Recent public opinion polls by Pew Research Center show the whole world adores Pope Francis. His relentless outreach campaign to other religions with his all-inclusive message that everyone goes to heaven, including atheists, is resonating with almost everyone. See my previous post: Pope Francis Claims Atheists Go to Heaven.
Public opinion ratings for Pope Francis were very favorable right from the start of his Papacy in March 2013, but a new survey conducted Feb 18-22, 2015 shows his favorable ratings have improved among every group measured.
The most amazing finding from the recent survey is the skyrocketing growth of his favorable ratings among the unchurched. Two years ago 39% of them rated his favorably. Now, just two years later, that number has almost doubled to 68%! It makes sense considering he is telling the world exactly what they have always wanted to hear, that they are all going to heaven regardless of what they believe.
- Among Catholics his favorable ratings increased from 84% to 90%.
- Among White Mainline Protestants his favorable ratings increased from 65% to 74%.
- Among White Evangelical Protestants his favorable ratings increased from 59% to 60%.
- As stated above, among the unchurched his favorable ratings increased from 39% to 68%.
Unfortunately for Pope Francis, his all-inclusive message directly contradicts the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus plainly stated most people are not going to make it to heaven.
Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it. (Matthew 7:13-14)
Unlike Pope Francis, Jesus was not trying to be popular. He was trying to help people find the way to eternal life. Pope Francis appears to have a very different agenda.
His strong favorability ratings lay the groundwork for his first Papal visit to the United States in September 2015. While he is here he plans to speak to the United Nations, to a joint session of the United States Congress, and to President Obama at the White House. His visit coincides with the end of the seventh Shemita year, the fourth and final blood moon, and the fall equinox. Many Christian believe there will be a global economic collapse at that time. As if all of that was not weird enough, now we have the Pope visiting at the same time.
Author
There is a priest in Ireland that refutes the authenticity of the ‘legality’ of this Pope. His name is Fr Paul Kramer. He states that he has done years of research to identify the infiltration of the Church going back to the introduction of the doctrine of gnosticism, modernity, Jesuits, and freemasonry. He studied in Rome and is quite grounded in the hierarchy of the Church, yet he claims that this Pope is apostate and teaching against Church doctrines. He has written a book , but I don’t recall what it is, or actually if it has been released.
Pope Francis and his connection with the number “13”.
Pope Francis was named after St Francis a 13th Century saint.
Pope Francis elected 13th March 2013
Reduce (add up) the election date = 1+3+0+3+2+0+1+3 = 13
He was elected 13 days after Benedict Resigns
Pope Francis first appeared at 6 minutes past 7 )Italian time) = 13
Age of Pope at the time of election 76 = 7+6 = 13
Total number of Occult numbers at time of Conclave = 13 + 13 + 13 + 13 + 13 +13 +13
6 minutes past 7 = 66 minutes past 6 = 666 He appeared in public 12 minutes past 8 Italian time 66 minutes later again.
“Billowing white smoke appeared from the chimney over the Sistine chapel at 7:06 p.m signalling that the new Pope had been elected” Common English = 669 Reduced 6+6+9 = 21 (7+7+7)
13 days before Pope Francis visited the Holy land he ordained 13 priests.
http://obama793.com/2013/11/04/the-roman-catholic-church-is-satanic-to-the-core/
Dear PJB
Both Augusto Perez and Neville Johnson have both raised concerns about a NEW WORLD ORDER church, that will not be Christian. It will be a mish mash of every religion.
Should the Pope Francis be part of it then the answer is clear, STAY WELL CLEAR because it is definitely not a move of God but rather a move of Satan .
I wait with interest as to what happens. It appears to me that POPE FRANCIS is pushing a MULTIFAITH agenda and that worries me greatly.
We will see what happens . James concerns I believe are valid, but we need to await confirmation.
Phil – Sydney
Kudos to you for your open-mindedness about all this! Regarding Antonio Socci, he is an intelligent writer who has done some quality work (particularly concerning the Fatima secrets), but in the case of his latest book “Non e Francesco” his arguments seem pretty strained from what I have gathered (I’m working off the author’s own summary http://www.antoniosocci.com/libri/non-e-francesco/, not the entire book as I haven’t read it). My personal sense is that Socci is very much aware of the prophetic tradition that anticipates an anti-Pope and that concern with some of Pope Francis’s remarks has driven him actively to look for evidence to invalidate Francis’s papacy. So I’m not sure that we’re dealing with a ‘value-neutral’ inquiry here.
Socci’s basic argument seems to be twofold:
a) he questions the validity of Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation
b) according to the report of Argentinian journalist Elisabetta Piqué, there was a technical glitch during the conclave when one cardinal mistakenly put it two ballots (one being blank) instead of one. When this was discovered they burned the papers and immediately proceded to a re-vote the same evening. This, contends Socci, violated canon law which provides for four votes per day (the re-vote being the fifth).
Subsequent to the publication of Non e Francesco, a rebuttal appeared written by canon lawyer Giancarlo Cerrelli
http://www.lanuovabq.it/it/articoli–francescoparola-di-canonista-10544.htm
to which Socci replied on his blog, maintaining his objections:
http://www.antoniosocci.com/2014/10/il-conclave-non-e-una-grigliata-fra-amici-risposta-alle-obiezioni-dei-miei-critici-sul-conclave-del-2013-restano-tutti-i-dubbi-sullelezione-di-bergoglio/
My own view is that if Antonio Socci really thinks that this kind of technicality invalids Pope Francis’s election, which as Cerrelli points out was universally accepted (including by those who elected him), then ideological factors have gained the upper hand over logic in his analysis.
A second formal rebuttal of Socci’s argumentation re. the conclave vote has since appeared in English translation, dated Jan 5, 2015 in the web column of Sandro Magister (one of the most authoritative Vatican journalists) by Bologna Canon Lawyer Geraldina Boni:
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350961?eng=y
The question of the validity of Pope Benedict’s resignation, however, is unfortunately harder to settle objectively as conspiracy theorists will always be able to contend that he was forced into it by the ‘wolves’ in the Vatican (whose existence nobody doubts, of course) and then secretly blackmailed into making public statements that he resigned of his own free will. This kind of argument is virtually ‘unfalsifiable’, being impossible to prove or disprove (the less evidence there is, the more devious the conspiracy;))). One strong argument against it however is the close relationship that Benedict and Francis appear to have – issuing for example in a jointly written encyclical. Looks pretty genuine to me … but everyone has to judge that for themselves.
Thank you for that excellent explanation. It is a very important point because if Pope Francis was elected legally then the prophecy of Saint Francis must be referring to someone who comes later.
The second area of confusion is the question of the alleged prophecies of St Francis and St Malachy, which are fraught with multiple issues:
i) there is no guarantee of the authorship of either of them. The one sometimes attributed to Francis is considered by many to be spurious, while that attributed to Malachy only surfaced around 1590 in material penned by the Benedictine monk Arnold Wion. In addition, mapping the Popes with Malachy’s epithets doesn’t produce uniformly convincing results in all cases, so there is more than a little doubt as to the purported accuracy of this so-called prophecy
However, even if they are both authentic …
a) that of ‘St Francis’ clearly refers to ‘a man, not canonically elected’ who will become Pope. This cannot be Pope Francis who WAS canonically elected. Mark Mallett has written about this in detail with great clarity:
http://www.markmallett.com/blog/the-prophecy-of-st-francis/
b) that of Malachy casts no negative light on the supposed final pope: all he says is
“In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church there will reign Peter the Roman, who will feed his flock amid many tribulations, after which the seven-hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people. The End.”
c) it is difficult to see how the two are compatible with each other
So there is nothing here in the actual texts to justify the ‘Pope Francis as final [and false] Pope’ line of argument, whatever the likes of Tom Horn may say …
You make some very good points, but I think you might be dismissing Pope Francis too quickly from being the one who fulfills the prophecy of St. Francis because there are doubts about whether or not his election was legitimate. The issue concerns the resignation of Pope Benedict, which might have been invalid. This case is presented in a book by Antonio Socci called “Non È Francesco: La Chiesa Nella Grande Tempesta”. Here is a link to an article about it: http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/non-e-francesco-socci.htm. I would like to know what you think about this. I have not read his book yet, or the one you recommended, but hope to study this topic further. So for now I am only exposing reasons why Pope Francis might be the false prophet, but have not yet been able to make a conclusion. I appreciate your insights!
Apologies for continuing to push back on your blog (please throw me off if you feel I am abusing your hospitality), but having looked at the material in this thread, there really is substantial confusion here which requires clarification. Let me try to take this point by point:
i) regarding the question of heaven and atheists, what Pope Francis said in the original Italian is the following:
Il Signore ha redento tutti noi, tutti noi, con il Sangue di Cristo: tutti noi, non solo i cattolici. Tutti! ‘Padre, gli atei?’ Anche gli atei. Tutti! Siamo stati creati da bambini a somiglianza di Dio e il Sangue di Cristo ha redento tutti noi! E tutti noi abbiamo il dovere di fare del bene. E questo comandamento per tutti di fare del bene, penso, è un bel sentiero verso la pace. Se ognuno di noi fa la sua parte, se facciamo del bene agli altri, se ci incontriamo lì, facendo del bene, e noi andiamo lentamente, con dolcezza, a poco a poco, faremo quella cultura dell’incontro: abbiamo bisogno di quel tanto. Dobbiamo incontrarci per fare il bene. ‘Ma io non ci credo, padre, io sono un ateo ! ‘ Ma facciamo del bene: ci incontreremo là.
The confusion has occurred largely because his final words “Ma facciamo del bene: ci incontreremo là” (But let us do good: we will meet each other there) have been taken as referring to paradise (I saw the word “paradiso” added editorially in square brackets in Italian in one source!). But nothing in the context implies this: the ‘culture of encounter’ (“cultura dell’incontro”) of which he is speaking would seem to refer to the this-worldly meeting-point between Christians and non-Christians who share a common human obligation to do good.
As Fr Dwight Longenecker pointed out in an insightful commentary (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2013/05/did-pope-francis-preach-salvation-by-works.html), the other interpretative error is in failing to make the distinction between redemption (i.e. Christ’s sacrifice) and salvation (dependent on our response). In saying that Christ died for absolutely all human beings, Pope Francis was simply re-iterating classic Catholic – and general Christian unless one is a strict five-point TULIP Calvinist – doctrine. The current Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 605) puts it this way:
‘The Church, following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men without exception: “There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer.”
In his much-quoted but widely misinterpreted words to Eugenio Scalfari, the Pope made it clear that God’s mercy knows no bounds BUT is predicated on repentance – note the word ‘IF’ here
“You ask me if the God of the Christians forgives those who don’t believe and who don’t seek the faith. I start by saying – and this is the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart.
In other words, the problem with the media reporting is essentially a lack of theological understanding (coupled IMHO with a widespread desire to annex Pope Francis for a liberal agenda based on secular humanism, plus a certain lack of precision in the Pope’s own statements which is the flipside of his spontaneity). He’s not teaching universalism here, even if many would like him to.
Regarding his statement that atheists can go to heaven, I believe you are venturing into irrelevant topics attempting to do damage control for statements that are beyond recovery because he clearly contradicts the Bible. “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not the result of works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9). Faith is the key requirement for receiving God’s gift of salvation. The idea that an atheist, who has zero faith, can still be saved by doing good, is absurd. It does not matter what he meant by meeting in the middle, whether it was Paradise or anywhere else. I believe you have missed the point because you are failing to respect the authority of the scriptures. You are attempting to complicate a very simple issue in the hopes of justifying a very misguided man, but this is not complicated. It is simple and clear. Regarding your second point about the difference between redemption and salvation, I agree with you these are two different things. However, his comments on this topic are unrelated to his statement that atheists go to heaven and does not explain or justify that outrageous lie. Putting his two statements together reveals what he meant when he said “God’s mercy has no limits.” No wonder his message resonates with the world. He is telling everyone what they have always wanted to hear. Unfortunately, it is a lie.
Your whole article is based that Pope Francis stated everyone goes to heaven. He never stated that and never will. Papa Francis does reach out to sinners…in the same way Jesus taught us. So, please stop writing negatively about the messenger.. he is only doing his pastorial duty. Prove to me one action or deed that has gone against Catholic Teaching.
You will see the Holy Father is more traditional then you might think.
Brother al
He said even atheists go to heaven, which is the same thing as saying everyone goes to heaven. How he lines up with Catholic tradition is not important to me because the only standard for discerning whether or not he is speaking the truth is the Bible. Unfortunately, by that standard he is way off the mark. To see a direct quote of what he said please see my previous post: https://z3news.com/w/pope-francis-claims-atheists-go-to-heaven/
I’m not pushing an agenda here. I’m all in favour of sounding the Biblical alarm about the false prophet, but what I am cautioning against is identifying individual candidates prematurely on the basis of evidence which is far from irrefutable. If you wish to address the concrete points I raised above in a rational and responsible fashion please go ahead.
The problem here is not merely the quotes (of which there aren’t actually that many on this blog) but their selectivity (what about all the other things he has said, for example his outspoken support for persecuted Christians, his open references to spiritual warfare, his lambasting of corruption in the Roman Curia?) and the underlying narrative of suspicion into which these snippets are being woven. For example, the fact that Pope Francis has been undertaking substantive inter-religious dialogue absolutely does NOT necessarily equate with amalgamating all religions into one, for the simple reason that it is perfectly possible to dialogue out of love with people with whom we disagree profoundly, without compromising our own convictions. To assert that Pope Francis is putting into motion a One World Religion by doing this is to make a huge logical jump: it’s simply the commentator’s interpretation (with which the reader may or may not agree: I simply happen not to).
By the way, I may have mentioned that Pope Francis has been inviting people to read Robert Hugh Benson’s ‘Lord of the World’, a fiction from 1907 warning people about … the Antichrist in the figure of ‘Felsenburgh’ whose agenda is to replace the worship of God by the worship of man.
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/the-lord-of-the-world
Does this novel sound like something that the False Prophet would be promoting? Seriously? Or might it just be the case that – horror of horrors – you and Pope Francis might actually be on the same (good) team against the Real Enemy?
Vigilance, yes. Obedience to the Lord’s command – absolutely. But let’s not tilt at windmills…
His support from evangelical leaders is irrelevant. That is like saying Obama cannot be the antichrist because many Christians voted for him. All that proves is he succeeded in deceiving them. Leaders are just as prone to error as anyone else. Each of us must study the Bible for ourself because we will be held accountable for our own actions regardless of what anyone else says. Both the antichrist and the false prophet will hide their identity with lies and deception. Otherwise no one would follow them. So the fact that they do a good deed here and there proves nothing. The fact that Pope Francis agrees with many Catholic teachings is irrelevant. None of your previous points are relevant to the topic of whether or not he is a candidate for false prophet. My posts have documented plenty of evidence to qualify Pope Francis as a strong candidate for the false prophet. Please see my previous post: “Ten Disturbing Facts About Pope Francis” https://z3news.com/w/ten-disturbing-facts-pope-francis/
I have said this before, but will re-iterate it: great discernment is required before citing anything circulating on the internet that Pope Francis is reported to have said – on closer inspection much of it turns out to be based on shoddy journalism at best, manipulative reporting intended to push an agenda at worst. If people would take the time for responsible study of his official material (encyclicals, sermons) rather than just listening to the soundbites, a very different picture emerges from the one that is being spread by the mass media.
Before stating some objections to the view fashionable in some circles that Pope Francis may be the False Prophet, a word of contextualization. What is absolutely certain is that there is a life-and-death power struggle going on within Catholicism at the moment, being driven in large part by a powerful Freemasonic lobby – partly operating in collaboration with the Italian Mafia – which has been in existence for at least 50 years now. Its aim is nothing less than the piece-by-piece dismantling of Christian doctrine and its replacement by a One World Religion that will basically be secular humanism dressed up in pseudo-religious vocabulary. Catholic prophetic circles have been sounding the alarm about this for decades on the basis of a huge amount (and I’m talking hundreds of pages in various languages) of prophetic material on the subject, at least some of which has been taken very seriously right at the top of the Catholic Church, notably by John Paul II and a number of senior cardinals. The expectation in these circles is absolutely coherent with that prophesied by Terry Bennett and Neville Johnson among other non-Catholic prophetic ministers, namely that there will be a schism within Catholicism, that Rome will apostasize and that a false pope will indeed usher in the Antichrist.
Thus far the prophetic sources seem to be convergent as to what lies ahead. The problem comes when trying to identify WHICH Pope will be the one to do the foul deed … and here I would argue strongly, as an independent theological researcher solely concerned with truth and not a Vatican troll, that there are a number of factors suggesting that Pope Francis is NOT the man:
i) the prophecies in question predict that the apostate pope will make wholesale changes to Christian doctrine (not merely tweaking questions of Canon Law such as allowing married men to be ordained to the priesthood, or permitting Communion for remarried divorcees, which are the current subjects on the agenda). There is nothing in Pope Francis’s writings or background to suggest that this is is his game plan – although it certainly IS that of some revisionist theologians in his entourage, which is where attention arguably needs to be focused. Although much ink has been spilled – including by some Catholic ultra-conservatives – regarding the attempted progressive putsch at the 2014 Vatican synod on the family, which was both real and blatant, it cannot be fairly said that the Pope himself gave the progressives unequivocal support. He certainly allowed them to present their views (which may well turn out to have been a strategic mistake), but he also then counterbalanced them by appointing a number of uncompromising theological conservatives to the Synod committee.
ii) there is also nothing in his background to suggest that he is or has ever been part of the Masonic lobby (to whose existence he has referred in a negative light, just as he has that of the ‘gay lobby’), although there is a great deal of evidence that some high-ranking Cardinals are aligned with it. In 2014 a very prominent Italian ex-Mafioso turned police collaborator and anti-Mafia activist publicly stated that one of these Cardinals is actively attempting to manipulate Pope Francis.
iii) those charismatic Evangelical leaders who have actually met him in person (I’m thinking of John and Carol Arnott of Toronto ‘Catch the Fire’, Kenneth Copeland and the late Tony Palmer) have had an extremely favourable impression. Why their word as senior ministers should carry less weight than that of bloggers operating on the basis of media speculation is a mystery to me. It should be emphasized that Pope Francis’s strong links to Evangelicals are nothing new: the idea that this is some kind of disingenous charm offensive is extremely flimsy, given that he already had excellent relations with Latin American Protestants as Cardinal Bergoglio in Buenos Aires, for example sending bishops to the Alpha leadership conference.
iv) there is a substantial amount of IMHO credible Catholic prophecy (French, Italian, Portuguese, Croatian and English-language sources) which implies that Pope Francis is not batting for the Enemy.
All this is simply a plea for responsibility: please take great care before implying that ANY individual, let alone a Christian leader, may be the Biblical False Prophet. Given the gravity of the accusation, those making such charges may find them rebounding against them should they be mistaken. At the moment the internet is awash with poorly-researched quotations, highly questionable Biblical interpretation, much overt speculation … and precious little genuine revelation.
Watch and pray!!!
Every quote from Pope Francis reported on this blog is exactly what he said, so please don’t shoot the messenger for accurately reporting the facts. People who cannot accept the facts are promoting their own agenda. Regarding the false prophet, the Bible warns us to watch and be on the alert (Matthew 24:42-44, Matthew 25:13, 1 Thessalonians 5:5-6). So it is wise to do as the Lord has instructed. Pope Francis is a very strong candidate for the false prophet, who will lead millions of people to their destruction. So it pleases the Lord to sound the alarm because He loves people and does not want them to be destroyed. Obedience to the Lord’s commandments always brings persecution, and in this case you are the one persecuting God’s people, which means you are taking sides against the Lord.
Roman Catholic religion is a MIXTURE of Truth and lies………God loves PURITY……….the OT says “dont plant 2 crops in the same field,,,,dont wear a shirt woven of 2 different threads”…….a foreshadow of Spiritual PURITY…..
Pope means papa (daddy, father) in italian language……..He tries to convince us that we are his spiritual children……and he is our spiritual father………he is big,,,,,,,we are little……..But the Bible says “we’re all brethren. Call no man on earth Father”……..
I thank the Lord for opening my eyes and delivering me from the catholic church. I recently had a discussion about only praying to Jesus with my mom and we ended up talking about praying on our deathbed. I told her I’ll be asking Jesus to forgive my sins and she said I should be saying the Hail Mary. She’s 82 and doesn’t know I don’t go the catholic church anymore. I don’t want to be responsible for her having a heart attack and there is no way she’d ever leave the catholic church. I do wonder why the Holy Spirit opened my eyes to the truth but not other members of my family (except for a cousin).
Matthew 10:35-37 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
In the dark days ahead, I wonder how many will be turned over by their own family……..