With three failed attempts already behind them and under the so-called ‘guidance’ of the Holy Spirit, these ‘princes’ of the Catholic church still couldn’t agree as to who they wanted to replace Benedict XVI
At first it looked as though the fourth vote would fail again, for the smoke appeared rather grey, but with an explosion of bells ringing from St. Peter’s Square, and with the secular press sounding surprisingly excited, it appeared that in just under 24 hours, Rome’s 115 cardinals now had their new man.
My feeling had been, prior to the voting commencing that Peter Turkson, the man from Africa, might get it, with Patrick leaning more towards an Italian, possibly Angelo Scola, the archbishop of Milan, inheriting the so-called ‘chair of Peter.’ (Incidentally, the London Guardian, reported on March 12, how ‘anti-mafia police raided offices in his diocese,’ so that certainly would not have been the best start for those hoping that the man from Milan could or would attempt to reform the Catholic church, for such naivety dogged John Paul I, who lasted just 33 days in the Vatican. In fact, to suggest it is even possible to ‘clean house’ is most certainly delusional thinking.
And so it was at 7:07 pm, Rome time, the Catholic world finally got to see their next ‘Shepherd-in-chief,’ the 76-year-old, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, from Argentina, and may I say that at first, I thought it was a joke. A little man appeared on the infamous Vatican balcony, looking like a retired banker, and then he gave a rather motionless wave, resembling something like the Queen of England gives, and then over the next several minutes, he rambled on and spoke about how his church ‘is above all churches’ and how they (all Catholics) must now work together for ‘world peace.’ (This is the usual politically correct and non-offensive message that popes and apostates now proclaim.)
Bergoglio who also resembles a cross between Pius XII and John XXIII must have been something of a damp squib to all those young, zealous and extreme Catholic fundamentalists around the world, who had hoped to get someone much younger and charismatic.
For me, I felt so relieved to no longer be a part of this system.
As he stood on the balcony, flanked by his fellow cardinals and bishops, he recited the Lord’s Prayer (or as it should be called the Disciples Prayer) and then off he went into the blasphemous and pointless ‘Hail Mary.’ All these so-called ‘brains’ and yet the simplicity of Christ is totally lost on them.
The truth of the matter is whoever had appeared on that famous balcony, whether it be the Pink Panther, Kermit the Frog or Top Cat, the rapturous response from St. Peter’s Square, would have been the same-deafening and repeated chanting, which is prophetically found in Scripture, where the pagans chant their allegiance to their female god, Diana (Acts 19:34).
Pope Francis I, as he will now be called, claims to be ‘the vicar of Christ’ and yet while the world watched him, he didn’t once call on anyone to repent and be born again. All he offered his audience was a typically safe and placid message, which couldn’t even inspire a bunch of sleepy orangutans.
So does the voting in of a new pope have any Scriptural support? In short, no! But I need to highlight a few fatal flaws from those that would suggest otherwise. First of all, Acts 1 is normally cited as ‘evidence’ of a precedent, when the early church met to replace Judas Iscariot. However, if the lazy Catholic or apostate had bothered to read Acts 1, they would have quickly realized that the Apostles were not voting in a new leader, they were voting in a replacement to come alongside them, and work with them as they preached the Gospel. Matthias, who they unanimously chose to replace Judas, via the casting of lots, was a disciple and eyewitness of Jesus’ ministry (probably one of the 70), and therefore he was qualified to join them.
Today, as there are no apostles or prophets, it would be impossible to re-enact Acts 1.
In Acts 12, when James the son of Zebedee was martyred, no church council met to replace him. To those that suggest this was somehow down to the church being dispersed and unable to gather to replace him, would not Acts 15, therefore, have been an ideal opportunity to replace him? But when we read Acts 15, with all the church leaders present, there is no vote to replace James. In fact, James, the son of Zebedee isn’t even mentioned.
So what we find in Acts 1 was never repeated again and with the Holy Spirit deliberately omitting any mention of the deaths of Peter, Paul and John, this once again demonstrates why it is paramount to make the Bible ones final authority and not to venture off into some man-made pagan system of dead rituals and useless traditions.
In the days that have followed Bergoglio’s ‘anointing,’ the world appears to applaud him, with the print press seemingly giving him the thumbs up. The verse that speaks about the world loving its own, comes to mind (John 15:19).
As a Jesuit, he will certainly change the dynamics of the Vatican. But for now, and in the short term at least, I expect very little to come from him and his cohorts. One thing I do believe we will see from him will be an accelerated promotion of closer ties between Rome and Islam, now known as Chrislam. Israel, unfortunately, will, of course, be the immediate victim here. But when push comes to shove, he and his church will always side with Islam over Judaism.
It was also interesting to read a well known Jewish website which stated how “Bergoglio attended Rosh Hashanah services at the Benei Tikva Slijot synagogue in September 2007.”
It seems the man from Argentina charmed his Jewish audience to no ends and forged warm ecumenical links with them and no doubt others too. Where is the call to repent and believe the gospel, however? When was the last time any Catholic cleric, anywhere in the world, ever proclaimed that Christ is the only way to be saved (John 14:6?)
The true Ambassador of Christ will always be polite and courteous to those of other faiths when going about their everyday life, but he/she will never do so at the expense of the gospel and they certainly would not attend obsolete feasts that dishonour the Lord Jesus and His finished work on the cross. Sadly, the evil and ever-popular ecumenical movement has totally betrayed Christ and His finished work on the cross, in favour of forming a one-world religion, that one day will easily and finally be handed over to the Antichrist.
Also with the selection of the first Latin American pope, we shall see an even greater push of liberation theology and a reinforced presentation of socialism and other humanistic interests.
While I could not bear to bring myself to watch any of his heretical ‘inaugural’ mass, which the BBC shamefully broadcasted live to the world, on two channels simultaneously, I did manage to see a clip of Francis getting out of his official car, with bodyguards in tow, and ‘blessing’ this waiting man in the crowd, on the evening news.
No doubt his Vatican spin-doctors hoped it would make for a nice photo shoot, not to mention somewhat exploiting this poor man, but I must ask the following question: Why didn’t the so-called ‘successor’ to St. Peter and the ‘infallible’ ‘vicar of Christ’ heal him? Didn’t Peter do many open-air healings? So why can’t this pope or any pope do the same?
Isn’t it obvious by now that he and all the other so-called ‘vicars of Christ,’ a role if it ever existed, could only be retained by the Holy Spirit, aren’t anything of the kind but just conniving impostors, deceiving the masses of ignorant people, the world over.
Please allow me to include two photographs that were taken over the Easter weekend, that once again demonstrates the wonderful theatre that makes the church of Rome so ‘unique.’
It appears that members of the tiny sect of Pre Vatican II Catholics, the ones that would love to see the return of the old archaic Tridentine Mass, have been furiously tweeting how bitterly disappointed they were to see Francis not only washing and kissing prisoners feet but how he went on to do the same to some women, with one being a Muslim and another having HIV. They are now ‘concerned’ about the possibility of him one day ‘ordaining’ female priests too.
Without wishing to sound like a parrot, why doesn’t he just preach the true Gospel to his audience? To allow cameras to see you prostrate on your face is surely Pharisaical. Nevermind washing the feet of unsaved people, something not found in Scripture, why not just stop with all these gimmicks and give God the glory by telling the world how Jesus has paid for their sins and should they repent, and believe on Him, He will save them instantaneously. To do anything else, will see sinners go to Hell, forever!
Instead, we see him mimicking Gandhi, with his ‘good works and deeds’ by trying to make their lives a little better, when he should be expounding the new birth to them. Sadly this is something no pope has ever understood or preached, so one needs to look to the true Shepherd for salvation, not a man who thinks he is ‘holy’ by dressing in white, while tragically being just as lost as those whose feet he washed.
So, before I conclude this brief appraisal of Bergoglio, I must share the following secret oath, that all Jesuits take, something that the secular press to the best of my knowledge has never printed, let alone even referred too:
“Go ye, then, into all the world and take possession of all lands in the name of the Pope. He who will not accept him as the Vicar of Jesus and his Vice-Regent on earth, let him be accursed and exterminated.”
This is only a very small fragment of their oath and so I would most certainly encourage further research of this, by looking online. But the above text makes it very clear how the Jesuits(s) is bound to possess all lands and those that won’t accept the pope (note, they don’t say believe on Jesus or receive Him as one’s Saviour) must be accursed, meaning excommunicated from the Catholic church, which historically meant, going to Hell when one dies, and for the non-Catholic that refused to submit to the pope, extermination was called for.
This chilling oath, in some ways, mirrors Freemasonry and their cold-blooded oaths too. In fact, one wonders which came first, Catholic Masonry or Protestant Masonry? Either way, both are not of God and in fact, masonry in any form is anti-Jesus!
Also of interest, is the unhealthy and banal obsession that masons have with the number 33. There are 33 levels in their Luciferian structure. For the Jesuit to be allowed to take his oath, he must be 33-years-old. No doubt, when examined on this, he would suggest that it has to do with the Lord Jesus Christ’s death, being when He was 33-years-old, but once again, unless Scripture explicitly affirms such a custom, it is best to avoid it at all costs.
Is it any wonder, therefore how France, Spain and Portugal (all Catholic countries) expelled the Jesuits from their shores, only for them to covertly sneak back in, like a pack of unwanted feral dogs.
In fact, it must be stated that the Jesuits, on more than one occasion, have also been banned by various popes, with pope Clement XIII refusing them entry into Italy, while Clement XIV enjoyed suppressing them.
And yet Pius V set up a covert school in France, which allowed the Jesuits to be trained on how to infiltrate and take over the Church of England. This shrewd operation was concluded by 1884, by which time Canterbury had already fallen.
To those that naively think the Catholic church (or as it really should be called, ‘the church of Constantine’) resembles anything remotely authentic to the things of God, should refrain from making further ignorant statements, get on their knees, and seek the Lord’s forgiveness and new birth. I should know, for I did this myself 11 years ago and I have never looked back since.
(All Rights Reserved)