JUser: :_load: Unable to load user with ID: 47
JUser: :_load: Unable to load user with ID: 3547
JORGE MARIO BERGOGL alias POPE FRANCIS THE RELIGIOUS CHARLATAN WHOSE HYPOCRISY KNOWS NO APPARENT LIMITSWritten by
by James Jacob Prasch
September 22, 2015
As Pope Francis arrives in the USA, the Vatican characteristically expects the media, the Congress, and the public to simply ignore the fact that when Cardinal of Buenos Aires, Francis staunchly refused to meet with the children sexually victimized by his priests and nuns and with their families. His pedophile sex criminal clergy were protected as the defenseless little children were raped and he refused to even meet them or their parents. So the College of Cardinals in a convocation that included multiple protectors and de facto enablers of baby raping sexual deviants frocked in their vestments, habits, and cassocks, including Los Angeles Cardinal Mahony and Boston Cardinal Law, elected Bergoglio pope and said he is 'the 'Vicar of Christ'. But didn't Christ say that “It is better to have a millstone tied to one's neck and be cast into the sea rather than harm a helpless little child”? Now this same Francis is coming to the land of Mahony with his lies and baloney, and of Law, who rather proved himself to be utterly law-less. These reprobates who shielded dangerous sexual deviates at the expense of the children whose molestation and sexual and homosexual violation these servants of Lucifer helped facilitate are among those who helped elect Bergoglio, so why wouldn't George (Jorge) Bergoglio cum Pope Francis come to the USA? How can such a disgusting pretender misrepresent himself as the vicar of a Christ whose very Words he nullifies and whose example he shuns in favor of a public relations motivated charade packaged in pseudo sanctimonious pomposity of the very same brand Jesus flagrantly condemned in the Gospel of St. Matthew chapter 23?
It is obvious to any honest observer that Bergoglio's only real god is the centuries old Vatican idol of theocratic politics that millions of former Roman Catholics who have accepted the real Christ, including now regenerate priests and nuns, can readily testify to. The real Jesus did not double talk or engage in the legalistic practice of pilpul in their attempt to defend the indefensible. Jesus appealed to the spirit of the law and did not engage in the pilpul of disputing about words Bill Clinton style as in: “it depends on what the definition of 'is' 'is'”; or ' “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky” (when he performed acts other than intercourse). Jesus issued clear unambiguous moral dictates in response to hypocritical religious rhetoric looking for technical loopholes to avoid what in substance amounted to perjury or in practice amounted to transgression despite religio-legal attempts to camouflage it with pilpul and the Gospels are emphatic that He did so 'speaking as one with authority not like the scribes' (Matthew 7:28-29). There was no ambivalence or uncertainty as to what He meant. What Clinton was in the White House however, Pope Francis is in the Vatican. We see a return to the pilpul condemned by Jesus in The Sermon on The Mount. Concerning the issue of homosexuality Pope Francis stated “if two men are in a committed relation - who am I to judge”? The point is that Jesus Christ has judged the matter already and the Judeo- Christian Scriptures say so plainly (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Timothy 1:10, 1 Corinthians 6:9). If the Scriptures judged it and he claims to speak for Christ (which he most certainly does not nor does any other Pope), why does he not simply uphold the teaching of Scripture judging it wrong?
What we see from Pope Francis is the pilpul that Jesus taught against and was a well defined alternative to. In Pope Francis we see a Pharisaical faker magna cum laude. Indeed, after his wife Laura and his former Vice President Dick Cheney (who daughter is in a lesbian marriage) appeared on YouTube urging Republican Party support for same sex marriage, former president George W. Bush stated with regard to homosexuality “I have to remove the log from my own eye”, as if his out of context citation of that verse from Scripture justified his ignoring that God's Word strongly calls homosexuality morally abominable. The Sanhedrin may have invented pilpul but phony unprincipled politicians have perfected it with media spin, and as is solidly evident Pope Francis is nothing more than just another such politician whose theological roots are not in the Jesus whose vicar he fraudulently pretends to be, but in the Sanhedrin who collaborated with the Roman government to turn the Jewish people against their own Messiah and have Him murdered. It is of course a factually ridiculous legally and doctrinally false contention to corporately blame Israel and The Jews for the death of Jesus. Jesus stated that He laid His life down and no one took it from Him. The Hebrew prophet Isaiah informs us in chapter 53 that it was His Father's will to slay Him as an atonement for our sin when He took our sin on Himself and thus in the larger sense we are all His killers. Moreover , all of His initial followers and the New Testament authors were themselves Jews with Jewish belief in Him as Messiah reaching a very high percentage of the Jewish population by the early Second century. Juridically, all four Gospels and the earliest Creeds of the church dogmatically profess that He was crucified by the Roman government under Pontius Pilate. Yet, although He forgave His executors – and us - from the cross, there is no question that the pagan Roman government and Sanhedrin conspired to kill him and they are still conspiring to kill Him. Only today the Roman authorities are the Roman Catholic church, the Sanhedrin are the College of Cardinals and Papal Curia, and Pontius Pilate is now called the Pope. My own family is a combination of Jewish and Roman Catholic backgrounds, and as such I would not be surprised if the pedophile protecting Roman Catholic church gambled for His cloths at a Bingo game.
Like all such phony politicians be it a Clinton, a Bush or otherwise, Francis has his media spin. His PR machine says “He has not changed the moral teaching of the church, only the emphasis”. He has done this in two ways. The first is divert away from inconvenient issues by changing the narrative. Thus we see Francis railing about capitalism and global warming in a cheap ecclesiastical version of 'Occupy Wall Street'. The second, as we have stated is to engage in a Roman Catholic imitation of pilpul. So when Francis concerning homosexuality publicly asks “who am I to judge”? The liberal wing of Roman Catholicism can claim that pope has modified the Roman Catholic opposition to homosexuality and he no longer will say it is flatly wrong; he says “who is he to judge”? Simultaneously, the traditionalist hypocrite wrong of Roman Catholicism reacts by saying “the Pope has not officially changed the opposition of the church to homosexuality”. For the sake of political expediency he placates everybody but offers no clear moral direction. This Jesus did not do according to St. Matthew, yet this impostor Francis claims to be The Lord's personal vicar acting vicariously on Christ's behalf.
Another example is his liberalization policy on the issuing of marital annulments. To begin with the term itself as it is used colloquially or legally is not found in the New Testament. The only New Testament basis for the nullification of a marriage is only where in God's eyes there was no valid marriage to begin with due to one partner already being married (John 5:17-18). In Roman Catholicism an annulment may amount to nothing more than a mere euphemism for divorce. Apologists for Roman Catholicism of course conventionally resort once again to pilpul; the strategic use of semantics is of course pivotal in pilpul. In the political hypocrisy that we witness in the parlance of international diplomacy we encounter this all of the time where a synonymous or ambiguous phraseology can be interpreted by two different parties to mean two different things in order to forge a meaningless agreement or concordat that eventually breaks down. In ecumenical dialogue between Roman Catholic and supposedly 'Protestant' theologians we see the same hypocritical idiocy. Both panels of theologians sign a joint declaration stating “we agree both Catholic and Protestant that we are saved by grace”, when in fact the Protestant understanding of grace is unearned and undeserved favor deriving from the Greek and Hebrew definitions of the term etymologically, while the perverted Roman Catholic definition is an ethereal substance , (be it actual or sanctifying grace as they describe it) that is ritualistically earned by sacraments even in the ex opera operato case of infant baptism (which in fact most Reformed, Anglican, and Lutheran Protestant denominations absurdly an unscripturally share). Both can agree they are saved by grace and issue a worthless proclamation to that effect that has no capacity to do anything but deceive, yet in actuality they have two fundamentally variant definitions of what grace is. While this fails theologically and spiritually, it works politically. It is little wonder St. Paul condemned such semantically charged dialogue involving disputes about words in circumlocution of the divinely intended meaning of Holy Writ (1 Timothy 6:4).
The Roman Catholic church engages in this kind of stupid semantic dialogue without reference to what the Scriptures actually state concerning the issue divorce by a convoluted argumentation that declares a marriage invalid for considerations that are extra biblical and grant annulment when in fact they are simply calling a divorce by another name. For many centuries popes routinely granted European monarchs annulments to remarry when it was in the political and or economic interests of the papacy to do so. Thomas Moore, the notorious villain who was party to the horrific persecution of regenerate Christians during the Reformation was executed by King Henry VIII not because Moore opposed Henry's divorce and remarriage, but rather because the pope did not approve of it for political reasons. Pope Francis did not invent this 'divorce by another name' practice of the papacy. He is just making it easier to do in order to be 'seeker friendly' to trim his falling mass attendance numbers. Likewise with the majority of reported cases of clerical pedophilia by his priests and nuns being of a homosexual and lesbian nature, Francis knows that without homosexuals and lesbians the already thin ranks of religious vocations in the Roman Catholic clergy would be much thinner still and he would not have enough priests and nuns for his religious system to function. It is all pilpul and all politics from homosexuality to annulment to pedophilia.
“Gorgeous George” Bergoglio has changed his name to “Frank the Phony”. But he is no Vicar of Christ. Like his papal predecessors he is just another anti-christ and as he visits New York and Washington, the other crooked politicians will roll out the red carpet for him and listen to his pilpul. And why should they not? He is the only politician in the world who can give the other politicians in the congress, White House and at the UN lessons in hypocrisy and how to connive.
Pope Francis is truly a religious charlatan whose hypocrisy knows no limits. When he changed his name from George (Jorge) , instead of Francis he should have called himself Caiaphas or maybe Pontius. But he should not be calling himself 'The Vicar of Christ'. What he does, Christ did not do.
May The Lord Jesus graciously continue to save Roman Catholic souls and deliver them from the demonic clutches of the pedophile cult and anti-christ false religious system of Roman Catholicism. Please pray for the salvation of Roman Catholic people and for their clergy who mislead them with lies and hypocrisy and destroy their children.
James Jacob Prasch
- Comment Link Friday, 09 October 2015 11:06 posted by Jerod
Hi Ms. Baruch, I hope this reply dies not come to late even though I am not an employee or affiliate of Moriel.
Your quote in question was quipped aboard the papal plane in 2013, I believe. The link for that bombshell interview is here
There is video as well online.
- Comment Link Wednesday, 23 September 2015 12:14 posted by Suzanne Baruch
Jacob, please confirm the source where you obtained the comment allegedly stated by the Pope that, "if two men are in a committed relation - who am I to judge?" I have searched the internet in order to confirm he said this, and cannot find it anywhere. The closest quote I can find is this from the Wall Street Journal:
"The pontiff broached the delicate question of how he would respond to learning that a cleric in his ranks was gay, though not sexually active. For decades, the Vatican has regarded homosexuality as a "disorder," and Pope Francis' predecessor Pope Benedict XVI formally barred men with what the Vatican deemed "deep-seated" homosexuality from entering the priesthood. "Who am I to judge a gay person of goodwill who seeks the Lord?" the pontiff said, speaking in Italian. "You can't marginalize these people.""
This is the second time I am submitting this comment, I *do* hope for a response.
- Comment Link Tuesday, 22 September 2015 23:51 posted by Suzanne Baruch
Jacob, could you please provide your source for the quote where the Pope stated, "if two men are in a committed relation - who am I to judge”? The closest quote I am able to find was published in the Wall Street Journal, where the Pope was asked "how he would respond to learning that a cleric in his ranks was gay, though not sexually active." The Pope responded by stating, "Who am I to judge a gay person of goodwill who seeks the Lord?" the pontiff said, speaking in Italian. "You can't marginalize these people."
- Comment Link Tuesday, 22 September 2015 21:10 posted by rev.jules barry jones
hi Jacob, love your new web site and am always glad to hear what you have to say about anything! This article about the Poop is perfect. Thanks.
Leave a comment
Make sure you enter all the required information, indicated by an asterisk (*). HTML code is not allowed.