More and more people of the conciliar church are acknowledging the destruction being wreaked by Pope Francis on the Catholic Faith. Let us hope that the trend continues and that they finally come to realize (as the author of the reply below does) that the answer is the full restoration of Catholic Tradition and not a return to the “hermeneutic of continuity” of Pope Benedict XVI as many, even in the neo-SSPX, think the answer lies. The Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar reforms, especially the Novus Ordo Missae, must be condemned wholesale and placed on the Index of Forbidden Books. When that day arrives (and it will), I will sing a “Te Deum”!
The following is an article taken from this link:
Italian author Alessandro Gnocchi (b. 1959) writes a weekly column called Fuori Moda (“Old-Fashioned”) for the Riscossa Cristiana web site, in which he answers questions people send him. In the February 4, 2015 installment, Gnocchi responds to a lady named Lisetta, who asks, with all the evidence he has provided about “Pope” Francis’ denial of Catholic truths, would it not be easier to “say what [Antonio] Socci says” about Francis, namely, that Jorge Bergoglio is not in fact a valid Pope.
The following is Gnocchi’s explosive reply:
It’s true that, as you suggest, “it would be easier to say what Socci says of Bergoglio”. But it would be wrong in terms of the content and in terms of the method. I will try to explain it to you in a way that you might find schematic but, I hope, clear.
1. It is a fact and not an opinion that [Jorge] Bergoglio is destroying the Catholic Church — and I emphasize “Catholic” — with even admirable energy. But I do not agree with those who say that this is done in the name of an undeclared Third Vatican Council and, therefore, that the remedy would be the correct application of the Second Vatican Council. The disasters that led the Church to the edge of the cliff and many Catholics to lose their faith, come precisely from the correct application of the Second Vatican Council: not from its spirit, but from its words.
2. I have said this many times and I will not tire of repeating it: This Church deserves this Pope. Or better still, this Pope is the perfect expression of this Church, which is less and less Catholic, time after time. If tomorrow Benedict XVI would come back to the Chair of Peter, nothing would change, and the process of self-destruction would continue without interruptions, as it happened during the pontificate of [Joseph] Ratzinger and his conciliar and post-conciliar predecessors. It is evident that the virus was injected a long time ago, although it did not show up in magisterial documents until Vatican II.
3. I consider it a useless waste of intellectual energies to put together complex and even striking arguments about Bergoglio not being the Pope, so as to be able to criticize him. A Catholic can denounce, even fiercely, all the errors that are committed in matters of Faith by a Pope, although knowing that he is the Pope. In addition: If such a Catholic has the ability and the prestige to do so and he does not, he commits a grave wrong before God and the people.
4. I consider a bit ridiculous, and very pathetic, the thought process of those who deny the facts because they are then obliged to change their theory. Often you can hear someone to argue in this way: “We cannot say that this statement or this behavior of the Pope are wrong because then we should say that he is not infallible”. And they conjure up all sorts of mysterious interventions, summoning the name of the Holy Ghost, in vain. But an error is an error, whoever commits it. And, in fact, if this error is committed by the Pope, it means that even he himself, except under certain exceptional conditions, is not infallible.
5. I do not have the ability, the competence, or the role to say whether Bergoglio is Pope or not. I am not able to judge if the reconstruction of the procedures of the last conclave should make his election null. I take note that nobody taking part in the conclave ever affirmed this thesis [of Socci], at least openly. When they do, I will be happy to take their opinion into account. At the same time, the opinion of a layman like me, and I am a layman in theology and canon law regarding this topic, I value as close to zero.
6. Having said this, the fact that I don’t think I can say that Bergoglio is not the Pope is not a matter of being afraid to take the last step in my reasoning. I am not able to say if Bergoglio is not the Pope: But I am able to say, and I do say, that he is not Catholic, in almost all his declarations and acts. This is the last step in my reasoning and I think it is harder and more painful than the step of the ones who say that Bergoglio is not the Pope. I believe that you can acknowledge that; if I were to realize that a further step is needed, I would take it.
7. I do not know why our Lord permits this agony, I do not know why He allows the visible guide of the Church to act in a conscious way to destroy it. I do not pretend to know the reason for all this, but I am humble enough to accept the facts, because everything that God allows, even evil, is always in view of a good, perhaps one that we cannot even imagine. For sure, a desolation like this is not a reward. We have to pay for our personal sins. But I think that we are paying also for the sins of those who came before us, particularly the sins of the pastors who, at the time, had the obligation to defend the flock of sheep from the wolves, opposing the drift, but didn’t do so. With ten — I do not say a hundred — only ten Mgr. [Marcel] Lefebvres, instead of only one, probably today we would not be in a such a pitiful condition.
8. When I say that I am humble enough to accept the facts, I do not mean that one should not oppose evil, injustice and the betrayal of the faith. I only say that we must fight for what is good, for truth, and for the salvation of our souls, and for the glory of God, without cooking up excuses that cannot withstand the test of facts. Otherwise we would be defeated from the very beginning.