Verricchio Awakens: "Francis is an Antipope!"

Verricchio Awakens:  "Francis is an Antipope!"

Long Before Socci even suggested Francis maybe an antipope I was the first to come out and say he was.  Then there was Fr. Kramer, some certain Cardinal's like Pell suggesting it, then Ann Barnhardt and others now Louie Verricchio.  I told you more would awaken...and this trend will continue

SOURCE

BREAKING: Francis responds to the dubia

After nearly two months, the wait is finally over. In an interview with the Italian newspaper, Avvenire, Francis has addressed the dubia.
As all but those who live in either fear or abject denial will affirm, Francis provided his answers to each of the five questions that are posed therein. [NOTE: English translation courtesy of Andrea Tornielli at Vatican Insider.]
Without specifically mentioning the dubia by name, Francis said with respect to criticism of Amoris Laetitia:

The Church exists only as an instrument for the communication of God’s merciful plan to the people. During the Council, the Church felt it had the responsibility to be a living sign of the Father’s love in the world. In the Lumen Gentium, it went back to the origins of its nature, the Gospel. This shifts the axis of Christianity away from a certain kind of legalism which can be ideological, towards the Person of God, who became mercy through the incarnation of the Son. Some still fail to grasp the point. They see things as black or white, even though it is in the course of life that we are called to discern.

It is perfectly clear, if it had not been already, that Francis has no intention whatsoever of giving simple “yes” or “no” answers to the dubia; that would be far too “black and white” for his tastes.
Make no mistake, however, he did provide his answers. The wait is well and truly over.
For those who are as yet unable to discern Francis’ public response to the dubia, please allow me to make it easy for you:

________________________________________________________________

RESPONSA AD PROPOSITUM DUBIA
CONCERNING CLARIFICATION OF THE TEACHING
CONTAINED IN “AMORIS LAETITIA”

Dubium 1: It is asked whether, following the affirmations of “Amoris Laetitia” (nn. 300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the Sacrament of Penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person “more uxorio” (in a marital way) without fulfilling the conditions provided for by “Familiaris Consortio” n. 84 and subsequently reaffirmed by “Reconciliatio et Paenitentia” n. 34 and “Sacramentum Caritatis” n. 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in note 351 (n. 305) of the exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live “more uxorio”?
Responsum: Yes. Such things are not black or white. We are called to discern.
Dubium 2: After the publication of the Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” (cf. n. 304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 79, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?
Responsum: No. Such things are not black or white. We are called to discern.
Dubium 3: After “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (cf. Mt 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration, June 24, 2000)?
Responsum: No. Such things are not black or white. We are called to discern.
Dubium 4: After the affirmations of “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 81, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?
Responsum: No. Such things are not black or white. We are called to discern.
Dubium 5: After “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 56, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?
Responsum: No. Such things are not black or white. We are called to discern.

________________________________________________________________

The time is now at hand for “cardinals and bishops to make clear that the Pope is teaching error.” Francis has been given the opportunity, by way of a public challenge issued by senior cardinals, to confirm the true Faith in the face of the heresies that he himself disseminated throughout the Universal Church in Amoris Laetitia, and he has refused.
His unwillingness to formally address the dubia directly and plainly changes nothing of the objective reality that is staring us squarely in the face.
Even if others in Catholic media are afraid to say it aloud, at least thus far, I am not:
Francis has judged himself a formal heretic. He is, therefore, an antipope.