THE HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
v.
JORGE MARIO BERGOGLIO aka FRANCIS,
Defendant.
======================================================
CHARGE NO. 1: Heresy
SUMMARY: The defendant publicly denies that the state of mortal sin, with specific reference to adultery and fornication, entails the loss of sanctifying grace; even on the part of those who are not ignorant of the demands of the divine law.
EVIDENCE: On 8 April 2016, the defendant promulgated the following:
“It can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation [adultery, fornication] are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule.” (Amoris Laetitia 301)
APPLICABLE LAW: Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter XV:
“In opposition also to the subtle wits of certain men, who, by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent, it is to be maintained, that the received grace of Justification [sanctifying grace] is lost, not only by infidelity whereby even faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal sin whatever, though faith be not lost; thus defending the doctrine of the divine law, which excludes from the kingdom of God not only the unbelieving, but the faithful also (who are) fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, liers with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, railers, extortioners, and all others who commit deadly sins…”
VERDICT: Guilty as charged
======================================================
CHARGE NO. 2: Heresy
SUMMARY: The defendant publicly denies that divine grace makes all deadly sins avoidable, citing the existence of particular circumstances that do not allow for one to meet the demands of the divine law.
EVIDENCE: On 8 April 2016, the defendant promulgated the following:
“A subject may know full well the rule [divine law concerning the mortal sins of adultery and fornication], yet have great difficulty in understanding its inherent values, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.” (Amoris Laetitia 301)
APPLICABLE LAW: cf Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter XV:
“With the help of divine grace, one can refrain from the deadly sins of adultery and fornication.”
APPLICABLE LAW: Council of Trent, Session VI, Canon XVIII:
“If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.”
VERDICT: Guilty as charged
======================================================
CHARGE NO. 3: Blasphemy
SUMMARY: The defendant publicly accuses God of willing mankind to sin.
EVIDENCE: On 8 April 2016, the defendant promulgated the following:
“It [the conscience of the adulterer / fornicator] can recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it [persistence in adultery / fornication] is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal.” (Amoris Laetitia 303)
APPLICABLE LAW: Epistle of Saint James 13:1
“Let no man, when he is tempted, say that he is tempted by God. For God is not a tempter of evils: and he tempteth no man.”
VERDICT: Guilty as charged
======================================================
CONCLUSION: Jorge Mario Bergoglio aka Francis is a blasphemous heretic; not because any human power says so, but because the Holy Catholic Church, divinely endowed in such way as to teach the truth without error, says so.
May those who are charged with the duty of shepherding souls unto salvation, by the grace of Almighty God, be moved to protect the flock by publicly condemning all of the above mentioned offenses; lest they one day find themselves standing before the just Judge answering for each and every one as if they were their own.
Outside of [WHAM & BAM-!!!] I don’t have the vocabulary to respond to this article.
Great job, Louie.
Brilliant!
Brilliant
Now that’s what I’m talking about!
Give no quarter !!!!
Well done!
Archbishop Lefebvre “An erroneous conscience makes life easier for man, Untruth keeping truth at bay, would be better for man than truth, It would not be the truth that would set him free, but rather he would have to be freed from the truth, Man would be more at home in the dark than in the light. Faith would not be the good gift of the good God but instead an burden. “
Guilty as charged, great article Louie.
Yes, Francis is guilty as charged. Now who will bring him to court to make it official? Where is the accountability? Bergoglio will continue his grievous assault against the Catholic Church until he is stopped or dies which ever comes first. Where do we go from here? Remember–The world loves Francis because he loves the world. His loyalty to all things secular and humanistic supercedes his awesome responsibilies to Our Lord’s Church. Is he a successor to Peter or to the one who betrayed?
Nailed it!
Outstanding! Can we have an “AMEN!”
“Truth is like a Lion. It needs no defense. Turn it loose. It will defend itself”
St Augustine
News Flash to All Prelates, Clergy, Religious and Laity:
Now is the time for all Defenders of the One True Faith to Stand Up and be counted. The Blunt Truth from the Founder and His Church is either:
“Please God and attain Heaven or Please Man and attain Hell!”
Mark 14:66-72
“…66 Now when Peter was in the court below, there cometh one of the maidservants of the high priest.
67 And when she had seen Peter warming himself, looking on him she saith: Thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth.
68 But he denied, saying: I neither know nor understand what thou sayest. And he went forth before the court; and the cock crew.
69 And again a maidservant seeing him, began to say to the standers by: This is one of them.
70 But he denied again. And after a while they that stood by said again to Peter: Surely thou art one of them; for thou art also a Galilean.
71 But he began to curse and to swear, saying; I know not this man of whom you speak.
72 And immediately the cock crew again. And Peter remembered the word that Jesus had said unto him: Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt thrice deny me. And he began to weep. ”
.
I sincerely hope Francis repents before he dies.
–
This article will fit easily on the two sides of one sheet of paper. It would make a very handy bulletin insert, or could be “accidentally” left in random pews throughout churches we visit. I am starting with 12 copies next Sunday.
John 2:13-22
Jesus Cleanses the Temple
“13 The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. 15 Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 He told those who were selling the doves, “Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father’s house a marketplace!” 17 His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me.” ”
The time for playing nice-nice is over. It is time to pick up our “whips” and cleanse the Temple of its thieves.
To those who don’t care for manly action I would ask: “Would you have polite discourse with some scumbag raping your mother?”
Michael F Poulin
Perhaps, putting a “crying room” next to his apartment in the Vatican would be a good hint.
As a sede, I applaud this common-sense article….and hope that more are coming with the other vatican 2 “popes” as the subject. Heretics sever themselves from the Church and those severed from the Church cannot be popes, as they are severed and therefore not presently Catholic. Catholic common sense is slowly but surely beginning to take hold in 2016…..finally.
Rich, I sure pray you’re right about common sense beginning to take hold. And if you are, Bergoglio’s pontificate will have served God’s purpose. Sometimes we have to be forced off the sidelines.
Amen. Many of the crimes done by bergoglio with great arrogance in broad daylight have been done by other popes since 1958, just with more subtly.
Like almost all Sedes, you fail to distinguish between the crime of heresy (as judged by the Church, which DOES separate one from the Church) and the sin of heresy (which does NOT separate one from the Church, nor remove their governing authority).
If you are really interested in common sense, perhaps you would read “True or False Pope”.
dave
I dont debate the sede issue on here. I stand up for what I know is true but I wont debate it on this site because it is not welcomed here. Formal heretics cannot be Catholics. No formal council can be called to condemn a pope as a heretic. Im not sure where you got that idea from (and I know full well that this is an idea that is erroneously promoted, to the point where many Catholics think it is actually allowed), but it is not a Catholic teaching, and therefore it is a false teaching. Nobody is allowed to FORMALLY put a a pope on trial for heresy. Again, this is not in any way Catholicism.
As a sede, I am actually happy that jorge was named “pope”. The prior vat 2 “popes” obviously didnt do the trick in showing the vat 2 false religion for what it truly is. It wasnt until this current psycho came to be known as “pope” that the possibility of the idea that the “seat was vacant” started to become a possibility among the good Traditional Catholics, who up till this time (2013-2016, the current “reign” of this piece of filth bergoglio) believed that sedevacantism was insane.
Agreed. Time to start outing all of them (the sons of v2, aka all of the v2 “popes”, for what they ALWAYS were) for the most important purpose of weeding out the modernism that vatican 2 has promoted and then getting back to sound Catholicism.
Brilliant!
I extracted the following from an article by the editor of Christian Order and within these few paragraphs, he sums up the crisis within the Church beginning with the dissident’s successes in the Second Vatican Council:
“Elected to protect and hand on the Deposit of Faith unchanged, Francis wars against the nature and function of the very papal office he occupies. Those who oppose his ruinous agenda are labelled reactionary, and worse. Yet his own ideological outlook and methodology, imposed with an iron fist thinly veiled by cynical appeals to ‘newness’ and ‘freedom’, has been self-evident since Zero Hour – 13 March 2013.
On that baleful date the dissident time-bombs planted in the verbal maelstrom of Vatican II finally exploded with anarchic papal force. Unpinned by the liberals (to include the moderate Modernists Wojtyla and Ratzinger) and launched into every nook and cranny of Catholic life for half a century, the belligerent brand of Bergoglian Modernism has merely realised the full potential of these grenades, setting them off as never before.”
Note the following:
“In a wide-ranging interview given to ‘Corriere della Sera’ on 10 May 2015, Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez, one of the closest papal advisers and a contributing author of the two encyclicals was asked: ‘Aren’t you worried that his pontificate will quickly be tossed aside after he’s no longer pope?’ He replied: ‘No, there’s no turning back. If and when Francis is no longer pope, his legacy will remain strong. For example, the pope is convinced that the things he’s already written or said cannot be condemned as an error. Therefore, in the future anyone can repeat those things without fear of being sanctioned. And then the majority of the People of God with their special sense will not easily accept turning back on certain things.”
. . . .so what now? This isn’t news, but just another straw on the camel’s back for Bergoglio. Furthermore heresy is the conclusion concerning actions/words of Roncalli, Montini, Luciani and Wojtyla. So what now?
Join the band wagon driven by the resistance group under The Remnant and Catholic Family News? Need I remind everyone that Venarri and Matt (et. al.) published “We Resist You to the Face” in Apr 2000 against Wojtyla. Neither this nor the parallel church under SSPX caused Wojtyla to stop or delay a single scandolous act or word.
Scream “heresy” and plaster the word everywhere and you accomplish exactly ZILCH. The SSPX has been following this resistance strategy since 1970 and all they’ve accomplished is their own survival.
Einstein’s quip is more than appropriate here: “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Right on target, Louie. But this list could have gone on…and on…and on…
Spoken with elegance and simplicity of truth, saying yes for yes and no for no. We should be Catholic, a people foremost of Truth and Justice (truth of God and justice to God) before that of twisted love.
“True or False Pope” is either in error or you’ve misunderstood it.
Heresy as an ecclesiastical crime doesn’t even apply; the pope, as supreme legislator, cannot commit an ecclesiastical crime against canon law. However, the “sin of heresy” by the pope, which is manifest and pertinacious, is a sin against Divine Law. This sin automatically (without declaration or trial) removes the pope from membership in the Church and hence from any Ecclesiastical Office and the authority associated with that office. 1917 CIC 194 n. 4 and (even the heretical) 1983 CIC 194 n. 2 are substantially the same in this regard. The only nuances between the two versions of canon law are in the administrative formalities of actual removal and replacement.
So, is it for Bergy’s heresies that he is not considered the Pope by many here on aka Catholic, or that he was invalidly elected?
If the former, then you have your work cut out for you, as Francis is not exactly the first man in a white cassock to be a heretic. You can start at John XXIII or Paul VI and work your way through all of the successive claimants, and find just as much evidence as we have on Francis to arrive at the same conclusion. It’s quite astonishing to see it all laid out. The difference now with Francis is that we get to see it in real time.
my2cents is one of the few who says, ‘okay the pope is a heretic, what happens next, what can be done to remediate the problem?’ Finally someone who thinks “resistance” is not an end in itself.
In the case of a heretical pope my2cents’s initial instinct about a papal trial is not correct with regard to the Church. Heresy as an “ecclesiastical crime” doesn’t even apply; the pope, as supreme legislator, cannot commit an ecclesiastical crime against canon law.
However, the “sin of heresy” by the pope, which is manifest and pertinacious, is a sin against Divine Law. This sin automatically (without declaration or trial) removes the pope from membership in the Church and hence from any Ecclesiastical Office (which includes the authority associated with that office). 1917 CIC 194 n. 4 and (even the heretical) 1983 CIC 194 n. 2 dictate substantially the same in this regard. The only nuances between the two versions of canon law are in the administrative formalities of actual removal and replacement.
In other words, as a matter of Divine Law and Canon Law Bergoglio has already lost his Papal authority. Why doesn’t this matter at the moment? The vast majority of laity and clerics who admit the pope’s heresy (that is, the “resistance” trads); nonetheless, declare him to be a true pope. This is CONTRARY to Divine Law and Canon Law yet this is exactly what the SSPX “resistance” strategy (since 1970) has lead countless Trads to do without fruit.
So, how to answer my2cents’s question, “What should happen to remediate the manifest and pertinacious heretical pope?” Hard to be sure. . . .the resistance strategy does nothing to even slow the pope from padding the worldwide hierarchy with heretics, heretic bishops from filling the professorships at the seminaries and the preaching of Vatican II priests at the pulpit. If those trads look to the SSPX then my2cents best look to the Bishop Fellay and hope, after 46 years, that he has something new up his sleeve. Otherwise prayer and Our Lady’s direct intervention is the only hope.
aka Catholic’s curator/commentator (and possibly the majority of readers who comment here) appear to be a Traditionalists who “recognize & resist” wayward popes. That is, short of the Pope turning red, sprouting horns, a pointed tail and carrying a pitch fork they declare him to be the true pope. So you’re not likely to see anyone clamoring for Bergoglio to be burned at the stake or tossed into the Tiber. And luckily most Catholics don’t seem to be taking the conspiracy theories about Ratzinger’s resignation seriously (this leaves Bergoglio’s election untainted).
I doubt you’ll find any of the “recognize & resisters” here being necessarily uninformed about the heresies of the popes since the death of Pius XII. Nonetheless their resistance strategy requires them to believe that these heretics were also true popes (this includes Ratzinger).
I certainly agree that Bergoglio feels himself so unrestrained to act/write scandalously that it is astonishing and terrifying at the same time.
Dear Hhghost, I appreciate your response to my comment. To be clear I used the term “bring him to court” in a figurative sense, since I have no knowledge of cannon law procedures to accomplish the deposing of Bergoglio. However, I agree with you re +Fellay. At the moment, he is probably in the best position to state that Bergoglio is not merely “heretical”, but an absolute HERETIC. I’m not sure how much authority he has to “bring him to court” (figuratively speaking). In any event, it pains me to say that I’m not convinced that Fellay is ready, willing or able to firmly take a stand with anything new up his sleeve. Therefore, it is your last sentence which I believe is our only hope—prayer and the intercession of Our Lady.
I’m not a canon lawyer either but both the 1917 Code of Canon Law (194 n.2) and the 1983 Code (188 n. 4) legislate that there is NO declaration or trial (figuratively or literally) required when a cleric has defected from the Faith (like heresy).
This may seem unfair from a secular point of view but it isn’t from the point of view of Divine Law. Defection from the Faith (heresy, for example) results in tacit resignation from Ecclesiatical Office by virtue of the law alone (Divine Law). There is also no formal ecclesiastical board that forms to make the judgment. It is the manifest and pertinacious nature of a pope’s actions and words which does the convicting not the private judgment of an individual or any ecclesiastical court.
Sadly because the majority of Traditionalists declare the heretical pope “a true pope” in spite of his defection from the Faith, Bergoglio and his predecessors have escaped removal.
Rightly or wrongly the SSPX is leading the way and is unlikely to change 46 years of resistance. That is, Bishop Fellay will likely continue to recognize as true, a pope, one who according to Divine Law and Canon Law has lost both membership in the Church and his Ecclesiastical Office. However, if Bishop Fellay were to declare, without reservation and with certainty, that Bergoglio is a heretic I suspect things might be different. Other prelates could do the same.
Thanks Louie. I’ve learned a lot from you and other readers here.
Hhghost–I agree. Bergoglio is having a grand ole time swinging the wrecking ball and the silence is deafening. Are so-called “good” bishops, cardinals, priests etc. immune from the Wrath of God?
If Francis is the present legit pope regardless of what he has said.
Is it possible for him to be the Pope and simultaneously be teaching error regarding matters of faith and morals. Does he have a technical exit clause from infallibility protection? What there a gitch in him becoming the Pope and Pope Benny is still the true Pope? What gives in???
Fascinating article and commentary.
Thanks all.
Awesome job!!
Your list against this heretic seems so short!! 😉
Support the Traditional Latin Mass before Pope Frankie moves against that.
Hi Louie.
I find this article very good, short & precise, good to explain to ‘newcomers’ or ‘conservatives’ what’s the problem with AL & Francis.
So I’ve translated it into Polish (my language) and put into my blog.
https://sychem.wordpress.com/2017/05/12/kosciol-rzymsko-katolicki-przeciw-franciszkowi/
Hope you don’t mind .
Regards, Tomasz M.