Antipope Bergoglio attempts to promulgate formal heresy as official Church teaching

“This week, the Vatican’s organ for promulgating the Official Acts of the Apostolic See, Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS)has published its October 2016 issue, containing Pope Francis’ infamous Letter to the Buenos Aires Bishops. AAS not only published this letter, declaring that there are “no other interpretations” (“No hay otras interpretaciones”) of Amoris Laetitia other than those of the Buenos Aires bishops, but it also published the full Buenos Aires guidelines themselves, which permit Holy Communion in some cases for couples in a state of permanent and public adultery who are not committed to living in complete continence. Most significantly, AAS upgrades Pope Francis’ private letter to the Buenos Aires bishops to the official magisterial status of an “Apostolic Letter” (“Epistola Apostolica”) – AND it includes a special rescript as an addendum by Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State. This rescript declares that Pope Francis expressly intends that BOTH documents – the pope’s letter and the Buenos Aires guidelines themselves- bear the character of his “authentic Magisterium”, and that the pope personally ordered their publication in AAS and on the Vatican website.”
Full story at Rorate HERE

And still, there will be a gaggle of apologists queuing up to explain how it’s not “official”, not binding, not magisterial, not what he really meant, mistranslated, etc. Still others will admit that yes, it’s very troubling, but hey, no big deal, no worries, not our place to do anything, best shush up lest the pewsitters be scandalized.
Those are all lies, and the people providing the excuses are liars.
It’s a good thing Antipope Begoglio is not now, was not ever, nor ever shall be pope.  If he were truly pope, this would be the biggest event in the history of the Church since the Ascension, because it would seemingly disprove the Bride of Christ being indefectible, as her Bridegroom promised she would be until the end of time. A rational person with the ability to reason, who thinks Antipope Bergoglio is true pope, MUST LOGICALLY QUESTION HIS OR HER FAITH IN THE ONE HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH, because apparently SHE IS NOT IN FACT WHAT SHE HAS PROCLAIMED HERSELF TO BE FOR 2000 YEARS.
This is not some arcane theological argument. This is a matter of faith and morals where the “visible” Vicar of Christ on earth is directly contradicting Divine Law as spoken directly from the lips of the Creator and Savior of the universe.
Let that sink in.
Yeah, tell me again how the failed partial Benedict abdication is the cuckopants theory and just so far fetched. What an utterly absurd position that is, when the amount of evidence in favor of it continues to grow. Every day that Antipope Bergoglio proves beyond any doubt that he lacks a shred of special papal protection from the Holy Ghost, due to his election being invalid, he strengthens the Benedictine position more and more. For all those still straining to come up with he latest way to square the circle, you’re invited to come have a scotch with me and Occam’s razor.

15 thoughts on “Antipope Bergoglio attempts to promulgate formal heresy as official Church teaching”

  1. A true pope can not solemnly declare heresy. This “authentic magisterium” that calls for religious assent, not assent of faith, is, according to Church teaching, not irreformable, that is, possible to be erroneous. So while this is very bad indeed, and it is heresy that he is promoting, he is very clever about it, and he is not doing it in a way that declares that he cannot be the pope. Now, he can be deposed for this, and the Cardinals need to give him the required warnings prior to declaring him an official heretic.

  2. Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening, Mary Ann. I see the excuses flying that this is not FROM THE CHAIR, technically speaking, and so it’s ‘much to do about nothing’. We are going to get the same ol same ol ‘carry on Christian soldiers, move along, nothing to see here.’ Meanwhile Bergoglio and Co. are going to promulgate heresy, and even if this is not ‘formal’ heresy, they will pretend that it is……and anyone not going along with such will be headed (excuse the pun) for the guillotine. Bergoglio himself will not be doing the job, but he will farm it out to his ‘subjects’ that he’s put in place for 4 1/2 years now. His humbleness doesn’t like to get his ‘hands dirty’ you know.
    We have Churchmen that are either weak and effeminate or they are on board with his TOTAL apostasy. There are only a VERY few that will fight for Christ in His Church. I’m afraid the fighting is up to US the laity.
    PUT ON YOUR ARMOR, it’s past time that we need to get serious about going to war! No one else except of course for HEAVEN ITSELF is going to help us. We are ON OUR OWN.

  3. Please understand the difference between settled doctrine and tradition which has not yet been defined. The latter is protected by the Holy Ghost, the former is not. A pope binds his successors.
    The Holy Ghost gives us the law, He does not prevent us (or anyone, even a pope) from rejecting the law.

    1. I think you got that backwards (the latter – that which comes after; the former – that which comes first). The first (former) you listed was settled doctrine. I don’t think you meant to say settled doctrine is not protected by the Holy Ghost, while the latter (tradition which has not yet been defined) is protected?

      1. c matt – No, latter means latter and former means former. This is a hard concept, but it is correct and i validated my understanding by writing to the Roman Theological Forum, i.e. Fr Brian Harrison and co. For example, there is nothing preventing a bad pope from declaring ex-cathedra that BVM was not immaculately conceived except Pius IX’s infallible 1853 declaration and an angry lynch mob. The question was already settled supernaturally by Pius IX. On the other hand, if Pius IX had tried to condemn the Immaculate Conception, he would have been unable through the intervention of the Holy Spirit, because the question was still open.
        People are being unnecessarily scandalized by worrying that a pope might contradict defined tradition, as if it would mean the indefectability of the Church would be proven false. The Holy Ghost has already done what he promised to do — to give us correct and immutable teaching. What we choose to do with it, whether laymen or churchmen …or pope, is up to us.

        1. If the claim here is that papal infallibility only applies to matters previously unsettled, why would that be so? Are we to believe that the Holy Ghost would withhold His special protections from a valid pontiff speaking on a matter of settled doctrine? Why would He do that? Does that not suggest that the Triune Godhead can at once act in accord with His divine will and yet against it at the same time? Moreover, where is this idea promulgated in the documents from Vatican I or Pius IX?

          1. docmx001 – “If the claim here is that papal infallibility only applies to matters previously unsettled, why would that be so?”
            Why are we baptised one time? Because when God intervenes, His action is eternal.
            “Are we to believe that the Holy Ghost would withhold His special protections from a valid pontiff speaking on a matter of settled doctrine?”
            Are we to believe that God would allow us to fall into mortal sin after regenerating us in the sacrament of baptism? Yes, free will.
            Similar to baptism, dogma leaves an indelible mark imprinted upon the teaching of the Church. And as mortal sin cannot efface the mark of baptism on a soul, heresy cannot erase settled doctrine.

          2. Devil’s Advocate: Would the matter at hand even rise to the level of settled doctrine? The language of Familiaris Consortio #84 suggests not, as it opens the door to “discernment of situations” and reaffirms the prohibition from the Eucharist for the divorced and “remarried” merely as a “practice.” In fact, the first two paragraphs of FC#84 would fit perfectly in chapter eight of AL, but with AL then going on to make further distinctions in discerning certain situations, and altering “practice” in some of those situations. The intervening 36 years has made those situations much more prevalent, after all.

          3. The Trent popes dealt with the matter in response to M Luther’s heresies. 23rd Session canon 7, and 13th session canon 11. I’m sure there are others. But the two issues here are whether adultery is a mortal sin, and whether someone can receive communion in mortal sin.
            The problem with post V2 documents (and V2 docs) is that V2 ushered in this “discernment of situations” error, e.g. a Jew could possibly find a way to heaven through invincible ignorance, therefore we can no longer teach the Jews are not saved. Or because of ignorance, protestants are now separated brethren rather than heretics. How can V2 teach the opposite of Tradition and yet still be free of error? Discernment of situations…they say. You could read Aquinas explaining truth, how it is to be judged essentially (what we loosely call objectively) and cannot be judged accidentally (subjectively). I cannot judge whether my personal soul is in a state of grace before receiving communion….we don’t know for sure, right? As Joan of Arc famously responded to her examiners: “If i am not in a state of grace, God put me there, if i am, God keep me there.” We judge ourselves essentially, objectively to be in a state of grace by following the laws of God and the precepts of mother Church. And if we don’t follow the Law, we cannot discern whether we are personally ignorant or crazy, and therefore unaccountable, and neither can a priest. And the only time the Church accidentally judges individuals to be definitively in a state of grace is when she raises a saint to the alters, whom she judges essentially according to the law and then by an extraordinary act of grace judges accidentally. A very few souls were given this extraordinary grace such as the Fatima children, etc.

          4. “The two issues here are whether adultery is a mortal sin, and whether someone can receive communion in mortal sin.” That’s not really true. In Chapter Eight of AL, the issue is whether persons who are objectively in a state of mortal sin may have their subjective culpability reduced to zero through a process of discernment, and thereby receive communion. It is rooted in the twin errors of man being incapable of keeping the commandments and man being able to discern his own absolution, both ideas having been condemned at Trent session six, canons XIV and XX. You rightly call out the impossibility of discerning the state of grace in your comment. So I guess we are back to settled doctrine, but again what is in front of us is being presented as only a pastoral change in practice, which makes it harder to fight, does it not? I totally agree with everything you say about VII and post-VII documents; they are not merely open to multiple interpretations, but filled with erroneous ideas.

  4. he lacks a shred of special papal protection from the Holy Ghost
    I disagree – he seems to be very well protected from any influence of the Holy Ghost. 🙂
    Seriously though, there is really no question that “unrepentant adulterers are not to be admitted to Holy Communion” is settled doctrine. There is also no doubt that Bergo has said “there is no other interpretation” that in some cases, the foregoing does not apply. The only remaining question in my mind is what is to be done about it? If I witness a robbery, I have no doubt that the person committing the robbery is a robber. I personally have no authority to commit that person to prison, but I can call the cops and provide testimony. It is the jury and judge that pass final sentence and remove the robber from open society. So what is the proper constituted authority to depose the Pope (or declare Bergo’s election invalid, or BXVI’s abdication invalid, etc.)? I really don’t see that I have that authority, although I do have the duty (right?) to steer clear of his heresy, and therefore not bound by his silliness.

  5. Benedict XVI is Our Pope and “Francis” is Antipope Bergoglio
    Chanan Mattison·Friday, December 8, 201753 Reads
    “At this critical moment in the life of the institutional Church, I do not see how it is possible for anyone who is well-informed regarding the issues that are involved in the controversies surrounding the present pontificate to remain silent.” — Bishop Rene H. Gracida, Corpus Christi.
    May I, by grace, help with your difficulties? The St Gallen Conspiracy against the Catholic Church got rid of Benedict XVI, pushing him aside and replaced him with their designated choice. Thus for several reasons, the resignation of Benedict XVI was irregular and likely invalid. Hence Benedict XVI remains our Pope. And for several reasons more, the election of Jorge Bergoglio was also irregular and likely invalid. Hence he is an Antipope (of which Holy Church has had @ 40 of them).
    Let me so briefly expand this argument: Reasons for invalidity of Benedict’s resignation include undue pressure, his fear, his resigning with the manifest error in his mind of a dual papacy (confirmed by Ganswein), and even at the suggestion of one canonist that he deliberately inserted error in the resignation. All of them (and there may be more!) invalidated the resignation. Of course if they are true (and they are well documented) then it would invalidate the subsequent election of Bergoglio, since Benedict XVI was and is – remains the Successor of St Peter.
    The reasons for invalidity of the subsequent election are even more clear: First, St Robert Bellarmine teaches that a heretic is automatically ineligible for election as Supreme Pontiff. Second, since Pope St John Paul II feared just such a future event, he proclaimed Universi Dominici Gregis, which if you study you will find that he outlawed just such a conspiracy (there have been an untold number of both political & ecclesiastical conspiracies in the history of civilization) as St Gallen. The St Gallen Conspiracy goes even further back to Cardinal Martini who made a deal with Cardinal Ratzinger that if he assented to his election, it would have to be brief. The conspiracy was both real and well documented and John Paul II feared it might come and if you read Universi Dominici Gregis, he was meeting such with a series of apostolic level canons explicitly made for such an event, which if such took place, the benefactor and his supporters were to be excommunicated Latae Sententiae (automatic & immediate) and the Latae Sententiae sentence would also apply to the rendering of the election as de facto null and void. There are even other reasons (such as canons forbidding a Jesuit for instance) but I think the above ones are clear, in fact absolutely unambiguous. But suffice to say that Bellarmine besides invalidating a heretic being elected, the promulgation of material heresy during the antipapacy also invalidates such a pretender and renders him an Antipope.
    So alot of your arguments are beside the point. You must study all these matters prayerfully and through the gifts of the Holy Spirit simply discern the truth and then summon the moral courage to proclaim the truth: Antipope Bergoglio are two words which fit like a hand in a glove! You have to see the big picture, which is the fact that BOTH the sudden resignation (he had extensive travel plans) AND the subsequent election are two sides of the SAME conspiracy — which is an illegal & destructive, an evil USURPATION of the Holy Catholic Church which must be WON BACK by Our Lady’s gallant Chevaliers.
    Jorge Bergoglio really has another problem: He has been teaching heresy, both in Amoris Laetitia and in other words & writings. This argument here has been dealing with the fact that he is likely an Antipope. But clearly since he has been teaching false doctrines on faith and morals, it is even MORE certain he is technically a heretic – and heretics and antipopes are supposed to be deposed by constitutive ecclesial authorities.
    There is a duty by our Church hierarchs, namely the Cardinals & Bishops, and there is a duty of the Laity. The former is to do as some (too few actually living up to this duty) have been doing with the Dubia and the Filial Correction: In the case of heresy, two official warnings are due – then deposition by a Council. The duty of the Laity (and hierarchy) is to not listen to him, since he is teaching “damnable & destructive heresies” in the words of St Paul the Apostle. “My sheep listen to MY voice and the voice of the false shepherd they do not hear!” This was the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, who recognized the post-conciliar Popes since they were not tried nor deposed for any charge of heresy. But in the case of a Pope like Bergoglio who is suspected by many learned and mainstream Catholics of heresy – its a similar stance we are to take toward the heretical Pope. They remain Pope (unless they are Antipopes) UNTIL such time they are sentenced as such by an episcopal council. So one acknowledges them as Pope but does not heed their teaching. At least that’s the view of the learned canonists John of St Thomas, Thomas Cajetan, and Francisco Suarez. Bellarmine says they lose the munes or charism of Pope by Christ ipso facto, yet it also seems reasonably certain that for us men & women, the laity, the moment he loses the papacy is when he is declared excommunicated & deposed by a Council.
    However in the case of an Antipope, an alternative Pope such as Benedict XVI may simply already be the legitimate Pope and therefore it would be unreasonable to have to recognize the Antipope as well. However, some things would apply to both situations, such as the inadequacy of private opinion, without a Council or group of Roman Cardinals informing us of the situation.
    Though there are already canonists who agree with the opinion of this page, the complexity of Bergoglio being BOTH an antipope AND an heretic should require some extra reading – and prayer for our beseiged Catholic Church.
    If I have spoken or written with any admixture of error, I stand to be corrected by the One, Holy & Catholic Church of the Holy Fathers and the perennial Petrine Magisterium of the Ages. God have mercy on me a sinner and may Our Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on me.
    Bishop Gracida referred to Blessed John Henry Newman’s history of the Arian crisis, which describes:
    “It was the overwhelming resistance of the laity to the Arian heresy which eventually persuaded the majority of bishops ‘who were either Arian or semi-Arian’ to support the efforts of St Athanasius.”
    1. Jonathan Byrd:
    2. Fr Paul Kramer:
    3. Universi Dominici Gregis, Apostolic Constitution declared by Pope St John Paul II:
    4. Can the Church Depose an Heretical Pope? Written by Robert J. Siscoe:

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.