Skip to main content

Aqua: The "Synod of Popes" & "Those, like O'Reilly, Skojec and Mundabor (etc) who insist on Bergoglio as Pope at the same time they condemn him as a rank Heretic Apostate do grave damage to their own Faith"

Heretical popes & Limitation of Catholic Authority #sspx #catholic | Charles Carroll Society

Heretical popes & Limitation of Catholic Authority #sspx #catholic | Charles Carroll Society

Pin on Antipope / the False Prophet / one of the anti Christs - Bergoglio aka Francis

 Pope Francis Derangement Syndrome Vol. XX: Death Penalty Edition | Scott Eric Alt

The well known commenter Aqua had this to say to all Francis Catholics: 

"Those, like O'Reilly, Skojec and Mundabor (etc) who insist on Bergoglio as Pope at the same time they condemn him as a rank heretic Apostate do grave damage to their own faith, but also to that of others."

Below is also an interesting discussion on the above and the "Synod of Popes" in The Catholic Monitor comment section:

Comments

T said…
As far as I know no pope can be a formal heretic or teach formal heresy. A council defined the “gates of hell” as the death dealing tongues of heretics. If the pope is the rock that keeps the gates of hell from prevailing, then clearly the pope and heresy are mutually exclusive.

This is long before the definition of papal infallibility. The whole “we can’t know unless he teaches ex cathedra” thing is a red herring.
Fred Martinez said…
Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:

"[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

Here is what Vatican I expert Fr. Chad Ripperger, PhD, in his book "Magisterial Authority" says to Lewis who it appears is "proximate to heresy":

"[T]reat[ing] ALL papal statements as if they are infallible... is proximate to heresy because it rejects the precise formulation of the conditions of infallibility as laid out in by Vatican I... by essentially saying that the pope is infallible regardless of conditions."

"... Worse still, those who were to follow a pope who was in error in a non-infallible teaching which is taught contrary to something that is infallible is not, therefore, excused."
(Magisterial Authority, Pages 5-14)

Aqua said…
Fred,
Theoretically, you are correct. St. Francis De Sales was speaking theoretically, because it has never happened.

Those who committed the sin of heresy, immediately repented once their sin against the Faith was demonstrated to them.

Bergoglio is not Pope. Bergoglio is no minor heretic. He is Apostate. Everything he does is heretical and designed to lead the Faitnful away from the Faith. There has never been a Pope remotely like him.

Steven O'Reilly, on another thread here, and on his own blog, speaks for those who speculate about the heresy of this "Pope". That is a very, very dangerous road to go down, because it strikes at the heart of the Catholic Faith - the entire doctrine of Papal Infallibility which goes far beyond mere "Ex Cathedra". It was defined in Vatican I, but, like all dogmas, it precedes Vatican I which sources its own conclusions on Sacred Tradition.

Those, like O'Reilly, Skojec and Mundabor (etc) who insist on Bergoglio as Pope at the same time they condemn him as a rank heretic Apostate do grave damage to their own faith, but also to that of others. If a Pope can be allowed by God to do this - there is *no such thing as Divine protection* any more. It's done. Cooked. Over. O'Reilly is chasing impossible to prove theories. Skojec is no longer practicing the Faith. Mundabor is continuing to call the "Holy Father" evil clown and the most terrible of names and invectives. All such will never tolerate discussion of the base error: you can't have two visible Popes. The Office is Christ's. It is sacreligious to take what is His and play with it.

It has always been strange to me - this willingness to point out all the errors and heresy and apostasy from the Pope, but under no circumstances will they ever accept the base, precedent heretical error that underlies the false Pope leading the Church into all error.

Again de Sales is undoubtedly right from a theoretical perspective. Where in history can we see that theory proved? Bergoglio is,proof of antipope ... not heretical Pope.
Aqua said…
Here is Archbishop Nichols receiving the Hindu "Tilak" from his Hindu pal.

https://www.churchmilitant.com/images/uploads/news_feature/hindu.jpeg

What is a tilak?

"Tilak (“mark” in Sanskrit) is a paste made of ash, sandalwood, vermillion, clay, or turmeric, typically worn on the forehead, and sometimes other parts of the body — like the torso, arms, or neck — signifying which spiritual lineage a devotee adheres to within Hinduism. The shape of the tilak and the substance it’s made from generally corresponds to the God or Goddess that lineage worships (Shiva, Vishnu, Devi for example) ... It’s important to remember that tilak is not only sacred, but when you wear it, you’re representing an entire spiritual lineage. It’s thus best one understands the symbolism and profound meaning behind a particular tilak before donning it in public."

Who is this lost little boy Vincent Gerard Nichols, taking the mark of Satan and his false gods on his forehead? Merely an English cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church, Archbishop of Westminster and President of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales.

I did not sign up for a church that worships the devil. I didn't. I found SSPX, and for that I am thankful. This other thing, whose "Pope" encourages apostasy and sin; whose "Cardinals" persecute Tradition, but smile beatifically before a Hindu Pajari giving them "profound sacred (satanic) symbol" on his forehead where only the Cross of Christ should ever be. This thing (a civil war, Steven O'Reilly likes to call it ... he finds it humorous, his words) is visceral. Souls are being lost while we dither and dather about whether this rank heretic apostate is or is not .... Holy Father. Give me a break. I want no part of it.
T said…
Canon Law says that any heretic loses the papacy ipso facto. The declaration would just make it clear to everyone, it wouldn’t be an efficient cause as to why he lost the papacy.

So we have different possible explanation to why this guy teaches heresy:

- He fell into heresy after being lawfully elected

- His election was invalid because he adhered to formal heresy prior to the conclave

- His election was invalid because the seat is occupied.

- His election was invalid because his conclave had irregularities.

There is evidence for all 4.
Aqua said…
T
I have to go with option 3. And only 3.

Bergoglio and his heresies are a red herring. The irregularities, also red herrings. Option 1, 2 and 4 all assume that a Conclave was authorized and a second occupant legitimate to sit and visibly appear side by side.

THAT is the precedent heresy and the only one that matters. Everything else that has and ever will go wrong flows from that. Heresy is as natural as air in such a deformation at the cornerstone.

How heretical he is (or is not) is not the issue. They could have elected Pope Pius X himself who ruled with equivalent orthodoxy. He still would have been an antipope and equally intolerable.

We have two visible Popes for the first time in 2,000 years. Oh, sure there have been two (+) Popes before ... in competition for the claim of the *sole* occupant of St. Peter's Throne. This is different. By mutual acclaim and acceptance we have two visible Popes, the first of whom failed to resign in accordance with the clear, simple language of Canon Law. There is no legal basis for any of this within Sacred Tradition or Canon Law.

This really has less to do with Bergoglio. More to do with the damaged Papacy itself. They are turning it into a "Synod" before our eyes, and getting us to cooperate with and agree to the transformation.

The heresy that emanates from such a thing? It is a natural byproduct of the infernal attack on the Office itself. We are focused in the heresy. They are building something new. They are going to win, unless we reject this Synodal multi-Pope thing they are creating.
Aqua said…
In support of my comments above, I have read speculation that ill health will render Bergoglio unable to serve (with his usual flair) and that he might "retire". "Trads" are hopeful in this and speculate on who might replace him.

That will give us three visible Popes in the "enclosure of St. Peter" - a contemplative Pope, a merciful Pope and an active Pope.

IOW: a synodal Papacy.

That is a core violation of the Faith; fundamental; fatal.
T said…
From Constantinople II:

“These matters having been treated with thorough-going exactness, we bear in mind what was promised about the holy church and him who said that the gates of hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics); we also bear in mind what was prophesied about the church by Hosea when he said, I shall betroth you to me in faithfulness and you shall know the Lord; and we count along with the devil, the father of lies, the uncontrolled tongues of heretics and their heretical writings, together with the heretics themselves who have persisted in their heresy even to death.”

Heresy from the alleged pope is not a red herring. This passage tells us how to understand the promise of Christ. There is a clear opposition between Peter and the death-dealing tongues of heretics. Can the rock on which His Church is built be a heretic?

That someone is a formal heretic prove he can’t be pope, according to dogma. The reason is just investigating why he isn’t the pope.

Canon Law teaches that the superior cannot be judged by the inferior. The reason why authority in the Church can judge that the putative pope fell into heresy is because he already fell outside the Church and hence is nobody’s superior anymore. Pope have to be members of the Church.
Aqua said…
T:

Canon Law teaches that you can't have a new Pope until the old Pope has vacated his Office.

We have two Popes.

We are supposed to have but one Pope.

The heresy of the new "Pope" is not relevant as "Papal heresy" because the new "Pope" is no Pope at all.

We have to go back to the beginning, retrace our steps. Benedict is Pope. Bergoglio's heresy is that he has placed himself on St Peter's Throne which is already occupied by another.

The "red herring" is when we judge the heresy of a Pope, as if he had the honor and Divine Office of actually being a Pope. He is as much Pope as I am.

There.Was.No.Conclave - it was illegal since the Seat was and still remains occupied.
Aqua said…
T:

And the reason this is important is that everyone seems to be strangely comfortable with this deformation that suggests we can have a stable of Popes, "safely and forever within the enclosure of St. Peter" (Benedict/Ganswein's words). A synodal Papacy.

Put Bergoglio into that stable of retired Popes and most "Trads" would be happy. But it would be even more disastrous than present, because it locks in the "synodal nature" of the Papacy that is a mortal threat to the cornerstone - every Pope in the "stable" offers something new and important to the "Synod of Popes". We have to return to Christ's choice of *one* Monarch in the RCC Monarchy.

The "ontological" reality is that Bergoglio is no Pope. We have to retrace our steps, and start from reality.
Aqua said…
T:

As I was thinking about this, another way to say it is like this …

We don’t have a bad Pope that has introduced heresy into the Church.
We have a heretical Papacy (itself) that has opened the gates of the Church to heresy - from the Seat on down.
The original Papal deformation is the crack through which heresy is spreading like cancer.
We have to mend the “crack” introducing pathogens at the source, before we can treat and stop the heresy introduced through it.
The Papal Monarchy has Divine protections, guaranteed by the Church. That is what we have lost, since 2013. [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/05/what-can-be-done-if-francis-is-antipope.html]

Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost - Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.

Francis Notes:

- Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:

"[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)


Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said "the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church."
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]

- "If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?": http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html

- "Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?": http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html

 -  LifeSiteNews, "Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers," December 4, 2017:

The AAS guidelines explicitly allows "sexually active adulterous couples facing 'complex circumstances' to 'access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'"

-  On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:

"The AAS statement... establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense."

- On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:

"Francis' heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents."

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.

Election Notes:  

- Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: "212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted...Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden" [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]

- Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times "Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003": http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html

- Tucker Carlson's Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written" according to Rush: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/tucker-carlsons-conservatism-inc-biden.html?m=1
 
- A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020:
http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/01/a-hour-which-will-live-in-infamy-1001pm.html?m=1
 
What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: "Anitfa 'Agent Provocateurs'":
http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1

Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God's Will and to do it.
 
Pray an Our Father now for America.
 
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

 

Comments

Steven O'Reilly said…
Fred,

Are you that desperate for blog content that you must continually resort to the combox for it? Really? If you are going to publish such comments as article content, don't you then assume responsibility and liability for that content, and errors in it?

I speak for no one but myself. Mundabor and others can speak for themselves.

Catholic Monitor posts:

"Those, like O'Reilly, Skojec and Mundabor (etc) who insist on Bergoglio as Pope at the same time they condemn him as a rank heretic Apostate do grave damage to their own faith, but also to that of others."

I reply:

Where have I ever "condemned" Bergoglio as a "rank heretic Apostate"? Source please?

My position has been consistent: In my opinion, many valid questions have been raised about Francis, such as in the Open Letter. These should be, and need to be examined by competent Church authorities. I'd like to see an imperfect council look into such questions. Given an imperfect council is a practical improbability, a future pope will need to examine this pontificate, and judge it. That is not my place or anyone else's to judge. Only competent Church authorities can declare the final decision on the question. How does that damage my faith? It is essentially the position Bellarmine's position, i.e., one in which there is no place private judgment in place of the Church's on such a question. I leave it to the Church.

Contrary to this approach, the leading Benepapists have proclaimed a final judgment aside from competent Church authority: "Benedict is definitely still pope" and "Francis is definitely an anti-pope". The leading Benepapists who have already declared a judgment on a question only pope can decide, i.e., rule on the validity of a papal act. On top of that, they try to convince others to accept their judgment as a fact that should be acted upon. For example, there are leading Benepapists who have issued a declaration and petition pledging their fidelity to Benedict as the still reigning pope, and declaring they won't accept a future conclave that fails certain conditions they(!) have set.

Catholic Monitor Posts:

"...All such will never tolerate discussion of the base error: you can't have two visible Popes."

I reply:

This is nonsense. Obviously, one cannot have two REAL popes at the same time. Who is arguing that is possible? Who is arguing one can have "two visible popes" if by this you mean "two real popes"?

Certainly on Roma Locuta Est I have posted a number of articles rejecting the premise that we even have the appearance of "two visible popes." Apparently, you see two guys wearing white and declare 'we can't have two visible pope.' The truth is, Benedict wears a simple white cassock. He no longer wears the mozzetta, or red shoes -- all symbols of papal authority. He does not wear the Fisherman's ring, a symbol of the papal office. The Benepapists don't address these contrary questions with regard to the change in Benedict's attire post resignation.

Benedict is an ex-pope, who decided to continue to wear a simple white cassock -- but without the mozzeta and red shoes to exhibit a distinction to show he is no longer pope. Regarding the honorific, "emeritus" (e.g., see canon 185), i.e., it applies to an office which is 'lost due to resignation.' While c. 185 was not written with the papacy in mind; it seems rather clear Benedict intended "emeritus" in the same sense as c. 185 -- i.e., an honorific for an office LOST DUE TO RESIGNATION. Thus, the very title "emeritus" itself proves Benedict recognizes he lost his office due to his resignation.

So...there is no confusion here...except for those who cannot get beyond the color "white" as trumping all other evidence against their position.

Regards,

Steve O'Reilly
(www.RomaLocutaEst.com)
Steve,

That's amusing because I find that Aqua is a better writer in terms of clarity and coming to the point of the argument than you. Every now and then you have interesting ideas ("content"), but your writing style reminds me of the sometimes almost unreadable postmodernist's dense prose.

As long time Catholic Monitor readers know many times I post comment section writers because their stuff is just better than what I could write on that particular subject.

By the way, I was a paid journalist for the San Francisco Faith and wrote for NewsMax during the first Sex Abuse Scandal.

Best,

Fred Martinez
Aqua said…
" .... except for those who cannot get beyond the color "white" as trumping all other evidence against their position."

Ah, yes. That troublesome white color. Worn by the man who still calls himself Pope. Who poses for Papal photos with the other guy while receiving new Cardinals.

No, I can't get beyond the color.

Nor can I get beyond that little word Munus, curiously absent from his resignation sentence.

Catholics don't do innovation. Innovation is not compatible with the Faith.
Aqua said…
PS: One man (only) on earth gets to wear white. It has always been thus.
Steven O'Reilly said…
Fred,

I have never suggested my writing is better than anyone else's, yours or Aqua's or whomever! In terms of writing and reader's opinions, my view on the quality of writing has been the reader's opinion is always right. So, I bow to your opinion of my many, manifest faults.

That said, not sure why you are focused now on writing quality. The point of my comments was neither your writing quality nor your resume, but your propensity to resort to comboxes for content. You continually post from your and other comboxes, using the words of others as your articles. If you want to attack my opinions -- as you seem to want to do, just come out and use your own words, Fred. Don't hide behind Aqua, or Acosta and her ad hominems -- as you did. Say it, man. Have the courage of your convictions. Say it, man. Put your name on it.

But...either way...if you are going to publish it...take the responsibility and liability for what you publish as an article. So, for example, I want to know where I used the term "rank heretic apostate" on my blog, as you published. Link, please?

Also, please...finally respond to the first two of the dubia I submitted on your site. You said you would respond. They are on your site. You know where they are, and what they are. I am certainly not a fan of Skojec nowadays...but I do remember how you harassed him on your site for not answering your dubia. Well, I answered them the same day you asked me to. Please answer mine. Now. Or...admit to a bit of hypocrisy.

Regards,

Steve O'Reilly
(www.RomaLocutaEst.com)

Steven O'Reilly said…
Aqua,

He wears white...but he no longer wears the mozetta, or red shoes, or the Fisherman's ring. No answer on that?

Regarding the "munus" that has been answer before:

""ministerium"...can be used for 'office.' That is clear in the latin dictionaries. Secondly, canon 332.2 does not require the word "munus" be used at all. Even Estefania Acosta **admits** this much in her book -- and she is a full blow Benepapist. The ONLY two requirements EXPLICITLY SPECIFIED in canon 332.2 is that the resignation be "Free" and "properly manifested." That is it. Basta cosi. Full stop. The point isn't even debatable. The canon literally says that. Third, Celestine V and Boniface VIII, whence we have the definitive teaching a pope can resign, do not say the word "munus" must be used. Essentially, the teaching is a pope can resign the 'papacy' (see the Liber Sextus). So, any number of words might be used. It is not for you or anyone else to declare what can't be used.

So, contrary to your assertions, there is no set formula, either one necessary word, or necessary phrase. Common sense suggests, it should be obvious that a pope intends to resign the papacy. In that regard, it is impossible to read the Declaratio's key phrase without understanding Benedict is renouncing the papacy. He said he renounced the 'ministry' of the bishop of Rome "in such a way" that the "See of Rome, the See of Peter" would be vacant and a new conclave must be called. What else can be resigned in such a way that the See of Rome, the See of Peter is vacant? Nothing, except the papacy itself. It is clear. It is plain. It is obvious.

However, even *if* we were to entertain the question about the use of 'ministry' it is not for you or I to act on that doubt to affirm the resignation is definitely invalid. Papal acts are not subject to review or appeal, except by a future pope."

God bless,

Steve O'Reilly
(www.RomalocutaEst.com)
T said…
All I’m satins is that the formal heresy shows that whoever Bergoglio is, he’s not the pope. We can argue about why he’s not the pope, but that fact alone shows he isn't, the denial of which calls Christ a liar. Unless you say that Christ meant that no one with legal authority would ever judge the pope to be a heretic.
Aqua said…
Steven:

332.2 is a logical progression of "If" and "Then".

*IF* it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his *office* ...
*THEN* ...

Everything hangs on the word Munus.

Munus is who the Pope is.
Ministerium is what the Pope does.

Ministerium is not used interchangeably with Munus in Canon Law. Every sentence in every Canon that describes the nature and facets of Papal authority use Munus. Never Ministerium.

You want them to be =, because your thesis hangs on it. They are not =.

And your thesis is proved false, dangerously false, because the result is an apostate Pope leading the visible Church to commit every possible error starting with the worship of false gods and Idols, and proceeding on to desecrate the Eucharist, admit sodomy into the Priesthood and marriage and officially violate every one of the Ten Commandments.

It is a dumpster fire. THAT is proof that your thesis of Munus = Ministerium is false.

But once again, if you truly believe Bergoglio is valid Holy Father until proven otherwise ... as a Catholic you are required to venerate him and follow where he leads. And IF he is Pope, that should be as easy and natural as taking a breath of air.

It is not. So you won't.
Aqua said…
In addition, in reference to Ministerium ...

It doesn't talk about Ministerium in Canon Law because Canon Law does not restrict what a Pope must do in his Munus, Office.

Once in Office, the Pope acts in any variety of ways, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit. Canon Law does not speak to this relationship of activity. It sets *boundries*, laws that must not be broken, but it does not specify how a Pope will rule, act in his Ministerium to the Church for God.

Canon Law does speak to how a Pope can enter and leave his Office. That law was violated when a simple declarative sentence that could have resigned him from Office, instead just took him out of its administration of "ministry".

One sentence. One word. And now ... the dumpster fire that is consuming our Church shows the result of a choice that led the Church into error under a Pope without Divine Protection of an Office connected to God, its author - an antipope.

And of you think what we see under Bergoglio has any precedent in all recorded Catholic history ... I have no words for that. His is a constant stream of heresy and error and outright Apostasy from God, demanded by the titular but false Vicar of Christ ...

https://www.forhumanfraternity.org/abrahamic-family-house/
Aqua said…
In regards to the Divine protections, codified by Vatican Council I, reading that you see the same thing - every word of it rests in the Office of Peter. Line after line after line reference is to Office, Office, Office. His authority and the Divine connection that renders protection - for the sake of the Faithful - is in the Office.

Since our souls hang in the balance, under the spiritual leadership of the Pope, it is our Divine *right* to know who the Pope is and whether we are required to folllow one in total submission to ultimate and lawful authority.

And that is why, the only question that should matter: Who.Is.Pope?

I have answered that question for myself, in conscience, after years of prayer, conversations, Confessions etc. And I am now fully comfortable, in conscience, in ignoring every word that comes from the mouth of Bergoglio.

The solution is simple and understandable to any Catholic with a brain and in possession of his senses. The solution doesn't even require the ability to read. The simplest among us can know, MUST KNOW, who is Pope and act in accord with that knowledge.

And that is how I would expect it to go under a just and merciful God who demands obedience to all Truth, but also provides a path to find it ... if we search for it with all our heart.
Debbie said…
Given all the evidence, especially the pachademon worship and the almost immediate effects on the entire planet thereafter, aren't enough "proof" that Bergoglio is NOT the pope....then I don't suppose anything said to the likes of Mr. O'Reilly will convince them.

As it stands today, a future "pope" from a Bergoglio "pontificate" will only give us Francis II. Something needs to be said and done now, as there seems to be exactly zero Cardinals or bishops willing to act. Heck, Cd. Burke still hasn't done the promised formal correction.

No, Mr. O'Reilly, the people need a Saint right now to help us and that often comes from the laity.
Anonymous said…
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/the-true-meaning-of-bellarmines-ipso.html

-Fred & Aqua need to read this.
Anonymous said…
@Fred

Your blog is a mess...it needs a major do over. I've had other big name Catholic bloggers personally say to me that your site is a "joke". I don't see a porblem with you as a journalist but it needs a better theme or format.
Aqua said…
Anonymous 4:02

That is a scuzzy comment. Def: "dirty, shabby, or foul in condition or character." You left a stinky on the carpet.



Popular posts from this blog

Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Francis teaches HERESY," now, the question is will he do a Skojec & a Schneider Cop Out

    Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation: "[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic , he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him , or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See." (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306) Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Pope Francis teaches HERESY: Pope Pius XII condemned the heresy of Francis": Pope Francis on Feb 2 2022, taught, "that in Christ no one can ever truly separate us from those we love because the bond is an existential bond, a strong bond that is in our very nature...who have denied the faith, who are apostates." Pope Pius XII taught the exact opposite when he wrote of those: "who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or b

The Nuremberg Trial-like Excuse which Cardinal Burke has so Staggeringly, so Stereotypically Proffered on the Promised “Formal Correction”

Does Cardinal Burke think Francis is an antipope? On at least five occasions, Cardinal Burke has rejected the magisterial nature of official papal teaching (in one case, pre-emptively dismissing a hypothetical official teaching of the Magisterium): Cardinal Burke has rejected the official teaching of Pope Francis in the new Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Communio concerning the possibility that a pope can raise the final synodal document to the level of ordinary magisterium, if the pope chooses. (We covered the Episcopalis Communio here .) The whole apostolic constitution on the Synod is problematic. … This idea that either the Pope on his own or the Synod together with the Pope can create some new Magisterium [i.e. a new teaching of the ordinary Magisterium], is simply false. The Synod is a consultative body, to help the Pope to see how best to present the Church’s teaching in time. It’s not able to create ordinary Magisterium. As a canon lawyer, Cardinal Burk

"The same Globalists who installed Biden... installed the Zelensky regime... [&] those who did not volunteer for this are Literal Human Shields for the Zelensky/Soros government... [if] Trump had survived the election coup in 2020 we would have no Ukraine war"

Above: Ukrainian President Zelensky (2nd from left) and three other men perform a homoerotic skit on Ukrainian television.    What is the Real Agenda of the corrupt Joe & Hunter Biden's Russiagate backing of the Trudeau-like Obama corrupt Ukraine Operatives in their Warmongering Posturing? "If President Trump had survived the election coup in 2020 we would have no Ukraine war (because he respects Russia’s legitimate security interests and wants to disband NATO)." - Scott Lively Constitutional lawyer Scott Lively thinks that the "same globalists who installed Biden... installed the Zelensky regime in Ukraine... [and] those who did not volunteer for this are literal human shields for the Zelensky/Soros government": The use of human shields in warfare of any kind is a horrifying satanic tactic, and, ironically, it is most effective against people who are truly humane. The tactic uses our humanity against us, because we don’t want the innocent t