Cardinal Müller helpfully reminds us that a true pope cannot promulgate error in faith or morals

People committed to unrepentant mortal sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion, because that would be a sacrilege, and another mortal sin.  If you commit a mortal sin, you need to repent, receive sacramental confession/absolution, and have a firm purpose of amendment. If any of those things are missing, you remain in mortal sin. A third grader understands this.

When was the moment you realized Bergoglio was an antipope? For me, it was October 7th, 2016. Amoris Laetitia had been published six months earlier, and I fought it in gory detail on these pages, right down to the footnotes. In the infamous Chapter Eight, it was promulgated that couples living in unrepentant mortal sin – fornicators and adulterers with no purpose of amendment at all – could receive valid sacramental confession and the Eucharist. There were all sorts of denials, that it didn’t really say that, or that Bergoglio couldn’t have known about it, etc. Bullshit.

Then on October 7th, Feast of Our Lady of Victory of the Rosary, the letter from the Argentine bishops proposing the aforementioned understanding of the passage, was confirmed in the affirmative by Bergoglio and published as a magisterial act in the AAS. This is something that the Petrine Promises assure us is impossible for a true pope. I knew in this moment Bergoglio was an antipope, and began my research into how it came to be. It would take me another nine months to run it to ground, and publicly state my findings.

So enjoy the following excerpt that went down last week. I remember in 2016 being incredulous that no prelate would call this out — that no true pope could do these things, being supernaturally protected from doing so. Well here we are seven years later, the good Cardinal (who was head of CDF in 2016) still doesn’t seem to understand, and continues to grovel to invalid/illegitimate authority.

Reportage via LIFESITENEWS. >>>

In the babel of the interpretations of Amoris laetitia, in fact, the bishops of the Buenos Aires region had also said their piece, in favor of Communion for divorced and “remarried” people, in a letter to their priests dated September 5, 2016, to which Francis had responded enthusiastically the same day with his letter of approval:

El escrito es muy bueno y explícita cabalmente el sentido del capítulo VIII de ‘Amoris laetitia.’ No hay otras interpretaciones. Y estoy seguro de que hará mucho bien.

[The text is very good and thoroughly explains the sense of chapter VIII of ‘Amoris laetitia.’ There are no other interpretations. And I am sure it will do much good.]

There remained to be determined what authority for the worldwide Church might be borne by a private letter from Jorge Mario Bergoglio to the secretary of the bishops of the Buenos Aires region.

And this was seen to with the reprinting of both letters, on October 7, in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the official organ of the Holy See, accompanied by a “rescriptum” that promoted them to “magisterium authenticum.”

It was on this “rescriptum” that Cardinal Fernández, in responding to Duka’s doubts last September 25, relied to validate the magisterial authority of the approval given by Pope Francis to communion for the divorced and remarried. With a whole slew of further guidelines regarding its implementation.

But now he comes up against the complete disagreement of Cardinal Müller, his predecessor as head of the same dicastery, who in this letter to his friend Cardinal Duka dismantles point by point the arguments of Fernández, the Pope’s approval for which is also expressed poorly – Müller points out – affixed as it is “with a simple dated signature at the bottom of the page,” instead of with the customary canonical formulas.

From Müller:

Your Eminence, dear brother Dominik Cardinal Duka,

I have read with great interest the response of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) to your “dubia” on the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” (“Risposta a una serie di domande,” hereafter “Risposta”) and I would like to share my assessment with you.

One of the doubts you presented to the DDF concerns the interpretation of “Amoris Laetitia” found in a letter of the Bishops of the Buenos Aires Region dated September 5, 2016, which allows access to the sacraments of Confession and of the Eucharist to divorced persons who have entered into a second civil union, even when they continue to behave as husband and wife with no intention of changing their lives. The “Risposta” affirms that this text of Buenos Aires belongs to the ordinary papal magisterium, having been approved by the Pope himself. In fact, Francis has affirmed that the interpretation offered by the bishops of Buenos Aires is the only possible interpretation of “Amoris Laetitia.” Consequently, the “Risposta” indicates that the text of Buenos Aires, like other texts of the ordinary Magisterium of the Pope, must be given a religious submission of mind and will (cf. “Lumen Gentium” 25:1).

The full text of Cardinal Müller’s letter can be found here.