non veni pacem

“The culture has changed, thanks be to God. Christians must ask forgiveness for many things, not just these. Forgiveness, not just apologies.”

The culture sure has changed, he’s right about that.

Kleinjung: Too much beer … Holy Father, I wanted to ask you a question. Today you spoke of the gifts of the shared Churches, of the gifts shared by the Churches together. Seeing that you will go in I believe four months to Lund for the commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the reformation, I think perhaps this is also the right moment for us not only to remember the wounds on both sides but also to recognize the gifts of the reformation. Perhaps also – this is a heretical question – perhaps to annul or withdraw the excommunication of Martin Luther or of some sort of rehabilitation. Thank you.
Pope Francis: I think that the intentions of Martin Luther were not mistaken. He was a reformer. Perhaps some methods were not correct. But in that time, if we read the story of the Pastor, a German Lutheran who then converted when he saw reality – he became Catholic – in that time, the Church was not exactly a model to imitate. There was corruption in the Church, there was worldliness, attachment to money, to power…and this he protested. Then he was intelligent and took some steps forward justifying, and because he did this. And today Lutherans and Catholics, Protestants, all of us agree on the doctrine of justification. On this point, which is very important, he did not err. He made a medicine for the Church, but then this medicine consolidated into a state of things, into a state of a discipline, into a way of believing, into a way of doing, into a liturgical way and he wasn’t alone; there was Zwingli, there was Calvin, each one of them different, and behind them were who? Principals! We must put ourselves in the story of that time. It’s a story that’s not easy to understand, not easy. Then things went forward, and today the dialogue is very good. That document of justification I think is one of the richest ecumenical documents in the world, one in most agreement. But there are divisions, and these also depend on the Churches. In Buenos Aires there were two Lutheran churches, and one thought in one way and the other…even in the same Lutheran church there was no unity; but they respected each other, they loved each other, and the difference is perhaps what hurt all of us so badly and today we seek to take up the path of encountering each other after 500 years. I think that we have to pray together, pray. Prayer is important for this. Second, to work together for the poor, for the persecuted, for many people, for refugees, for the many who suffer; to work together and pray together and the theologians who study together try…but this is a long path, very long. One time jokingly I said: I know when full unity will happen. – “when?” – “the day after the Son of Man comes,” because we don’t know…the Holy Spirit will give the grace, but in the meantime, praying, loving each other and working together. Above all for the poor, for the people who suffer and for peace and many things…against the exploitation of people and many things in which they are jointly working together.

We don’t even need to get into the theology.  All you need to know is that Luther says X about Justification, and the Catholic Church says Y.  If you believe Luther’s position, you are Lutheran, not Catholic.  This is not some arcane doctrine; it’s the central tenant of the Lutheran confession.
The Catholic teaching on Justification is HERE.  A bunch of stuff Luther said is HERE.
The pope is Lutheran.
The pope cannot be Lutheran.
Red hats, now is the proper time.

inter alia…

Cindy Wooden, CNS: Holiness, within the past few days Cardinal Marx, the German, speaking at a large conference in Dublin which is very important on the Church in the modern world, said that the Catholic Church must ask forgiveness to the gay community for having marginalized these people. In the days following the shooting in Orlando, many have said that the Christian community had something to do with this hate toward these people. What do you think?
Pope Francis: I will repeat what I said on my first trip. I repeat what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says: that they must not be discriminated against, that they must be respected and accompanied pastorally. One can condemn, but not for theological reasons, but for reasons of political behavior…Certain manifestations are a bit too offensive for others, no? … But these are things that have nothing to do with the problem. The problem is a person that has a condition, that has good will and who seeks God, who are we to judge? And we must accompany them well…this is what the catechism says, a clear catechism. Then there are traditions in some countries, in some cultures that have a different mentality on this problem. I think that the Church must not only ask forgiveness – like that “Marxist Cardinal” said (laughs) – must not only ask forgiveness to the gay person who is offended. But she must ask forgiveness to the poor too, to women who are exploited, to children who are exploited for labor. She must ask forgiveness for having blessed so many weapons. The Church must ask forgiveness for not behaving many times – when I say the Church, I mean Christians! The Church is holy, we are sinners! – Christians must ask forgiveness for having not accompanied so many choices, so many families…I remember from my childhood the culture in Buenos Aires, the closed Catholic culture. I go over there, eh! A divorced family couldn’t enter the house, and I’m speaking of 80 years ago. The culture has changed, thanks be to God. Christians must ask forgiveness for many things, not just these. Forgiveness, not just apologies. Forgive, Lord. It’s a word that many times we forget. Now I’m a pastor and I’m giving a sermon. No, this is true, many times. Many times … but the priest who is a master and not a father, the priest who beats and not the priest who embraces, forgives and consoles. But there are many. There are many hospital chaplains, prison chaplains, many saints. But these ones aren’t seen. Because holiness is modest, it’s hidden. Instead it’s a little bit of blatant shamelessness, it’s blatant and you see so many organizations of good people and people who aren’t as good and people who … because you give a purse that’s a little big and look at you from the other side like the international powers with three genocides. We Christians – priests, bishops – we have done this. But also we Christians have Teresa of Calcutta and many Teresa of Calcuttas. We have many servants in Africa, many laity, many holy marriages. The wheat and the weeds. And so Jesus says that the Kingdom … we must not be scandalized for being like this. We must pray so that the Lord makes these weeds end and there is more grain. But this is the life of the Church. We can’t put limits. All of us are saints, because all of us have the Holy Spirit. But we are all sinners, me first of all! Alright. I don’t know if I have replied.

If you speak Truth out of care for souls, you are to blame for Islamic Jihad and marginalizing “gays”.
If you speak Truth out of care for souls, you need to apologize and beg forgiveness.
If you speak Truth out of care for souls, you are the weeds.
“The culture has changed, thanks be to God.”

UPDATE 3 July 2017: I repudiate this post HERE and HERE.

———————————————————————————————————————-
Last week, Ann Barnhardt declared that Pope Benedict XVI is still the reigning pontiff of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, by reason of a defective resignation.  Specifically, that his belief in the creation of a bifurcated Petrine office nullifies his abdication.  Her argument is based on the “substantial error” provision in canon law as the disqualifier for the resignation:

Canon 188
A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.

Read the whole thing HERE.   The central argument is such:

We now know what “substantial error” is.  Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger made a “substantial error” in believing that the papacy could be “expanded” – in this case, bifurcated into a diarchy.  Pope Benedict XVI submitted an invalid resignation not because he was coerced, but because he mistakenly believed and continues to believe that he could at once resign, thus allowing for the election of a successor, and yet still remain a Pope – note the use not of the definite article “the”, but of the indefinite article “a”.  This is SUBSTANTIAL ERROR if ever, ever there were so, and thus, according to Canon 188, Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger’s resignation of 28 February ARSH 2013 was “invalid by the law itself”, and thus, he remains the one and only Roman Pontiff, whether or not he believes it or likes it.

Full disclosure:  I love Ann Barnhardt.  Love her like a sister.  There is no way I can ever repay the debt I owe her for all she has taught me about the Truth.  If even ten percent of the clergy had her faith, her strength, her fearlessness, her CARE FOR SOULS, what a different place the Church would be.
Here’s something else you need to know about Ann.  This girl can see around corners like nobody else I know.  It is quite typical for Ann to be so far out on the curve, that she’ll write something, a prediction that seems beyond implausible, and yet she turns out to be right.  All. The. Time.  So often, in fact, that when she was still on Twitter, her trademark became #toldya.
And so, already knowing that the current score on matters of Church and State is Ann 1000, me zero, let me explain why I believe she is mistaken here.  I can’t actually prove that she is mistaken; her position could indeed end up being right.  But the current set of data points, the presently observable facts, don’t offer conclusive evidence of her claim.  On the contrary, the evidence suggests three other scenarios as more likely than the one Ann describes.
I already wrote about this a few weeks ago when the whole “expanded Petrine office” thing broke HERE.  I will throw in some excerpts here.  First, let’s dispense with the diarchy concept itself, then we’ll address Ann’s argument.

The Petrine office was instituted by God, Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, who is perfect.  Not only is He perfect, He also exists outside of time, because it was He who created time.  John 1:1-3. Time is a construct, just like all other created things.  Being as He is co-eternal with God the Father, Jesus exists both before the beginning of time as well as after the end of time, plus everything in between, AND… it is all happening at once.  All of eternity exists for Him in the same instant.
Without the construct of time, change is impossible.  If this seems to be putting a limit on God’s omnipotence, it does not, because a) in His omnipotence, He could have designed it any way He wanted, b) He designed it this way because that is His will, and c) HE’S PERFECT.
Applying all this to the situation at hand, we can see plainly that Jesus Christ, who is immutable and perfect,  most certainly did NOT institute an imperfect, defective, ‘version 1.0’ of the papacy, not yet beta tested. And he most certainly did NOT, 2000 years later, send the Third Person of the Holy Trinity down to Benedict in a Geek Squad van to deliver ‘version 2.0’, with bug fixes, increased compatibility, and an enhanced user interface.
Furthermore, ponder the idea that a human being, even a pope, could have the authority to alter the intrinsic nature of the divinely instituted Petrine office, in order to make it more perfect than God made it.

So the concept of the diarchy is clearly nonsense.  But does Benedict believe it, and WHEN did he come to believe it? This is the crucial element of Ann’s argument.  Can we find any indication of the diarchy concept in Benedict’s statement of resignation or in his actions in the weeks and months immediately before or after? Here is the relevant portion of the resignation statement, 11 February 2013.  (everything I’m quoting is on vatican.va)

After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.

Benedict gave this address in Latin, so we better have a look at that too.

Conscientia mea iterum atque iterum coram Deo explorata ad cognitionem certam perveni vires meas ingravescente aetate non iam aptas esse ad munus Petrinum aeque administrandum. Bene conscius sum hoc munus secundum suam essentiam spiritualem non solum agendo et loquendo exsequi debere, sed non minus patiendo et orando. Attamen in mundo nostri temporis rapidis mutationibus subiecto et quaestionibus magni ponderis pro vita fidei perturbato ad navem Sancti Petri gubernandam et ad annuntiandum Evangelium etiam vigor quidam corporis et animae necessarius est, qui ultimis mensibus in me modo tali minuitur, ut incapacitatem meam ad ministerium mihi commissum bene administrandum agnoscere debeam. Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse.

I just don’t see anything here.  There is nothing to suggest he is doing anything other than resigning outright.
So what came next?  What about the days after this earth shattering announcement? Three days later, Benedict addressed the clergy of Rome.  This is the address on Vatican II, where he condemned the “Council of the media” and its assorted disasters.  Here is the first sentence of that address:

For me it is a particular gift of Providence that, before leaving the Petrine ministry, I can once more see my clergy, the clergy of Rome.

He’s leaving the Petrine ministry.  Punto.
Two weeks later, on the final day of his pontificate, he greeted the faithful of the diocese of Albano:

You know that this day is different for me from the preceding ones. I am no longer the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church, or I will be until 8:00 this evening and then no longer. I am simply a pilgrim beginning the last leg of his pilgrimage on this earth.

Until 8:00 this evening and then no longer.  A simple pilgrim thereafter.
Finally, from his farewell address to the cardinals later that day:

I shall continue to be close to you with my prayers, especially in these coming days, that you may be completely docile to the action of the Holy Spirit in the election of the new pope. May the Lord show you the one whom he wants. And among you, in the College of Cardinals, there is also the future pope to whom today I promise my unconditional reverence and obedience.

Having found no evidence that the concept of a papal diarchy was in the mind of Benedict at the time of his abdication, we must conclude that this cannot be considered grounds for its nullification, unless Benedict himself claims to have been thinking this way at that time.  If he were to stake that claim, he would also have to explain why his words suggest the contrary in all his public utterances 11 Feb – 28 Feb 2013.

So we are back to the three options I laid out in the original essay:

1. BXVI validly resigned, followed by a conclave where Francis was validly elected
2. BXVI was forced out under threat, rendering his resignation invalid, followed by an invalid conclave where Francis was, a jure, invalidly elected
3. BXVI validly resigned, followed by a valid conclave where Francis was invalidly elected by a gang who conspired to the end result beforehand (the +Danneels admission)

I admit to hoping at times that Francis is an antipope, and that it won’t take centuries to prove it, because it would indeed explain a great many things, and because although messy, it offers the clearest path to anathematizing the entirety of the last three years.  I also admit that if he is not an antipope, and he also is not deposed and anathematized for his heresies,  I have no idea how the Church goes about explaining away this pontificate with any sense of intellectual honesty. Neither can any of the red hats; that’s why they’re paralyzed.  Lastly, I pray for Francis’ conversion, not only because every soul has infinite value, but because a true conversion would give him a chance to personally and publicly renounce his own heresy.  What a glorious day that would be.

So the official transcript changed what the pope said.  Actually, no it didn’t.  It didn’t change what the pope said, because there is an audiovisual record of what he said, and it’s all over the internet.  He said:

“the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null”

However, in the official written transcript released yesterday, the words “great majority” have become “part of” or “a portion”.  This wasn’t a correction, because a correction gets published as a correction.  This was an attempt to change what was actually said, and not in a subtle way.
If I were to say that a great majority of the earth’s surface was covered by land, you would call me out on it, due to the fact that my claim is demonstrably false.  Upon being called out, if I then claimed that what I actually said was that a portion of the earth’s surface was covered by land, which is demonstrably true, would that be okay?  Would that be a subtle change?  Wordsmithing?  Or would I be directly inverting what I had actually said, turning an obviously false statement into an obviously true statement, all the while maintaining this is what I said in the first place.
I held off writing about this because I couldn’t find the actual transcript anywhere. None of the commentary I’ve found links to it, the closest one being Steve at 1P5 linking to a tweet with a screen capture in Italian HERE.  I wanted to find the actual complete transcript, because hearing that they “corrected” the bit about nullity, and then seeing it be called out by some and dismissed by others, I also wondered about the even bigger bombshell on cohabitation which is getting much less attention.
Finally, I found the transcript. The normal daily bollettino doesn’t show it, it only shows the address itself, not the Q&A.  But you can find it HERE.
The whole episode is revealing on three levels.
First, it always amazes me the ease with which liars gonna lie.  It’s as if habitual liars actually believe their own bullshit.  Like Hillary Clinton claiming she’s never knowingly lied…. she actually might believe that in her own brain. +Lombardi goes out there day after day, actually believing what he is saying, and believing it’s believable to say it.
Second, the Pollyannas persist in their perfunctory poppycock.  John Allen even had the nerve to publish an astonishingly condescending article, excoriating the critics and praising the revision, calling it a “retouching” HERE.  Tell me, is completely inverting the meaning of what was said, without calling it a correction, really mere “retouching”?
Third, all this focus on the nullity comment has drawn attention away from, perhaps intentionally, the actual flaming heresy proclaimed by Francis in the same Q&A.  What does the transcript say?  Because the video clearly shows him saying this:

“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”

Guess what?  That’s exactly what the transcript says.

e sono sicuro che questo è un matrimonio vero, hanno la grazia del matrimonio, proprio per la fedeltà che hanno

They forgot to delete the heresy.
So +Lombardi needs to issue a correction. Certainly what the pope really meant was:

“I’ve seen a lot of fidelity in these cohabitations, but I am sure that this is a trial marriage, they lack the grace of a real marriage despite their fidelity”

Otherwise, a wholesale revision of the CCC is going to be needed, utilizing buckets of wite-out.
Oh wait, someone already thought of THAT.
Maybe they can call it Catechism of the Francis Church.

Or, as I have written dozens of times, the Diabolical Inversion of Truth.  I don’t know where this papacy is headed, but whatever it is, we are now sprinting towards it.

“the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null”

That’s right, the “great majority” of human beings are incapable of entering into a valid sacramental marriage.  God created the sacred institution of marriage, created it specifically for humans, created it perfectly because He Himself is perfect, yet today the pope says the great majority of humans are incapable of contracting marriage. Because they don’t know what they are doing.
Where does one even begin?
I’m not attaching links, because I’m late to this and there has already been a lot of commentary.  Frankly, I don’t have much to add to what I’ve already seen out there.
Note that he is specifically referring to “our sacramental marriages”.  So he is excluding not only natural marriages, but also, it would seem, sacramental marriages outside the Church.  He’s talking about Catholic marriages, possibly to include mixed marriages as well (one spouse Catholic, the other a baptized non-Catholic).
The distinction is important, because IMHO one could make a case today that many, many marriages in proddy world, and certainly in the civil realm, are very questionable for one simple reason:  Divorce is on the table before the marriage is even consummated.  Not just divorce, mind you, but so-called “no-fault” divorce.  Walk away for any reason or no reason at all.  Can someone really take their vow seriously, even as they are speaking it, when they know (or rather think) that divorce is a legitimate option from day one?  I guess that is another topic.
Notice also the absolute concrete nature of what he said.  He’s not proposing this as a possibility.  He’s stating it as fact. “The great majority of our sacramental marriages are null.”  Talk about having the humility and the ambition.  It’s unbelievable. Of course, we all should have seen this coming, since the groundwork had already been laid with previous statements and Chapter Eight of AL.
There are such grave implications here.

• It means we need to presume at the outset that any particular marriage is null, then try to find evidence to the contrary
• It stands the tribunal process on its head
• It is a grave scandal to the spouses to encourage them to think it is more likely their union is null, discouraging them from sacrificing and striving for perfection
• Think of the harm this will cause children
• It makes the Church complicit, abrogates the sacrament itself, because why is She marrying this “great majority” of people She knows have impediments to marriage?!!

Not satisfied with overturning the Church’s millennial presumption of validity, Pope Francis goes full monty, or rather full diabolical inversion of truth, with his institution of the sacrament of cohabitation.

“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”

So according to Francis, public fornication is full of grace and is a real marriage, but chances are your sacramental marriage is not real.  This is straight from the pit of Hell.
Again, not a lot of nuance here. Not “maybe”, not “possibly.”  No.  “I am sure that this is a real marriage” and “They have the grace of a real marriage”.  It is flat out heresy, to the point where you have to wonder if the man is so astonished at what he’s already gotten away with, he just can’t resist throwing out bigger and bigger heresies to see if anyone challenges him.
Well, red hats, when will you rise up?

Francis, 9 June 2016 HERE:

It is not Catholic (to say) ‘or this or nothing:’ This is not Catholic, this is heretical.  Jesus always knows how to accompany us, he gives us the ideal, he accompanies us towards the ideal, He frees us from the chains of the laws’ rigidity and tells us: ‘But do that up to the point that you are capable.’ And he understands us very well.  He is our Lord and this is what he teaches us.

Trent, 13 January 1547 HERE:

For God commands not impossibilities, but, by commanding, admonishes thee both to do what thou art able, and to pray for what thou art not able, and aids thee that thou mayest be able; whose commandments are not grievous; whose yoke is sweet and whose burden light…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.

About those “ideals”, those “Chains of the law”, remember, morality is always dreadfully complicated to a man who has lost all his principles….HERE.

I could speculate further, but I really have no idea what Benedict is up to here in terms of an endgame.  It seems like a course of last resort.  He knows it’s all gone terribly wrong, time is short, and it’s better to do something, anything, rather than sit there and do nothing. He’s thinking about his Particular Judgement, to be sure.
Mr. Verrecchio thinks the concept, in the mind of Benedict, is rooted in the novel teaching of Lumen Gentium.  LG elevated the teaching authority of the bishops, which, supposedly, in modernist machinations, elevated the papacy at the same time HERE.  Of course, this concept had already been proposed and debated vigorously at the First Vatican Council, and finally put down with Pio Nono’s famous “I am the Tradition.”
Before we get further into this, please remember that the Catholic world was not turned upside down in February 2013.  The Catholic world hit the iceberg decades earlier, and has been sinking steadily since, even if the sinking had appeared to slow for a brief time under Benedict.  If you don’t yet understand that Francis was inevitable, start HERE.  Then decide on the red or blue pill.
Don’t waste a lot of time saying to yourself, “Well, I just need to meditate on this a little deeper.  Benedict is so smart (yes, he is) I just need to push my tiny brain a little harder. A Contemplative Pope versus an Active Pope.  Two heads must be better than one!”
Instead, push your brain a little harder on the next paragraph.
Let’s talk about Immutability. The Petrine office was instituted by God, Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, who is perfect.  Not only is He perfect, He also exists outside of time, because it was He who created time.  John 1:1-3. Time is a construct, just like all other created things.  Being as He is co-eternal with God the Father, He exists both before the beginning of time as well as after the end of time, plus everything in between, AND… it is all happening at once.  All of eternity exists for Him in the same instant. Without the construct of time, change is impossible.  If this seems to be putting a limit on God’s omnipotence, it does not, because a) in His omnipotence, He could have designed it any way He wanted, b) He designed it this way because that is His will, and c) HE’S PERFECT.
Applying all this to the situation at hand, we can see plainly that Jesus Christ, who is immutable and perfect,  most certainly did NOT institute an imperfect, defective, ‘version 1.0’ of the papacy, not yet beta tested. And he most certainly did NOT, 2000 years later, send the Third Person of the Holy Trinity down to Benedict in a Geek Squad van to deliver ‘version 2.0’, with bug fixes, increased compatibility, and an enhanced user interface.
Furthermore, ponder the idea that a human being, even a pope, could have the authority to alter the intrinsic nature of the divinely instituted Petrine office, the Vicar of Christ, in order to make it more perfect than God made it.
Please make it stop.

UPDATE 12 April 2018 – I repudiated what follows in this post on 3 July 2017

Only three possibilities exist for the “situation” of the current papacy.

1. BXVI validly resigned, followed by a conclave where Francis was validly elected
2. BXVI was forced out under threat, rendering his resignation invalid, followed by an invalid conclave where Francis was, a jure, invalidly elected
3. BXVI validly resigned, followed by a valid conclave where Francis was invalidly elected by a gang who conspired to the end result beforehand (the +Danneels admission)

#1 seems less and less likely, given a great many things, although this is what Benedict himself has insisted upon up until now.  It’s also what 99% of the Catholic world believes, and the only version you’re allowed to talk about at the parish social.
I think there are multiple reasons to believe #2 is true, from threats to shut the bank to Vatileaks.  But when asked directly about concerns his resignation may have been coerced, Benedict called the idea “absurd”, so I don’t think this is going anywhere.
#3 seems most likely, weighing all the observable facts.  It’s a bombshell.  It would mean that Francis, +Danneels, and all the co-conspirators at the conclave have been excommunicated since 2013.  This scenario has lots of benefits, like being able to wipe the entire Franciscan era off the books.  In fact, it may be the only way, since I’m not seeing any kind of “imperfect synod” coming together to charge him with heresy and depose him. But it doesn’t, by itself,  fix the root problem; it’s only a start.
The entire Great Facade must be torn down.
 

Only the Italian text has thus far published, but Vatican Radio offered this small snippet in English:

In a new Apostolic Letter, issued motu proprio, Pope Francis has established new norms providing for the removal of Bishops (or those equivalent to them in Canon Law) from their offices in cases where they have “through negligence, committed or omitted acts that have caused grave harm to others, either with regard to physical persons, or with regard to the community itself.”

This is being spun by +Lombardi as relating specifically to the abuse of minors.  Which is exactly what the pope wants you and the press to believe.  Count me doubtful.
Go read the full release HERE.
First of all, this has nothing to do with retroactive punishment. “Father Lombardi noted that because the Apostolic Letter concerns new procedural norms, the question of retroactivity does not apply.”  It will only apply to new situations after 5 Sept.
Second, “the “lack of diligence” necessary for removal from office can exist even be “without grave moral fault” on the part of the Bishop.”
Third, it’s going to be oh so collegial, with “a new “dedicated College of jurists”, which will assist the Holy Father before he makes a definitive decision. Father Lombardi said the College would be expected to be composed of Cardinals and Bishops.”
Now let’s go back to the first quote block, tidy it up a bit, and maybe you’ll see where this is going.

Pope Francis has established new norms for the removal of Bishops where they “through negligence have caused grave harm to the community itself.”

Still not seeing it?  Well, in other news…

Archbishop Chaput to lead USCCB response to Amoris Laetitia HERE and HERE.

“Our goal is to gather what the bishops of the USA are doing and share that information with the other bishops, and then also send a report to Cardinal (Lorenzo) Baldisseri who has asked for reports from the various conferences.”

This ain’t gonna be no Humanae Vitae, where Truth is promulgated and then ignored.  No.  AL is where error is promulgated and then ENFORCED. We already know exactly where +Baldisseri stands, with his numerous heretical statements disputing the immutability of the Church and Her teachings. So really the only mystery that remained was how the new paradigm would be enforced.  Now we know.  Any bishop failing to implement the heresy with full force in his diocese will “through negligence have caused grave harm to the community itself.” He will be tried and convicted by a college of his peers, then deposed by the pope.
I am calling it right now.
 

#AmorisLaetitia

The silence continues to be deafening.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider has responded to The Remnant’s open letter to him regarding AL.  It is a bombshell.  The Remnant publishes the response on their website HERE.  This is nothing less that a bishop of the Catholic Church calling out the Holy Father for preaching heresy, or at the very least, purposely promoting deception.  Maybe not outright, but certainly in so many words.

“I am agreeing with your observations as to those expressions in AL (“Amoris laetitia”), and especially in its VIII’s chapter, which are highly ambiguous and misleading. In using our reason and in respecting the proper sense of the words, one can hardly interpret some expressions in AL according to the holy immutable Tradition of the Church.”

This is a really big deal.  Yet I can’t seem to find ANYONE reporting on it, not even so-called Catholic blogs, news services, etc.  Go right now and search for “bishop schneider responds to remnant.”  Crickets!
I will write more on the substance of the original open letter, and this his response. But first I just had to notice the crickets.