Eagle

Home

News
Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report

DONATIONS

Articles
Testimony
Bible Questions

Internet Articles (2017)
Internet Articles (2016)
Internet Articles (2015)
Internet Articles (2014)
Internet Articles (2013)
Internet Articles (2012)

Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)

Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Books
Order Books

Cyrus
Rednecker

Search

About
Comments

Links

Startlogic Windows Hosting

Adobe  Design Premium¨ CS5

20 years

Jesuit Takeover-Hed

I150720n 1094 A.D. a son and heir was born into a propertied family of noble birth named O'Morgair in Armagh, in what is now Northern Ireland. The male child was baptized Maelmhaedhoc. In later years, when he was placed under the tutorship of Imbar O'Hagan in the Abby at Armagh for his formal schooling, Maelmhaedhoc's name would be Latinized, and he would become known as Malachy. He was ordained in 1119 AD at the age of 25. He continued his theological education in Lismore. Malachy, was ordained as Abbot of Bangor in 1123. A year later he was consecrated as the Archbishop of Connor.

In 1127 he became "father confessor" to Cormac MacCarthy, Prince of Desmond (who would later become the King of Ireland). In 1132 he was promoted to the primacy of Armagh. Malachy died on his second pilgrimage to Rome in 1148. He was canonized by Pope Clemente III on July 6, 1199.

Interestingly, among Malachy's prophesies was his prediction of the day and hour of his own death—and it was accurate. Most important of all of his prophesies was one concerning the succession of the Popes—from Pope Innocent II (who became pontiff in 1140) to the pope who will follow John Paul IIPope Benedict XVI, the last Catholic pontiff. According to Malachy, the line of popes would end, abruptly, with Benedict. Of course, we know Pope Benedict resigned the papacy on Feb. 29, 2013 and the College of Cardinals elected Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the archbishop of Buenos Aires, Argentina Pope Francis I on March 13, 2013.

Pope Francis became the first Jesuit to become the head of the Catholic Church. And the first marxist. And, the first non-European pope since 741 AD. And the first pope from the southern hemisphere—ever.The Malachy Prophecy specifically detailed the origin of the 110th pope as being Polish in Eastern Europe. That would be John Paul II. As the Malachy Prophecy is carefully examined, it is accurate to this point. There remains only one pontiff in the Malachy Prophecy after Pope John Paul IIPetrus Romanus.. If you add the Benedictine prophecy, described as Petrus Romanus, there are two. But, the Benedictine addition is not part of the original prophesy and, therefore, does not belong although it perfectly describes the ascension of Cardinal Joseph Ratsinger to the papacy. Pope Benedict XVI was elected by the political conclave in Rome.

Peter of Rome (Petrus Romanus) is an acknowledgment of the theological power struggle that took place in 2005 since the Cardinals did not want to go outside of Europe for a replacement for John Paul II. At the same time, Petrus Romanus, or Peter of Rome suggests that the final pontiff necessarily had to be an Italian. Pope Francis was born in Argentina and is, therefore, an Argentinean. But, he is also one of five children of Italian immigrants. While no pontiff has ever taken the name "Peter," conspiracy buffs are quick to point out that Jorge Mario Bergoglio took the name of Francis of Assis (the patron saint of animals). Francis of Assis' real name was Giovanni di Pietro Bernardone. The conspiracy crowd doesn't hesitate to take a major leap by noting that Giovanni's middle name was Pietro, or Peter, thereby connecting Francis I to St. Peter. But, it's a stretch that reaches no where. My father's birth name was Francis (or Frank). Does that mean my father has some sort of an indirect link to Peter (whose real name was Simon), the first Apostle chosen by Jesus [Matt. 10:2], through St. Francis of Assisi? Of course not. Where I was raised, that's called grabbing at straws.

At the same time, Gloria Olivae symbolized the Benedictine Order according to St. Benedict, a monk from Nursia and the son of a Roman noble. Benedict was canonized as a saint in 1220 AD. He died in 543 AD. In Malachy's prophesy about the 112th pope, he said the last Pope would be an Olivetan priest (a wise and powerful pontiff, accessible to God's Divine word who points out, with gentleness, the errors being taught to the laity by other priests). This was Benedict XVI, but it is not Pope Francis I.

The 112th Pope is described as Gloria Olivae (the glory of the olives). According to the combined Malachy and St. Benedict prophesies, this is Pope Francis—the last pope, and/or perhaps, antipope, in the world. There are a couple of logical scenarios here. First, olives and olive branches denote peace. With the continuous strife in the Middle East—wars and rumors of war—and with Bible prophesy telling us that when Antichrist appears in the world he—Antichrist—will arrange a peace so deceitfully alluring that the world will adore him. Second, no Catholic pontiff will be the Antichrist. As you study Scripture, you will find that every reference to Antichrist refers to him as either an Assyrian or a Syrian. Antichrist will be a Muslim, not a Pope in the Catholic Church. Nor is Rome the "harlot of Babylon." That is a title reserved for Jerusalem. Third, St. Benedict prophesied that the last pope would be a Benedictine. But, it appears that's possible only if God planned this confusion, with two last popes—Gloria Olivae and Petrus Romanus both being Olivetan priests according to the 865-year old prophecy. Up to Pope John Paul II the Malachy Prophesy was totally accurate. What are the odds, at this late date, that the balance of it proves to be wrong?

Some loyal but doubting Catholics believe the door is open for even more pontiffs between Gloria Olivae and Petrus Romanus to sit on the Roman throne. Not likely. What is most confusing is that parts of the two prophesies of Popes 111 and 112—Gloria Olivae and Petrus Romanus—partially fit both Benedict XVI and Francis I. But Jesuit theologians believe both prophesies more appropriately fit Francis I.than Benedict XVI. Francis I, while a strong political leader, has not been the compassionate spiritual leader of the Catholic Church which the faithful found in Pope John Paul II and, somewhat, in Benedict XVI.

As theological and political strife caused by the rise of Muslim extremism in the Mideast aimed directly at the destruction of Christianity and Judaism mushroomed in the first decade of the 21st century, Pope John Paul II and then Pope Benedict XVI found themselves quietly fighting pontifical political turf wars in the corridors of the Vatican for which they had no stomach and no experience—just like Barack Obama, the community organizer who is losing the political and economic turf wars with China, the re-emerging Soviet Union, the birthing of ISIS and the rebirth of the Caliphate—which intends to lead the global Islamic State in the 21st century.

Pope John Paul II, who suffered from Parkinson's Disease, wrote a letter of resignation twice. Once in 1989 and again in 2004, so that in the event he became mentally or physically incapacitated and could not function as the pontiff, the cardinals could replace him. In both instances his aides talked him out of submitting his resignation to the Vatican's Secretariat of State.

In 2004, Angelo Cardinal Sodano served as both the Dean of the College of Cardinals and the Secretariat of State. Next to the Pope, he was the most powerful bureaucrat in the Holy See and, according to many of the lower echelon bureaucrats in the Vatican, he was responsible for the power vacuum and back-stabbing that brought Joseph Cardinal Ratsinger to the apex of Catholicism.

Pope Benedict XVI, who has long been recognized as an intellectual theologian, had no stomach for political infighting, and usually didn't even know what was going on in the Vatican bureaucracy until embarrassing information leaked into the public domain. While Benedict was backed by the Italian politicians in the Roman Curia in order to keep any Cardinals from outside of Europe from becoming Pope, the Curia made little effort to keep the Bavarian pontiff appraised of what the "little borgias" (the middle-ranked members of the Roman Curia) were doing.

Benedict, like John Paul II and, today Pope Francis I, found himself in a geographic turf war. Non-Italians have unabatedly controlled the Holy See since Oct. 16, 1978. Before the death of John Paul II, the Italian politicians in the Vatican and in the Roman Curia sought out the young and politically ambitious members of the Curia staff and told them "Hear everything. See everything. Report what you hear and see. Say nothing to anyone else."

In 2011, Benedict XVI's butler, Paolo Gabriele, began photocopying scores of confidential documents and letters in the possession of the Pope, referred to in the media as the Vatileak Papers, dealing with widespread corruption inside the Vatican, including a homosexual lobby which included homosexual cardinals, bishops, priests and monks and a cabal of powerful of global homosexual power brokers living in a virtual netherworld in Rome. Gabriele surrendered the photocopies to Italy's largest daily newspaper, La Repubblica, which printed the story. Gabriele confessed to Benedict XVI, telling the pontiff he did what he did not for money but because he loved the pope "...like a son loves his father.." who summarily fired him and brought him up on charges of aggravated theft. He spent three months in prison before Benedict pardoned him. At that point, Benedict commissioned three cardinals to launch a covert investigation on the sins within the Vatican—for Benedict's eyes only. They produced a 300-page report which was supposed be under lock and key. It was also leaked to La Repubblica.

In addition, the documents and letters Gabriele stole from Benedict XVI's were used by two journalists who wrote books about the Vatileak Papers. First (preceding the Cardinal Papers) was Gianluigi Nuzzi's book, "Our Holiness: The Secret Papers of Benedict XVI," was based on Gabriele's stolen documents. The release of the book sent the Vatican into a tailspin and triggered Benedict's secret investigation not only of homosexuality in the Holy See (the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Catholic Church in Rome), but an investigation of bank fraud.or, at least, transaction not known or approved by the Pope, that transmitted large sums of cash, sent to unrecorded recipients in politically unstable countries. The transfers were authorized by Ettore Gotti Tedeschi who was, at that time, the President of the Institute for Works of Religion, also known as the Vatican Bank. The investigation into Tedeschi, an economist and banker, revealed that he was also member of a secular Catholic secret order known as Opus Dei, founded in 1928 and sanctioned by Pope Pius XII in 1950. Opus Dei is arguably the most controversial force in the Catholic Church because its membership is comprised of secular priests and laity. Criticism of Opus Dei centers largely on their rules, which include all forms of elitism and misogyny: the physiological, political and economic discrimination of women which includes hatred or merely simple contempt of women, as well as the sexual discrimination of, or violence against, women. In any event, in 1982 Pope John Paul II decreed Opus Dei to be a personal prelate—an entity under the sole jurisdiction of its own bishops wherever they were, instead of being part of any geographical dioceses.

On Mon., Feb. 11, 2013, conservative pontiff Pope Benedict XVI announced that he would officially resign the papacy on Thurs., Feb. 28, citing "...lack of strength of mind and body due to advanced age." as his reason. Few people believed him, and investigative reporters and conspiracy buffs scrambled for the "real" reason.

Dr. Robert Moynihan, editor of Inside the Vatican magazine, who is anything but a conspiracy nut, has more knowledge of what's going on in the Holy See than most priests. When Moynihan commented on his skepticism that Benedict XVI resigned because of old age, in part because he had seen him twice that week, "...once at a concert on Monday evening where I was sitting abut 20 yards from him, and at his General Audience on Wednesday. For a man of 85, he looked well, though he did seem tired." Moynihan said that, on the 9th, Benedict met with the Knights of Malta, chiding "...that's what was weighing so heavily on Pope Benedict—spending several hours that morning with the Knights of Malta (a western civilization military order in medieval times). The meeting exhausted him, so he resigned." Moynihan unequivocally associated Pope Benedict's resignation with that meeting.

What, he wondered, did the Knights of Malta tell the Pope that caused Benedict XVI to take the unprecedented step of resigning? Was it a simple, "You're fired!" Seymour Hersh, a syndicated columnist who began his career with the New York Times and now writes primarily for the New Yorker, sees a nefarious scheme being played out with the Knights of Malta squarely in the center of it. The Knights of Malta, Hersh fans theorize, are among the most feared secret societies in the world. They were, according to legend, the most feared papal army during the Crusades. Hersh begins to lose credibility when he said the Knights of Malta, today, are the key ingredient to an effort by a handful of neo-cons who plan to overthrow the United States. (In private company Hersh is more likely to be more free with his view that the Knights of Malta planned 9-11 for the sole purpose of weakening the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.) Burke&WeurstInterestingly, when Pope Francis fired Cardinal Burke as Chief Justice of the Vatican's Supreme Court, he transferred Burke to the slap-in-the-face, largely ceremonial, post of Patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta.

Moynihan opted for a slightly different version, still centered on Benedict XVI being fired by the Knights of Malta "...in order to pave the way for a new pope who will sanction homosexual marriage, non-celibate priests and other projects such as...[de-sacramentalizing] the Church." His resignation, with a standard "two weeks notice," suggests Pope Benedict may have been given the choice of resigning or being terminated (and not in the unemployed sense of the word).

Questions like these are always asked when someone "important" dies. Everything else aside, it doesn't really matter how we got here because this is where we are. Efforts were made, twice, to entice or force John Paul II to resign. The Code of Canon Law in 1917 provided for the resignation of popes suffering from chronic conditions at age 75 or older. In 1975 Paul VI revisited the 1917 decree, adding: "Paternity cannot be resigned," suggesting, perhaps, that he was pressured by someone with the power to intimidate a pontiff, that old popes should retire in order to make room for new ideas. When John Paul II was nudged twice to do so, the pontiff said: "Jesus Christ didn't climb down off the cross before His job was done. I can do no less."

Did someone cash in John Paul's second conditional retirement consideration when Parkinson's Disease was ravaging his body just before he died of septic shock in 2005? (Medically, a large percentage of elderly Parkinson's patients get sepsis when their organs begin to shut down. Approximately 80% or more will die from septic shock within 48 hours.) When the College of Cardinals began to consider Benedict XVI's successor, their number one 5/2 choice was Canadian Marc Cardinal Ouelett the former Archbishop of Quebec. The oddsmakers said the only reason he wouldn't replace Benedict XVI would be his declining the post.

He didn't decline it, nor did he win it.

The bookies' favorite was Angelo Cardinal Scola at 8/8, while the media pundits rated him fifth at 7/1. Third was Peter Kodwo Appiah Cardinal Turkson of Ghana, and President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. Cardinal Turkson is one of the most popular cardinals in the world and was a 4/1 certainty for the job. The fourth ranked choice at 5/1 was Leonardo Cardinal Sandri. Fifth was an Italian, Gianfranco Cardinal Ravasi, the President of the Pontifical Council for Culture. He was ranked 6/1 only because he was an Italian. Sixth in popularity was Tarsico Cardinal Bertone, Benedict XVI's Secretary of State, who weighed in at 12/1. He was one of the master politicians in the Vatican. Cardinal Bertone should have been the odds-on favorite for the job since he was responsible for the election of a large bloc of Italian cardinals. His problem is he is not much liked because he knows where all the proverbial bodies are buried. Which should have assured his election. Instead, the job went to the 16/1 to 1 longshot, Jorge Mario Cardinal Bergoglio who, reportedly, ran neck-to-neck against Josef Cardinal Ratsinger in 2005.

The oddsmakers said when the Argentine lost against the Bavarian in 2005, he lost his last chance to grab the Fisherman's ring. Cardinal Bergoglio was viewed as "papible"—always a cardinal and never a pope.Four others were in the mix although they were longshots at best. Both represented better days of the Catholic Church. First was Angelo Cardinal Bagnasco, a very conservative archbishop would have returned the Holy See to the days of Pius XII. Next was Christoph Cardinal Schönbon from Austria, a John Paul II protége. His problem? He personally intervened in his diocese to re-install an openly homosexual man to a parrish council, humiliating the priest who discharged him. Also in the first round was Odile Scherer, another South American, from Brazil and Luis Cardinal Tagle from the Philippines.

Cardinal Schönbon had a strong following. His supporters wanted two things: first, no Italian pontiff and second, a pope from Europe. Which is why when socialist Cardinal Bergoglio arrived in Rome on September 17, 2013, much of the media wrote him off as a"papile.". This was his second trip to the Synod Hall of the General Congregation in a decade. The oddsmakers were certain that Bergoglio, who placed a weak second in 2005, was a dark horse in 2013 because runners-ups in prior conclaves seldom show in the next race. But Jorge Mario Cardinal Bergoglio thought differently. He arrived with great expectations. Barely a few paid any attention to him, not even the media who chose instead to chase the more well-known cardinals like Timothy Cardinal Dolan, the Archbishop of New York. But Benedict XVI had his own successor in mind—Marc Cardinal Ouelett, whom Benedict transferred to the Vatican to run the Congregation for Bishops, the Curia office that vets all bishop appointments world-wide, to make Ouelett powerful enough to command the 77 votes he would need to become the pontiff. The problem was that, even in Benedict's own camp there was division. In addition to Benedict's own pick, Ouelett, there was another popular German in the mix: Cardinal Schönbon. In the running initially was Cardinal Dolan and Sean Cardinal O'Malley, the Archbishop of Boston. When the list of candidates was whittled down from 12 to 7, O'Malley and Dolan became "voters" instead of potential pontiffs. Americans were not wanted in the Papal Palace except as temporary visitors.

Yet small clusters of cardinals—both socialist and ultra-conservative from various second world countries—wanted a pope who was not a Vatican insider, nor part of the problems in the Curia or the Vatican Bank. They voted for Cardinal Bergoglio in 2005 when he almost won the Fisherman's ring. While the mainstream Italian and European cardinals dismissed Bergoglio as an "almost ran," the problem was that too many of the candidates were protéges of Pope Benedict, which split the vote. and made it impossible for the popular Cardinals like Ouelett, Sadano and Scola to get the 77 votes they needed. When the clock ticked down, the longshot political socialist, Jorge Benrgoglio would become Pope Francis I.

During the Conference of the Diocese of Rome at the Basilica of St. John Lateran on June 6, 2005, some 60 days after his papal inauguration, Pope Benedict XVI made a statement which would become a prophetic utterance of his successor a decade later. Continuing with the topic, the dictatorship of relativism, from the pre-conclave mass he had held earlier that day, Benedict said: "Today a particularly insidious obstacle to the task of education is the massive presence in our society and culture of a relativism which, recognizing nothing as definitive, leaves as the ultimate criterion only man's self with his desires. And, under the the semblance of freedom it becomes a prison for everyone, because it separates all people from one another, locking each person within his or her own ego." Benedict referred to this lust of self as the self-limitation of reason which was a dictatorship of relativism.

At the root of this problem, Benedict XVI said, was Immanuel Kent's "self-limitation of reason." (Kent was an 18th century German philosopher, and the father of modern philosophy.) The dictatorship of relativism, Benedict continued, was a contradiction to modern science whose excellence is based on the power of reason to grasp and understand the truth of whatever topic undertaken.

Essentially, Pope Benedict XVI was an intellectual theologian—a teaching pope. What he was not was a politician except in a papal sense in the world's smallest political state—the Vatican. Francis the Jesuit, is the opposite. He is a global socialist politician who is attempting to interfere with things which have nothing to do with man's salvation through the laws or grace of God.

Francis I is treading on turf that is not within a Catholic pontiff's theological domain. He's treading on turf that only an anti-pope would dare tread. Those within the Vatican bureaucracy or the Curia are watching a quiet revolution take place under Francis I. Control over the powerful Vatican City-State is slowly slipping from the steel grip of the centuries-old Italian hierarchy and into the hands of one man—the Church's first Latin American pontiff—and the world's first communist pope—who has no qualms about firing the old guard and replacing the Italian bureaucracy with new faces from diverse countries, many of whom are not cardinals, bishops, or priests—but are members of the laity. Many are women (who are, also, not nuns).

The fact that Francis I is a Jesuit communist appears to have been either not known, or simply ignored by the media in the United States; and was referred to in Europe only as European democratic socialism. However, in largely socialist South America, politicians like Bolivian president Evo Morales know a communist when he meets one. Which is why, when Cardinal Bergoglio won the Fisherman's ring, Morales presented Francis I with a communist crucifix fashioned from a hammer and sickle by Jesuit priest Luis Espinal. Hammer&SickleEspinal became a Spanish missionary in Bolivia during the paramilitary dictatorship of Luis Garcia Mesa. Espinal was murdered by a government death squad on March 21, 1980.

When Morales presented the hammer and sickle crucifix to Francis I, it caused mixed emotions from La Pas to Rome. Vatican reporters said the "...Pope was taken aback by the gift, but thought it best not to make a fuss about it." While one Vatican -based bishop suggested that Morales was attempting to manipulate God with a purely communist artifact, Boliva's Communications Minister brushed the complaints aside, innocently claiming that the "....sickle evokes the peasant, the hammer of the carpenter represents the humble workers—God's people," adding. "...there was no other reason for the gift." Some media reports claimed Francis I was embarrassed by the gift and told Morales that "...this isn't good." The Vatican spokesman, Federico Lombardi told the Vatican media that it was more likely the Pope expressed consternation at the gift, saying he didn't "...think [he] would put this symbol on an altar in any church." One of the strongest reactions came from Spanish Bishop Jose Ignacio Munilla who said "The height of arrogance is to manipulate God for the service of atheist ideologies."

As Catholic theological historians examine Pope Francis' political, societal and theological agenda it will become apparent that Pope Francis' word carries about as much credibility as Barack Obama's—which, to the rest of the world, is none at all. In fact, the only things which Muslim Obama and Jesuit Francis agree on are pretty much the same: that man, not the sun, is responsible for climate change. That the working middle class should share their wealth with the impoverished less fortunate. And, that the less fortunate have the right to invade the lands of the more prosperous, whose hard work and sweat equity provided their bounty; and that the impoverished have-nots have an inherent right to steal what they need to survive and prosper from the haves.

Worse yet, the Vatican Synod signaled a more welcome tone to gay and lesbian Catholics. After attending a May, 2015 same-sex marriage referendum in Ireland, Cardinal Burke, speaking in an interview, said that he struggled to understand how any nation could redefine the nature of marriage. "I mean," he said, "this is in defiance of God. It's just incredible. Pagans may have tolerated homosexual behavior, but they never dared say it was marriage." Burke continued by saying "Catholic families shouldn't expose their children to the evil of homosexuality by inviting a gay son home for Christmas with his partner." In a later interview when he was queried about Pope Francis I's position on not questioning the sexual preferences of others, Burke replied that the Church was "...the pillar of marriage." He challenged the Pope's controversial "Who am I to judge?" remark about the sexual preferences of gay people. "The act," Burke said,"must be judged. I don't think the pope thinks differently. They are sinful and unnatural. The pope never said we can find positive elements in them. It's impossible to find positive elements in an evil act."

Burke denied accusations by the European media that Pope Francis planned to change the Catholic Church's perception on moral, societal and environmental issues. Events seem to verify that the Pope was determined to change church teaching that secular society has been encouraged to reject as obsolete traditional Christianity. Circumstances surrounding the resignation of Benedict XVI and his "two-week" notice suggests the Pope Emeritis was encouraged to resign by more than just the Knights of Malta.

Like all of the civilian and political socialist planners of Utopia, the Jesuit socialist with the Fisherman's ring apparently believes the leadership of every socialist nation has an obligation to help the poor of the world—even if they are someone else's poor since the enemies of liberty believe their real foes are the industrialists, bankers and laissez faire economists who control most of the wealth and, of course, the lion's share of the global political hierarchy as well. Early on Pope Francis I called for dramatic, forceful action on global warming (which changed to "climate change" as the world entered a new cooling phase called solar cycle 25). Francis I became more strident in his Al Gore views on climate change. He demanded that the UN address sustainable development and denounce the anti-green obstructionists who insisted that NASA proved that climate change equally affected both Mars and Venus. According to his detractors, Pope Francis I is so green, he even holds a parochial disdain for air conditioning.

On April 5, 2015 Pope Francis completed the first draft of his somewhat controversial environmentalism climate change encyclical, both in anticipation of the UN Climate Summit in New York in September and also for the UN COP21 Climate Change Conference in Paris in December. An encyclical is an nonbinding discussion on ecology and the environment which is sent to all bishops through the lens of "official" Catholic view. In the case of the Pope's April 15 "draft encyclical" that provides the church leadership with what can be construed as a "sneak preview" of the environmental encyclical.

While the encyclical won't demonize energy use (which the left wanted), Francis I said that environmental doomsday warnings can no longer be be met with disdain. Francis I stressed, as truth, the leftwing consensus that global warming is real and that it's caused by man and, for that reason, it cannot be greeted with disdain. Francis I placed the blame for global warming on big business, shortsighted energy companies, even shorter-sighted politicians, scurrilous scientists, laissez faire economists and a myopic public who believes anyone wearing a symbol or badge of authority up to and including a Eagle Scout merit badge. Since Francis I was blaming every person in the world for global warming, he wanted to make sure that everyone everywhere knew they shared the blame. The only entity Francis did not blame was God who created the universe, the Milky Way galaxy, our solor system, Earth and our sun—the heating and air conditioning system—which heats and cools it. In his encyclical, Pope Francis I said, "The Earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth. In many parts of the planet, the elderly lament that once beautiful landscape is now covered with rubbish." While Francis sent his encyclical to every Catholics in the world through their cardinals, bishops and priests, he really directed his message not only to the billion Catholics in the world, but to "...every person living on the planet," adding that he "...would like to enter a dialogue with all people on Earth about our common home."

Unlike every pontiff who has preceded him, Francis I is opting to use lay people in jobs previously held only by priests, bishops, cardinals and an occasional deacon. It seems Francis I has deliberately put himself on a collision course with the Curia as he pulled the fangs of his adversaries in the Vatican bureaucracy. Why? Perhaps to more easily identify his political enemies and get rid of them before they could build a support base in the Curia strong enough to control the new pope. Francis I justified his war against his former peers by describing the Curia as narcissistic and it's ranking members as "...little Borgias who are the leprosy of the papacy." Francis I quickly established himself as someone not afraid to challenge the orthodoxies of the Church and push hard against a Vatican hierarchy which is adamantly resistant to change. But what appears to be happening in Rome today is that with the new appointments of non-Italians, and in many cases, non-Europeans in the inner-workings of the Vatican bureaucracy, the centuries old grip the Italian hierarchy has had over the Church is slipping. The Vatican turf war that plagued John Paul II and Benedict XVI also plagued Francis I. Only, much of what is now happening in the Curia is of Francis I's making. Francis has no problem waging war against the Italian appartchiks since Francis has no qualms dumping the old guard. Almost from the day he inherited the Fisherman's ring in 2013, new faces began to arrive in the Curia. And, some of those who vanished were among the most powerful Bishops and Cardinals in the world.

In 2003 Pope John Paul II named Bishop Raymond Leo Burke the Archbishop of St. Louis. Burke's star was on the rise. In 2004 Archbishop Burke denied Democratic Presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry [D-MA] communion because of his pro-abortion stance. In 2007 Archbishop Burke resigned from the board of a Catholic Hospital because the hospital allowed pro-abortion singer Sheryl Crow do a benefit concert to raise funds for the hospital.

And, in 2009 Burke condemned Notre Dame for giving Barack Obama a honorary degree, calling it the biggest scandal in the history of the University of Notre Dame because Obama aggressively promoted an anti-life and anti-family agenda. In 2008 Pope Benedict made Archbishop Burke the head of the Vatican Supreme Court, and shortly after being promoted, Burke was recorded on tape saying that Cardinal Donald Wuerl, the head of the Washington, DC archdiocese and other liberal priests and bishops in the church weakened the faith by refusing to ban pro-abortion politicians and celebrities from receiving the church's sacraments. Burke was required to apologize for his statement.

But that didn't stop Pope Benedict from appointing Archbishop Burke to three additional Vatican posts. Burke was named a member of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (which interprets canon law), a member of the Congregation for the Clergy which regulates the formation and training of diocesan priests and deacons, the Congregation of Bishops (the curial body that oversees the appointments of most Latin Church bishops) and, finally, in 2010, Pope Benedict XVI elevated Burke to the College of Cardinals.

On Dec. 17, 2013 Burke's star fell. Pope Francis I fired Burke as the head of the Vatican Supreme Court and replaced him with Cardinal Wuerl in a move that conservative Catholics warned would ultimately have devastating consequences for Catholics as the communist socialism of Francis I permeated the Curia and, ultimately, poisoned Catholicism..From time to time various Popes, conveniently ignoring the Constitution of the United States which requires the US government to protect its border from illegals because, to date, no pope has ever been an American so it doesn't matter to them if illegals pour through our porous borders and rob, rape and commit mayhem. Various popes have attempted to use what they mistakenly believe is God-anointed universal papal power they somehow believe they possess, and that it should work in largely Protestant America to convince US Presidents that God will bless and prosper them if they grant amnesty to every illegal who sneaks into the country.

While Cardinal Burke was the most outspoken advocate of traditional Christianity during the pontifical reign of both John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and fought abortion, homosexuality and same sex marriage, Francis attacked the hornet's next of pedophilia, creating an international committee to weed out pedophiles within the church. Eight of these new international committees (only one dealing with pedophilia) are located outside of Italy. Journalist Ernesto Galli Della Loggia, in a piece published in Italy's leading daily, Corriere della Sera, observed that "...by entrusting delicate government tasks to hierarchies that are made up of mainly no-Italians who are not residents in Rome, the pope is putting himself on a collision course with the Curia's traditional power. What seems to be emerging is a plan to concentrate power not in Rome, but in [Pope Francis]."

Francis I, of course immediately began talking with Barack Obama about the need for the United States to open the portals wide and let those who wanted to come to America enter—whether in the bright of day or the dark of night. And, of course, since erasing the US border was one of the top items on Obama's election bucket list (even though he won the Election in 2008 with a total of 35,626,580 non-existent votes), One hundred thirty-two million, six hundred eighteen thousand, five hundred eighty votes were counted in the Election of 2008. The problem is that only 96,992,000 eligible registered voters, who signed in at voting centers across the United States actually cast ballots. The extra votes were provided by two sources: ACORN's and SEIU's "get-out-and-vote" activity. None of those "votes" came from registered voters. They came from people who [a] were not eligible to vote, and [b] whose absentee ballots were placed in valid absentee ballot boxes while their voter registration applications were rejected and destroyed (while their fake votes were counted as valid).

On July 15, 2015 while addressing a Vatican conference in Mexico City via social media instead of in person, Pope Francis I chose to mimic Obama's socialist views and blame the American people because illegals who criminally steal into this country from "...around the world are subjected to racist and xenophobic attitudes..." and that decency calls for the tens of thousands of Central American "children" who illegally cross the border into the United States to be "welcomed and protected."

NBC (which is about as atheistic as an American media organization is surpassed only by ABC and MSNBC), championed Francis I's argument that illegal immigration (international law-breaking) has become a hallmark of modern society. Most people who are forced to emigrate suffer and, in many instances, suffer tragic deaths. NBC echoed Francis' words that the rights of those emigrants are violated when they are denied safe haven in whatever country they wish to live. What rights?

The papal argument appears to be that people have an inherent right to live. wherever they want. If so, then the Pope should open the borders of the Vatican State and invite the poor and downtrodden from Central America he cares so much for, or better yet, from the Muslim nations of the world which ISIS is now converting to Islam by the sword, to come and enjoy safe haven in the Vatican.

To visit the Vatican you must have a passport. Not an Italian passport (which you will need to enter Italy or better yet, Rome, where the Vatican State is located), but a Vatican State passport when allows you to enter the Vatican State. While an Italian passport will admit you to Rome, it will not admit you to the world's smallest State—less than a half kilometer (.44 km). That country, the Vatican, is policed by the Swiss Army. No citizens on Earth is allowed to enter the Vatican illegally.

For that matter, no American citizen can enter Mexico without a valid passport—even accidentally. Do you remember the plight of Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi, who made a wrong turn a border checkpoint and ended up in a Tijuana, Mexico prison for 214 days? No citizen from any country or principality in the world can go to the Vatican and rob, rape, maim or murder, which makes the pope's place the safest turf on Earth. I can see why Francis I wants all of the murders and rapists from Central and South America to go to the United States—it will keep them out of Europe and, particularly, Italy. Not that the Costra Nostra doesn't support the Catholic Church with money from drugs, gambling and prostitution. The Mafia dons are among some of the biggest donors to the Catholic Church, fallaciously believing that tithing to the Catholic priest who will ultimately bury them will buy their souls from Hell with power theoretically bequeathed to Peter by Christ when the Savior of mankind said in Matthew 16:19, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whatever you bind on Earth shall [have been] bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth shall [have been] loosed in Heaven."

One of the biggest fallacies of the Roman Catholic Church is that the Roman Emperor Constantine (the first pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church who assumed what Catholics thought was Simon Peter's mantle as the pontiff of the Catholic Church) in 306 AD when, in fact, Jesus was simply empowering all men, through the Holy Spirit, to forgive their fellow man—not of overt sins like robbery, rape, murder and mayhem, or of cursing God Almighty, His son Christ Jesus, or blaspheming the Holy Spirit—for which there is no forgiveness—but forgiving aught (personal misgivings) against one's fellow beings. Man lacks the power to erase sin from the memory of God. It's important for Christians to understand why that conversation took place. It was not because Jesus was establishing a political church hierarchy on Earth. Christ raised the question only to determine if His own disciples knew who He was, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?" The disciples replied, "Some say that You are John the Baptist, some Elijah (who, like Enoch, to this date has never died but will return to Earth during the Tribulation and preach the Gospel the Jews in Israel) and others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets" Christ quickly asked:, "But who say ye who I am?"

It was Simon Peter's answer which initiated the response below when he said: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God," which garnered this response from Christ that assumes Divine authority for the Pope, from Constantine to Francis I which none have ever possessed: "Blessed are thou, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood has not revealed it to you, but My Father, who is in Heaven. . And, I say also this: You are Peter..." (petra, the stone). "...And upon this rock..." (petros or kephas [Aramaic] for rock or cliff ledge) "...I will build My church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. And I will give to you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; and whatsoever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven; and whatsoever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven." The rock upon which the congregation of Christian faith was built was not Simon Peter (petra) but the Divine truth which Simon Peter spoke (petros); thus the rock upon which the Church was built was Jesus Christ.

Simon Peter never assumed for himself any superior leadership role over the Apostles because none existed. There was no papal ascendancy as "keeper of the keys" from Peter to anyone. From the conversion of James (the half brother of Jesus) who perpetually doubted the claims of Christ's disciples until he saw the resurrected Messiah, James became the leader of the Christian church in the Upper Room on the Day of Pentecost. At no time did Peter ever claim to be more than an Apostle [1 Pe.1:1 and 2:1], or anything more than an elder in the Church [1 Pe. 5:1].

Evidence of the headship of James and not Peter as the leader of the Christian movement is found in Acts 14:26-15:20 when Paul returned from Attalia and engaged in a dispute with some of the apostles over accepting Gentiles into the fellowship without first converting to Judaism. James arbitrarily settled the argument, ruling that Gentiles could become Christians without first being circumcised. A second incident was the same dispute between Peter and Paul [in Gal. 2:11-16] where, once again, Paul reminded Peter that since circumcision is a physical act, it is "works." And since we are saved by grace through Christ and not by works, neither Jews nor Gentiles are saved by works. Had Peter had been the head of the Church, that argument would never have taken place.

 

Just Say No
Copyright 2009 Jon Christian Ryter.
All rights reserved
.