The Pope’s Ouija Board

No, this isn’t about the Enneagram, which apparently Pope Francis knows well “and is not against it.”  The same Enneagram Archbishop Wenski described as fundamentally Gnostic: a type of numerology and divination.  The Enneagram Austern Ivereigh said was “first created by the desert fathers which received its modern form from the Jesuits.”

History only traces it back to occultists George Gurdjieff and Óscar Ichazo with “its modern [Jesuit] form” being merely a variant.  Disputed origins aside, Ivereigh reports that Francis is an Eight in the Enneagram, citing complete apostate Father Richard Rohr, “the leading Catholic authority.” Noteworthy, Rohr emphasizes in his ministry “orthopraxy” (“alternate orthodoxy” as in “alternate truth”) based on the Perennial Philosophy: a forerunner of the New Age movement.

With this occult backdrop, let us proceed to the “famous four principles” of Pope Francis, who said in Evangelii Gaudium (EG) are derived from “the pillars of the Church’s social doctrine.”1  Though logically, saying they came from the Desert Fathers, or the Knights Templar, would be more believable.  In any case, before examining how they function as a Ouija Board, let us begin with the first and primary principle, everybody’s favorite: Time is greater than Space.”  So hold onto your phasors, we are about to enter warp drive.


Nonsense: The Final Frontier

(Note: Time and Space are bold/italics in this article when referring to the concepts of the principle to distinguish and help prevent confusion from the usual meaning of time and space.  In brief, Time roughly denotes activities that introduce something new; whereas Space denotes the existing power structure.)

Time is greater than Space is built upon the notion that Time represents the “fullness” of human history in its totality, and particularity in an eschatological sense.  Therefore, “a process” that brings forth something that “draws us” closer to the “brighter horizon of the utopian future” is a good thing.

Conversely, to inhibit that, namely by preventing that type of progress, is, well, un-good.  The exact text regarding “giving priority to Space is “attempting to keep everything together in the present, trying to possess all the Spaces of power and self-assertion; it is to crystallize processes and presume to hold them back.”

Stripping off the veneer yields: activities that contribute to increasing good are better than those that do not.  That is hard to argue with, but a tautology is not a principle.  In terms of practical guidance, the principle provides none.  For its justification, power in a negative sense is taken as negative; self-assertion in a non-positive sense is taken as non-positive; and so on.  Appendix A examines this in more detail, partly in parody form, but the upshot is the principle is essentially useless.

Specifically, prudence requires the consideration of all major factors.  The principle claims that new “activities” are better in general, and “proves” it through one-sided arguments.  But these simply fall apart when the other side is considered: the principle provides nothing because an analysis is still required.  But it does inject the rejection of prudence by encouraging to blindly start new endeavors, which is one aspect of it being a Ouija Board.



A principle without utility would not be expected to have a valid basis.  Here, the basis is “new is good.”  That has merit on the surface but closer examination will reveal its near emptiness in terms of a principle.

The Church is in continual need for renewal and innovation has its place.  But this first principle denotes “new is better than old” in a general sense wherein “new meaning”2 may always be found in virtually everything.  While there are instances when Time is greater than Space, instances don’t make a principle.

This purported first principle and Evangelii Gaudium can be interpreted in an orthodox manner (most sections, in isolation).  Church documents are expected to be read in that sense.  However, a document means what the author(s) intended.  If a statement was intended to be and is heretical, so it is.

While not the only source, the heresies being propagated by Pope Francis are clearly documented in Correctio filialis.  Without delving into the implications, and noting this is a lay initiative, similar limitations will be adopted here.  But a wider question will be asked.

These errors are not isolated.  Rather, his reform program seems to be largely heretical.  Of course, this doesn’t apply to everything Pope Francis says and does (e.g. the Curia does need reforming).  But it does apply with respects to his moral agenda, at least implicitly and increasingly so explicitly.

Under that premise, the Fab Four principles themselves would expected to be not unambiguously heretical, but rather supporting thereof.  How closely in tune can that be sung?


The X Factor

In 1907, Pope Pius X wrote the Encyclical “On the Doctrines of the Modernists” (Pascendi Dominici Gregis).  Modernism decimates everything Catholic.  One primary tenet is evolution.  To the Modernists, everything evolves: “in a living religion everything is subject to change, and must in fact be changed.” 3  This includes “dogma, Church, worship, the Books we revere as sacred, even faith itself.” 4

To fully understand the following, a good grasp of Modernism is required.  See The Heresy of Modernism for a short outline of the key ideas.

For within this context, Time is greater than Space translates to “novelty is best.”  But the Church has always held in highest regard its venerable tradition.  To say the opposite by extolling novelty and claiming it is derivable from “the Church’s social doctrine” is laughable.  Indeed, it is “a lamentable spectacle” from “the aberrations of human reason when it yields to the spirit of novelty,”5 to quote Pius X quoting Gregory XVI.

In a 2013 interview, using time mostly in the physical sense but Space as a concept, denoting the powers that be, Pope Francis said:


“God manifests himself in historical revelation, in time.  Time initiates processes, and Space crystallized them.  God is in Time, in the processes.”


Observe the denial that God is in Space, or at least not as importantly.  Logically, the process of writing down the Word of God, a process in time, eventually completed (i.e. crystallized) into the Bible.  Thus, Scripture is within Space, in established power, where God is not.

This is somewhat reasonable as reading Scripture is a process in time.  However, for Modernists, revelation continues in time and Time, which leaves everything in Space in flux awaiting recrystallization.  With Scripture, this is mainly with interpretations that contradict the traditional understanding.

Though as a principle, if it is said that Space enters Time through any associated process, the concept of Space becomes vacuous.  But that doesn’t seem to be its meaning.  Anything dealing with Space regardless of its activities in time are generally inferior to Time.  In other words, new interpretations of the Bible (novelties) are best.

Moreover, God has already manifested Himself: Jesus Christ is the fullness of revelation.  Declaring “God is in Time is a cryptic form of historicism: the heretical idea that truth is defined by living “history.”  Francis’ explicit definition is in terms of new expressions of the Gospel.  But in practice, the implicit definition is the retrograde.  The “new” portion is actually a “new” Gospel, which is evident from historical facts like Cardinal Kasper’s role in the 2014 Synod.

In Amoris Laetitia, Time is greater than Space is used to justify democratizing the Church by giving episcopal conferences doctrinal authority.  In terms of Modernism, the Church must “adopt a democratic form.”  Specifically, the “vital immanence” in human consciousness, which underlies the “religious sense” of democracy, must be heeded. 

The “symbols” from this “vital immanence” will form a “secondary formula,” to be called “dogma” if accepted by the Church.  Or in Francispeak, the Church must “listen” to the “Holy Spirit” wherein this “process” will “crystalize” into a new “secondary formula” to be dubbed “genuine doctrinal authority.”  (See Appendix B for more detail.)

But let us move on to Francis’ third principle: Realties are more important than Ideas.”  Per Giovanni Scalese’s analysis, this means “we must accept reality as it is, without presuming to change it on the basis of absolute principles, for example moral principles, which are only ‘abstract’ ideas…”

Or in terms of Modernism, Realties are revealed to the “religious consciousness” by “vital immanence.”  The Ideas are the formulas, which are constantly evolving and must be adapted to the latest “revelations.”  Further, to the religious consciousness, “all must submit, even the supreme authority of the Church.”6  Hence, Ideas are inferior to Realties.

Note the connection to the first principle, which the third is largely an amplification of.  The “new” within Time needs a source.  Modernism provides it via constant revelations to the religious consciousness by means of the all-powerful vital immanence.

The other two principles support Modernism, though not intrinsically (see Appendix C).  But two of the four principles naturally map to Modernism.  But must they?  Consistency seems to require the answer yes.  But much has been written about that elsewhere.  What remains for this article is the Ouija Board, and a lesson in physics.


Time = Space * N 3

(where N equals the speed of nonsense in a vacuum or the Vatican)

As Time is greater than Space is evidently false, it shouldn’t be too surprising that the reverse is actually true.  This can be demonstrated by considering the normal distribution and nature of the “new.”  Pope Francis purports to answer an optimization question dealing with “changes” to make things “better.”  Giving priority to Time introduces new powers (Space) at the expense of the original Space.  Whereas favoring Space enhances the original Space by creating more from within.

But generally, it can be argued that Space is greater than Time because generally, improvement are small and incremental.  Therefore, it is usually better to incrementally improve existing processes:  not to start new ones.  It is typically only with break-through ideas wherein starting from scratch makes more sense.  But authentic “big” ideas are few and far between.  Hence, the Pope’s formulation is for the exception, not the rule.

However, Francis is presuming “big” ideas.  After unwinding the convolutions, the principle reduces to this: building upon the obvious that something new and better is worth pursuing, it is derived that new and better things exist and hence should be pursued.  This much is true.  The problem here is it’s the magic of Time that provides the “better.”  For Time is just fancy verbiage for the tenet of evolution as understood by Modernism.  All told, this can hardly be called a social principle.

But the preceding does flush out there are four moving parts, not the two deceptively hidden under the guise of space and time.  Specifically, there is Time and Space along with the Anti-Time and Anti-Space associated with his agenda.  Thus, in reality, the first principle pits Anti-Time against Space.  In other words, Pope Francis is asserting the Anti-Church is best.  (more detail in Appendix D)


Patent Pending

Around the 1840’s, spiritualists began using “talking boards” to “communicate” with the dead.  Later, an entrepreneur added a heart shaped pointing device called the planchette.  This was patented and thus was born the Ouija Board.

Generally, the Ouija Board works by not working.  But on occasion, the planchette will be moved via an external force or possibly through taking possession of muscular activity.  Though invariably, this will be of diabolic origin.

On the other hand, the planchette does often seem to move.  Science explains this as the ideomotor effect: a subconscious reaction to an idea.  But this is an even more subtle demonic opening as suggestion is their forte.  A suggestion could be injected through the physical component of the mind, or implanted directly into the conscious, as both are probably within the power of the angelic order.

The logical structure of the Ouija Board is inquiring into something God forbids.  This is an invitation for a demonic answer.  The Pope’s “board” is a two-fold Ouija Board.

First, Modernism itself is a Ouija Board as seen from completing Pope Pius X’s quote of Gregory XVI: “the aberrations of human reason when it yields to the spirit of novelty, when against the warning of the Apostle it seeks to know beyond what it is meant to know, and when relying too much on itself it thinks it can find the truth outside the Catholic Church wherein truth is found without the slightest shadow of error.”7

Secondly, besides being an ode to Modernism, this board’s logical structure is also an inquiring into the forbidden.  It invites seeking activities (processes) that undermine the existing legitimate establishment (powers).  (elaboration in Appendix E)


The Uncorrectable?

Several efforts have been made to analyze the four principles.  But an in-depth analysis (within ambiguity limits) that rigorously exposes them would be useful.  Though not to Pope Francis.  He would most likely dismiss it while hurling accusatory insults of neo-Gnosticism.

This brings out the deepest analogy.  The Ouija Board is a con game that operates by instilling confidence in an unknown source through the distraction of a mysterious power.  This tends to leave the “answers” provided to go unquestioned.  The demons have many such games in the occult category (paranormal, New Age, etc.).  Few have moving parts, but their goal is the same: to lead men away from God.  But this is only the tip of the iceberg.

A massive web has been spun over mankind: the central spiral being falsehood in the intellectual order (with the particularly ferocious attack on marriage).  Enter Jorge Bergoglio with his four principles as expressed in EG, which were extracts from an uncompleted doctoral thesis on Romano Guardini from over thirty years ago.

To reiterate, what Bergoglio calls principles “inevitably falls apart if it is subjected to the slightest elementary analysis,” as renowned Vaticanist Sandro Magister noted.  Publishing additional details or its derivation from social doctrine would probably expose even more errors.

Yet, Pope Francis has found a use for this recycled Modernism: to save the world.  Specifically, EG states “their application can be a genuine path to peace within each nation and in the entire world.”8  Is he serious?  Very much so.  The principles were presented with “the conviction that their application…”9  Indeed, he is convinced this is “a” path to world peace.  Moreover, it is the path he is taking and basing his whole pontificate upon.

In contrast, Fatima’s peace plan is quite different.  That is based on promoting devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary to bring people to Christ, our peace.  Lip service aside, Francis seems to oppose it.  Witness his hand in tramping on the FMI and their consecration to the Immaculate Mother.  Also, he actually at times discourages people from becoming Catholic or Christian.

Furthermore, the Virgin warned that Russia would spread her errors (Communism).  Compare that with Francis: “It is the communists who think like Christians,” albeit the source is Eugenio Scalfari.  However, C9 member Cardinal Marx recently praised Karl Marx including the accolade: “Without him there would be no Catholic social doctrine.”  Really?  The Communist Manifesto calls for the “forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.”  Hence, time is greater than space?  The confusion is massive: the contradiction could hardly be more obvious.

But it does makes sense.  Francis’ peace plan is not Fatima’s and those things evidently are a hindrance.  And he is convinced.  He was given the secret knowledge: the true path.  Thus, the rejection of another hindrance, Veritatis Splendor, about a decade before his election.  Of course, the Splendor of the Truth (a reiteration of perennial doctrine, or possibly their infallible definition) is about as authoritative as it gets.

Pope Francis provides a good self-portrait by the books he recommended as part of a long response, the zinger being one by Father Anselm Grün.  Soon after, Grün dutifully reasserts he is a heretic, replete with the claim that a female Pope is possible.  What a strange bookshelf: classics next to material by Father Grün, whose hero believed the physical world is an illusion (a Zen Master).  But to Francis, such books are one and the same, in terms of having good content.

In fine, here is a fully functional Ouija Board.  From Church social doctrine, Bergoglio’s planchette wildly spells out “one part leaven doesn’t corrupt the whole.”  Amazingly, no matter how blatant the contradiction, he remains clueless to who is moving the pointer.  The confusion is that deep, though he is well aware of what has been perennially proclaimed to be orthodox.

The implication is worth stating.  The hardness in correcting Pope Francis will be proportional to the confidence he has placed in his Ouija Board.  So, is Jorge Bergoglio completely convinced?  The safe money is on he is completely deceived.


Image courtesy of Patrick Emerson: Flickr - CC 2.0
External links referenced in this essay


Revision history


Need a break from the relentless “orthopraxy” coming from within Holy Mother Church?  Mediatrix Media has just the ticket.  Check out our consecration hymn to the Immaculata: classical arrangement, Fatima-safe, all proceeds go to charity.  Click here for details. ../images/songs/ForYou/ForYou_ImageMedium.jpg