A Jesuit Becomes the Pope of Rome

A Jesuit Becomes the Pope of Rome, PDF format

Rome in a Jesuit Vice-Grip Through Its Two Popes, “Black” and “White”!


The “Black Pope”, the Jesuit General


The “White Pope”, Francis I

The Jesuit Pope of Rome

On 13 March 2013 a Roman Catholic cardinal from Argentina, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, was elected by his fellow-cardinals as the new pope of Rome.  He took the name of Francis I.

His election is full of deep significance, and will have far-reaching, indeed global, ramifications.  There is so much behind the choice of this man.  But first and foremost is this fact: Jorge Bergoglio, Francis I, is a member of the Jesuit Order!  He is in fact the first openly acknowledged Jesuit to ever become pope of Rome!  And nothing, nothing whatsoever, about the election of this man is more significant than this.

For centuries, the Jesuits have controlled the Roman Catholic institution.  They are the real power behind the papal throne.  This is a fact so certain that the Jesuit General, the man in charge of the Order worldwide, is known within Roman Catholic circles as “the black pope.”  Not because he is a black man, for he is not, but because he is the shadow pope of Rome, the real power behind the scenes.  The present Jesuit General is Adolfo Nicolás, and I have written about him before.[1]

In my book, The Jesuits: the Secret Army of the Papacy, I wrote: “ever since its founding, the Society [the Society of Jesus, as the Jesuits call their order] has been totally dedicated, first and foremost, not to the pope, but to the Jesuit General.  The Jesuits are a law unto themselves.  While outwardly acknowledging the authority of the pope of Rome, their real allegiance is to the Jesuit General.  All orders come from the General; even the pope’s instructions are only passed on if the General sees fit.  It is not surprising that the Jesuit General came to be known as the ‘black pope’.”[2]

The Jesuits have always operated behind the scenes, secretly, furtively, pulling the strings of power where few could see them.  Theirs has always been the world of cloak-and-dagger.  This has suited their purposes.  That they have now seen fit to boldly come out  and appoint one of their own, openly, as the pope of Rome, indicates that they believe the times call for such an appointment.  They believe none but a Jesuit can lead the Roman Catholic institution through the troubled waters ahead.

And so the Vatican now has two Jesuits in the two highest positions of authority within the Roman Catholic institution.  There is the “black pope”, the Jesuit General, Adolfo Nicolás, who controls the entire institution from behind the scenes; and now there is Jorge Bergoglio, Francis I, the pope of Rome, on the surface the leader of the world’s 1.2 billion Roman Catholics, and yet a man who  will obey the Jesuit General above all others.  Again from my book: “Obedience is absolutely vital to the Jesuit Order.  Every Jesuit must be in total obedience to his superior, obeying him without question.  In the Constitutions of the Order, it is repeated some 500 times that the Jesuit must see in the General, not a fallible man, but Christ Himself!  This was said by a professor of Roman Catholic theology.[3]  In the words of Ignatius [the founder of the Jesuits]: ‘We must see black as white, if the Church says so’…. In the ‘Society of Jesus’ there is a greater authority than the pope, and a greater authority (as far as the Jesuits are concerned) than God Himself – and that is the General.”[4]

What an extraordinary situation!  A Roman pontiff, supposedly at the pinnacle of power within the Roman Catholic institution, and yet, as a Jesuit, actually under his General!  A Roman pontiff, believed by Papists to be the Vicar of Christ, “Christ Himself under the veil of the flesh”, and believed to be infallible when he pronounces ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals, who is a Jesuit under his General, and who sees in his General, not a fallible man, but Christ Himself!  Even though all popes for centuries have had to obey the Jesuit General and lived in fear of him, never before has a Jesuit been openly elevated to that position, a man who has taken a vow to obey his General above all others, and at all times!

The Jesuits are now in total control of the Vatican, and of the Roman Catholic institution worldwide.  These are extraordinary times indeed.  Even the speed with which the new pope was chosen is indicative of the extraordinary nature of these happenings.

Bergoglio: a Brief Background

Let us take a brief look at this man, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who has become Francis I, the first openly Jesuit pope of Rome, the first pontiff from the Americas, the first from the southern hemisphere, and the first from outside Europe in over 1200 years:

He is 76 years old, born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in 1936.  In 1958 he joined the Jesuit Order, and was ordained as a Jesuit priest in 1969.  He spent much time in his early years studying literature, psychology and philosophy – studies in which the Jesuits have always been prominent.  He became a professor of theology and earned a reputation as a Jesuit intellectual.  He rose to become in time the leader of Argentina’s Jesuits, and the Romish archbishop of Buenos Aires in 1998.  He was made a cardinal in 2001.

According to his official biographer, Sergio Rubin, whose book about Bergoglio is entitled, simply, The Jesuit, he is compassionate, simple and humble.  Of course, an official biographer does not expose the warts too readily, if at all, but this is the impression his fellow-cardinals want to give the world about him.  Rubin said in an interview after the election: “It’s a very curious thing: when bishops meet, he always wants to sit in the back rows.   This sense of humility is very well seen in Rome.”[5]  No matter what he was before, no man who accepts the position of Roman pontiff is truly humble; and to say that the cardinals appreciate humility is preposterous, as they revel in their power and their positions as “princes of the Church”; and what the Lord Jesus Christ said of the Pharisees is fulfilled just as much in them: “But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they… love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi” (Matt. 23:5-7).

As an archbishop, Bergoglio chose not to live in an ornate palace in Buenos Aires, but rather in a simple room heated by a small stove, where he apparently cooked his own meals and travelled by bus in the city instead of using a chauffeured limousine.  All this of course is being held up to the faithful as signs of his humility, a man of the people, but again: he was willing to accept the position of pope of Rome, with all that comes with it, including such titles as “Prince of the Apostles”, “Vicar of Christ”, “Supreme Pontiff”, “Holy Father”, etc.  Having accepted the position, he now claims to be the one who takes the place of the Son of God on earth!  Hardly an act of humility, but rather one of supreme blasphemy and arrogance.

Not surprisingly, a fellow-Jesuit and the director of the Vatican’s press office, priest Federico Lombardi,  also praised Bergoglio’s supposed humility, pointing out that when he came onto the balcony to greet the tens of thousands of well-wishers in St Peter’s Square below, he bowed to them and asked them to pray for him.  Lombardi also said that the Jesuit Order is one “known for serving”, and therefore the new pope will be one who “wants to serve”.[6]  Oh yes, much is going to be made of his “humility”!  Even his choice of the name “Francis” is being pointed to as a sign of this humility.

The Name “Francis”

What can be said about his choice of name?  The Roman Catholic “saint”, Francis of Assisi (1181-1226), is held up by Roman Catholics as a model of humility, simplicity of lifestyle, poverty, etc., and doubtless Bergoglio wants to send the signal that he will emulate Francis; indeed, that he has been emulating him already.  Also, however, Francis believed that God told him to “repair my Church”; and at a time of massive upheaval, confusion and disillusionment within the Roman Catholic institution worldwide, primarily because of the global priestly sex abuse scandals, this new pope will doubtless be wanting to send the world the message that he, like Francis before him, will build up the “Church” again.

But there is more to this choice of name than at first meets the eye.  Another famous, or rather infamous, Roman Catholic “saint” of that name was the Jesuit “saint”, Francis Xavier (1506-1552), a contemporary of the Jesuit founder Ignatius de Loyola and a man who went to India to “evangelise” for Rome.  Xavier was the first Jesuit missionary.  Bergoglio, as a Jesuit and a man with a great desire for Roman Catholic evangelisation in the world, would surely have had this Francis in mind, too, when he chose his name.[7]

Why This Man was Chosen

The question that cries out for an answer is: Why this man?  Why, at this time, was an Argentinian Jesuit cardinal chosen to be the next pope of Rome?  It caught many by surprise.  His name was not usually mentioned among those considered to be the front-runners for the position, so that in many ways he seemed to come from nowhere.  But within the conclave itself he was well known, for in 2005 he reportedly finished second in the election that saw Joseph Ratzinger become Benedict XVI.  And from Rome’s perspective there are very good reasons for choosing him.  Let us look into these:

1. He is a Jesuit!

It is very evident that the Jesuits felt the time was ripe to openly raise one of their own men to the papal throne.  And knowing how they operate – knowing that this must have been planned long beforehand – were the Jesuits, then, behind Benedict’s sudden departure?  Oh, we can be sure of it!  No question about it.  His resignation certainly had nothing to do with his supposed shock and sadness about a so-called “gay lobby” within the Vatican, as the media has enjoyed reporting in recent weeks.  After all, as a man who rose through the ranks of the priesthood, from priest to pope, Benedict was fully aware of the huge numbers of sodomites within the priesthood.  This would have come as no surprise to him and would never have forced him to resign.  Yes, his age and health were part of the reason; and yes, very possibly the false “prophecy” of Malachy was another part of the reason, as will be dealt with below; but he had clashed with the Jesuits before,[8] and they wanted a Jesuit to replace him.  When the “Vatileaks” business erupted, involving Benedict’s own butler who stole his documents, beyond question on the orders of others behind the scenes, Benedict told some Germans who visited him that the butler had been giving him his medicine too; and Benedict would have in all likelihood feared for his life.[9]  And known who was behind it all. Whether Benedict was willing to depart on their orders, or whether they forced him out,[10] they were involved.  Deeply involved.

2. He is Latin American

Why is this significant?  For at least two reasons.  The first being that South America is now the continent with the largest number of Roman Catholics in the world – over 40 % of all the earth’s Romanists live there.  In Europe, Roman Catholicism is in decline, but in South America the picture is very different.  And for a Papal system that wants to control the entire world; that longs to exert total control, for example, over the United States of America, a country into which huge numbers of Latin American Roman Catholics are pouring as legal and illegal immigrants, which is impacting the demographics and the entire voting process in the USA[11] – appointing a Latin American man as pope of Rome will give a huge impetus to these things.

And the second reason why the choice of a Latin American is so significant is because this makes Francis I a pope from the Third World!  It is in the Third World – Latin America, Africa and Asia – where Roman Catholicism is experiencing its greatest growth, and choosing a non-European pope, a man from one of the ever-volatile, often poverty-plagued Third World countries, will do wonders for the progress of Roman Catholicism in these parts of the world.  There has been a loud clamour, from various parts of the Third World, for a pope who understands them, and wants to uplift them; a pope of liberal/leftist “social justice” policies.  Some thought the cardinals would choose Peter Turkson, the cardinal from Ghana; but rather than take such a radical step and elect a black African, they chose instead a man who, although from a Third World country, is still tied very much to Europe.  For the next point about Francis I is this:

3. He is of Italian descent

Yes – although he was born in Argentina, his father was an Italian immigrant.  And at this time, this makes him the ideal bridge between the non-European, non-Italian Third World and the predominantly European, predominantly Italian leaders of the “Church”.  It certainly makes him far more acceptable to the hierarchy as pope, even though he is from a country outside of Europe.  He “brings together the first world and the developing world in his own person.  He’s a Latin American with Italian roots, who studied in Germany.”[12]

In the words of South African priest, Chris Townsend, spokesman for the Southern African Catholic Bishops’ Conference, the choice of Bergoglio was a significant acknowledgment that the “Church” of Rome’s “centre of gravity has moved out of Europe.”  “It is a huge move from the cardinals,” he said.  “We have in this man someone known to be very simple in his lifestyle, but as a Jesuit, he’s no fool.”[13]

4. He is a doctrinal conservative

He is a scholar of Roman Catholic theology who studied in Germany (home of Ratzinger/Benedict XVI).  When he gave his first speech after being elected as pontiff, he said: “Tomorrow I want to go to pray to the Madonna, that she may protect all of Rome.”[14]  He left the world in no doubt of his full commitment to the Romish goddess Mary!  His first public act was to pray before an idol of this goddess.  On another occasion he once said: “Mary’s deep relationship with the Eucharist can guide the faithful and allow people to get closer to God.  She is the ‘model of the bond between the Lord and his bride, the church, between God and each man.’”[15]

He is firmly opposed to abortion, having called it a “death sentence” for the unborn.[16]  And he is also thoroughly opposed to euthanasia and sodomite “marriage”.  When Argentina adopted sodomite “marriage” three years ago, Bergoglio, as archbishop, said “everyone loses” and “children need to have the right to be raised and educated by a father and a mother.”  He labelled the “gay rights” movement as demonic in origin.  This opposition put him at odds with Argentina’s president, Cristina Fernandez, who compared Bergoglio’s tone with “mediaeval times and the Inquisition”.[17]

5. Yet he is leftist in “social justice” matters!

Latin America is known for the number of its priests – particularly Jesuits – who have advocated the radical Catholic-Communist doctrine known as “liberation theology.”[18]   Certainly Bergoglio is an advocate of leftist “social justice” causes.  In 2012 he accused fellow “Church” officials of hypocrisy for forgetting that Christ dealt with lepers and prostitutes.  He spoke strongly against priests who did not baptize the children of single mothers because the children were conceived outside the sanctity of marriage.  And in 2007 he said that in the world there is an “unjust distribution of goods” – a truly Marxist expression, used in recent years in official Vatican documents calling for radical leftist social policies to be implemented by a world authority.[19]  These were his words: “We live in the most unequal part of the world, which has grown the most yet reduced misery the least.  The unjust distribution of goods persists, creating a situation of social sin that cries out to heaven and limits the possibilities of a fuller life for so many of our brothers.”[20]  This is a classic Jesuit “liberation theology” (Catholic-Communism) statement!  Liberation theology teaches there is such a thing as “social sin”: sin within the structures of Capitalist society, which needs to be removed and replaced by Communist structures so that wealth can be “re-distributed” from the rich to the poor.

But his official biographer, Sergio Rubin, says of him: “Is Bergoglio a progressive – a liberation theologist even?  No.  He’s no third-world priest.  Does he criticise the International Monetary Fund, and neo-liberalism?  Yes.  Does he spend a great deal of time in the slums?  Yes.”[21]

It appears then that Bergoglio, despite being a Jesuit from Latin America where the Jesuits have been notoriously left-wing and Marxist, did not accept Marxism unreservedly.  Many South American Jesuits were out-and-out Marxists, but it appears that Bergoglio preferred leftist “social justice” causes without the leftist/Marxist extremist political activism.  My reasons for saying “it appears” twice in this short paragraph will be explained below, but first, here are the reasons why people believe he holds to left-wing “social justice” causes without the left-wing extremist Marxist political terrorism promoted by huge numbers of Latin American Jesuits:

Two quotations, from two Roman Catholic publications: “[The 1970s and early 1980s] were the years of the military junta in Argentina, when many priests, including leading Jesuits, were gravitating towards the progressive liberation theology movement.  As the Jesuit provincial, Bergoglio insisted on a more traditional reading of Ignatian spirituality, mandating that Jesuits continue to staff parishes and act as chaplains rather than moving into ‘base communities’ and political activism.”[22]  And: “He is a Jesuit… and during the terrible 1970s, when the dictatorship was raging and some of his confrères were ready to embrace the rifle and apply the lessons of Marx, he energetically opposed the tendency as provincial of the Society of Jesus in Argentina.”[23]

So politically right-wing is he perceived to be that he was accused, in his native Argentina, of failing to publicly stand up to  Argentina’s right-wing military dictatorship when he was the leader of Argentina’s Jesuits; of doing nothing when victims of the state’s brutality and their relatives brought first-hand accounts of torture, death and kidnappings to Jesuit priests under him.

“There’s a wonderful picture that dates back to the 1970s – not a particularly cheerful time in the history of Argentina – of rotund Father Jorge Maria Bergoglio walking alongside lean, dapper, mass murdering General Jorge Rafael Videla.  The stroll itself is hardly proof of collusion – it merely confirms that the Catholic Church and the Argentinian military regime were, occasionally, on strolling terms.  But when one pairs the image with journalist Horacio Verbitsky’s devastating takedown, El Silencio, which is proof of collusion, we are able to understand the make of the man who now inhabits the Vatican.”[24]  What is El Silencio? It is an island in the Plate River, and there Bergoglio had a holiday home.  And Bergoglio has been accused of assisting the Argentinian navy to hide political prisoners there from the prying eyes of the Inter-American Human Rights Commission.  “‘The most shaming thing for the church,’ wrote Hugh O’Shaughnessy back in January 2011, ‘is that in such circumstances Bergoglio’s name was allowed to go forward in the ballot to choose the successor of John Paul II.  What scandal would have ensued if the first pope ever to be elected from the continent of America has been revealed as an accessory to murder and false imprisonment.’”[25] Well, that was then and this is now, and this time around the cardinals did elect Bergoglio, despite being believed, in leftist circles, to be an accessory to murder and false imprisonment.  Allowing of course for the undeniable fact that left-wing activists, media, etc., are prone to lying through their teeth to implicate those of the right in any crimes they can, there really does seem to be a case for Bergoglio to answer, and it certainly seems very likely that he was far more deeply involved with the military dictatorship than would appear on the surface.

In 2005 a human rights lawyer in Argentina filed a complaint charging Bergoglio with complicity in the 1976 kidnapping of two of his own leftist Jesuit priests by Argentina’s military regime.  The two were found alive some five months later, but drugged and semi-naked.  Bergoglio, not surprisingly, denied the charge.  One of the two Jesuits, priest Orlando Yorio, accused Bergoglio of effectively handing them over to the Argentinian death squads by declining to tell the government that he endorsed their work.  The other, Francisco Jalics, refused to discuss it after he went into seclusion in a German monastery.  The charge was however rejected by some other human rights lawyers.[26]  Many years later, in 2010, Bergoglio told his biographer Rubin that both men were freed when he – Bergoglio – worked behind the scenes to save them.  This information had never become known before this, which is significant.  He also told Rubin that he regularly hid people on “Church” property during the dictatorship, and that he once even gave his own identity papers to a man with similar features to his, so that he could escape across the border.  Yes, well, maybe, maybe not.  We only have his word to go on, don’t we?    Rubin said that at the time, failing to challenge the dictatorship was simply pragmatic, and that Bergoglio’s reluctance to tell his story was simply because he was so humble.[27]  Again, maybe.  Maybe not.  This sounds just like the excuses made regarding the Roman pope Pius XII’s behaviour towards Jews suffering at the hands of the Nazis: that it was simply for pragmatic reasons that Pius remained so silent in the face of the atrocities he knew the Nazis were perpetrating against Jews.[28]  Human rights attorney Myriam Bregman said that Bergoglio’s own statements proved that “Church” officials knew from early on that the dictatorship was torturing and killing its citizens, and yet they publicly endorsed it.  She said, “The dictatorship could not have operated this way without this key support.”[29]  This is certainly true.  Even though this was from a leftist herself, it still is all very reminiscent of how Roman Catholic leaders publicly endorsed Hitler and Nazism, but then later said that secretly they were fighting against it all along.

And there is still more.  Bergoglio was also accused of not assisting a family who lost five relatives to state terror, one of whom was a woman who was five months pregnant before she was kidnapped and murdered in 1977.  The family appealed to the Jesuit General in Rome, and he told Bergoglio to help them.  Bergoglio assigned a Romish monsignor to the case, and after months this man came with a written note from a colonel, stating that the woman had given birth in captivity to a girl, who was then given to a family “too important” for the adoption to be reversed!  Large numbers of babies were stolen at the time and given to people for adoption purposes.  “Despite this written evidence in a case he was personally involved with, Bergoglio testified in 2010 that he did not know about any stolen babies until well after the dictatorship was over.”[30]  This caused the baby’s aunt, Estela de la Cuadra, to say: “Bergoglio has a very cowardly attitude when it comes to something so terrible as the theft of babies.  He says he didn’t know anything about it till 1985.  He doesn’t face this reality and it doesn’t bother him.  The question is how to save his name, save himself.  But he can’t keep these allegations from reaching the public.  The people know how he is.”[31]  Estela de la Cuadra’s mother Alicia co-founded the “Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo” in 1977, to try to identify the babies who had been stolen.

Thus Bergoglio, although a strong advocate for left-wing “social justice” causes, appears to be politically right-wing.  A Roman Catholic insider said, “He appears to be opposed to liberation theology and doesn’t approach ‘social justice’ from the political end.”[32]  According to the National Catholic Reporter, when he was almost elected back in 2005, “He appealed to conservatives in the College of Cardinals as a man who had held the line against liberalizing currents among the Jesuits, and to moderates as a symbol of the church’s commitment to the developing world.”[33]  He is therefore seen as the ideal compromise between two extremes: right-wing, conservative in doctrine and politics, yet committed to left-wing, liberal “social justice”.  Pleasing both conservatives and liberals, yet pleasing neither group completely.

But now for why I keep saying, “it appears” so.  What we must never lose sight of here is that Bergoglio is a Jesuit!  And with the Jesuits, nothing is ever as it seems.  Nothing.  Remember the words of their founder, Ignatius de Loyola: “We must see black as white, if the Church says so.”  And in their writings the Jesuits have repeatedly justified the telling of lies if to do so would be advantageous to the Society.[34]  Bergoglio is a Jesuit, and he is a Latin American Jesuit, who rose through the ranks of the Order in the volatile period when Latin American Jesuits were under orders from the Jesuit General to actively support the Marxist revolutionaries in Latin America.  Now the fact is that Jesuits are always to be found on both sides of any conflict, so that no matter who wins, they win.  They were definitely in favour of Marxist revolutionaries coming to power in the 1970s and early 1980s; but just in case things did not work out as they planned, they also had Jesuits on the other side of the conflict – the side of the right-wing governments against whom the Marxists were fighting.  It is entirely possible, therefore, that Bergoglio was commissioned, as a faithful Jesuit under orders from his General in Rome, to support the right-wing military dictatorship of Argentina, while other Jesuits (under his command, for he was their leader) supported the Marxist revolutionaries.  If this was so, then his support for the dictatorship was an elaborate smokescreen – in case the state succeeded in smashing the Marxist guerillas.

Jesuits will call one another names, accuse one another of crimes, etc. – and yet all the time be working for the same objectives, but from opposite sides!  The bottom line, then, is that at this stage we simply do not know the truth about Jorge Bergoglio as a Jesuit in Argentina.  It is hidden behind a misty, dense fog of the Jesuits’ own making.  We know for sure that he supports leftist “social justice” causes, while appearing to be politically right-wing, which if true means he was complicit in the atrocities of the state at that time; but he may in fact have been politically left-wing all along, and just playing a part, in which case he was complicit in the atrocities committed by the Marxist guerillas.  Either way, the new pope of Rome, Francis I, has a lot to answer for.  His hands are not clean.

“Peter the Roman”? The “Prophecy” of Malachy

In my previous article[35] concerning the resignation of Benedict XVI, I gave, as a very real possibility for his resignation, his belief that he had to resign in order to fulfil a mediaeval prophecy by a Roman Catholic “saint” named Malachy.  Again let me state categorically, as I did in that article, that Malachy’s so-called “prophecy” is a false one, uttered by a man who was not a Christian.  But nonetheless, there are many Papists who firmly believe it – and I gave reasons for the possibility that Benedict was one of them.

According to the “prophecy”, Benedict was to be the penultimate pope of Rome; his successor, “Peter the Roman”, would be the final pope before the second coming of Christ.  Many Roman Catholics accept this as genuine; many others do not, including most Jesuits (at least officially, for they always play both sides).  As a general rule, many conservative Roman Catholics accept it as genuine, whereas most liberal Roman Catholics do not.  This means there is a very distinct possibility that in addition to Benedict, Francis I (who is doctrinally conservative) believes in the “prophecy” as well, and that he is “Peter the Roman”!

It is entirely possible that Benedict willingly resigned (or was forced out) so as to deliberately make way for this “final pope”.  The one who, according to Malachy, will feed the Roman Catholic flock during a final great persecution, “among many tribulations; after which the seven-hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people.”  Another possibility is that Benedict willingly resigned (or was forced out) so as to make way for a man who could perhaps prevent Malachy’s “prophecy” from coming to pass by steering the “Church” back to what he or others believe it should be, thereby preventing God’s destruction of it.

It appears that Benedict favoured the Italian cardinal, Tarcisio Bertone, to be his successor, and “stacked the deck” in his favour by appointing 22 new cardinals in January last year, who were mostly Europeans and mainly Italians, so that Europeans numbered over half of all cardinals, and almost a quarter of all voters in the conclave were Italians.  And although in the end Bertone was not elected, an Argentinian of Italian descent became pope, and moreover a man who is a doctrinal conservative like Benedict!  So Ratzinger cannot be too disappointed at all.

I also wrote that at this time within the Vatican hierarchy, there is a huge struggle going on between Vatican traditionalists and liberals.  But by appointing a man who is a Jesuit, and yet a traditionalist in doctrine though a liberal in “social justice” matters, the Jesuits have been extremely cunning.  They have their man on the throne, and yet he is acceptable to both wings fighting for supremacy.

Here is a quotation from my previous article on Benedict’s resignation that is relevant here as well:

“Those with an understanding of the Futurist view of Bible prophecy will have already noted the similarity between Malachy’s “prophecy” and popular (but false) present-day Futurist views (originally invented by a Jesuit and then accepted by vast numbers of Protestants) of a future (but near) apostacy, a future great tribulation, and then the second coming of Christ.  And note: in this view, it is not the pope of Rome who is the Man of Sin!  So this plays right into Satan’s deception.  Could it be that the devil is actually setting up the world stage to make it look (for a time at least) like the Jesuit Futurist interpretation of Bible prophecy is correct, with an individual “False Prophet” and an individual, political “Antichrist”, which is in truth contrary to prophetic Scripture?  And then, when their time is up and the world does not end, the disillusioned masses reject God’s Word as unreliable?  This happens, in fact, every time some preacher has stood up and said this man or that one is the Antichrist; only to be proved wrong in time.  Imagine how much greater the harm could be this time!

“Again, time will tell.  But one thing is for certain: this would not be the fulfilment of the prophecies of Antichrist and the False Prophet!  It would be a satanic delusion.  The truth would still be that the Papacy itself has always been the Antichrist, and the priesthood has always been the False Prophet.  Two individuals at the end of time simply will not be able to fulfil these prophecies.

“We are nearing the end of the world, as is clear from the prophecies of God’s Word.  And the devil, who knows this too, is filling people’s minds with false prophecies and great happenings on the world stage, in order to deceive!  With him it is always about deception, in a thousand and one diabolical ways.  By rejecting the true prophetic Word of God and believing the false prophecies of Malachy, Papists will remain within this iniquitous system, unto the damnation of their souls…

“As to whether or not the next pope of Rome will be the last is something no man can know; but if he is, this will not be in fulfilment of Malachy’s “prophecy”, but because the Lord’s great prophetic timetable has run its course.”[36]

Francis I is the Current Antichrist of God’s Word

In all this upheaval, all these momentous events, let us not lose sight of the divinely inspired prophecies in the Bible.  When Jorge Bergoglio was asked if he accepted the position of pope of Rome and he said yes, at that point he became the next one in the dynasty of men through the centuries who are called, in God’s Word, the Man of Sin and Son of Perdition; the Antichrist!  (2 Thess. 2:3; 1 Jn. 2:18,22).  At that point, he became the next one in the long line of men through the centuries who are described in God’s Word thus: “who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God” (2 Thess. 2:4).  And thus, at that point, he set himself up in opposition to God the Father as the so-called “Holy Father”; in opposition to God the Son as supposedly “Christ on earth”, “Christ in office, Christ in jurisdiction and power”, “the Lamb of the Vatican”; and in opposition to God the Holy Spirit as the so-called “Vicar of Christ”, the vice-Christ, the substitute for Christ on earth.  But to claim to be the one who takes the place of Christ on earth is to be nothing less than the Antichrist!  For this is the very meaning of the Greek word.

He, like Judas, is the Son of Perdition (Jn. 17:12), and will for his unpardonable blasphemy and wickedness “go to his own place” (Acts 1:25), even hell itself.  But how we should pray for, and preach the true Gospel of Christ to, the poor, deceived, benighted followers of Antichrist, that the sovereign Lord would in mercy save many of them, plucking them out of the fire!

March 2013

Shaun Willcock is a minister of the Gospel.  He runs Bible Based Ministries.  For other articles (which may be downloaded and printed), as well as details about his books, audio messages, pamphlets, etc., please visit the Bible Based Ministries website; or write to the address below.  If you would like to be on Bible Based Ministries’ email list, to receive all future articles, please send your details.


[1]. The Jesuits Elect a New General, by Shaun Willcock, March 2008.  Bible Based Ministries. www.biblebasedministries.co.uk.

[2]. The Jesuits: the Secret Army of the Papacy, by Shaun Willcock, pg.10.  Bible Based Ministries, 2012.  www.biblebasedministries.co.uk.

[3]. Les Jesuites, by J. Huber, pgs.71,73.  Sandoz et Fischbacher, Paris, 1875.  Quoted in The Secret History of the Jesuits, by Edmond Paris, pg.26.  Chick Publications, Chino, California.

[4]. The Jesuits: the Secret Army of the Papacy, pg.12.

[5]. The Washington Post, March 13, 2013. www.washingtonpost.com.

[6]. Zenit.org, March 13, 2013.

[7]. The Moynihan Letters, March 13, 2013.  MoynihanReport@gmail.com.

[8]. The Jesuits Elect a New General.

[9]. The Moynihan Letters, March 11, 2013.  MoynihanReport@gmail.com.

[10]. See The Jesuits Elect a New General.

[11]. See America’s Alien Invasion: the United States is Becoming Roman Catholic, by Shaun Willcock, July 2006.  Bible Based Ministries.  www.biblebasedministries.co.uk.

[12]. National Catholic Reporter, March 14, 2013.  http://ncronline.org.

[13]. Daily Maverick, 14 March 2013.  www.dailymaverick.co.za.

[14]. The Moynihan Letters, March 13, 2013.

[15]. The Moynihan Letters, March 13, 2013.

[16]. The Blaze, May 13, 2013.  www.theblaze.com.

[17]The Washington Post, March 13, 2013.

[18]. See The Vatican Moscow Washington Alliance, by Avro Manhattan.  Chick Publications, Chino, California.  1986.

[19]. See The Pope of Rome Calls for a World Government, by Shaun Willcock, October 2009, and The Vatican and the “Occupy Wall Street” Movement, by Shaun Willcock, November 2011.  Bible Based Ministries.  www.biblebasedministries.co.uk.

[20]The Blaze, May 13, 2013.

[21]. The Washington Post, March 13, 2013.

[22]. National Catholic Reporter, March 14, 2013.

[23]. The Moynihan Letters, March 13, 2013.

[24]. Daily Maverick, 15 March 2013.  www.dailymaverick.co.za.

[25]. Daily Maverick, 15 March 2013.

[26]. New York Daily News, March 14, 2013.  www.nydailynews.com.

[27]. The Province, March 13, 2013. www.theprovince.com.

[28]. See, for example, The Vatican Against Europe, by Edmond Paris.  The Wickliffe Press, London, reprinted 1988.

[29]. The Province, March 13, 2013.

[30]. The Province, March 13, 2013.

[31]. The Province, March 13, 2013.

[32]. NewsWithViews.com, March 15, 2013.

[33]. The Blaze, May 13, 2013.

[34]. Fourteen Years a Jesuit, by Count Paul von Hoensbroech, Vol.II, pgs.301-319.  Cassell and Company Ltd., 1911.

[35]. The Rat(zinger) Abandons His Ship, by Shaun Willcock, February 2013.  Bible Based Ministries.  www.biblebasedministries.co.uk.

[36]. The Rat(zinger) Abandons His Ship.

Bible Based Ministries


This article may be copied for free distribution if it is copied in full


Contending for the Faith Ministries

42055 Crestland Drive

Lancaster, CA 93536

United States of America