We are watching a machiavellian war on the internet triggered against the Pontiff. I’m amazed with the force and audacity of the Malign, how it acts fast through people linked or not to it, with many hidden tricks and extension of its perverse roots in the world.
I borrow the words of the Sweet and Serene Lady, when she tells us about the “loss of the notion of sin in this time of confusion that we live in”, to apply them to the present case: “…how easy everything is accepted without questioning, the evil, many times, talks to you giving the impression of being healthy words. (…) Learn to separate the wheat from the chaff.”
Let's make some considerations regarding some of these biased accusations against Pope Francisco:
“He called himself Bishop of Rome” – isn’t he? Bishop of Rome, Pontiff, High Pontiff, High Priest… are names given to the highest authority of our Church. Saying this, Francisco might have not shown the necessary feeling of superiority to the ministry that he was elected for, which is of service. Will this cause the Vatican to suppress the word Pope from its publications, of the media it has?
“Refused the complete garments of Pope on the day of his election” – The refusal to certain garments may be in his spirit of simplicity, without pomp, - consistent with the Franciscan spirit.
“Campaign of humbleness” for going with the cardinals that just had elected him, who he was with recently, in cloister and prayer, to choose one of them?...  In Argentina, didn’t he dismiss the car with driver that the position offered to him, to ride the subway, bus? Didn’t he leave the accommodations of the Episcopal Palace (probably comfortable), to live in a small apartment? Now he found the accommodations of the Pope in the Vatican so big that he refused to use all of it and might use at least part of it.
“Went to the front desk to pay the bill” (where he stayed during the conclave). “Paying his bill” is “too much”?... Or was it a good and necessary example due to the scandalous corruption that is installed in the Vatican and of so many discrediting things – treacherous, to be more honest – which are being widely announced by the press, wearing out, above all, the image of the Institution?
Not using a certain type of crucifix or color of shoe, doesn’t seem too petty, or even better yet, ridiculous? John Paul II did not use “red shoes” so where was then the so-called tradition?
“During the Angelus, he did not speak to the congregation in various languages as is usually done” and “During the Mass of enthroning, the passages weren’t read in many languages”. Is speaking to the congregation and reading passages “in various languages” something essential or just a tradition that started not so long ago?
Not celebrating the mass with his back to the Tabernacle and facing the people? Isn’t he, at this moment, In Persona Christi? Isn’t this how we see the celebrations in our parishes? See, at the end, an interesting (Ad Orientem) article about this.
“Told an orthodox priest to read the Gospel in Greek.” Isn’t the orthodox priest who read the Gospel catholic?! Raymundo Lopes and I watched, in June 2004, at Saint Peter Square, in Roma, Pope John Paul II celebrate Mass with the Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church. Both made the homily. The small book containing the liturgy which was distributed to the people present was in three languages, one of them being Greek; John Paul II and the Orthodox Patriarch called each other Your Holiness during their conversation.
“Did the homily of the Mass of enthroning from the ambo, instead of from his cathedra” – what matters is the homily or the place it’s delivered?
All this makes me remember the human traditions and rules overshadowing the most important, the main thing, what Jesus always criticized about the Jews, especially among Pharisees. Mere pharisaic hypocrisy or a hidden plot?
“Didn’t give communion to the congregation.” (In the inaugural Mass of his Pontificate?) I ask: In other celebrations, did he do the same? We have seen more seen more and more the Eucharistic Ministers performing this role in our parishes – I’m not justifying, just making an observation.
“… as conservative and traditional Catholics, faithful to the secular teachings of the Church, observing the “different” facts presented, we are forced to silence?” I ask : What about the mistakes and rottenness in the ‘basements’ of the Vatican, much reported by the press and has brought much trouble to Church and to Benedict XVI, doesn’t’ this “catholic” congregation see this?... Or these other facts do not seem “different” to them?... Or do they prefer to silence themselves?...
“It’s unacceptable to despise the honors, in a way to neglect what deserve them.” This was taken from what context of the Summa Theologica of Saint Thomas of Aquino? Would he say these words in this situation? Or he said this referring to the royalty of Christ?
The expression “the Carnaval (party) is over” seems very strong; but did he really say this? On the other hand, does so much pomp relate with the true Christian spirit? Was this the example that Christ gave us, when he was born in a manger, lived in a simple house, was always with the apostles and not with the powerful, living in palaces, wearing fancy clothes…?
Observe what Our Lady Said to Raymundo Lopes on March 5, 1996: “Jesus is giving you important documents which will later be the key that will open the Church in the new world. (…) Other dialogues will come after Me, in a huge profusion that will confuse wise men and make the Church humble, in the rising of a new aurora. Therefore, listen carefully to the words of Jesus…”
“Be poor of material things and cultivate charity…” (March 31, 1992).
Won’t Jesus come to put an end in the Antichrist government in the Church? (Antichrist: person who is smart, erudite, proud – as the prophecies say.) How can this one be the Antichrist, with a story of simplicity and worry about poor people? Didn’t reach power through usurpation, like it will happen to the Antichrist according to the prophecies; on the contrary, received more than 90 votes of a total of 115, in a conclave with cardinals who were almost all appointed by John Paul II and Benedict XVI, as reported by the press. If a precursor of the Antichrist, was elected by the cardinals – predominantly – of a conservative line, how would the two Popes be defined then? Also, this figure (of precursor of the Antichrist) seems to be totally inexistent in the prophecies related to these times.
Now, let’s think, how to “rebuild the Church” without changing the steps, the “red shoes” of an enslaving and worn out tradition?
“He came to make changes, just like Saint Francis of Assis.”
Therefore, it’s necessary to break with certain human traditions, rules and formalities of the Vatican forged in time that barred the spirit of deprivation, of approximation to the poor people, which limit the Pontiff making him a prisoner of a status quo that prevents deep reforms.
It’s necessary to free from the ties, if aiming for a “Church like it was in the beginning, alert to the teachings of the Gospel”, simple, “without stains, wrinkles and with much maturity”.
Can your attitudes seem too sweet, dissimulated, if this way he has written his clerical story? It’s not from now. Nevertheless, he continued being energetic, combative, when necessary to defend these ideas. Just remember his fights with the government of Argentina regarding delicate issues like abortion, gay marriage, neglect with poverty, etc. And now taking his style to the Vatican, breaking with this state of things, is he being too sweet or brave and authentic?
The Church needs to be “purified”. It’s through the ‘Franciscan spirit’, how is presented the successor of Benedict XVI, in a new catechism – supported by the teachings of the Mother of Jesus – that we can believe this, desiring the transformation.
We are living in difficult and confusing  times, therefore we need to be very careful not to be confused by the astuteness of Lucifer, beyond the facts that happen, beyond the defamation without consistency and tendentious, like the ones being spread now, voracious, on the internet, with the purpose of making Francis unstable to later on take over the Church. We must always ask for the light of the Holy Spirit.
In 1978, they killed John Paul I. They tried the same with John Paul II. They succeeded in making Benedict XVI resign, when he had on his shoulders a serious obligation to fulfill. Now, Francis has just been elected and there are infamous fights against him already. The name chosen must have caused them panic. Abject masonry sordidly disseminated in the world and infiltrated in Church, that tries at any cost to take the Throne of Peter and empower the Antichrist, in order to carry out the plans of Lucifer for these times.
We know about the power and astuteness of the enemy, but don’t forget those who align themselves to him, are at the service of iniquity:

The gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church.”

              (Mt 16,18)

Francisco Lembi