The post above is in relation to the subject of the video linked in this post.
3 thoughts on “Jorge Bergoglio, the Heretical Tyrant”
I agree with Mr. La Rosa. The hard fact is that Bergoglio is an antipope by a legal point of view. Pope Benedict in his Declaratio did not legally abdicate. His declaration was wrongfully and unjustly considered an abdication by the cardinals. The subsequent conclave was then illegitimate and null according to the Universi Dominici Gregis. Archbishop Viganó, Müller and all the conservative and traditionalist, unfortunately, want to ignore the clear fact that Pope Benedict was in a state of Impeded See. When this occur, nothing can be changed in the governance of the Church, therefore the 2013 Conclave was null (art 335 of the code of Canon Law). There is no need to find or talk about Bergoglio’s heresies, or what he thought when he accepted the nomination, he can be a heretic/apostate because before that he is not the Pope, not the opposite.
Is there any doubt whether Christ would punish anyone for suspecting he is maybe, perhaps, by remote chance an antipope? When there is a Catholic pope there is a case he might be legit so people should be scared of questioning his legitimacy. But at this point supporting him seems legalistic.
I agree with Mr. La Rosa. The hard fact is that Bergoglio is an antipope by a legal point of view. Pope Benedict in his Declaratio did not legally abdicate. His declaration was wrongfully and unjustly considered an abdication by the cardinals. The subsequent conclave was then illegitimate and null according to the Universi Dominici Gregis. Archbishop Viganó, Müller and all the conservative and traditionalist, unfortunately, want to ignore the clear fact that Pope Benedict was in a state of Impeded See. When this occur, nothing can be changed in the governance of the Church, therefore the 2013 Conclave was null (art 335 of the code of Canon Law). There is no need to find or talk about Bergoglio’s heresies, or what he thought when he accepted the nomination, he can be a heretic/apostate because before that he is not the Pope, not the opposite.
Is there any doubt whether Christ would punish anyone for suspecting he is maybe, perhaps, by remote chance an antipope? When there is a Catholic pope there is a case he might be legit so people should be scared of questioning his legitimacy. But at this point supporting him seems legalistic.
If there is sufficient evidence (and there is) that Jorge Bergoglio is not pope, then one is not committing the sin of rash judgment.