Is Jorge Bergoglio The Pope? We Need To Stop Dodging That Question

A few weeks ago, the Catholic Identity Conference was held in Pennsylvania.  It was chaired by Michael Matt of the Remnant Underground.  They are all Catholics who are faithful to Church teaching and tradition.  Archbishop Vigano had prepared a presentation to be given to the attendees; he could not come himself for he is still in danger.

Vigano's presentation was not given.  I'm not sure of the reason, and I frankly don't care.  The questions that the archbishop put forth are questions that we Catholics must face.  Those questions focus on the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of Bergoglio's occupation of Peter's Chair.  I think that many good people don't want to face the fact that the evil inside the church hierarchy is so prevalent as to have insinuated in the visible head of the Church.  Perhaps they fear the label "sedevacantist".  Perhaps they just want to stay in the good graces of local hierarchy and friends.  Whatever the reasons, they must be cast aside and these questions must be addressed.

Ann Barnhardt has the video of Vigano giving his talk.  For those who'd rather read it, here it is.  Consider what he is saying.  The time for kicking the can down the road is long past - if it ever existed at all.  LifeSiteNews posted an article about the Saint Gallen mafia and how they might have tampered with the 2013 papal election.  They may have tried that with the 2005 election, but were unsuccessful.

For the record, I now believe that there are reasons to doubt the legitimacy of the 2013 papal election.  Frankly, I don't believe the resignation of Pope Benedict was done validly, so that is another reason why the 2013 election is dubious.  I have questions about these.  I don't have answers, I cannot propose solutions, but that does not preclude me from voicing reservations.

What should be obvious to all is that evil is having its way with Bergoglio.  That has been painfully apparent for several years now.  If you aren't awake and praying your Rosaries, why not?

Pell And Neumayr - Their Suspicious Deaths

Cardinal George Pell passed away ten days ago, on January 10, 2023.  He had only been released a short while ago while unjustly imprisoned on rather trumped-up charges.  Just before his death, the Spectator published what is now His Eminence's final article dealing with the working document for the upcoming "Synod on Synodality".  He had some choice, accurate words to say about the 45-page bloviation.  To wit:

"What is one to make of this potpourri, this outpouring of New Age good will? It is not a summary of Catholic faith or New Testament teaching. It is incomplete, hostile in significant ways to the apostolic tradition and nowhere acknowledges the New Testament as the Word of God, normative for all teaching on faith and morals. The Old Testament is ignored, patriarchy rejected and the Mosaic Law, including the Ten Commandments, is not acknowledged

"The Catholic Synod of Bishops is now busy constructing what they think of as ‘God’s dream’ of synodality. Unfortunately this divine dream has developed into a toxic nightmare despite the bishops’ professed good intentions."

As far back as 2014, over eight years ago, Cardinal Pell displayed his wariness regarding this plethora of "synods".  He called out some skullduggery by pounding his fist on a table and demanding that leaders "stop manipulating this synod".  Lo and behold, they backed down once they were shown to be charlatans. 

Last March the blogger Sandro Magister published a "Memorandum on the Next Conclave".  It had been circulating among the cardinals and was written under the pseudonym "Demos".  Magister stated on January 11th that Cardinal Pell was Demos.  The memo began with the declaration that "commentators of every school.. agree that this pontificate is a disaster in many or most respects; a catastrophe."  He then goes on to outline what he believes should be the mindsets of the cardinals during their selection of the next pope.

The officially-stated cause of the cardinal's death was "complications from hip surgery".  He allegedly had a heart attack.  I cannot find any definite statement of him taking the covid-cootie-jab, but I strongly suspect he didn't.  Being aware of the masonic forces that lurk within the Vatican, I cannot dismiss the possibility of murder, given the Cardinal's outspoken opposition to Francis' strange schemes.  There is talk that Pell stood to be influential in the next conclave; perhaps that is what some feared.

On January 20th, just a few days after the death of Cardinal Pell, we received news of another George who spoke truth regarding this pontificate.  George Neumayr passed away in the Ivory Coast, allegedly from malaria.  While he looked terrible in what turned out to be his last podcast, he mentioned nothing of being ill, nor did his prolific tweets hint at any serious sickness.  The corrupt bishops had reason to fear him, from their warped perspectives.  He wasn't afraid to approach them and ask them pointed questions.

Many Catholics and pro-life people are mourning the deaths of these two men and rightly asking prayers for the repose of their souls.  However, they are ignoring the elephant in the living room - the suspicious natures and timings of their deaths.  Not everyone is, though.  I'll say this plainly.  We must consider the very real possibility that these two men were murdered because they both were exposing corruption from within the Vatican.  Let's face it; we know that freemasonry runs rampant through the Vatican.  We have testimony from the late Bella Dodd about the subversives that she and others insinuated into the seminaries during the early 20th century.  Is is not very likely that some of them wormed their way into the Vatican?  Consider the origins of the Sankt Gallen mafia.

Will there be more?  We can't know the answer to that.  Will we be intimidated by all this?  We better know the answer to that.

For both men: requiescat in pace.

Sinister Machinations Behind Benedict-Francis Transition

Cardinal Godfried Danneels of Belgium is releasing an authorized biography of his life and was recently interviewed for the occasion.  Let us be very clear that he has demonstrated his heretical positions repeatedly.

• When a law was put to the king of Belgium to liberalize abortion, Danneels advised the king to sign it.
• He called same-sex #mowwidge a "positive development".
• He tried to silence a victim of clerical sex abuse.

During the interview, he revealed that he was part of a cabal of clerics that was organized for the express purpose of stymieing the efforts of then-Cardinal Ratzinger and later to lobby for Cardinal Bergoglio.  They called themselves both the Sankt-Gallen group and the "Mafia".  Isn't that telling?  

Their efforts failed that time as Cardinal Ratzinger was elected to be Benedict XVI.  Both LifeSiteNews and Edward Pentin have more details.  The report states that the group got another chance because "unexpectedly Pope Benedict resigned".  Well maybe that resignation wasn't so "unexpected" after all.

Last month Eponymous Flower put up a post detailing an eyewitness account of other skulduggery to sabotage Benedict's papacy.  Pope Benedict was told by some renegade clerics that they had gathered thousands of signatures to petition for his resignation and that if he did not comply, then leading clerics would break away from the Church.  As we know, Pope Benedict did resign shortly thereafter.  Did this threat of schism influence his decision?  Was this group of renegade clergy also the "mafia" described by Daneels?  If not, did the two groups have members in common?

Ann Barnhardt put up a piece to remind one and all that any cardinal elector who engaged in canvassing during the election incurred the penalty of automatic excommunication and such canvassing would result in the election being invalidated.  The question remains, "did some of the cardinal-electors do any lobbying for specific candidates for the papacy?"  To be clear, lobbying did occur.  Cardinal McCarrick admitted to the same, but he was not an elector.  If electors were lobbying, Pope Francis' election would seem to be invalid.

Many theories have been circulating around the internet to that effect.  Regrettably, Cardinal Danneel's admission along with that of Cardinal McCarrick seven months ago lends basis to the claim that the last papal election was invalid.  I do not believe these two admissions by themselves constitute irrefutable proof of the election's invalidity so for now I must assume its validity.  But no one can gainsay that there are reasonable doubts regarding the validity, for if prelates could scheme so vigorously and unethically to engineer the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, why should we assume that they'd have any scruples against lobbying for a specific outcome in the papal election?

Update - The blog "From Rome" had published some information regarding "team Bergoglio" in February, lending more evidence regarding the charges of conclave-lobbying.