Fake Pope goes to war against Fake News, not realizing or perhaps fully realizing his entire “papacy” is fake news

Irony: It’s not just for Dostoyevsky and communists anymore (see last post).

“In today’s fast-changing world of communications and digital systems, we are witnessing the spread of what has come to be known as “fake news”. This calls for reflection…I would like to contribute to our shared commitment to stemming the spread of fake news and to rediscovering the dignity of journalism and the personal responsibility of journalists to communicate the truth… The term “fake news” has been the object of great discussion and debate. In general, it refers to the spreading of disinformation on line or in the traditional media. It has to do with false information based on non-existent or distorted data meant to deceive and manipulate the reader. Spreading fake news can serve to advance specific goals, influence political decisions, and serve economic interests…The effectiveness of fake news is primarily due to its ability to mimic real news, to seem plausible.” HERE

Influence political decisions? What ever could he being talking about? Except again, not ironically, the actual fake news that was intended to influence the election in 2016 backfired, and Trump won in spite of it (or because of it?). It’s kind of a chicken and egg thing. Phrase it any way you want, fake news was a big factor in the election. So in that way, irony on irony, this can be read as Bergoglio actually aligning with Trump on calling out fake news. Weird, right?
But of course that’s not what’s going on. Beyond his hatred for Trump and all he stands for, think about what else could be on Antipope Bergoglio’s mind with regard to fake news. I mean, his entire usurpation has been about the diabolical inversion of truth. There are a hundred examples of his teaching that are inversions of truth. The various Vatican communication officials spew out lies almost every day. There are a ton of examples I would have loved to write about, but it comes at you so fast that it’s impossible to keep up. But the elephant in the Casa Santa Marta is that Bergoglio himself is a fake pontiff, and I’m pretty sure he knows it. I’m pretty sure he reads the blogs, or someone reads the blogs to him. He knows there are a vast number, as we know from a certain POLL, a vast number of Catholics who know it too. So since this screed is directed towards journalists, you can be sure that laying out the evidence that Bergoglio is an antipope is being called out as “distorted data”. It must inflict so much hurt, healing by mouth is required.

“To discern the truth, we need to discern everything that encourages communion and promotes goodness from whatever instead tends to isolate, divide, and oppose.”

Now we are getting to the heart of it. In “discerning the truth,” everything that encourages communion is true, and everything that isolates, divides is false. Everybody hold hands! I feel all warm and gooey inside! Too bad Jesus taught exactly the opposite. Jesus Himself is the Truth, and in Matthew 10:32-39 He taught,

“Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s enemies shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me, shall find it.” Matt 34-39

So the indicator we have for seeking Jesus, truth incarnate, is that it will cause division, not unity. But to follow Antipope Bergoglio, it’s the opposite.  Choose wisely.
Back to Jorge:

“Truth, therefore, is not really grasped when it is imposed from without as something impersonal, but only when it flows from free relationships between persons, from listening to one another. Nor can we ever stop seeking the truth, because falsehood can always creep in, even when we state things that are true.”

External eternal truths cannot be known without relationships with persons and listening to the other person’s troofs. Right?

“An impeccable argument can indeed rest on undeniable facts, but if it is used to hurt another and to discredit that person in the eyes of others, however correct it may appear, it is not truthful. We can recognize the truth of statements from their fruits: whether they provoke quarrels, foment division, encourage resignation; or, on the other hand, they promote informed and mature reflection leading to constructive dialogue and fruitful results.”

Impeccable, undeniable facts aren’t true if they hurt your feelings.
Welcome to Snowflake Church.

8 thoughts on “Fake Pope goes to war against Fake News, not realizing or perhaps fully realizing his entire “papacy” is fake news”

  1. Can an anti-pope resign that which he does not hold? Still not sure on the anti-pope thing, but the invalid resignation explanation does seem to be the best fit to the known facts. That is, seems pretty clear to me Bergo has promulgated heretical teachings, and infallibility provides negative protection that a true Pope would not do such. Ergo, Bergo couldn’t be true Pope. My hesitation is this:
    Assuming BXVI attempted to split the office of Pope by retaining a piece of it in his resignation, does that invalidate the resignation or does it invalidate the retention? I don’t know enough canon law to decide that issue. The best I can analogize is someone transferring his land and trying to split the title to it, retaining some right or portion (e.g., an easement or something). Assuming the law did not allow splitting the title, does that invalidate the transfer (thus original owner still owns it all, and new owner owns nothing) or does it invalidate the retention (thus original owner keeps nothing, and new owner gets it all)?

    1. Code of Canon Law #188: “A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.”

      1. I am not familiar with how canon law operates. Is there any similarity to civil statutes, such as you have a law on the books, and then there are court cases/opinions that interpret that law applying it to specific occurrences, or do you just go on the wording of law, and a canon lawyer’s opinion of it (i.e., is there anything akin to a judicial system that is the final interpreter of said law)?

        1. I’m not a canon lawyer by any stretch, but the wording of Canon 188 seem very clear to me. Substantial Error renders the resignation invalid. And attempting to change the essential nature of the Petrine Ministry, which was instituted by God himself, is Substantial Error of the highest degree. There cannot be a Papacy version 2.0 which improves upon something that was already perfect. God didn’t institute an imperfect office that needed revising 2000 years later.

  2. To be clear, I am not saying teaching heresy causes him to lose the office, but that teaching heresy is evidence that he was never Pope to begin with.

    1. That’s correct. The fact that he has been spewing heresy from Day One is simply an objective data point that strongly suggests he does not enjoy the negative protection of a true pontiff.

Leave a Reply

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