Death Penalty Bergoglian heresy explained in easy terms to know and share

Originally posted September 13, 2022

“And one of those robbers who were hanged, blasphemed him, saying: If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering, rebuked him, saying: Neither dost thou fear God, seeing thou art condemned under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done no evil. And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom. And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.” -Luke 23:39-43

Did you catch that? Did you catch verse 41, inspired by the Third Person of the Triune Godhead, through the hand of St. Luke?

“And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds…”

If you understand the truth of the eternal nature of the human soul, which Bergoglio denies, then you should be able to easily understand the death penalty as reflective of God’s perfect justice AND His perfect mercy.

The Good Thief was justly condemned to death, then repented, believed in Christ, and was saved. The death penalty is a mercy to attain salvation.

5 thoughts on “Death Penalty Bergoglian heresy explained in easy terms to know and share”

  1. The Antipope forgets that the murdered human being also has dignity enough to demand just recompense. Eye for eye, foot for foot, dignity for dignity. And remember that the court cannot offer forgiveness on the deceased’s behalf.

    Somehow Franky also forgets to emphasize the dignity of the unborn. Where are those tweets? Or does the mother’s dignity trump the child’s?

  2. The third Person of the Holy Trinity provided a quote from a fallible human being. That he thought he was being justly executed is not coming from the Holy Spirit. It came from his own lips.

    Capital punishment is just in certain cases. Bergoglio is wrong. But it is not correct to believe that the words of the good thief quoted by St. Luke were infallibly correct. They were merely infallibly accurately quoted.

  3. I think JPII had it right: not inadmissable but should be avoided if possible. I don’t think the state is capable of discerning God’s judgement, or that judges impartially deal justice, especially since state no longer recognize Christ’s kingship. But to say that it inadmissible is to say that the Church approved evil officially in the past.

  4. Obviously in certain contexts the DP is admissible since the Lord commanded the death penalty for certain sins. However, not always since the DP was not meted to the first murderer.

Leave a Reply

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