DEVIL RESIDES IN THE VATICAN, PARADED BY FRANCIS, LEO, GIELEN

 

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X. Protestants please don't waste your breath on this one. It's above your pay grade.

Robert Prevost ('Pope Leo XIV') at Castelgandolfo for his "Mass of Creation", wearing Bergoglio's satanic Bernardin cross


   

Jorge Bergoglio displays the cross he inherited from Cardinal Joseph Bernardin 

Bishop Michael Gielen at his Episcopal Ordination kitted out in a lei and what looks very like the satanic pectoral cross of Joseph Cardinal Bernardin 

Jorge Mario Bergoglio's successor and protege, Chicagoan Robert Prevost (aka Pope Leo XIV) is quite simply Bergoglio Mk II. He can be identified as such not only by his advancement of the preposterous, non-Catholic, heretical Modernist agenda of his predecessor, but by wearing the satanic pectoral cross of the infamous Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, also of Chicago, which Prevost inherited from Bergoglio. And lo and behold, looks like Bishop Michael Gielen of Christchurch, New Zealand, wears it too.    

You'd think butter wouldn't melt in his mouth. But in July 2024 baby-faced Bishop  Gielen cancelled the priestly faculties of NZ's first and only home-grown, traditional order, the Transalpine Redemptorists (FSSR), expelled them from his diocese and called in the Bergoglian Vatican to back him up. 

The Vatican complied and Gielen followed its 'recommendations' without reading its report. To this day the only reason Gielen has advanced for expelling the FSSR was the specious "Paddy Gower Has Issues" doco, produced by a hardline, foul-mouthed socialist who'd fastened on disaffected FSSR congregants' allegations of 'illicit exorcisms'. The fact that the FSSR was flourishing while Gielen was 'consolidating' parishes flat out had nothing to do with it. Of course not.  

Presumably the Vatican's report was made known to Jorge Bergoglio, aka Pope Francis (although he rejected the title "Vicar of Christ" and preferred ever so 'umbly to be called "Bishop of Rome"). 

Bergoglio died the following year (April 2025), in an elevator, without the Sacraments. After his death was pronounced the attendant clergy stood around saying nervously, "should we pray the Rosary?" 

Prominent 'Trad Inc' clergy, and some of the Catholic commentariat can't fathom why the Bergoglian agenda should have Prevost, Gielen and the Church herself in its Machiavellian toils. 

Exorcists Fr. Malachi Martin (bestselling author, former aide to John XXIII and onetime professor at the Vatican’s Pontifical Biblical Institute) and Fr Gabriel Amorth can explain, and what it boils down to, simply put, is Satan - aided and abetted by Angelo Guiseppe Roncalli (John XXIII) and Giovanni Montini (Paul VI). 

Idolatry in the Bergoglian Vatican

Fr Martin testified that the devil was secretly enthroned in St Peter's on June 29, 1963. What was done in secret was then done in public, with the enthronement of the demonic Pachamama idol in St. Peter's and the Mystical Spouse of Christ, the Church, is now suffering her Passion as a consequence of these acts of sacrilege.

"

It was done one particular day by a certain group of people representing Luciferians all over the world, especially American Luciferians. It was done. Therefore, in a certain sense, Lucifer has power. He doesn't own yet, but I'm sure he hopes to own some Pope as his man"

Father Brian Harrison O S explains further:

In the last decade of Malachi Martin's life (he died in 1999) I became a personal friend of his.  In the section headed "1963" in the Prologue of Windswept House, we read that this shocking ceremony, enthroning "the Fallen Archangel Lucifer" in the Chapel of St. Paul, took place on June 29, 1963, the Feast of SS. Peter and Paul, the eve of the coronation of the newly elected Pope Paul VI. 

It celebrated gloatingly the long-prepared-for arrival of a pope more open to liberal changes than any of his predecessors.

This blasphemous act of devilry coordinated with a corresponding ceremony on the American side of the Atlantic one day later. It took place the night after Paul's VI's coronation in St. Peter's Square on the afternoon of Sunday, June 30. Malachi told me it was indeed carried out in the Chapel of St. Paul, as Windswept House (Martin's celebrated 'factional' book - ed) says, and began at midnight on the night of June 30 / July 1, 1963. 

Fr. Martin also told me the Satanic act became known because one of its participants repented a decade or so later on his deathbed and confessed this grave sin. The Roman priest hearing his confession told him he had a grave obligation to allow this shocking sacrilege to be made known to the Supreme Pontiff, in order for a re-consecration of the Pauline Chapel to be made. 

Accordingly, he told the penitent he could not absolve him unless the latter gave him permission to make this shocking event known to higher ecclesial authority. The penitent did so, and Fr. Martin told me he later learned the whole story through his Vatican connections.  Hopefully, there was a re-consecration of the chapel; but if so it would of course have been carried out in strict secrecy in order to avoid scandal.

Malachi Martin was telling me what he believed to be the truth about the Luciferian Enthronement, the date on which it historically took place, and the way he came to know about it. For I find it hard to imagine him making a Mass intention part of a conscious lie that he had fabricated. https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/5379-the-1963-vatican-enthronement-of-lucifer-a-windswept-house-update

 

Fr. Malachi Martin has been proven right about his warning of apostasy in the Church, as brazenly displayed by Francis' declarations of religious indifferentism, defiance of God's mandate of capital punishment, acceptance of sodomy and equivocations about abortion. Due to the acquiescence of the vast majority of clergy, such heresies are hardly noticed any longer and are white-washed on social media by 'popesplainers'.

Fr Malachi Martin asserted that the catastrophe now devastating the Church has its origins in Pope John XXIII's refusal to obey the request of Our Lady that he reveal the Third Secret of Fatima no later than 1960.

Father Gabriele Amorth, the exorcist for the Diocese of Rome has stated that "the devil resides in the Vatican". And after his 70,000 exorcisms, often repeated on the same persons, he should know. https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2025/08/satan-is-in-vatican-of-francis-said.html

In 2001 Fr Amorth said that "the Holy Spirit... governs the Church:  the gates of hell shall not prevail. Despite the defections. And despite the betrayals. Of course, the devil can win some battles, even important ones. But he can never win the war.".

Bishop José Correia da Silva
with the sealed 3rd Secret in 1948

When Sister Lucia of Fatima gave the Third Secret to her bishop, +José Correia da Silva, she told him that he could read it and make it known but he refused. Instead, he ordered the sealed document to be kept in the safe of the Episcopal curia.

In 1967 Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, pro-prefect of the Holy Office, stated: “The message was not to be opened before 1960. I asked Sister Lucy, ‘Why this date?’ She answered, ‘Because then it will seem clearer’” (Doc. Cath. March 19, 1967, col. 542). According to the will of the Most Holy Virgin, only the Holy Father and the Bishop of Fatima are permitted to know the secret, but they have chosen to not know it so that they would not be influenced. Thus the third part of the message of Our Lady will remain secret until 1960.”

In 1960 Pope John XXIII gave the then-incomprehensible message in direct contradiction to the command of Mother of God: “Questo non è per i nostri tempi.” [“This matter is not for our times.”]

Cardinal Oddi confessed to the magazine 30 Giorni: “The Secret of Fatima contains a sad prophecy about the Church and, for this reason Pope John did not divulge it. And neither have Paul VI or John Paul II. It seems to me that what is basically written is that the Pope would convene a Council in 1960 which, contrary to expectations, would indirectly result in many difficulties for the Church.” 

 Antonio Socci, who in 2002 had rejected critiques in traditionalist sectors that charged Cardinal Bertone with not fully revealing the Third Secret, publicly changed his position after a long, solid investigation on the topic.

Socci's book asserts the Vatican did not reveal the original manuscript

In his book, The Fourth Secret of Fatima, Antonio Socci  proves the existence of two manuscripts and concludes that the one published by the Vatican in 2000 is not complete. What is missing is the words of the Virgin explaining the vision published by the Vatican. 

It warns in apocalyptic terms about the loss of the faith in the Church from Vatican Council II on (The Fourth Secret, Rizzoli, 2006, pp. 139-154).

In an interview with Solideo Paolini, Archbishop Loris Capovilla, secretary of John XXIII,

Doubts grow about the secret released by Cardinals Bertone and Ratzinger in 2000

 affirmed that one thing was the manuscript of the Third Secret, and another was what was published in 2000 by Cardinal Bertone, which he simply called the “Bertone document.”

"nothing can bear fruit for the good of the Church – of our Church – until we leave the roads that lead to the rejection of the message of the Mother of God at Fatima"

The late Cardinal Silvio Oddi, one of the last conservatives in the Roman Curia, affirms that Vatican II was the fulfillment of the Third Secret of Fatima: a Revolution in the Church.

"The prophecy of Fatima was completely defied! It is a lack of sense, I would say, because according to the interpretation that seems to me most worthy of consideration, the Third Secret - which John XXIII and his successors thought inopportune to reveal - is not about a supposed conversion of Russia, still far from becoming a reality, but regards the 'revolution' in the Catholic Church.

From a Council convened to throw light on the beauty and profundity of the Christian mystery by presenting the Church as the spouse of Christ, according to the beautiful words of the same Pope John XXIII, so many innovations were born that they appear to constitute a true internal revolution. (Silvio Oddi, Il Tenero Mastino di Dio, Rome: Progetto Museali Editore, 1995, p. 217-218).

 traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_052_Oddi_CCL_Fatima.htm

In April of this year Dr. Josef Seifert, regarded as one of the greatest living Catholic philosophers, founding Rector of the International Academy of Philosopher & friend of John Paul II, pleaded before the papal conclave, with the Cardinals: INVESTIGATE FRANCIS' HERESIES, VALIDITY BEFORE THE CONCLAVE.."If Francis is found guilty of heresy or apostasy, then: - His cardinal appointments would be invalid."

 St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:

“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.”
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said “the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church.”

Almighty God permitted the Church to be stricken with the disobedience and destruction of Vatican II as punishment for the covenant breaking by Roncalli.

"What is in the Third Secret of Fatima is, essentially, the onslaught of natural powers...terrible catastrophes, chastisements, and that's not the essence of the 3rd secret; it’s not the frightening one.

 "This will fill up the confessionals on Saturday evening. It will fill up the churches with worshippers striking their breasts."

"I consider Fatima to be the key event in the declining fortune of the Roman Catholic  Church in the third millennium, the defining event... 

"To the UN, Pope John Paul II said, 'I am a member of humanity.' This is no longer Pius IX and Pius X (who said) 'I am the vicar of Christ.' Completely absent is the Kingship of Christ" (Fr Malachi Martin).

Satan's enthronement in the Vatican, the Pachamama and the mass apostasy attendant upon Vatican II - especially clerical sodomy, the false ecumenism masking the heresy of indifferentism - the persecution of the Old Rite, the Traditional Latin Mass and traditional orders, like the Transalpine Redemptorists' expulsion from Christchurch Diocese are manifestations of God's anger. It's divine chastisement for the conciliar popes' disobedience to His Mother, the Most Holy Virgin. 

Confess your sins. Pray the Rosary. GO TO MASS, the Traditional Latin Mass if you can. Make reparation like there's no tomorrow. Because there may not be a tomorrow.

Lord God Almighty, have mercy on us

Addendum:

Bergoglio's differing versions of the Bernardin satanic cross*

The strange pectoral cross of the Bishops of Rome

Above left, you see the pectoral cross of Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires; at right, his cross after he was elected Pope or Bishop of Rome, as he insists on being called. Several things are strange about these crosses that invite speculation:

1. It is not uncommon for religious authorities to leave off the image of Our Lord Crucified on their pectoral crosses. However, even when they do so, implicitly it is clear that their crosses symbolize the Crucified Christ, the Redeemer who by His death canceled the guilt of Original Sin and re-opened the road of salvation. Further, the fact that those prelates wear their crosses on their chests, close to their hearts, means that they are proud disciples of the Crucified, ready to shed their blood for Him.

The cross of Pope Bergoglio makes a point of denying this truth. On his cross he pictures the figure of the Good Shepherd, as if he were saying, "I do not believe in Original Sin and, therefore, there was no redemption from it." This would correspond to the progressisivt theory that pretends Original Sin was a myth invented by the Church to explain a primitive stage of mankind in the universal evolution.

2. The shape of the cross is not that of a traditional cross. The crossing of the two beams is not defined, but spread out. It does not look like a symbol of the torment He suffered, but a simple metal plaque with a sculpture. Again, it sends the message that Pope Francis is not comfortable with being a representative of Our Lord Crucified.

3.  On the plaque a dove representing the Holy Spirit is also shown descending from heaven over the flock and the Good Shepherd. One does not find any mention in Scripture of a scene where the Holy Spirit comes down directly over the flock. More likely it is an allusion to the Protestant-Pentecostal theory that claims God does not need the Catholic Hierarchy, but gives His orientation to the flock by a direct action of the Holy Spirit.

No need to say that it also implicitly denies the role of the Pope, who according to Catholic Faith, is the Vicar of Christ on earth, who is the one called to govern and teach the flock.

4. The metal of the cross is a cheap one. The different colors of the two crosses suggest that Bergoglio has more than one cross with the same symbols in different metals. His cross as a cardinal, at left, looks like a blend of brass; the second one he wears as Pope, at right, looks like either a blend of iron or pewter.

In both cases, what is clear is his rejection of the gold and precious stones that normally are used for pectoral crosses. It is a symbolic affirmation that the Church must not be rich. This is part of the miserablist thesis affirming that, after the Church left the Catacombs, she wrongly imitated the world as she bestowed on her dignitaries precious symbols of their missions. By using this cross Pope Francis symbolically affirms that he wants to wipe out this conception and return to the poverty of the times of the Catacombs, before the Church took on these "sins."

This is not a novel or original position. Throughout the History of the Church heretics of diverse origins defended precisely the same thesis. They include the Manicheans in the third century, Mazdah in Persia and the followers of Paulicanism in Armenia in the sixth; Bishop Claudius of Turin and Bishop Agobard of Lyons in the ninth.

Multiple Gnostic sects burgeoned in the Middle Ages, such as the Friends of God in Byzantium, the Dragovitsna church in Bulgaria, both predecessors of the Cathar movement. One of the Cathar branches was called the Poor Men of Lyons, founded by Peter Waldo, which generated the Waldensians and the Albigensians.

The Cathar current defending a Miserablist Church also included movements like the Communiati, the penitential order of the Umiliati, the Patarini, the Apostolic Brethren and the Fraticelli, who enjoyed the support of Michael of Cesana and William of Occam. Many sects that preceded the Pseudo-Reformation are also included in this current, such as the followers of Wycliffe in England, Jan Hus in Bohemia, Savonarola and Campanella in Italy, and Luther and Thomas Munzer in Germany.

These are some of the heretics who defended the same thing that Progressivism upholds regarding the riches of the Church. Now, Pope Francis brings these ideas to center stage, after the way was prepared by the other conciliar Popes. Thus,  a completely different face for the Church is starting to be shaped.

5. The fact that Pope Francis did not choose a new cross, but kept the one he had as Archbishop, seems to reveal that he does not consider the dignity of a Pope to be essentially higher than that of a Bishop. This also is confirmed by his insistence on being called Bishop of Rome, instead of Pope.https://traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A520-Cross.htm

*A savvy reader, 'Michael' comments as follows:

The original crosses, of which Bernardin was given one, were sterling silver, about 4 inch in height. Made by the silver smith Antonio Vedele of Genoa either in the late 1950s or very early '60s. Francis' cross is either one of the originals (from memory thirteen were cast originally). Bergoglio's cross which he wore in Argentina may have been cast later from the same mold. However, sterling silver oxidizes and changes colour so both could be the same cross, just someone cleaned the 'papal' one.

   

atanic-cross-lavender-mafia-j-h.html