It's Friday, March 19th, 2021.
In the last week or so, the Jesuit apostate Jorge Bergoglio, otherwise known as Pope Francis,
dropped a few theological whoppers which have largely gone unnoticed, as usual.
They're found in his sermon for Laetare Sunday, March 14th, in his Angelus Address for the same
Sunday, and in his address to participants in a course organized by the Apostolic Penitentiary
given on March 12th. Let's start with Francis' Angelus Address on March 14th.
He commented on the Gospel of the Day, which was John 3, 14-21. In verse 18 of that,
our blessed Lord tells Nicodemus,
Now, did Francis mention anything about unbelievers being condemned, especially in light of his recent
trip to Iraq and his nauseating interreligious human fraternity agenda? Of course not.
Instead, he merely says,
"...whoever chooses darkness will face a judgment of condemnation. Whoever chooses light
will have a judgment of salvation." And then he explains that,
"...whoever practices evil seeks the darkness." So, whereas Francis had a great opportunity here
to teach the revealed truth that not choosing Christ the light
means choosing darkness, something Bergoglio's Jewish and Muslim friends should have been told,
he instead talks about practicing evil, which, granted, is also relevant in this context,
but the whole point Christ was making is that because people loved evil and practiced evil,
therefore they did not want to believe in him, who is the Son of God, the light, which is why
our Lord says in verse 18, "...who is the Son of God, the light." And then he says,
"...who is the Son of God, the light, which is why our Lord says in verse 19, that men loved darkness rather than the light, for their works were evil."
So, here we see Bergoglio simply omitting discussion of what doesn't fit into his theology.
Christ specifically says that he who does not believe in him will be condemned.
Bergoglio ignores it and talks about doing evil in general. Now, when it comes to doing good,
Francis also manipulates.
our Lord's message. He says, quote, whoever walks in the light, whoever approaches the light cannot
but do good works, unquote. That's false. It's heretical. It implies that we no longer have free
will once we have come to Christ, that we can no longer sin. Is that what Francis meant to
communicate? Probably not, because afterwards he talks about how we should ask God for forgiveness.
But the way it is stated, it's heresy. And we can't excuse heresy on the grounds that it's
contradicted a few lines later. That's what Pope Pius VI condemned in 1794 in his bull
Auctorum Fide, as the deceptive method of the innovators at the Synod of Pistoia.
Anyway, let's briefly look at why the idea that once you're justified, you can't help but do good
work.
is heresy. Consider Canon 23 of the Decree of Justification by the Council of Trent. Quote,
if anyone shall say that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, let him be anathema,
unquote. And Canon 24 is also quite relevant to what Francis said. And it states, quote,
if anyone shall say that justice received,
not preserved, and also not increased in the sight of God through good works, but that those
same works are only the fruits and signs of justification received, but not a cause of its
increase, let him be anathema, unquote. And you can look this up yourself in Denzinger,
Numbers 833 and 834. Next, Francis talks about obtaining God's forgiveness,
in confession. And he says, quote,
unquote. Now, that is false. Okay, there are conditions that have to be fulfilled,
in order to receive God's forgiveness, especially in the sacrament of penance,
and most especially for mortal sins. Simply making a confession of one's sins is not enough.
To receive valid absolution and confession, we have to have contrition for our sins,
which is a supernatural sorrow, meaning we have to be sorry for our sins because of some
supernatural motive, which ideally is a supernatural sin. So, if we have to be sorry for
our sins, we have to be sorry for our sins. So, if we have to be sorry for our sins, we have to
the love of God, but even the fear of hell suffices to receive a valid absolution. Now,
there's much more to be said about contrition and how that works, but for our purposes here,
we can just leave it at that. Then there's also the requirement of being willing to make
satisfaction for our sins. That means we have to do the penance that the priest gives us,
and depending on what sins we've confessed, we may have to do the penance that the priest gives us,
to make restitution as far as possible. So, for instance, if you've stolen money,
you have to give it back. If you've lied about someone, you have to retract that. If you've
scandalized someone, you have to undo or repair that, if possible, and so forth. So, these are
all conditions that are necessary to be forgiven in the sacrament of penance. And the Council of
Trent says in Canon 4,
if anyone denies that for the full and perfect remission of sins, there are three acts required
on the part of the penitent, as it were, the matter of the sacrament of penance, namely,
contrition, confession, and satisfaction, which are called the three parts of penance,
let him be anathema, unquote. That's Denzinger number 914. So, this idea,
that all you have to do is confess your sins and God will always necessarily forgive,
is simply not true. Now, some Francis apologists might say, well, but Francis is addressing
Catholics, so they know all of that already. So, he's assuming that knowledge in his audience.
Yeah, sure. First of all, virtually nobody in the Vatican II Church knows that stuff,
okay? Heck, hardly anybody.
Everybody even goes to confession. But even aside from that, it makes no sense to say that
Francis is assuming his listeners are familiar with the requirements for a good and valid
confession, because then why is he telling them that God is always ready to forgive?
You mean to tell me that they don't know that part?
All right, let's move on to Francis' sermon at the Novos Ordo worship service on Laetare Sunday,
March 14th.
That sermon was a mixed bag with a little something for everyone, something for conservatives,
something for liberals. I'd like to comment on just one particular thing he said, though,
which is this, quote,
That is why God comes to us, because he so loved us. His love is so great that he cannot fail
to give himself to us, unquote. That, too, is heresy. Francis is saying that God had
no choice but to redeem us. In other words, God did not act freely. He did not truly choose
to become incarnate and redeem us, but was more or less compelled to do so out of love. But it's
not love if there is compulsion. In fact, Francis' statement here is reminiscent of one of the errors
of the Italian theologian, Father Antonio Rosmini, condemned by Pope Leo XIII in 1887.
And that error in particular is found in Denzinger, 1908. It states, quote,
The love by which God loves himself, even in creatures, and which is the reason why he
determines himself to create, constitutes a moral necessity which in the most perfect being
always induces the effect. For such necessity in many imperfect beings only leaves the whole
freedom bilateral, unquote. Again, that is an error. That is a mistake. That is a mistake. That is a
error condemned by Pope Leo XIII. Now, Father Rosmini, for the record, actually retracted
his errors and submitted to the Holy See's judgment, unlike Francis. Pope Pius XII, too,
in his encyclical Humani Generis, number 25, rejects the idea, quote, that the creation of
the world is necessary since it proceeds from the necessary liberality of divine
love, unquote. Now, granted, Francis wasn't talking about creation, but about the redemption.
But it's still the same principle. If God isn't compelled to create on account of love,
then neither is he compelled to redeem his creation on account of love.
Now, this Bergoglian error is also visible in the discourse the false pope gave on March 12th
to the participants in a course organized by the Apostolic Penitentiary.
So, I suppose he was basically addressing a group of confessors. And so, of course, the topic was
confession, the sacrament of penance, or, as it is called in the Vatican II Church,
the sacrament of reconciliation. Francis presented confession as an encounter of love,
typical Novus Ordo terminology. Here's what he said, quote,
One who has been welcomed by love cannot but welcome a brother.
One who has surrendered him or herself to love cannot but console the afflicted.
One who has been forgiven by God cannot but wholeheartedly forgive their brothers, unquote.
Yep, this is a part of his experience theology. Maybe we should call it experience theology.
Though it sounds really profound and spiritual, the problem is that it once again introduces
the notion of necessity, denying freedom, and the notion of necessity as a form of freedom.
And it also has some things backwards. Let me explain. First, the idea that he who has been
forgiven by God cannot help doing good works is false. Okay, obviously false. And that shouldn't
need further elaboration. There's really no theological reason for it, if you think about it,
right? It would mean that God's forgiveness takes away your free will. Well, that's baloney,
and everyone knows it. We keep going back to confession because we,
didn't keep God's commandments. And then this idea that once we've been forgiven by God,
now we can go ahead and forgive others, as though we basically passed on the forgiveness
we received from God. And this too sounds really great at first, but it's theologically untenable.
In order for God to forgive us, we first have to forgive others, at least insofar as our
refusal to forgive would constitute an unrepentant of more.
mortal sin. So it's not that we first receive God's forgiveness and then spread that forgiveness
to others, but that we first have to prepare ourselves to receive God's forgiveness by
forgiving everyone who sinned against us. Otherwise, God will not forgive our sins either.
And lastly, in the same address, Francis says, quote, Dear brothers, let us always remember that
one of us does not feel this way. Better not to go to confession. Unquote.
First of all, feeling has nothing to do with it. Secondly, you'd think that if you're not right with
God and you don't think that's a problem, that in particular is a reason to go to confession
and get your act together. Not for the Frankster. Oh, no. He doesn't want you to go to confession
if you don't feel like a...
forgiven sinner. But wait, if you're already forgiven, then why would you go to confession?
Besides, the Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, Canon 13 says, quote,
If anyone shall say that it is necessary for every man in order to obtain the remission of sins
to believe for certain and without any hesitation due to his own weakness and indisposition
that his sin is not to be forgiven, then why would you go to confession?
Sins are forgiven him. Let him be anathema. Unquote. Stensinger 8.23.
And so, what's with this forgiven sinner talk? That's not Catholic terminology. That's Lutheranism.
I'm not saying you can't spin it into something Orthodox, but most people wouldn't understand it
in an Orthodox sense. The Catholic dogmas on justification make clear that when the sinner
is regenerated in grace, his soul becomes genuinely holy. There is not merely an absence
of sin, but also a presence of sanctifying grace. The sinner is transformed into a just man,
and so he becomes truly righteous before God. So, it's not simply a matter of being forgiven,
but of becoming just.
So, you can see that,
Francis has it all backwards. His theology is all over the place. It's flowery words with
superficially plausible, but ultimately false and dangerous ideas condemned by the church.
And honestly, I don't want to hear now that, oh, but if you look at it this way
and interpret it that way, then it's not heresy, or it's not really what Francis meant.
Look, the man claims to be the pope. He has the ability and the duty,
to speak truth and speak it clearly. You know, he could just do that, right? He could just speak
in such a way that only one interpretation is possible. And yet, for eight years, he has chosen
not to. That's because not only is he a heretic, he also wants to make you one. And that is the
very opposite of what he wants. He wants to make you one. He wants to make you one. He wants to
of what Christ instituted the papacy for. Francis is not a pope. In the truest sense of the word,
he is an anti-pope.