I don't want this guy to consume the Blessed Sacrament in the state he's in at all. I think it's reasonable to assume he is not in a state of grace so his consumption would be a sacrilege piled upon whatever other issues he has. For this guy's own good he needs to turn the host over to one or more ushers, however many it takes to convince him that he's outnumbered, and he has no choice but to comply.

Communion in the hand needs to be abolished.

Another lash to the Body of Our Lord made possible by the idiotic practice of Communion in the hand, which is a profanation in and of itself. The Church sanctions such a practice as licit, knowing full well it not only makes Him vulnerable, as it did here, but it is irreverent and serves to erode belief in the Real Presence.

This guy is mentally disturbed, drug addled, or possessed in some way. What's the Church's excuse?

Quoting Fr. Brian Harrison: " I declined, because I don’t think you can judge someone — especially a Pope! — to be a formal (i.e., pertinacious or obstinate) heretic without first hearing what he might have to say in his self-defense. That’s an elementary question of due process!"

Jorge has only been sitting on the dubia for over two and a half years. Abp. Vigano also made his case public and Jorge chose to ignore it. He's had plenty chances to respond.

I'm certain I don't even know what a "culture of encounter" is and I'm also certain that I don't like the sound of it. It's reminiscent of that 70's, Im ok you're ok, let's all hug, fluffy bs instead of talking about actual truths because that's too hard and it hurts people's feelings. Effeminate, sickening bilge.

The only "encounter" Bergoglio needs is one like St. Paul had on his way to Damascus.

"Probably from all that man worship with the novus ordo."

That is an excellent point. Worship misdirected at some point will disorient the person. Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi.

Matt it would be funny if it weren't so infuriating. To the post-conciliar neocat, particulary the delusional "JPII was the bestest pope ever" crowd, the only narrative they can spin is the notion that every post conciliar pope was simply a well intended but ignorant dupe, unaware that they were making bishops and cardinals out of sodomites, and thwarted in their holy intentions by wicked cardinals that each pope was completely powerless to stop.

And the worst part is that they actually believe that tripe. Why? Because the alternative is too awful for them to bear: that the popes they worship were terrible, including Wojtyla.

Bergoglio changed the teaching on the death penalty. If the catechism is based not on truth but on the whim of any goofball running around in a white cassock, then it is worthless. It is worse than worthless, it is dangerous because, as Bergoglio demonstrated, it can contain lies masquerading as truth. If it was wrong on the death penalty, what else is it wrong about? I binned my JPII catechism after that idiot Bergoglio changed it. I wouldn't have that rotten book in my home. There are plenty pre-conciliar catechisms that are trustworthy.

Now just point him toward mecca and he'll be happy as a clam!

If somebody gave him a Cappello Romano he'd probably refuse it