Even Harvard knows Bergoglio is an antipope who worships demons. It’s that obvious.

“On October 4, (2019) Pope Francis attended an act of idolatrous worship of the pagan goddess Pachamama. He allowed this worship to take place in the Vatican Gardens, thus desecrating the vicinity of the graves of the martyrs and of the church of the Apostle Peter. He participated in this act of idolatrous worship by blessing a wooden image of Pachamama. On October 7, the idol of Pachamama was placed in front of the main altar at St. Peter’s and then carried in procession to the Synod Hall. Pope Francis said prayers in a ceremony involving this image and then joined in this procession. When wooden images of this pagan deity were removed from the church of Santa Maria in Traspontina, where they had been sacrilegiously placed, and thrown into the Tiber by Catholics outraged by this profanation of the church, Pope Francis, on October 25, apologized for their removal and another wooden image of Pachamama was returned to the church. Thus, a new profanation was initiated. On October 27, in the closing Mass for the synod, he accepted a bowl used in the idolatrous worship of Pachamama and placed it on the altar.”


6 thoughts on “Even Harvard knows Bergoglio is an antipope who worships demons. It’s that obvious.”

  1. Unfortunately, the quoted segment is itself quoted from a website (no longer in service) called, Contra Recentia Sacrilegia (rough translation: against recent sacrileges). Not to say that it wasn’t idolatry, but the linked article doesn’t actually support the position stated in the quote(s)

    1. Thank you! There is enough evidence to support the antipope theory without stretching the truth…

  2. The Indefectability of the Church means that the Church cannot lead souls astray, or away from Her Head, Christ. The pope, being the visible head, the visible source of unity and the proximate rule of Faith, cannot, as pope: 1) teach anything dangerous to the faith (as in errors on faith and morals, faulty theology, etc), 2) promulgate a law that is harmful to the Faith, or 3) promulgate sacramental rites that are harmful to the Faith. Any claimant to the Chair of Peter who does ANY of those (not just profess heresy), is clearly not the pope. If he was, then the Church would have defected.

    1. If we accept all the post VII popes as heretics, we have to wonder how the Church did not defect when the last lawfully appointed bishop died. Antipopes have no authority to lawfully appoint bishops. Merely having valid bishops is not enough to have formal apostolic succession.

      Then if one or more of them were not antipopes before they appointed bishops, we must wonder how that is possible, given that they promoted Vatican II.

      Either way, it is the assumption the Vatican II taught heresies that leads to contradiction. Maybe it is the false base premise in explaining what happened afterwards.

Leave a Reply

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