ROME, September 12, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — In the latest incursion of the ecclesiastical culture of death into those institutions established by St. John Paul II, a notorious clerical proponent of artificial contraception and homosexual unions has officially been hired to teach at the Pontifical John Paul II Institute in Rome.
According to a new course list for the 2019-2020 academic year, published on Sept. 11, Italian moral theologian Father Maurizio Chiodi will teach a licentiate-level course titled “Theological ethics of life,” and a doctoral seminar called “Conscience and discernment. Text and context of Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia.”
Fr. Chiodi has used the controversial chapter 8 of Pope Francis’s summary document on the family to justify the use of artificial contraception and to argue for the moral goodness of homosexual relationships.

Well, of course. Because the JPII Institute has been destroyed, and will now proceed to destroy the family, and replace the family with tons of sodomy. The key to all this is contraception, so they need to get that pushed through first.

He then goes on to say, more or less, “who are we to judge,” regarding homosex, and that homosex can be an absolute moral good. Yeah. Read the rest at the link.
The really bad news is, he’s using rational thought. If contraception really is okay, then other sexual acts intentionally closed to life really are okay, then fornication and even sodomy really are okay, NOWADAYS.
For good measure, he wrote an article last week regarding the ‘renewal’ of the JPII institute and the need for fluidity in moral theology:
“The Tradition Reinterpreted in the Present Time” HERE
Hebrews 13:8 was not quoted.
Contraception is the wedge. Get your head around this folks. The antichurch will use contraception to force the schism. There will be other things too, but this is a big one. You know the statistics on Catholic contraception and Catholic approval of homosex. 90% of “Catholics,” at minimum, are all going to follow the antichurch on this.
I already wrote 3000 words on this topic, so here it is…

Harsh Reality, Part Two: Sodomy is a logical corollary to contraception

“The final battle between God and Satan will be about marriage and the family.” – Sister Lucia of Fatima, in her letter to Cardinal Caffarra

This is Part Two of my essay on the evil of contraception, and why any approval of contraception has direct and inevitable rational corollaries, including the approval and acceptance of sodomy, and why heterosexual contracepted sex (the marital act frustrated) is on the same moral plane as sodomy – that’s right, you might even say it is a form of participation in sodomy. And since 99% of the population is using contraception, the sodomites have a rational argument against those 99% if they dare to condemn sodomitical acts: If contraception is okay, then sodomy must also be okay. See how that works?
If you don’t believe me, keep reading.

The aim in Rome is to shift the debate away from either a "rejection" of Humanae Vitae or imposing a reading focussed exclusively on individual acts. It's about bringing out the prophetic elements, and re-reading the encyclical in a contemporary context.

— Christopher Lamb (@ctrlamb) May 10, 2018

"I would like to go beyond the idea of uniting the two ends (in curial language: unitive and procreative.) Nowadays it is a naivety to want, at all costs, to include fecundity, generativity in love."

— Marco Alessandro Solzi (@marcosolzi) May 10, 2018

Love is Love, you know. NOWADAYS, it has nothing to do with fecundity, generativity, eh? Again this is a direct quote from Msgr. Pierangelo Sequeri, the new Dean of the recently destroyed John Paul II Pontifical Theological Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family, currently “studying” the matter at hand. If you can’t see where this is going, if you can’t already see that this principle can and will be applied to “gay marriage”, and to fornication and sodomy in general, start by going back and reading part one of this essay HERE.
The thing that makes human beings unique among creation is the rational soul. An honest human can take an honest look at Natural Law and deduce reality. That’s why the prohibition against contraception survived universally amongst all Christian sects for 1900 years, until modernism took over and reason went out the window. Once the procreative aspect of the marital act is separated and removed from the act itself, the partners are participating in an act that is closer in nature to sodomy, than it is to the generative marital act itself. Here is how I explained in Part One of this essay:

We begin with exploring nature. What is the nature of nature? The root of nature can be found in John 1:3, “All things were made by him, and without him was made nothing that was made.” The natural law is nothing more than observing the nature of things, including things like body parts and human actions, and determining truth through deductive reasoning. Let’s take the “reproductive system”. The name itself is fairly descriptive of of the nature of it, wouldn’t you say? What is it’s purpose? What is it ordered toward? What is it to be used for? Is it not the transmission of life? Do we observe that it is the only system in the human body which is unable to complete its function without a complementary partner? If we forcefully block the very purpose of the organs, if we aren’t at least passively open to the possibility of new life, or if we engage in acts (the ends of which) by their nature cannot possibly generate new life, then we go against nature, and hence we go against God who created nature (cf John 1:3). Any use of the reproductive system whereby the transmission of life is either deliberately thwarted or made physically impossible is mortally sinful.

Now let’s move on to the teaching of Humanae Vitae and the intrinsic evil of contraception. The heart of the matter is the teaching in PP#11-14, which we will examine point by point. But first I must warn you that HV does contain error, in that it elevates the unitive aspect of the marital act to the same level of importance as the procreative aspect. That’s false, and a topic for another day (you can find an excellent annotated essay HERE). 
Paramount to understanding the document and also our current situation as it relates to Amoris Laetitia is Paragraph #3 of HV, which outlines the three main fallacies offered for consideration by the modernists in setting up this debate. Remember as you read this paragraph, this is NOT the teaching of HV, rather this is setting up what HV is about to refute. Paragraph #3 lays out the common arguments of the heretics in favor of contraception, in most convincing form. It is a strong possibility that Pope Paul VI Montini wrote Paragraph #3 to be the actual teaching of the HV, but then when Cardinal Ottaviani intervened, he flipped it by using Paragraph #3 as the set up, which then he (Ottaviani) utterly destroys each point later in the document, in true Thomistic style. These same false arguments are being presented yet again, 50 years later, as shown in the tweets posted above. Here is HV Paragraph #3 in its entirety:

3. This new state of things gives rise to new questions. Granted the conditions of life today and taking into account the relevance of married love to the harmony and mutual fidelity of husband and wife, would it not be right to review the moral norms in force till now, especially when it is felt that these can be observed only with the gravest difficulty, sometimes only by heroic effort? Moreover, if one were to apply here the so called principle of totality, could it not be accepted that the intention to have a less prolific but more rationally planned family might transform an action which renders natural processes infertile into a licit and provident control of birth? Could it not be admitted, in other words, that procreative finality applies to the totality of married life rather than to each single act? A further question is whether, because people are more conscious today of their responsibilities, the time has not come when the transmission of life should be regulated by their intelligence and will rather than through the specific rhythms of their own bodies.

Here is a summary of the three false premises laid out (in order to be refuted) in Paragraph #3 of HV:

1. The rigidity of the law in this area would sometimes require “heroic virtue” among the spouses. It’s unmerciful to expect people to exhibit “heroic virtue.”
2. The concept of “Totality” dictates that so long as there remains a lifelong commitment to the family, and general openness to life, individual acts which would otherwise be objectively sinful may be rendered licit.
3. Certain concrete situations demand that man must use his intelligence/conscience to discern family size, finances etc. Sometimes circumstances not only can remove the prohibition, but actually REQUIRE the sin to be committed. God wills it.

Does any of this sound remotely familiar? Fast Forward 50 years:

“…Under certain circumstances people find it very difficult to act differently. Therefore, while upholding a general rule, it is necessary to recognize that responsibility with respect to certain actions or decisions is not the same in all cases. Pastoral discernment, while taking into account a person’s properly formed conscience, must take responsibility for these situations. Even the consequences of actions taken are not necessarily the same in all cases” Recognizing the influence of such concrete factors, we can add that individual conscience needs to be better incorporated into the Church’s praxis in certain situations which do not objectively embody our understanding of marriage. Naturally, every effort should be made to encourage the development of an enlightened conscience, formed and guided by the responsible and serious discernment of one’s pastor, and to encourage an ever greater trust in God’s grace. Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal. In any event, let us recall that this discernment is dynamic; it must remain ever open to new stages of growth and to new decisions which can enable the ideal to be more fully realized.
Amoris Laetitia #302-303, “Mitigating factors in pastoral discernment”

This passage from AL appears in a section dealing with people living in “irregular” unions, or so it would seem. But the faulty logic being employed here can easily be applied, and certainly will be applied, to any “concrete situation” in which approval of objective mortal sin is the intended result of the discernment process. Not only are these sinful actions acceptable, according to this logic, but they are actually a fruit of God’s grace, and it is God himself who asking for the sin to be committed! This is so diabolical as to defy belief.
Antipope Bergoglio laid the groundwork for applying this “logic” to the question of contraception less than a year into his “papacy”, in the run-up to the two Fake Synods on the Family:

Pope Francis has shown great appreciation for Bl. Paul VI and for “Humanae Vitae” several times, such as in an interview March 5, 2014 with the Italian newspaper Il Corriere della Sera, ahead of two synods on the family. Asked if the Church was going to take up again the theme of birth control, the Pope responded: that “all of this depends on how ‘Humanae Vitae’ is interpreted. Paul VI himself, at the end, recommended to confessors much mercy, and attention to concrete situations.”…
“The question,” Pope Francis concluded, “is not that of changing the doctrine but of going deeper and making pastoral (ministry) take into account the situations and that which it is possible for people to do. Also of this we will speak in the path of the synod.” HERE

Now let us contrast this with the authentic teaching of Humanae Vitae paragraphs 11-14. Although I will highlight some (emphasis mine), I won’t provide much commentary, as the words speak for themselves.

11. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, “noble and worthy.” It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. 
12. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act. The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason. (nice touch)
13. Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one’s partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife. If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. “Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact,” Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. “From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God.” (13)
14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good,” it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it —in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

Lastly, no exposition of HV is complete without examining the hauntingly prophetic Paragraph #17, which explores the consequences of ignoring the teachings contained therein. This is the paragraph that is so clearly divinely inspired, it seems to me. At the very least, it is the result of profound insight into the human condition, the tsunami of the “sexual revolution” then taking place, and the inevitable collapse of the family we are now experiencing.

17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.
Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife. Consequently, unless we are willing that the responsibility of procreating life should be left to the arbitrary decision of men, we must accept that there are certain limits, beyond which it is wrong to go, to the power of man over his own body and its natural functions—limits, let it be said, which no one, whether as a private individual or as a public authority, can lawfully exceed. These limits are expressly imposed because of the reverence due to the whole human organism and its natural functions, in the light of the principles We stated earlier, and in accordance with a correct understanding of the “principle of totality” enunciated by Our predecessor Pope Pius XII.

Dear brethren, please get yourselves on the right side of this. Spend a lot of time in prayer. Pray for the grace to conform your mind to objective reality. Amend your life. The sense of freedom that comes from realizing that what you previously thought was “freedom” was actually slavery is truly breathtaking.
 

Today is the Feast of the Holy Name of Mary. This feast was suppressed in the 1970 missal, but JPII restored it in 2002, so it is 12 September on both calendars. Cool!
Following is a condensed version of the Miraculous Medal story, and a little advice.

Catherine rose, knelt beside the Blessed Mother and rested her hands in the Virgin’s lap. Mary said: “God wishes to charge you with a mission. You will be contradicted, but do not fear; you will have the grace to do what is necessary. Tell your spiritual director all that passes within you. Times are evil in France and in the world.”
A pain crossed the Virgin’s face.
“Come to the foot of the altar. Graces will be shed on all, great and little, especially upon those who ask for them. You will have the protection of God and Saint Vincent. I always will have my eyes upon you. There will be much persecution. The cross will be treated with contempt. It will be hurled to the ground and blood will flow.” Then after speaking for some time, the Lady like a fading shadow was gone.
On Saturday, November 27, 1830, at 5:30 p.m., she retired to the Chapel with the other Sisters for evening meditation. Catherine heard the faint swish of silk… she recognized our Lady’s signal. Raising her eyes to the main altar, she saw her beautiful Lady standing on a large globe.
The Virgin Spoke, this time giving a direct order: “Have a Medal struck after this model. All who wear it will receive great graces; they should wear it around the neck. Graces will abound for persons who wear it with confidence.” HERE

When Saint Catherine was shown the model for the medal, in 3D, she noticed that certain gems within it appeared dim, and she asked Our Lady why they didn’t shine. Her response:
“Those are the graces for which people forget to ask.” HERE
Your Mother is literally begging you to beg her. Implore her Holy Name. Praying the Ave is like praying twice, because her Holy Name is found twice therein. Have you started praying the Rosary every day? Have you at least tried? Because I can assure you that you will succeed and your desire to recite it will win out, despite considerable effort from the enemy to prevent you. When you find you desire it, but “something comes up,” well that is Satan, my friend. He’s also the same one who throws down barricades to Daily Mass and Adoration. When Satan starts paying extra attention to you, it’s because he knows he’s losing his grip. Maintain your bearing, see this for what it is, and redouble your resolve.
Mary is in heaven right now, her palms outstretched to you, at the ready with weaponized Grace.
Won’t you join me today in the Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary? Approved by Pope Sixtus V in 1587, it contains so many sweet, sweet names and titles for Our Lady, I absolutely love it. O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.
Lord, have mercy on us.
Christ, have mercy on us. 
Lord, have mercy on us. Christ hear us.
Christ, graciously hear us.
God, the Father of heaven,
Have mercy on us. 
God, the Son, Redeemer of the world:
Have mercy on us. 
God, the Holy Ghost,
Have mercy on us. 
Holy Trinity, One God,
Have mercy on us. 
Holy Mary, pray for us. (repeat at end of each phrase)
Holy Mother of God,
Holy Virgin of virgins,
Mother of Christ,
Mother of divine grace,
Mother most pure,
Mother most chaste,
Mother inviolate,
Mother undefiled,
Mother most amiable,
Mother most admirable,
Mother of good counsel,
Mother of our Creator,
Mother of our Savior,
Virgin most prudent,
Virgin most venerable,
Virgin most renowned,
Virgin most powerful,
Virgin most merciful,
Virgin most faithful,
Mirror of justice,
Seat of wisdom,
Cause of our joy,
Spiritual vessel,
Vessel of honor,
Singular vessel of devotion,
Mystical rose,
Tower of David,
Tower of ivory,
House of gold,
Ark of the covenant,
Gate of Heaven,
Morning star,
Health of the sick,
Refuge of sinners,
Comforter of the afflicted,
Help of Christians,
Queen of angels,
Queen of patriarchs,
Queen of prophets,
Queen of apostles,
Queen of martyrs,
Queen of confessors,
Queen of virgins,
Queen of all saints,
Queen conceived without original sin,
Queen assumed into heaven,
Queen of the most holy Rosary,
Queen of peace.
Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world,
Spare us, O Lord. 
Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world,
Graciously hear us O Lord. 
Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world,
Have mercy on us.
V. Pray for us, O holy Mother of God.
R. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ. 

Let us pray:
Grant, O Lord God, we beseech Thee, that we Thy servants may rejoice in continual health of mind and body; and, through the glorious intercession of Blessed Mary ever Virgin, may be freed from present sorrow, and enjoy eternal gladness. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

When you read things like this, it is truly marvelous how the Visibility of the Church shines through, in this case to shine a spotlight on the antichurch.

“It is not to be excluded that I will enter history as the one who split the Catholic Church.” (December, 2016)
“I pray that there will not be schisms, but I am not afraid.” HERE

Ask yourself: Would a true pope utter these words?  Or rather COULD a true pope utter these words? Schism is a joking matter to this man.
The heart of the matter is that the gospel says there are rules, and this man doesn’t think there are any. Or else he thinks yes, there are rules, but they are merely ideals that we can’t possibly be expected to live by. Or else he thinks, I AM THE LAW, I make the rules. It’s Luther redux.
Following is an excerpt from an essay I wrote  two years ago this month. I am pasting here the most relevant passage given the latest plane ride schismgate. You can read the rest HERE.

SEPTEMBER 22, 2017
Bergoglio believes as Luther did, that we are incapable of reforming our lives, incapable of resisting sin. We don’t really have free will, but rather our will is so damaged after the fall, that we can never make right choices on our own.  Which also means we aren’t really to blame for the sins, because it was concupiscence’s fault, not ours. When we do make right choices, it was really purely God’s grace that produced the decision, and we had nothing to do with it. It’s called Bondage of the Will, and when followed to its logical end is chaos. If it really is true that we have no control over our choices, bad or good, then what is the point of any of this? It’s the Christianity of puppets.
Yes, we are all sinners.  But rooting out sin, especially mortal sin, is possible. God never stops sending His grace, and when we reciprocate by cooperating with His grace, we are capable of doing good, and of greatly reforming our lives. Isn’t this the inescapable message of the Gospel? It seems to me that men who think otherwise are themselves so deeply lost in sin that they can’t imagine it humanly possible to stop. That’s the simplest explanation, whether it is Bergoglio, Luther, or a billion dissenting ‘catholics.’
The pace of events appears to again be accelerating, as we rapidly approach the 100th anniversary of the Fatima Miracle of the Sun (13 October 2017) HERE as well as the 500th anniversary of Protestant Revolt (31 October 2017). Remember Sister Lucia’s letter to Cardinal Caffarra?

Cardinal Caffarra explained that Saint John Paul II had commissioned him to plan and establish the Pontifical Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family. At the beginning of this work, the cardinal wrote a letter to Sister Lucia of Fatima through her bishop, since he could not do it directly. “Inexplicably, since I did not expect a reply, seeing as I had only asked for her prayers, I received a long letter with her signature, which is now in the archives of the Institute,” the Italian cardinal said. “In that letter we find written: ‘The final battle between the Lord and the kingdom of Satan will be about Marriage and the Family.’ Don’t be afraid, she added, because whoever works for the sanctity of Marriage and the Family will always be fought against and opposed in every way, because this is the decisive issue. Then she concluded: ‘nevertheless, Our Lady has already crushed his head’.” HERE

That institute that JPII commissioned Cardinal Caffarra to establish is the same one that Bergoglio abolished this week, two weeks after +Caffarra’s sudden death, replaced by the new institute to enforce Amoris Laetitia HERE. Could the signs be any more clear?
Remember, Bergoglio himself infamously prophesied:

“It is not to be excluded that I will enter history as the one who split the Catholic Church.” HERE

You really need to get your head around the imminent cleaving of the Church. You will be facing your own non veni pacem moment (Matt 10:34) when it happens. Have the courage to make the right choice, and take whoever you can with you. You’re not crazy. All the signs are there, and whatever it is that ends up being the final wedge event, trust me, it will be glaringly obvious if you are looking for it. God won’t let anyone be tricked into choosing the wrong side, they will choose the wrong side of their own free will. They’re already doing it. We also know from from the Abomination of Desolation discourse in Matt 24 that the final religious deception, which this may or may not be, will be so great that it will consume nearly everyone (including even the elect, had those times not been cut short).
So stay frosty. Stay confessed. Hone your bearing these next few weeks. Pray.

“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 10:32-39

If you call Bergoglio true pope, are you preparing to be excommunicated? You should be.

He spoke about another ideology he calls “rigorist,” which he told reporters is “the ideology of an antiseptic morality” that takes no account of the real lives of the faithful and the obligation of pastors to guide them away from sin and toward living the Gospel.
“There are many schools of rigidity within the Catholic Church today which are not in schism, but are pseudo-schismatic Christian paths, which will not end well,” he said. HERE

Taking the prize for negative levels of introspection:

“When ideology takes the place of doctrine, he said, there is the danger of a split in the Christian community.”

I mean, he is pure ideology, nothing else. And yes, he is the one causing schism. So I guess he gets a point for that one, even though (trigger warning – soccer reference ahead) it’s an own goal?
And finally, a Double Whopper with Cheese:

The pope cited those who say, “The pope is too communist” because of his criticism of unbridled capitalism and its negative impact on the poor. “The social things I say are the same things John Paul II said. The very same. I copy him.”

I’m no JPII fanboy, but the man did fight a lifelong battle against Communism, and largely won. Bergoglio slanders him here, either using him to lie to prove that he himself is not Communist, or lying about things JPII never said. Take your pick.
And oh by the way, maybe it’s just the translation, but did you catch the modifier? “The pope is too Communist…” Yes, we all wish you were just a little less Communist, old boy. Just dial it back a wee bit and we are totes BFFs.
As if it were okay for a true pope to be even 1% Communist.
Oh, and Magister reports that Bergoglio already approved Deacons simulating the Mass, as in, Abomination of Desolation. HERE

Tell me more about how all of this is no big deal, this too shall pass, we’ve had lots of heretic popes, he hasn’t done anything SUPERbad yet, the catechism doesn’t have any magisterial weight, and we even had Alexander VI with seven children and twenty concubines. Besides, the question of Benedict’s abdication is a matter of infallible certainty, you know, yet we cannot possibly know what infallibility really is nor how it works nor what Christ really meant in Matt 16:19 nor Matt 18:18, and anyhoo nearly the entire Church was Arian at one point, so shut up.
I’m sorry, no. We have a Marxist/Globalist/non-Catholic usurper in white, a not dead not retired pope in white, and all of the filthy heretics being finally exposed – nay – exposing themselves, willingly. Prophesies being fulfilled left and right. Amazonian time bomb set to explode one month from today. If only I had a dime for every time I’ve written these words: The current situation is entirely unprecedented in the history of the Church. 
And guess what? The foremost living expert on Church history agrees.
Thank you, Cardinal Brandmüller.
https://twitter.com/Johnthemadmonk/status/1169768079825473537?s=20

“Some points of the synod’s Instrumentum laboris seem not only in dissonance with respect to the authentic teaching of the Church, but even contrary to it. The nebulous formulations of the Instrumentum, as well as the proposed creation of new ecclesial ministries for women and, especially, the proposed priestly ordination of the so-called viri probati arouse strong suspicion that even priestly celibacy will be called into question,” the cardinal wrote.
“We must face serious challenges to the integrity of the Deposit of the Faith, the sacramental and hierarchical structure of the Church and its Apostolic Tradition. With all this has been created a situation never before seen in the Church’s history, not even during the Arian crisis of the fourth and fifth century,” Brandmüller added.

Read the rest, as well as Cardinal Burke’s contribution, HERE

Steel Cage Death Match!
In the white corner, Christ and his Petrine Promises from Matt 16:19, 18:18.
In the black corner, Bergoglio the Destroyer inserting heresy into the Catechism.
Who wins?
The following was left by an anonymous “Someone” in the combox this morning. The natural beauty of rational thought on full display.

someone says:

September 6, 2019 at 7:28 am

Cardinal Burke, Roberto De Mattei and others have always tried to save both Vat. I and the claim that “Francis is Pope” by stating that not everything that a pope utters is protected by infallibility. This seems pretty sensible to me.

A validly elected pope (e.g. John XXII) can say at table that the saints will not see God until the end of the world. But he would never be able to proclaim it as a dogma.

Between a dogmatic definition (like those of the Immaculate conception or of the assumption of Our Lady) and chatter at table there are lots of different types of utterences: private letters, public speeches, declarations, encyclicals, exhortations (like Amoris Laetitia) etc.

Here is the thing. EVEN IF we were to grant, with cardinal Burke, that Amoris Laetitia has no magisterial authority (pace Bergoglio’s letter to the Argentine bishops), how can we say that Bergoglio’s revision of the CCC is not an act of the universal magister (under the hypothesis that Bergoglio were to be pope)?

Vatican I says that a pope is infallible when he

“speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals [chapter 4:9]”.

So a pope has to:

(a) exercise of office of teacher;

(b) define a doctrine concerning faith and morals

(c) address the whole Church

in order to be infallible.

Even if we were to concede that one of these conditions is not met by Amoris Laetitia (i.e. we should grant that either he was not addressing the whole church – but he was – or that he was not speaking of faith or morals – but he was – or that he wasn’t exercising his alleged office of teacher – this is the tricky part, where Burke’s might have a point, cf. AL 3), how could we possibly say that in revising a cathechism for the universal church a validly elected pope is not exercising his office of teacher, addressing the whole church on matters pertaining to faith and morals?

John Paul II was certainly doing it while he promulgated the CCC.

Now “Francis” has inserted an obvious heresy in the CCC. Hence, he cannot be the pope, otherwise Vatican I is false (which it isn’t).

Cardinal Burke’s remarks that “Francis” is speaking as a private man while condemning the legitimacy of death penalty “won’t float”

Fred Martinez over at Catholic Monitor has really been nailing it lately HERE.
He draws some high quality commentary, too.
This one today is priceless. I hope he doesn’t mind me posting it.

Jack said…
People who imagine that Vatican I’s definition of papal infallibility is circular, tautological, or otherwise redundant imagine that the dogma goes like this: “Solemn papal definitions are infallible, because the pope has the power of infallibility.” Which is like saying, “it’s right because the pope says it’s right.”
This would be to set up the pope as a kind of god, since only God is truly self-justifying like this, right simply because He is right, because He is Truth itself by His very essence.
I think in the wake of liberalism and its undermining of all authority, Catholics rallied to the pope and after Vatican I made this kind of mistake, at least implicitly, that the pope is right because he is right. But this is just another human error, setting up a man in God’s place, undermining authority in an even more subtle way.
The pope is not right because he says he’s right, and he’s not infallible simply because he has the power of infallibility (although he is and he does). Vatican I is very clear. The pope is infallible BECAUSE Christ gave the keys to Peter and his Successors, and HE guaranteed by HIS divine power that the pope would never err in his solemn teaching capacity. This is perhaps a subtle distinction, but it makes a profound difference. It means that our faith is not centred on the person of the pope, but centred on Christ just has it has always been.
So when we come across a pope who appears to be erring in doctrine, the first thing we should ask is whether he is really erring or not. And if he is erring, the next thing to ask is whether his papacy is legitimate or whether he’s an antipope. But for people with a worldly mindset who are too willing to accept the world’s opinions and maintain their public image, and who’s faith is more centred on the person of the pope than on the person of Christ, they would rather deny Vatican I and become heretics than accuse a possible antipope (despite there having been many, many antipopes in history) and fall temporarily out of favour.
To be honest at this point I would not be surprised if Skojec is a kind of double agent and 1p5 a false-opposition operation designed to keep potential critics of the regime confused and pigeonholed. Keep traditionalists as a whining bunch of scandalmongerers rather than united in any useful purpose.

Jack’s comment would have been equally relevant with regard to another post which appeared today, which I mirror here for the sake of this combox:
—————————————

From the Patrick Coffin interview with Cardinal Burke a couple weeks ago, through the lens of a shrieking @DawnofMercy:

Coffin then repeats a traditionalist bishop's call for a synod to "resolve" whether the last conclave was valid. And he asks Burke about Antonio Socci's book claiming Benedict is still pope.

Surely Burke will assure listeners that Socci is wrong? Well, almost, but not quite… pic.twitter.com/7dEC43H3Wq

— Dawn Eden Goldstein 🇺🇦 (@DawnofMercy) August 15, 2019

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoUq6sWqaTE
I’m only covering a five minute clip of this interview. If you want a crack at the complete transcript intertwined with Dawn’s pearl clutching, go HERE.
First of all, forget about St. Gallen Mafia and the shenanigans at the “conclave.” Coffin starts in about that around 18:00, referencing Bishop Gracida’s claims, but this will get us nowhere. Since Benedict attempted a partial abdication, which was wholly invalid and therefore a null act, no conclave actually took place. The conclave was rendered invalid ipso facto the invalid abdication.  It was a Cardinals’ Retreat, nothing more. Think about this. Any effort to invalidate a conclave that is already invalid would, if successful, only result in another invalid conclave, because the one true living pope is still alive and kicking. The failed partial abdication is the True Premise from which the resolution must proceed.
So start at the 23:00 mark. ++Burke is addressing the question of the validity of the abdication. The audio is pretty terrible, so here is the transcript and commentary from Dawn; sorry, but it’s the only source available. Ignore the sections that she highlighted, and concentrate on the second and third paragraphs.

Burke reluctantly admits that Socci’s claim that the papacy is split between two popes “won’t hold water.” But as for whether Benedict is still the pope, “the whole matter is a bit confused.” And Socci is “an outstanding, … saintly man,” Burke adds; “it merits to read him.” …That’s enough to show Burke is too close to the schismatic rails. Given that @NCRegister, @cnalive, and @EWTN often run stories portraying him as a guardian of orthodoxy (though @cnalive wisely ignored his Declaration of Truths), they owe it to their readers to report on this …

Do you see what’s going on here? He mixes truth with error. Frankly, though, he is so close to the whole truth that he is looking straight past it.
First, ++Burke asserts that a pope must govern in order to be pope. “There is only one pope and the pope must govern the Church.” Well yes, that’s how it’s supposed to work, governance being one of the three components of the ministry, the others being teaching and sanctifying. However, failure to govern does not unpope a pope. A pope in a coma, a pope in exile, a pope in prison… none of them can govern, but they still remain pope. This is not a difficult concept. Yes, a pope is SUPPOSED to govern, but the failure/inability to govern has exactly ZERO effect on the ontological reality of who is pope. Popes remain pope until they die or validly resign. Period, full stop.

“That someone could hold the office and someone else is actually carrying out the ministry — that simply won’t float.”

YES. EXACTLY. THAT SIMPLY WON’T FLOAT.
THERE’S A TERM FOR IT: SUBSTANTIAL ERROR.
Pope Benedict’s faux partial abdication was based on delegating the governing aspect of the ministry, while retaining the office. This is Substantial Error, per Canon 188. Cardinal Burke correctly makes reference to the last Wednesday Audience and +Ganswein’s speech at the Gregorianum in 2016. There is also evidence in the original Latin Declaratio itself, where he fails to resign the Office. These actions nullified the abdication, per the very clear words of Canon 332.2, a canon which specifically addresses the conditions for a valid papal abdication. Therefore, the Cardinals had no jurisdiction nor authority to convoke a conclave, per Canon 359. You don’t need to be a canon lawyer to understand the plain meaning of the words of the law (a concept which itself is part of the law, as explained HERE).
What really is going on here is ++Burke falling headlong into the old False Base Premise trap. He first gets tripped up by the notion that whomever is governing must be pope, which frankly is just not very bright, in that it ignores the counterexamples I gave and the fact that we’ve obviously had antipopes who’ve governed the Church in the past. Then from the “Francis is pope” false assumption he proceeds to lay out the evidence that Benedict is pope, but he’s unable to apply said evidence back to the question of the effectiveness of the abdication.
Allow me to restate the block quote in the form of a rational argument, from ++Burke’s worldview, and you will see it more clearly:

1. “Francis” is pope
2. Socci provides evidence Benedict attempted an expanded petrine ministry
3. Benedict laments inadequacy to GOVERN, retains vesture and remains in Vatican
4. Ganswein in May 2016 defined the structure of a faux expanded petrine ministry
5. Burke asserts there can be only one pope
6. Therefore, “Francis” is pope

Do you see how that works?  All of your assumptions throughout the argument (#2 through #5) can be true, but it will never lead you to a true conclusion if your base premise is false.

1. “Francis” is pope – FALSE
2. Socci provides evidence Benedict attempted an expanded petrine ministry – TRUE
3. Benedict laments inadequacy to GOVERN, retains vesture and remains in Vatican – TRUE
4. Ganswein in May 2016 defined the structure of a faux expanded petrine ministry – TRUE
5. Burke asserts there can be only one pope – TRUE
6. Therefore, “Francis” is pope – F-A-L-S-E………….

I need to write a letter.
Dear Your Holiness Pope Benedict, c.c. Cardinal Burke,
Since you didn’t resign the Munus (violating can. 332.2), and you attempted to split off the governance aspect of the ministry while retaining the Munus (violating can. 188), quite possibly coerced (also violating can. 188), and you allowed a conclave to be convoked while you still held the Munus (violating can. 359), and you remain in the Vatican, wearing white, being addressed as His Holiness, signing your name Pope Benedict, bestowing your Apostolic Blessing, not smashing your fisherman’s ring, writing books, granting interviews, all while an antipope and likely False Prophet forerunner of the Antichrist has usurped the throne, endangering millions of actual souls…
…would you mind calling a press conference, and reclaiming your pallium? I would have it dry cleaned first; you never know where it’s been. You could clear up a lot of this mess of the past 6.5 years, and it might even reassure some people that the Church really is who She says She is, that Christ keeps his promises, pillar of fire pillar of truth, and all that good stuff. If not, and if CCC675 really is in play, could you at least do me a solid and have +Ganswein email me the Third Secret?
Sincerely,
NVP

1. Benedict is pope – TRUE
2. Socci provides evidence Benedict attempted an expanded petrine ministry – TRUE
3. Benedict laments inadequacy to GOVERN, retains vesture and remains in Vatican – TRUE
4. Ganswein in May 2016 defined the structure of a faux expanded petrine ministry -TRUE 
5. The papacy is a divinely instituted monarchy, which cannot be “demythologized” –  TRUE
6. Burke asserts there can be only one pope – TRUE
7. Therefore, Benedict is pope – TRUE
8. All logical fallacies nuked from orbit DING DING DING

If the Church has you dejected, you’re sinning against Hope. If you are considering apostatizing, you’re sinning against Faith. If you question the Truth or you encourage others to question the Truth, you’re sinning against Charity.
Truth is a Person. He speaks to us in Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21.
Of course, no one knows if we are in the run-up to the Big Show or not. The point is, gird yourself and be prepared. I’m pasting here from biblehub because of the spiffy links they provide between the verses in these three gospel chapters. The formatting looks a little wonky, but oh well.