As a catechist at the seminary, I am most concerned about Pope Francis.  If only twelve cardinals could get up the courage to assemble in Rome and ask him just two questions:

 1.  According to Father Rosica, you do not consider yourself bound to Scripture or Tradition.  Can you explain this in detail so that we understand how you can reconcile this with the vows that you took when you became pope, which bind you to upholding both Scripture and Tradition?

2.  Can you tell us in just one sentence what you consider to be the mission of the Church?  Do you believe that the Church exists for the salvation of souls or do you believe that we are now beyond that stage and need to look for other reasons as to why the Church exists? 

It seems to me that these two questions really get to the heart of the matter of what is at stake right now, the disappearance of the Deposit of the Faith not only through the distortions of liberalism but also through an exaggerated idea of papal authority that supposedly makes Catholics subject to the personal whims of whoever is pope.  And the other thing, of course, is the danger of changing the Church’s mission so that it evolves into something its Founder never intended.  I hope what I have written makes sense. 

About abyssum

I am a retired Roman Catholic Bishop, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Your Excellency,

    Seeing that you wrote most or all of the Cardinals a year ago, pointing out problems which touched upon the canonicity of Bergoglio’s election, if none have had even the courtesy of a reply, does that not mean that they knowingly participated in the crime of convening a conclave without a sede vacante, or of not following the papal law UDG on papal elections. Because an honest man, receiving your letter, should at least reply and say, to my knowledge all the rules were followed, no? Please let us know if any replied, as it has been a year.

  2. Aqua says:

    My guess is that Bergoglio can answer these questions satisfactorily.

    One thing I have learned about this anti-Pope, however, is that words are not meant to convey meaning, lead to discovery of truth and enlightenment; rather to confuse and misdirect from the chosen goals of the Bergoglian revolution.

    Words are cheap. Words are tools. Actions are everything. Concrete action. Eucharistic Dogma is “unchanged”, but sodomites are allowed to receive Him. Pope Benedict XVI freely resigned, but he remains firmly and forever within the enclosure of St. Peter. Of course the rules governing divorce have not changed, but annulments have.

    We rightly ask for answers to questions like this; and like the Dubia … and *if* we get answers they don’t change the reality of the revolution. Words under Bergoglio are used as an ink cloud to obscure movement. They are not meant to provide clarity, but to remove it. We need to believe our eyes. Our ears, under Bergoglio, are going to deceive us.

  3. Darrell Wright says:

    Maybe the problem didn’t start with Francis. How can all the Vatican II popes now be called “Saint”? That in itself shows the enemy’s hand. There’s the two imposters of Sr Lucia (to prevent the real Third Secret of Fatima – the words of Our Lady – from being published. Maybe there was a Masonic takeover of the Vatican, including the papacy, in Oct. 1958. See “Papal Imposters” on youtube. It seems pretty well documented.

Comments are closed.