Church of Bergolio [new religion founded at Rome in 2013].

gerhard dengler

Member
Founding Member
I rewatched Taylor Marshall's refutation about Bergoglios statement concerning the 10 Commandments.
That refutation is as impressive piece of analysis that one is likely to get.
Marshall literally buried Bergoglio, and Luther.

Personally the only issue now I think is whether or not these statements and behaviour is intentional.
Specifically is Bergoglio intentionally saying these things and is he intentionally behaving this way?

Intent is the final juncture.

Is Bergoglios intent voluntary, or is it involuntary? In other words is he behaving this way of his own volition and freely? Or is he behaving this way under some form of involuntary compulsion as a result of say, dementia? Or is he behaving this way because he was always a bad priest?
 

gerhard dengler

Member
Founding Member
On what earthly planet can a catholic like Taylor continue to support the alleged papacy of an apostate priest like Bergolio whom he correctly accuses of being a formal heretic?
There are many like Taylor [Vigano, Schneider,Burke etc] who have seen through Bergolio yet baulk at rejecting his papal claims.

Maybe, there are bigger issues at play?

Maybe the people you name are being charitable to an extreme?

Maybe they see the bigger picture?

Maybe they see Bergoglios intent to disunify the church, and they chose not to do anything to further that intent?

Maybe you should as Taylor Marshall
 

The Field Marshal

Member
Founding Member
SW Member
I rewatched Taylor Marshall's refutation about Bergoglios statement concerning the 10 Commandments.
That refutation is as impressive piece of analysis that one is likely to get.
Marshall literally buried Bergoglio, and Luther.

Personally the only issue now I think is whether or not these statements and behaviour is intentional.
Specifically is Bergoglio intentionally saying these things and is he intentionally behaving this way?

Intent is the final juncture.

Is Bergoglios intent voluntary, or is it involuntary? In other words is he behaving this way of his own volition and freely? Or is he behaving this way under some form of involuntary compulsion as a result of say, dementia? Or is he behaving this way because he was always a bad priest?
Bergolio knows exactly what he is doing.

His clear intention is to create a brand new religion that dispenses with the moral obligations, duties and sanctions of the one true catholic church.

He does this
[1] by gradually altering doctrines on the sacraments and the ten commandments.
[2] by alienating and punishing any cleric who resists these encroachments [this began with the banishment of cardinal Burke shortly after the papacy was usurped.]

Anybody watching the usurped papacy over the past 8 years can see this if they but look.

A new and and entirely man made church in the image of Jorge Bergolio is emerging from the Vatican City state
 

Eriugena

SW Member
Member
I rewatched Taylor Marshall's refutation about Bergoglios statement concerning the 10 Commandments.
That refutation is as impressive piece of analysis that one is likely to get.
Marshall literally buried Bergoglio, and Luther.

Personally the only issue now I think is whether or not these statements and behaviour is intentional.
Specifically is Bergoglio intentionally saying these things and is he intentionally behaving this way?

Intent is the final juncture.

Is Bergoglios intent voluntary, or is it involuntary? In other words is he behaving this way of his own volition and freely? Or is he behaving this way under some form of involuntary compulsion as a result of say, dementia? Or is he behaving this way because he was always a bad priest?
In Church law proving intent is not necessary in matters of heresy involving clerics. With laypeple it is assumed to be material, e.g. ignorance, unless demonstated otherwise, but not so with clerics.

Heresy consists of an idea which is contrary to the faith, and this is the material. The sin of heresy is committed when the idea is held and held with pertinacity. Mere ignorance does not establish pertinacity. It may indicate other sins, to do with neglect, the duty to maintain an informed conscience, etc, or, it could be due to invincible ignorance, but it does not make the holder a formal heretic.

For this pertinacity must be present, Catholic Encyclopedia of 1910: "Pertinacity, that is, obstinate adhesion to a particular tenet is required to make heresy formal." . Without pertinacity there is no formal element and therefore no sin. You must be fully aware that the idea you express is contrary to an article of faith.

As to the bar being higher for clerics:
If the delinquent making this claim be a cleric, his plea for mitigation must be dismissed, either as untrue, or else as indicating ignorance which is affected, or at least crass and supine… His ecclesiastical training in the seminary, with its moral and dogmatic theology, its ecclesiastical history, not to mention its canon law, all insure that the Church’s attitude towards heresy was imparted to him.”
Fr. Eric MacKenzie, The Delict of Heresy, Catholic University Canon Law Studies 77. (Washington: 1932), 35
 

The Field Marshal

Member
Founding Member
SW Member
Maybe, there are bigger issues at play?

Maybe the people you name are being charitable to an extreme?

Maybe they see the bigger picture?

Maybe they see Bergoglios intent to disunify the church, and they chose not to do anything to further that intent?

Maybe you should as Taylor Marshall
What bigger issue can there be but the identity of the true pope?
Charity has definite limits when it comes to dealing with spiritual wolves in sheeps clothing like Bergolio.

The persons i have named remain obedient to the Argentinian apostate Bergolio because they fear schism.
Schism must come with a person like Bergolio who has split himself away from the Mystical Body of Christ and in so doing leads millions astray.
 

The Field Marshal

Member
Founding Member
SW Member
Incorrect.

We can't know what informs intent, at this range.

Granted we can see the results of intent.

But we cannot know what informs that intent

One word HATRED.


Its pretty clear that Bergolio hates God.

His persistent refusal to kneel at the consecration is contrasted with his throwing himself on the ground to kiss the feet of African politicians.
His never ending publicly uttered outright heresies.
His vicious attacks and abuses on orthodox catholics.

Malicious Intent has never been so publicly manifest on any figure as it has been seen on the face , actions and words of this demonic creature that has grabbed hold of the Chair of St Peter.
 

gerhard dengler

Member
Founding Member
What bigger issue can there be but the identity of the true pope?
Charity has definite limits when it comes to dealing with spiritual wolves in sheeps clothing like Bergolio.

The persons i have named remain obedient to the Argentinian apostate Bergolio because they fear schism.
Schism must come with a person like Bergolio who has split himself away from the Mystical Body of Christ and in so doing leads millions astray.

You're not privy to what Marshall, Burke and Vigano are privy to - so you cannot know whether or not a bigger picture applies here.
I think it is likely that there are bigger issues at play here and that these guys know it.

It seems to me that one objective is to try to disunify the Church. So why help this objective through invoking schism?

Bergoglios tenure is finite. This will pass.
 

gerhard dengler

Member
Founding Member
One word HATRED.


Its pretty clear that Bergolio hates God.

This is guesswork. We simply do not know what informs his intent. Nor can we know if his behaviour is voluntary or involuntary.

I can understand, and fully empathize, with every catholic who is outraged/angry/scandalized by Bergoglio.

But invoking schism achieves one of the objectives which Bergoglio seeks to achieve, namely disunity of the church.

Make no mistake these are very trying times for all pious and observant Catholics.
 

The Field Marshal

Member
Founding Member
SW Member
You're not privy to what Marshall, Burke and Vigano are privy to - so you cannot know whether or not a bigger picture applies here.
I think it is likely that there are bigger issues at play here and that these guys know it.

It seems to me that one objective is to try to disunify the Church. So why help this objective through invoking schism?

Bergoglios tenure is finite. This will pass.
The visible centre of unity in the Roman Catholic church is the person of the pope.
Get that wrong and everything falls to pieces.

You are fully aware that antipopes have obtained power in the history of the church.
The usual consequence was schism of one sort or another.

Yes Bergolio will die but his evil fruits will live on and looking at the apppointments he made its very likely that another apostate priest will succeed him.
So it wont pass until the false teachings of Bergolio are corrected and expunged.
 

gerhard dengler

Member
Founding Member
The visible centre of unity in the Roman Catholic church is the person of the pope.
Get that wrong and everything falls to pieces.

You are fully aware that antipopes have obtained power in the history of the church.
The usual consequence was schism of one sort or another.

Yes Bergolio will die but his evil fruits will live on and looking at the apppointments he made its very likely that another apostate priest will succeed him.
So it wont pass until the false teachings of Bergolio are corrected and expunged.

I wouldn't necessarily agree that everything falls to pieces. Bad popes and bad papacies are nothing new, unfortunately.
And erroneous papal teachings in the past were subsequently corrected and expunged too.

I get the fact that many pious and observant Catholics are deeply troubled and deeply scandalised since 2013.
I've always viewed with very deep suspicion Pope Benedicts abdication and the appointment of Bergoglio.
The entire thing stank and I said as much at the time on the other channel, and have said so many times subsequently.

But if you think I'm going to behave in such a way to further Bergoglio's objective through schism, forget it.

It is clear to me that Bergoglio seeks to try to split the church. Why should any catholic behave to further that objective? Why do his work for him?
Schism is disunity.

None of this situation is easy.
It is hard to stay in the battle, in the church, and to fight.
Walking out of the church. leaving the battle via schism is easy by comparison.

I
 

Eriugena

SW Member
Member
I wouldn't necessarily agree that everything falls to pieces. Bad popes and bad papacies are nothing new, unfortunately.
And erroneous papal teachings in the past were subsequently corrected and expunged too.
Bad popes there have been but never heretics.
What erroneous teachings are you referring to?
 

The Field Marshal

Member
Founding Member
SW Member
I wouldn't necessarily agree that everything falls to pieces. Bad popes and bad papacies are nothing new, unfortunately.
And erroneous papal teachings in the past were subsequently corrected and expunged too.

I get the fact that many pious and observant Catholics are deeply troubled and deeply scandalised since 2013.
I've always viewed with very deep suspicion Pope Benedicts abdication and the appointment of Bergoglio.
The entire thing stank and I said as much at the time on the other channel, and have said so many times subsequently.

But if you think I'm going to behave in such a way to further Bergoglio's objective through schism, forget it.

It is clear to me that Bergoglio seeks to try to split the church. Why should any catholic behave to further that objective? Why do his work for him?
Schism is disunity.

None of this situation is easy.
It is hard to stay in the battle, in the church, and to fight.
Walking out of the church. leaving the battle via schism is easy by comparison.

I
Well much thanks for that Gerhard.
Its a well balanced and sensible approach.

I am not seeking to promote schism btw but given the extremely grave problems instigated by pope Benedicts decision on Feb 11th 2013 it is my sincere view that an effort is being made under Bergolios stewardship to create a brand new man made church that dispenses with the moral norms and disciplines associated with Roman Catholocism.

Also it is not entirely clear that Bergolio has an objective to promote schism, although he is quoted as saying he will go down in history as the man who split the church.

What truly characterizes Bergolios new church is the utter spiritual and personal indifference and open hostility to the faith, beliefs and convictions of Roman catholics.

Therefore it is Bergolio and his followers /supporters who are the schismatics.
It is they who are cutting themselves away from the true vine.
 

The Field Marshal

Member
Founding Member
SW Member
Tis only man becoming God. But man and God are effectively the same thing, (you know, shamrocks and all that) so they're kinda barking down a dead end. Tools.
My understanding is that man was created merely in the image and likeness of God which is not the same as being actual God.
But Bergolios new Church is certainly allowing the numerous ordained homosexuals to run wild.
 

Latest Threads

Top Bottom