Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Lost Sermons
I want to be a good boy scout. I don't want to lead anyone into error. I don't want to hear God tell me on Judgment Day: "You put this lie into the brains of these poor uneducated well-meaning Christians who trusted your intellect".
That being said, if I were the General of a powerful Catholic military order, like the Templars many centuries ago, I would have Jorge Mario Bergoglio kidnapped, then I would publicly ask him five simple questions, and if he refused to answer, I would have him court martialed for High Treason and then put in front of the firing squad.
My misgivings have steadily and unceasingly increased ever since Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected and took on the name "Pope Francis". (A brief overview of these misgivings is in The Private Jet Of Pope Francis.)
On September 19, 2016, four cardinals (Walter Brandmüller, Raymond L. Burke, Carlo Caffarra, Joachim Meisner) sent five "dubia" (i.e. "doubts" or questions) to Jorge Mario Bergoglio. As far as I know, this is the most official, most formal, most polite, most respectful, and most traditional attempt (so far) at getting Bergoglio to tell us which side he is on.
Bergoglio apparently refused to answer their questions, and instead indulged in his usual public mud-slinging toward traditional Catholics. Except the questions were very cleverly crafted, and admit no answer other than "yes, yes" or "no, no", everything else is of the Devil. So Bergoglio's refusal to answer yes or no, is in itself an answer, as correctly notes Louie Verrecchio in his blog post of November 18, 2016.
Indeed, what do you call a plumber who refuses to unclog sinks, or a dentist who refuses to drill cavities, or a butcher who refuses to cut meat? The Papacy exists in order to make sure the Deposit of Faith that Jesus handed down to the Apostles is faithfully transmitted, "eodem sensu eademque sententia". If successors of the Apostles ask the successor of Peter to tell them what exactly Jesus handed down, and the successor of Peter refuses to tell them, then we have a very big problem...
As you all know already, the only "mortal sin" during a debate is to disagree with one's own position. If the position that you choose to defend is so awful that you yourself disagree with it, then the problem is your position, not the person in front of you during a debate who manifests just how bad your position is.
Should we really put the Pope in front of a firing squad? Let's assume Bergoglio is telling the truth. In that case, we cannot assert that putting the Pope in front of a firing squad is EVIL! No! No!
We need to truly understand this: in life not all is black on white or white on
black [...] The shades of grey prevail in life.
[Bergoglio, WYD 2016 in Krakow, Poland]
Actually, Bergoglio's Amoris latitiae gives us all the theological tools to "justify" just about any crime. See among others Extremist Religious Leaders Must Be Kicked Out Of Canada.
Yet another way of seeing the same thing is Question #5 mentioned above:
After Amoris Laetitia (303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of
St. John Paul II's encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 56, based on sacred
Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation
of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized
to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts
by virtue of their object?
This question is very clear. If you answer "Yes", then Bergoglio is wrong and I'm right. If you answer "No" (as Bergoglians do), then you cannot assert that putting the Pope in front of a firing squad is evil. My conscience decides that, not yours!
Far more serious and well-documented explanations are found in articles like:
- "Profession of the immutable truths about sacramental marriage", 2017-Dec-31,
by Tomash Peta, Jan Pawel Lenga, Athanasius Schneider, etc.
- Many signatures, Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagatis;
Theological censure signed by 45 Theologians, Philosophers, Historians and Priests, Cover letter, The Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia: a theological critique;
- John R. T. Lamont, Considerations on the dubia of the four cardinals;
- Edward Feser, Denial flows into the Tiber;
- John Finnis and Germain Grisez, The Misuse of Amoris laetitia to Support Errors Against the Catholic Faith;
Also, the canonist Edward Peters in A canonical primer on popes and heresy concludes: "In sum, and while additional important points could be offered on this matter, in the view of modern canonists from Wernz to Wrenn, however remote is the possibility of a pope actually falling into heresy and however difficult it might be to determine whether a pope has so fallen, such a catastrophe, Deus vetet, would result in the loss of papal office".
Is Bergoglio an anti-Pope? Fr John Hunwicke, in a blog post also dated November 18, 2016 and called Newman and the current crisis (since then mysteriously removed), condemns sedevacantism, and claims that Bergoglio is "Pope" in a very abstract and formal way only. He was elected, he is biologically still alive, but theologically it's as if the Pope were in a coma (without the advantages of being in a real coma, since his big mouth continues to talk.) Until fairly recently (I'm adding this 2017-August-08), I agreed. I also continue to think that Fr. Hunwicke's advice is still the safest I can offer right now.
Personally, my opinion is currently that Bergoglio triggered Canon 1364 on himself quite a while ago, therefore even if Benedict XVI had validly resigned the papacy, and even if the meddlings of the St. Galen clique had not made Bergoglio's election invalid, Bergoglio would still be an anti-Pope.
I removed the picture of Bergoglio from the home page of this web site. Thank God my Faith is in Jesus Christ our Lord, and not in Bergoglio! I pray for the next Pope to be more like Cardinal Raymond L. Burke, or Bishop Athanasius Schneider, or Saint John Paul II, or Saint Pius X, etc. In the meantime, I continue to pray for the Pope twice a day, whoever he might be either now, or soon.
I must re-read once in a while paragraphs §675 and §677 of the Catechism, while insisting on certain words:
Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that
will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her
pilgrimage on earth will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a
religious imposture offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the
price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious imposture is that of
the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and
of his Messiah come in the flesh.
The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final
Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection. The
kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church
through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God's victory over the final unleashing
of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven. God's triumph over the
revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgement after the final cosmic
upheaval of this passing world.
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Please add my name to the list of signatures of the Correctio filialis Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 12:41:20 -0400 From: Stefan Jetchick To: info (missing at sign here) correctiofilialis.org Good day, I'm sorry I'm just a nobody, but if at all possible, please add my name to the list of signatures of the: Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagatis I want my name to be there so that on Judgment Day, I will not burn in Hell for having kept quiet in this very important moment in History! Thank you very much! Stefan Jetchick [Usual contact info]
Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Lost Sermons