It seems obvious to me that Jorge Bergoglio is an evil man. You and I can determine this. This is evident by his words actions and fruits. His words are heretical—at best (practicing non-Christian religions are salvific qua non-Christian); his actions are evil (promoting known sodomites, mocking and gaslighting those who refused to wear the satanic sacramental, the mask, and morally mandating billions of people to inject themselves with a dangerous experimental drug for no good reason). His fruits are rotten (one word: chaos). “Ye shall judge them by their fruits.”

Whether Bergoglio is the Pope or not is something you and I both can and cannot determine. You and I can determine it because he is certainly a heretic, and as the evidence of his pattern of words and actions clearly indicates, in lieu of an official trial that would determine it authoritatively and definitively, a formal one. And the evidence also clearly indicates that he was never Pope, because Benedict XVI never resigned. So, if one just looks with one’s eyes and thinks with one’s intellect, informed by what is actually the case, as much as one can discover what that is by research and thinking, and relying on the research and thinking of good-willed and faithful Catholics more informed and educated than oneself, one can see that the evidence indicates there has been no Pope of the Catholic Church since Benedict XVI’s death in 2022. The Myth of a Guilty N... Nock, Albert Jay Buy New $2.99 (as of 08:44 UTC - Details)

You and I cannot determine this, of course, because you and I are not the Church, and only the Church can officially declare a vacant seat and a pope an antipope. But in the meantime, since reason itself seems, beyond a reasonable doubt, to lead to the conclusion that Bergoglio is maliciously evil and is not the Pope, and we are morally obliged to obey reason, we are permitted to judge that he is evil and not the Pope, and make this judgment public. Mark Mallett disagrees with this, and has tried in private correspondence to make me feel guilty and evil for, as he calls it, “judging the Pope.” His arguments are fallacious, tendentious, and based more upon fear than reason. But Ed Mazza agrees with me, or rather I agree with him, for he’s the better scholar on this question, perhaps the best there is right now.

Just about all, perhaps all, who think, more or less, the way I do about Bergoglio (at the least that he is really bad news and a very bad pope, perhaps the worst of them all) are self-styled traditionalists. They also tend to agree with my condemnation of the status-quo normie Catholicism of your typical suburban parish, which really sucks, as well as my view of the official narratives of, say, secular liberalism, World War II, IXXI, and the Scamdemic, all of which I judge to be ideological lies and psy-ops. But I am not a traditionalist. In fact, I despise traditionalism, as I do all ideologies. Conversely, about all, perhaps all, who criticize traditionalism (but for the wrong reasons) tend to defend heretic Bergoglio and stupid normie Catholicism, parrot and defend all the official narratives, and consider just about every one of my judgments to be “antisemitic” and a “conspiracy theory.” So, I earnestly ask: Is there anyone out there who despises both the “look-at-my-beard-and-big-family” pharisee “Catholicism” of, say, Kennedy Hall and the “look-at-my-anti-antisemitism” kneel-to-the-world nauseating “Catholicism” of Mike Lewis? Perhaps there are some 1958-sedevacantists who do, but the price they have paid for is a pathological inner-circle pride and downright insanity, not to mention the mortal sin of schism—they hate Kennedy Hall because he isn’t insane or schismatic enough for them. Benedict XVI-Communio-Balthasar-Catholic-World-Report Catholics, such as Larry Chapp, do disdain both traditionalism and progressivism, for the right reasons, but they hate—and slander relentlessly—even more Catholics like E. Michael Jones and Candace Owens, and it’s precisely because of the truths they tell and the names they name, truths and names that they are either too cowardly to tell and name or just too brainwashed, or they just find it helpful to their career and prestige to slander those whose independence from the Catholic establishment allows them the freedom to speak truth to power. They tell the truth, or at least ask forbidden questions, about deep-state events and psyops, and the infiltration and corruption of the human element of the Church by the ideology of “antisemitism,” which has nothing to do with its real meaning, race-based hatred and the unjust treatment of Jewish people, but with its everchanging definition by the Anti-defamation League, with a common core of being whatever those in power who happen to be both criminal and Jewish consider a threat to their power. Such truth-telling, even though in accordance with all actual Catholic teaching and practice and based upon, at worst, eminently debatable claims and facts, and best, evidentially true claims and facts, is a priori declared by these over-educated academic types to be “conspiracy theory” or “insane” or “antisemitic.” It’s incredible how smart and informed they are on some topics, the more abstract and theological ones, and so stupid and brainwashed on others, where the theological rubber meets the geo-political road. Nevertheless, Jones sees nothing good in devotion to the TLM, he defends Bergoglio almost as much as Mike Lewis, and he will not tolerate even the possibility of 2022 sede.

All of these camps are either tainted with or fully possessed by ideology, and to the extent that they are, they are anti-Catholic and will, if the ideology is embraced knowingly and unrepentantly, lead their adherents to hell. Extreme progressivism and radical traditionalism are fully possessed by antithetical ideologies, of course, but since they are both thoroughly ideological, they are more similar than different, two sides of the same coin, mirror images of one another, reactionary co-dependent doubles. They are like the opposite vices in Aristotle’s virtue scheme, which have more in common than the virtue against which they find their identity. For example, rashness and cowardice are opposites, but they are both more similar than different in comparison to courage.

The extereme progressivists and traditionalists hate each other, for neither of them is Catholic at all. As for the less ideological and thus still sane and Catholic (for now, at least, for even a little ideology tends to metastasize) the “conspiratorialist” Catholics, who tend to lean traditionalist, are despised or ignored by the professorial Catholics, who also lean traditionalist or at least non-progressive, even though their philosophical and theological and cultural truth-telling and ideological unmasking should make them friends and fellow soldiers in the culture war and lead them to the same conclusions as the conspiratorialists regarding deep-state narratives. And the professorial Catholics, whose philosophcal and theological sophistication and depth would grealty enhance and complement the research of the conspiratorialists, are looked at with suspicion or ignored by them. The extreme Where Peter Is progressives and 1958 sede traditionalists hate them all, the conspiratorial, professorial, and normie traditionlist Catholics, lumping them all together as one evil brood because they don’t gush about modernity and the synod and hate Trump and the pro-life movement enough, on the one hand, or because they don’t think that Benedict XVI, John Paul II, and St. Faustina were devils incarnate, on the other.

What was the Pharisees’ paradigm? It was ideological, and  made them hate and desire to destroy Jesus and persecute His followers. We are the God-appointed leaders of the Jews! Our paradigm is the very Revelation of God, for we are and must be the epitome of loyalty, piety, courage, and devotion to God! Well, yes, it was and they were—if Jesus was only a human being. If he was God, however, then their virtues become vices, and the “Jews,” as St. John calls those Hebrews who rejected Jesus, become, not God’s Bride, but the devil’s prostitute, not the Church of Yahweh, but the “synagogue of Satan.” Saul was a prisoner to such an ideological paradigm, and nothing but an unforeseen, undesired-indeed, violent encounter with who, to his diseased spirit and intellect, was the radically other, a Jewish man claiming to be God, could liberate him. If Saul had been allowed to remain in the isolated, blinded paradigm of the “Jewishdom” of his day, the way in which some traditionalist Catholics would like to remain in the isolating “Christendoms” of their neuroses, fears, and gnostic certainties, his blindness would never have been revealed to him, and he would never have become St. Paul, the apostle to the Jewish other, the Gentile. Christ Himself had to break Saul out of his idolatrous paradigm, which was indeed not one of authentic Mosaic Judaism but a rabbinical, proto-Talmudic fanaticism of purely human origin. This had to occur violently against his will, but we have the chance to invite Christ freely into our minds, by inviting the salvific “others”—ones that we would rather not meet— into our intimacy as they are providentially “forced” upon us by Our Lord in our modern pluralistic world—as neighbors, or as bedridden, illiterate, nineteenth-century nobodys through which Jesus has given the world the greatest grace since the Incarnation, the grace of Living in the Divine Will. Fight the Good Fight: ... Marsh, Cory M. Buy New $9.97 (as of 08:02 UTC - Details)

We need this gift, because as the Antichrist approaches, prepared for by the apotheosis of his Great Reset worldly minions of which we have had a foretaste in the totalitarian plandemic, on pause for now by about to replay at a much higher speed and volume, he will rule over and exploit and annihilate all our paltry paradigms. We will all be in the position of the Apostles when the Truth Incarnate asked them each personally: “Who do you say that I am?” At that moment, no paradigm will do, no out-of-context proof-texting and quote-mining to prove your judgment will suffice, and no tribal in-house ideology, no matter how “traditional,” will help you. Listen up, Kennedy Hall. Shave your beard and attend the Novus Ordo. That’s a first step to saving your soul from hell.

Let us all prepare ourselves now for that moment by destroying our idols and relativizing our paradigms, with the knowledge that when it all comes down, we are all personally responsible for recognizing, loving, and obeying Truth, and although we are tradition-constituted rational animals who can only make rational judgments within and by the help of inherited and chosen paradigms of thought, we are required and enabled ultimately to transcend these paradigms by God Himself, who wants to know whom we really love at the core of our hearts, a place beyond any paradigm, however “traditional,” where God and Reality meet us intimately and immediately. Let us prepare for this meeting, for it is coming soon.

This originally appeared on Scamdemic Resistance.