non veni pacem

11 February 2013, Pope Benedict read out the Declaratio in which he intended to bifurcate the papacy, which lead to the subsequent invalid conclave and the invalid election of his “successor.” I remember being absolutely blindsided by his announcement (believing it to be valid at that point). The timing was so strange it seemed to me, and many priests I spoke with, especially given the Year of Faith which was then underway.
The Year of Faith had begun on 11 October 2012, the 50th anniversary of the opening of Vatican II. It was first announced by Benedict a year earlier, 11 October 2011, precisely 16 months before the announcement of his faux abdication. What exactly happened in those 16 months which made Benedict retreat from the battlefield and run from the wolves? Perhaps there are many reasons we will never know, but it is insightful to understand the two main objectives of the Year of Faith as laid out in the motu proprio PORTA FIDEI HERE.
The first key element reveals that Benedict thought that perhaps he had done enough housecleaning in what at that point had been a six and a half year reign that he could launch a final assault on an objective we all know he held dear: definitively establishing the “hermeneutic of continuity” as the sole arbiter of Vatican II. It’s truly hard to believe that such a thing was really plausible only six or seven years ago, but it was.

“It seemed to me that timing the launch of the Year of Faith to coincide with the fiftieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council would provide a good opportunity to help people understand that the texts bequeathed by the Council Fathers, in the words of Blessed John Paul II, “have lost nothing of their value or brilliance. They need to be read correctly, to be widely known and taken to heart as important and normative texts of the Magisterium, within the Church’s Tradition … I feel more than ever in duty bound to point to the Council as the great grace bestowed on the Church in the twentieth century: there we find a sure compass by which to take our bearings in the century now beginning.” I would also like to emphasize strongly what I had occasion to say concerning the Council a few months after my election as Successor of Peter: “if we interpret and implement it guided by a right hermeneutic, it can be and can become increasingly powerful for the ever necessary renewal of the Church.””  PF #5

Hopefully everyone reading this has done enough research to know by now that this is complete BS, not that I doubt Benedict honestly believed it was true.  Vatican II was a totally failed council containing errors and pathways to error at a magnitude never before seen in the history of the Church. Yes, you can read the vast majority of the documents in a traditional light if you so choose, but they can also be read in many different ways precisely because of their ambiguity, and this was done INTENTIONALLY WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT. It’s a false floor; if you think you can use it as a backstop so long as you treat it with respect to Tradition, you haven’t done enough research. The entire thing needs to be suppressed, and someday it will be. If you haven’t learned the reasons why, and you think Vatican II is just dandy, you’re operating from a false base premise.
The second key element of the Year of Faith was an honest admission of the hideous state of catechesis in the Church today, and Benedict’s desire at a serious effort to correct this by way of the new Catechism. Of course there is no mention of Vatican II as a direct cause of the problem.

“In order to arrive at a systematic knowledge of the content of the faith, all can find in the Catechism of the Catholic Church a precious and indispensable tool. It is one of the most important fruits of the Second Vatican Council. In the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, signed, not by accident, on the thirtieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council, Blessed John Paul II wrote: “this catechism will make a very important contribution to that work of renewing the whole life of the Church … I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith.
It is in this sense that the Year of Faith will have to see a concerted effort to rediscover and study the fundamental content of the faith that receives its systematic and organic synthesis in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Here, in fact, we see the wealth of teaching that the Church has received, safeguarded and proposed in her two thousand years of history. From Sacred Scripture to the Fathers of the Church, from theological masters to the saints across the centuries, the Catechism provides a permanent record of the many ways in which the Church has meditated on the faith and made progress in doctrine so as to offer certitude to believers in their lives of faith.” PF #11

So perhaps it was these two elements, the lack of movement in the intervening months, or the additional wolves which came prowling as a result of the offensive, which caused Benedict to despair. We know there were other factors, probably threats. Whatever the truth of the matter, here we sit. So again, if you haven’t done the research into why Benedict’s abdication was invalid, and you think he really resigned, and Antipope Bergoglio really is the Vicar of Christ on earth, with all the supernatural protection from error that comes with it, then you are operating from a false base premise and you will never be able to make any sense about what’s going on here.
If you would like to read more about how Benedict began to lay out the breadcrumbs for us about his plans for a bifurcated papacy in his speech five years ago today, go HERE
I will leave you with Matthew 24, which I can’t stop thinking about:

When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand. For there shall be then great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, neither shall be. And unless those days had been shortened, no flesh should be saved: but for the sake of the elect those days shall be shortened. Then if any man shall say to you: Lo here is Christ, or there, do not believe him. For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Behold I have told it to you, beforehand. Matt 24:15, 21-25

 

Let’s play a little game. You’ve heard of visualization, no? Well picture this:
Antipope Bergoglio, The Movie
You’re the screenwriter. How would you tell the story? Which scenes do you include in the scrip, which ones do you omit? I want to play the cinematographer and sound editor. I want to shoot some gripping scenes; some graphic, some majestic, all of them devastating.
Movie opens amid the various oddities of the final month leading to Benedict’s faux abdication, with all the truths contained therein splashed across the screen, culminating with the lightning strike. Then Benedict openly confessing the bifurcation attempt in his final audience, trailing off into the behind the scenes machinations pre-conclave. White smoke, and then the haunting scene from the loggia; the lighting needs to be just right.
You’re visualizing all this in your mind’s eye, right?
From there we have to pick and choose, and cinematic considerations are important. Muslim foot washing is a must, along with wheelchair kissing, vulgar fits of rage, tender caresses with Ricca and Tucco, and of course, heresy-filled homilies (with contradicting subtitles from Trent, anathematizing him). Scenes from the Synods Against the Family will be included. We will frequently cut away to Benedict and Ganswein in the gardens, dialoging, assessing the disaster as it unfolds. And since we are already well beyond an “R” rating, we’re going to have to throw in a scene from Cocco’s place.
But the climax, at least as it stands now, is the scene that played out in St. Peter’s square this week, with 86 year old Cardinal Zen waiting in the cold (45F/8C) with the commoners to deliver a letter to Antipope Bergoglio. HERE
The scene writes itself. There is no dialogue. Just sweeping views of the square, the wind and sky, the basilica, the colonnade, the cardinal and the usurper. Cut to a shot of the Chinese bishops in their homeland, amongst their 60 million faithful, their lives literally hanging in the balance. The soundtrack booms as the letter changes hands.
If the story were fictional, this scene would be left on the cutting room floor by any rational director, for fear of ruining the entire picture with histrionic melodrama.
Would that it were.

Irony: It’s not just for Dostoyevsky and communists anymore (see last post).

“In today’s fast-changing world of communications and digital systems, we are witnessing the spread of what has come to be known as “fake news”. This calls for reflection…I would like to contribute to our shared commitment to stemming the spread of fake news and to rediscovering the dignity of journalism and the personal responsibility of journalists to communicate the truth… The term “fake news” has been the object of great discussion and debate. In general, it refers to the spreading of disinformation on line or in the traditional media. It has to do with false information based on non-existent or distorted data meant to deceive and manipulate the reader. Spreading fake news can serve to advance specific goals, influence political decisions, and serve economic interests…The effectiveness of fake news is primarily due to its ability to mimic real news, to seem plausible.” HERE

Influence political decisions? What ever could he being talking about? Except again, not ironically, the actual fake news that was intended to influence the election in 2016 backfired, and Trump won in spite of it (or because of it?). It’s kind of a chicken and egg thing. Phrase it any way you want, fake news was a big factor in the election. So in that way, irony on irony, this can be read as Bergoglio actually aligning with Trump on calling out fake news. Weird, right?
But of course that’s not what’s going on. Beyond his hatred for Trump and all he stands for, think about what else could be on Antipope Bergoglio’s mind with regard to fake news. I mean, his entire usurpation has been about the diabolical inversion of truth. There are a hundred examples of his teaching that are inversions of truth. The various Vatican communication officials spew out lies almost every day. There are a ton of examples I would have loved to write about, but it comes at you so fast that it’s impossible to keep up. But the elephant in the Casa Santa Marta is that Bergoglio himself is a fake pontiff, and I’m pretty sure he knows it. I’m pretty sure he reads the blogs, or someone reads the blogs to him. He knows there are a vast number, as we know from a certain POLL, a vast number of Catholics who know it too. So since this screed is directed towards journalists, you can be sure that laying out the evidence that Bergoglio is an antipope is being called out as “distorted data”. It must inflict so much hurt, healing by mouth is required.

“To discern the truth, we need to discern everything that encourages communion and promotes goodness from whatever instead tends to isolate, divide, and oppose.”

Now we are getting to the heart of it. In “discerning the truth,” everything that encourages communion is true, and everything that isolates, divides is false. Everybody hold hands! I feel all warm and gooey inside! Too bad Jesus taught exactly the opposite. Jesus Himself is the Truth, and in Matthew 10:32-39 He taught,

“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 34-39

So the indicator we have for seeking Jesus, truth incarnate, is that it will cause division, not unity. But to follow Antipope Bergoglio, it’s the opposite.  Choose wisely.
Back to Jorge:

“Truth, therefore, is not really grasped when it is imposed from without as something impersonal, but only when it flows from free relationships between persons, from listening to one another. Nor can we ever stop seeking the truth, because falsehood can always creep in, even when we state things that are true.”

External eternal truths cannot be known without relationships with persons and listening to the other person’s troofs. Right?

“An impeccable argument can indeed rest on undeniable facts, but if it is used to hurt another and to discredit that person in the eyes of others, however correct it may appear, it is not truthful. We can recognize the truth of statements from their fruits: whether they provoke quarrels, foment division, encourage resignation; or, on the other hand, they promote informed and mature reflection leading to constructive dialogue and fruitful results.”

Impeccable, undeniable facts aren’t true if they hurt your feelings.
Welcome to Snowflake Church.

It goes beyond irony. It is totally sick, twisted and sinister, and he knows exactly what he’s doing.

“People who lie to themselves and listen to their own lie come to such a pass that they cannot distinguish the truth within them, or around them, and so lose all respect for themselves and for others. And having no respect, they cease to love, and in order to occupy and distract themselves without love they give way to passions and to coarse pleasures, and sink to bestiality in their vices, all from continual lying to others and to themselves.” HERE

If this doesn’t make you sick to your stomach, I really don’t know what to say.

Guangzhou (AsiaNews) – The Holy See has asked Bishop Peter Zhuang Jianjian of Shantou in southern Guangdong province to retire in order to give way to an excommunicated bishop while another Vatican-appointed bishop was asked to downgrade himself as the assistant of an illicit bishop.

Vox Cantoris has further detail HERE.
Sickening.

Full text of President Trump’s address to the 2018 March for Life. He quite literally might be more Catholic than the usurper squatting on the throne of Peter.

Today I’m honored and really proud to be the first president to stand with you here at the White House to address the 45th March for Life, that’s very very special, 45th March for Life, and this is a truly remarkable group. Today tens of thousands of families, students, and patriots, and really just great citizens gather here in our nations Capitol. You come from many backgrounds, and many places, but you all come for one beautiful cause, to build a society where life is celebrated and protected and cherished.
The March for Life is a movement born out of love: you love your families; you love your neighbors; you love our nation; and you love every child born and unborn, because you believe that every life is sacred, that every child is a precious gift from God.
We know that life is the greatest miracle of all. We see it in the eyes of every new mother who cradles that wonderful, innocent, and glorious-newborn child in her loving arms. I want to thank every person here today and all across our country who works with such big hearts and tireless devotion to make sure that parents have the caring support they need to choose life.
Because of you, tens of thousands of Americans have been born and reached their full God-given potential, because of you. You’re living witnesses of this year’s March for life theme, and that theme is, ‘Love Saves Lives.’
As you all know Roe versus Wade has resulted in some of the most permissive abortion laws anywhere in the world. For example, in the United States, it’s one of only seven countries to allow elective late-term abortions along with China North Korea and others. Right now, in a number of States, the laws allow a baby to be born [sic, aborted] from his or her mother’s womb in the ninth month.
It is wrong. It has to change.
Americans are more and more pro-life. You see that all the time. In fact, only 12% of Americans support abortion on demand at any time.
Under my administration, we will always defend the very first right in the Declaration of Independence, and that is the ‘right to life.’
Tomorrow will mark exactly one year since I took the oath of office. And I will say our country is doing really well. Our economy is perhaps the best it’s ever been. You look at the job numbers, the companies pouring back into our country, look at the stock market at an all-time high, unemployment at a 17-year low, unemployment for African workers at the lowest mark in the history of our country, unemployment for Hispanic at a record-low in history, unemployment for women, think of this, at an 18-year low.
We’re really proud of what we’re doing.
And during my first week in office, I reinstated a policy first put in place by Pres. Ronald Reagan, the Mexico City Policy.
I strongly supported the House of Representatives’ pain-capable bill, which would end painful late-term abortions nationwide. And I call upon the Senate to pass this important law and send it to my desk for signing.
On the National Day of Prayer, I signed an executive order to protect religious liberty. [I’m] very proud of that. Today, I’m announcing that we’ve just issued a new proposal to protect conscience rights and religious freedoms of doctors, nurses, and other medical professions. So important.
I have also just reversed the previous administration’s policy that restricted state efforts to direct Medicaid funding away from abortion facilities that violate the law.
We are protecting the sanctity of life and the family as the foundation of our society. But this movement can only succeed with the heart and the soul and the prayer of the people.
Here with us today is Marianne Donadio from Greensboro North Carolina. Where is Marianne? Hello, come on up here Marianne. Come. Nice to see you, by the way.
Marianne was 17 when she found out that she was pregnant. At first, she felt like she had no place to turn. But when she told her parents they responded with total love, total affection, total support. Great parents? Great? [Trump asked Marianne. She responded in the affirmative] I thought you were going to say that. I had to be careful.
Marianne bravely chose life and soon gave birth to her son. She named him Benedict which means blessing. Marianne was so grateful for her parents love and support that she felt called to serve those who were not as fortunate as her. She joined with others in her community to start a maternity home to care for homeless women who were pregnant. That’s great. They named it ‘Room at the Inn.’ Today, Marianne and her husband Don are the parents of six beautiful children. And her eldest son Benedict and her daughter Maria join us here today. Where are they? Come on over. That’s great.
Over the last 15 years, Room at the Inn has provided housing, childcare, counseling, education, and job-training to more than 400 women. Even more importantly, it has given them hope. It has shown each woman she is not forgotten, that she is not alone, and that she really now has a whole family of people who will help her succeed.
That hope is the true gift of this incredible movement that brings us together today.
It is the gift of friendship, the gift of mentorship, and the gift of encouragement, love, and support. Those are beautiful words and those are beautiful gifts.
And most importantly of all, it is the gift of life itself – that is why we March, that is why we pray, and that is why we declare that America’s future will be filled with goodness, peace, joy, dignity, and life for every child of God.
Thank you to the March for life, special, special people. And we are with you all the way. May God bless you and may God bless America. Thank you. Thank you.

via LifeSite HERE

We are in such times that good news is scarce. So when a little dollop comes along, it’s worth rejoicing.
Announced from the pulpit today at Mater Misericordiae (FSSP) in Phoenix, Father Chad Ripperger will be delivering a three day retreat here in May, month of Mary and my birth month.  Happy Birthday to me!
Hopefully you are already familiar with Father Ripperger, but if not, go HERE. I recommend starting with some of the homilies: The audio quality is excellent and they are fifteen minutes or less. The talks and conferences are longer, and some of the audio is not very good. But I promise you, go click on three homilies and you will come away learning something you never knew.  There are also some written texts if you look at the main menu to the right, but the vast majority of the content is audio, which makes it more time-consuming, but well worth it.
His specialty is Spiritual Warfare, which is a topic I’ve written about many times here. But he so solid in so many areas, you really just need to go over there and start poking around. Pick a couple topics and go.
I’m very much looking forward to May.
___________________
The priests at MM are in the midst of a series of homilies regarding the Holy Family as model for sanctification of the family. They don’t shy away, let me tell you, from talking about the sins which are most notorious for destroying families. It kind of feels like a bit of a counter-insurgency against the war on the family currently taking place in Rome.
But there was a big focus today specifically on Mary, of course, with the wedding miracle at Cana being the gospel reading. I will never understand how proddies can read this passage and still not understand that Mary is our best means to secure our needs. Even at Cana, when God at first protested what His Mother asked, He ultimately granted her petition. Think about it.  Had the wedding family gone straight to Jesus with their lament, they would have gotten nothing. “No wine for you! My time has not yet come!” But through Mary, well, Mary has a way with her Son. That wasn’t a mistake.  That wasn’t some random thing that just squirreled its way into scripture. It’s there for a reason. It’s there for us to learn by example.
Holy Mary, Mother of God, ora pro nobis.

“Truly blessed was Mary who possessed both humility and virginity. And truly wondrous the virginity whose fruitfulness stained not, but adorned her; and truly singular the humility, which this fruitful virginity has not troubled, but rather exalted; and wholly incomparable the fruitfulness which goes hand in hand with her humility and her virginity. Which of these things is not wondrous? Which is not beyond all comparison? Which that is not wholly singular? It would be strange if you did not hesitate to decide which you regard as most worthy of praise: whether the wonder of fruitfulness of offspring in virginity, or of virginal integrity in a mother: sublimity of Offspring, or humility joined to such dignity: unless it be that we place both together above each one singly: and it is truly beyond any doubt more excellent and more joyful to have beheld these perfections united in her, than to see but one part of them.
“And can we wonder that God, of Whom it is written that He is wonderful in his saints, shows Himself in His own Mother yet more wondrous still. Venerate then, Ye spouses, this integrity of flesh in our corruptible flesh. Revere likewise, Ye virgins, fruitfulness in virginity. Let all men imitate the humility of God’s Mother. Honour, Ye angels, the Mother of your King, you who adore the Offspring of our Virgin; Who is your King and our King, the Healer of our race, the Restorer of our fatherland: Who among you is so sublime, yet among us was so lowly: to Whose Majesty as well from you as from us let there be adoration and reverence: to whose Perfection be there honour and glory and empire for ever and ever. Amen.” – St Bernard of Clairvaux

Prayer to the Holy Family
Domine Iesu Christe, qui Mariae et Ioseph subditus, domesticam vitam ineffabilibus virtutibus consecrasti: fac nos, utriusque auxilio, Familiae sanctae tuae exemplis instrui et consortium consequi sempiternum: Qui vivis et regnas in saecula saeculorum. Amen.

Lord Jesus Christ, Who, being made subject to Mary and Joseph, didst consecrate domestic life by Thine ineffable virtues; grant that we, with the assistance of both, may be taught by the example of Thy Holy Family and may attain to its everlasting fellowship. Who livest and reignest forever. Amen.

The rector of SS Simon and Jude Cathedral in Phoenix, Father John Lankeit, has made another bold move which has really opened my eyes. Father is modestly famous already for several of his homilies, his banishment of female altar boys, and his institution of the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin, as well as Gregorian Chant. In short, the Novus Ordo at the cathedral under his direction is about as solid as you can get. He gave a homily on abortion and voting, four weeks prior to the 2016 election, that was absolutely titanic. It’s not a stretch to say it helped influince the outcome. It went very viral, but in case you missed it and want to get to know him a bit, HERE.
Father Lankeit abruptly shut down his social media accounts last Friday after posting the video embedded below. The short video (15 minutes) shows former top-level Facebook executives explaining how their platform was built:  By exploiting and cultivating narcissistic behavior traits around Likes, Shares, Comments, and in the beginning, freind requests. They learned as they went along, and the software was continually adapted to drive the maximum dopamine release to keep users coming back. In short, it’s no mistake that it is easy to get addicted to this crap. Rather, it was built that way.
The dopamine addiction certainly is a problem for the individual – we are talking about changing the physical structure of the brain, after all. But the executives go on to explain why it’s an even bigger cultural problem. As in, civilizational. You see it all around you, on the streets, in the office, in your home, in your family.  It explains a lot about how things out in the real world just seem to be different now; a distinct sense that a transformation has taken place. The fabric of society is being torn asunder by these platforms, in a way that is disfiguring our humanity.
I know I use it way too much. Collectively I bet I’m on it two hours a day, not only the platforms themselves, but also the rabbit holes they lead to by clicking links. For me, Twitter is far worse than Facebook. On Facebook, you see what your freinds want you to see.  On Twitter, you see what YOU want to see, by deciding who you follow. So the content is automatically way more interesting to you.  You can easily lose track of time by getting sucked in to all sorts of stuff.  There is a whole bunch of Catholic content, both good and bad, and a large number of solid Catholics/blogs on there too.
I’m still lucky enough to be highly unpopular. I’m sure the temptation is far worse for someone with a lot of followers. I’m going to start praying about all those things I claim I don’t have time for, and see if I can’t carve out some of the interweebs instead. If I fail, I might have to follow father’s lead.
Here’s the video.

 

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.