bergoglio is NOT Catholic
Here is an unedited Google translation of a reply to a letter by Alessandro Gnocchi .
I don't think any comment on my part is necessary.
(H/T to Novus Ordo Watch for highlighting this via Twitter.)
+ + +
"OUT OF FASHION". Mail Alessandro Gnocchi - weekly
By Editor On February 4, 2015 · 20 Comments
... If you do not think I can say that is not Bergoglio Pope, that does not depend on the fear of making the last step of my reasoning. Are not able to say if it is not Bergoglio Pope: But I can say, and I say, that is not Catholic, in almost all of his pronouncements and his acts.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Every Tuesday Alessandro Gnocchi responds to letters from readers friends. Everyone can participate by sending their letters to firstname.lastname@example.org , with the subject: "Mail Alessandro Gnocchi". We ask our friends letters short, on topics that are of common interest, of course. Every Tuesday will choose a letter for an answer in full and, if you give short answers to other letters. It will try, where possible, to provide answers to all.
The success of this column is witnessed by the increasing number of letters arriving in the newsroom. In this regard please friends readers hold their texts within a maximum of 800-1000 jokes. This will make it easier to respond to several letters in the same week. We thank everyone for their kind attention and cooperation.
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
were received in Editors:
Dear Dr. Gnocchi,
I am writing to ask you a simple question. I follow closely his column, which I find really useful and valuable for those who, like me, does not know where to turn to understand what is happening inside the Church. I share all of its critical current pontificate and I ask only one thing: having said all he says, and after his analysis so lucid and honest, I would say painful, I have the impression that she is still a moment before drawing final conclusions. He does it for prudence or conviction? Would not it be easier to say what it says Socci about Bergoglio?
Thank you for your attention
certain that, as she suggests, "it would be easier to say what it says Socci about Bergoglio." But it would be wrong in the content and in the method, and I will try to explain it through a schematic reasoning maybe, but, I hope, clear.
1. What Bergoglio is demolishing even admirable energy with the Catholic Church, and I emphasize "Catholic", is in fact and not in opinions. But I disagree with those who say that he does in the name of a Third Vatican Council undeclared and that, therefore, the remedy is to apply correctly the Second Vatican. The disasters that led the Church to the brink of the precipice and many Catholics to lose faith are precisely the correct application of the Second Vatican: not of his spirit, but his letter.
2. I've said it many times and I do not tire of repeating: this Church deserves this Pope. Indeed, this Pope is the perfect expression of this Church which has less and less of a Catholic. If you come back tomorrow Benedict XVI on the chair of Peter, would not change anything, the demolition process would continue without pause, as well as held during the pontificate of Ratzinger and the conciliar and post-conciliar predecessors. That the virus had been inoculated very first is obvious, but, until Vatican II, had not manifested through magisterial documents.
I consider it an unnecessary expense of intellectual energy to mount complex, and also suggestive arguments that Pope Bergoglio not to be able to criticize. A Catholic can stigmatize, even hard, all the mistakes made in matters of faith by Pope knowing that that is the Pope. What's more, if you have ability and prestige, and to do it and it does not make a big mistake before God and before men.
I consider it a bit 'ridiculous, and very pathetic, the thought process of those who deny the facts because it would force to change the theory. You often hear argument in this way: "You can not say that this statement or behavior that the Pope is wrong because then we should say that it is not infallible." And evoke some kind of interventions arcane naming misuse the name of the Holy Spirit. But a mistake is a mistake, whoever fulfilled. And indeed, if he makes the Pope, it means that he too, and subject to certain exceptional conditions, it is not foolproof.
I do not have the ability, competence and role to say whether Bergoglio is not the Pope. I am not able to judge whether the reconstruction procedures last conclave is such as to invalidate the election. I note that none of the participants in the conclave has supported this view, at least openly. When they do I'll be happy to take into account their views. Instead, the opinion of a layman like me, as I lay in the field of theology and canon law on this issue, I rate it as my: hugging zero.
That said, if you do not think I can say that is not Bergoglio Pope, that does not depend on the fear of making the last step of my reasoning. Are not able to say if it is not Bergoglio Pope: But I can say, and I say, that is not Catholic, in almost all of his pronouncements and his acts. This is the last step of my argument and I think it is more difficult and painful than that of those who argue that it is not Bergoglio Pope. I think I can give notice of the fact that, when ritenessi of having to take another, the compirei.
I do not know why the Lord let this agony, I do not know because it makes visible that the guide of the Church give you consciously do to demolish it. I do not pretend to know the reasons, but I have the humility to accept the facts as everything that God allows, even evil, is always in view of a good that we maybe can not even imagine. Surely, a similar desolation is not a reward. We have to pay our personal sins. But I think we are paying too faults of those who came before us, particularly of those pastors who, in his time, could and should defend the flock from wolves, oppose the drift and have not done. There were ten percent do not say, but only a ten Monsignor Lefebvre instead of just one, probably we would not be reduced as well.
When I say that I have the humility to accept the facts, do not mean that we should not oppose evil, injustice and betrayal of the faith. I'm just saying that you have to fight for the good, for truth, for the salvation of our souls and for the glory of God without invent excuses that do not hold up to the test of facts. We would be defeated at the start.
Praised be Jesus Christ