Author: Mark Docherty

we are in 2018, we have a different Pope and a different era to some extent. We obey what this Pope now teaches. Its simple and what Jesus wants

— Stephen Walford (@walford_stephen) January 4, 2018

Jesus, the Second Person of the Triune God, wants a do-over. He messed up on the whole adultery thing. It’s a different era now, gotta roll with the changes.  It’s what God wants, by golly. Deus Vult! Turns out, God isn’t perfect, the Truth isn’t immutable, and the Church isn’t indefectible.
Dear Stephen, if your argument were valid, both God and His Church would be a sham.
Certainly by now you’ve read his most recent piece of antipope apologetics over at Vatican Insider HERE. I’ll admit I’m pretty jaded about the entire Roman situation right now, and there isn’t much that I’m surprised by any more. I mean, with gay cocaine parties, gay nativity, and gay sex rumored to take place below the dome of St Peter’s itself, the bar for surprises has been set pretty high. But I must confess, I found this article to be breathtaking on a number of levels.
In charity, I do need to say this: Stephen seems sincere. He doesn’t come off as the Spadaro/Rosica type. We are living in a time of unprecedented diabolical disorientation, and if you sit back for a moment and consider everything that’s going on, it’s understandable for people to be confused. I’m trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, and I pray he reads this and sees the light.
He doesn’t waste any time.  Here is the first sentence:

“If loyal Catholics around the world had hoped that the news of Pope Francis’ decision to raise the Buenos Aires Bishops’ Amoris Laetitia guidelines to the level of “authentic magisterium” would bring to an end the dissent, then they were sadly mistaken. If anything, the dissenters have dug their heels in even more.”

Notice the term “loyal Catholics”. Counting himself among them, these are those remaining loyal to Antipope Bergoglio at the expense of abandoning the perennial teaching of the Church. He also changes the meaning of the word “dissent,” referring not to those who refuse assent to perennial Church teaching, but rather those who refuse to follow a heretic antipope.
Get used to this. This is the diabolical inversion of truth, and it is the central theme of the revolution. Up is down, black is white, 2+2=5.

“The most poisonous aspect of this dissent– causing us to question where exactly it originates from– is that it chooses to ignore what the Pope has clearly taught and seeks to create confusion by making claims that are without any foundation. It also appears to be moving the goalposts on what constitutes the ordinary magisterium, Tradition and the dogma of the indefectible nature of the Church.”

“…causing us to question where exactly it comes from”… Clearly, he is insinuating the “dissenters” are under demonic influence. Follow that claim to its logical end, and you will understand what a rough ride we are in for. But then he throws out a gleaming nugget of truth, with the phrase “what the pope has clearly taught…” I couldn’t agree more! There is no confusion whatsoever about what “the pope” has taught, and has now enshrined in the AAS as “Authentic Magisterium.” The only confusion is the muddled, varying, and largely non-existent response from orthodox Catholics, both clerics and laymen.

“If we look at various examples of this dissent, a clear picture emerges that does not seem interested in the entire Truth of what the Church teaches. Take for instance the correctio filialis. The signatories claimed the Pope (through words deeds or omissions) denied Trent’s teaching that God always offers sufficient grace to keep the Commandments. Of course the Pope never said any such thing…”

False. Antipope Bergoglio directly contradicted Trent when he taught heresy in Chapter Eight of AL, claiming that people in “concrete situations” are incapable of keeping the commandments. In terms of exposing the how and why Church teaching is being “changed”, he is 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 Bergoglio. 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…

AL goes on to say that the “discernment of situations” can lead to the opposite conclusion of what JPII taught in FC#84, therefore Church teaching is being changed, and serial adulterers can indeed be admitted to Holy Communion, because their culpability has been mitigated to zero by their circumstances (aka Situational Ethics). It couldn’t be any more clear.
Now back to Walford:

“Another of the false accusations or insinuations and one used by the dubia cardinals, the correctio signatories and most recently the three bishops of Kazakstan is that Pope Francis’ magisterium is now “approving or legitimizing” divorce and promoting adultery as a good option in some cases. Of course these dissenters cannot find one quote from the Holy Father to prove their contemptible claim…”

False. In AL#298 and its Footnote #329, Antipope Bergoglio explicitly taught about “legitimizing divorce and promoting adultery as a good option in some cases.”

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 (sic), 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

So already we have the conflating of adultery with “proven fidelity,” which is outrageous. Maybe someone can come up with a reading of Matt 19:9 that isn’t as pigeonholed nor as overly rigid as our Lord laid it out. Please let me know. But let’s have a look at footnote 329:

329 John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (22 November 1981), 84: AAS 74 (1982), 186. In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 51).

This entire footnote is a lie.  See HERE.  The first reference is to FC#84, which forbids Communion under the very circumstances which Antipope Bergoglio is now permitting it. The second reference is to GS#51, which refers to a totally different situation. Click the link for a broader explanation.
It also helps to understand that all of this is grounded in the fact that Antipope Bergoglio believes that “the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null.”  HERE Which would mean second “marriages” aren’t really second marriages, right? Couple that line of reasoning with his “I’ve seen a lot of fidelity in these cohabitations, and I am sure that this is a real marriage, they have the grace of a real marriage because of their fidelity”  HERE. The astounding implication of this is that Antipope Bergoglio believes that public fornication is full of grace and is a real marriage, but chances are your sacramental marriage, full of fidelity, commitment, honor and sacrificial love… is not real.  This is straight from the pit of Hell.
I could write another thousand words, but please go read the Walford piece; it’s very instructive. Lots of commentary already out there on the innerweebs for sure.
Oh wait, let me just leave this here:
The Canons And Decrees Of The Council Of Trent
SESSION THE SIXTH, 13 January 1547

CANON XIV. If any one shall say, that man is absolved from his sins and justified, because he assuredly believed himself to be absolved and justified… let him be anathema.

CANON XVIII. If any one shall say, that the commandments of God are, even for a man that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.

CANON XIX. If any one shall say 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 in nowise appertain to Christians; let him be anathema.

CANON XX. If any one shall say, that a man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if, forsooth, the Gospel were a bore and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observation of the commandments; let him be anathema.

CANON XXI. If any one shall say, that Christ Jesus was given of God unto men, as a redeemer, in whom they should I trust, and not also as a legislator, whom they should obey; let him be anathema.

The failed partial abdication of Pope Benedict was rendered invalid by Canon 188, due to Benedict’s SUBSTANTIAL ERROR of attempting to establish an “expanded petrine ministry.” This substantial error is grounded in his idea that a pope cannot ever really resign/retire, because the papal coronation indelibly anoints the pontiff in a distinct way, which is different from, and more profound than, the priestly or episcopal ordination/consecration. I will review the proof set of this error in a moment.
Last week, news broke about a new book, a collection of essays, released to mark the 70th birthday of Cardinal Müller. Pope Benedict wrote the Forward to the book in the form of a letter to the cardinal. The whole thing is certainly worth reading HERE, with references to Rahner, von Balthasar, Paul VI, and a lot of words about himself, which if you have any doubt that Benedict was part of the problem all along, it’s on full display here. Then there is one sentence faintly trashing the Novus Ordo. There is also praise for Müller, for having “defended the clear traditions of the faith, but in the spirit of Pope Francis you also sought to understand how they can be lived today.”
Ugh. Yeah.
But there is also a part that addresses the future role of the cardinal in his ministry, which continues on despite the loss of his “office.” Does that sound familiar?

Addressing Müller, Benedict said, “your five-year commission at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has expired, so you do not have a specific office anymore, but a priest and certainly a bishop and cardinal is never simply retired,” which is why he must continue to “publicly serve the faith.” HERE

Here is the full passage in the original German:

Dein Fünf-Jahres-Auftrag für die Glaubenskongregation abgelaufen.
So hast Du zwar kein bestimmtes Amt mehr inne, aber ein
Priester und erst recht ein Bischof und Kardinal ist nie einfach im
Ruhestand. Darum kannst und wirst Du auch in Zukunft aus dem
inneren Wesen Deines priesterlichen Auftrags und Deines theologiGrußwort schen Charismas heraus weiterhin öffentlich dem Glauben dienen. HERE

Francesca Romana over at Rorate renders it this way:

In the meantime, your five-year contract in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith has expired. Thus you no longer have a specific charge, yet a priest and above all a bishop and cardinal, never retires. For this reason you can and will be able to serve the faith publically also in the future, starting from the heart of your sacerdotal mission and theological charism. HERE

The most common translation of the underlined text I can come up with seems to be:

“Thus you no longer have a specific office, but a priest and even more so a bishop and cardinal is never simply retired.”

To which one must ask, in terms of Logical Progression: What are your thoughts about EVEN MORE SO A POPE, Your Holiness?
We need to look back at the words of Benedict in his speeches around the time of his failed partial abdication, because his idea of a prelate never really retiring certainly extends to the papacy, in his mind, which is a really big deal. And if a pope thinks he can’t really retire, but there are a bunch of reasons why he needs to appear retired, then he better make up some believable story, while scheming to maintain a portion of the ministry, because his conscience won’t allow him to fully resign.  Obviously, I’ve written quite a lot about this in the past several months. There is a link to a longer essay at the end of this post, but I’m reproducing much of it here.
The real smoking gun was Benedict’s final general audience of 27 February 2013, where he exposes his erroneous notion of the indelible nature of the papacy. In doing so, he directly contradicts previous statements where he claimed he was “renouncing”, “leaving”, and would then be Pontiff “no longer, but a simple pilgrim”.  Remember, at this point he knew his plan had worked; his resignation had been “accepted” by the world, and the conclave had been called. This is the lens through which we must evaluate the entire situation, in order to see the obvious Substantial Error that we have before us: (My emphesis and comments)

Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005 (Ratzinger’s elevation to the papacy). The real gravity of the decision was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord. Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church. In a manner of speaking, the private dimension of his life is completely eliminated. I was able to experience, and I experience it even now, that one receives one’s life precisely when one gives it away. Earlier I said that many people who love the Lord also love the Successor of Saint Peter and feel great affection for him; that the Pope truly has brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, throughout the world, and that he feels secure in the embrace of your communion; because he no longer belongs to himself, he belongs to all and all belong to him.

The “always” is also a “for ever” – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. ( the papal coronation indelibly anoints the pontiff in a distinct way, which is different from, and more profound than, the priestly or episcopal ordination/consecration). My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. (He can’t make it any more obvious than this. The indelibility of the papal ministry is irrevocable – Benedict thinks he is pope forever, but now exercising only part of the Petrine ministry). I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God. HERE

In order to read this any other way, you literally have to deny the meaning of the words, “always, forever, does not revoke, remaining in a new way, I remain.”
This interpretation, that Benedict attempted a bifurcated papacy, was confirmed by Abp. Ganswein when he dropped the bombshell of an “Expanded Petrine Ministry.” These were not off the cuff remarks, but rather a formal, well-prepared speech on Benedict’s papacy, given at the Greg in Rome, 20 May 2016:

Archbishop Gänswein…said that Pope Francis and Benedict are not two popes “in competition” with one another, but represent one “expanded” Petrine Office with “an active member” and a “contemplative.”

“Therefore, from 11 February 2013, the papal ministry is not the same as before,” he said. “It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation that Benedict XVI has profoundly and lastingly transformed during his exceptional pontificate.”

He said that “before and after his resignation” Benedict has viewed his task as “participation in such a ‘Petrine ministry’. (Not in its “Office”, the governance of the Church in the world, but in its “essentially spiritual nature”, through prayer and suffering.)
“He left the Papal Throne and yet, with the step he took on 11 February 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry,” Gänswein explained, something “quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.“ (Do you see how this echoes Benedict’s erroneous idea of the papal coronation being an irreversible event, creating an indelible/irrevocable mark on the recipient forever? It’s exactly the same idea Benedict put forth in his final general audience).

“Therefore he has also not retired to a monastery in isolation but stays within the Vatican — as if he had taken only one step to the side to make room for his successor and a new stage in the history of the papacy.” With that step, he said, he has enriched the papacy with “his prayer and his compassion placed in the Vatican Gardens.” HERE

You can find a more complete rendering of all this HERE.

Now that Antipope Bergoglio has enshrined his blasphemous heresy in the AAS as part of the “Authentic Magisterium,” perhaps a few more people will be looking at the situation with eyes to see. His heresy continues, and continues to worsen, in no small part because he enjoys none of the supernatural protection of a true pontiff. Not that his election is rendered invalid by means of his heresy, but rather that his election never took place, because Benedict’s resignation was invalid.

Already four months ago we found out that this position is amazingly popular, although you would never know it from what’s out in the public domain. A stunning 72% of respondents at the Saint Louis Catholic poll believe Benedict is still pope, with Bergoglio pulling in only 16% HERE. The main reason you don’t hear more people openly supporting this truth is the same reason the bishops and cardinals are almost entirely silent: Fear of losing rank, income, security, readership, donations, etc. It’s foolish fear, because they are risking a far worse fate by keeping silent than any worldly punishment they might receive by speaking up.

The reason only a tiny number of traditional Catholics think Bergoglio is pope is because that’s where the weight of the evidence leads. You will in fact be joining an overwhelming majority when you accept this. Not that you should believe something because it’s popular, on the contrary, popularity has no bearing on truth. But it does help knowing that you’re not alone, you’re not crazy.

Don’t be gaslighted into accepting Antipope Bergoglio any longer.

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.

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.”

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.
CHAPTER IX.
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.
CHAPTER XI.
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.
 
 
 

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.
 

“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.”

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.

And the other half are heretics…

“The tensions in the Church arise from the contrast between an extremist traditionalist front on some websites, and an equally exaggerated progressive front which today seeks to credit themselves as super-papists.”

Leave aside for a moment the problem of calling out faithful Catholics as “equally” to blame with the heretics, and recognize the bigger news:  It’s the latest admission of the incredible, borderline miraculous impact of the tiny, tiny tradsphere on the evil empire. I’m not using that word lightly; a miracle – supernatural intervention – is exactly what is needed, and is probably the only means to remedy the entire situation. How many trad blogs would you say might exist in the world? In the English speaking world, it’s fewer than 20, right? How many in all other languages? Well, the “Warrior Ants” (h/t Mundabor) continue to punch way above their weight. At this point, there is probably an entire secret dicastery monitoring the enemy. The Pontifical Council for Integral Closeness to Deplorables on the Margins. Or some such.
Go read the longer excerpt at Rorate HERE. 
As has become his custom, Müller manages to play both sides multiple times in the span of two paragraphs. It seems clear there is signaling going on here, to some group or groups, but at some point the dear cardinal will indeed need to choose which side he is on.

I fly around 120K miles a year for my day job, so I hear that phrase a lot. Maybe that’s why when I heard it referenced by Ann Barnhardt in a podcast earlier this week, it just sort of went right past me.  The analogy was referring to the need to make sure your own faith, soul, prayer life, etc is well taken care of as prerequisite to anything else.
That same day, I went off to Confession, as I had already planned to do. The penance was totally focused on the need to pray for my own needs, and really making it a priority. The priest asked me if I had prayed my daily Rosary yet, and I told him I had not (I love that at the FSSP parish, it’s just assumed you’re praying a daily Rosary).  He instructed me to go offer my Rosary, entrusting to our Blessed Mother the channeling of all necessary graces for my spiritual benefit.
The podcast and the Confession should both have been a big wake up call. But the full gravity of the situation didn’t really hit me until about halfway through that Rosary when I realized, slap upside the head, I actually could not remember the last time I prayed the Rosary entirely for myself. The Holy Ghost always knows when you need a slap upside the head. Now you already know how much I love the Rosary, so you can imagine how odd this seemed to me. I mean, obviously I’ve prayed a decade or two as a penance, for an increase in this virtue or that, but a whole Rosary just for me? I can’t remember the last time, and that’s a real problem.
In Spiritual Warfare, the Rosary is a weapon of mass destruction. I’ve written about it many times in these pages. It’s a real weapon, not a metaphorical weapon. So much so, it almost seems selfish to offer it entirely for yourself. But it’s never selfish to pray for yourself, so long as your intention is in accord with God’s will. And we need not worry about petitioning something against His will, because He’s not granting that anyway. Of course in the individual prayers of the Rosary, the Our Fathers and Hail Marys, we are praying for ourselves within those prayers. But what I am talking about here are specific, personal, spiritual intentions beyond what is asked in those prayers.
I would be willing to bet that most Catholics who are somewhat secure in their faith, who are honestly trying to live authentic Christian lives, and who have managed by the grace of God to overcome a whole bunch of entrenched wretchedness, don’t pray for themselves nearly enough. We foolishly think we’ve extracted ourselves permanently from said wretchedness and we’re now “saved”. Not in the proddy sense of “once saved always saved”, but rather in the sense of “thanks to my hard conversion/reversion to the one true faith, even though I still fall sometimes, and even though I’m totally unworthy of the honor, I am now on the side of the angels and God will surely grant me final perseverance.”
Oh man, that is so dangerous. It’s for very good reason that Jesus taught us to pray to the Father to deliver us not into temptation, and that we ask Mary to pray for us at the hour of our death. It’s for very good reason that in the Roman Canon itself, during the Hanc Igitur, the priest and faithful pray to be saved from eternal damnation and be counted among the elect. Damnation is a real possibility if we so choose it, and “once saved always saved” is one of the most pernicious lies ever told. If you are truly living an authentic Christian life, Satan views you as a hard target; he knows he needs to deploy extra resources to bring you down, and deploy he will. He’s already won the soft targets without even trying, so he’s got extra munitions reserved for you. Meditate on the blitzkrieg he has planned for the hour of your death. Be terrified by this, and use the terror to build your counterattack.
With everything that’s going on right now, all of the “confusion” surrounding all aspects of the Bergolian antipapacy, Satan is squealing with delight and has launched a huge offensive. Bergoglio himself is a soft target for Satan, easily manipulated and used to destroy souls on a horrific scale. He is a soft target not only because he is an arch-heretic and profoundly stupid, but because he does not have the supernatural protection afforded to the holder of the Petrine office, due to his invalid election. Now, when this is the unmistakable reality of the Catholic Church today, the one true Church founded by God Incarnate, do you think perhaps the effects of this might be rather… widespread? The past nearly five years since the failed partial resignation of Pope Benedict has literally been, pun intended, a huge coming out party for all manner of perversion and reprobation; a spiraling tempest of filth. Do you want a sense of how long ago five years was? Five years ago, Hillary Clinton was campaigning AGAINST same-sex “marriage.”  Yeah. The ever quickening pace of events across all sectors of civilization is so breathtaking, you would be delusional to think it’s not all connected. The demonic activity is everywhere and is even palpable at times. PALPABLE. Have you felt it? Every solid priest I speak with confirms they feel it too.
So there is certainly no shortage of things to pray about. And while some of this is about prioritization, it’s also about recognizing your role at the tip of the spear. We need to militantly pursue our own spiritual perfection first and foremost. It might not seem right when it first hits your ear, but if we are too busy praying for everyone else at the expense of praying for ourselves, it does everyone a disservice. This may sound uncharitable or lacking humility, but that’s not the case, because it necessarily means expanding our own prayer life. The mere fact that you are here, reading this tiny, tiny blog right now, means you are probably the tip of the spear. Proper training is essential. By calling down these graces in petition, and cooperating with them, our own increase in holiness in turn makes our prayers for others more efficacious. Everybody wins.
You are part of a very small, elite, specialized unit. This is the greatest battle ever fought, because the results of this battle are eternal. You need to be on your game.
St Michael the Archangel, pray for us
St Joan of Arc, pray for us
St Martin of Tours, pray for us
St Ignatius of Loyola, pray for us
Christ, have mercy on us

Today marks the one year anniversary of the publishing of the Four Candinal’s “dubia” concerning Chapter Eight of Amoris Laetitia, two months after it was delivered to antipope Bergoglio.
The dubia are brilliantly written, and they follow a longstanding tradition in the Church when Rome issues a directive which raises questions in its interpretation. The ones we have in front of us, due to the wretched heresy contained in Chapter Eight, put Bergoglio in an impossible position, which is why he has refused to answer.
The dubia are important, as this is the only public challenge, by men with any standing to actually do something about it, to the public heresy of the man who is acknowledged by these same men to be the current pontiff, and the verbiage is precise and damning. On the other hand, the dubia are meaningless, because the premise is false, because Bergoglio is an antipope who usurped the throne invalidly due to the failed partial abdication of Pope Benedict XVI, who is still the one and only living pope. Which means Amoris Laetitia never really happened, nor did any of the other bogus “papal” documents, like the one about the backyard barbeque being mortal sin HERE. None of the hundreds of heretical and/or blasphemous mutterings of the despicable Argentine have any impact on the magisterial or pastoral teaching of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church, because he is not now, never was, and never shall be pope. Thanks be to God.
So my prayer today is that the world be awakened to the true situation in Rome, but also for the two remaining dubia cardinals to get on with it, with whatever the final correction is going to look like.