Francis Forces Us To Ask: What Can We Do?

Please review post

Major internationally known traditional Catholic figures are asking some tough questions about our relationship with Pope Francis.




© 2021, Anthony Stine. All rights reserved. You may reuse or copy this post by giving credit and providing a link.

2 thoughts on “Francis Forces Us To Ask: What Can We Do?

  1. “No man can judge the Pope.” True. Judging the pope is not an option for Catholics, but that is not at issue. Frank B. is not and never was the pope. His career prior to 2013 is public. So is his heresy. He studied under one of the men that founded liberation theology. As a cleric in Argentina he told unbaptized public figures who were exploring converting to Catholicism that they didn’t need to be baptized or become Catholic, among other public actions that he himself bragged about that carry anathemas as defined by ecumenical councils. He was not eligible to hold an office in the Church even prior to his appointment as a bishop. He was a public and manifest heretic long before he was an anti-pope. His election can not morally be given the benefit of the doubt as several rules of the conclave were broken, as was admitted by several different bishops who broke them (and their admissions were public). The rules of the conclave go on to give directives for investigating such illicit activity. To date despite public requests to cardinals present at the conclave to investigate, there has been no investigation, which itself is an illicit dereliction of duty. It is not without caution but none-the-less necessary before God to state that there is error in Amoris Laetitia and the Abu Dhabi document, as well as several other public statements that the anti-pope has attached his name to. He has been made aware, via a dubia, of his error, as well as a public statement signed by theologians and clerics, and the Auxiliary Bishop of Kazakhstan has made public statements that would be hard for him to miss, as well as bringing the Abu Dhabi document up to him in person. At this point, it is obstinate error. Heretic should not be thrown around without due diligence in regards to anyone. It is, however, textbook accuracy to say Bergolio is a heretic. Bergolio is a heretic; which then begs the Bellarmine question. All that and we haven’t even touched the untouchable issue of the less than Catholic nature of the Form used in Episcopal Consecrations since 1968. Given the abolition of minor orders and other changes that bespeak a change of understanding of what the liturgy and sacraments are, as well as the near forty years of infatuation with ‘new’, the intention taken with the lack of form makes it highly unlikely that he is even a priest. Dicy topic to throw out there but Leo the XIII and Pius the XII treated this subject sufficiently to make a Catholic sweat it. It seems like Mr. Bergolio needs at least a conditional ordination. Slim chance he is a bishop. Certainly not the Bishop of Rome.

  2. Since Vatican II the Catholic Church has existed to two realities: Truth and Error and Ambiguity. Truth is what the Catholic Church stood for before Vatican II; Error and Ambiguity is followed Vatican II. All of the Popes following Vatican II are guilty to one extent or another.

    With the advent of so-called “Pope” Bergoglio the external Church is now in the hands of devilish forces which will no doubt lead to divine intervention in the not too distant future.

    Catholics should take solace in the fact that Bergoglio is not a legitimate Pope and that Pope Benedict remains, thought silent, as the True Pope. Bergoglio is a false Pope because his election was illegally managed, Benedict did not resign the office of the Papacy, and as Bergoglio teaches error and does not act like a Pope.


Please comment