Why Pope Francis Is A False-Prophet
Note: Not an endorsement nor is he saying that Francis is THE FALSE PROPHET but a false prophet
Why Pope Francis Is A False-Prophet. Fr. Jerome is a pseudonym. Due to the times in which we live, this has become necessary.The subject matter is difficult, but he has handled it in a very careful manner and it needs to be read.
After Jesus’ resurrection, Our Lord said “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations.”—Mt 28:19. To the contrary, Pope Francis said this week: “It is not right to convince someone of your faith.” This means Pope Francis is now directly opposing Jesus Christ, and it is time for me to speak up.
I am an American diocesan priest who does not belong to any congregation. To write what I am about to write would normally be tantamount to forfeiting my soul in most centuries of Church history. I realize that. But I am so convinced that we have a false-prophet on the throne of Peter that I have reached the point that silence on Pope Francis is now tantamount to a grave sin of omission.
First of all, we need to understand terms and history. Material heresy is simply theological error against Divine Revelation (Scripture and the Magisterium). Formal heresy is when the person in question has been actually tried and found guilty before an ecclesiastical tribunal of superiors in the Catholic Church. But none is higher than the Pope, so what to do if the worst is elected?
Great minds of the 16th century (like Suarez and St. Robert Bellarmine) hold that the only way to transfer a materially heretical Pope to the charge of formal heresy would be to convene an imperfect council. An imperfect council consists of all Cardinals minus the Pope, convened specifically for the removal of at least one anti-Pope or Pope-in-possible-error. Of course, today, the most courageous of clerics can only muster enough strength to request a “clarification” for the erroneous doctrines coming out of Rome. (outlined below.)
Thankfully, we have only had a few Popes in history who spoke heresy from the chair of Peter. In the 14th century, Pope John XXII taught that a saved soul does not enjoy the beatific vision until Christ’s return at the final judgment. Of course, the Church teaches a saved soul need only wait until the end of his purification. Although John XXII’s error was a “minor” heresy, he still knew he had to recant on his deathbed. Still, everybody knew back then: Not everything the Pope says is infallible. How we ended up forgetting this as Catholics of the 21st century is beyond me.
But what is different today is that Pope Francis is speaking error (or at least scandalous ambiguities) almost every week. The magnitude is stunning, both in quantity and quality. Quantitatively, Pope Francis speaks so frequently against the Bible and Tradition that even traditional websites have stopped making lists. Qualitatively, it is remarkable that theological error has finally made it into an apostolic exhortation, namely, Amoris Laetitia. Among other errors, he essentially says that those in mortal sin may receive Holy Communion with the permission of their spiritual director. This is not a confusing aspect that needs “clarification.” It is a material heresy.
What right do I have to make such an accusation?
St. Thomas Aquinas writes: “It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2:11, ‘Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects.'”—Summa Theologiae, II-II, Q. 33, Art 4, reply to objection 2
But we must remember that there are theological facets to Pope Francis’ heresy that are more disturbing than even Amoris Laetitia, for they strike at the very nature and divinity of Jesus Christ.
For example, when Pope Francis preached at the Domus Santae Martae in May 2013, he said in a homily: “We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.” By “there,” he meant heaven. In other words, atheists can go to heaven by doing good works. This is clearly error. Now, some theologians defend this statement, claiming it is in concert with the Catholic Church’s teaching on the potential salvation of those who remain in invincible ignorance of the Gospel yet follow their conscience. However, the problem with such a defense is this: No one who is listening to the Pope is invincibly ignorant of the Catholic Church!
Even if a person were ignorant of the Gospel and the Church, Pope Francis has still promoted the ancient heresy of Pelagianism. Pelagianism is the teaching that good works without faith can save a man’s soul. To say that an atheist can go to heaven by “doing good” is so clearly heresy that even Protestant readers on this blog will quickly identify it this as an overturning of a common theology of grace.
The material heresy against the Divinity of Christ goes deeper. Regarding the young Jesus being in the temple, he said in his 2016 Epiphany homily in Italian: “Instead of returning home with his family, he stayed in Jerusalem, in the Temple, provoking great suffering to Mary and Joseph, who were unable to find him. For this little ‘escapade’ (questa ‘scappatella’), Jesus probably had to ask forgiveness (dovette chiedere scusa) of his parents.” I believe that to call the temple-based worship of God “a little escapade” is a blasphemy that would get any youth minister fired from the parish of even my more moderate priest friends. Why can’t these friends of mine recognize the error of the Pope? It is a false understanding of authority, namely, that the Pope is not under the Gospel or the Magisterium.
His Epiphany homily is erroneous or even heretical because we don’t have to guess what Jesus said to his parents after being found in the Temple. Jesus said to Mary and Joseph: “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?'”—Luke 2:49. Thirdly, Jesus never “asked forgiveness.” I know that even semi-orthodox theologians will defend this by saying that subjectively Joseph and Mary needed emotional comfort. I wonder: How are they blind to the fact that for a Pope to say that the Son of God “probably had to ask forgiveness” is still a clear denial of the Divinity of Jesus Christ? This is a heresy, even if we translate the Italian scusa roughly as “excuse me,” which is etymologically similar. To me, the bishops’ silence on these Christological errors are as condemning as the child abuse scandals.
The silence of lukewarm-but-orthodox bishops and Cardinals prove that Pope Francis is the greatest false-prophet in the history of the Church. Why? Because a false-prophet deceives even the elect, for Jesus Himself said “False christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.”—Matthew 24:22
I am not above “the elect,” but I do know how to read the Bible and the Catechism, and the teaching of Pope Francis is obvious error. He now speaks boldly against the Bible and the Catholic Faith almost every week without anyone to stop him! Why don’t the bishops recognize it? I personally believe that the orthodox ones do recognize the error. But they are hand-shackled by the snowballing of their silence from day-one, a snowball that has become a veritable mountain of sinful omission. And now it is out of control. The first day of this cowardly and silent mayhem began in 2013 during the Papal Conclave. No one blew the whistle on the fact that the last Papal Conclave used six ballots in one day, even though only five are allowed.
The evil of the 2013 Conclave goes even deeper: A group of northern European Cardinals (extremely influential in the gay agenda) called the “St. Gallen group” admitted to forcing Pope Benedict out of his office and lobbying their own man with evil designs into the Conclave in 2013. This man was Bergoglio become Pope Francis. This is not a conspiracy theory. They even admitted it here. This means that Pope Benedict XVI may not have resigned in a valid manner. The Code of Canon Law says that “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.”—CIC 188. Again, put these three things together: Certain Cardinals say they forced Pope Benedict out. The same Cardinals say they got Bergoglio in. Canon Law says that any resignation under “substantial error” is “invalid.” This means that Pope Benedict may still be the Pope, even though he apparently denies descending from the throne in duress.
If Bergoglio is the Pope, then his ascension to the throne was valid but not licit, to use sacramental language for a non-sacramental act. The goal of the faithful remains the same: Follow Jesus Christ and the traditional Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Avoid the wolf in sheep’s clothing. I am without a doubt that this is the most dangerous moment in Church history, for even orthodox Catholics are being deceived by this false-prophet.
A bad Pope can not be “sent-packing” as someone suggested. An imperfect council would require courageous bishops, but the bishops now back the false-prophet because of their silence. For this, they may get a false-prophet’s reward (cf. Matthew 10:41) for their grave sin of omission. Every one of them with the internet and a decent education stands by Pope Francis’ error in their cowardice to speak out against a deceitfully brilliant Pope now openly saying “It is not right to convince someone of your faith. Proselytism is the strongest venom against the path of ecumenism.”
Thus, there remain only two options for you to look for in the future:
1) The “two Popes” in Rome be given courage and repentance to work things out and then lead the Church to holiness. This is not impossible for God. Consider the influence of Saul and how he became the chosen vessel and standard bearer of Christ-crucified, the Apostle Paul. Less certain is the coming enlightenment of all consciences. If this happens, both could become great saints.
2) If such a conversion does not happen, we have still been promised a future prelate who will “restore the spirit of her priests” in the 16th century apparitions of Our Lady of Good Success. The future Pope will do great good, but he will also have to posthumously condemn all the works of Pope Francis—even the less-harmful teachings. Why? Because when a Pope (or anti-Pope) has been found posthumously guilty of heresy (like Pope Formosus at the Cadaver Synod at the end of the 9th century) 100% the of erroneous Pope’s works must be condemned by the next Pope. This is not out of spite, but because it is too dangerous for future Popes, bishops, priests and lay people to maneuver through the dead Pope’s waters, considered to be at once brackish and clear.
Towards the end of his life, the Apostle John spoke of only one thing: Love. A courageous group of young Christians asked him why he always repeated the same words over and over. The Apostle answered: “Because it is the precept of the Lord, and if you comply with it, you do enough.” He spoke only of love. But the beloved disciple (who rested his head right against the heart of Jesus Christ) knew that part of love was to warn his flock against theological error. Once at a public bath, St. John ran into a heretic named Cerinthus. The Apostle John turned to his friends and said, “Let us, my brethren, make haste and be gone, lest the bath, wherein is Cerinthus the enemy of the Truth, should fall upon our heads.”
We can not love our flocks if we do not warn them of heresies and those who promulgate them, even if is uncomfortable to point out that a false-prophet has temporarily hijacked the Seat of Peter. Faced with a false-prophet such as Pope Francis, we Catholics must always remember that none of this is a deal-breaker against Christ’s promise of the indefectibility of the Church, for the articulated faith and morals of the Catholic Church remain untouched by wicked men, even wicked Popes.
TCK: The reality is Vatican II is heretical and schismatic (materially) and all the VII Popes taught in the least material heresy. Please continue to pray for the pseudo traditionalists to wake up...