“The throne of Peter has a demonic spawn squatting on it, orchestrating Hell’s circus”

Sometimes the combox is better than the blogger.
Below, you will find the excellent opining of “Aqua” and “Susan” on matters regarding:

  1. The impossibility of a divinely-instituted catch-22, whereby the Standard of Unity is also the Vector of Schism
  2. The moral obligation to not calumniate a true pope
  3. The grave error of those who would rather tear down the papacy than admit their base premise might be wrong
  4. The realization that a man who obviously does not enjoy any sort of supernatural protection from leading the faithful into heresy, idolatry, and apostasy cannot be true pope
  5. Otherwise, if he were a true pope, then the Petrine Promises have been broken, which means Christ is not divine, and Catholicism is a false religion.

Have a happy and holy weekend, everyone!

  1. Mundabor actually broaches no talk of antipope or invalidity either.
    I was shut down there long ago. Been back periodically and attempted *respectful* discussion – it is his blog after all; I do respect the privilege of those who do this work, but he’s got me on embargo there. Fine, but my opinion of Mundabor is thereby colored.
    My main problem with Mundabor, as with all the others is that if you insist Bergoglio is Holy Father, *then*, you cant really call him a horse’s ass or evil clown. If he is an evil clown and a horse’s ass, then you might consider your base premise, because those terms absolutely apply to an antipope inspired by the devil (it *has* to be one or the other), not to God’s chosen Vicar, Cornerstone of our Church. Correction yes – up to and including removal from Office. Insults and calumny of our rightful Pope, no.
    All of these so-called Trads who despise the “Holy Father” and all of his evil deeds are actually doing more harm to the Papacy than those who merely go along and are neutral. These “Trads” connect all that is good to all that is evil and say such a thing is possible. They normalize insults, the most despicable and vile insults to our Pope, successor of St. Peter. It is now a “thing” to pray for our “Pope’s” death. Hate of our “Pope” is normal, accepted among orthodox Catholics.
    That is where this type of thinking and false premise leads. Hate for our “Pope”. That is so wrong. And the walls are high among our “Unite The Clans Catholics” that prevent even discussing this fundamental base error and re-forming in unity around our true, rightful Pope.


  2. Aqua; your post at 10:16 is beyond insightful and spot-on. In a few words you’ve presented the ”francis’ is pope crowd’ their catch-22. There is NO way to square that very round diabolical circle. If ‘francis’ were indeed Peter, then pack it up gang…the whole Catholic thing is BS; it crumbles with no foundation, because the promises of Christ of divine negative protections for Peter…Christ’s foundation stone upon which the whole edifice will be built….would be shown to be smoke and mist. Peter canNOT worship false idols and call it kosher; Peter canNOT teach that the soul-not-saved is annihilated, and then call it (and his 1,000 other taught heresies) Magisterium, cause guess what?, if he’s really Peter, then what he claims is magisterial, is…he’s proclaimed it as official teaching; that’s one step down from ex-cathedra; Peter canNOT teach in an AL that people in an objective, manifest, continuing state of adultery are just hunkey-dorey to receive the Holy Eucharist if they’re totes OK with it in their own opinion (true conscience has nothing to do with anything anymore in the church of bergoglio…there’s no formation of conscience other than to eco-humanist-modernism).
    Peter can be a moral reprobate; Peter can commit mortal sins; but Peter canNOT be the arsonist burning down the Deposit of Faith. He canNOT. And those who follow bergoglio as pope are walking head-first into the flames of a false religion. This is really not a difficult thing to see and to accept….it just takes an act of the will to follow the Truth, no matter how painful it is. The monster’s been unmasked…multiple, multiple times, and yet the FiPers keep moving the red-line further and further down the flaming road; (“well, if he ever commits human-sacrifice on the altar, well THEN, we’ll have a problem!”)
    So the question ya gotta ask yourself, punk, (sorry…channeling a li’l Clint Eastwood there :), is “is Christ Who He said He was, or isn’t He?…did He leave a recognizable Church or didn’t He?”; and if He is, and if He did, then bergoglio’s carnage of spiritual ‘ultra violence’ shows him to be the demonic fraud that he is….he’s not teaching what the Apostles taught and handed down for 2,000 yrs….his edifice is not Apostolic (it’s humanist and free-masonic); it’s no longer One (he has divided as his father has since the beginning, introducing strange and ‘new’ doctrines, antithetical to the ‘old’ ones); it’s not Holy (sodomy for everyone!…check-in with my door man Coco); and it sure ain’t Catholic….in ANY sense of the word.
    The world is the flaming bag of horse-Schiff that it is today BECAUSE the Church is in such dire straights, and we have exactly ZERO shepherds willing to speak the clear, obvious Truth (except the good +Gracida; but even he gets the base premise wrong :(. The Vatican (and indeed St. Peter’s itself) has been turned into a ‘gay’ bathhouse, and the throne of Peter has a demonic spawn squatting on it, orchestrating hell’s circus. There is nothing…NOTHING….of more import in the entire world than getting this right, and (Please God!) fixing it. Say it loud, say it often, say it with confidence and evidence committed to memory…..bergoglio is NOT the pope.

27 thoughts on ““The throne of Peter has a demonic spawn squatting on it, orchestrating Hell’s circus””

  1. I’d like to point out because seems people forget was that when Anne first posted her famous I do not hear the Shepherd’s voice re Bergolio and the antipope theory, it was based merely on Canon 188 at the time. But I and her other followers had the pleasure of seeing data point after data point trickle in proving her thesis. The FIP crowd called her crazy when her only proof was Canon 188. So much has happened since then why don’t they accept the new information. Everything she said worked out just like science is supposed to work with formulating a hypothesis and making predictions. A timeline of the datapoints would show how amazing she is.

  2. Ok, I’m back with my persistent thought about this.
    I’ll accept this, he’s not the pope, but please tell me what difference it makes when he owns all the buildings, he is acknowledged as the pope by 99% of the Catholic world, and the entire globe, has all the art, money, power, influence, etc. If saying he were not pope does at least prove that God did not lie to us, the church is still intact, somewhere, and perhaps BXVI is still the pope, what happens when BXVI dies?
    We have no pope? And we are right back to the problem of Bergolio being the accepted pope.
    If identifying him as a fraud got us somewhere, we are all in. But we can’t get one bishop to denounce him as a heretic, an apostate, which he obviously is, so what does it do for us? Granted, there are surely spiritual effects and realities, but we could use something on the ground.
    He’s a horror, and I suppose it would be in a way consoling to say, well, he’s not REALLY the pope, but to me that’s small consolation, when for all intents and purposes, he is. Please tell me what that gets us.

    1. It gets you to keep your faith. It gets you to know that Catholicism isn’t a fraud. Don’t worry about, “What happens if Benedict dies first”… that’s bordering on the sin of wanting to know the future. Recognize the truth in front of you, pray, fast, and stay close to the sacraments.

    2. Because Kate, The Truth matters…it gets us Christ. It IS Christ.
      If all the world should run after a lie, that doesn’t change the Truth. The diabolical lie of transgenderism is gaining acceptance and belief among a large and exponentially growing swath of the populace. It’s still and will forever be a lie. Polycarp suffered a torturous death rather than pinch the smallest grain of incense to a false god because it wasn’t the truth and would deny Truth Himself. Eleazar wouldn’t eat a tiny piece of chicken (pretending it to be pork) because it would give scandal to the young and lead them (and himself) to spiritual destruction. The 7 brothers of 2 Mac 7 each went to insanely sadistic, painful deaths at the hand of a tyrant rather than to deny the God-given laws and precepts of their Faith. And the mother…oh my God….the beauty of that mother! I beg you, take a moment right now and read 2 Mac 7 and contrast it with this abomination….
      Because the Truth matters, and can never be compromised on, lest we forfeit ourselves and lose eternity.
      “If you deny Me before men I will also deny you before My Father in Heaven.”
      Tyrants have been with us since the fall of the light bearer, and they have always carried and displayed the signature of their common father….they wander about the earth ” in order to blot out the
      name of God and of His Christ, to seize upon, slay and cast into eternal perdition souls destined for the
      crown of eternal glory.” Whether we call them Herod, Nero, Mao, Soros, or ….well….you fill in the blank. Corrupted men who stare-down God with an upraised fist thinking erroneously that they can cheat both death and justice, while the children of Light who are made to suffer in witness to the Truth will be granted their divinely promised reward.
      Because this….
      Letter of Saint Athanasius to His Flock (4th Century A.D.)
      “May God console you! … What saddens you … is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises — but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in the struggle — the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith?
      True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way …
      You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis.
      No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.
      Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray.
      Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”
      (Coll. selecta SS. Eccl. Patrum, Caillau and Guillou, Vol. 32, pp. 411-412)

      1. I have nothing but sincere appreciation for your edifying responses. Thank you. I will spend some time re-reading what is written here.

      2. @’susan’: Thank you for your 2 cents in regards to possible lay gestures at the Mass. I agree that it will be a glorious day when the laity rise up and name the Vicar of Christ. The relief for confused priests and fellow laity will be palpable, I believe. Of course, some will not abide it, but some can not abide reality and so choose to live in delusion already.

    3. Kate,
      Actually it is impossible to declare Francis a heretic. He is a masterful Modernist and is following the program of the Freemasons and the Communists, namely, an attack on morals, the practices of the Faithful. The ancient dictum “Lex orandi, Lex credendi” (The law of praying is the law of believing, or as we pray so we believe), or to put it on the lever of morals, the Law of behaving is the law of thinking/believing, is something to keep in mind always. To put it negatively, if we do not pray or act as we believe we end up loosing our Faith or a well formed conscience. Bishop Sheen once said that with a fallen away Catholic one ought not argue with him about the Catholic Faith, because, says Sheen, most of the time the problem has to do with morals.
      So, because Infallibility, which has been defined by Holy Mother Church, has to do with the Magisterium, or the Teaching of the Church, it is easier to identify and deal with those who deny the Faith. However, when it comes to laws governing Catholic morals (i.e., the actions of the Faithful), which are not always officially Catholic Dogmas (truth[s] immediately revealed by God which ha[ve] been proposed by the Teaching Authority of the Church to be believed as such (Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma), one can get around being called a heretic. But by changing the laws which govern the actions of the Faithful, the Faith is changed, though it takes more time than through teaching heresy, So all the authorities in the Church today seem to be in a way befuddled; they can’t declare Francis a heretic, but they don’t know how to handle him when he changes the behavior of the Faithful. As said earlier, this was the ingenious plan, of the Communists and Freemasons who infiltrated into the Church, most of whom were in fact Modernists.
      This is something I have tried bring out in my Treatise on Benedict’s renunciation whereby he gave up the “exercise of the Office” while maintaining the Petrine Office Itself. In this way, since Francis is not Pope, there is a continuation of “jurisdiction,” a jurisdiction called “supplied.” (Please see my comment to TF, Aqua and Susan below). Hence, the Sacraments and other acts requiring jurisdiction will be valid if performed by validly Consecrated Bishops, and ordained Priests, even schismatic and heretical ones, who “intend to do what the Church DOES” in this time of an extreme emergency. That is, Holy Mother Church supplies what is necessary for the salvation of souls in these times of confusion, the “Ecclesia supplet” represented by Benedict, UbI Petrus, ibi Ecllesia (Where Peter is there is the Church (St. Amborse).
      Kate, please keep the Catholic Faith whole and entire, pray to the Holy Ghost and Our Lady, say the Rosary and maintain devotion to the Immaculate Heart, make a great effort to attend the Old Latin Mass and Sacraments, and you will NOT BE LED ASTRAY from the Catholic Church.
      As an aside, one of the first things eliminated from the “extraordinary form” of Mass was done by Archbishop Bugnini back in 1965, I believe, when he updated the Old Missal as an introduction to more changes to come, was Psalm 42, the first prayer the Priest said at the foot of the Altar: “Judica me Deus et discerne causam meam, de gente non sancta ab homine iniquo et doloso erue me,” (“Judge me O Lord and distinguish my cause against an ungodly nation; deliver me from the unjust and deceitful man.”– Cathedral Daily Missal). Bugnini, a Freemason, knew what he was doing. With that psalm eliminated we were no longer praying, RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING OF MASS, to be preserved from what we are undergoing today.

  3. The problems did not begin with Bergoglio, they began with John XXIII, the refusal to reveal the Third Secret in 1960 and the Second Vatican Council. We are seeing the false “church” in action as described by Blessed Anna Katarina Emmerich. It is a new religion, not the Catholic faith I learned before VII.

  4. I’m of the opinion that Ratzinger did not resign. However, I’m not convinced a true pope could not actually do all that Bergoglio does. How *exactly* does he contradict Our Lord’s promise to Peter? He’s by far the most prolific spewer of heresy in papal history, but not the only one. It’s a difference of degree, not kind as far as I can tell between him and JPII, the Koran kissing founder of Assissi Prayer gatherings, or Honorius.
    I’ll say this: if he ever held the office, he has certainly forfeited it by now, due to pertinacity. But this would have to be recognized by an Imperfect Counsel or something. Please point out the error in what I’ve written.

    1. He has taught, as part of his official magisterium, that objective mortal sin can be an objective moral good, willed by God. This is not a difference in degree. This is totally unprecedented.

      1. You’re right. So there’s more to the Petrine Promises than the infallibility defined by Vatican I? I can readily believe that’s the case, but I’m ignorant of the teaching. There’s no attempt at an ex cathedra statement in AL. Thanks.

      1. TF, Aqua and Susan,
        I repeat here what I commented on akacatholic.com which has quite a few sedevacantist commenters. But I also wish to emphasize that what has been said by the blogger/commentators is absolutely correct.
        . “Let’s first take the scenario that Francis dies or “resigns.” If he resigns then the majority of Catholics who believe he is Pope would have to accept the Cardinals he appointed and the Church would continue on the path it is now on, but at a faster pace. If Francis dies, the result would be the same. Such a situation, however, just doesn’t seem something any Catholic, traditional or otherwise, could accept, for the Catholic Church would have disappeared.
        “Secondly, if Francis is not Pope and Benedict is not Pope, then where is the Church? St. Ambrose’s dictum “Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia” (Where Peter is there is the Church) is a pithy truth which guarantees the Jurisdiction which Christ granted to His Church. And this is what really breaks the logic of Sedevacantists, who believe that somehow jurisdiction magically remains in the Church during the sixty some year so-called vacancy of the Petrine Office. That is insanity, for it is not being in touch with reality.
        “Yes, there is a certain supplied jurisdiction during an interregnum where there is at least an attempt to elect another Pope–the intention to fill the See of Peter must be PRACTICAL, and NOT IMAGINED. A dictated possibility of jurisdiction when there are no Cardinals left to elect a Pope according to the existing Laws of the Church, which can be changed only by a Pope would indicate jurisdiction is nothing but a dream (a pious wish?). And such a state would mean the end of the Church! God would not allow such a state to exist; He would without doubt insure the indefectibility of His Church.
        “Hence, it is absolutely unrealistic to believe that God would not somehow provide for a true Pope. What follows is an explanation for How God did provide for His Church, which cannot be thrown out until the Third Secret has been revealed:
        “There are so many articles and attempts to explain the situation today concerning the calling of an imperfect council, Cardinal Burke’s supposedly backslide vis a vis Francis and other such slips of the authorities “under the gun” of the demand to do something. There is MASS CONFUSION throughout the Catholic world, in more ways than one.
        “In my treatise on Benedict, I pointed out how the promise of Christ referres to the Infallibility of the Magisterium AND the Indefectibility of the Governance of the Church:”
        And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my
        church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to
        thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind
        upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt
        loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven (Mt. 16: 18-19).
        Christ promises to Peter that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against It [the rock], and regarding this the Church has defined the infallibility of the Magisterium, such that the “gates of hell shall not prevail against It.” In other words Peter and his successors are protected from error by the work of the Holy Ghost.
        “However, in the next sentence, Christ says that he will bind and loose whatever Peter binds and looses, and this regards the Governance of the Church, which deals with the action of the members of the Church so that they may be able to obtain eternal salvation. But since this is not what is protected by Infallibility, there must be some other protection. And here is what hit me: God Himself provides that protection, since He will only bind and loose what the true Pope binds and looses.
        “THIS IS A PROMISE OF CHRIST GRANTED TO PETER UPON HIS PROFESSION OF LOVE–not hatred for His Church! Christ never breaks his Promises! so can anyone really say that if Satan’s vicar, indeed any Pope, binds the Church with an official law (as Bergoglio has supposedly done in placing it in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis) that allows divorced and remarried Catholics living as man and wife, demanding Marriage rights, Our Lord is going to bind such a thing in Heaven? Would not one be making a hypocrite out of Christ, whereby he says it’s not OK for those in mortal sin to receive Holy Communion, but it is OK for those in mortal sin to receive Holy Communion. In fact wouldn’t one holding such a position be blaspheming Our Dear Lord already so outraged today? I’m sorry, but this is not a matter of a practical doubt, it’s a matter of fact precisely because of the INERRANCY of Sacred Scripture . This is but a brief argument concerning the Papacy of Francis.
        “In other words, when Francis officially places a law that governs the actions of the Faithful in the AAS, as he did with allowing those in invalid marriages to receive Holy Communion without desisting from their sin, something that demands that Christ to do what is “per impossbile,” such a demand only manifests quite obviously that Francis is NOT a TRUE POPE!! And how Our Lord precludes the possibility of such a situation is through personally providing for a true Pope–in today’s situation, Benedict.
        “I believe the attack on the governance of the Church by the Masons, Communists and Modernists, since it entails not just one person, the Pope, but huge parts of the Church. but which also sets up an amalgamation within the Church, is something that could not be handled from within. Any solution had to be a protection and directed from without. And so in our own day we have Benedict resigning from the “exercise of the Petrine Ministry, but keeping the Petrine Office, through being directed by means of the Third Secret or through some personal Divine revelation or inspiration substantiated by his experience as head of the CDF and as Pope. In this way there is “supplied jurisdiction” throughout the Church according to the dictum of St. Ambrose.
        “The blindness today is absolutely incredible and can only be caused by the demonic influence that God has allowed for our times. Cardinal Cerejeira told the participants at the opening of a tour of the Pilgrim Virgin Statue of Our Lady of Fatima across Italy in 1959, “It is an apocalyptic hour for the world. These are frightening winds from hell which are blowing, and the elect themselves are allowing themselves to be carried away” (The Whole Truth about Fatima, The Third Secret, p. 535, by Frère Michel de la Sainte Trinité, Vol III).”

      2. @’susan’: While this is a good and very good article, my concern is that it has implication of intent on PPBXVI’s part that Miss Barnhardt cannot know and yet this same potentially poisonous implication tends to uncharitably slant much of the heroic and solid work that she has done in her blog specifically on BiP. In this article that you link to Miss Barnhardt says, “Pope Benedict is said to have pointed at the door of his office in which they were sitting and said, ‘My authority ends at that door.’ That is, of course, totally wrong, and Pope Benedict was and is wrong to this day to NOT acknowledge his massive authority as the one and only living Sovereign Pontiff since April of ARSH 2005.” How does Miss Barnhardt KNOW what Pope Benedict MEANT when he said, “My authority ends at that door”? How does she KNOW that he was not acknowledging the reality of his massive authority being thwarted by mutiny? In fact could he rather not have been acknowledging the diabolical mutiny that threatened to abuse his massive authority and which he alone could prevent? I do not know just as much as Miss Barhardt does not know and in fact NOBODY knows except PPBXVI and God.
        I suggest, once again, that since no one knows what PPBXVI meant and that since his intent does not matter in order to establish BiP and that since Miss Barnhard’s speculation in this manner bleeds into other truly uncharitable remarks that she has made in otherwise notable and solid posts regarding the evidence of BiP (including her videos and “Teutonic” investigations), perhaps we would be prudent to place a disclaimer to this effect before linking to her otherwise good and very good BiP explanations.
        Please understand, ‘susan’, I agree most forcefully with Miss Barnhardt that we have to get this right BUT to be most efficacious in our endeavor shouldn’t we do our best to be unified in both truth and charity as we proceed? Miss Barnhardt, while admitting empathy with the probable circumstances of PPBXVI, has objectively erred at times in regards to the Gospel command that “Charity thinketh no evil”.

  5. Mark, I know you didn’t “write” the post and no offense, but this is the best blog post I’ve read in a while. Aqua and Susan have provided this blogger with even more clarity. I’ve said it before to others, Bergoglio is “Pope” in the Law, “and the Law is an ass.” But he is not “spiritually” pope and as said above, he ever was, he is surely not now. When he came out on the loggia that night in March, I watched and had the urge to vomit, it lasted for hours, I had chills, so did my wife. Something evil had come this way.

      1. Add two more….my wife and I were screaming (“What the heck is he doing???!!!”) at the TV when Bergoglio came out on the loggia and just stood over looking the crowd in St Peter’s square in a zombie-like manner that we read as 1000% creepy/spooky. I immediately started emailing close friends/family about our unexpected reaction….only to be chastised for “seeing things that weren’t there”. Oh and let’s not forget the evil portend of St Peter’s being struck by lightning the night of Benedict’s supposed resignation.

    1. I’m glad other people have said this because I had a similar reaction. I felt a chill go right up my spine with the thought that something is very wrong here. Then for just a second I saw his body go rigid with his arms frozen at his side, looking out at the crowd with a dead look is his eyes. I’ll never forget it!

  6. At Islam_is Islam,
    You are absolutely correct concerning Miss Barnhardt’s article, though perhaps a little too stern. This I say because it is literally impossible for anyone really to understand the situation in the Catholic Church today due to the demonic influence within as well as without. The only ones who would be able to grasp the reality are Exorcists, those who are tied to Satan and those who suffer from the demonic. The reason for the augmented demonic activity was given by Bishop Sheen in 1947 in his talk “Signs of our Times” (https://www.the-american-catholic.com/2017/02/26/fulton-sheen-on-the-anti-christ/), where he says that “the devil has been given a particularly long rope” in these times. In other words he has been given by God more power, and in fact much more power. Throughout history the devil has always been active, mainly as one of the sources of temptation, in addition to the world and the flesh. And though there have been Exorcists since the time of Christ, Christ providing the example, exorcising the devil who has harassed people by possession, oppression and obsession, there has never, never been a situation in the Church as we see it today–NEVER. And since the actions of the devil are invisible, it is most difficult to detect, and when detected, many times people are desperate to have others believe that such abuse is happening.
    In any case, one can’t blame Miss Barnhardt totally for not recognizing the tremendous demonic attacks Benedict had to be under. On the other, hand she perhaps should have given Benedict more of a benefit of a doubt, since he is not one for making up stories; and no one can deny that he could have been acting on something in the Third Secret not yet totally revealed, a view that almost no one takes into account–the unrevealed parts of the Third Secret seem a mute issue today amidst a confused Hierarchy trying to find a solution for the situation from the past on their own, This caution about giving the benefit of the doubt could apply as well to those who try to say Benedict made a theological or canonical mistake, acted out of fear or on account of threats, or had tried to apply his supposed earlier modernist leanings concerning the Papacy. I say this because Benedict stated quite bluntly that his renunciation (from the EXERICSE of the Petrine Office–not the Office itself) was free and that it was valid.

  7. From my well-thumbed edition of Vincent Miceli’s informative book’ The Antichrist,’ I find this quote of St. Alphonsus Liguori:
    “The devil has always managed to get rid of the Mass by means of the heretics, making them the precursors of the Antichrist who, above all else, will manage to abolish, in in fact will succeed in abolishing, as a punishment for the sins of men, the Holy Sacrifice of the altar, precisely as Daniel had predicted.”
    As a Protestant convert 30 years ago, I have often felt quite strongly that Vatican II abolished the mass and instituted a “new religion.” For a long time I hoped that Malachi Martin’s passage in ‘Keys of this Blood’ about (quoting from memory) JPII “waiting for an event that will fission human history…that it will particularly involve our human sun…” would come to fruition. Having developed a devotion to our Lady of Fatima, I assumed it referred to what would be a full-scale reenactment of the miracle of October 1913. But JPII died, and then Benedict “resigned” the papacy, turning it over to Bergoglio (an arrogant man who chose, in true diabolical narcissist fashion, the name of the humble St. Francis of Assisi).
    I had read Father Gobbi’s messages from the Marian Movement of Priests, many of which echo the sentiments expressed above. Gobbi noted that the antichrist would manifest in 1998, which was “666 expressed thrice” (the first expression in 666 AD being Mohammedism, the 2nd in 1332 being Protestantism). Bergoglio had become 1998 became Metropolitan archbishop of Buenos Aires. But perhaps 1998 was just the culmination of the century in which, per Leo XIII’s vision after Mass, the devil would be permitted 100 years to attempt to destroy the church. Leo wrote the prayer to St. Michael and instructed that it be used after every Mass. Of course, that, too, was abolished by Vatican II.
    And so here we are. We have fathers being arrested for attempting to keep their sons from being turned into girls, we have preschoolers led to tranny reading hour, we have homosexuals allowed to adopt children, we have abortion, even infanticide, turned into a sacrament, and those who reveal the monstrous harvesting of organs from living newborns we see punished by our judicial system. In Rome we have wooden idols placed on altars and we see prelates bow down to them. A statue of moloch is set before the Colosseum! And the faux Pope mocks those who pray the rosary and celebrates homosexuality, adultery, and apostasy.
    If these are not the times of the end, one must shudder to imagine what those times will be like! It seems clear that 2 Thessalonians, “and now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time, only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed…” refers to the Pope being taken out of the way. Which would certainly support Ms. (St.?) Barnhardt’s argument that Benedict is still the Pope. As many here have noted, how can it be that a true Pope would foment such confusion, mock the devout, and work everywhere to violate the very statements of Jesus himself?
    Dark times, indeed. But let’s not forget how the passage in Thessalonians ends:
    And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.

    1. @Robert G: Have you read the summary Apologia from Bp Gracida’s Sept 14, 2019 post? Thank you for your own thoughts in regards to the evidence surrounding Benedict is Pope (BiP).

    2. “Ms. (St.?) Barnhardt….my thoughts too, but have kept it pretty much to myself due to my bias. Her writings led me to my conversion.
      St. Peter, pray for us.
      St. John the Baptist, pray for us.
      Virgin most powerful, pray for us.

Leave a Reply

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