1. My love for the Church.
I am motivated by love for the Church in which my salvation lies. And Charity demands that I share this love with others by, first, teaching others how to enter her (called evengelization), secondly, how to defend her and thirdly, by describing the state of her health. These are obligations of those who have Faith.
2. What if there is growing perception that the Church is sick.
A doctor is trained by teaching him how a healthy body looks and works. This will be the basis of all his analysis. When he examines a sick person he, simply, finds what organ is not working well in the person. And then, through medicines, he tries to restore that organ back to health.
We must work in the same way in the spiritual life. We must know how a spiritually healthy person looks like. If the soul sins, we find out the vice that had made the soul sick. And then apply the ascetical medication to restore the soul to a virtuous life.
The description of a healthy soul is found in Divine Revelation with Christ as its exemplar. The different illnesses called vices are, also, found in Divine Revelation, but its ascetical medication has been detailed in Tradition or the writings of the Fathers of the Church.
The Church is never sick. But the men of the Church can be sick. This differentiates the cockles from the wheat.
3. What I did for the love of the Church.
In a project presented by the late Bishop of Antipolo and approved by the CBCP in Tagaytay, we mailed to all Diocesan priests and bishops a newsletter on the spiritual life based on Scriptures and its interpretation by the Fathers of the Church for more than 30 years free of charge. This blog is an extension of that project except that we have included commentaries on current events happening in the Catholic Church around the world.
Also, in obedience to Pope John Paul’s II exhortation to the Philippine Bishops to revise the curriculum of seminaries and at the request of the then Bishop of Naga, head of the committee on seminaries of the CBCP, we offered a curriculum based on the Liturgy that was, also, approved by the CBCP in Tagaytay.
For the lay men we produced radio programs on the ‘Compendium of Pope Benedict’.. And distributed good spiritual books free of charge to those who asked for them. Add to this the hundreds of retreats we held free of charge in our retreat house for all who asked for it. These are just a few of the better known proofs of our efforts in loving the Church in the Philippines.
With all these treasures of knowledge possessed by the Church, in our desire to share them with all, we could not help making conclusion based on these knowledge. We followed the simple philosophical syllogism…….. if the major and minor are true, then the conclusion must be true.
4. Why I stated that ‘ Pope Francis is an anti-pope.
The conclusion is based, first, on the prophecies of Christ ‘on the decay of Faith’ and the’ waxing cold of Charity’ that is prophesied to happen today. This is further confirmed by St. Paul in his letter to the Thessalonians where he prophesied ‘a great apostasy.’ This apostasy can only be led by an anti-pope and embraced by majority of the cardinals, , bishops and priests. Consequently all the lay men will follow suite.
Secondly, Satan is an intelligent angel. He knows that to destroy the Church he must strike at the top. He has always done it many times before producing 40 anti-popes in the Catholic Church. We have no reason to think it cannot happen today.
Thirdly, we have had 40 anti-popes elected before, existing together with the true Popes. During those times, none of the cardinals, bishops or priest were able to identify which was the true pope and who was the anti-pope. Great saints, alone, identified them and tried to solve the problems. We have the examples of St. Catherine of Sienna, a lay sister and St. Bernard of Clairvaux..
Fourthly, some saints, like Hildegard of Bingen, raised by Pope Benedict to the honors of being a Doctor of the Church, prophesied in ‘Scivia,’ her visions, that there will be an anti-pope sometime after an attempt on the life of a true Pope.
Fifthly, the Book of Revelation describes an anti-pope that will join the anti-Christ in destroying the Church. He is called the second beast.
This above scenario was the primary aim of the whole monastic movement described by St. Bonaventure and included by Pope Benedict as goal of his ‘new evangelization.’ It is of the utmose importance for Catholics to know; first how to enter the Church. And secondly; who will be his great enemy; the devil, as personified in the anti- Christ and the helper of the anti-Christ, the anti – pope. The anti-Christ is the destroyer of the world; the anti-pope is the destroyer of the Church.
To know who is the anti-pope is a matter of salvation or damnation.
After going through the five steps mentioned above plus going over the 15 visible signs of the true Catholic Church according to St. Bellarmine, my conclusion is that we have an anti-pope today. This conclusion is based on the fact that Catholic teaching states that we can have an anti-pope any time, even today. My indiscretion is that I pin pointed who he was. Why he and not somebody else? It was easy to analyze him because of his exposure to media.
Why I concluded that Pope Francis was ‘anti-pope.’
He went against the commands of God, like his proposal during the Bishop’s Synod 2014 that were against the commands of God, against the teachings of Christ and against the teachings of the Apostles. For which reason the majority of the cardinals and bishops rejected them. The news described it as the first time a Synod ever rejected a Pope. Why? Because he went against God’s commands. And recently he held a secret meeting with those on his side to push the same rejected proposals in the next 2015 Bishop’s Synod. Discovered by Journalist, their names were published. Now, we know the names of those bishops who plan to continue disobeying God’s commands in the next Synod. Here they can be aptly be described as anti-Christ, a word I never used.
Next, add to this the widely published disobediences of Pope Francis to the teachings of past Popes from Pius IX to John Paul and Benedict. . …..I was forced to make the conclusion that because he went against the teachings of past Popes he could be described as an anti-pope….a literal description.
In the just concluded Roman Forum at Lake Garda in Northern Italy, the conference urged Pope Francis to follow the Church’s teaching not to befriend the world for to do so is ‘enmity with Christ.’ So Pope Francis is also anti-Church, a description I, also, never used.
Pope Francis, by his own words and actions went against the teachings of previous Popes and the only word to describe such actions is being an anti-pope.
5. My apology.
I am not able to apologize for the five steps mentioned above because those are all Catholic teachings; from the prophecy of Christ that this age will be devoid of Faith and Charity, up to the conclusion that we can have an anti-pope any time today or in the near future..
I am not able to apologize for the news world wide that contributed to this conclusion because they are not under my control like what happened in the Bishop’s Synod 2014 where the Pope was rejected by the majority and the conclusion in the Roman forum at Lake Garda where he was described as anti-Catholic Church.
The conclusion that Pope Francis is an anti-pope is not my conclusion but a conclusion based on his very own words and actions. It is a logical conclusion the mind is forced to make for fear of his soul’s very damnation or salvation. He who follows an anti-pope is thrown straight with him to hell by Christ, Himself, the Apocalypse notes. My reason for voicing that conclusion is to warn and save as many souls as possible.
Up to here my Catholic obligation ends. But definitely for having announced who specifically was referred to in the conclusion was careless for which I deeply apologize. In front of wives who love their husbands and children who highly respect and look up to their fathers we do not call a man an adulterer even if he is an adulterer a hundred times over. Let the family discover that themselves. As a bishop suggested, I should have kept quiet and let the readers make their own conclusions. That was well said. My fault is that I degraded a man that many respects and love.
I apologize for opening my mouth. It is this that have distraught many consciences. I should have not made my final and personal conclusion public.
For having stated the conclusion that I should have left to each one to make thus disturbing the peace of consciences of some readers I deeply apologize. I have, therefore, under obedience, deleted all offending posts that contain the entire syllogism and will concentrate on the major and minor part of the syllogism leaving the conclusion to the reader.
I will continue to love the Church upon which my salvation lies but I will be less aggressive in defending her.