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 Maria 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. (Hence the title "Hasta La Vista, Franky!", with "Franky" meaning "Pope Francis".)
My misgivings have steadily and unceasingly increased ever since Jorge Maria 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 Maria 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 the one by John R. T. Lamont called Considerations on the dubia of the four cardinals, or the one by John Finnis and Germain Grisez titled The Misuse of Amoris laetitia to Support Errors Against the Catholic Faith, or the one by Edward Feser titled Denial flows into the Tiber. 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, condemns sedevacantism, but doesn't offer much practical help.
I just removed the picture of Bergoglio from the home page of this web site. The best advice I can offer right now is Fr. Hunwicke's advice here above. Therefore I condemn sedevacantism, but as far as I can tell right now 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.)
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 Pope Francis twice a day.
Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Lost Sermons