| Home >> Lost Sermons

Hasta La Vista, Jorge!

Hasta la vista, Jorge!

1) Introduction

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 Mario 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.

2) Saint Peter's successor refuses to confirm the Faith of his brethren?

Dubia for Dummies.

My misgivings have steadily and unceasingly increased ever since Jorge Mario 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 Mario 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.

11 volume set: the theology of Bergoglio.
[Source photo, partial explanation of the joke]

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 [Mt 5:37]. 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...

3) Put the Pope in front of a Firing Squad? Really?


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]

Going downhill very quickly... is this a metaphor for something?
Going downhill very quickly... is this a metaphor for something?

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!

4) Am I the only one who things something is very wrong?

Bergoglian Hippies!

I don't have a complete list of all the Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, Theologians and simple faithful who think there is something very wrong with this Bergoglio guy, but I do have some hyperlinks showing I'm not alone at all:

- Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church, which accuses Jorge Mario Bergoglio of heresy;

- "Profession of the immutable truths about sacramental marriage", 2017-Dec-31, by Tomash Peta, Jan Pawel Lenga, Athanasius Schneider, etc. Here, or here.

- Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagatis;

- Theological censure signed by 45 Theologians, Philosophers, Historians and Priests, Cover letter, The Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia: a theological critique;

- John R. T. Lamont, Considerations on the dubia of the four cardinals;

- Edward Feser, Denial flows into the Tiber;

- John Finnis and Germain Grisez, The Misuse of Amoris laetitia to Support Errors Against the Catholic Faith;

- etc.

5) Error: "Pope Francis is wrong, but he's not speaking ex cathedra!"

Ex Aeroplano Declaration.
Ex Aeroplano Declaration.

In the very beginning, many people (myself included) tried to defend the idea that, although Pope Francis was very wrong, still that was OK because he was just unofficially mouthing off from his airplane (hilariously referred to as "ex aeroplano" or "from the airplane" declarations, as opposed to "ex cathedra", i.e. "from the seat of Peter").

That argument stopped being valid many years ago. Bergoglio has very officially made declarations, many times, using some of the most authoritative tools available to a Pope. Recall that:

[What the Magisterium thinks, and what it wills] "becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed."
[Donum veritatis, #24]

An example is his enshrining of the Argentinian Bishops' heretical interpretation of Amoris Laetitia in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the most official source of the Holy See.

Another example is Bergoglio's attempt to change the Catechism of the Catholic Church (the most official overview of the teachings of the Catholic Church) concerning §2267 (death penalty): Rescriptum «ex Audentia SS.mi», 02.08.2018

If Bergoglio really was Pope, and if he really was still speaking unofficially despite all this, then almost all the teachings of almost all the real Popes in the history of the Church would now be uncertain. A Pope could write something in the Catechism, in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, insist again and again using various and sundry official documents, and it still would not be magisterial teaching. So the Magisterium would be essentially unable to speak!

6) Error: "Pope Francis is a heretic, but he's still the Pope!"

Recently (2024-May-02), a long document describing the crimes and heresies of Bergoglio was published. I cannot find much to disagree with, except the constant assumption that Bergoglio is Pope.

As Ann Barnhardt argues, when Christ says: "thou art rock, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against her", this is God talking. The Catholic Faith says that Jesus is God, and God knows the past, the present and the future. Jesus did not only say this to Simon-Peter, but to all Popes. So if this Bergoglio creature really is Pope, then God is a lying bastard, et hoc inconveniens est, as Saint Thomas Aquinas might say (i.e. a polite way of saying: "your assumption leads to consequences that are full of dog poo").

Claiming that a criminal and a heretic is still "pope" leads to all kinds of self-contradictions, on top of assuming that he started by succeeding in becoming a real pope. Moreover, the only authority above a pope is God almighty, so any attempt at getting "the Church" to remove a sitting pope is doomed. It has to come from God Himself. And I can only see three ways whereby God could intervene implicitely but directly, as the next Section explains.

7) Anti-Pope Francis?

Habemus anti-papam!
Habemus anti-papam!

Is Bergoglio an anti-Pope? In my opinion, Yes.

I see three ways whereby an Anti-Pope could appear. Notice I'm not saying three conditions must be met to have an Anti-Pope! Any one of these ways is enough, by itself, to get an Anti-Pope:

(i) a Pope who abdicates invalidly;
(ii) a conclave that is so deficient as to give a null result; and
(iii) a Pope who excommunicates himself.

In the Bible, when God really wants a message to be understood, He usually repeats it three times. Some examples: Jesus was tried and found innocent three times (Pilate the first time, then King Herod, then Pilate the second time); Peter had to repeat his love for Christ three times after the Resurrection; Jesus says three times that Judas is in Hell, etc. I find it very biblical that only one reason suffices to get an Anti-Pope, but all three seem to be true for Bergoglio:

(i) Benedict XVI apparently abdicated invalidly (see among others Ann Barnhardt's video);

(ii) the subsequent conclave was apparently full of illegal meddlings (see among others the "Sankt Gallen Mafia");

(iii) a diarrhea of heresies flows from Bergoglio's mouth, so take your pick for his excommunication (my favorite, because it's the most official, obstinate and profoundly Satanic, is the fact he tells Mankind what the Snake said to Eve).

I removed the picture of Bergoglio from the home page of this web site. Thank God my Faith is in Jesus Christ our Lord, and not in Bergoglio!

I pray for the next Pope to be more like Saint Pius X, or Saint John Paul II, or maybe even Carlo Maria Viganò, or Raymond L. Burke (one of the four authors of the Dubia), or Athanasius Schneider, etc. In the meantime, I continue to pray for the Pope twice a day, whoever he might be either now, or soon.

8) Post-Scriptum

Bergoglio washing the feet of Soros, who is sitting on a pile of cash, at the UN.
Bergoglio washing the feet of Soros, who is sitting on a pile of cash, at the UN.

I must re-read once in a while paragraphs §675 and §677 of the Catechism, while insisting on certain words:

Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious imposture offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious imposture is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.
[CCC, §675, my emphasis]

The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection. The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God's victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven. God's triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgement after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.
[CCC, §677, my emphasis]

My Favorite Sins, Laurence England.
Hilarious video by Laurence England,
sung to the tune of "My Favorite Things" of "The Sound of Music"
Here on Vimeo

| Home >> Lost Sermons