Akin/Rose deleted my comment on Bergoglio, so I will post that comment here:
Bergoglio speaks heresies. It doesn’t matter what someone may think that he is trying to say.
It is highly implausible that he doesn’t know that his heresies contradict perennial Church teaching. But for the sake of argument, let us assume that he doesn’t know. Even so, his ignorance would still be what is termed vincible, because he has adequate resources available to him to find out what the true Church teaching is.
Consequently he is a formal heretic. And a formal heretic cannot be a Catholic. And a formal heretic and non-Catholic cannot be a valid pope.
Why does it seem so hard for people to say that Bergoglio is not a valid pope?
Failure to call him out as an invalid pope is failure to protect the flock from dangers to their souls.
If I were to give voice to a heresy and refused to retract it even after someone explained actual Catholic teaching to me, I would be a formal heretic and no longer a Catholic. The same is true for Bergoglio.
The Aztec religion required human sacrifice (with the victims’ hearts cut out of them while alive). Not all religions are a path to God.
No religion other than the Catholic religion is a path to God.
If Bergoglio believed this, he would say it.
Catholics are required to have a love of truth, and not live in wishful thinking. The pope-splaining has become completely untenable. How can God possibly be pleased with it.
Akin/Rose deleted my comment on Bergoglio, so I will post that comment here:
Bergoglio speaks heresies. It doesn’t matter what someone may think that he is trying to say.
It is highly implausible that he doesn’t know that his heresies contradict perennial Church teaching. But for the sake of argument, let us assume that he doesn’t know. Even so, his ignorance would still be what is termed vincible, because he has adequate resources available to him to find out what the true Church teaching is.
Consequently he is a formal heretic. And a formal heretic cannot be a Catholic. And a formal heretic and non-Catholic cannot be a valid pope.
Why does it seem so hard for people to say that Bergoglio is not a valid pope?
Failure to call him out as an invalid pope is failure to protect the flock from dangers to their souls.
If I were to give voice to a heresy and refused to retract it even after someone explained actual Catholic teaching to me, I would be a formal heretic and no longer a Catholic. The same is true for Bergoglio.
The Aztec religion required human sacrifice (with the victims’ hearts cut out of them while alive). Not all religions are a path to God.
No religion other than the Catholic religion is a path to God.
If Bergoglio believed this, he would say it.
Catholics are required to have a love of truth, and not live in wishful thinking. The pope-splaining has become completely untenable. How can God possibly be pleased with it.