Friday, April 18, 2014

The Last Lunch

The Last Lunch
"a priest that over weeks gives antisemitic talks until Jesus, on the cross, looks at the Virgin, 
who was at his side, and says to her, 
'Mom, let's go since they don't like us...'"
- a joke told by Francis -
17 January 2014 

By now most know that on 17 January 2014, Francis had sixteen rabbis over for lunch at the Domus Sanctae Marthae in the Vatican.  What hasn't been reported in the mainstream media but has been written of in the Jewish press are some of the comments made during the kosher meal.  The rabbis in attendance said the meal was a great thing.  Further they joked it seemed it was a 'last lunch' instead of 'The Last Supper'.  Not to be outdone by the rabbis Francis started telling jokes:

I was at the Pope's table: there were very deep thoughts about subjects such as Messianism, inter religious dialogue, and how to sum up the Muslims, he told us that, that morning he had spoken about Moses and his war against the Amalekites, and told religious jokes; the one the Pope told was a classic, it is very good and told by him it adds value to it, about a priest that over weeks gives antisemitic talks until Jesus, on the cross, looks at the Virgin, who was at his side, and says to her, 'Mom, let's go since they don't like us...', related the president of the Latin-American Assembly of Rabbis.
"In that frame the table was widened and we all ended up around the Pope, as its shown -- (see gallery) (picture) -- and then we had to go, but we continued telling anecdotes and jokes and I said that the most ideal thing would be to put what was happening in the words of the psalm: How beautiful and pleasant is [it] that the brothers are sitting together!" with much warmth and harmony, he continued.

The above two paragraphs are translated into English from the Spanish article, Francisco/Líderes judíos. Polakoff: “El almuerzo es el reflejo del diálogo interreligioso que Masortí viene desarrollando” published by the Jewish News Agency

The behavior of Francis joking about Our Lord's crucifixion as well as portraying Our Lord as a practicing Jew isn't new to him. (see Jorge jokes about Our Lord's CrucifixionIt is certainly shocking though to hear it from the mouth of one whom is supposed to be the 'Vicar of Christ' in this world.  If Francis sees Our Lord's sufferings for our sins as a joke, how will his followers perceive Our Lord?  Did Christ stop carrying His Cross when people cursed and spat at Him?  No, He prayed for them and continued carrying His Cross with the goal of giving those who cursed and spat at Him the chance at Eternal Salvation.  God doesn't give up on us, to the contrary, it is we who give up on believing in Him.  With Francis' aversion to the Crucifixion becoming more and more apparent does he believe in its redeeming qualities or is his religion something else entirely?

Why does Francis always portray Christ as a simple Jew rather than the Son of God?  For those who believe Jesus and modern day Jews are the same, did Christ have a bar mitzvah or celebrate a Seder meal?  What does Rabbi Mark Glickman have to say about Seder Meals?  From Seattle Times, Passover seders are out of place in churches by Rabbi Mark Glickman:
For starters, the Last Supper couldn't have been a Passover Seder, because the Passover Seder didn't exist until several decades after Jesus' death. There were Passover celebrations during his day, of course, but the particular liturgy and ritual of the Seder was a response to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in the year 70, and it wasn't finalized until sometime during the third century.
What's more — and to be perfectly honest — the Seder developed, in part, as an anti-Christian polemic — a "slam" on the then-new and growing religion called Christianity. Such religious critique is all but absent from contemporary Seders, but the anti-Christian roots of the event are unmistakable.
A church Seder is thus a Christian event rooted in anti-Christianity. It makes about as much sense as a GOP rally for Barack Obama or a symphony boosters fundraiser for punk rock.
Furthermore, while it is true that the Seder celebrates salvation, it celebrates salvation as Jews understand it, which is quite different from the Christian concept.
Unless Christ traveled in time to celebrate a meal with a bunch of people who to put it mildly didn't approve of him then He never celebrated a Seder Meal.  This naturally brings up the question of why do so many Novus Ordo churches celebrate one?

How about the bar mitzvah?  Surely, Christ had one of these after all He was a "Jew".  According to the website, My Jewish Learning under their entry History of Bar/Bat Mitzvah and Confirmation:
By the 14th century, sources mention a boy being called up to the Torah for the first time on the Sabbath coinciding with or following his 13th birthday. By the 17th century, boys were also reading Torah and delivering talks, often on talmudic learning, at an afternoon seudat mitzvah (ritual meal). Today the speech, usually a commentary on the weekly Torah portion, generally takes place during the morning service.
What!?  The bar mitzvah didn't become part of the Tamludic Jewish religion until the 1300's!  Guess Christ would have had to time travel once again to make this possible.  We bring this up not only because of Franics' joke but also because his favorite painting (White Crucifixion by Marc Chagall) portrays Jesus the Christ as a Talmudic Jew.  Many Novus Ordo church goers hold Judaism aloft in their minds higher than the Gospels.

But we are digressing, back to Amalek...

Why does Francis mention the Amalekites?  Is there a connection between this, his Jewish guests, and the joke he told?  The blog Maurice Pinay states it with these words,
Biblical Scripture speaks of Amalek as a tribe that waged war with the Israelites of whom God said, "I will destroy the memory of Amalec from under heaven" and of whom Moses wrote, "...the hand of the throne of the Lord, and the war of the Lord shall be against Amalec, from generation to generation." (Exodus 17;14-16) Needless to say, this is a far cry from Christ's teaching to love one's enemies, but such was the state of things prior to the true redemption through Christ's sacrifice on the cross.
But regarding the extermination of Amalek, Scripture indeed records that Amalek was completely destroyed to the last man in 1 Chronicles, 4;43, "And they slew the remnant of the Amalecites, who had been able to escape, and they dwelt there in their stead unto this day." This is circa 500 B.C.
Did you catch that?  Amalek is dead according to the Old Testament -- gone forever.  For all those Novus Ordo church goers who believe the Talmudic Jews are simply following the Old Testament, they better sit down because in The Jewish Encyclopedia one reads under the entry "Amalek":
... the rabbis say: "Never will the throne of God—the Lord of Truth, Justice, and Love—be fully established until the seed of Amalek—the principle of hatred and wrongdoing—be destroyed forever (Pesiḳ., l.c., and Targ. Yer. I. and II. to Ex. l.c.). Henceforth "Amalek" became the popular term for Jew-hater.
What?  The Talmudic Jews don't believe what was written in the Old Testament!   God's kingdom cannot be established fully on earth until "Amalek" is wiped out, forget about Jesus the Christ.  "Amalek" is anyone who is a Jew-hater.  Antisemites are those who don't like Jews.  Christ according to Francis is a Jew.  Is this beginning to make sense?

The late Israeli politician and Minister of several offices in the Israeli government, Shulamit Aloni, appeared on Amy Goodman's Democracy Now show and had the following to say about antisemitism,
 "It's a Trick, We Always Use It."

So an antisemite or Amalekite is anyone whom the Talmudic Jews perceive as a threat to them and their power on earth.  Who does Francis see as Amalek?  Who knows, it could be Rosary counters, the Franciscan Friars Immaculate, or any Catholic addicted to the Tridentine Mass?  Has Francis' best rabbinical friend forever Rabbi Skorka, who also happened to be at 'the last lunch', a public opinion on the Amalekites?  In a piece Skorka published in LA NACION, Entre el recuerdo y la memoria about the bombing of the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina (AMIA) building, he has a lot to say about Amalek.
...Amalek was, according to the biblical account, the people who attacked the Hebrews while they forged the path of freedom, after being freed by God from Egyptian bondage.
Through battle, the people guided by God threw the Amalekite circumstantially danger.
Forty years after that event God prescribes to the people ( Deuteronomy 25:17-19) that they remember forever that disastrous attack and never forget the mission of Amalek is to re-achieve their ominous plans. Two requirements are emphasized in the Bible in this paragraph, concerning this topic: have memory and don't forget.
...Having memory is the divine mandate prescribed to people so that they can reach maturity. The vicious repeating (of) the mistakes is due to ignorance or lack of an analytical reading of the experience in the past, both in the individual and the collective, (and) is a reflection of the mediocrity that hinders spiritual and ethical development of society .
...Amalek had made a devastating new appearance on the face of the earth, this time in our country.
...Forgetfulness is not only a challenge for Argentina society: it is also for those villages where the anti-Semitism of its past, a generator crimes and violations, resurfaces as a rabid anti-Zionism-that is, the negation (of) the Jewish people's right to live freely in their historical plot [Israel], in peace with all its neighbors, silent or cynically justifying attacks and multiple forms of violence.
Did you catch all that?  One should never forget Amalak exists in the world if you want to reach maturity.  It is also a divine mandate to remember slights against one's religion.  And finally Amalek has made a devastating new appearance on earth!  Do the Talmudic Jews not believe in forgiveness?  If they did how would they go about forgiving the "straw man" of their own creation?

All this leads us back to Francis' behavior quoted above at the beginning.  To recap, Francis had many Talmudic rabbis over at the Vatican as lunch guests on the same day he gave a sermon on Amalek.  These rabbis like Francis appreciate a good joke now and then.  They referred to their lunch as the "Last Lunch" mocking Our Lord's Last Supper where He instituted the sacrifice of the Mass all the while Francis, sat there.  In response the 'Vicar of Christ' Francis told a joke which blasphemed Our Lord's Crucifixion.  You can't make this stuff up!  Antisemitism, Amalek, blaspheming Our Lord, inter-faith relations, Talmudic rabbis in the Vatican, it is all beginning to make sense...

Who best represents Jorge Bergoglio aka Francis in The Last Supper?
May God have Mercy on us and this blasphemer in Rome.

For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have 
tasted also the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the 
Holy Ghost, Have moreover tasted the good word of God, 
and the powers of the world to come, And are fallen 
away: to be renewed again to penance, crucifying 
again to themselves the Son of God, 
and making him a mockery.

--- NOTES ---
Below are screen shots of the article quoted from at the beginning of this blog entry.  The story appeared in Agencia Judia de Noticias and Itol Gadol. Clicking on the entries underneath the screenshots of the webpage will take one to the original websites.

For more of Francis' humor see:

For more on Amalek see:


  1. Hello,

    I am a close follower of your blog for sometime now. But I cannot help but wonder. Is your blog not guilty of the sin of Detraction?

    One is said to be guilty of detraction according to the Catechism if "..... without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;"

    I am just a little unsure what your objective reason might be. Unlike with a democratic leader, the people cannot remove the Pope from office. Neither can the average lay Catholic band together with others and have a protest. If it is to encourage prayer for the Pope, is the only way to do so by revealing more and more faults of Pope? Can it not be done by simple providing examples of saints who prayed for the Pope or spoke highly of the need for such prayers?

    I guess what I am asking is if there is an objectively valid reason for what you do in this blog and what it might be. If there isn't a valid reason, is this not the sin of detraction?

    I do not want to pick a fight with you or anything. It is just something that came to my mind after coming back from Church today.

    God bless!

    1. And, of course, such a one who is unable to discern wood from trees. Judge a tree by the fruit it bears - ecumenism - as St Maximilien Kolbe said is the enemy of the Immaculata. Why? becuase it propagates indifference to the Roman Catholic Faith - look at the exponential drop in Mass attendance & the ritual liturgical abuses of the NO. Also, Pope St Pius X has spelled out who the enemy of the church is - liberal modernism - read about it in "Pascendi Dominici Gregis" and you will understand if you have the ears to hear, that is. St Pio of Pietrelcina left Fr Luigi Villas behind to expose freemasonry in the church - he has done that really well much to the embarrassment NO establishment.

      Oh yes! plenty of evidence to demonstrate how the apostasy foretold in the Book of Revelation and by Our Blessed Lady Herself, is well underway.

    2. I am not sure what you mean. False ecumenism is indeed a bad thing and I am not questioning that. In fact, I agree with almost every issue criticized in this blog as being bad.

      But my question is, what is the objective reason for disclosing such things done by the Pope that most would be unaware of? Is it not the sin of detraction?

    3. Pope Paul IV - whose number, interestingly enough, is the opposite of VI who GAVE us all the Vatican II "French" masonic revolution in miter and cope, primarily - ORDERED the Faithful in perpetuity with his papal bull CUM EX APOSTOLATUS OFFICIO, which, also, interestingly enough, is nearly to the date of V2 - saying that even if EVERY cardinal elects a man who has either not had the Faith or lost it by heresy BEFORE his election, that man falls IPSO FACTO and WITHOUT DECLARATION from the See of Peter. Bellarmine, his nephew, I believe, confirmed that in DE ROMANO PONTIFICE, in chapter 30, the one the 'recognize and resist' crowd doesn't like to quote, that a man cannot be head of what he is not a member of - a man HAS TO HAVE THE CATHOLIC FAITH TO BE THE POPE. This is not brain surgery or rocket science. The modernists have been incredibly successful with the naivete, stupidity or something of most Catholics today and gotten men who have gone along with the judaeo/masonic/communist one world new world order agenda into the papal chair, just as the freemasons bragged they would do in their Alta Vendita docs, which Pope Pius IX, i believe, ordered to be published. We HAVE a REAL pope - Paul IV - COMMANDING the Faithful to REJECT as a warlock and heathen WITHOUT DECLARATION men who 'pose' as popes and are NOT. This blog is doing the work of Christ. Even St. Gregory the Great said it was better for scandals to arise than the truth to be suppressed. What is your agenda, Charlotte B? Are you an agent of Judaeo Masonry? I suspect you may be - with your ridiculous "detraction" argument. Good grief. Stick up for the men who kiss the Koran and tell the Jews that Christ isn't the Messiah and are ok to wait for another "detraction"?!!!!! And whom the conciliarists make "saints" today?!!!! WHO IS ANTICHRIST BUT HE WHO DENIETH THAT JESUS IS THE CHRIST? It's in St. John's epistle, Charlotte. Also - Christ saying to the Jews that one would come in his own name and him they would accept - a de fide scriptural pronouncement on Antichrist. Our Lady came at LaSallette to tell us. Jason Everts of the so-called "Catholic" answers once told me LaSallette had never been 'approved' - then when I emailed him off that the nuns and priests from the Basilica there were visiting his "pope" at the time - the Koran Kissing Wojtyla/aka jp2 - he didn't ANSWER me, though he'd been arguing with me plenty before. They are defending the indefensible, as you are by sticking up for them by rashly accusing this brave person's blogging with the false claim of being guilty of the sin of 'detraction.' You are the one who is guilty of aiding and abetting the apostates in Rome by doing so. Shame on you.

  2. Its very easy, dear Charlotte B.: "Francis" is not Pope, he is "pope", if tipography means anything yet. There is no detraction if you confess this, of course, sad but healthy (for our souls' salvation) reality. It is to the blogger to express more clearly his standing on the matter.

    1. So the objective reason of this blog is to demonstrate that Pope Francis is actually not a Pope?
      If that is the case, shouldn't that demonstration have something about the legitimacy of his election rather than his actual actions?

  3. … even when the sin is in no sense public, it may still be divulged without contravening the virtues of justice or charity whenever such a course is for the common weal or is esteemed to make for the good of the narrator, of his listeners, or even of the culprit. The right which the latter has to an assumed good name is extinguished in the presence of the benefit which may be conferred in this way …

    Journalists are entirely within their rights in inveighing against the official shortcomings of public men. Likewise, they may lawfully present whatever information about the life or character of a candidate for public office is necessary to show his unfitness for the station he seeks. Historians have a still greater latitude in the performance of their task. This is not of course because the dead have lost their claim to have their good name respected. History must be something more than a mere calendar of dates and incidents; the causes and connection of events are a proper part of its province. This consideration, as well as that of the general utility in elevating and strengthening the public conscience, may justify the historian in telling many things hitherto unknown which are to the disgrace of those of whom they are related.

    1. This part in my understanding is giving permission based on "Objective reasons" that it lists. My question is what are the objective reasons for disclosing faults of a Pope?

      We can't change him even if we wanted to. So what is objective reason for disclosing these faults?

    2. He's as susceptible to justified criticism and shaming as any man. Why do you suggest otherwise?

      Even if he doesn't change the objective reason to continue criticizing him is for the common good, so this wolf in sheep's clothing doesn't continue devouring the sheep. I'm sorry this very simple concept is so difficult for you to understand.

  4. Those who do not expose the evil wrought by this pope are complicit with him in sending souls to eternal perdition.

    Exposure does not preclude prayer for this pope such as: Dear God, in your mercy please reform or remove Pope Francis.

    Our Lord Jesus Christ did not hide the worst sins of the Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees. He warned others about their heinous transgressions.

    1. I am not sure I understand. If I want to condemn murder, I do not need to necessarily condemn a murderer. So technically, I could condemn every bad thing the Pope has done without ever mentioning what the Pope did. In this way, I can fully oppose the sins of a Pope without necessarily making his sins public.

      Now my question here is, what is the objective reason behind disclosing the Pope's errors? Is it just to vent? Well then it is detraction.

      Is it to make people protest his actions? If that is the case, for the love of God, organize a protest.

      I am not saying there is no valid reason. I am just asking what it is so that I myself does not need to feel guilty about sharing what I find in this blog.

    2. Charlotte B is codemning St. Paul for calling St. Peter's attention for a doctrinal error.

  5. One more comment at Charlotte B - Yves Mausaudon, grand poo bah of the French Orient Masonry, said about John 23 and Paul VI "The light of the GREAT ARCHITECT now shines over the Vatican." Any student of masonry or the occult worth his salt knows very well who the "Great Architect" is - Baphomet, Lucifer - call him what you will - he's the devil and the people who worship him are saying these guys work for THEM with open public comments like that. Honestly, Bill Strojie was so right when he said the naivete of Catholics has allowed these guys to be so incredibly successful. Good grief.

  6. One more bit at Charlotte B - from William F. Strojie's pamphlet written in February 1977, FROM ROME TO ECONE, pp. 65-67:

    October 4, 1965: the photo shows Paul 6 with outstretched arms bounding toward U Thant, he all reserve. They enter the U.N. Meditation room with its pagan black stone altar.

    Paul addresses the General Assembly: "Behold the day that we have awaited for centuries."
    Who are "we"? --we who have waited "for centuries"? As a lifelong Catholic, I cannot imagine what this "we" is that he means. As to the U.N., it only recently came into existence. Perhaps there are clues, such as the occult symbolism of the U.N. building, the Masonic character of Paul's address to the Assembly, in those Masonic "amens" -- so mote it be -- which appear twice in his speech, and which the interpreter emphasized both times with a deliberate slight pause.

    Paul 6: "I bring to your terrestrial city of Peace the greetings of our spiritual city of Peace.' Peace, peace, peace, peace...this word constantly recurring throughout the speech. A friend recalls Paul's repetition of it --sixteen times in succession --seen on television that night; people in the audience were seen to look in puzzlement at each other. "Our mission has been one of peace. Our voyage has no other intention, no other motive. We went as a pilgrim of Peace."

    ("Do not think that I cam to bring peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but the sword." Matt. 10. v.34)

    Paul 6 comes "as a friend to express desire and to beg a permission," that of "humbly, lovingly and disinterestedly serving" this assembly "as far as we are competent to do so."

    This is a Pope speaking! Before a secularistic body composed largely of atheists, Jews, Communists? Impossible! This is a man in papal attire, J. B. Montini, who has stolen into the Chair of Peter. It is he who will throw out all the severe censures of the Popes against the sect of Freemasonry. It is he who is praised in the Foreword of a book on Freemasonic ecumenism by top French Mason Yves Maursodon.

    J.B. Montini expresses his "gratitude and congratulations" in the name of the whole world. "Many thanks to you, glory to you" he says to this secularistic anti-God assembly. This was early in his "pontificate." Subsequent years would yield much more of such talk from Paul 6.

    Before leaving New York Paul will be photographed wearing the jewel of black and white squares worn by the Jewish high priest of old. Vatican II articles and later directives of his will lead Catholics into attendance at Jewish synagogues. It has come to this in 1976.

  7. This is all building up to The Worship of Man ,in place of the Worship of God,soon catholics will be hard pressed to find the Tabernacle in a church ,but Christ said wherever two or three are gathered in my name ,I am present so we will not be left orphans.