There is no end to the filth that spews out of the mouth of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. This pestilential demon of a human being is a Modernist revolutionary par excellence. He is an agent of Antichrist who is preparing the way for the fulfillment of this clear-headed, prophetic description of the end-results of Modernism offered by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:
And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)
Thanks to my wife, principally, and our daughter, a name was devised for this One World Ecumenical Church that the late President (and former Prime Minister) of the Zionist State of Israel, Shimon Peres, had proposed to his pal Jorge Mario Bergoglio to establish and promote in September of 2014:
United Nations Treaty of Religions United Everywhere, which stands for UNTRUE.
Everything about the counterfeit church of conciliarism is untrue, starting with its claim to be the Catholic Church when it is, of course, her counterfeit ape, a home of veritable figures of Antichrist, men who fear not to blaspheme God, reaffirm adherents of false religions in their falsehoods to the point of their very deaths, stage sacrilegious liturgical events that would have shocked even the pagans of yore, and propagate every manner of false doctrine that has been condemned solemnly by the authority of Holy Mother Church.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio revels in his role as an irreverent, blasphemous and profane octogenarian Modernist revolutionary. This wretched, overweight marathon babbler of heresy who thinks nothing of making a mockery of the entirety of the Sacred Deposit of Faith, including the Ten Commandments, which he hates as much as his role model in all things heretical and blasphemous, Martin Luther.
To wit, Bergoglio used Palm Sunday, the day that the King of Israel, Our Divine Redeemer, entered Jerusalem astride a donkey to the shouts of “Hosanna in excelsis!”, to, in effect, shout “Hosanna in excelsis!” to George Soros as he gave encouragement to young men to speak up and make their voices heard without regard to what their parents or other elders say. The man considered to be “Pope Francis” thus encouraged young men to disregard the binding precepts of the Fourth Commandment in order to strike out on their own to recast the world with their own revolutionary fervor.
It is no accident, of course, that Bergoglio said what he did the day after the so-called “March for Our Lives” that had all the earmarks of events financed by the atheistic Talmudist, Soros, and the organizations he funds so liberally as agents of spreading instability and chaos in an relentless effort to eradicate existing social structures in favor of complete state control of human thought and action. Bergoglio knew exactly what he was doing, and his words below leave no doubt at all about his belief that anyone in public office who does not believe in the Soros agenda of “climate change,” open borders,” redistribution of income, “social justice” and the complete confiscation of guns in the possession of law-abiding citizens is “corrupt” and must be voted out of office:
And so here is where another kind of shouting comes from, the fierce cry of those who shout out: “Crucify him!” It is not spontaneous but already armed with disparagement, slander and false witness. It is a cry that emerges in moving from the facts to an account of the facts; it comes from this “story”. It is the voice of those who twist reality and invent stories for their own benefit, without concern for the good name of others. This is a false account. The cry of those who have no problem in seeking ways to gain power and to silence dissonant voices. The cry that comes from “spinning” facts and painting them such that they disfigure the face of Jesus and turn him into a “criminal”. It is the voice of those who want to defend their own position, especially by discrediting the defenceless. It is the cry born of the show of self-sufficiency, pride and arrogance, which sees no problem in shouting: “Crucify him, crucify him”.
And so the celebration of the people ends up being stifled. Hope is demolished, dreams are killed, joy is suppressed; the heart is shielded and charity grows cold. It is cry of “save yourself”, which would dull our sense of solidarity, dampen our ideals, and blur our vision... the cry that wants to erase compassion, that “suffering with” that is compassion, that is the weakness of God.
Faced with such people, the best remedy is to look at Christ’s cross and let ourselves be challenged by his final cry. He died crying out his love for each of us: young and old, saints and sinners, the people of his times and of our own. We have been saved by his cross, and no one can repress the joy of the Gospel; no one, in any situation whatsoever, is far from the Father’s merciful gaze. Looking at the cross means allowing our priorities, choices and actions to be challenged. It means questioning ourselves about our sensitivity to those experiencing difficulty. Brothers and sisters, where is our heart focused? Does Jesus Christ continue to be a source of joy and praise in our heart, or does its priorities and concerns make us ashamed to look at sinners, the least and forgotten?
And you, dear young people, the joy that Jesus awakens in you is a source of anger and even irritation to some, since a joyful young person is hard to manipulate. A joyful young person is hard to manipulate!
But today, a third kind of shouting is possible: “And some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples.” He replied, “I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out”” (Lk 19: 39-40).
The temptation to silence young people has always existed. The Pharisees themselves rebuke Jesus and ask him to silence them.
There are many ways to silence young people and make them invisible. Many ways to anaesthetize them, to make them keep quiet, ask nothing, question nothing. “Keep quiet, you!” There are many ways to sedate them, to keep them from getting involved, to make their dreams flat and dreary, petty and plaintive.
On this Palm Sunday, as we celebrate World Youth Day, we do well to hear Jesus’ answer to all those Pharisees past and present, even the ones of today: “If these were silent, the very stones would cry out” (Lk 19:40).
Dear young people, you have it in you to shout. It is up to you to opt for Sunday’s “Hosanna!”, so as not to fall into Friday’s “Crucify him!”... It is up to you not to keep quiet. Even if others keep quiet, if we older people and leaders – so often corrupt – keep quiet, if the whole world keeps quiet and loses its joy, I ask you: Will you cry out?
Please, make that choice, before the stones themselves cry out. (Bergoglio Blasphemes on Palm Sunday.)
It should go without saying that this is a blasphemous affront to the whole meaning of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s entrance into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday.
First, Bergoglio is without subtlety in his very poorly disguised efforts to turn Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ into a social revolutionary who encouraged people to “shout out” in opposition to various social evils, whether real, imagined or exaggerated, and, in effect, saying that President Donald John Trump is disfiguring the face of the Divine Redeemer by pursuing polices that are unjust and that squelch “dissonant voices.”
The people in the crowd in Jerusalem who hailed Our Lord on Palm Sunday were doing so because He is God in the Flesh. They were acknowledging His Sacred Divinity and his royal prerogatives as the Son of David, the true King of Israel. As noted three days ago in my revised reflection on Holy Week, Our Lord forced even His enemies, the very people who would cry out for His Crucifixion and shout for Barabbas, the political insurrectionist and murderer, five days later, to hail Him as the Son of David:
410. On the morning of the next day, which corresponds to our Palm Sunday, the Lord proceeded with his disciples toward Jerusalem, being accompanied by many Angels who sang hymns of praise at seeing Him so enamored of men and so solicitous for their eternal salvation. Having walked two miles more or less, and arriving in the village of Bethphage, He sent two disciples to an influential man of that neighborhood. From him they brought two beasts of burden (Mt. 21:2), one of which had not yet been used or ridden by anyone. The Lord processed on his way to Jerusalem while they spread some of their cloaks and other garments upon both the ass and her colt. The Lord was to make use of both of them according to the prophecies of Isaias (Is. 62:11) and Zacharias (Zach. 9:9), who had foretold these particulars many ages before so the priests and scribes would not be able to allege ignorance as an excuse. All four Evangelists describe this wonderful triumph of Christ and relate what was seen by the bodily eyes of those present (Mt. 21:4ff.; Mk. 11:1ff.; Lk. 19:30ff.; Jn. 12:12ff.). As they proceeded on their way the disciples, and with them all the people, the children and the adults, hailed Jesus as the true Messiah, the Son of David, the Savior of the world, and as their true King. Some of them exclaimed: Peace in heaven and glory on high, blessed be the King who cometh in the name of the Lord (Lk. 19:38); others, Hosanna to the Son of David (Mt. 21:9), “save us, Son of David,” blessed be the kingdom of our father David that cometh (Mk. 11:10). Some of these and others lopped branches from palms and other trees in signs of triumph and joy, and spread their garments upon the ground to prepare a way for the triumphant Conqueror, Christ our Lord.
411. All these demonstrations of worship and admiration which these men gave to the divine and incarnate Word were calculated to manifest the power of his divinity, especially at this time when the priests and Pharisees were watching Him and seeking to put an end to his life in that very city; for if these men had not been moved interiorly by a divine power, above and beyond that of their admiration for the miracles wrought by Him, it would have been impossible to draw such a gathering. Many of them were heathens and his declared enemies, who nevertheless hailed Him as the true Messiah, Savior and King, and subjected themselves to a poor, despised and persecuted Man, who came not in triumphal chariots, or in the prancing of steeds and ostentation of riches, but without any show of arms or outward human power. Outwardly all this was lacking as He thus entered Jerusalem seated on a beast contemptible in the sight of earthly ostentation and vanity. His countenance was grave, serene, and full of majesty corresponding to his hidden dignity; but all the rest was outside of and contrary to what the world is accustomed to applaud and celebrate. Hence the outward happenings of this day proclaimed his divine power, which directly moved the hearts of men to acknowledge Him as their Creator and Redeemer.
412. So the promise of the eternal Father would be entirely fulfilled, He not only moved the hearts of men in the city of Jerusalem by his divine light to acknowledge Him as Redeemer, but also caused his triumph to be felt among all creatures, especially those who were capable of reason (408), for the entry of Christ our Savior into Jerusalem was announced by the archangel Michael to the holy Fathers and Prophets in limbo, and moreover by a special vision they were made to see whatever happened on this occasion. From those cavernous abodes they acknowledged, confessed and adored Christ our Lord and Master as their true God and Redeemer of the world. They composed new hymns of praise in honor of his admirable triumph over death, sin and hell. The divine influence was also active in the hearts of many of those yet living in the world, for those who had faith or knowledge of Christ our Lord, not only in Palestine and its surroundings but in Egypt and in other countries, were excited and moved so in that hour they might adore in spirit their Redeemer and ours, and this they did with special joy of their hearts caused by the visitation and influence of the divine light, although they did not expressly know the cause or the purpose of this movement. But it came to them not without profit for their souls, for the effects caused them to advance greatly in their belief and performance of good works. So the triumph of our Savior over death would be more glorious, the Most High ordained on that day that death would have no power over any mortal; hence, though in the natural course many would have died, not one of the human race died within those twenty-four hours.
413. To this triumph over death was added the triumph over hell, which although it was more hidden was even more glorious, for as soon as the people began to proclaim and invoke Christ as their Savior and King who came in the name of the Lord, the demons felt the power of the right hand of God, and all of them, in whatever place they lurked throughout the world, were hurled into the dark caverns of the infernal abyss. During the short space of time in which Christ proceeded on his triumphal march not a demon remained upon the earth, but all of them were trembling with wrath and terror in the depths of hell. Hence they began to be filled with a still greater dread lest the Messiah be already in the world, and they immediately communicated their suspicions to each other, as I shall relate in the next chapter. The Savior proceeded on his triumphal way to the gates of Jerusalem, while the Angels who witnessed and followed his march chanted new hymns of praise and glory in wonderful harmony. Having entered the city amid the jubilation of all its inhabitants, Jesus dismounted from the foal and directed his divinely beautiful footsteps toward the temple, where He roused the admiration of all the multitudes by the wonders which according to the Evangelists He wrought on that occasion (Mt. 21:12ff.; Lk. 19:45). Burning with zeal for the house of his Father, He overthrew the tables of those who bought and sold within the sacred precincts, and cast forth those who made it a place of business and a den of thieves. However, with the triumphal march the Lord suspended also the divine influence which had disposed so well the hearts of the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Although the just had been much benefited, and many others had been justified, others returned to their vices and imperfections because they did not profit by the light and inspiration sent to them from on high. Though so many had hailed and acknowledged Christ our Savior as King of Jerusalem, not one tendered Him hospitality or received Him into his house (Mk. 11:11). (New English Edition of the Mystical City of God, The Transfixion, Book Six, Chapter VII.)
Our Blessed Lord and Saviour wants to adore Him as God as we welcome Him into our souls by means of Sanctifying Grace, especially in Holy Communion on those occasions we may be able to do so in this time of apostasy and betrayal. He is not a political messias promising to end all inequality and injustice in the world. He is the Divine Redeemer Who has shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood to redeem us from the power of sin and eternal death, to make it possible by His death on the wood of the Holy Cross for us to grow in holiness in this life so as to partakers of eternal life in Heaven.
To compare young people whose minds have been deformed by the ideologically programming that passes for “education” in all public schools and in almost all schools under the control of the conciliar authorities with the shouts of Hosanna addressed to the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity in His Most Blessed Mother’s Virginal and Immaculate Womb at the Annunciation is obscene. It is contemptible. Indeed, is damnable.
Second, Jorge Mario Bergoglio mocked the very omniscience of God by elevating the alleged “insights” of young people who have been exposed to nothing but falsehoods throughout their lives to the point of infallibility, implying that is they, not the “corrupt” leaders who oppose the Soros agenda of One World Governance and his own agenda of the One World Ecumenical Church, who have the right to lead men. The “young” must lead. Their parents and other elders must listen to them as it is they who are voices of God Himself in the world today.
Third, Jorge Mario Bergoglio demonstrated once again that he considers the Cross of the Divine Redeemer to be the source of social change, not the means of human salvation. He does not believe that Our Lord died to make atonement for human sin nor that He called us to carry our own individual crosses to make satisfaction for our own sins and for those of others. He believes that the Holy Cross is an invitation to “allowing our priorities, choices and actions to be challenged.” I meant every word that I wrote in . Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a Marxist revolutionary who makes of the entirety of Our Lord’s Passion, Death and Resurrection a call to “community action” to overturn established structures.
This has a double-meaning, of course, as the blasphemous and crapulous glutton from Argentina wants all ecclesiastical structures overturned just as much as he wants political and social structures overturned.
Remember, this is the man who said the following in Rio de Janeiro during “World Youth Day” in 2013:
RIO DE JANEIRO—Pope Francis showed his rebel side on Thursday, urging young Catholics to shake up the Church and make a “mess” in their dioceses by going out into the streets to spread the faith.
It’s a message he put into practice by visiting one of Rio’s most violent slums and opening the Church’s World Youth Day on a rain-soaked Copacabana Beach.
Francis was elected Pope on a mandate to reform the Church, and in four short months he has started doing just that: He has broken long-held Vatican rules on everything from where he lays his head at night to how saints are made. He has cast off his security detail to get close to get close to his flock and his first international foray as Pope has shown the faithful appreciate the gesture.
The surprise, though, came during his encounter with Argentine pilgrims, scheduled at the last minute in yet another sign of how this spontaneous Pope is shaking up the Vatican’s staid and often stuffy protocol.
He told the thousands of youngsters, with an estimated 30,000 Argentines registered, to get out into the streets and spread their faith and make a “mess,” saying a church that doesn’t go out and preach simply becomes a civic or humanitarian group.
“I want to tell you something. What is it that I expect as a consequence of World Youth Day? I want a mess. We knew that in Rio there would be great disorder, but I want trouble in the dioceses!” he said, speaking off the cuff in his native Spanish. “I want to see the church get closer to the people. I want to get rid of clericalism, the mundane, this closing ourselves off within ourselves, in our parishes, schools or structures. Because these need to get out!”
Apparently realizing the radicalness of his message, he apologized in advance to the bishops at home. (Jorge Tells Young People to Make a Mess of Things in their Dioceses.)
Bergoglio’s “apology” to the conciliar “bishops” was made in jest as he wanted—and still wants—all “conservative” fuddy-duddies” in the conciliar hierarchy to either get with the revolutionary agenda or get lost before he boots the out. The false “pope’s” agenda was foreseen and condemned as follows by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907:
38. It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in the ecclesiastical seminaries. They wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live. They desire the reform of theology: rational theology is to have modern philosophy for its foundation, and positive theology is to be founded on the history of dogma. As for history, it must be written and taught only according to their methods and modern principles. Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to be harmonized with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas are to be inserted except those that have been reformed and are within the capacity of the people. Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to be reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head. They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity and authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized. The Roman Congregations and especially the index and the Holy Office, must be likewise modified. The ecclesiastical authority must alter its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political organizations it must adapt itself to them in order to penetrate them with its spirit. With regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, and are to be more encouraged in practice. They ask that the clergy should return to their primitive humility and poverty, and that in their ideas and action they should admit the principles of Modernism; and there are some who, gladly listening to the teaching of their Protestant masters, would desire the suppression of the celibacy of the clergy. What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed by them and according to their principles?
39. It may, perhaps, seem to some, Venerable Brethren, that We have dealt at too great length on this exposition of the doctrines of the Modernists. But it was necessary that We should do so, both in order to meet their customary charge that We do not understand their ideas, and to show that their system does not consist in scattered and unconnected theories, but, as it were, in a closely connected whole, so that it is not possible to admit one without admitting all. For this reason, too, We have had to give to this exposition a somewhat didactic form, and not to shrink from employing certain unwonted terms which the Modernists have brought into use. And now with Our eyes fixed upon the whole system, no one will be surprised that We should define it to be the synthesis of all heresies. Undoubtedly, were anyone to attempt the task of collecting together all the errors that have been broached against the faith and to concentrate into one the sap and substance of them all, he could not succeed in doing so better than the Modernists have done. Nay, they have gone farther than this, for, as We have already intimated, their system means the destruction not of the Catholic religion alone, but of all religion. Hence the rationalists are not wanting in their applause, and the most frank and sincere among them congratulate themselves on having found in the Modernists the most valuable of all allies. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
Pope Saint Pius X also condemned Bergoglio’s misuse of the Gospel of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus when he wrote the following about the goals of The Sillon in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:
We know only too well the dark workshops in which are elaborated these mischievous doctrines which ought not to seduce clear-thinking minds. The leaders of the Sillon have not been able to guard against these doctrines. The exaltation of their sentiments, the undiscriminating good-will of their hearts, their philosophical mysticism, mixed with a measure of illuminism, have carried them away towards another Gospel which they thought was the true Gospel of Our Savior. To such an extent that they speak of Our Lord Jesus Christ with a familiarity supremely disrespectful, and that – their ideal being akin to that of the Revolution – they fear not to draw between the Gospel and the Revolution blasphemous comparisons for which the excuse cannot be made that they are due to some confused and over-hasty composition.
We wish to draw your attention, Venerable Brethren, to this distortion of the Gospel and to the sacred character of Our Lord Jesus Christ, God and man, prevailing within the Sillon and elsewhere. As soon as the social question is being approached, it is the fashion in some quarters to first put aside the divinity of Jesus Christ, and then to mention only His unlimited clemency, His compassion for all human miseries, and His pressing exhortations to the love of our neighbor and to the brotherhood of men. True, Jesus has loved us with an immense, infinite love, and He came on earth to suffer and die so that, gathered around Him in justice and love, motivated by the same sentiments of mutual charity, all men might live in peace and happiness. But for the realization of this temporal and eternal happiness, He has laid down with supreme authority the condition that we must belong to His Flock, that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practice virtue, and that we must accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors. Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. He was as strong as he was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross. These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one’s personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910).
Pope Saint Pius X described and condemned the exact beliefs held by Jorge Mario Bergoglio that he used to exhort young people to speak up and let their voices be heard by those who might want to silence them. Bergoglio believes that it is possible for those who “shout out” and “speak up” to “announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering” and injustice “would banished.”
This is what Karl Marx believed would be the result of the “future society” produced the successive stages of Communism, beginning with the dictatorship of the proletariat and ending in the stage of “ideal communism,” which is supposed to occur when all members of the bourgeoisie in the world have been killed or converted and their wealth redistributed according to the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” It is then that the state will “wither away and die,” thus permitting “history to end” and “man to begin.”
Pope Pius XI explained that Communism of its very nature considers children the property of the state. Parents are but by the biological means by which new workers can be bought into the revolution to work for the coming of “ideal communism”:
10. Communism, moreover, strips man of his liberty, robs human personality of all its dignity, and removes all the moral restraints that check the eruptions of blind impulse. There is no recognition of any right of the individual in his relations to the collectivity; no natural right is accorded to human personality, which is a mere cog-wheel in the Communist system. In man’s relations with other individuals, besides, Communists hold the principle of absolute equality, rejecting all hierarchy and divinely-constituted authority, including the authority of parents. What men call authority and subordination is derived from the community as its first and only font. Nor is the individual granted any property rights over material goods or the means of production, for inasmuch as these are the source of further wealth, their possession would give one man power over another. Precisely on this score, all forms of private property must be eradicated, for they are at the origin of all economic enslavement .
11. Refusing to human life any sacred or spiritual character, such a doctrine logically makes of marriage and the family a purely artificial and civil institution, the outcome of a specific economic system. There exists no matrimonial bond of a juridico-moral nature that is not subject to the whim of the individual or of the collectivity. Naturally, therefore, the notion of an indissoluble marriage-tie is scouted. Communism is particularly characterized by the rejection of any link that binds woman to the family and the home, and her emancipation is proclaimed as a basic principle. She is withdrawn from the family and the care of her children, to be thrust instead into public life and collective production under the same conditions as man. The care of home and children then devolves upon the collectivity. Finally, the right of education is denied to parents, for it is conceived as the exclusive prerogative of the community, in whose name and by whose mandate alone parents may exercise this right.
12. What would be the condition of a human society based on such materialistic tenets? It would be a collectivity with no other hierarchy than that of the economic system. It would have only one mission: the production of material things by means of collective labor, so that the goods of this world might be enjoyed in a paradise where each would “give according to his powers” and would “receive according to his needs.” Communism recognizes in the collectivity the right, or rather, unlimited discretion, to draft individuals for the labor of the collectivity with no regard for their personal welfare; so that even violence could be legitimately exercised to dragoon the recalcitrant against their wills. In the Communistic commonwealth morality and law would be nothing but a derivation of the existing economic order, purely earthly in origin and unstable in character. In a word. the Communists claim to inaugurate a new era and a new civilization which is the result of blind evolutionary forces culminating in a humanity without God.
13. When all men have finally acquired the collectivist mentality in this Utopia of a really classless society, the political State, which is now conceived by Communists merely as the instrument by which the proletariat is oppressed by the capitalists, will have lost all reason for its existence and will “wither away.” However, until that happy consummation is realized, the State and the powers of the State furnish Communism with the most efficacious and most extensive means for the achievement of its goal.
14. Such, Venerable Brethren, is the new gospel which bolshevistic and atheistic Communism offers the world as the glad tidings of deliverance and salvation! It is a system full of errors and sophisms. It is in opposition both to reason and to Divine Revelation. It subverts the social order, because it means the destruction of its foundations; because it ignores the true origin and purpose of the State; because it denies the rights, dignity and liberty of human personality. (Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, December 31, 1929.)
Jorge Mario Bergoglio praised, however obliquely, the students who did the bidding of George Soros in the “March for Our Lives” on Saturday, March 24, 2018, the Feast of Saint Gabriel the Archangel and the Commemoration of Saturday in Passion Week, for being the instruments of effecting a mythical “better world” that can be realized if their elders just listened to them and followed their advice, which they, the students, received from the textbook-driven, computer-based programs administered so slavish by the teachers, most, although not all, of whom are themselves complete adherents of a socialistic mentality that has no room for Christ the King and His true Church. It is night and day. Conciliarism is not Catholicism.
As is the case with Marxists, Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s praise of young ignoramuses to ignore those who might silence their voices that are so full of praise for naturalist “solutions” to various social problems that are the direct result of the Protestant Revolution’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King is based on the principle that children should be relatively autonomous from authority figures who seek to stifle their “dreams” of his mythical “better world.
One of the principal goals of public schools, especially in the past forty years, has been to drive a "wedge" between parents of the "conservative" bent of naturalism and their children by inserting its programs—and not their parents’ religious and moral instruction at home—as more trustworthy. This wedge leads many children to cynically reject supposedly “superstitious” religious beliefs and a morality that is said to be “out-of-date.”
American public education has been designed to generate ideologues who have been robbed of true history, true science and, most importantly of all, a true understand of who they are in light of Who has created them, Who has redeemed them, and Who intends to sanctify by means of the supernatural helps found solely in the Catholic Church.
Obviously, the whole basis of American "public education" has been Protestant and Judeo-Masonic from its very inception. Protestant versions of the Bible, which are not inspired by God the Holy Ghost and are not therefore to be considered as any source of instruction about God and His Divine Revelation, were used in public schools until they were thrown out by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Abington School District v. Schempp (not to be confused with the late Shemp Howard) on June 17, 1963.
The lodge brothers of Freemasonry exploited the divisions within Protestantism to urge "religious toleration" (read: religious indifferentism) as the foundation for "public education," opening the way for the triumph of various naturalistic ideologies and the methodologies, starting with the late John Dewey's pragmatism, which teaches that one must be concerned with end results rather than an overarching philosophy or belief system to explain life. What matters to a pragmatist is the is conforming of one's naturalistic, materialistic goals in this life with the reality of the situation that one faces.
Pragmatism, shoving aside the residual influences of Protestantism while at the same time building on some of its basic premises, opened the way for the introduction and ultimate institutionalization of a wide variety of naturalistic ideologies and philosophies all designed to erode belief in the supernatural and to emphasize, much along the lines of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the infinite "perfectibility" of man by means of his own efforts (the heresy of Pelagianism) and by means of his social structures. Evolutionism, feminism, socialism, environmentalism, moral relativism and its close relative, legal positivism, and a whole assortment of other ideologies were introduced as a means to conduct massive social engineering experimentations upon children, who were encouraged in the 1970s and thereafter to keep "journals" on their parents' conversations as ostensible "writing projects" when the goal was to monitor, much as was done the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and is done today in Communist nations such as Red China, the thoughts of those who were deemed to "threats" to the social engineers' and ideologues' desire to spread their false concepts in the name of "diversity" and "toleration."
Unable to control or, in many instances, to "motivate" students who are steeped in the lies of naturalism, especially materialism and hedonism, social workers and psychoanalysts and psychologists and psychiatrists were hired by many school districts to recommend medication, especially Ritalin, and to mandate books that heroize those who are serial violators of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. These efforts to program children medically and psychologically have been combined, of course, with the efforts of the late Mary Calderone, a longtime member of Planned Parenthood and the founder of a committee (S.I.E.C.U.S.), and those who have followed her to "educate" children by means of explicit classroom instruction in the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, thereby breaking down the natural psychological resistance of children to information that is age-inappropriate for them and to teach them that it is neither possible nor desirable for them to attempt to resist "natural" desires.
Pope Leo XIII explained the dangers of Freemasonry’s efforts to control the minds of young, which is why he wrote as follows in Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884:
Wherefore we see that men are publicly tempted by the many allurements of pleasure; that there are journals and pamphlets with neither moderation nor shame; that stage-plays are remarkable for license; that designs for works of art are shamelessly sought in the laws of a so-called verism; that the contrivances of a soft and delicate life are most carefully devised; and that all the blandishments of pleasure are diligently sought out by which virtue may be lulled to sleep. Wickedly, also, but at the same time quite consistently, do those act who do away with the expectation of the joys of heaven, and bring down all happiness to the level of mortality, and, as it were, sink it in the earth. Of what We have said the following fact, astonishing not so much in itself as in its open expression, may serve as a confirmation. For, since generally no one is accustomed to obey crafty and clever men so submissively as those whose soul is weakened and broken down by the domination of the passions, there have been in the sect of the Freemasons some who have plainly determined and proposed that, artfully and of set purpose, the multitude should be satiated with a boundless license of vice, as, when this had been done, it would easily come under their power and authority for any acts of daring. . . .
With the greatest unanimity the sect of the Freemasons also endeavors to take to itself the education of youth. They think that they can easily mold to their opinions that soft and pliant age, and bend it whither they will; and that nothing can be more fitted than this to enable them to bring up the youth of the State after their own plan. Therefore, in the education and instruction of children they allow no share, either of teaching or of discipline, to the ministers of the Church; and in many places they have procured that the education of youth shall be exclusively in the hands of laymen, and that nothing which treats of the most important and most holy duties of men to God shall be introduced into the instructions on morals. (Pope Leo XIII, Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884.)
Jorge Mario Bergoglio, of course, encourages the young to give vent to their anger to seek the “better world” because he believes in the naturalist presuppositions about life and human behavior. He does not believe that Original and Actual Sin are the sources of all disorder within the souls of men and thus in their nations and the world-at-large. He really does believe that “inequality” and even violence itself can be eradicated because he does not believe that inequality is part of the nature of things and that violence is the result of man’s fallen human nature, which is always in need of being helped by means of Sanctifying Grace.
Father Edward Cahill explained in The Framework of a Christian State that complaints about "social inequality" that are the foundation of the class warfare technique employed by the "left" to acquire and retain power is a rebellion against God Himself:
That the relations of master and servant and the social inequality which these relations imply are necessary and inevitable in man's present state [fallen human nature] is easily shown. Men differ in their capabilities, their natural tastes, the degree of energy they possess, the good or bad fortune that attends their efforts. Some excel in physical strength or endurance, others in mental or artistic gifts; some are naturally fitted for direction and rule, others need guidance and help. As a result of these inequalities, differences in men's social status would inevitably arise after a little while even if all were to begin on the same footing.
But in fact all men do not begin life on the same footing or within reach of like opportunities. For once granted the individual's right to acquire the ownership of productive property--a right which is natural to man--men will be born under very varying conditions. The parents of some are poor or even destitute; those of others have independent means. Some parents are wicked or careless or incompetent; others are quite the reverse. These and such like circumstances, more or less inherent in the life of fallen man, co-operate to produce varying types and classes of men, and to cause the widest differences in the initial opportunities of temporal well-being the reach of each. Some will be highly cultured, others rude and ignorant, Some will have virtuous habits and instincts, carefully instilled and fostered from their infancy; others inherit from their
parents, or acquire from their surroundings of their childhood, inclinations and principles which handicap them while life lasts. Finally, some begin life with abundant means which relieve them to a large extent of the necessity of earning their daily bread; while others experience more or less from their infancy the constant pressure of poverty. Hence it is that Leo XIII writes:
"It is impossible to reduce society to dead level. . . . There naturally exist among mankind manifold differences of the most important kind. People differ in capacity, skill, health, energy; and unequal fortune is a necessary result of unequal condition." [Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, May 15, 1891.]
Now, difference of social condition leads to or necessarily implies the institution of master and servant. The wealthy owner cannot exploit or utilise his property without the assistance of others working under his control. One cannot enjoy the leisure that is needed for high intellectual or artistic work or for application to public administration except by employing servants to attend to one's ordinary wants. Besides, in a society made up of such various elements as we have described many will have no suitable opportunity (and some even have no desire) of procuring the food, clothing and shelter which they need, or of enjoying the advantages of of domestic life except by attaching themselves to another family and working under the direction of its head.
Social Inequality Beneficial to Society.--This inequality of condition, resulting as it does in the institution of a master and servant, at least in so far as it proceeds from a variety of talents and tastes, and from moderate degrees of difference in the goods of fortune, has been wisely permitted by Providence for the good of man; for it is quite indispensable for the attainment of high any level of progress and social well-being. Though all cannot be wealthy and leisured, yet it is well that some should be so, and that there should be no insuperable barrier to prevent others attaining to that position. For, in the first place, the hope of attaining to wealth and independence is a useful spur, which most men need to stimulate energy and enterprise and to promote inventiveness and resource. Without such a motive, given human nature as it is, industry would languish; progress in invention and organisation would be slow; and the development of the earth's resources, so needful for man's temporal welfare, would be delayed.
Again, intellectual progress, artistic culture, the production of beautiful literature, the cultivation of music, painting, sculpture, architecture, and all of the ornamental side of life, would be well-nigh impossible, without the cooperation of a more or less leisured class. The same applies to elaborate civil organisation. Without a multitude of men, highly educated and trained and free to devote their whole energy to public administration, there can be no great political development. And such a class cannot exist without leisure and independent means and the co-operation of servants and labourers.
Finally, the virtues of reverence, obedience, loyalty, resignation, and the submission to the dispositions of Providence on the one hand, and those of kindness, generosity and liberality on the other--all so singularly fitted to develop the moral capabilities of men--would have less scope for their exercise, were not society made up of rich and poor, ignorant and learned, powerful and weak. On this subject Leo XIII again writes:
"Inequality is far from being disadvantageous either to the individual or to the community. Social and public life can be maintained only by means of various kinds of capacity cooperating for business and the playing of many parts; and each man, as a rule chooses the part which suits his own domestic condition." [Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, May 15, 1891]. . . .
Social Inequality no Obstacle to Peace and Harmony.--That the different social classes can live together in harmony and contentment, and that such a union of various elements produce a well-ordered and prosperous society, is proved from the testimony of history. We have already shown in sketching the social conditions of the mediaeval period how mutual harmony, contentment and widespread social well-being were realised at that period under the influence of Christian principles.
Class War Unnatural and Destructive.--The natural and divine law, which ordains differences of gifts and talents and a consequent distinction of social classes, reprobates the repulsive theory of the Socialists--a product of an unjust and oppressive social regime--that the different classes are naturally hostile to each other, and are meant to live normally in mutual conflict. In fact, the very contrary is true; for each class needs the other, and each is meant to assist the other; and in a just and well-ordered social regime, this mutual co-operation can be realised. For, as Leo XIII, writes:
"Just as the symmetry of the human frame is the resultant of the disposition of the organs, so in a State it is ordained by a nature that these two classes should dwell in harmony and agreement and should, as it were, groove into each other, so as to maintain the balance of the body politic. . . . Mutual agreement results in pleasantness of life and the beauty of good order, while perpetual conflict necessarily produces confusion and disorder." [Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, May 15, 1891] (Father Edward Cahill, S.J., The Framework of a Christian State, published in 1932 and reprinted by Roman Catholic Books, pp. 380-382; 383-394.)
This is far, far removed from what the chimerical egalitaran from Argentina believes and preaches as he turns Palm Sunday into an elegy of praise the the products of George Soro's own ideological programming. Then again, Bergoglio believes in every socialist shibboleth imaginable, including the necessity of radicalizing the young. This is indeed the stuff of demons, not of Christ the King.
Pope Pius XI explained in his first encyclical letter, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922, that World War I, which was fought on the soil of formerly Catholic nations of Europe for reasons of nationalism and geopolitical self-interest with the most brutal means of warfare then known to man (gas warfare, aerial bombardments, sophisticated attacks by torpedoes fired from submarines), worsened the relations of the classes, engendering much hatred and needless conflict in its wake:
7. One thing is certain today. Since the close of the Great War individuals, the different classes of society, the nations of the earth have not as yet found true peace. They do not enjoy, therefore, that active and fruitful tranquillity which is the aspiration and the need of mankind. This is a sad truth which forces itself upon us from every side. For anyone who, as We do, desires profoundly to study and successfully to apply the means necessary to overcome such evils, it is all-important that he recognize both the fact and the gravity of this state of affairs and attempt beforehand to discover its causes. This duty is imposed upon Us in commanding fashion by the very consciousness which We have of Our Apostolic Office. We cannot but resolve to fulfill that which is so clearly Our duty. This We shall do now by this Our first encyclical, and afterward with all solicitude in the course of Our sacred ministry.
8. Since the selfsame sad conditions continue to exist in the world today which were the object of constant and almost heartbreaking preoccupation on the part of Our respected Predecessor, Benedict XV, during the whole period of his pontificate, naturally We have come to make his thoughts and his solutions of these problems Our own. May they become, too, the thoughts and ideals of everyone, as they are Our thoughts, and if this should happen we would certainly see, with the help of God and the co-operation of all men of good will, the most wonderful effects come to pass by a true and lasting reconciliation of men one with another.
9. The inspired words of the Prophets seem to have been written expressly for our own times: "We looked for peace and no good came: for a time of healing, and behold fear," (Jer. viii, 15) "for the time of healing, and behold trouble." (Jer. xiv, 19) "We looked for light, and behold darkness . . . we have looked for judgment, and there is none: for salvation, and it is far from us." (Isaias lix, 9, 11)
10. The belligerents of yesterday have laid down their arms but on the heels of this act we encounter new horrors and new threats of war in the Near East. The conditions in many sections of these devastated regions have been greatly aggravated by famine, epidemics, and the laying waste of the land, all of which have not failed to take their toll of victims without number, especially among the aged, women and innocent children. In what has been so justly called the immense theater of the World War, the old rivalries between nations have not ceased to exert their influence, rivalries at times hidden under the manipulations of politics or concealed beneath the fluctuations of finance, but openly appearing in the press, in reviews and magazines of every type, and even penetrating into institutions devoted to the cultivation of the arts and sciences, spots where otherwise the atmosphere of quiet and peace would reign supreme.
11. Public life is so enveloped, even at the present hour, by the dense fog of mutual hatreds and grievances that it is almost impossible for the common people so much as freely to breathe therein. If the defeated nations continue to suffer most terribly, no less serious are the evils which afflict their conquerors. Small nations complain that they are being oppressed and exploited by great nations. The great powers, on their side, contend that they are being judged wrongly and circumvented by the smaller. All nations, great and small, suffer acutely from the sad effects of the late War. Neither can those nations which were neutral contend that they have escaped altogether the tremendous sufferings of the War or failed to experience its evil results almost equally with the actual belligerents. These evil results grow in volume from day to day because of the utter impossibility of finding anything like a safe remedy to cure the ills of society, and this in spite of all the efforts of politicians and statesmen whose work has come to naught if it has not unfortunately tended to aggravate the very evils they tried to overcome. Conditions have become increasingly worse because the fears of the people are being constantly played upon by the ever-present menace of new wars, likely to be more frightful and destructive than any which have preceded them. Whence it is that the nations of today live in a state of armed peace which is scarcely better than war itself, a condition which tends to exhaust national finances, to waste the flower of youth, to muddy and poison the very fountainheads of life, physical, intellectual, religious, and moral. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)
Such must ever be the case when men do not submit themselves to the sweet yoke of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, who must be honored by all men and all nations as their Queen.
The inter-related errors of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry that produced Modernity—and Modernism's efforts to "reconcile" Catholicism with it must spread and worsen over time. Father Felix Sarda y Salvany, a Spanish priest, explained in What Is Liberalism?, which was translated and published in the United States of America in 1899, that the spirit of Protestantism leads to the toleration of error. Toleration of error results in its own turn in the false belief that error can serve as the foundation of social order:
Protestantism naturally begets toleration of error. Rejecting the principle of authority in religion, it has neither criterion nor definition of faith. On the principle that every individual or sect may interpret the deposit of Revelation according to the dictates of private judgment, it gives birth to endless differences and contradictions. Impelled by the law of its own impotence, through lack of any decisive voice of authority in matters of faith, it is forced to recognize as valid and orthodox any belief that springs from the exercise of private judgment. Therefore does it finally arrive, by force of its own premises, at the conclusion that one creed is as good as another; it then seeks to shelter its inconsistency under the false plea of liberty of conscience. Belief is not imposed by a legitimately and divinely constituted authority, but springs directly and freely from the unrestricted exercise of the individual’s reason or caprice upon the subject-matter of Revelation. The individual or the sect interprets as it pleases–rejecting or accepting what it chooses. This is popularly called liberty of conscience. Accepting this principle, Infidelity, on the same plea, rejects all Revelation, and Protestantism, which handed over the premise, is powerless to protest against the conclusion; for it is clearer that one who, under the plea of rational liberty, has the right to repudiate any part of Revelation that may displease him, cannot logically quarrel with one who, on the plea of rational liberty, on the same plea, no creed is as good as any. Taking the field with this fatal weapon of Rationalism, Infidelity has stormed and taken the very citadel of Protestantism, helpless against the foe of its own making.
As a result, we find amongst the people of this country [Spain] (excepting well-formed Catholics, of course) that authoritative and positive religion has met with utter disaster and that religious beliefs or unbeliefs have come to be mere matters of opinion, wherein there are always essential differences, each one being free to make or unmake his own creed–or to accept no creed.
Such is the mainspring of the heresy constantly dinned into our ears, flooding our current literature and our press. It is against this that we have to be perpetually vigilant, the more so because it insidiously attacks us on the grounds of a false charity and in the name of a false liberty. Nor does it appeal to us only on the ground of religious toleration.
The principle ramifies in many directions, striking root into our domestic, civil, and political life, whose vigor and health depend upon the nourishing and sustaining power of religion. For religion is the bond which unites us to God, the Source and the End of all good; and Infidelity, whether virtual, as in Protestantism, or explicit, as in Agnosticism, severs the bond which binds men to God and seeks to build human society on the foundations of man’s absolute independence. Hence we find Liberalism laying down as the basis of its propaganda the following principles:
1. The absolute sovereignty of the individual in his entire independence of God and God’s authority.
2. The absolute sovereignty of society in its entire independence of everything which does not proceed from itself.
3. Absolute civil sovereignty in the implied right of the people to make their own laws in entire independence and utter disregard of any other criterion than the popular will expressed at the polls and in parliamentary majorities.
4. Absolute freedom of thought in politics, morals, or in religion. The unrestrained liberty of the press.
Such are the radical principles of Liberalism. In the assumption of the absolute sovereignty of the individual, that is, his entire independence of God, we find the common source of all others. To express them all in one term, they are, in the order of ideas, Rationalism, or the doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of human reason. Here human reason is made the measure and sum of truth. Hence we have individual, social, and political Rationalism, the corrupt fountainhead of liberalist principles [which are]: absolute worship, the supremacy of the State, secular education repudiating any connection with religion, marriage sanctioned and legitimatized by the State alone, etc; in one word, which synthesizes all, we have Secularization, which denies religion any active intervention in the concerns of public and of private life, whatever they be. This is veritable social atheism.
Such is the source of liberalism in the order of ideas; such in consequences of our Protestant and infidel surroundings, is the intellectual atmosphere which we are perpetually breathing into our souls. Nor do these principles remain simply in the speculative order, poised forever in the region of thought. Men are not mere contemplatives. Doctrines and beliefs inevitably precipitate themselves into action. The speculation of today becomes the deed of tomorrow, for men, by force of the law of their nature, are ever acting out what they think. Rationalism, therefore, takes concrete shape in the order of facts. It finds palpable expression and action in the press, in legislation, and in social life. The secular press reeks with it, proclaiming with almost unanimous vociferation, absolute division between public life and religion. It has become the shibboleth of journalism, and the editor who will not recognize it in his daily screed soon feels the dagger of popular disapproval. In secularized marriage and in our divorce laws, it cleaves the very roots of domestic society; in secularized education, the cardinal principle of our public school system, it propagates itself in the hearts of the future citizens and the future parents; in compulsory school laws, it forces in the entering wedge of socialism; in the speech and intercourse of social life, it is constantly asserting itself with growing reiteration; in secret societies, organized in a spirit destructive of religion and often for the express purpose of exterminating Catholicity, it menaces our institutions and places the country in the hands of conspirators, whose methods and designs, beyond the reach of the public eye, constitute a tyranny of darkness.
In a thousand ways does the principle of Rationalism find its action and expression in social and civil life, and however diversified be its manifestation, there is in it always a unity and a system of opposition to Catholicity. Whether concerted or not, it ever acts in the same direction, and whatever special school within the genus of Liberalism professes it or puts it into action–be it in society, in domestic life, or in politics–the same essential characteristics will be found in all its protean shapes–opposition to the Church–and it will ever be found stigmatizing the most ardent defenders of the Faith as reactionaries, clericals, Ultramntanes [See p. 92, par. 1], etc.
Wherever found, whatever its uniform, Liberalism in its practical action is ever a systematic warfare against the Church. Whether it intrigue, whether it legislate, whether it orate or assassinate, whether it call itself Liberty or Government or the State of Humanity or Reason, or whatnot, its fundamental characteristic is an uncompromising opposition to the Church.
Liberalism is a world complete in itself; it has its maxims, its fashions, its art, its literature, its diplomacy, its laws, its conspiracies, its ambuscades. It is the world of Lucifer, disguised in our times under the name of Liberalism, in radical opposition and in perpetual warfare against that society composed of the Children of God, the Church of Jesus Christ. (Father Felix Sarda y Salvany, Liberalism Is A Sin, republished by TAN Books and Publishers, pp. 8-13; translated and adapted by Conde B. Pallen, Ph.D., LL.D., and published originally by B. Herder Book Company, St. Louis, Missouri, in 1899 under the title of What Is Liberalism?)
That the world of the late Saul Alinsky and the world of the very much alive George Soros remains that of Lucifer and it is one of the many consequences of the simple fact that Martin Luther was as much an agent of Antichrist as is Soros’s chief ecclesiastical ally, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who believes that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s perfect obedience to the will of His Co-Equal, Co-Eternal God the Father as described by Saint Paul the Apostle do not apply to the obligation that the young have to honor and to obey their parents in all things that do not pertain to sin:
Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:  But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man.  He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross.  For which cause God also hath exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names:  That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth: (Philippians 2: 6-10.)
Today is Wednesday in Holy Week, also known as “Spy Wednesday” as it is the day on which Judas Iscariot sold out the Divine Redeemer for thirty pieces of silver. Judas had a bad end even though Jorge Mario Bergoglio has stated that he might have been saved, something that makes perfect sense as it is takes a traitor to find excuses for a traitor.
Our Lord came to redeem us by means of the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion to Death on the wood of the Holy Cross. He has called us to obedience, not insolence, to self-abnegation, not self-exaltation, to the silent endurance of our daily crosses, not to vocalize complaints about a world that suffers from the ravages of the sins of men who have neither repented of those sins nor even thought of seeking out absolution from a true priest and amending their lives thereafter. Our Lord has called us to be everything that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not, His faithful follower on the Via Dolorosa and at the foot of His Holy Cross while relying entirely upon His Most Blessed Mother, especially through her Most Holy Rosary, to help us to persevere until the end so that we can know the one and only true place where peace abides, the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven.
Our Lady of Sorrows, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saint John of Capistrano, pray for us.