“not Canonically Elected…not a true Pastor, but a Destroyer”—St. Francis of Assisi
the talmudic anti-Pope
false prophet & abomination of desolation
“As regular readers of [Call Me Jorge] know, Francis is into all things Judaic, especially Chasidism. Their doctrines creep out here and there in Francis’ sermons and documents. One of the things which Francis does with regularity is to invert the teachings of the Church. An example of this is the use of the term ‘pharisee’ which he applies to his enemies, who are not open to Talmudic Judaism and Francis’ anti-Catholic machinations. Another example is his favorite blasphemous painting, White Crucifixion. Francis shows his hand, when he inverts Catholic doctrine, as a modernist change agent who is simply following the dictates of ‘The Rebbe’ to be, “modern on the outside and Chabad on the inside.” One of the most blatant examples is Francis teaching the Talmudic formula: Yeridah Tzorech Aliyah (“descent for sake of ascent”). This teaching simply means that one has to descend into sin, which paradoxically has a positive status in Hasidism, in order to ascend to new heights. This is done because the god of Talmudic Judaism is one of opposites — a hermaphrodite god of good/evil. In the Hasidic lore, tzaddiks (saints or righteous people) wrestle not with evil but with goodness as they descend into sin in this process in order to ascend into righteousness. Yeridah Tzorech Aliyah is one of the foundational beliefs of Orthodox Talmudic Judaism along with Tikun Olam. In the later belief the rabbis have the chutzpah to state that God made creation imperfect and the Talmudic Jews are to correct his work.
“The Hasidism of Francis’ mind is also shown when he says such things as, “[Jesus] made himself the devil” and “the Holy Trinity [is] arguing behind closed doors but on the outside they give the picture of unity.” Who else sees Jesus as a devil or God as a bunch of arguing rabbis other than a Talmudist? Whether he his parroting the ideas of Heschel, Levinas, Buber, Wiesel, a dead rebbe from the Steppes, or having over rabbis as guests who often gift him with books (Gluck & Steinsaltz) there’s an excellent chance it’s comes from the Baal Shem Tov and his cult in one manner or another.
“In the video clip below the late Chabad Lubavitcher rabbi, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, explains why Hasids should descend (into sin) in order to ascend — they are hunters getting ready to kill their prey. Another late Chasidic rabbi, Abraham Heschel (of Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate), in a 1965 interview with Ma'ariv explained exactly whom the prey were, “There are those who would like to attack [Christians’] bodies. I want to attack their souls.” The elevation which takes place is one which will incorporate the prey’s soul into the of cult Talmudic Judaism and worship of their demonic hermaphrodite god. It’s a total inversion of Catholicism, the religion instituted by Jesus the Christ. So why is Francis teaching it?”
the Rebbe explains the Hasidic stratagem of “descent for sake of ascent”
“Inside the Holy Trinity they’re all arguing behind closed doors but on the outside they give the picture of unity.”
March 17, 2017
“…a priest that over weeks gives antisemitic talks until Jesus, on the cross, looks at the Virgin, who was at his side, and says to her,
'Mom, let's go since they don't like us;”
January 17, 2014
St. Ignatius Loyola’s advice:
”Do nothing, say nothing before considering if
that which you are about to say or do is
pleasing to God, profitable to yourself,
and edifying to your neighbor.”
“In addition, that if ever at any time it shall appear that any… Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church… 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…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, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559, §6 (Roman Bullarium Vol. IV. Sec. I, pp. 354-357)
“The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
Pope Innocent III:
“The Pope should not flatter himself about his power nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged, In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.’”
St. Robert Bellarmine:
“A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”
St. Alphonsus Liguori:
“If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.”
St. Francis de Sales:
“Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church . . . ”
“In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.”
Billot, De Ecclesia, 1927:
“Given, therefore, the hypothesis of a pope who would become notoriously heretical, one must concede without hesitation that he would by that very fact lose the pontifical power, insofar as, having become an unbeliever, he would by his own will be cast outside the body of the Church.”
Wernz-Vidal, Canon Law, 1943:
“Through heresy notoriously and openly expressed, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into such, is, by that very fact, and before any declaratory sentence of the Church, deprived of his power of jurisdiction.... a pope who falls into public heresy would by that fact cease to be a member of the Church; therefore he would also, upon that fact, cease to be the head of Church.…”
NOTE: Edward Peters, JD, JCD, Ref. Sig. Ap., in his blog A canonical primer on popes and heresy, December 16, 2016, offers the following comment on Wernz.
“I know of no author coming after Wernz who disputes this analysis.” See, e.g., Ayrinhac, CONSTITUTION (1930) 33; Sipos, ENCHIRIDION (1954) 156; Regatillo, INSTITUTIONES I (1961) 299; Palazzini, DMC III (1966) 573; and Wrenn (2001)…
“At least according to the more common teaching; the Roman Pontiff as a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then, without any declaratory sentence (for the Supreme See is judged by no one), he would automatically (ipso facto) fall from power which he who is no longer a member of the Church is unable to possess.”
Coronata, Institutions Juris Canonici, 1950:
“It cannot be proven however that the Roman Pontiff, as a private teacher, cannot become a heretic —If indeed such a situation would happen, he [the Roman Pontiff] would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority.”
Edward F. Regatillo, Institutiones Iuris Canonici, 1956:
“‘The pope loses office ipso facto because of public heresy.’ This is the more common teaching, because a pope would not be a member of the Church, and hence far less could he be its head.”
Wrenn, CLSA NEW COMM (2001) at 1618:
“Canon 1404 is not a statement of personal impeccability or inerrancy of the Holy Father. Should, indeed, the pope fall into heresy, it is understood that he would lose his office. To fall from Peter’s faith is to fall from his chair.”
Edward Peters, A Canonical Primer on Popes and Heresy, December 16, 2016:
As for the lack of detailed canonical examination of the mechanics for assessing possible papal heresy, Cocchi, COMMENTARIUM II/2 (1931) n. 155, ascribes it to the fact that law provides for common cases and adapts for rarer… In sum, and while additional important points could be offered on this matter, in the view of modern canonists from Wernz to Wrenn, however remote is the possibility of a pope actually falling into heresy and however difficult it might be to determine whether a pope has so fallen, such a catastrophe, Deus vetet, would result in the loss of papal office.
Rome — Dec. 25, 2014: Since the scandal regarding Team Bergoglio broke, the From Rome blog has assiduously followed the news and studied what the consequences have been. On that account more than 25,000 visitors from more than 120 countries have visited this blog to find the news that was not being summarized or published elsewhere.
“Team Bergoglio” is the name given by Dr. Austen Ivereigh, former spokesman to His Eminence, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, ex-Archbishop of Westminster, England, to the group of Cardinals who campaigned for Cardinal Bergoglio in the 2013 Conclave.
The Scandalous consequences of the revelations of Dr. Ivereigh’s book, can be summed up thus: Dr. Ivereigh has written a book alleging as many as 30 cardinals did that which is apparently a violation of the papal law on conclaves, on which account they would be ipso facto excommunicated, Cardinal Bergoglio included, and the election of the latter by 2013 Conclave be null and void and of no effect. — As of this date, no substantial denial has been made by anyone of the accused, and Dr. Ivereigh has not substantially withdrawn, changed, or altered what he wrote.
To continue to assist Catholics and journalists world-wide who wish to know more about this scandal, we present here a summary and links through which readers can grasp the basic and detailed facts of the case which has arisen.
First, our article, The Chronology of Reports on “Team Bergoglio”, contains the master-list of all the news reports of note and blog posts, videos, audios, tweets, etc. which regard crucial information or analysis of the story: this list is in Chronological order according to the date the information was published or presented.
But since the Chronology has already grown to 8 pages in length, for those wishing to grasp the facts, we suggest the following articles:
The Improbity of the denials by “Team Bergoglio”, which explains just what some of the Cardinals, alleged by Ivereigh to have engaged in vote-canvassing, have and have not denied. An analysis which shows the probability that Cardinal Bergoglio consented to and/or organized the effort.
No, your Eminence, the Church is not a tyranny!, which rebuts the gross indifference of 1 Cardinal of the Roman Church to the scandal and pointedly indicates the grave Crisis into which the Catholic Church has been placed by the undenied allegations.
The other articles which reports facts of lesser interest, though important of themselves, can be found in the Chronology article link above.
Antipope: A false claimant of the Holy See in opposition to a pontiff canonically elected. At various times in the history of the Church illegal pretenders to the Papal Chair have arisen, and frequently exercised pontifical functions in defiance of the true occupant.… entry “Antipope,” Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913 edition
The man “subsisting in” the Chair of Peter has spent so much time with the Pharisees that he has embraced their subjective “morality.” In that, he has almost caught up with his family… or have they caught up with him?
another dishonorable mention for the destroyer "subsisting in" the Chair of Peter
Francis favorite 1938 modernist painting, “White Crucifixion” by the Byelorussian Jewish painter Moishe Zakharovich Shagal (“Marc Chagall”), not only depicts Jesus as a Chassidic Jew but also contains the common Jewish insult on the Holy Name of Jesus. The Hebrew use of “Yeshu” (ישו) in Chagall’s blaspemy is a Jewish mockery of Jesus’ actual Hebrew name “Yeschua” (ישוע). Yeshu is a Hebrew acronym for “May his name and memory be blotted out.”
“For he that shall be ashamed of me, and of my words, in this adulterous and sinful generation: the Son of man also will be ashamed of him, when he shall come in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”