text has not been released, but Vatican Radio has published an English summary, which, however, omits the most explosive portion of the homily and does not do justice to the original Italian text found on the Vatican web site:

In this homily, Francis continually emphasizes how Christ “became sin” for us (mentioning this phrase as many as seven times), and he exaggerates it beyond its orthodox meaning. It appears he enjoys doing so by the sheer repetition and undue emphasis of this phrase. This isn’t new for him — he has done it before, as for example in his homily of June 15, 2013, in which he claimed that Christ “became the sinner” for us, and in his sermon of March 15, 2016, in which he asserted that our Lord “became sin” and “a serpent”.

This time, however, Francis managed to outdo himself, virtually eclipsing his prior utterances. Speaking of the Cross, the Crucifix, as the badge of the Christian, Francis called it “the memory of him who has made himself sin, who has made himself the devil, the serpent, for us; he has humbled himself to the point of complete annihilation.” The exact Italian reads: “come memoria di colui che si è fatto peccato, che si è fatto diavolo, serpente, per noi; si è abbassato fino ad annientarsi totalmente“. These words are printed on the Vatican web site as linked above.

Under the cloak of admiring God’s humility, Francis claims that Jesus Christ Himself is the devil! Once again, Bergoglio shows himself firmly ensconced in the camp of his real masters, the apostate Jews, for this was the same insult the unbelieving Pharisees hurled at our Lord, as He lamented: “they have called the goodman of the house Beelzebub” (Mt 10:25; cf. Mt 12:24-30; Jn 8:52).

A more staggering blasphemy than to say that God is Satan cannot be imagined!

And yet there it is, right there on the various web sites of the Vatican.

Of course we can expect that the Francis Exoneration Machine of the professional (and not-so-professional) Novus Ordo apologists will quickly be fired up and shifted into overdrive. We will try to pre-empt any such attempts by means of the following considerations.

As far as context goes, it is clear that to give a veener of justification for his blasphemous drivel, Francis is alluding to two scriptural passages, the first of which was part of the “Mass” readings for the day:

“Wherefore the Lord sent among the people fiery serpents, which bit them and killed many of them. Upon which they came to Moses, and said: We have sinned, because we have spoken against the Lord and thee: pray that he may take away these serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people. And the Lord said to him: Make brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: whosoever being struck shall look on it, shall live. Moses therefore made a brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: which when they that were bitten looked upon, they were healed.” (Num 21:6-9)

“Him, who knew no sin, [God] hath made sin for us, that we might be made the justice of God in him.” (2 Cor 5:21)

What is the correct understanding of these passages, according to traditional Catholic Scripture scholarship?

First, let’s have a look at that bronze serpent mentioned in Num 21:9. The traditional Catholic Haydock Commentary, which synthesizes the interpretations given by the Church’s best authorities on the biblical text, says the following:

A brazen serpent. This was a figure of Christ crucified, and of the efficacy of a lively faith in him, against the bites of the hellish serpent, John iii. 14. (Challoner) (St. Ambrose; Apol. i. 3.) As the old serpent infected the whole human race, Jesus Christ gives life to those that look at him with entire confidence. (Theodoret, q. 38.) The brazen serpent was destitute of poison, though it resembled a most noxious animal; so Jesus Christ assumed our nature, yet without sin. (Calmet)

(Haydock Commentary on Num 21:9; underlining added.)

Did you notice? No mention of Jesus Christ being a serpent or quasi-devil. Rather, the brazen serpent was an image (or type) of Christ in the sense that He took on our human nature, yet remained without sin, and was lifted up on the tree of the cross. This had been signified by the bronze serpent, which was without poison and placed on a pole: “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up” (Jn 3:14).

As regards 2 Cor 5:21, the Haydock Commentary gives the following explanations:

Him (Christ) who knew no sin, (who had never sinned, nor was capable of sinning) he (God) hath made sin for us. I had translated, with some French translators, he hath made a sacrifice for sin, as it is expounded by St. Augustine and many others, and grounded upon the authority of the Scriptures, in which the sacrifices for sins are divers times called sins, as Osee iv. 8. and in several places in Leviticus, by the Hebrew word Chattat, which signifies a sin, and is translated a victim for sin. But as this is not the only interpretation, and that my design is always a literal translation of the text, not a paraphrase, upon second thoughts I judged it better to follow the very words of the Greek, as well as of the Latin text. For besides the exposition already mentioned, others expound these words, him he hath made sin for us, to signify that he made Christ like unto sinners, a mortal man, with the similitude of sin. Others that he made he reputed [sic] a sinner; with the wicked was he reputed;(Mark xv. 28.) God having laid upon him all our iniquities.(Isaias liii. 6.) — That we might be made the justice of God in him; that is, that we might be justified and sanctified by God’s sanctifying grace, and the justice we receive from him. (Witham) — Sin for us. That is, to be a sin-offering, a victim for sin. (Challoner)

(Haydock Commentary on 2 Cor 5:21; underlining added.)

Another traditional Catholic Bible commentary observes:

‘Hath made sin’: i.e. ‘Has made Christ to be sin’, a saying deliberately meant to be startling. God allowed Christ to suffer a punishment fit only for sinners, and in that sense made him a sinner. There may be some further meaning.

(Bernard Orchard, OSB, ed., A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture [London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1953], n. 888a, p. 1105; underlining and italics added.)

Here we can see what the true meaning of these passages is. Our Lord Jesus Christ most certainly did not literally become sin, and even figuratively He only “became sin” in the senses explained above, i.e., by taking on our human nature (and thus bearing the likeness of sin; cf. Heb 4:15), by being reputed with the wicked on account of His Crucifixion (cf. Mk 15:28), and above all by offering Himself as a Perfect Sacrifice for sin (cf. Heb 7:27; 10:12).

It is ironic that Francis should preach on the Sign of the Cross, as it is precisely this sign and this Cross that he likes to avoid as much as he can. We recall his shameful hiding of his pectoral cross before the Jewish chief rabbis of Jersualem, his unmistakable efforts to avoid showing his cross in his “Pope Videos”, and his persistent refusal to bless people with the Sign of the Cross (usually he “blesses” people by laying his hands on their heads or touching them in some other way, but almost never with the sign of the Cross), his complete omission of the Sign of the Cross during a liturgical “blessing”, and his infamous “silent blessing” in 2013, which he performed without the Sign of the Cross in order to “respect the consciences” of those present who were not Catholic.

Despite his occasional flowery words, Bergoglio hates the Cross. He hates God. This is manifest.

Hatred of God is the greatest sin that can possibly be committed because it is directly opposed to the greatest and first commandment (Mk 12:30: “thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole strength”). Love of God is the greatest virtue, hence hatred of God is the most damnable vice. This is the clear teaching of the Angelic Doctor: “The best is opposite to the worst, according to the Philosopher [Aristotle] (Ethic. viii, 10). But hatred of God is contrary to the love of God, wherein man’s best consists. Therefore hatred of God is man’s worst sin” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 34, art. 2). Yes, hatred of God, which often expresses itself in blasphemy, is even worse than heresy:

Even unbelief is not sinful unless it be voluntary: wherefore the more voluntary it is, the more it is sinful. Now it becomes voluntary by the fact that a man hates the truth that is proposed to him. Wherefore it is evident that unbelief derives its sinfulness from hatred of God, Whose truth is the object of faith; and hence just as a cause is greater than its effect, so hatred of God is a greater sin than unbelief.

(Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 34, art. 2, ad 2)

Thus we see that “Pope” Francis’ words and actions make perfect sense: His heresies and blasphemies go hand in hand, as they both have their origin in the same depraved mind. The man simply hates God and His Truth. After these past four years, can anyone seriously doubt it? For those who still haven’t seen it, here’s a stock list of Bergoglio’s spiritual junkyard.

To those who still refuse to be convinced and claim it’s all a matter of “ambiguity” or “misunderstanding” (Tom Hoopes maybe? Or Jimmy Akin?), we pose one final question: Why is it that this man continually expresses himself in such a way that his words are taken for blasphemy and heresy? Is he not capable of speaking in a clear, edifying, and devout manner? Is this not his duty, given the exalted and unique office he claims to hold? The truth is: He is quite capable of speaking properly, he is simply unwilling to do so because he — not our Blessed Lord — is a devil.

“Let no evil speech proceed from your mouth; but that which is good, to the edification of faith, that it may administer grace to the hearers” (Eph 4:29).

93 Responses to “Bergoglio blasphemes again: Jesus Christ “made Himself the Devil”!”

  1. Sarah Hodgins

    Unbelievable. Shared on my FB. Maybe someday some people will start to open their eyes. In the meantime, I am half disgusted, half sad.

    • Lee

      It’s not that unbelievable considering he has said so many other things like Jesus had to beg forgiveness of his parents when they were searching for Him in the temple, or that St. John the Baptist had doubts as to whether Jesus was the true Messiah, or whether the Trinity of Persons argue with one another in heaven etc. He has also said that Martin Luther is a witness of the Gospel, that proselytism is solemn nonsense, that he might be speaking heresy but that he believes the devil persecutes all Christians (that is) it doesn’t matter what religion you belong to Lutheranism, Fundamentalism, Evangelicalism. These are just tips of the iceberg. If people would just simply care and call this man an anti pope and refuse to go to his phony Church that would solve their first problem. The Now What link is provided above in the links of this website. Good source of what to do

      • Sarah Hodgins

        Yes, you are right. …I should have written “Disgusting” instead. Perhaps what I still find unbelievable is that millions still believe that man is an actual pope. It boggles the mind.

        • strickerm

          Yes, some of the millions cling to being “in communion” with the pope for fear of repercussions of being otherwise, unfortunately. And, some other millions think just like him.

          • Vanessa

            Did anyone comment on fb? It seems like no one believes this or isn’t paying attention.

          • Sarah Hodgins

            Yes…just 1 person I know who is a relatively traditional Catholic…

          • Pedro

            “in communion” means “let us all get along” as in go along to get along. No one has the fortitude to fight. The Novus Ordo is not Catholic. Many cling to the “but he was elected” or to “there must be Pope” or to “it is all so complicated” or to “well I do not know” or “I am really too busy for that kind of thing” or whatever prevents them from seeing the obvious. The man is a heretic.

            Simply diabolic.

  2. Pascendi

    Notice the chronology of Begoglio’s statements. He expanded with each one. He became more bold. I don’t think this is accidental. What he said two days ago he believed all along, but he didn’t want to reveal it all at once because he knew there would be a backlash. He had to soften people up first. And he’s likely succeeded. I doubt much will come of this.
    One would be hard pressed to find a more wicked man in all of history.

      • Pascendi

        I find it difficult too. So I pray for his conversion, then I pray God will rid us of his evil according to His perfect time.

      • Pedro

        God will apply your prayers where they are most needed. This man may require a miracle to bring him to his senses. Only God knows what is necessary.

    • Siobhan

      I think Wojtyla & Ratzinger were more wicked-being more covert. Bc lots of R & R’s think they were OK “popes,” especially “trad” Ratzinger. Only Jorge was publicly declared a Modernist by +Fellay for example, as if his predecessors were not.

      • Pascendi

        You have a legitimate point. It’s a matter of how each person looks at it. What’s worse, occasional and subtle heresies that don’t shock so much but destroys faith little by little, or pedal to the metal non stop heresies that leave people numb and losing their faith a lot sooner. I don’t know which is worse.

        • Pedro

          Wojtyla and Ratzinger were more hidden in their evil but perhaps Bergoglio acts qualify him as more evil due to the public scandal.

        • Pascendi

          I’ll call him wicked. Would a great saint publicly kiss a book that denies the divinity of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and which blasphemes Him? Would a great saint allow a pagan priestess to smear his forehead with cow dung as part of their religious practice? Would a great saint invite schismatics, heretics, infidels, and pagans to practice their false worship anywhere much less in a place under his authority? These are all the actions of a wicked man- John Paul II.

          • Pascendi

            His sin were public and therefore public repentance was required. He didn’t publicly repent. Objectively speaking he died in a state of mortal sin. Subjectively speaking we cannot say. Only God knows. But the Church does not base her canonizations on wishful thinking, but upon objective fact.

          • @FMShyanguya

            Just consider what you are saying, [paraphrasing] that you know he sinned, that he didn’t repent, and that the Church declared this great sinner a saint who infact is in hell.
            ***
            If you consider it carefully, you are making yourself god in place of God.

          • Pascendi

            No, I am not making myself god. I am stating what the Catholic Church herself teaches. Public sins REQUIRE public repentance. Show us his public repentance. This is the objective side of the equation. I intentionally used the terms objective and subjective to denote the difference between the two. But maybe you don’t understand what those terms mean. Objective is what we can know with certainty. Subjective is what we can’t know. The Church doesn’t declare saints based on the subjective state of the soul because she can’t. She bases canonizations based on the OBJECTIVE state of the soul.
            Nevertheless it wasn’t the Catholic Church who declared JPII a saint. A collection of apostates who occupy the temporal buildings belonging to the Catholic Church declared him a saint. This includes the Francis, the chief apostate who falsely calls himself the Pope or the Vicar of Christ.

          • Sarah Hodgins

            It’s so funny how people who are either Protestants or uneducated Catholics accuse people of “being God” or “making themselves Pope”….when that is what they themselves do!

        • Sarah Hodgins

          He is not a saint. He was a terrible heretic who encouraged people to worship Buddha and other idols in churches. He is now burning in hell.

          • @FMShyanguya

            ‘He is now burning in hell.’
            ***
            You say this when the Church has not even declared someone like Judas to be in hell. It is clear how you view yourself.

          • Novus Ordo Watch

            The Church has most definitely declared Judas Iscariot to be in hell. Our Blessed Lord Himself said so: “Those whom thou gavest me have I kept; and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition, that the scripture may be fulfilled” (Jn 17:12.

          • Sparxz

            I have noticed over the years that People of the JedoMasonic Roman Communist Church, founded in 1958, as the Novos Ordo, are very quick to defend ‘their’ hero Judas. In many way, he is ‘their’ first pope(ie anti-pope). All anti-Christs are evil spirits. They will tolerate anything once it is in enemnity with the Holy Eternal Catholic Church. I used to debate them, and beat them back into their snake pit. But I realized it could be grave sin to communicate with them, as it would be for an Exorcist to debate a demon in a possessed person. Condemnation is the way to go. They have signed up for perdition. Their only mission is to take others with them, out of profound spite for God Almighty.
            And the Roman Communists Church ones, come out with blasphemies that even Protestants(by circumstance, who live in darkness) would not dare to come out with.

          • Sarah Hodgins

            It is certainly possible that John Paul 2 repented at the very last minute..but not very likely. Since JP2 was a public heretic for his whole life, pretending to be a true pope, I can’t see God giving him extra grace at the last second. Of course, it’s possible!. Just 99% unlikely. I suggest you leave this website. You obviously are not open to the painful truth and are just here to troll.

      • nello

        From a Catholic perspective you are a in grave error. Pope John Paul II is a canonised saint, which means that God granted a miracle as evidence to the Church for his holiness.

        • Pedro

          Test the work. Is it from God? Highly doubtful given Wojtyla’s pension for Modernism and indifference towards, for example, the children who were violated during his apostate tenure.

      • Pedro

        Corrects what exactly? His heretical actions while sitting in the Holy See? His false Modernist teachings? His participation in the false worship at Assisi? His participation in voodoo practices and other blasphemous acts? His encouragement of the participation of women and girls in the “Liturgy”? The list goes on, as it does for Ratzinger and this fool Bergoglio.

  3. Gisèle A. Demers

    Why this man is not arrested by the Swiss guards, and in a straight jacket send in a senile home is beyond me…He’s almost possessed…! We have to remember that Free Mason pronounces vows to Satan.

  4. Sonia

    Bergoglio is the ‘itching ear’ brigades SATANIC GIFT to locate ALL authority in Christ, the Word (Holy Scripture) and ‘tradition’ (protestant scattering) in THEMSELVES as ‘Holy’, and ‘of Christ’. Islam is satan’s Rabbinical nerve gas. Protestantism is the coup d’etat of the father of-lies. The place where Protestants locate authority is saddening – in the mirror mirror on the wall. But they rightly mock what they see as the contemporary ‘Catholic Church’.

    Even though you can tell them about Truth, History, Tradition, the schism of the sixties, but it is only an ego boost. ‘See – those Papists’ were barely ‘Church’ evahhhh. Meanwhile young lives are being determined by self-appointed ‘inspired’ random community gurus who care nothing for Christ as King of an openly established One, Holy, – Visible -, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It’s all about feelings and their gratification for the Protestant – even though they try to be ethical Gospelists.

    Everyone is becoming ‘spiritualised’. The atheist is an anachronism. The time to choose is coming closer; Christ or lslam/satan…Christ or Luther/satan…Christ or Calvin/satan…Christ or the Protestant-sucking Rabbis who hate the Son of God…Christ or the umpteen scatterings that believe ‘Church’ to be random, dysfunctional, priest-less, gooey, new agey, etc. Christ or belial.

  5. John Hixson

    You guys are over reacting. Lets wait and see what Bishop Fellay says. Why he probably won’t say a thing. 😉 THe FSSP and ICKSP won’t complain either. Just ignore this and move along.

  6. Greg C

    The Pharisees and Jews were constantly accusing Our Lord of having a devil, or being the devil. So it is fitting that Bergoglio would do the same since he doesn’t believe in Our Lord either. What a master serpent he is, twisting scripture to fit his satanic agenda of attacking Christ’s divinity so that man is raised to the level of God.

  7. EIA

    At first it’s confusing because of what Paul wrote in Corinthians. So one has to read it carefullly. For at one point Bergoglio says: “Questo è il mistero della croce e lo dice Paolo: ‘Si è fatto peccato’ e ha preso l’apparenza del padre del peccato…'”. Google translates this as: “This is the mystery of the cross and Paul says: ‘He made sin’ and took the appearance of the father of sin…..”

    So here Bergoglio leaps from Jesus becoming sin (2 Corinthians 5:21) to Jesus taking on the APPEARANCE, not of sin, but of the devil. Yet he still sticks only to appearances.

    But elsewhere he leaps again: “…But then “we have to look the devil to save us?…”. That’s proposing heresy.

    And again: “…as the memory of the man who became sin, who became the devil, snake, for us.” That’s heresy, blasphemy.

    For he ends by teaching that Our Lord actually became the devil, and in that context nowhere teaches or reminds everyone that Our Lord is infinitely and perfectly pure and holy, worthy of adoration due only to God. And that as Such, He offered Himself to the Father to atone for our sins, and redeem us. Instead he asks if we should seek redemption from the devil. We must pray for this man, and for all who follow him.

  8. bartmaeus

    “made himself the devil” . . “humbled himself”? Devil and humility in the same sentence? Boy, O, boy!
    Being made sin, as in representing all human sinners, is of a totally different order than being identified with the Tempter, an angelic being. Christ did not come to save fallen angels, but man. The sermon crosses a unbridgeable ontological gulf, as well as a moral gulf, identifying humility with the Archangel who fell due to his pride.

    I wonder if there is not something suggestive of classical Gnosticism in the sermon.

  9. Riki

    THE CHURCH IN AGONY

    

Penance Penance Penance
    
to avoid Divine vengeance
    
for not showing any remorse
    
and trying our will to enforce



    The reign of the Impostor has arrived

    the Church, of TRUTH is being deprived
    
the whole world hangs on his lips
    
while being readied for a total eclipse

    

The true followers of Christ
    
trying to pull off the heist

    are persecuted for non-compliance

    and being countered with defiance

    

When it will seem that all is lost
    
everything sacred has been tossed

    God will deliver us from our agony
    
and reign forever in all His Majesty

    

SO LET IT BE WRITTEN, SO LET IT BE DONE
    
A M E N


    Rita Biesemans, December 19 2013

  10. Riki

    THE CHURCH IN GETHSEMANE

    ———————————————–

    The Ship of Peter is torn apart
    Martyred in its Holy Teaching
    It sinks and sinks, no work of art
    The bottom though never reaching

    Dissidents are screaming loud
    Leaving behind an awful niff
    Pretending to be proudly stout
    Gearing the Ship into a cliff

    Jesus shows His wounded Heart
    Smitten with a deadly dart
    Peter the Rock in desolation
    Deploring severe desecration

    Wake up, you Christian Brother
    Show now your truthful face
    With Mary our Heavenly Mother
    We’ll reach that Peaceful Place

    In allegiance to the Holy Father – (this was still Benedict XVI)
    United in prayer and fasting
    No victory will claim, but rather
    Satan’s defeat be everlasting.

    Rita Biesemans, 01-02-2011

    • Pascendi

      You do realize that this is a sedevacantist site don’t you? We don’t believe Ratzinger was any more a Vicar of Christ than Bergoglio.

        • Sancho Panza

          There may have been terrible men who were Popes but there have never been terrible Popes. This is because the moral condition of the office holder is irrelevant to the exercise of their office. For example, a valid priest may be in a state of mortal sin but he still validly confects the sacraments because qua priest he is acting ‘in persona christi’ not in his own person, so too with Popes. Popes act on behafl of Christ, hence ‘Vicar of Christ’.

          However, Ratzinger and all the Vatican II “Popes” were never true popes because they were and are manifest and pertinacious heretics. Heresy, schism and apostasy automatically debars one from holding office in the Church.

          • Vanessa

            But how could God allow the chair of Peter to be vacant for so long? It’s been almost what 50 or 60 years. That’s way too long.

          • Pascendi

            There is nothing in the promises of God in either sacred scripture or in the doctrines of the Church that precludes the chair of Peter from being vacant for an extended and indeterminate amount of time.

          • Novus Ordo Watch

            It’s not too long for it to be *impossible*, though. Consider the words of Fr. Edmund J. O’Reilly, writing in the 19th century:

            “The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfil His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.”

            (Fr. Edmund J. O’Reilly, The Relations of the Church to Society, trans. by Matthew Russell [London: John Hodges, 1892], pp. 287-288.)

          • Pedro

            Sede vacante. Their is no precise time frame for an interregnum. Only God knows what is “way too long”.

          • Sarah Hodgins

            You are asking all the questions I also asked, and probably everyone else on this site has asked. Good for you for having the guts to ask questions.

          • Sarah Hodgins

            I thank you from the bottom of my heart for running this awesome website. I thought I had set up auto payments via PayPal before but I don’t think it’s working so I will do so again. You are pretty much the only reliable website online nowadays. Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!!!

        • Sarah Hodgins

          There is a huge difference between a “terrible” pope…as in “sinful” or “immoral” pope, and person who is NOT A POPE. Francis is not Catholic, or Christian…so how can he possibly be a pope? If I just say “I’m pope” and get a bunch of people to somehow agree with me, does that make me a true pope?

  11. Vanessa

    The Vicar of Christ just called God the devil. How is this not a bigger story? Why is virtually no one talking about this? The Vicar of Christ just blasphemed! God is going to give us His wrath for this, along with all that has been building up to this point. And people either refuse to believe or are ignoring this, just like in the days of Noah.

    • Sancho Panza

      Fortunately, the Vicar of Christ did not call God the devil as that would be a) impossible for the Vicar of Christ to say such a thing, therefore b) the man who did this can not possibly be the Vicar of Christ. Sadly, most of the world recognise this monster as being the Pope, thus the good name of the Catholic Church is dragged through the muck whenever this demonic clown opens his trap, which is all too often.

      • Siobhan

        Spoken like a Catholic. Thank you. May the Peace of His Majesty Our Lord Jesus Christ, a Peace not of this world, be to you.

    • Sarah Hodgins

      The so-called Vicar of Christ IS the devil! For a great but hugely disturbing book please read 1025: A Memoir of an Anti-Apostle by Marie Carre, and also The Plot Against the Church by Maurice Pinay. Both should be available free online as PDF documents. Be warned. It’s very very disturbing info.

  12. Novus Ordo Watch

    “Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man, speaking by the Spirit of God, saith Anathema to Jesus….” (1 Cor 12:3)

    “And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world.” (1 Jn 4:3)

  13. Pedro

    Given his randomness and “amiable” pension for spouting off as he likes, it appears he is probably enjoying his insanity.

    • PESh

      Senility? It is claimed that even some of the worst Modernists regret Bergie the Bad. Someone blander will cause less offence, help people slumber, but all these ‘Vatican insider’ claims are likely often one faction of Modernists bitching against another.

  14. Novus Ordo Watch

    I am puzzled by your response. Are you not aware that Jesus Christ is the Invisible Head of the Catholic Church? He founded her, and He is her head. What He teaches, she teaches. She is HIS Church. Secondly, the Catholic Church teaches everything contained in Sacred Scripture, and therefore she teaches that Judas Iscariot is in hell.

    • TheMaskedUnit

      1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
      1 Corinthians 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
      1 Corinthians 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of CEPHAS; and I of Christ.
      1 Corinthians 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

      I am of Christ. Which are you?

        • TheMaskedUnit

          That’s the flaw in Roman Catholicism. Like all the other religions, you never know if your saved because you don’t depend on Him alone. I didn’t do anything. All I can do is point to Him.

          Don’t get me wrong. I, in no way, imply that you are damned. Just worried. If it were up to you, there would be no use worrying. You’d screw it up 100% certain.

          • Novus Ordo Watch

            “For I am not conscious to myself of any thing, yet am I not hereby justified; but he that judgeth me, is the Lord.” (1 Cor 4:4)
            “See then the goodness and the severity of God: towards them indeed that are fallen, the severity; but towards thee, the goodness of God, if thou abide in goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.” (Rom 11:22)

          • Sarah Hodgins

            There is no flaw in Roman Catholicism. Jesus Christ started this Church and He still guides it; it is in now in exile because the world did not want Jesus and He is allowing satan to appear to take control. These are the End Days.

            Never has the RCC preached or taught that we can save ourselves. We depend on God alone! That’s one of the main doctrines! That’s why we worship the Lord Jesus, especially this week, when we commemorate His incredible Death and Sacrifice on the Holy Cross, and His Resurrection.

            You are a Protestant, as I was raised. You like I was, you are misinformed about what the true RCC actually teaches. Do yourself a favour and do some research before you write us off forever.

          • TheMaskedUnit

            Then you should be certain of your justification.

            2 Timothy 1:12 For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.

  15. Sarah Hodgins

    I have read it and all of the Bible verses you threw at N. O. W.

    (We seek the approval of God, not ANY men, right?) Yes.

    (We don’t have enough data to judge like God. He knows the heart. We
    don’t. “… Yet am I not hereby justified …” It’s a rhetorical
    question. The answer is Yes. God knows.) We are instructed to judge in some situations. That’s why the Lord teaches us to judge a man by his fruit.

    • TheMaskedUnit

      I would say warn, not judge. Judging is not good, as we are all sinners. Who can cast the first stone?
      What instructions are you referring to? Not to doubt you, I just want to be on the same page.

      Ezekiel 33:6 But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.

      • Novus Ordo Watch

        Our Lord was clear: “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge just judgment.” (Mt 7:24).
        Please understand that our combox is not meant to be a forum for Catholic-Protestant discussions but for commenting on the blog post above. God bless you.

        • TheMaskedUnit

          Don’t fear words. Christian-Christian discussion …

          Matthew 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

          Typo???

          • Novus Ordo Watch

            Oh, I am sorry, it was John 7:24. And let me assure you that I have no fear regarding this, I am just trying to keep the combox from exploding into a discussion forum on a topic that has nothing to do with the primary purpose of this web site.

          • TheMaskedUnit

            John 7:22 Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.
            John 7:23 If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?
            John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

            By the context of John 7, Jesus is commenting on following the spirit of the Law, not the letter. Of course, those wanting to justify themselves by the letter of the Law had to kill Him.

            Romans 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
            Is Jesus Christ not the “primary purpose”?

          • Novus Ordo Watch

            We can throw Bible verses at each other until we’re blue in the face — since you accept yourself as the final authority on what Scripture means, and not God’s Holy Church, it is a futile endeavor.

            The primary purpose of the web site is to expose the Modernist sect in the Vatican which is falsely claiming to be the Roman Catholic Church. And of course to do that is to serve Jesus Christ.

          • TheMaskedUnit

            Why are you so anxious to judge? I am just reading the text.

            Remember. You’re not afraid of words.

  16. PESh

    Bergie the Bad said something like that before. Christ became a man stained with sin, a Lenten sermon last year or so, from the Novus Ordo Pope. This is Gnosticism as others have mentioned. I think it would probably rank as a formal heresy being a knowing, public, denial of doctrine, but I’m no theologian or scholar.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.