Bergoglians are the party of Apostasy, and no one can deny it NOW!

4qFhChDn

Today, if not beforehand, Jorge Mario Bergoglio publicly and manifestly apostatized from the Catholic Faith, when he signed the “Human Fraternity Document,” which professes all religions to be “willed by God in His wisdom.”

According to The National, Bergoglio signed the “Human Fraternity Document” in Abu-dhabi today (see link for more photos).

The Human Fraternity Meeting official website gives the text of the document: the outrageous affirmation is found under the second bullet point, which reads:

Freedom is a right of every person: each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression and action. The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives. Therefore, the fact that people are forced to adhere to a certain religion or culture must be rejected, as too the imposition of a cultural way of life that others do not accept;

Apostasy is apostasy, whether you apostatize in the bathtub or on the papal throne; whether you do so out of fear of being slain by a Jihadi or whether you do so for a pot of porridge, an invite form George Soros, or a photo op.  The reason or cause or motive can be different, but the result is the same: you reject faith in the One True God.

While a man may apostatize by embracing a non-Christian Faith, such as Judaism or Islam, he can apostatize also by affirming that which destroys the entire faith.  Thus, its apostasy to say such things as, “God does not exist” or “God is a devil”.

If you were to say God wills that religions be different and many, then you have also apostatized, because you are saying that God is indifferent to religion. But the god who is indifferent to religion is not the Christian God. So by saying such a thing, you have taken as your god, the Father of Lies.

Some of the most fundamental names of God, of which no Christian can feign ignorance, is that God is True, One, Good and exists. To deny any of these is apostasy.

Perhaps a Modernist, who is trained somewhat in canon law, will say that you cannot know with certitude that anyone is an apostate — if you are a Modernists, you do not believe in objective religious truth, so its to be expected that you say such a thing — but as Catholics we know that the certitude of conclusions flows infallibly from the certitude of principles and facts and laws.

In canon 1364 §1, the Pope levels excommunication latae sententiae against all apostates, even if they  be the Pope.  This is how the Pope in promulgating the Code of Canon Law protects Catholics from future popes who apostatize.  Those who have not the faith will say, the Code of Canon law does not bind the pope (though canon 38 contradicts them), or that to deny God is the author of only 1 true religion is not apostasy (they will attempt to pretend that Judaism of old still exists, and that Talmudic Judaism is not another false religion). But Catholics know better.

Finally, they will call Catholics names for saying what I just said. Maybe they will even call me a “sedevacantist” — I am not, because I hold with Canon 332 §2 that Benedict is still the pope —but no Catholic, even those who still think that Benedict’s resignation is valid, are sedevacantists for holding such things, as its simply common sense to say that Bergoglio is an apostate when he publicly signs a document which contains such a statement.

Please put your local priest on notice about what Bergoglio said, and INSIST that his name no longer be mentioned in the Canon. Catholics are right to disrupt the Mass, if need be, to shout down anyone who thinks otherwise. We have this right, because God is a God of Truth, He is no condoner of falsehood of any kind. And our Baptism requires that we hold fast with God in this.

Please put your Favorite Cardinal on notice. Write or call or email him, however you can contact him. Remind him, that if he will not stand up and defend God as the author of One True Religion, he is an apostate too.

Remind the clergy, in particular, that if some sort of division arises among those who say that Bergoglio is by this an apostate and that he is not by this an apostate, that the division is not caused by those who say he is, but by Bergoglio for signing such a document, and by those who refuse to acknowledge the magnitude of that sin. Therefore, if anyone should be quiet and shut up, its the latter 2 groups, not Catholics who agree with what I have written here!

Advertisements

How usurpation of the Papacy leads to the excommunication of the participating Cardinal Electors and Bishops

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

gty_cardinals_conclave_ll_130227_wmain

Canon 359 expressly withdraws authority from the College of Cardinals to elect a Pope, when the Papal Office is still retained by another: there being no sede vacante. To call a conclave when there is still a true Pope, thus, is illicit. To elect another is to participate actively and immediately in the crime of the usurpation of the Papal Office.

Usurpation is the crime whereby someone without a legitimate claim, lays hold upon or claims an office which is not his.  In the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Usurpation is discussed under several canons, usurpation of office in canon 1381.

Though the crime of usurping the papacy is not named in the code expressly — since it has not occurred for centuries, those participating in such a crime can still be excommunicated latae sententiae out of the consequences of such an act, and this in two ways: 1) by the Anti-Pope ordaining bishops and collaborating with him in that, 2) by the crime of schism.

The first regards the crime of usurpation itself in the act of ordaining Bishops.

The worse crime of usurpation mentioned explicitly in the code is in canon 1382:

Can. 1382 — A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

Pope John Paul II cited this canon to declare that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of the Society of Saint Pius X, was excommunicate on account of his ordination of their 4 Bishops. Bergoglio cited this same canon to “excommunicate” Bishop Williamson, after he was reconciled by Pope Benedict XVI, who undid John Paul II’s excommunication.

This applies to Anti-Popes, inasmuch as not being the legitimate successors of Saint Peter, their ordaining of Bishops is without true pontifical mandate.  It also applies to Bishops who ordain those nominated by Bergoglio, since they too have no true pontifical mandate to act.

Accomplices of both are also punished by the same punishment, as is clear from canon 1329.

Can. 1329 — §1. If ferendae sententiae penalties are established for the principal perpetrator, those who conspire together to commit a delict and are not expressly named in a law or precept are subject to the same penalties or to others of the same or lesser gravity.

§2. Accomplices who are not named in a law or precept incur a latae sententiae penalty attached to a delict if without their assistance the delict would not have been committed, and the penalty is of such a nature that it can affect them; otherwise, they can be punished by ferendae sententiae penalties.

Since the excommunication leveled in canon 1382 takes place immediately without the necessity of any public declaration by any authority, in accord with Canon 1329 §2 all the Cardinals involved in the uncanonical election of an Anti-Pope are also ipso facto excommunicated, since they participate intimately and immediately in his claim to exercise the pontifical mandate.

While it can be argued that those in substantial error as to the invalidity of Benedict’s resignation ought not be excommunicated, because they had good will, they must confront canon 15, which says in § 2: Ignorance or error about a law, a penalty, a fact concerning oneself, or a notorious fact concerning another is not presumedThus, as soon as any Cardinal Elector sees that Benedict resigned the ministerium, not the munus, and that Canon 322 §2 requires the resignation munus — all the while refusing to repudiate the validity of that resignation — he becomes indisputably culpable of the usurpation of the Papal office by way of consent to uphold Bergoglio’s claim to exercise the pontifical mandate, and as such, merits punishment under canons 1382 and 1329 §2.

The second way to excommunication latae sententiae, is through the crime of schism.

Cardinals and Bishops participating in supporting an Anti-Pope are also involved in the crime of schism, since they formally separate themselves from communion to the true Pope. Thus they are also subject to excommunication from canon

Can. 1364 — §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.

Thus, the controversy over the invalidity of Pope Benedict’s resignation becomes one of the greatest import for Catholics, to know who is truly their pastors and who are truly schismatics and excommunicates.  This is not a joking matter, and any Cardinal or Bishop who treats it as such, should be sternly reminded of such.

Presumption and Silence

Finally, it needs to be pointed out, that whereas there is a presumption of validity of every Conclave, in the event of the death of the Roman Pontiff, however, in the case of a papal resignation, there is no such presumption, and since it is the grave duty of the Cardinals to act in accord with Canon Law in the election of the Roman Pontiff, they had the grave and solemn duty to verify that the resignation of Pope Benedict was in conformity with Canon 332 §2.  If they did verify that, why have they never admitted to having verified it? And if they did not, they ostensibly become culpable of usurpation out of negligence in so grave a duty.

Indeed, the Vatican is full of Doctors of Canon Law, but to my knowledge neither in February of 2013 nor in the following six years, as any Canon Lawyer from the Vatican published any study showing that Non solum propter effects a valid resignation in conformity to canon 322 §2. Nor does it seem that anyone in the Diplomatic Corps asked the Vatican for such a verification.* Nor does it seem that the Italian Government, bound by the Lateran Treaty to uphold only constitutional governments in the Vatican, ever asked for such a verification or explanation. — If this be true, its of the gravest indications that the resignation was never put to any kind of rational scrutiny, but was presumed to be valid by a bunch of giddy men who wanted Benedict out of the way.


For my Scholastic Disputation on the Papal Act of February 11, 2013, see here in English, and here in Spanish translation. For a summary of the Canonical Argument against validity, see Veri Catholici, here in English, and here in Italian translation.

___________

Image Credits:  Getty Images, Conclave of March 2013.

* For example, Eduard Hapsburg, the Ambassador of Hungary to the Vatican, recently insulted Catholics who question the validity of the resignation. But when asked for a verification of the resignation, remained utterly silent.

Canon Law itself declares Pope Francis, AntiPope

anti-pope-francis

The clear, precise, and sound reading of the Code of Canon Law leads to the inescapable conclusion that Pope Francis is an “antipope” in every sense of the word, and that the law itself declares it.

As has been demonstrated in the article, “How and Why Pope Benedict’s resignation is invalid”, there is no other authentic reading of Canon 332 §2 other than that the renunciation of munus is the necessary sine qua non condition of a papal resignation.

This canonical argument is supported by 35 reasons, debated in Scholastic form, in the article, “The Validity of Benedict’s Resignation must be questioned, Parts I and II”, why a renunciation of ministerium, in the form had in the papal declarations of Feb. 11, 2013, cannot signify a renunciation of munus as per Canon 332 §2, Canon 188 etc..

Therefore, Pope Benedict XVI remains the one and only true Pope of the Catholic Church with all the powers and prerogatives of that office.

As I pointed out in my rebuttal of Roberto de Mattei, canon 359 guarantees that the College of Cardinals has no authority to convene to elect a pope, when there has been an invalid papal resignation.

Therefore, the Conclave of 2013 is without any right in Canon Law to elect a successor to Pope Benedict. Therefore, the one it claimed to elect, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, has no authority whatsoever conferred upon him by accepting that election. He is in truth a usurper of the papal office, and must be punished in accord with Canon 1381 §1 for that crime (if he knowingly has done this, otherwise upon demonstration of the delict, he must publicly disavow his claim to the office).

Since Bergoglio never had any canonical authority as Pope, all his nominations to the  Roman Curia are null and void. Therefore, all actions taken by the Congregation of Religious against religious communities, or by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith against anyone, or the Secretary of State vis-a-vis treaties with nations, such as China, or appointments of Bishops, etc. etc. are NULL AND VOID.

Since the papal resignation of Pope Benedict XVI is invalid, among other reasons, in virtue of containing a substantial error (canon 188) regarding what words must be expressed to conform to canon 322 §2, that resignation is invalid by the law itself (lege ipso). That invalidation spreads to the Conclave and all acts of Bergoglio as Francis, which are canonical, because they too are founded upon the same substantial error, though compounded.

Therefore, since the invalidity of Bergoglio’s papacy depends upon the law of the Church itself (canon 188), there is no need for a judgement of any ecclesiastical office to intervene to establish that it is so. And thus, Catholics may and indeed are obliged BY DIVINE FAITH and OBEDIENCE to the Apostolic See and to Canon Law to hold Bergoglio to be an Anti-Pope and to insist to Cardinals and Bishops and civil authorities that he be driven from the Vatican as a usurper.

Let all Catholics who love Christ, who are obedient to the Code of Canon Law and who seek the salvation of souls act now and today. Write your Bishop and the Cardinals. Write the Italian Government, which is bound to uphold only the canonically elected governments of the Vatican. Insist with all that the fact of Bergoglio’s invalidity be publicly affirmed and his usurpation denounced.

Its either that, or the end of the Vatican as we know it, as being part of the Catholic Church.

 

Where Robert de Mattei is wrong

This week, Catholic Family News, the traditional private Catholic Newspaper founded by the late John Vennari, publishes an article entitled, “Socci’s Thesis Falls Short: Review of the Secret of Benedict XVI“, an English translation of an article which was published on Jan 8, 2019 online at Cooperatores Veritatis. The translator is a Giuseppe Pelligrino. (Socci’s book details facts and canonical arguments why Pope Benedict XVI is still the Pope, and Bergoglio an Anti-Pope, that is uncanonically elected). I will comment on the English version of the article.

The author, Dr. Roberto de Mattei, I have long admired, and have had the occasion to meet in person. His foundation, the Lepanto Foundation does much good work, and thus I bear him no animus. Nay, if the author of that article was someone unknown or not influential at Rome, I would probably have paid it no attention at all.

Moreover, the purpose of this present article is not to defend Socci’s book.  Rather it is to address the grave errors contained in De Mattei’s article, which on account of his personal reputation are magnified in the minds of many, and thus represent a danger to souls.

Here, then, I will discuss the errors briefly in the order they appear in that English translation by Signor Pellegrino.

The first error of which is that De Mattei sustains that the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI is valid, because there has been a peaceful and universal acceptance of the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

I will put aside the fact that several recent polls (not scientific) have shown that as much as 70% of Catholics reject Bergoglio as pope, because there is a more serious error to address, than disputing whether there is in fact a peaceful and universal acceptance of Bergoglio’s election.

Signor De Mattei is learned enough to own a copy of the Code of Canon Law. So I humbly suggest he read Canon 359 and consider publicly withdrawing his assertion that a peaceful and universal acceptance of an apparent papal election establishes it to be held as valid by Catholics.  For, that canon reads in Latin:

Can. 359 — Sede Apostolica vacante, Cardinalium Collegium ea tantum in Ecclesia gaudet potestate, quae in peculiari lege eidem tribuitur.

When translated into English — here I give my own translation — that canon says:

Canon 359 — When the Apostolic See is vacant, the College of Cardinals only enjoys that power in the Church, which is granted to it in particular law.

This is the reference to the power of the College to elect the Pope.  So, according to Canon 359, when there is no pope, the Cardinals have the authority to elect a pope.

Now, if the resignation of a pope is in doubt, then obviously, there is a doubt whether the Apostolic See is vacant, and therefore the Cardinals have doubtful authority. And when a resignation of a pope has not taken place, or a pope is not dead, the Apostolic See is not vacant, and therefore the Cardinals have NO power to elect another.

So, it should be obvious then, that “the peaceful and universal acceptance of the election of a pope by a College of Cardinals” which HAS NO POWER to elect a pope, because the See is NOT vacant, DOES NOT MAKE THE ELECTION VALID.

Second, De Mattei claims this principal regarding the acceptance of the election of a pope on the basis of commonly held opinion. But if he has studied Canon Law, he should know that Canon 17 does not permit common theological or canonical opinions to be interpretative guides to reading any canon, when the text of the canon expressly forbids an act to take place by denying the body which acts the power to act. For in such a case the mind of the Legislator takes precedence.

Third, what is worse, De Mattei then cites the Vatican translation of Canon 332 §2, where he admits that it denies that a papal resignation is valid on the grounds that anyone accepts it (in its final condition)! How that squares with the theory of peaceful and universal acceptance is impossible to imagine, since it undermines the validity of its application to the case of a disputed resignation. It does so, because obviously a Conclave called during the life of a pope who has not resigned, is called either because that College knows he has not and does intend to elect an Anti-Pope, and then it does not matter who accepts him, his election is invalid; or in the case the College opines that a resignation is valid, and they proceed to act as if there is no pope. But as canon 332 §2 declares, that they think it is valid, does not make it valid. Therefore, even if they think it is valid, when it is not valid, they cannot appeal to Canon 332 §2 to claim the authority in Canon 359 to lawfully elect another. Rather, they must follow Canon 17 and apply it. And so, whether the subsequent election be accepted or not, in the case of elections which follow papal resignations, the principal cited by De Mattei is improperly cited at best because it pertains to another case.

Finally, De Mattei is, in my opinion, intellectually dishonest, when he says that Violi’s canonical study of Pope Benedict’s act of Feb 11, 2013 contributes to the confusion. Because that study, which is cited in the preface of the Disputed Question, published here in November, is a very scholarly well thought out and precise study without any animus or polemic, which gives great clarity to the canonical signification of that papal act. To say that it causes confusion therefore is not based on Violi’s work, but rather seemingly on a desire to advance his own opinion by insulting a scholar who shows greater knowledge of Canon Law than himself.

As for Archbishop Ganswein’s discourse at the Gregorian University, at first glance it does seem to be confusing. But when you research, as Ann Barnhardt has done, what opinions regarding the mutability of the Papacy were being discussed at Tubingen, when Fr. Joseph Ratzinger was a professor of Theology there, then you would rather say its revealing, not confusing at all.

For those who want to understand the correct canonical argument, why Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope and why Bergoglio was never pope, supported by Canon Law and all the evidence, and put in simple terms, see “How and Why Pope Benedict’s Resignation is invalid by the law itself.”

Bergoglio was a pertinacious public heretic years before the 2013 Conclave

As the prophecy given by Zacharia gives in Chapter 11:16-17:

For behold I will raise up a shepherd in the land, who shall not visit what is forsaken, nor seek what is scattered, nor heal what is broken, nor nourish that which standeth, and he shall eat the flesh of the fat ones, and break their hoofs. [17] O shepherd, and idol, that forsaketh the flock: the sword upon his arm and upon his right eye: his arm shall quite wither away, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened!

Archbishop Georg Gänswein’s revelations point to Conclave Pact to elect Bergoglio

Archibishop Georg Gänswein of the Pontifical Household, former private secretary to Pope Benedict XVI

Archibishop Georg Gänswein of the Pontifical Household, former private secretary to Pope Benedict XVI

Rome, May 24, 2016:  The recent revelations by Archbishop Georg Gänswein point to a stunning possibility, that during the Conclave of 2005, which elected Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI,  Jorge Mario Cardinal Bergoglio and his supporters consented to his rival’s election, on the condition that after a fixed number of years, he would resign, and the next conclave elect himself Pope.

This theoretical postulate is based on the following reasoned speculations:

  1. There is precedent in the history of Conclaves for deals among rival factions:  As we noted in the article, “Team Bergoglio” and the legacy of Cardinal Mariano Rampolla del Tindaro, during the Conclave which elected Saint Pius X, there was the curious consequence that Rampolla’s supporters were consecrated Bishops by Pius X following his election, and Pius X’s supporters, bishops, by Cardinal Rampolla.
  2. Archbishop Gänswein confirms the existence of the St. Gallen group, a self-named “mafia” organization in the Church which worked actively to promote the election of Cardinal Bergoglio in 2005. This confirmed what Vaticanist Paul Baade admitted last year.
  3. Pope Benedict XVI explained his reason to retire for reasons which do not seem credible:  namely for poor health, even though he has not lost the capacity to speak, think, walk or make decisions.
  4. Pope Benedict XVI planned his retirement well in advance:  according to Cardinal Bertone, as much as 7 months in advance; according to publish reports, the former Cardinal of Palermo knew more than 2 years before, a fact which he revealed during a dinner in a restaurant in China.
  5. Pope Benedict XVI has not issued one word of criticism of Pope Francis’ outrageous statements and scandalous actions.
  6. The supporters of Pope Benedict XVI have not personally criticized Pope Francis in public for any of his heretical, erroneous or scandalous words or actions during the latters’ pontificate.
  7. There is constant emphasis, by Pope Benedict XVI and now Archbishop Gänswein that in some way both Benedict and Francis share the Petrine ministry.

None of this seems possible to From Rome without there having been a formal agreement among the Cardinals in the conclave of 2005 to share the Papacy among the 2 rival candidates.

Finally, if such a pact were made, it is not clear whether it would violate UDG 81 or canon law. But seeing that there is yet no firm evidence of the existence of such a pact, we will omit speculating as to its effect in law on the basis of UDG 81 (read more about this in the series of articles published here).

However, if this pact to elect Bergoglio did in fact happen, it would be more than sufficient explanation why none of the Cardinals have made any objection or heard any petitions regarding the Team Bergoglio scandal, in which it appears that up to 20+ Cardinals canvassed for votes for Bergoglio, most likely with his consent, in the 2013 Conclave, in violation of UDG 81, the violation of which is an excommuncate-able offense. For, if the College made an pact regarding votes in 2005, they might very well have been excommunicated, in virtue of the Papal Law, since that time. This might explain the utter breakdown of public virtue and faith which is spreading like a wild fire among the Sacred College, as a spiritual punishment for that most occult crime.

How Bergoglio’s permanence signifies the Apostasy of the Flock

The False Shepherd, an detail of the illumination from the manuscript Douce 266 in the Bodleian Library

The False Shepherd, a detail of the illumination from the mss. Douce 266 in the Bodleian Library

Rome, May 12, 2016 A.D:  There is no greater and more radical challenge for the Christian believer than to take another as his Master.

Indeed, Christians are recognized by the fact that they regard Jesus Christ, and Him alone, as their Master, in accord with the scripture verse, in which Christ condemned the religious leaders of ancient Israel, Matthew 23:10 ff:

10 Neither be ye called masters; for one is you master, Christ. 11 He that is the greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled: and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

Indeed, its very tempting, in today’s world in which truth is up for grabs and violent political clashes are being waged on all sides, for the Christian to take an “I’m ok, you’re ok” view, that is, a “get along with everyone” kind of attitude, in which truth does not matter, only co-existence.

The Loadstone of Hope

The only problem is, that there is a vast difference between the man who thinks Christ is a religious teacher and the man who is loyal to Christ no matter what.  First first regards Him as one might regard a philosopher:  taking the man’s teachings here and there, according to his personal tastes and likes, but not as a rule of life.

The second regards Him as the Incarnate Son of God, apart from Whose teaching No man on Earth can escape eternal and perpetual damnation in the fires of Hell.

As St. Augustine said, “If you believe what you like in the Gospel, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself.”

Indeed, what distinguishes the Christian from all other men is Hope.

Hope is that theological virtue least spoke of today, because in modern times a proper understanding and appreciation of it has been so attacked in the minds of men, that nearly nobody appears to have it or cultivate it or use it.

Hope is that theological virtue which puts full faith and confidence in the promises of God for those who keep them.  Its the most essential and key Christian virtue, given to us in Baptism, but cultivated only with good works.  If you do not really hope that God will reward you for fidelity to Christ, then obviously you will not be faithful to Him.  Likewise, if you think that you can manage for yourself the rules by which you will get into Heaven, there is no need for you to have hope in God’s promises, you can presume for yourself — a presumption which is both your ultimate self-deceit and the absolute guarantee of your own damnation.

All of this has an ecclesiological impact, that is, all of this effects the Church, what She is and your place in or outside of Her, who alone is the ark of Salvation, the Pillar of the truth, apart from AND outside of which no man woman or child can be saved.

The Temptation of Bergoglio

The great temptation presented by the election and presence of Bergoglio on the Apostolic Throne, then, is precisely this: the offer of a Church, of a Christianity, in which Christ is no longer The master, but merely a guide post from which one can wander here or there and remain a “christian” without fidelity and without the need to practice hope.

This temptation is offered the Cardinals, the Bishops, the priests, the religious and the laity, is offered thus to the whole Church, because in Bergoglio they have, without any shadow of a doubt, a man who does not believe in Christ as his Sole Master, who does not love or tolerate the Church as Christ founded it or gave it, does not suffer the rules the Apostles, the Faithful Disciples of the Lord handed down to us, and is filled with compassion and love for the traitor who sold Christ for 30 shekels of silver.

To have a public manifest heretic on the throne of the Apostle Peter, and tolerate him, presents for every true Christian, the opportunity of pretense, to keep the name “Christian” or “Catholic” without any more obligation to Christ.  Its the ultimate game-plan of Lucifer.

Either Bergoglio must Change or the Church has changed

Finally, if one were to accept this situation and the principles which erroneously lead to it, as have been briefly described here, it would be enough to end this article with the usual lament.  Because with faith it is possible to lament these things, but with hope it is not possible to tolerate them.  Nearly every author on the Internet today, and as far as we know, all the Cardinals and Bishops of the Catholic Church since April 8, 2016, the date on which “Amoris Laetitia” what released, do not have or are not acting faithfully to Christian Hope.

For the man with Christian hope, would declare and manifestly insist and demand that Bergoglio be canonically reprimanded, and if refusing 3x, be declared to be in open schism with Christ and His Church, and self-deposed by reason of his malice and heresy against Him and His Bride, the Church, whose first duty is to keep herself immaculate and worthy of Him.

Either Bergoglio must change or the Church has in fact changed, because if he repents, the Church is saved in Her fidelity to Christ, and Christ is glorified above all human whim, even the human whims of the Roman Pontiff. But if Bergoglio does not change AND the Church tolerates him, it is the Church which has changed, She has committed adultery with Bergoglio, accepting him rather than Jesus Christ as Her spouse, the God above all other gods…