Celebrating Bergoglio’s Tin Jubilee 

It is laudatory for us to mark anniversaries of priestly ordination, episcopal consecration, elevation to the papacy, etc., at least insofar as the true Church of Christ and her faithful ministers are concerned.

In the case of certain milestone anniversaries (10th, 25th, 50th), these occasions are more often called “jubilees.” At some point – and I readily admit to being unaware of the history – the jubilees came to be identified by a certain commodity, or a material, the same of which is found in the secular tradition concerning wedding anniversary gifts.   

For example: 1st Anniversary: Paper, 2nd Anniversary: Cotton … 25th Anniversary: Silver … 50th Anniversary: Gold.

According to this commonly accepted list, the 10th is known as the Tin or Aluminum Anniversary.

So, which one most fittingly describes March 13, 2013: Is it the Aluminum Anniversary of the Anti-Pontificate of Francis, or the Tin Anniversary?

To my thinking, they both have merit.  

Beginning with the latter, one might observe that Francis is a veritable dispensary of religious aluminum, a toxic element the atomic number of which is 13, and those unlucky enough to ingest the fruits of his anti-pontificate unprotected by Catholic truth are subject to spiritual death by doctrinal poisoning. 

On the other hand, it is perhaps even more appropriate to note that Bergoglio is a Tin Man merely clad in the raiment of the Vicar of Christ, an empty kettle, with no heart whatsoever for the Holy Roman Catholic Faith and those who adhere to it. 

In any event, yesterday I had the pleasure of joining Kevin Davis and Mario Derkson on the Catholic Family Podcast to… ahem… celebrate the momentous occasion of Jorge Bergoglio’s introduction to the world under the stage name, Francis.

A video of my appearance is below, followed by a not quite word-for-word transcript covering the points raised therein, some with a bit more detail.

[NOTE: The segment above was initially meant for inclusion in a longer program (available HERE) but technical difficulties got in the way. I encourage you to watch the rest of the podcast as well.]

Looking back on the past ten years of the Bergoglian Reign of Terror, we could assemble a laundry list a mile long cataloguing the various insults, heresies, and blasphemies that he has uttered and carried out against Our Lord, the Blessed Virgin, and Holy Mother Church.

Even so, I’m going to narrow my focus to three things that stand out as especially noteworthy: 

Traditiones Cojones and Jorge’s assault on the one true Roman Rite.  

– Bergoglio’s kinship with globalism, i.e., his passionate and public support for organizations like the United Nations and the World Economic Forum.

– The infamous Abu Dhabi Declaration that proclaims that the many false religions of the world are willed by God in the same way that He wills the sexes, male and female.

– Lastly, Amoris Laetitia, perhaps the most blasphemous text ever to stain anti-papal letterhead – and that’s saying something.

Before commenting on these four items individually, however, it’s important for us to recognize that Jorge Bergoglio (stage name: Francis) is not the least bit original, he’s not making it up as he goes along, he has a game plan, one that was not crafted by his own hand but rather one the he received.

In July of 2014, Francis made note of an important fact when he said, “I am the first pope who didn’t take part in the Council and the first who studied theology after the Council.”

NB: Jorge Bergoglio is making it perfectly plain that he is a MAN OF THE COUNCIL first and foremost, not unlike his conciliar predecessors. Yes, Francis is more explicitly heretical than the men who came before him, he’s more in-your-face blasphemous and far more aggressive in seeing Vatican II through to its logical conclusion. At the end of the day, however, all of these men share one thing in common, their lockstep allegiance to the Almighty Council. 

With that in mind, we might even say that among his conciliar predecessors, Francis has more integrity than those who preceded him. Shocking, right? Allow me to explain.

A good example of Bergoglio’s integrity is brought to light in his treatment of the sacred liturgy. That’s right, the liturgy! (If you just had an image flash through your mind of Peter Kwasniewski’s head exploding, you’re not alone.)

Consider: Whereas BXVI was pleased to invent the wholesale novelty an of an Ordinary Form and an Extraordinary Form of the one Roman Rite coexisting with one another, Francis, by contrast, is doing his best to see to it that the Council’s intent realized. How? By excising the Mass of Ages out of the conciliar church once and for all.

In response to this, there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth coming from the tradservative camp, but an honest reading of Sacrosanctum Concilium – the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of Vatican II – does not provide even a hint that the bishops desired for 1962 missal – the Roman Rite as they knew it – to remain in use untouched alongside the revised rite. 

It is very clear that they envisioned just one Roman Rite moving forward, that is, the Traditional Latin Mass after the “liturgical books are revised as soon as possible” (cf SC 25).

In response to this indisputable fact, the rejoinder of the tradservatives has been heard countless times: 

Yea, but the new Mass doesn’t reflect the will of the Council (e.g., the use of Latin, Gregorian Chant, no mention of Mass facing the people, etc.).

In other words, they are claiming recourse to the authority of the Council for their rebellion against the man they call “Holy Father.” 

It must be noted, however, that very early on in the Constitution (art. 3), the Council Fathers make plain what they are about to do in the text that follows, namely, to set forth norms and principles that can and should, in their estimation, be applied to the reform of the liturgy moving forward. 

Let’s be very clear about this: The Council never assumed for itself the right to dictate terms to the Roman Pontiff as to how the reform of the sacred liturgy would be carried out. They simply provided a framework that he could use or not, according to his best judgment, as he sees fit. Like it or not, unprecedented or not, this is what the Council proposed to do. Period.

The salient point is simply this: If, in fact, Vatican Council II is a valid ecumenical council of the Holy Roman Catholic Church as the tradservatives insist, and if Paul VI and his conciliar successors are true Roman Pontiffs as they also insist, then they have no leg to stand on for their liturgical rebellion. Francis is correct in saying that he is being true to the Council, as would be his right as pope. 

Another example of Bergoglio’s integrity can be gleaned from an interview that he gave in Oct of 2014 wherein he said, “For us,” meaning himself and that crop of young men formed by the conciliar theology of rupture, “Paul VI was the great light.”

While the majority of readers of this space understandably cringe at the thought of Montini being anyone’s “great light,” if in fact Paul VI was a true pope, then he should have been seen and treated as every Catholic’s “great light.” In the parlance of the Church, he should have been treated as the rule of faith that all must follow in order to stay on the sure path of truth. As Our Lord said: I am the Light of the world! Indeed He is, and His Vicar is that light made visible here on earth!

What happened? The most pious and dedicated of Catholics came to realize early on that Montini could not be treated as the rule of faith, or better said, as pope, lest they follow him right out of the Church. 

Even so, we must acknowledge that those who, like Bergoglio, truly believed that he was the Holy Roman Pontiff and treated him as such were acting with integrity. The same cannot be said for those who at one and the same time declare, Francis is truly the pope, and yet publicly and boisterously refuse to follow him!  

Let’s now turn our attention to yet another example of Bergoglio’s integrity: His unbridled support for globalism. 

Paul VI, Bergoglio’s “Great Light,” was the first claimant to the papacy to visit the United Nations. Most readers recall very well what he stated to that assembly and to the world: 

People turn to the United Nations as if it were their last hope for peace and harmony. We presume to bring here their tribute of honor and of hope along with our own.

Think about the gravity of this declaration: Montini is telling the world that even the Catholic Church looks to this secular globalist organization as mankind’s last hope for peace and harmony. Remember those words, peace and harmony, as I would suggest that they were chosen very deliberately.

What does the Catholic Church profess?

When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony. (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas)

The reign of Christ the King is mankind’s only hope of peace and harmony!

Montini’s deference to the United Nations was a stunning public repudiation of Our Lord’s Social Kingship and His Sovereign Rights. It ranks second only, in my opinion, to his symbolic rejection of the same when he surrendered the papal tiara at the close of Vatican Council II, as if to tell the entire world that he is not to be looked upon as the vicar of a king, but merely as the head of the new church-of-man. (Indeed, there was a hint of integrity in this act as well given that Montini truly was not a vicar of the King, even though Christ and His Kingship remained.) 

As for Francis and his affinity for the cause of globalism, once again, we must note that he isn’t blazing a new trail, he’s simply following the path that was laid out well before he ever arrived in Rome.

Prior the Council, December 10, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly published an international agreement called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UHDR) that presumes to set forth certain rights deriving not from God, but directly from … wait for it … the dignity of the human person. This was twelve years prior to Vatican II.

  • UDHR: “The foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world is …  the inherent dignity of all members of the human family”
  • UDHR: “The common understanding of human rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance…”

As for who has the authority to define what human rights and freedoms are – to say nothing of man’s duties and obligations? 

  • UDHR: “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.”

We see this focus humanity, its dignity and its power reflected in the text of Vatican II in a number of ways. I will limit myself to a brief citation from Gaudium et Spes, the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World:

All things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown… For government officials who must … promote the universal good are very greatly dependent on public opinion and feeling.

Feelings, nothing more than feelings. Never mind the Sovereignty of Christ the King and objective moral and doctrinal truths!

These are the seeds of the full-blown globalism of today; this is the theology in which Bergoglio was formed. 

As we speak here in 2023, we know all too well where the will of the people as the supposed basis of the authority of government leads: 

It leads to a world in which a cabal of wealthy, powerful, global elites put themselves in a position to dictate what human rights are, who enjoys them and who doesn’t. This is what brought about legalized abortion, transgender mutilation surgery, and gay marriage.

These same globalist elites have assumed the authority to dictate what is required in order to enjoy certain freedoms, like freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, the freedom to refuse participation in medical experimentation, e.g., forced vaccination, digital IDs, and even the right to worship Almighty God.

But what does the Church teach? All authority comes from God, and this authority – all of it – has been given to Christ the King.  

This being so, no support for the Universal Declaration on Human Rights can be found in the magisterium of Pope Pius XII. By contrast, every single one of the conciliar claimants to the papacy have publicly lauded the UDHR, Francis included. At this, I’d like to share a quote that makes Occupied Rome’s support for globalism perfectly plain:

To bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority. 

We must admit, at least Jorge is forthright about his globalist leanings, right? One small matter, however, the quote above did not come from Bergoglio but rather from Benedict XVI.

As mentioned, Francis isn’t original, he’s simply following the conciliar path more quickly and more aggressively than his predecessors. 

Let’s consider another quote, in this case, one that is 100% correct:  

“If no one power can enforce order, our world will suffer from a global order deficit.”

So much for the will of the people! But who said it? 

One might imagine, and for good reason, that it was a holy pope like Pius XI, who wrote so eloquently about the Kingship of Christ in Quas Primas.  That, however, would be incorrect.

Those words were written by Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum, in his book, COVID-19: The Great Reset (pg. 105).

And so, here we are: Most of the world is convinced that the counterfeit church in Rome is the Catholic Church, which having renounced the Sovereign Rights of Christ the King has conspired to create a global order deficit. 

Who will fill it?

If Francis, the counterfeit pope of the counterfeit church, has his way, it will not be Our Lord Jesus Christ but, rather, the globalist elite that he serves so well. 

Judge them, O God. Let them fall from their devices: according to the multitude of their wickedness cast them out: for they have provoked thee, O Lord. – Psalm 5:10

This brings us to the Abu Dahbi declaration and the blasphemous notion that all religions are willed by God.

This is a direct fruit of Dignitatis Humanae, the Declaration on Religious Liberty of Vatican II:

The right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right. (DH 2)

The true doctrine of the Church is that the false religions and the practice thereof have no right, i.e., no one has the right to reject the true religion established by Christ. That said, the false religions can at times be tolerated in society by those who possess authentic authority, and then only to avoid a greater evil. This approach can be summed up in the familiar expression, “Error has no rights.” 

At Vatican II, however, it is said that the inspired word of God itself makes known that religious freedom – regardless of truthfulness or falsehood, piety or offensiveness – is a human right. 

Where do authentic human rights come from? They come from God, of course. 

If what the Council professes is true, namely, that God grants to mankind the right to reject the true religion in favor of a false religion, then it is a very small step to say that God, therefore, must will the false religions themselves. 

Again, let it be said that Francis is not making it up as he goes along, he’s simply ushering Vatican Council II to its logical conclusion. 

Finally, we turn our attention to Amoris Laetitia.

The Epistle reading for this past Sunday, the Third Sunday of Lent, contains words that speak to this text brilliantly:

For know you this and understand: That no fornicator or unclean or covetous person (which is a serving of idols) hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words. (Eph 5)

Vain words, some 60,000 of them, can be found in Amoris Laetitia, an act of deception that endorses fornication, uncleanness and covetousness in a way never before seen in the sordid history of the conciliar counterfeit church. We will focus on just one brief excerpt from paragraph 303 alone: 

The conscience of those in irregular situations [another way of referring to those persisting in adultery] can recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God … 

Let’ stop here for the moment to consider what Jorge just did. He is essentially taking Our Lord’s condemnation of the Pharisees for heaping impossible burdens upon the people and turning it around, pointing an accusing finger at Our Lord, indicting Him of doing the same. He is saying that the Divine Law is at times too difficult for some to keep. In other words, he is accusing God of being unjust!

If this were not horrifying enough, he went on to state:

[This conscience] can come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits. 303

NB: Francis is saying that God wills objective sin! 

This is an unimaginable outrage, and it seems like an unprecedented outrage, but it’s not.

Remember what we observed about the Declaration on Religious Liberty: It suggests that man has the right to embrace, practice, and disseminate whatever false religion he may choose, over and against the true religion, and furthermore, this right is rooted in Divine Revelation itself. If this be so, one cannot but imagine that God Himself must will the multitude of religions. 

This supposed right to objective evil, however, goes directly against the First Commandment:

Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me.

If God truly does grant mankind the right to break the First Commandment, and even at times wills as much, then why not the Sixth Commandment forbidding adultery, or any other Commandment for that matter?

In conclusion, as we look back on the Bergoglian Reign of Terror over the past ten years, let’s not lose sight of the fact that Francis – like John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI – is a man of the Council, nothing more and nothing less. The only difference is that he is more dedicated to the conciliar cause, and exercises more integrity, than the men who came before him.