This article originally appeared on exsurgedomine.it and was republished with permission.
In his article published in La Verità on September 1, Boni Castellane, speaking of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, referred to his “duplicity as a practice” and the “pre-eminence of pastoral care over theology,” starting from a recent address by Bergoglio in which he defined as a “grave sin” the failure to welcome the hordes of Islamic clandestines who are invading and “hybridizing” European countries on behalf of the globalist elite.
It is difficult to hear Bergoglio speak of sin, at least according to the theological meaning of the term, which presupposes the violation of the Law of God and the loss of the state of Grace which alone allows the soul eternal salvation.
And Boni Castellane rightly emphasizes how Bergoglio’s infamous “Who am I to judge?” sounds in contradiction with these ideologically oriented positions.
In reality, the operation, which began with the Second Vatican Council and is now taken to its extreme but consistent consequences, slavishly follows other experiments in social engineering that have already been successfully implemented in the civil sphere.
The deep church uses the Church as a “container” that, after having been emptied of its essence in recent decades, today Bergoglio fills with the demands of globalist ideology – revolutionary and therefore antichristic – and to which he also forcibly adapts the language proper to Catholic theology, distorting it.
The authority of the Roman Pontiff is vicarious of Christ’s authority and derives legitimacy from its conformity with this ontological reality.
Conversely, Bergoglio’s authority openly proclaims itself to be independent and self-referential: he thinks he can use and abuse his own power and the authority (and authoritativeness) of the Catholic Church simply because he knows that the clergy and the Christian people have been accustomed, in the last sixty years, to accept any change imposed on them by the Authority of the Church.
In the name of a “democratization” of the Conciliar Church – today renamed “synodality” – the bond between the authority of Christ and that of His Vicar on earth has been broken, thus creating the premises for the tyrannical exercise of power.
Bergoglio wants to be recognized as a legitimate Pope because only from that position can he demand obedience from Catholics and bring to completion the transformation of Roman Catholicism into the Masonic Religion of Humanity.
The use of the term grave sin in a sociopolitical context constitutes one of the main applications of Orwellian Newspeak applied to religion. It was the Council that was the first to use deliberately ambiguous and equivocal language, replacing the clarity and unequivocality of the Aristotelian-Thomistic exposition and acting as a support for the errors and doctrinal deviations which Bergoglio zealously advocates.
For this reason, it seems absurd to me that there are conservative Catholics who do not understand how “recognizing” Bergoglio as Pope, while criticizing him and accusing him of heresy, is primarily in Bergoglio’s interest.
If he is the Pope, he cannot be judged by anyone; but if he has used malice to seize power in order to destroy the Church, then he is not the Pope, and as such he may be “recognized” as never having been elected.
Castellane believes that defining the legitimate regulation of migratory flows as a “grave sin” serves to “call to order” “right-wing” Catholics: but the question is much more serious.
In the first place, because the exercise of authority cannot be marked by “duplicity,” since it is precisely the duplicity of government that is an indication of its corruption.
Cases of outright complacency towards the crimes of friendly prelates are an indication of partiality and complicity, especially when compared to the severity shown towards bishops who denounce the coup that has taken place in the Church.
Secondly, because the migratory phenomenon is anything but spontaneous and accidental. Rather, it corresponds to a very specific project of dissolution of the Christian West through the invasion of violent Muslims, to whom complicit institutions grant impunity, protection, and subsidies.
The plan of ethnic replacement theorized by Kalergi and adopted by globalist leaders wants to use social unrest, crimes, violence, and degradation to provoke the reaction of the invaded population – as is happening for example in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and France – and thus have a pretext to impose new and more radical forms of social control.
These restrictions, inevitably, will be intended to result in a further reduction in the visibility of Catholics, always in the name of inclusiveness and the delusional precepts of woke ideology.
In the face of the evidence of this criminal project, the collaboration of the “Catholic hierarchy” constitutes a suicidal attitude of unprecedented gravity, because it thus becomes an accomplice in a deliberately hostile action of enormous proportions.
This enslavement of the Church to the world is willed and deliberate: it includes support for climate fraud and the idolatrous cult of Mother Earth, after having been made explicit with the criminal psychopandemic fraud and mass “vaccination” with demonstrably harmful – even deadly – and almost always sterilizing serums produced using fetuses aborted with the placet of the Vatican.
It is therefore evident that Bergoglio’s role in the implementation of the globalist hell was decisive and shows us how the Argentine Jesuit – just like the leaders of the main Western countries such as Biden, Macron, Trudeau, Starmer, and others – has been placed on the Throne of Peter as an emissary of the World Economic Forum.
Such a betrayal in the governance of the Catholic Church confirms a defect of consent in Bergoglio’s apparent assumption of the papacy, such as to invalidate the very legitimacy of the one who has usurped the papacy’s power and abuses it in order to destroy the institution over which he presides.
This is the crux of the question: can a Pope contradict the doctrine that Our Lord has commanded him to defend, guard and transmit, going so far as to preach heresy?
Can a Pope consider himself so free from Christ the King and High Priest that he actually uses the Papacy against the will of Christ, transforming His Church into an anti-Christian and antichristic organization, a servant of the globalist elite? Of which “church” is Bergoglio “pope”?
The post Archbishop Vigano: “To Be or Not to be Pope?” appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
