Ratzinger/Sarah Book: Francis Was "Really Upset", "Pitched The Fit"

That Mr. Michael Matt overlooks the heretical past of Bergoglio with which he was self-excommunicated and disqualified to be a candidate for the papacy. That means Matt has given qualities of pseudo-god or pseudo-messiah to Bergoglio in violation of God's law. He would be the only human on the planet that could commit heresy and apostasy without being automatically excommunicated. For them he is the only human being on the planet who was above the Law of God and above the Laws and teachings of the Church.
For Bergoglians the only 'sin' that now exists; it is the one not to deny God or His laws, but rather that we do not submit to their anti-Pope Bergoglio.

"POPE BENEDICT XVI DID NOT RENOUNCE THE DIVINE OFFICE OF VICAR OF CHRIST"

This is a popular assertion, even if it's incorrect and CAP LOCK doesn't change that. Technically, Benedict XVI explicitly renounced his ministry, "in such a way" that the See of Peter and of Rome would be vacant and a new Pope elected. For that to occur, that "way" must include his office. He also adopted a title that applies only to someone who no longer hold an office. He also pledged his "filial obedience" to Pope Francis, something he wouldn't do if he was Pope.

Gesù è con noi, your entire argument rests on what Benedict XVI didn't say, instead of what he actually did.

But I wasn't talking about the fine points of Benedict's resignation. Your caps-log spasm doesn't address the point I originally presented. For that, let us assume your claim is true and he's still "the real Pope". You haven't proved the point, but out of charity, I'll concede it.

And?

What if Benedict XVI himself was a heretic, apostate and anti-pope? And John Paul II? And John Paul I? And John XXIII? What if every cardinal alive today had been appointed by a pope who was a heretic, apostate, and anti-pope?

There are many who claim precisely this is the state of our Church and they've compiled extensive point-by-point cases to indict each of the Popes mentioned.

This is what you choose to ignore.

I'm not a "Bergoglian". I have said repeatedly all over GTV that Pope Francis is a very, very, very bad Pope. I have also said there have been numerous bad Popes before Francis and the Church has always survived them. That isn't an endorsement of "Bergoglio". It's an acknowledgement of the strength of God's one True Church and a horrible pope's inability to defeat it.

What you betray is a fundamental lack of faith. You seem to think God needs your help in "fixing" the Church and that your opinion on the valid holder of the Papacy is the same as God's. If you're going to start combing through centuries of Church law to condemn Francis, then let's keep those books open and start looking at Benedict XVI.

" The only thing they don't want destroyed is the idea that Bergoglio is a pope so that this evil heretic man can continue to control us."

As opposed to being "controlled" by the equally heretical if more subdued Benedict XVI?

Where did you get the idea that Pope Francis controls us? Only God capable of that. The most Pope Francis can do is display his errors and he does that as easily as he displays his temper. He can't control you into following them..

Your outrage over the heretical Pope Francis is a sham.

When the last four Popes were quietly preaching various heresies in direct contradiction to the Church, you were silent. Oh, to be sure, they were "modernists" and you tut-tutted over that but there was never this relentless howling over heresies and the Lateran Councils and so on.

Heretical teachings didn't bother you when the "anti-Pope" was largely a figure-head who left the erosion and destruction of the Church to his subordinates.

You weren't screaming "heretic" when John Paul II was openly promoting indifferentialism and a globalist Church and you're not screaming about it now.

You weren't screaming "heretic" when Benedict XVI was visiting mosques and "praying" with the enemies of our Church. And you weren't yelling "anti-pope" when Benedict XVI attended a synagogue and actively participated in Jewish religious services.

If Pope Francis excommunicated himself for praying with an Amazonian shaman, then why do you ignore Benedict XVI's praying with a Muslim Imam and a Jewish Rabbi? After all, both blashemously deny the divinity of Jesus.

You weren't picking at Benedict XVI for the numerous heretical false teachings and heretical comments he presented in his many books. Particularly those regarding ecumenism with the protestants and schismatics. You weren't reminding everyone how Benedict XVI repeatedly rejected basic Church teachings in an effort to appease those groups.

There is no consistency in your critism.

You're fraud, Gesu.

You and every other false-Catholic who sanctimoniously quotes "Canon Law" and the "Magisterium" of our Holy Mother The Church when, during no less than four "anti-papacies", you have gladly and willingly ignored them both.

No, I'm not "harassing" you. I'm correcting you and refusing to let your double standards go ignored.

Your problem is you can't support your opinion because it's a sham built entirely on your own personal bias. You look at the (obvious) failings of one Pope and ignore those of the popes before him.

GTV isn't a platform for you to bray your sanctimionious hypocritical criticisms uncontested and unanswered.

If you want that, go start a blog and disable the comments.

"Bergoglio was already a schismatic, apostate and formal heretic in Argentina I do not see the comparison."

Of course you don't, Gesù è con noi . ;-) Two questions, perhaps answering them might clarify things for you. 1.) Is a schismatic, apostate, heretical pope any less worse than a schismatic, apostate, heretical cardinal who is appointed Pope by his schismatic, apostate, heretical cronies? 2.) Does the duration of the schism, apostasy, and heresy in a Pope any way change the fact of its existence?

"And If you want to say that..."

I don't want to say that at all. :) You're an intelligent person, Gesu, and well versed in recent Church history. I'm sure you've known about these credible accusastion for years. And quietly ignored them as many others have. Others, however, apply Canon Law and Church Magisterium uniformly (if perhaps overzealously.)

What they don't do is turn a blind eye to decades of dubious teachings from Francis' predecessors. These citations of the The Lateran Council's stern condemnation are as selectively applied as often as they've been conveniently overlooked and ignored.

Matt's false resistance favors the heresy of Bergoglio and that an apostate, schismatic and persistent heretic like Bergoglio continue to be considered and accepted as Pope.“the Church forbids the faithful to communicate with those unbelievers who have forsaken the faith they once received, either by corrupting the faith, as heretics, or by entirely renouncing the faith, as apostates, because the Church pronounces sentence of excommunication on both.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica)

The Lateran Council
Condemnation of those who do not reject heretics

If anyone according to the holy Fathers, harmoniously with us and likewise with the Faith, does not with mind and lips reject and anathematize all the most abominable heretics together with their impious writings even to one least portion, whom the holy Catholic and apostolic Church of God, that is, the holy and universal five Synods and likewise all the approved Fathers of the Church in harmony, rejects and anathematizes, we mean Sabellius, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Polemon, Eutyches, Dioscurus, Timothy Aelurus, Severus, Theodosius, Colluthus, Themistius, Paul of Samosata , Diodorus, Theodore, Nestorius, Theodulus the Persian, Origen, Didymus, Evagrius, and briefly all the remaining heretics, […] let such a person be condemned. (Denzinger-Hünermann 518-520. Lateran Council, Against the Monothelites, October 31, 649)

Michael Matt contradicts St. Paul who orders us to anathematize those who preach a false Gospel. Michael Matt acts as a coward, who puts human respect for heretics over the defense of the rights of God, as if the defense of the faith was a political issue of diplomacy. Michael Matt has not zeal for the salvation of souls. Michael Matt is disobeying St. Paul and St. John who commands us, we should not even greet those who turn away from the Gospel.
That is why the Cure of Ars curses this human respect that leads souls to Hell.