Magister: Make popcorn and watch the Francis embrace the Gaytivity

In case you don’t follow the sport Americans call soccer, “own goal” is a term refering to when a player unintentionally knocks the ball into his own net. Sandro Magister is out today with his top three own goals of Antipope Bergoglio. The first two relate to the financial scandal of Cardinal Maradiaga and Bergoglio’s ongoing fascination with a young Argentine bishop who seems to have a lot of… problems.
I’ve been meaning to comment on the “Vice Pope” (pun intended) ++Maradiaga scandal. The main aspect which jumps out at me, and seems to make the accusations that much more credible, is the sheer enormity of the theft. $40K USD per MONTH? There’s no way someone just makes up a story and attaches these kinds of numbers. And dare we ask where or what on earth could all that money be paying for? Certainly all manner of vice, but also all sorts of influence and favors from people well inclined toward influence and favors, if you know what I mean. ++Maradiaga turns 75 tomorrow; we’ll see if his retirement letter gets accepted at Roman Midnight.
The ++Maradiaga story broke the same day as Antipope Bergoglio’s annual Christmas beatdown of the curia. I can’t believe that was a coincidence. With this and everything else swirling around, one gets the sense that things might be starting to crumble for the Francis. Even his one-time supporters seem to have had enough. It brings to mind an interesting thought: Since the actual Catholics in the hiararchy don’t seem to be in much of a hurry to call out all the heresy, let alone to expose, discredit, depose and expunge the Bergoglian Antipapacy, could it in fact be the heretics and lavender mafia who do it? Hmmmm.
Anyway, the third own goal is the wretched, blasphemous nativity scene, currently polluting St. Peter’s square. As many others have written, it was created by a notorious “LBGTAEIOU” hotbed, and given the direct approal of you know who.

The shrine of Montevergine, in fact, hosts an image of the Blessed Mother – reproduced in the nativity scene of Saint Peter’s Square – that was adopted some time ago as patroness by a vast LGBT community (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transexual), which once a year…makes a festive climb of the sanctuary by foot, called “juta dei femminielli,” the climb of the effeminates.
The town of Ospedaletto d’Alpinolo, from which the climb to the shrine departs, this year gave honorary citizenship to a married couple of homosexuals, inaugurated for the “femminielli” a “no gender” bathroom and put up a sign at the entrance to the town saying: “Ospedaletto d’Alpinolo is against homotransphobia and gender violence.”
It comes as no surprise, therefore, that Sannino should say he is convinced that a greater openness of the Church on the subject of homosexuality also depends on “how conscious” Vatican officials are of the connection between the nativity scene in Saint Peter’s Square and the LGBT community. “The Church is extremely slow in its transformations,” he added. “But we hope that the Church will finally develop a real sense of openness in the wake of the pope’s words: ‘Who am I to judge?’”.
Meanwhile, in this Christmas season, pilgrims and tourists who have come to Rome from all over the world are looking with visible bewilderment at the nativity scene set up in the middle of Bernini’s colonnade, and especially its chiseled “nude” who seems to be longing after something other than being dressed mercifully.
Like every year, on the evening of December 31, after the “Te Deum” Pope Francis will also appear before the nativity scene in Saint Peter’s Square, although it is not known “how conscious” he will be of the mess he has gotten himself into. And the LGBT community will certainly be very attentive to scrutinizing and interpreting every one of his gestures and expressions.

Do go read the whole thing HERE. It is quite fascinating.
I’ll have to give some thought as to the “how conscious” might be expressed. Gestures with the naked guy, or the angels with little boy butts boobs could be interesting, AMIRITE?
Lastly, Magister points out a part of the nativity scene that I haven’t seen anyone else comment on before now: The crumbling dome of St. Peter’s. It’s something I noticed right away, but being no expert in art, I thought it might be invoking something different from what it obviously apprears to be. Very, very interesting.
There seems to be this pressing force of anticipation right now. I can’t even describe what I mean, but if you feel it too, you know exactly what I’m talking about. Once all the dirt starts to come out, in a place where nearly everyone has something to hide, it’s going to get really ugly, really fast. Stay frosty.

Today’s “Angelus” explains how Conscience is mo’ better than Truth, and why the Non Veni Pacem message is just so darn unpopular

Merry Christmas and Feast of St. Stephen, everyone!
So at the “Angelus” today, Antipope Bergoglio talked about how Jesus elevated “conscience” above “wordly religious powers:” HERE

“…the message of Jesus is discomforting, and discomforts us, because it challenges the worldly religious power and provokes consciences. After His coming, it is necessary for us to convert, to change our mentality, to reject thinking like before.”

Hmmm… does that remind you of anything? I wonder where he could be going with this. Oh that’s right; it’s that profound error of the Primacy of Conscience at the core (inter alia) of nuChruch, and the inevitability of Chapter Eight of Amoris Laetitia. Knock me over with a feather. “Reject that bad old thinking! Embrace the nu! Always forward! God of Surprises! Immutable laws don’t matter, man, that’s like so medieval, man. What’s most important is your feewings. Oh wo wo wo wo feewings.”
Next, he once again goes after the First Commandment. It’s one of his favroite themes.

“Jesus is our mediator, and He reconciles us not only with the Father, but also with one another. He is the fount of love, Who opens us to communion with our brothers, removing every conflict and resentment.”

Sweeeeet Emooooootionnnn. Aren’t you just welling up inside? The funny thing is, not only is this idea of Jesus “removing every conflict and resentment” totally contrary to the Gospel, it’s totally contrary to a direct quote from Jesus himself in the very Gospel passage that was read at today’s Novus Ordo Mass. So this “Angelus” was not just some random act of blasphemy, it was a direct refutation of the Creator of the Universe and Savior of the World. Today’s Gospel is Matthew 10:17-22:

“Beware of men. For they will deliver you up in councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues.  And you shall be brought before governors, and before kings for my sake, for a testimony to them and to the Gentiles: But when they shall deliver you up, take no thought how or what to speak: for it shall be given you in that hour what to speak. For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you. The brother also shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the son: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and shall put them to death.  And you shall be hated by all men for my name’s sake: but he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved.”

As for the logic of why these conflicts must be waged, Jesus makes it very simple a few verses later in Matt 10:25:

“It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the goodman of the house Beelzebub, how much more them of his household?”

Makes sense, right? Since Jesus’ enemies accused Jesus himself of being possessed by the devil (Mt 9:34, 12:24; Mk 3:22; Lk 11:15), then how much more should his disciples expect to be accused of even worse?  Expect it, friends, because He expects you to expect it, and to endure it.
Then comes the conclusion in Matt 10:32-39, which includes the Non Veni Pacem passage:

“Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven. But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven. Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s enemies shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me, shall find it.” Matt 32-39

It’s a sobering message, isn’t it? And it comes at a time of the year when we are all in the midst of family and friends with whom we are certainly “at variance” with. Jesus never promises us contentment in this world, because we are not of this world. Rather, he promises the opposite, with Heaven as the reward.
But hey, if your feewings aren’t up to it, go ahead and follow the likely False Prophet Forerunner of the Antichrist:

“He reconciles us not only with the Father, but also with one another. He is the fount of love, Who opens us to communion with our brothers, removing every conflict and resentment.”


Communion for Adulterers: How Antipope Bergoglio used JPII to support the heresy, and root causes of the error

Guess the source and author: No cheating!

“The Church, which was set up to lead to salvation all people and especially the baptized, cannot abandon to their own devices those who have been previously bound by sacramental marriage and who have attempted a second marriage. The Church will therefore make untiring efforts to put at their disposal her means of salvation.
Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.”
Together with the Synod, I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life.”

Does this sound like something from Chapter Eight of Amoris Laetitia? Does it sound like a prelude and justification for permitting practitioners of adultery to receive Holy Communion, because it’s the duty of the Church and its pastors to embrace a spirit of inclusion toward those on the margins? It does sound like that, doesn’t it?
Except this isn’t from AL, it’s from Familiaris Consortio #84, by Pope “Saint” John Paul II, 22 November 1981 HERE  This paragraph is indeed referenced in Chapter Eight of AL, in paragraph #298, footnote 329, although the conclusion it ultimately draws is wholly different from what JPII taught. Here is AL#298:

298. The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment. One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins. The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate. 329

I wrote a longer post about the FC reference when AL was first released. In true Lutheran fashion, Antipope Bergoglio keeps the parts he likes, and discards what he doesn’t like. From that earlier post:

Yes, (FC84) acknowledges the sad reality of broken families, and notes that “discernment of situations” is necessary.  But then he (JPII) goes on, within the same paragraph, to reinforce the impossibility of Eucharistic Communion for those who continue in second “marriages” unless, for the sake of the children produced by the second bond, and after repentance and sacramental Confession, they practice perfect continence (which, by the way, is already a very generous provision).  So Francis is using this paragraph to support his position that situations differ, even though elsewhere in the very same paragraph his broader proposal is utterly destroyed, by coming to the OPPOSITE conclusion of where he is going with this.

Find the rest of that post HERE.
In terms of exposing the how and why Church teaching is being “changed”, the heretics are actually bold enough to come right out and say it. This is what has now become enshrined in the ACTA APOSTOLICAE SEDIS as “authentic magisterium” by way of the letter from the Argentinian bishops and the subsequent positive response from Antipope Francis. It appears in AL#301:

…The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin…

The bottom line is that JPII goes on to conclude, in line with Tradition, that despite these considerations, the divorced and “remarried” cannot be admitted to Holy Communion, due to their persisting in mortal sin, and scandalously public mortal sin at that, unless they agree to live in total continence (and even then, they really should not receive publicly so as to avoid scandal) . Whereas AL goes on to say that the “discernment of situations” can lead to the opposite conclusion, therefore Church teaching is being changed, and serial adulterers can indeed be admitted to Holy Communion, because their culpability has been mitigated by circumstances (aka Situational Ethics). In addition,  since society at large, in the intervening nearly four decades since FC, has “progressed” to the point where such a large number of families are affected, we must change the teaching because mercy. It’s what the saintly JPII would have wanted, you know. And by the way, the definitive proclamation from JPII in FC 84 is itself problematic, as it refers to the teaching as a mere “practice”:

“However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried.”

Switching gears now to discuss root cause.
Beyond all this, the heretical position really boils down to two erroneous concepts, which bear themselves out not only in AL but through every stitch of the faux antipapacy of Bergoglio: Viewing the Commandments as merely “ideals”, and Self Absolution.
These notions are pure Lutheranism to the core, and both have been specifically condemned by the Church. Do some research into the proddy version of Total Depravity and you will discover the different flavors of denying man’s free will since the fall. Basically, they hold that the concupiscence arising as a result of the fall is so complete, that man is utterly unable to resist evil, and therefore the Commandments are unattainable ideals. Calvin’s version holds that even when man does something good, it is still evil because his motive is always selfish. The Catholic (true) version is that while mankind is indeed inclined toward sin, God constantly offers sufficient grace at every moment of temptation for man to conform his will to God’s and make the right choice (1 Cor 10:13). So every man is indeed expected and is capable of keeping the Commandments by cooperating with God’s grace. The fact that we choose to sin anyway is totally on us and cannot be blamed on anything else. While it is true that culpability can be reduced in extraordinary circumstances, there is no way to arrive at the heresy that we see in AL, where culpability is eliminated through “discernment”, without viewing the Commandments as merely ideals. You need to understand this and be able to refute it.
The idea of Self Absolution is one of the worst curses of proddyland, where people are tricked into thinking they can actually discern their own state of grace, reconcile themselves to God, and count themselves among the elect even as they keep on “sinning boldly.” It’s the claim that once you accept Jesus Christ, you are able to discern yourself into a state of grace, and your faith alone is your ticket, no matter how you behave. The monstrous pride involved in such a belief is truly astonishing. It’s so foreign to the Gospel that I can’t even get my mind around it, and yet it infects the post-conciliar Church with buzzwords like “discernment” and “primacy of conscience”. Trent refers to this rather directly as “the vain confidence of heretics.” Compare this with the famous response of Saint Joan of Arc when her judges tried to trick her into heresy by asking, “Joan, are you in the state of grace?” She responded, “If I am not, may God put me there; and if I am, may God so keep me.”
Obviously I can’t say it any better than Trent regarding both of these heresies, so here it is. Learn what true Catholic teaching says, and use it to defend the faith.
Council of Trent, Session VI “On Justification”, decreed 13 January 1547.
Against the vain confidence of Heretics.
But, although it is necessary to believe that sins neither are remitted, nor ever were remitted save gratuitously by the mercy of God for Christ’s sake; yet is it not to be said, that sins are forgiven, or have been forgiven, to any one who boasts of his confidence and certainty of the remission of his sins, and rests on that alone; seeing that it may exist, yea does in our day exist, amongst heretics and schismatics; and with great vehemence is this vain confidence, and one alien from all godliness, preached up in opposition to the Catholic Church. But neither is this to be asserted,-that they who are truly justified must needs, without any doubting whatever, settle within themselves that they are justified, and that no one is absolved from sins and justified, but he that believes for certain that he is absolved and justified; and that absolution and justification are effected by this faith alone: as though whoso has not this belief, doubts of the promises of God, and of the efficacy of the death and resurrection of Christ. For even as no pious person ought to doubt of the mercy of God, of the merit of Christ, and of the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments, even so each one, when he regards himself, and his own weakness and indisposition, may have fear and apprehension touching his own grace; seeing that no one can know with a certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God.
On keeping the Commandments, and on the necessity and possibility thereof.
But no one, how much soever justified, ought to think himself exempt from the observance of the commandments; no one ought to make use of that rash saying, one prohibited by the Fathers under an anathema,-that the observance of the commandments of God is impossible for one that is justified. For God commands not impossibilities, but, by commanding, both admonishes thee to do what thou are able, and to pray for what thou art not able (to do), and aids thee that thou mayest be able; whose commandments are not heavy; whose yoke is sweet and whose burthen light. For, whoso are the sons of God, love Christ; but they who love him, keep his commandments, as Himself testifies; which, assuredly, with the divine help, they can do. For, although, during this mortal life, men, how holy and just soever, at times fall into at least light and daily sins, which are also called venial, not therefore do they cease to be just. For that cry of the just, Forgive us our trespasses, is both humble and true. And for this cause, the just themselves ought to feel themselves the more obligated to walk in the way of justice, in that, being already freed from sins, but made servants of God, they are able, living soberly, justly, and godly, to proceed onwards through Jesus Christ, by whom they have had access unto this grace.
For God forsakes not those who have been once justified by His grace, unless he be first forsaken by them. Wherefore, no one ought to flatter himself up with faith alone, fancying that by faith alone he is made an heir, and will obtain the inheritance, even though he suffer not with Christ, that so he may be also glorified with him. For even Christ Himself, as the Apostle saith, Whereas he was the son of God, learned obedience by the things which he suffered, and being consummated, he became, to all who obey him, the cause of eternal salvation. For which cause the same Apostle admonishes the justified, saying; Know you not that they that run in the race, all run indeed, but one receiveth the prize? So run that you may obtain. I therefore so run, not as at an uncertainty: I so fight, not as one beating the air, but I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection; lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a cast-away. So also the prince of the apostles, Peter; Labour the more that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing those things, you shall not sin at any time. From which it is plain, that those are opposed to the orthodox doctrine of religion, who assert that the just man sins, venially at least, in every good work; or, which is yet more insupportable, that he merits eternal punishments; as also those who state, that the just sin in all their works, if, in those works, they, together with this aim principally that God may be gloried, have in view also the eternal reward, in order to excite their sloth, and to encourage themselves to run in the course: whereas it is written, I have inclined my heart to do all thy justifications for the reward: and, concerning Moses, the Apostle saith, that he looked unto the reward.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that, since Adam’s sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema.
CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.
CANON XV.-If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.
CANON XVIII.-If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.
CANON XIX.-If any one saith, that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free; or, that the ten commandments nowise appertain to Christians; let him be anathema.
CANON XX.-If any one saith, that the man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if indeed the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments ; let him be anathema.

Prime example of how the current disorientation can adversely affect rational thought

David Martin over at The Remnant has a short piece on the various happenings of the past few days HERE. Mr. Martin is a true trad who totally “gets it” in terms of nuChurch. I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend anything he has written on the council and the Mass. I mean no disrespect to him, but I need to point something out, and hope to do it with charity. It is very, very telling in terms of how the severity of the Roman Chaos is really disorienting and disruptive to rational thought.
After he touches on the heresy of AL, the letter to the bishops being entered into the AAS, and the “Dictator” book now out, Martin ends with this:

We shouldn’t rule out the possibility that Francis may come forward one day and declare “ex-cathedra” that the interpretation of Amoris Laetitia VIII, as now taught by the Holy See, is promulgated as “extraordinary magisterium.”
Should this happen, the Mystical Body would then be without its head. In an interview with Catholic World Report (CWR) in December 2016, Cardinal Raymond Burke, who is presently a member of the Apostolic Signatura, said that if a pope were to “formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope.”
Burke was reiterating Church teaching, as expressed by famed canonist Franz Wernz in his Ius Canonicum: “In sum, it needs to be said clearly that a [publicly] heretical Roman Pontiff loses his power upon the very fact.”

Do you see the problem here?
For someone like Martin who is Catholic and also thinks that Antipope Bergolio is currently the true pope, the first sentence in itself is heretical. Catholics believe that a valid pontiff, due to the unique divine protection and assistance he receives, is INCAPABLE of proclaiming heresy “ex-cathedra.” Therefore, essentially what Martin is saying is, “We should not rule out the possibility of something impossible happening.”
Think about the consequences: If someone claiming to be the pope attempts a heretical ex-cathedra promulgation, he does NOT lose his office at that moment, but rather REVEALS HIMSELF TO BE AN ANTIPOPE BY THE VERY ACT, because a true pontiff is incapable of making a heretical ex-cathedra promulgation. Law of the Excluded Middle.
The next paragraph, “Should this happen, the Mystical Body would then be without its head…” conflates ++Burke’s statement about heresy with the idea of infallibility, to arrive at an erroneous conclusion. As I just explained, “Francis” would NOT lose his office at that moment, but would instead show himself to NOT HAVE BEEN POPE AT ALL. What ++Burke was actually talking about was the possibility of a true pope losing his office by professing formal heresy on matters of faith and morals in a non-infallible way, which a true pope is certainly capable of doing, although extremely rare by reason of the special protections.
Folks, these aren’t meaningless distinctions. You’ve got to get your head around the reality of what is in front of you and draw out the conclusions. As I’ve said before, God loves you and He will continue to make it super easy for you to see the truth and choose wisely. Things are about to get much, much worse, but the signposts will be lit ever brighter.

Antipope Bergoglio attempts to promulgate formal heresy as official Church teaching

“This week, the Vatican’s organ for promulgating the Official Acts of the Apostolic See, Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS)has published its October 2016 issue, containing Pope Francis’ infamous Letter to the Buenos Aires Bishops. AAS not only published this letter, declaring that there are “no other interpretations” (“No hay otras interpretaciones”) of Amoris Laetitia other than those of the Buenos Aires bishops, but it also published the full Buenos Aires guidelines themselves, which permit Holy Communion in some cases for couples in a state of permanent and public adultery who are not committed to living in complete continence. Most significantly, AAS upgrades Pope Francis’ private letter to the Buenos Aires bishops to the official magisterial status of an “Apostolic Letter” (“Epistola Apostolica”) – AND it includes a special rescript as an addendum by Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State. This rescript declares that Pope Francis expressly intends that BOTH documents – the pope’s letter and the Buenos Aires guidelines themselves- bear the character of his “authentic Magisterium”, and that the pope personally ordered their publication in AAS and on the Vatican website.”
Full story at Rorate HERE

And still, there will be a gaggle of apologists queuing up to explain how it’s not “official”, not binding, not magisterial, not what he really meant, mistranslated, etc. Still others will admit that yes, it’s very troubling, but hey, no big deal, no worries, not our place to do anything, best shush up lest the pewsitters be scandalized.
Those are all lies, and the people providing the excuses are liars.
It’s a good thing Antipope Begoglio is not now, was not ever, nor ever shall be pope.  If he were truly pope, this would be the biggest event in the history of the Church since the Ascension, because it would seemingly disprove the Bride of Christ being indefectible, as her Bridegroom promised she would be until the end of time. A rational person with the ability to reason, who thinks Antipope Bergoglio is true pope, MUST LOGICALLY QUESTION HIS OR HER FAITH IN THE ONE HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH, because apparently SHE IS NOT IN FACT WHAT SHE HAS PROCLAIMED HERSELF TO BE FOR 2000 YEARS.
This is not some arcane theological argument. This is a matter of faith and morals where the “visible” Vicar of Christ on earth is directly contradicting Divine Law as spoken directly from the lips of the Creator and Savior of the universe.
Let that sink in.
Yeah, tell me again how the failed partial Benedict abdication is the cuckopants theory and just so far fetched. What an utterly absurd position that is, when the amount of evidence in favor of it continues to grow. Every day that Antipope Bergoglio proves beyond any doubt that he lacks a shred of special papal protection from the Holy Ghost, due to his election being invalid, he strengthens the Benedictine position more and more. For all those still straining to come up with he latest way to square the circle, you’re invited to come have a scotch with me and Occam’s razor.