Sidebar
Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

“The Dictator Pope”: Mysterious New Book Looks “Behind the Mask” of Francis

A remarkable new book about the Francis papacy is set to be released in English this coming Monday, December 4th, after an Italian debut earlier this month that is rumored to have made quite a splash in Rome. Entitled, The Dictator Pope, it is described on the Amazon pre-order page as “The inside story of the most tyrannical and unprincipled papacy of modern times.”

The book promises a look “behind the mask” of Francis, the alleged “genial man of the people,” revealing how he “consolidated his position as a dictator who rules by fear and has allied himself with the most corrupt elements in the Vatican to prevent and reverse the reforms that were expected of him.”

OnePeterFive has obtained an advance copy of the English text, and I am still working my way through it. Although most of its contents will be at least cursorily familiar to those who have followed this unusual pontificate, it treats in detail many of the most important topics we have covered in these pages, providing the additional benefit of collecting them all in one place.

The author of the work is listed as Marcantonio Colonna — a transparently clever pen name laden with meaning for the Catholic history buff; the historical Colonna was an Italian nobleman who served as admiral of the papal fleet at the Battle of Lepanto. His author bio tells us he is an Oxford graduate with extensive experience in historical research who has been living in Rome since the beginning of the Francis pontificate, and whose contact with Vatican insiders — including Cardinals and other important figures — helped piece together this particular puzzle. The level of potential controversy associated with the book has seemingly led some journalists in Rome to be wary of broaching the book’s existence publicly (though it is said to be very much a topic of private conversation), whether for fear of retribution — the Vatican has recently been known to exclude or mistreat journalists it suspects of hostility — or for some other reason, remains unclear. Notable exceptions to this conspicuous silence include the stalwart Marco Tosatti — who has already begun unpacking the text at his website, Stilum Curae — and Professor Roberto de Mattei, who writes that the book confirms Cardinal Müller’s recent remarks that there is a “magic circle” around the pope which “prevents an open and balanced debate on the doctrinal problems raised” by objections like the dubia and Filial Correction, and that there is also “a climate of espionage and delusion” in Francis’ Vatican.

Some sources have even told me that the Vatican, incensed by the book’s claims, is so ardently pursuing information about the author’s true identity that they’ve been seeking out and badgering anyone they think might have knowledge of the matter. The Italian version of the book’s website has already gone down since its launch. The reason, as one particularly credible rumor has it, is that its disappearance was a result of the harassment of its designer, even though that person had nothing to do with the book other than having been hired to put it online.

If these sound like thuggish tactics, the book wastes no time in confirming that this pope — and those who support him — are not at all above such things. Colonna introduces his text by way of an ominous portrait of Francis himself, describing a “miraculous change that has taken over” Bergoglio since his election — a change that Catholics of his native Buenos Aires noticed immediately:

Their dour, unsmiling archbishop was turned overnight into the smiling, jolly Pope Francis, the idol of the people with whom he so fully identifies. If you speak to anyone working in the Vatican, they will tell you about the miracle in reverse. When the publicity cameras are off him, Pope Francis turns into a different figure: arrogant, dismissive of people, prodigal of bad language and notorious for furious outbursts of temper which are known to everyone from the cardinals to the chauffeurs.

Colonna writes, too, of the “buyer’s remorse” that some of the cardinals who elected Bergoglio are experiencing as his pontificate approaches its fifth anniversary: “Francis is showing,” writes Colonna, “that he is not the democratic, liberal ruler that the cardinals thought they were electing in 2013, but a papal tyrant the like of whom has not been seen for many centuries.”

Colonna then transitions to an opening chapter exposing the work of the so-called St. Gallen “Mafia” — the group of cardinals who had been conspiring for decades to see to it that a pope of their liking — a pope like Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was capable of becoming — would be elected. Formed in 1996 (with precursor meetings between progressive European prelates giving initial shape to the group as early as the 1980s) in St. Gallen, Switzerland, the St. Gallen Mafia was originally headed up by the infamous late archbishop of Milan, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini. The group roster was a rogue’s gallery of heterodox prelates with a list of ecclesiastical accomplishments that reads more like a rap sheet than a curriculum vitae. (In the case of Godfried Danneels, implicated in some way in about 50 of 475 dossiers on clerical sexual abuse allegations that mysteriously disappeared after evidence seized by Belgian police was inexplicably declared inadmissible in court, this comparison transcends analogy.)

The names of some of the most prominent members of the group — many of which would have been unknown to even relatively well-informed Catholics just a decade ago — have become uncomfortably familiar in recent years: Cardinals Martini, Danneels, Kasper, Lehman, and (Cormac) Murphy O’Connor have all risen in profile considerably since their protege was elevated to the Petrine throne. After a controversial career, Walter Kasper had already begun fading into obscurity before he was unexpectedly praised in the new pope’s first Angelus address on March 17, 2013. Francis spoke admiringly of Kasper’s book on the topic of mercy — a theme that would become a defining touchstone of his pontificate. When Kasper was subsequently tapped to present the Keynote at the February 14, 2014 consistory of cardinals, the advancement of his proposal to create a path for Communion for the divorced and remarried thrust him further into the spotlight. The so-called “Kasper proposal” launched expectations for the two synods that would follow on marriage and the family and provided the substrate for the post-synodal apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, around which there has been a theological and philosophical debate the likes of which has not seen in the living memory of the Church. For his part, Danneels, who retired his position as Archbishop of Brussels under “a cloud of scandal” in 2010, even went so far as to declare that the 2013 conclave result represented for him “a personal resurrection experience.”

And what was the goal of the St. Gallen group?

Originally, their agenda was to bring about a “much more modern” Church. That goal finally crystalized around opposition to the anticipated election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to the papacy — a battle in which they were narrowly defeated during the 2005 conclave, when, according to an undisclosed source within the curia, the penultimate ballot showed a count of 40 votes for Bergoglio and 72 for Ratzinger. Colonna cites German Catholic journalist Paul Badde in saying that it was the late Cardinal Joachim Meisner — later one of the four “dubia” cardinals — who “passionately fought” the Gallen Mafia in favor of the election of Ratzinger. After this loss, the Gallen Mafia officially disbanded. But although Cardinal Martini died in 2012, they staged a comeback — and eventually won the day — on Wednesday, March 13, 2013. For it was on that day that Jorge Mario Bergoglio stepped out onto the loggia of St. Peter’s Basilica, victorious, as Pope Francis the First. Those paying attention would take note that one Cardinal Godfried Danneels of Belgium stood triumphantly by his side.

Colonna points out that indications existed — particularly through certain press interviews with Cardinal Murphy O’Connor — the possibility of some pre-meditated collusion between Bergoglio and the St. Gallen conspirators who worked to elect him. Colonna writes:

In late 2013, the archbishop of Westminster gave an interview to the Catholic Herald in which he admitted not only to campaigning at the Conclave, but to gaining Bergoglio’s assent to be their man.

The article by Miguel Cullen in the September 12, 2013 edition of the Herald says, “The cardinal also disclosed that he had spoken to the future Pope as they left the Missa pro Eligendo Romano Pontifice, the final Mass before the conclave began on March 12.”

Murphy O’Connor said, “We talked a little bit. I told him he had my prayers and said, in Italian: ‘Be careful.’ I was hinting, and he realised and said: “Si – capisco” – yes, I understand. He was calm. He was aware that he was probably going to be a candidate going in. Did I know he was going to be Pope? No. There were other good candidates. But I knew he would be one of the leading ones.’” The admonition to Bergoglio to “be careful” certainly seems to imply that Murphy O’Connor – and Bergoglio – knew he was at least bending the rules.

This is supported again in the same article in the Herald where Murphy O’Connor is quoted saying, “All the cardinals had a meeting with him in the Hall of Benedictions, two days after his election. We all went up one by one. He greeted me very warmly. He said something like: ‘It’s your fault. What have you done to me?’”

In an interview with the Independent after the Conclave, Murphy O’Connor also hinted there was a particular programme laid before the 76 year-old Argentinian, that he was expected to accomplish in about four years. The English cardinal told journalist[3] and author Paul Vallely, “Four years of Bergoglio would be enough to change things.” A fair enough comment after the fact, but this was the same phrase recorded by Andrea Tornielli in La Stampa in an article dated March 2, 2013, eleven days before Bergoglio’s election: “Four years of Bergoglio would be enough to change things,’ whispers a cardinal and long-time friend of the archbishop of Buenos Aires.”

Four years has certainly been enough.

From this analysis of Francis’ inauspicious beginnings as the handpicked pope of the most progressive forces in the Church, Colonna takes us on a brief but informative tour of his life and background. He mentions Bergoglio’s strained relationship with his parents — his father a “struggling accountant” and mother a temporary invalid — noting that he rarely speaks of them. He examines Bergoglio’s precipitous rise through the Jesuits in Argentina, despite opposition from his superiors at certain critical points along the way. Highlighted too, was the assessment of the unusually young provincial by the Jesuit Superior General —  offered when Bergoglio applied for a dispensation from the Jesuit rule forbidding him from becoming a bishop — allegedly describing him in no uncertain terms as unsuitable for the role. I say allegedly, because the text of the evaluation has never been made public. Writes Colonna:

Father Kolvenbach accused Bergoglio of a series of defects, ranging from habitual use of vulgar language to deviousness, disobedience concealed under a mask of humility, and lack of psychological balance; with a view to his suitability as a future bishop, the report pointed out that he had been a divisive figure as Provincial of his own order. It is not surprising that, on being elected Pope, Francis made efforts to get his hands on the existing copies of the document, and the original filed in the official Jesuit archives in Rome has disappeared.

Despite these setbacks, Bergoglio was seen, at the time, as a champion of Catholic conservatism in the mode of John Paul II by Cardinal Quarracino, his predecessor in the archbishopric of Buenos Aires and the man who ultimately ignored the warnings and raised him to the episcopacy. The perception of Bergoglio’s conservatism appears to have stemmed largely from his opposition to the Marxist liberation theology that had become so prevalent in the region — an opposition which, as Colonna explains, was not so much because of ideological disagreement as class warfare:

Bergoglio himself was a man of the people, and in Latin America “liberation theology” was a movement of intellectuals from the higher classes, the counterpart of the radical chic that led the bourgeoisie in Europe to worship Sartre and Marcuse. With such attitudes Bergoglio had no sympathy; although he had not yet identified himself explicitly with the “theology of the people”, which arose in direct competition with the Marxist school, his instinct made him follow the populist line of Peronism, which (whatever the cynicism of its creator) was more in touch with the genuine working class and lower middle class. Thus, Father Bergoglio backed the apostolate to the slum districts, but he did not want their inhabitants recruited as left-wing guerillas, as some of his priests were trying to do.

His Peronism helps to make clear, in another illuminating moment, Francis’s infuriating habit of saying diametrically opposing things from one day to the next:

The story is told that Perón, in his days of glory, once proposed to induct a nephew in the mysteries of politics. He first brought the young man with him when he received a deputation of communists; after hearing their views, he told them, “You’re quite right.” The next day he received a deputation of fascists and replied again to their arguments, “You’re quite right.” Then he asked his nephew what he thought and the young man said, “You’ve spoken with two groups with diametrically opposite opinions and you told them both that you agreed with them. This is completely unacceptable.” Perón replied, “You’re quite right too.” An anecdote like this is an illustration of why no-one can be expected to assess Pope Francis unless he understands the tradition of Argentinian politics, a phenomenon outside the rest of the world’s experience; the Church has been taken by surprise by Francis because it has not had the key to him: he is Juan Perón in ecclesiastical translation. Those who seek to interpret him otherwise are missing the only relevant criterion.

The book is packed with such fascinating insights into the phenomena of the Francis papacy, in part by viewing the present through the lens of his past. From indications that his notorious simplicity was simply a means of shedding any “ballast” that might impede his pursuit of power to his ostentatious humility (often with cameras conveniently waiting to capture the moment) to his masterful manipulation of an over-eager media into displaying the image he wishes to portray, the layers of the Argentinian pope are peeled back and examined, offering a deeper understanding of the man himself.

Colonna does not spend much time on the question of the validity of Francis’ papal election, but he does raise questions about the convenient (for the St. Gallen group) timing of Benedict’s abdication and considerations made both by papal biographer Austen Ivereigh and Vatican journalist Antonio Socci on the politicking and the questionable canonical validity, respectively, in the 2013 conclave. “Whether one chooses to uphold Socci’s view or not,” Colonna writes, “there is something rather appropriate in the fact that the political heir of Juan Perón should have been raised to the head of the Catholic Church by what was arguably an invalid vote.”

The book does not merely content itself with the pre-pontificate history of Bergoglio. Under the microscope, too, are the critical agenda items of the ongoing papacy, foremost among them, those promises which have never materialized. From reform of the curia to a supposed “zero tolerance” policy on clerical sexual abusers to Vatican bank and financial reform, some of the major initiatives of the Francis papacy have failed to reach fruition, been abandoned, or have received only lip service.

Later chapters deal, among other important topics, with the heavily-manipulated synods on the family, the Vatican response to orthodox resistance, the saga surrounding the dubia, the gutting and reinvention of the Pontifical Academy for Life, the destruction of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, the Vatican-supported coup within the Knights of Malta, and the persecution of those ecclesiastics who fail to toe the line for the papal agenda — along with an examination of the KGB-style tactics deployed by “Kremlin Santa Marta”. (On a personal note, I was both pleased and honored to discover a chapter subheading entitled “The Dictatorship of Mercy,” with a direct reference to the article in which I coined the term.)

There is a great deal of material in this book for all Catholics, but it will be of particular interest to readers of this website, who have watched many of these developments unfold in real time. There are also new things to learn from the text, particularly in its examination of the pope’s Argentinian history. If you or someone you know is interested in getting up to speed quickly on where things are with this papacy — and why it is so singularly controversial — this book appears to be an excellent starting point to cover much of the necessary ground. At 141 pages, it provides a sufficient amount of depth without overwhelming the reader with too much information, and the language and presentation make it an easy, fascinating read.

I believe The Dictator Pope will prove to be a critical tool in understanding and documenting the present papacy, and so, despite already having a copy of the text, I’ve also pre-ordered the book, both in support of the author and to help bolster its status via the one metric that seems to garner the most attention: sales rank. I encourage you to do the same. Already in Italy, the e-book is an Amazon best seller, having attained the rank of #60 in that country and hovering at #1 or #2 in books in its category. It would be fantastic to thrust it to the top of the charts in the English-speaking world as well.

That would send quite a message.

280 thoughts on ““The Dictator Pope”: Mysterious New Book Looks “Behind the Mask” of Francis”

    • But but but Pope Francis said we must be quiet in Church … not to chat. I think that the back part of his lovely white cassock is on fire in keeping with the ancient rhyme ‘ Liar liar …. etc.

    • It has been said that in the still-unpublished part of the Prophecy of La Salette, it is stated that; “In the twentieth century there will be two worm-ridden popes.” (the obvious question this poses is; if it is still unpublished, how is this known?). I have seen much speculation as to the identity of these two “worm-ridden popes” of the 20th. century, and Paul VI seems to be a perennial favorite. But everyone seems to overlook the present Petrine Office holder, possibly because of a too-literal interpretation of “the twentieth century”. But if the prophecy is accurate, then in the case of Bergoglio, “worm-ridden” would be almost complimentary. It is the corpses of the dead among other things that could be said to be worm-ridden. And this man, “Francis the Destroyer” is, spiritually speaking, among the walking dead.

  1. A revealing article. I’m struggling to say Colonna’s research provides better understanding of his person since apart from apparent explanation of the ambiguities and discordant behavior there remains the question of identity. That is insofar as MO. If the office of the papacy is to preserve the revelation of Christ intact Pope Francis is effecting the opposite. And insofar as discordant actions if one were determined to dismantle the Church what the Pontiff has achieved in so short a time is masterful. Dictatorial yes indicated very early when he abruptly fired the captain of the Swiss Guards. He has exiled, rendered insignificant his powerful opponents with uncanny ease. He is on a mission. If it is evident [at least to some of us including Bishop Athanasius Schneider who lately admonishes the faithful under pain of serious obligation to identify and repudiate the errors] that it is a revisionist remake of the revealed Word then who is…

    • Amen. That IS what he is doing; exactly. Thank you for announcing this: Francis is remaking the Revealed Word. Yes, we have our mission and so we had best get on with it and prepare for
      whatever consequences lay ahead.

      ” Start being brave about everything.
      Drive out Darkness and spread Light.
      Don’t look at your weaknesses.
      Realize instead that in Christ Crucified
      You can do everything.” – St. Catherine of Siena

        • Yes, but does that mean the cardinals and bishops get a ” Get out of jail free card”, as they sit idly by and continue to deny what every God-given sense resonates to their intellect about this situation?

          What does that mean for us, the laity? That we solely pray our Rosaries, hunker down, and wait for the ” the end” ? I am not suggesting you would agree with that Margaret, but I am only expressing a concern I have, that so many can easily fall into this ” passivity”……….me too!

          • That is the question, and one I’ve not seen any actionable answer to. My main concern is when do the sacraments become invalid because of the celebrants adherence to heretical practices? The rest is really window dressing, as long as the sacraments remain valid, then all the rest can happen as it will, imho.

          • Desire to be alert and open to God’s will. Let us use our God given senses about us, our reason and not fall prey to sentimentality.

            Mary will help lead us to her Son’s will, and we must be brave about it.

          • Use any form of electronic media at your disposal to spread the word about the problems with this pontificate, just as this website does so well on a consistent basis. The more folks in yours and all of our spheres who come to this unfortunate truth, the more voices will be raised in opposition to the promoted errors!

          • I think you answered your own question by quoting St. Catherine of Siena. She was a Third Order Dominican (I.e. a laywoman) and she stood up (respectfully) to the Pope. I humbly submit that she and St. Paul would be the special patron saints of the Traditional Catholic movement. (Obviously, ALL the Saints would qualify, but I’m limiting it to two. ????)

      • St Catherine of Siena is a favorite. She admonished the Pope harshly when the French regent repositioned him in Avignon. Some compare today’s heresy effected and rapidly spreading not by official Magisterial pronouncement but surreptitiously with the Aryan heresy. There is small comparison with permanent damage done because that heresy dealt with a theological issue regarding the divinity of Christ that the vast majority of Christians had little capacity to comprehend and which heresy didn’t affect their daily practice of the faith. Whereas this heresy based on mitigating premises and primacy of conscience doctrine contained in Amoris Laetitia affects all Catholic moral doctrine. Coupled with the universal repudiation of morality this Pontificate is also reinstating a new version of Aryan heresy by the Pontiff’s remarks that the divine Word is not “static”, which coincides with Cardinal Kaspers heresy of a changeable god that accommodates rather than converts. In effect a denial of Christ’s divinity coincident with the Aryan heresy.

        • And, also not unimportant to say that st. Catherine of Siena, the favorite one(!), was what they now call – a laywoman, which is not exactly true, because she was a tertiary from the Order of the Preachers, The dominicans.
          Which must gives us all, more than enough ‘material’ for thinking about the correct answers to the question, as ‘what we, little people, can do about all this misery?’.
          We can do a lot.

          • Yes Ivan since the moral debacle following Vat II, a moment of faithful resurgence under John Paul II and Benedict XVI we’ve down spiraled sharply under Francis I. Priests are either overwhelmingly either complacent, seemingly unaware [seemingly impossible], or in tune with Card Kasper the Pontiff and co. It’s the Laity like Steve Kojec, and convert Laity like Carl Olson, RR Reno and other Catholic website editors who are holding the fort. The parishioners where I serve respond beautifully and strongly to authentic Catholic doctrine and extremely grateful. They are veritably starving and the shepherds aren’t feeding them.

          • Dear Father Morello,
            We have to thank you for your own Catholic witness as a priest. I had been seeing your comments at Catholic World Report and am glad to see you here at Onepeterfive! Welcome! Thank you for your courage.
            Maike Hickson

          • God bless you good father, for being a true shepherd of souls. How I wish someone of your calibre was our Pastor.
            Ad multos annos!

          • I know Margaret. My point is that God’s people who belongs to any Third Order of Catholic Church, should be not seen or called (or feels and think themselves) just as ordinary lay people.
            Because they gave a very special and very specific PROMISE to God. They have made a vow. And therefore they are and should be seen as religious, as an special kind of monks if you want, as a Tertiars of their Third Orders.
            They cannot and should not be seen as laypeople. Because laypeople are laypeople. However, I am even against usage of that word anyhow and anywhere, because they are a Faithful people of God. The believers. People of God! Nothing – ‘lay’.
            There are many so-called laypeople who are everything but a laic,- which means a person without a specific knowledge about specific matter. In this case the matter is our Catholic FAITH.
            There are many ordinary faithful ones who knows MUCH BETER and believes much more correctly than many clerics.
            That’s why I am fiercely against using of such name for any faithful Catholic. Imagine, how more I am then against using such ‘title’ for any TERTIAR of any Third Order of our Catholic Church.

          • At least – a Tertiar.
            In full meaning is best to say
            a Dominican tertiar.
            Because it is vocation, calling, duty and liability to GOD. Therefore such faithful ones should be called by the right title.
            Remember that this ‘downgrade’ of the truly sons and daughters of God is also one of the fruits of the IIVC and so-called modernizing of the Church.

          • We should also take at heart the words of Pope Leo XIII from his encyclical letter ‘Auspicato Concessum’ (Sept. 17, 1882):
            In this encyclical, the Pope had presented the Third Order of St. Francis as a Christian answer to the social problems of the times.

          • I know what you think, but hold your breath for a moment, and think, if he (the similar pope) should write this even this day and instruct al the bishops and priests rightly, we can expect many wonders, I believe. Because that way we should be pleasing our Lord, and His Holy Spirit would help us all.

    • Based on all we know it is not out of the question to believe Pope Francis is in league with the devil.

      • Michael, that’s too strong, in my opinion. The demons don’t have to possess someone for us to see the inspirations and ‘using’ of weak faith, or inspirations that one is ‘right’ in anything opposed to Church teaching (dogma and doctrine). We give the Devil too much credit sometimes.

        Francis has been taught to be like he is. He drank in all the modernist lies, false philosophy and theology rampant throughout the past century and beyond. I believe, yes, that Satan is behind much of the evil in the world but human concupiscence plays the major part.

        We are in a battle against our own fallen nature – we don’t need to see a direct action by Satan in Francis. He is a proud, ill-taught, arrogant, focused sinner who will not bow to Our Lord, Tradition, the Church in any form – and he will not protect dogma and doctrine because he truly believes if all are to be saved he must jettison all that in order to embrace the world. He tells us over and over again that the ‘old’ way is not working because we must treat people as the weaklings they are – and he no longer believes in a ‘standard’ of right and wrong that is Our Lord Jesus Christ.

        Satan is busy but Francis is busy too.

          • I agree with Winslow and Michael Dowd: Francis has debased his humanity so with evil-doing that his will seems to be perverse. He is no poor victim of bad education or deficient catechesis. He does what he does because his will is his god.

        • You are too kind, Barbara. The cunning deviousness, cruelty, treachery and downright diabolical ruthlessness of the man takes him out of the realm of humanity. He has not a scrap of decency in him.

          “He is a proud, ill-taught, arrogant, focused sinner who will not bow to Our Lord.” Is not the same description made of Satan? Was not that why he was cast out of Heaven?

        • He doesn’t have to be in formal league with the Evil One, I would strongly doubt that he is. But I don’t doubt at all that he has been receiving diabolical assistance from the start of his career and is being influenced in certain ways and assisted to get into high places because once that man is in place, the devil’s work will get done. A look at Bergoglio’s career IMO shows the hand of the devil at work – again and again, promoted beyond what he should have attained in the teeth of unambiguous exposure of his personal shortcomings and determined resistance by superiors. The kind of evaluations like Fr. Kolvenbach’s would normally be lethal to someone’s further progression, that was a really damning criticism from a direct superior. He must have had supernatural assistance.

          • “He must have had supernatural assistance.”
            That would be preternatural assistance, if indeed it’s true……

          • One can do the will of the devil and think one is doing good, if one is sufficiently deluded. I am certain most people advancing the devil’s cause do so laboring under delusions they are doing good or even doing God’s will, because they have been deceived. Few of the devil’s servants explicitly and consciously serve him, although the numbers of those are growing now.

          • Of course. Satan’s influence is temptation. Succumbing to temptation is delusional. Like the condition of Herr Francis.

        • “the ‘old’ way is not working because we must treat people as the weaklings they are”

          ref. “The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor” in Dostoevsky’s masterpiece “The Brothers Karamazov”!

      • The understatement of the year! The article and the book that is its subject describes exactly my constant assessment of this diabolical tool of Satan sitting in the Chair of Blessed Peter.

        • My guess is that Jesus has allowed this catastrophe to make it abundantly clear to faithful Catholics and others on which side lies the truth. To me this means that all of Vatican II should be rescinded as Pope Francis represents it’s Modernist quintessence. We should thank God for the clarity He is providing us. The next few years should be most interesting.

          • I’ve been thinking along those same lines myself, Michael, but have come to a different conclusion. I think God is allowing for the destruction of the Church because the global Church is the Vatican II Church which is not Catholic. When Bergoglio finishes it off and dies and the Church is at its lowest ebb there will be chaos and faithful Catholics will be looking for a place to go. I am convinced the SSPX is the way to a rebirth of the Catholic Church. They have the structure, including communications, in place and they have the Faith. Archbishop Lefebvre was right and Pope John Paul II was tragically wrong.

          • Agree this is good option when worse comes to worse which is a subjective assessment, of course. Right now, for me, I’m sticking with the devastated Church as we know it and be part of the resistance to prepare for better days. Later it may be necessary to do as you suggest by joining SSPX.

          • Do not join the SSPX, has been overwhelmed and taken over by a cabal, in route to join with apostate Rome. Bishop Fellon has sold out.

          • Thanks. I heard the same thing. I plan to stay in the Church and be part of the resistance to Modernism we see now.

          • His name is Fellay and he has not sold out. He was discussing an agreement but the faithful convinced him Bergoglio is a snake in the grass and I think he has backed away. It’s been months since the matter has been put to bed.

          • If you cannot get the basics—like the name of Bishop Fellay—can you explain to sane people how we are to take your firmly stated judgment seriously. Facts, like spelling, do matter according to their degree of importance.

          • Archbishop Lefebvre, of very happy memory, saw clearly the horrors developing before our very eyes and spoke, wrote and acted like a true pastor of souls. For this the Modernist wolves and their “obedient” conservative enablers hounded and smeared him with the hobby horse of “schism”—ironic coming from those who are in the real schism from the Church of the Apostles.

          • Yeah, the irony is indeed rich.Of course Christ also was called a criminal & died a criminal’s death, murdered, by those He came for. Victory disguised as defeat.

            Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
            ——– Original message ——–From: Disqus Date: 2017-12-03 5:18 PM (GMT-05:00) To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Comment on “ The Dictator Pope” : Mysterious New Book Looks “ Behind the Mask” of Francis
            “Archbishop Lefebvre, of very happy memory, saw clearly the horrors developing before our very eyes and spoke, wrote and acted like a true pastor of souls. For this the Modernist wolves and their “obedient” conservative enablers hounded and smeared him with the hobby horse of “schism”—ironic coming from those who are in the real schism from the Church of the Apostles.”

            Settings

            A new comment was posted on OnePeterFive

            Robert Carballo

            Archbishop Lefebvre, of very happy memory, saw clearly the horrors developing before our very eyes and spoke, wrote and acted like a true pastor of souls. For this the Modernist wolves and their “obedient” conservative enablers hounded and smeared him with the hobby horse of “schism”—ironic coming from those who are in the real schism from the Church of the Apostles.

            5:18 p.m., Sunday Dec. 3

            |

            Other comments by Robert Carballo

            Reply

            to Robert Carballo

            Robert Carballo’s comment is in reply to

            winslow:

            I’ve been thinking along those same lines myself, Michael, but have come to a different conclusion. I think God is allowing for the destruction … Read more

            You’re receiving this message because you’re signed up to receive notifications about activity on “The Dictator Pope”: Mysterious New Book Looks “Behind the Mask” of Francis.

            You can unsubscribe
            from emails about activity on “The Dictator Pope”: Mysterious New Book Looks “Behind the Mask” of Francis by replying to this email with “unsubscribe”
            or reduce the rate with which these emails are sent by
            adjusting your notification settings.

          • Bravo, Robert!! You have the truth. If anyone was in schism it was the Pope-hero JPII. Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio Castro de Mayer of the Diocese of Campos in Brazil were the only bishops to reject the Novus Oro Mass and continue with the Catholic Mass. Campos was the only diocese in the world not to suffer the declines of faith and praxis resulting from the poison of Vatican II.

          • These two WISE and Holy BISHOPS were the REINCARNATION of St. Athanasius prepared by God to be the front opposing the apostasy in the making from the TOP, as Card. Luigi Ciappi revealed in the 3rd. SECRET of Fatima. That’s WHY they NEVER revealed its true content. The FREEMASONS that occupy the VATICAN have an iron hold in IT. Only God and Our Lady can overcome Satan directing his minions inside IT.

    • It would not be so easy for Francis if Catholics had not for centuries been indoctrinated into an exaggerated (and false, I think) notion of obedience as a supreme virtue. It is not: it is a qualified virtue according to what and who is to be obeyed. The clericalists, however, both lay and ordained, would have us believe it is the supreme virtue. I have heard an otherwise very learned, virtuous and orthodox priest in Baltimore state from the pulpit that schism (the sin against the unity of the Church, serious enough) is worse than heresy (the sin against truth, even more serious, particularly since Our Lord stated both that He came to bring not peace but the sword but also that He was the way, the TRUTH, and the life). It does not take an advanced degree in theology to see how inverted (and dangerous but self-serving for the clergy and today for our Modernist tyrants) this is. Truth, repugnant to the Modernists, must be set aside as “rigid” and not so important while obedience is their best tool to keep us docile and our mouths shut. We Catholics deserve no less, for long ago we ceased to be real men and women to become, with glorious exceptions, clericalist, pathetic fools, totally incapable of defending our church, our souls, and those of our children and of our fellow Catholics—all in the name of a depraved obedience and a spurrious unity. May God have mercy on us, for at times I think we are more guilty of the rape of the Church than the perpetrators themselves for being so cowardly and unmanly.

      • Robert Carballo mindless obeisance is a forfeiture of our gift of intellect and free will. Your thesis is well stated because it refers to the inherent propensity of reason and the will toward truth. You address a remarkably neglected truth that God did not create us to be cowardly drones. The submission to evil is the ‘safe’ idea of persons securing their presumed goal of well being and salvation sans suffering. Christ admonishes us not to fear and expresses repudiation of cowards because cowards refuse to pay the price to witness to truth.

        • Great message, Father. We must all witness to the truth everywhere we can and at every opportunity, especially on the internet, the most powerful communications tool on earth.

      • “…an exaggerated (and false, I think) notion of obedience as a supreme virtue. It is not: it is a qualified virtue according to what and who is to be obeyed.”

        Exactly. ‘The notion of obedience’ worked pretty well right up until Vatican II. Unfortunately, Pope Paul VI didn’t believe himself when he said, “Through some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the Church.” He just went ahead and threw out the Mass and instituted the Bugnini Novus Ordo and it was all downhill from there.

  2. “…he is Juan Perón in ecclesiastical translation.”
    In human parlance, he is simply a liar.
    The Third World is the Third World for a reason. If it could pick itself up by the genius of its leadership – civil, cultural and ecclesiastical – it would do so.
    It can’t.
    The fate of the Church as long as mendacity reigns is to be nothing more than an unproductive
    nest of ambiguity at best, bold heterodoxy at worst.
    Get out your hammer and sickle crucifixes. Kneel before your cosmic Christ.
    Absurdity painted in outrage.

  3. Francis is a man who lacks charity. All his blather about “mercy” is just so much chin music designed to further his deconstructionist agenda. One of the first things I noticed about him was the amount of ridicule and abuse that spewed from his mouth, mostly directed at those who hold firmly to traditional Catholic teaching, and I thought to myself…..”Popes do not talk like this…..something is awfully wrong here.” It was always so negative.

    Even when it is necessary to correct or admonish, Popes always do so in a most positive, charitable tone which points out the truth and the right path, whereas Francis demonizes and denigrates in the most harsh and negative tones. He is not a holy man and much of his rhetoric barely rises above the level of internet combox venting, such as that in which I indulge when I’m angry.

    Kolvenbach called him a sociopath and he was right. However, the real issue here is not Bergoglio. He is who he is and specimens like him have always been around in the Church. The real problem here is that two-thirds (or more) of the College of Cardinals thought this guy would make a great Pope. This tells us that we are in deep do-do and that the problem is systemic. How could these men be so lacking in spiritual discernment? Are so many cardinals that clueless or worse, mischievous? It also means that even if Bergoglio goes to his eternal reward, we’re likely to get one of his acolytes to replace him.

    What a horrific chastisement for the Church!

    • “The real problem here is that two-thirds (or more) of the College of Cardinals thought this guy would make a great Pope. This tells us that we are in deep do-do and that the problem is systemic. How could these men be so lacking in spiritual discernment? Are so many cardinals that clueless or worse, mischievous? ”
      Well said kiwiinamerica.

      • “The real problem here is that two-thirds (or more) of the College of Cardinals thought this guy would make a great Pope. ”
        Spot- on ! This is exactly my point of worry. I’ve been posting this question on almost every forum.

        • Yes, they certainly did ” goof up”.
          And they continue to ” goof up”, by their silence in not signing the Dubia, at the very least.

          ” People will do what they want to do.”

      • Antonio Socci has written about how the second day of the papal Conclave was rushed, and by afternoon, had something of a frantic-hurry quality about it. The rule about only four votes in one day was violated, and a fifth vote was taken. By this time, the cardinals, mostly elderly men, many of them with physical afflictions, were exhausted and not necessarily using their best judgment. AND, Socci points out, if the last vote had been held the next morning, as it should have been if the rules had been followed, the cardinals would not only be more rested, but they would have had an opportunity for supper together that night, and for breakfast together the next morning — i.e., lots of talking amongst themselves, plus evening and morning prayer — and the true facts of Bergoglio’s background, which had only just started to go around, might have reached a few more of the cardinals, who might then have voted differently. When Church rules, which were originally established for very good reasons, get broken willy-nilly, disasters can, as we have seen, ensue.

    • Indeed! This is the crux of the problem! The sheer fact that we have someone like Francis sitting in the Chair of Peter to begin with! This is the real horror that faces us. I have often wondered what good it would really do to have a faithful holy Pope at the helm, when a good number of our Churchmen are in league with the devil? When Paul Vl issued Humanae Vitae did the Bishops fall in line? More than half of them even at that time turned a deaf ear to him and proceeded in their dissent of the teaching. The Bishops have been ‘running the show’ to a significant degree for a very long time now, and thumbing their noses at the Pope if he professes true Catholicism. We have to face the fact that the Church at this point in time has been infiltrated by free masons wearing miters. Yes, we have good Bishops and I am ever so thankful that God has provided us so, but just look at the numbers! This is the heart of the problem and the entire reason that we have a ‘Francis’ that sits in the Chair of Peter. We, the faithful laity, have our work cut out for us. When are people going to realize that the Church has been pretty much taken over? Our ‘ever so faithful’ Churchmen is the entire reason we have a ‘Francis’. The wolves have now taken over the hen house.

      • You make a very good and true point about the bishops having been running the show for a long time now. It proves true when we look back at how totally ignored previous popes were whenever they tried to promote something more in line with tradition — as Paul VI did with HV; or JP II did with Ecclesia Dei; or when Benedict pleaded for Communion on the tongue and kneeling. They were almost totally ignored by bishops, who have been, for 50 years, picking and choosing what they like and ignoring the rest. Can we blame people for being Cafeteria Catholics in such a situation? They’re just doing what most bishops do.

        • I believe it’s the Popes’ fault. If JPII had issued Ecclesia Dei from the Chair and selectively excommunicated one or two prominent bishops who failed to accept it the rest would have fallen in line. Too late now. Our two recent popes before the current disaster spent more time being nice guys instead of being the Vicars of Christ.

    • “The real problem here is that two-thirds (or more) of the College of Cardinals thought this guy would make a great Pope.”

      Many of them, as has been reported, now regret their decision to support him. Unfortunately they are too cowardly to oppose him.

  4. I’m still waiting for a book called “The Freemason Pope” to be released. Bergoglio is a mason in case many of you didn’t know this. (most people have no clue) – His ties to freemasonry would also explain many of the characteristics explained in this book.

    • I don’t find it hard to believe, but apparently the masons would not want one of their own as Pontiff, rather one whom they can control.

      • Well, first off, that’s not what Italian Masons (a.k.a. Carbonari) said. In fact, they wrote in the “Instruction of the Alta Vendita”, that they wanted to prepare the generation of youth from which this pope would rise through the ranks of the hierarchy and would become a pope “according to their needs.” Naturally, such false pope would need to know what those “needs” are and in order to do so, would have to be a mason. I say “false” because a mason is invalidated to become pope. So a pope that is a mason, cannot be a valid “pope”.

  5. The prodigal son’s father, of course, loved his errant son. Yet he also reassured his resentful other son that “you’re always with me and all that I have is yours.”

    I suspect, though, that Francis would tell the hardworking son “You need to go out and make something of your life that I can forgive.”

    That seems to be the entirety of his attitude toward faithful Catholics. His mercy is mere condescension.

    • The poor can be exploited with false doctrine rather easily if that is someone’s goal. They will not complain about heretical or homo-promoting clergy if they are receiving food and other material assistance , possibly including contraceptive items and at the same time being re-assured that their extra-marital living situations are ‘real marriages’ and even holy.
      There is a kind of false charity that is not based on sacred Truth but on false mercy and an egocentric need for control. As Padre Pio, who more closely resembled St. Francis of Assissi especially re the hands and feet, said, ” Charity that is not based on Truth is not charity at all”.

    • I attempted to buy it from Amazon; apparently it’s only available in the Kindle version so far. I found no print version.option even as a pre-order.

      • I bet there won’t be a print version either. They can make a kindle version disappear but not a print version. I would appeal to the author that IF that happens, be ready to make a PDF version freely available. You won’t won’t make money from it but your message will get out.

        • Anybody can publish a book. There is software programs on the market that will put the text in a publishing format and numerous printing companies who will print it at around 3000 soft cover copies for under $10,000. Those numbers are guesses based on my cost for a 180 page book in 1984. Whatever the numbers are, it’s doable.

          • You can also put a book into print through a print-on-demand publisher. They format your book for you, list it on Amazon (and sometimes other places, as well) and copies are printed as people place orders for them. I’ve done this with my novels.

      • Nope, the print edition wasn’t there. I did pre order the Kindle edition. I think at this point, that’s the best we can do.

    • While I am glad to know that such a book has seen the light of day, I am afraid that, for many, it will be water off a duck’s back. The Francis fans I know are neither unintelligent nor uninformed; they simply don’t want to hear it.

      • And here you have stated a big problem The Francis Fans! I often think of St. Paul to the Thessalonians – Because they have not followed the truth God will give them the operation of error … in other words they will believe the lie … That is a terrible state of mind and It seems that Francis is also ‘infected’ with the illness. He is trying to infect us. We must be careful of what we read or listen to and pray a lot. Even fast! And pray to keep the light of truth before our eyes and in our souls.

        • You nailed it SC. Francis is the personification of the “operation of error” that paves the way for Antichrist. Modernism has been preparing the ground for around 100 years and now we are seeing the horrifying fruit of what St Pius X warned about. Those that will accept the lie and become apostates do so because they have been unfaithful to the truth of Christ. I am going to a step further and single out those lukewarm or indifferent “catholics” who have accepted the NO and all that goes with it. They through their negligence and infidelity have put themselves in such a weakened state that when someone like Francis appears they will buy the lie to their eternal destruction. This is the horrible central truth of the 3rd secret – the one who will formalize the great apostasy and welcome Antichrist into the holy place.

          • I see these PF fans in my family in particular. It is incredibly destructive to souls.
            They want to feel ‘nice’ & there is no talking to them, only private prayer for them.

          • I know. I had barely finished my Thanksgiving dinner when a family member asked if I had seen the PF video of him dancing with an old lady. “I just love him!” they remarked. I sat there, stunned. When I took my frustration to confession, Fr. said I must have compassion. They are so deceived, incapable of seeing truth, victims of ‘shiny object syndrome’.

          • Thank you Malachy. The insight into the horrible central truth of the 3rd secret stands out in your response. All is the truth! I just had never thought about Francis paving the way for ac but that is exactly right. There is no getting through to our friends and family who applaud him. I do see silence and unwillingness to talk about him in certain members of the family. That’s a good sign.

          • I understand your frustration with family in particular. I am the only one who goes to the Latin Mass since my university days. At times I or those associated with it have been accused of lacking charity when presenting bald facts about the state of the Church. When I recently suggested to my father that apostasy was the reason for the lack of faith he sees in his local NO he just could not bring himself to contemplate it let alone analyze it. That generation in particular have been induced to throw overboard what they received (as Saint Paul describes sacred Tradition) and embrace a mess that lacks conviction, courage, certainty and strength. Sister Lucy spelled it out – once Lucifer has a cleric or religious he bags many of the faithful. For those who lack the traditional sacraments I recommend The Rosary at a minimum to receive the graces necessary in this time of “diabolical disorientation”.

  6. “Ostentatious Humility.” Here is an excerpt from my journal written just days after Pope Francis was elected. What I heard seemed so phony to me that I wanted to write it all down and save it. Articles like the one above make me remember what I wrote. Here is the total excerpt regarding Pope Francis’ false humility:

    http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/03/16/pope-francis-reveals-why-he-chose-name/
    Partial excerpt: “Some people wanted to know why the Bishop of Rome wished to be called Francis. Some thought of Francis Xavier, Francis De Sales, and also Francis of Assisi. I will tell you the story. During the election, I was seated next to the Archbishop Emeritus of São Paolo and Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for the Clergy, Cardinal Claudio Hummes: a good friend, a good friend! When things were looking dangerous, he encouraged me. And when the votes reached two thirds, there was the usual applause, because the Pope had been elected. And he gave me a hug and a kiss, and said: “Don’t forget the poor!” And those words came to me: the poor, the poor. Then, right away, thinking of the poor, I thought of Francis of Assisi. Then I thought of all the wars, as the votes were still being counted, till the end. Francis is also the man of peace. That is how the name came into my heart: Francis of Assisi. For me, he is the man of poverty, the man of peace, the man who loves and protects creation; these days we do not have a very good relationship with creation, do we? He is the man who gives us this spirit of peace, the poor man … How I would like a Church which is poor and for the poor!” (This section was taken from the full text of Pope Francis’ address, not the synopsis of his talk written by the reporter.)

    From the first moment I heard this story, it hit me as false. It had already been disclosed that Jorge Bergoglio had been the runner-up in the conclave which elected Ratzinger as pope.

    Think about it. Just a handful of years before, he had almost been elected pope. Can you believe that, in all those years, he’d never pondered what he’d choose as his name if he HAD been elected pope? I find that extremely hard to believe. He’s human, after all. The idea that he’d never, ever, given thought to such an important legacy — when he had been so close to achieving the papacy — and then the name dropped into his head as soon as his friend suggested that Bergoglio not forget the poor……?

    Well, I find that incredibly hard to believe.

    • Oh you cynic! What kind of bitter and twisted mind must you have to question the unimpeachable honesty, integrity and purity of mind in one so manifestly saintly as …. er….. what’s his name again?

    • What this name choice also shows is that this man does not have a clear idea of what St. Francis was all about. The Poor? No, St. Francis did not idolize the poor. He became poor himself in imitation of Jesus Christ. Nothing more, nothing less. In order to strip himself of everything BUT Christ and the imitation of Him he stripped himself of worldly goods. No hugging of the poor, no hugging of trees, no worship of Mother Nature (sic) – a complete attempt at transformation into Christ – and Our Lord spurred St. Francis on to this goal by allowing him to suffer the stigmata.

      This has nothing to do with Pope Francis’ phoney love and veneration for the poor. There is NOTHING inherently good about the poor – there are holy poor and evil poor.

      All the crap about the holiness of the poor, before whom we should kneel, (!!!!) puts into question many Saints who were not poor.

      • I strongly suspect that he took the name he did because the general public — at least here in America, it might be different elsewhere — has a very dear fondness for St. Francis of Assisi, equating him with care of the animals and the poor. That would fit into the persona that Bergolio is trying to foist on the public — a gentle, humble person who takes care of the little ones.

      • Try as I might to join the bandwagon, Winslow, I have to say that God loves Jose Bergolio just as much as He loves me. And you. That means that my job is to pray for him, knowing that he is under the control of old Snake Eyes and only by God’s Grace will he be saved. Let’s keep praying.

  7. The Papacy was instituted by Christ Himself. We sit at the 500 year anniversary of the greatest self-inflicted attack on the Papacy…up to now. True Roman Catholics love the Papacy. This man was elected for one reason, diminish the faith of the faith-filled Roman Catholics. Not by temper tantrums, not by becoming a social, tree-hugging, gospel-of-the world promoter. Rather by causing doubt in Doctrine, rending Church teachings “optional”. Glory be to God it hasnot worked and will not work thanks to leaders like the author of this book, this, and similar websites, select theologians, Priest, and Bishops.
    Be gone Satan, nice try but you really never stood a chance in hell. Pope Benedict: “…in the end Truth always wins.”

    • From “Our Lady Speaks to Her Beloved Priests” (1979)

      “…only that part of the truth is accepted which can be understood by human intelligence.

      “…the very truths which are the foundation of the Catholic faith are being corrupted.

      “They are not openly denied, but they are interpreted in such an ambiguous fashion that the doctrine is most seriously compromised by error as it
      never has before.

      “…everything that concerns dogma, liturgy and discipline is being attacked.

      “The confusion which is reigning in the Church…is the first sign which indicates to you, with certitude, that the time of the Church’s greatest
      purification has arrived.

      “Satan has pitched his tents among the Ministers of the Sanctuary, and he has brought into the Holy Temple of God the abomination of desolation.”

      Yes “…in the end Truth always wins.” It’s that ‘meantime’ that is so ruinous to far too many souls.

      • The Marian movement for Priests

        Is there not doubt about Fr. Fr. Gobbi’s “locutions”

        “Is Jesus going to return in glory by the year 2000? According to Fr. Gobbi’s locutions, the Blessed Mother says he is.

        Message 532 says in part: “I [Mary] confirm to you that, by the great jubilee of the year two thousand, there will take place the triumph of my Immaculate Heart, of which I foretold you at Fatima, and this will come to pass with the return of Jesus in glory, to establish his Reign in the world. Thus you will at last be able to see with your own eyes the new heavens and the new earth” (To The Priests, Our Lady’s Beloved Sons, U.S. National Headquarters of the MMP [1995], 893).

        It was somewhat startling to have the Blessed Mother giving an “estimated time of arrival” for Jesus’ return—and so soon!”

        • Hmmm…I was unaware of this prediction. If so much else wasn’t so accurate, it might make me skeptical that we’re 17 years past the due date.

          On the other hand, I’m aware that when Pope Leo XIII fell as if dead, after saying Mass in 1884, and had a “vision” in which he heard Satan tell Christ “I could destroy Your Church if I had the time, and more power over those who give themselves over to my service.”

          And he heard Christ tell Satan: “You have the power, you have the
          time: 100 years.”

          That would have made it 1984, if the the predicted time were exact. It’s usually assumed that the time is approximate.

          Still, for Our Lady to specify the year 2000 so precisely, gives one pause.

          By the way, slogan for the InfoWars site?

          “The answer to 1984 is 1776!” Gotta love it.

          • Just because Pope John XXIII, not the sharpest knife in the drawer, removed the Prayer to St. Michael from the Mass is no reason not to say it. I say it every day. So should you.

          • I do, of course, pray it…at least once a day! But since it was originally prayed at Mass with the intention of the consecration and conversion of Russia, it would be nice to have it restored, liturgically.

          • I travel a little, and along the way, I have been in at least a couple of churches where the priest did lead us in the Prayer to St. Michael at the end of the Mass.

          • The prayers after Mass, including the prayer to St. Michael, were stopped in 1965 under Pope Paul VI. I think John XXIII had more liturgical sense then either his predecessor or his successor. He fired Bugnini who had been hard at work under Pius XII, he insisted on the continued use of Latin, including for lectures in seminaries, and the schemata he proposed for the Council did not propose tampering with the Mass. He had his problems, but dumping Saint Michael was not one of them.

          • I stand corrected. The Prayer to St. Michael was officially suppressed by the Instruction of September 26, 1964, “Inter Oecumenici” issued by the Sacred Congregation of Rites; it took effect on March 7 of the following year—under Paul VI.

          • Yes! I say it always after mass too in a soft but firm audible voice. Interestingly, for quite some time now, more and more individuals creepily crowd around where I sit and it doesn’t matter in which church I am. However, I trust in a Higher Power

          • “InfoWars” and Alex jones is a very mixed bag and many believe he is a shill, whatever
            about that we certainly live on a PrisonPlanet from a material AND Spiritual point of view.

          • Jones’s persona is certainly way out there where the buses don’t run—sometimes disturbingly so.

            On the other hand, his reputation for having highly-placed and well-informed sources of information is second to none.

            As a mon-Catholic his understanding of the supernatural and historical justification for the Vatican is, of course, faulty. But he definitely knows what’s going on, politically and socially and often to a depth most Catholic writers fail to replicate.

            I suspect the reputation Jones has for being a shill comes from the fact that he is entirely self-funded with products he and the people surrounding him have developed. And his 4-hour a day program is incessantly punctuated by his hawking those products…again, to a maddening degree.

            I take him as I take most people, with a grain of salt. But things he predicted, say, four years ago that sounded darkly extreme have proven prescient and mainstream over the long haul.

            He is a Christian; I pray for his conversion to the Catholic faith.

          • I totally agree with your assessment of Alex Jones. He has some very, very valuable sources. I’m glad he’s on the air. If he ever becomes Catholic…. look out, world!

    • Wow, what you have written has boosted my hope. The profundity of Benedict’s words from behind Vatican walls is key. What a fantastic drama is occurring before us. Hope, pray, and don’t worry is the only course to take.

  8. Sounds like an Eytie version of Neumann’s book.

    Regardless, as Steve points out, none of this is new stuff to those paying attention.

    The question isn’t now “What are the facts?” as we all know them.

    The question is “What are the Cardinals going to do about those facts?”

    If anything…

      • Did Cardinal Burke, quite some time ago, not say that he did not have the support to do anything? Will this new book have any effect on the Cardinals, or even on the Faithful who just “do not want to know”?

        • I would think that just maybe this book may open some eyes, but I’m not so sure it will be they eyes of our Churchmen. It looks as if Cardinal Burke has lost any support he may have had in issuing the Correction. I don’t think it will be forthcoming.

          • You’re right. Yet, it would or will be unfortunate were Cardinal Burke to withhold a correction or fall silent because he lacks support. Christ said we’d be hated and persecuted. I don’t remember him saying that we’re excused from standing up for the truth if we’re alone–there’s no mention of a buddy system.

          • “If I say to the wicked man, “You shall surely die.” and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his wicked conduct so that he may live: that wicked man shall die for his sin, but I will hold you responsible for his death.”
            Ezekiel 3:18

        • Cardinal Burke has more support than what he sees. I wish he would realize.
          For he has the backing of a King and a Queen and a multitude of foot soldiers.
          He is the Church’s Peter!

    • Oh yes! Sure, we can!
      Keep doing what our Catholic true Faith teaches us.
      Among other important things as; praying, fasting and giving alms, keep preaching the truth, defending the truth and especially now, in these times, – exposing all lies and all the liars.
      And don’t forget to be patient in anticipation of manifestations of the victory.
      Remain faithful.
      No matter what.
      I believe that our ‘white martyrdom’ is, by all means, much less difficult or unbearable, than the other one which we know as the ‘red martyrdom’.

  9. Thanks Steve. You show courage and commitment by continuing to bring the ongoing horror story to our attention.

    ‘The Dictator Pope’ only confirms our suspicions that “Pope” Francis is:
    —Not really the Pope, as Ann Barnhardt says.
    —An evil person who is undermining the Church.
    —Must to be removed as soon as possible.
    —Supported by those in league with the devil.

        • Indeed, Michael!
          Our Lord has never told us in any sense of any word to go into this world and make a ‘dialogue’ with heretics, wrong-believers, atheists, etc… he said instead, very clearly this:
          “Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” (Matthew 28,19-20)

    • I think too, a good present for our parish priest is a few dollars and a heart felt card, telling him that should push come to shove, he has a clean house and home cooked meal to go to, along with a clean and finished basement where if he chooses, he may say the Mass. And ALWAYS, his collar shall be respected.

      • One had better know their priest very well. Last night I was discussing a beautiful old chapel in our town with a parish committee. I suggested that it ought to be offered to FSSP since it’s down to one mass at 7:30 AM on Sundays and has, reportedly, 35 parishioners. Our priest snapped “What’s FSSP?”. When I told him–and of course made sure to tell him not to confuse them with SSPX–he said “they’re the same. Want to take us back to the 13th century. Lots of guilt.”.

        I was very close to asking him how we cannot feel guilt when we look at a Crucifix or artwork depicting the Crucifixion or when we read about the Crucifixion. I just didn’t have the nerve. That such confusion and lies abound is tragic.

        • Feel of guilt makes faithful man healthy.
          What a priest! – “What’s FSSP?”
          I mean, really?!
          How long more o Lord?!
          How more some of us needs to see who belongs to the Christ’s Church, and who actually,- don’t?

        • From “what’s FSSP” to “they’re all the same”, in one conversation?

          Sounds like all too many priests, I’m afraid.

        • Sympathies. I probably wouldn’t have had the nerve either. I would later wish I had said “there are a lot of things about the Faith in the 13th Century it would do us all good to return to.” I have been saying as much in my RCIA classes for a while now, and haven’t been fired yet. But my parish has been blessed with faithful and holy priests who actually believe what the Church teaches. The real one.

  10. I believe that the accusation of Peronism is pertinent but overlooks something much more serious which centres on the fundamental values of Pope Francis, essentially that everything, even the Law of God, must be made subject to man. Bergoglio is a revolution in the Church because he epitomises the revolt against God, the overthrow of his Law, essentially, the overturning of the Church, the subjection of Christ to secular humanism. This doctrine finds its fullest expression in the tenets of Freemasonry, whether he is an active member of this scourge or not. It is through this filter that Pope Francis’s pontificate must be viewed. He is a political operator, but I don’t know whether ‘left’ or ‘right’ are terms that can be applied to him. Decisions are expedient, but only towards a clear goal of subversion of the Faith, the conforming of the Church and Her institutions to a moral paradigm that focus solely on the exaltation of man, to the detriment, or even the exclusion of God.

  11. Bravo for OnePeterFive! This is the sugar at the end of all efforts of this extraordinary web site, Bravo for you and for an author of the pointed book

  12. Folks, I see this article as some sort of character assassination. Everything said here could be true, but it’s irrelevant. The fact that Christ instituted this Chair spoke to the fact that He knew how man, regardless of his holiness or the lack of, can err.
    The only angle we have is some of what he said seems to be contradicting Tradition and the deposit of Faith.

    • Your post supports a very sober observation, but it’s too sober.

      There is just too much evidence to ignore the damage he is causing and this is obviously far far from irrelevant.

      “Character assassination” – as you put it, is merited by his actions. This World is dangerously close to widespread
      destruction because of it’s wickedness. The Church is rampant with corruption and confusion and the very care-taker
      of the Church is cooperating with this tragedy and by extension refusing to present to the World at large the great dangers
      of SIN and damnation in concrete terms that would cause many to pause and reflect.

      • I’m trained in logic, a programmer by trade. Emotion has no place in my analysis. Having said that, I share your frustration and outrage as a Catholic. As a matter of fact, I was mired in depression at the advent of the past Synods. The result, AL, was a logical conclusion.
        My point is simple: If Hilter says 2+2=4, you need to agree regardless of his character. And if Mother Teresa had said 2+2=5, you need to disagree regardless of her character.
        Whether the Holy Father is holy is irrelevant. Painting him as evil does not help.
        What we need to focus on is to argue that 2+2 does NOT equal 5.

        • I agree in this with you.
          We are to judge the words, deeds, works, acts (the fruits) of man, not the man himself or grade of his holiness or peccability. But,… it can help a bit if you (re)search and find some proofs (man’s behavior brings certain fruits too) from the past or recent past, about certain suspicious person.

          • Read about the false prophet Balaam. If a false prophet can be used, what would you say about the Chair of Peter?

    • You address the gravity of the situation.

      I am myself uncomfortable with using terms like “sociopath”, etc, to describe a Pope, but on the other hand, it is tremendously unsettling that a mere listing of the Pope’s accomplishments and attempted accomplishments might be described as a character assassination. Under the circumstances, the question then becomes, “Who is the assassin of the character?” Those simply describing what can be readily seen, or the Pope himself?

    • [C]ontradicting Tradition and the deposit of Faith. Is that all?? How about throwing the words of Jesus behind him and substituting his own?

      Jorge Bergoglio is a manifest heretic and an enemy of Christ and His Church.

      Character assassination indeed! He has no character to assassinate.

      • Exactly, Winslow. The attitude of persons like that exhibited above by Mr. Chow is a great part of why the Church is in the cataclysmic condition it is in today. I wonder if some would say about a man in the act of raping their mother that denouncing him is “character assassination”? Yet, the Church is Our Holy Mother Church—and she is being raped before our very eyes by scoundrels without faith like Francis.

      • There is also truth in many things that can become distractions. The environment for instance. It is not uncommon for gen X or gen Y to devote time, energy, and commitment to save the environment, but won’t lift a finger to save their very own souls.
        Focus……

    • “The only angle we have is some of what he said seems to be contradicting Tradition and the deposit of Faith”?! It is more than enough to see the evil in this man. Why this apparent lessening of a monstrous evil right before our eyes? To speak the truth soberly and with solid foundation (which I assume the book does—but even if it did not, we have the evidence from Francis’s own mouth and actions) is not character assassination but a solemn duty for all Christians: “let your yea be yea and your no be no,” says Christ. Christ did not found the papacy to demonstrate “how man can err” (as if that needed any demonstration!) but to protect the Faithful, the Church, and the Deposit of Faith from erring man. What strange, muddled logic for someone who claims to be “trained in logic”!

    • Tell us, is it “character assassination” to reveal, say, that a presidential candidate let 1/5 of the country’s uranium supply fall into the hands of another power and profited from the fact? My point: Isn’t what someone has done in the past, what his friends relate about his personality, how his business partners perceive him, isn’t all of this germane to forming a coherent understanding of his current actions? I’ve served on 10 juries in my life, and I assure you that kind of information was accepted by the various judges, and highlighted by all prosecutors and defense teams involved in those trials.

  13. All very interesting Steve and thank you for that.
    I do not notice any mention of all the diabolical abortionists, Malthusians and global warming freaks who are welcomed with open arms at the Vatican.
    Is there any mention of the arch Satanist Soros and the Masonic homosexual perversion inside the walls of a St Peters?
    Whilst the degradation of our Catholic truths is abhorrent, the degradation of science is equally to be condemned.

  14. Notable: all efforts of journalists in Italy and Argentina to find a copy of the Kolvenbach report have failed, with the general understanding that they have been either collected and hidden or destroyed. However, one very interesting blog post from someone who actually saw it before the election said it was very specific about Bergoglio’s character, using the term “sociopath” to describe him.

    • It is likely Fr Kolvenbach spoke to some Jesuit confidants before he made his recommendation. That’s 25 years ago – not a lifetime.

  15. Good write-up, Steve. It lends all the more credence to allegations that the 2103 conclave was uncanonical and consequently invalid. The rules laid down by John Paul II were broken many times over. Benedict was forced out of office, and that is a fact.

    • Perhaps despite his intellectual strengths he wasn’t “street wise” enough to have a loyal inner circle
      amongst other things. Or could not avail of one, anyway did he not claim to have a dream from GOD
      which encouraged him to vacate?

  16. The situation IS alarming, but why incur guilt ?

    “And Paul said, ‘I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’” Acts 23:5
    Was not the high priest, Caiphas, who condemned Jesus Christ, effectively guilty of deicide? Yet, St. Peter excuses him, saying, ““And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers.” Surely there is a kind word for the pope somewhere in this article and comments, but if, on the contrary, you wish to strike a prophetic stance, in whose name are you doing so? With what authority?

    We would do well to follow St. Peter’s example, lest we find ourselves on the outside of the Church looking in, like the so-called Reformers. Did they speak of the pope with respect? Neither do you. That should make you tremble with apprehension that your place at the wedding feast will be sede vacante. What is to be lost by keeping a reverential silence before the dispositions and judgments of Divine Providence, awaiting and praying for His intervention? If the Church is in distress we know what to do, do we not? Or do we?

    Where in the history of the Church do we find the pope subject-within the Church- to such excoriation as here? Certainly not among the saints! Luther, Calvin, Knox, Henry VIII all had a great deal to say about the pope, and with much the same substance and tone as we find here. There is no blessing in it. There will be no reward for it, but there may well be chastisement.

    Someone will surely mention St. Catherine of Siena, but she wrote the pope privately. Again, why incur guilt?. Does not, “Touch not my anointed and to my prophets do no harm,” ring some sort of bell within you?

    • Nicely said Lee. There is another one, from our Lord trough the mouth of prophet Jeremiah:
      “Therefore thus saith the Lord of hosts to the prophets: Behold I will feed them with wormwood, and will give them gall to drink: for from the prophets of Jerusalem corruption has gone forth into all the land.
      Thus saith the Lord of hosts: Hearken not to the words of the prophets that prophesy to you, and deceive you: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord.
      They say to them that blaspheme me: The Lord hath said: You shall have peace: and to every one that walketh in the perverseness of his own heart, they have said: No evil shall come upon you.”

      (Jeremiah 23,15-17)

    • Because of the great lack of faith over so many generations, ( you understand this?), and with a pontificate who refuses to ” dialogue” on the Dubia and has been given more time out of charity to do so; and with a pope who has gutted every good thing behind those damn Vatican Walls and substituted it with evil men and their ways, and has spread of acceptance of homosexuality by infamous priests and bishops and…….coupled that with his phony and nasty manners. horrible treatment of the Dubia cardinals, two of which gave their life for the Church; AND………those he chooses to surround himself with, read from a list of corrupted cardinals, bishops and priests: she would admonish him privately out of charity, and then if need be publicly call upon the cardinals to do so out of love for Christ and His priests!

    • More nauseous papolatry disguised as pious caution. On a lower ecclesial level, it’s precisely this kind of nonsense, self-imposed restrictions on telling the truth, artificial prohibitions against saying the king has no clothes, that plunged the Church into the homosexual and child-molestation scandals of the early 21st century. Bishops who were “above criticism” according to those of your persuasion, for decades sheltered criminals in Roman collars and hid outrageous sins and crimes. To this day, the Church is paying the penalty for such foolishness.

      “But THIS is the POPE!”, I can almost hear you cry. Correct, but you let that fact lead you into error. Let me cite three authoritative statements that are germane to your post (the first two were printed here at 1P5 in the past):

      “An error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is suppressed…. He who does not oppose an evident crime is open to the suspicion of secret complicity.” [Pope Felix III as quoted by Leo XIII]

      …and

      “Now it can be said briefly that those who defend blindly and indiscriminately any judgment whatsoever of the Supreme Pontiff concerning every matter weaken the authority of the Apostolic See; they do not support it; they subvert it; they do not fortify it… . Peter has no need of our lies; he has no need of our adulation.” [Melchior Cano, Bishop and Theologian at the Council of Trent, in his De Locis Theologicis]

      …and finally,

      “Therein Peter left to those that came after him an example, that, if at any time they deviated from the right path, they should not think it beneath them to accept correction from those who were their juniors,— an example more rare, and requiring greater piety, than that which Paul’s conduct on the same occasion left us, that those who are younger should have courage even to withstand their seniors if the defence of evangelical truth required it, yet in such a way as to preserve unbroken brotherly love.” [St. Augustine letter 82]

  17. Jorge Bergoglio is probably inventing new swear words as the world acquaints itself with a behind-the-scenes look at his peculiar flavor of humility/mercy. He might currently be suffering of a sore throat. A number of precious objects might have been shattered to pieces.

  18. Very interesting. Based on what I just read, there seem to be parallels in Barry Obama’s rise to power and our Pope’s. Also, Mr. Obama wanted to fundamentally change America. It seems our own Pope may have the same objectives for the Church.

  19. Vatican Intrigue is not intriguing.At all.Jesus walked this earth-God Come In The Flesh,and he was not angry with sinner’s.He was angry with Scribes,Priests and Pharisees.As our church continues to be run by Institutionized,overly educated priests who study psychology,primarily based on Freud who by his own admission developed psychoanalysis to “Destroy Christianity and Destroy America”,and who are experts in Law,we need to ask-why is our Church not returning or better yet moving forward to the way our early church was?When Christians believed in Miracles and knew how to pray for Healing and cast out demons.Our Church does not even meet their minimum requirement by Canon Law of 2 exorcists per Diocese.And people only can receive those prayers after 2 years of psychoanalysis!As someone who has been active in Healing and Deliverance Ministry I can tell you through Holy Discernment.Our Church is full of homosexuals.Overly Obssessed with the 3 false gods that Scott Hahn always talks about that people worship in place of the Holy Trinity-Money,Sex,and Power.I have known many of the greatest priests in Healing and Deliverance Ministry.They are ridiculed,disbelieved,and brutally attacked.Do you know how to tell someone is good?If they are Lied about,attacked and Accused.After all the name Satan means “Accuser”.“Francis is showing,” writes Colonna, “that he is not the democratic, liberal ruler that the cardinals thought they were electing in 2013, but a papal tyrant the like of whom has not been seen for many centuries.”Why would Cardinal’s elect someone Democratic or Liberal?Those are the very things Francis is falsely accused of!It’s so foolish you should all be ashamed of yourselves reading and believing this nonsense.Franics(Jorge) is an Italian(whose parents moved to SA)!He is NOT a proponent of Liberation theology.He is not for Gay Marriage-he has actually done some real work to rid our Church of the corruption and perverts-unlike all his predecessors.Thank God he has not tried to Revert back to Vatican 1 Insanity.We now get to drink the Blood Of Christ-as Jesus commanded.No other Rite or even Protestant church has dared to separate the Body from the Blood and deny the people a drink at Holy Communion.I love Cardinal Burke,he was my Bishop and I know him.The greatest Lawyer in our church most likely and a photographic memory.The La Crosse Diocese somehow found 64% of accusations of Molestation by priests false when the average is 10% false,90% real.Ask yourselves why that is?Because we had the best Lawyer!Everyone here has been molested-almost every family.And just like our US Government it’s been covered up.So instead of freaking out over what a Pope who is actually supposed to Dictate what we do in the Church,let’s try to get rid of the homosexuals,the molesters, the drunkards,the legalists,and the Traditionalists.Let us Unify and learn how to recognize Evil and start casting it out again.Francis does.Our teens are all suicidal.Francis visited the US,White House and Congress and a miracle took place.An actual Satanist with everything on her side was denied the Presidency.And we now have the most Pro-Christian,Pro-Israel,Pro-Life Administration in US history.President Trump is hated so badly witches and satanists worldwide curse him and “all who abet him” monthly during each Crescent Moon-which is the symbol of Allah-the ‘moon-god”.I thank God every day for Trump and Bergoglio.Warriors for God who are actually doing the hard work of cleaning out the filth and corruption and legalism.And for that hard work they are Cursed,Accused,and Berated.Lied about and Slandered.God help those that curse these men,who literally are offering their lives and safety to help us-and actually Serve….as Jesus Commanded.

  20. Is it sacrilegious to be critical or sceptical of the Holy Fatther? I fear the foundation of the Catholic Church is being undermined by his intentional ambiguity.

  21. MARÍA DIVINE MERCY:

    God the Father: The battle now rages between My Hierarchy and the domain of the beast

    March 12, 2013 fatherofloveandmercy

    My dearest daughter, the Heavens weep in sorrow on this terrible day foretold so very long ago.

    The whole of humanity will now face the greatest deception of all, and which has been perpetrated by the beast.

    The tears of My Son, whose death on the Cross gave My children freedom, fall now, over the whole world at this time, in agony.

    My Anger is contained at this time, but My Fury is great. Very soon the deceit will become clear to all those appointed by My Son to lead His flock on earth.

    The battle now rages between My Hierarcy and the domain of the beast. It will be painful, but soon, the chastisement, which will follow the evil persecution, plotted by the enemy and his cohorts, will wipe out the rot.

    I call on all of My children to turn to My Son and to place all your trust in Him at this time.Be brave, My little ones, for this pain will be short-lived.

    Those who follow the beast and the false prophet will be given insight, by the Power of My Hand, in order to bring them back into the Heart of My Son. If they reject this Gift, then they are lost and will suffer the same torment, which faces the imposter who will be cast into the abyss for eternity.

    The crowning of the false prophet will be celebrated by Masonic groups in all corners who plan the final stages of persecution of all My children.

    Those who will celebrate with him and who know no better will, in time, feel even more pain than those who already know the Truth.

    Await now, with courage and hope, for all this must come to pass before the Glorious Reign of My Son is manifested.

    You must pledge your allegiance to My beloved Son at all times and refuse to accept lies. If, and when, you are asked to participate in a new Mass know that it will be the greatest curse ever inflicted by Satan against My children.

    Know that Heaven will guide you and that, by accepting the pain with dignity, you will help My Son to fulfil the final covenant.

    Your Beloved Father

    God the Most High

    https://fatherofloveandmercy.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/god-the-father-the-battle-now-rages-between-my-hierarchy-and-the-domain-of-the-beast/#more-14522

  22. This should not be a big surprise. Pope Francis has been known for being very heavy handed during his time as Archbishop and as Jesuit Superior.

    In other News….. Pope Francis has appointed Fr. Mario Aviles from the Confederation of St Phillip.Neri as the First Aux. Bishop of Brownsville

    This is actually the first good choice because I actually know the guy….. and I can assure you guys that he is as Orthodox as they come.

  23. “a transparently clever pen name laden with meaning for the Catholic history buff; the historical Colonna was an Italian nobleman who served as admiral of the papal fleet at the Battle of Lepanto”.
    Hum okay. The ancient Colonna family has many more famous members. And a much more famous one is Sciarra Colonna who had a personal feud against Boniface VIII culminating in Colonna abducting the pope and famously slapping Boniface VIII in the face. Colonna (allied with King of France Phillipe le Bel) accused Boniface VIII of various corruptions and tyrannical acts, starting with having been invalidly elected after the unprecedented resignation of Celestine V.
    Somehow it seems to me that “Colonna” may be referring to Sciarra Colonna, not to some obscure admiral of the papal fleet.

  24. Catholic church is a sad and sick institution that has destroyed hundreds of lives, who cares what she says and does nobody with half a brain is listening.

  25. look at this qoute from the article “Colonna then transitions to an opening chapter exposing the work of the so-called St. Gallen “Mafia” — the group of cardinals who had been conspiring for decades to see to it that a pope of their liking — a pope like Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was capable of becoming — would be elected”….based on the writers OWN ADMISSION Pope Francis is not the so called Pope yet. all the concerted media effort are geared toward the ouster of Pope Francis..My personal beliefs is that there will be no antipope only Anti-christ that will forcefully attempt to take over the Seat of Peter…but we all know Mama Mary is just waiting on the Seat of Peter to crush Satans PROUD HEAD for all his minions to see…and the Victory of the Immaculate Heart will pave the way for the 5th Dogma that will be embrace by all Christians & other faith…Our beloved Pope Francis is protected…Jesus promised will prevails MT16:18…Godbless! S&IHMMP4us.Amen

  26. Thanks, guys, for letting me know I can read Kindle books on my laptop! I downloaded their free reader and purchased the book. I have been really busy this week, so I haven’t been able to start reading it yet, but I wanted to be sure and get it before it disappeared!

  27. The term Hitler oath refers to the oaths of allegiance, or Reichswehreid, sworn by the officers and soldiers of the German Armed Forces and civil servants of Nazi Germany between the years 1934 and 1945. The oath pledged personal loyalty to Adolf Hitler in place of loyalty to the constitution of the country.

    Wehrmacht oath
    Reichswehr soldiers swear the Hitler oath in 1934, with hands raised in the traditional schwurhand gesture
    Die Vereidigung der Wehrmacht auf Adolf Hitler, 2.8.1934
    “Ich schwöre bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, daß ich dem Führer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit für diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.”

    The Wehrmacht Oath of Loyalty to Adolf Hitler, 2 August 1934
    “I swear to God this sacred oath that to the Leader of the German Empire and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, I shall render unconditional obedience and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath.”

    Civil servant oath
    Diensteid der öffentlichen Beamten
    “Ich schwöre: Ich werde dem Führer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes Adolf Hitler treu und gehorsam sein, die Gesetze beachten, und meine Amtspflichten gewissenhaft erfüllen, so wahr mir Gott helfe.”

    Service oath for public servants
    “I swear: I will be faithful and obedient to the leader of the German Empire and people, Adolf Hitler, to observe the law, and to conscientiously fulfill my official duties, so help me God.”

    Some who refused to do so:
    Karl Barth (Swiss theologian); Consequences: loss of professorship
    Martin Gauger (probationary judge as a state prosecutor in Wuppertal); Consequences: forced retirement of his position as a state prosecutor
    Franz Jägerstätter (Austrian conscientious objector); Consequences: execution in 1943; beatified in 2007
    Josef Mayr-Nusser (from Bozen), after call-up for duty in the Waffen-SS; Consequences: Death penalty, died on the way to the Dachau concentration camp
    Joseph Ruf (de) („Brother Maurus“ of the Christkönigsgesellschaft (rel.)), Consequences: Death penalty
    Franz Reinisch (Pallottines padre from Austria), after call-up for duty in the German Wehrmacht; Consequences: execution by beheading in 1942

Comments are closed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...