non veni pacem

This is the open warfare I spoke about a few days ago. It seems the sides will now quickly line up, and we will find out where everyone stands. You also need to figure out where you stand. Standing on the side of Christ is going to become very uncomfortable, very quickly. More on that in a minute. But first, POPCORN.
Bishop Frankiskos Papamanolis, o.f.m. cap, President of the Episcopal Conference of Greece, addressing the Four Cardinals of the Dubia letter: HERE

“Before publishing the document and, still more, before you drew it up, you ought to have presented yourself to the Holy Father Francis and requested that he remove you as members of the College of Cardinals. Further, you should not have made use of the title of “Cardinal” to give prestige to what you have written, and this on account of coherence with your conscience and to alleviate the scandal you have given by writing privately…
I, dearest brothers, am “deeply moved by the true good of your souls”, for your double most grave sin:

• the sin of heresy (and of apostasy? This, in fact, is the way schisms begin in the Church). From your document, it appears clearly that, in practice you do not believe in the supreme magisterial authority of the Pope, strengthened by two Synods of Bishops coming from the whole world. It seems that the Holy Spirit inspires only you and not the Vicar of Christ and not even the Bishops gathered in Synod.
• and also the more grave sin of scandal, given publicly to the Christian people throughout the whole world. Concerning this Jesus has said, “Woe to the man by whom scandal comes” (Mt 18:7). “It would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea” (Mt 18:6).
  Impelled by the charity of Christ, I pray for you. I ask the Lord to enlighten you to accept with simplicity of heart the magisterial teaching of the Holy Father Francis.

I fear that your mental categories will find sophisticated arguments to justify your work, so as not even to consider it a sin to be subjected to the Sacrament of Penance, and that you continue to celebrate every day the Holy Mass and to receive sacrilegiously the Sacrament of the Eucharist, while you are scandalized if, in specific cases, a divorced and remarried person receives the Eucharist, and you dare to accuse the Holy Father Francis of heresy.”

Well, that’s quite the smackdown. I can picture Francis pounding his fist on the desk LOLing as he wrote read this.
Now would be a great time for all the Pollyannas to revisit and correct their assessments of Amoris Laetitia and this entire pontificate.
“Popes come and go.”
“Off the cuff comments are meaningless.”
“The document isn’t Magisterial.”
“He must have been misquoted.”
“He must have been mistranslated.”
“He must have been misunderstood.”
Guys, the middle ground is undergoing the flamethrower treatment. There is no middle ground.  You are going to have to choose one side or the other.
Anyway, LiarCardinal Cupich must have felt totally outdone by the Greek bishop.  All he could muster about the Four Cardinals was this:

“I think that if you begin to question the legitimacy or what is being said in such a document, do you throw into question then all the other documents that have been issued before by the other popes. So I think it’s not for the pope to respond to that, it’s a moment for anyone who has doubts to examine how they got to that position because it is a magisterial document of the Catholic Church.”

If you have doubts about the document, the problem is within yourself, see. Go examine yourself to see how you wretchedly arrived at these doubts. Then settle down and accept the heresy. Don’t worry your pretty little head.
LiarCardinal Tobin:

“The Holy Father is capturing the work of two synods, so if four cardinals say that two synods were wrong, or that somehow the Holy Father didn’t reflect what was said in those synods, I think that should be questioned. … just to simply reduce it to a ‘dubium,’ I think it is at best naive.”

No, this is a lie.  Francis is not capturing the work of two synods.  He rigged the synods, still couldn’t come up with the votes he needed, so then forced the provisions into AL anyway.
The third of the American Triumvirate, LiarCardinal Farrell, couldn’t manage to make a comment today. He pushed away a microphone when the questions were asked. But I’m sure we will be hearing MUCH more from him shortly, in his official new position.
On the very day that Amoris Laetitia was released, 8 April 2016, I made this comment:

“The situation cannot be hyperbolized.  It is so, so, bad.  It affirms, for the most stubborn Pollyanna, that +Francis was the driving force behind the absolute worst of what went down in the synods.  That +Francis intends to institutionalize sacrilege, destroy three sacraments, and renounce Divine Immutability.  It’s kinda serious.”

For a brilliant assessment of where we stand and what is coming, you MUST read the latest from Hilary White over at The Remnant.  It is not comfortable, but you must: HERE

Four days after the U.S. election, I asked and answered the following question:
“Could the Electoral College pick Hillary?
“Yes, they could.” HERE

“You do realize there were already electors, before the election took place, who stated, for the record, that they would never, ever vote for Trump if he won. Yeah, go google that.  Now, for every one of them who dared to speak out, how many, many more of them must there be who kept quiet?  Somebody is going to figure out it is indeed possible to rig the this. It is being worked on right now, without any question.”

We also already knew the tactic they would employ to pull this off:

“The second and more important reason the Electoral College exists is in the event a person with a lack of character – unfit for the office – should win the vote.
See where this is going?
If you think that Hillary’s lack of character is far worse than Trump’s, well I have news for you. It doesn’t matter that you’re right.  These people think Trump is the most vile human being ever. Go look at youtube for 15 minutes. Not only that, but didn’t you notice that the entire GOP establishment was against Trump?  There are dozens and dozens of RINO electors just begging for the right combination of bribes and promises to flip their vote. The best part is, they’ll get to bathe their treachery in the soothing warmth of “following their conscience.””

Since that post, a few news items have emerged. As you read through what is happening, keep in mind that in the majority of states, it is the winning PARTY who nominates the electors, not the winning CAMPAIGN.
From The American Catholic: HERE
In Georgia, Secretary of State Brian Kemp issued a statement today asking people to stop threatening his state’s electors:

Our office has received numerous reports of individuals hurling insults and threats at Georgia’s Electors because they are unsettled with America’s choice for President of the United States. This is absolutely unacceptable and those participating in or encouraging these efforts should stop. The electoral process in America has worked, and everyone – Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and others – should respect the will of Georgia’s voters and the Electors who represent them.

Idaho‘s Secretary of State made similar comments earlier in the week after reports that the state’s four electors were being barraged with harassing calls and messages. From the Spokesman-Review:

“A lot of ’em use bad, rough language,” said Layne Bangerter, one of the four electors. “Nothing I feel intimidated over. But we’re watching it very closely. They’ve got our home phone numbers, our cell numbers, our emails, our Facebook. We’re just getting an orchestrated barrage from the left.”…
Bangerter, who worked for U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo for more than a decade, said he’s received around 40 messages on Facebook alone. “They attack my religion, they attack my politics, they tell me that I must be a terrible father, I must be a terrible American, they use foul language – every swear word,” he said. “They’re just trying to steal this thing. They won’t be able to do it, but they’re trying.”

In Tennessee, electors told the Tennessean they were receiving 200 emails a day:

Several members of Tennessee’s Electoral College delegation told The Tennessean this week they’ve received as many as 200 emails per day and a handful of phone calls. Electors in other states told the Tennessean they too have received similar barrages of email.
“Certainly I would call it harassment,” said Pat Allen of Clarksville, Tennessee’s Electoral College representative for the 7th Congressional District.

In Arizona, electors say they are facing “total harassment” from mostly out-of-state emails. From the Arizona Republic:

Robert Graham, chairman of the state Republican Party and an elector, said the emails are mostly coming from out of state and appear to be part of a coordinated effort to try to deny Trump the presidency by swaying enough electors to back anyone but him…
“It is total harassment,” said Graham, who estimates he has received about 1,700 such emails and letters. “It started about a week ago. Now? Bam. It’s hardcore.”…
Sharon Geise, an elector from Mesa, said the emails have also flooded her inbox. She estimates she has received 8,000. Many of them are similar.
“Hillary’s got a great campaign going,” she said. “It’s the same thing, pretty much. Basically: Vote for Hillary Clinton. It’s bizarre. I don’t dare answer my phone.”

A similar flood of harassing emails was received by an elector in Iowa.
Meanwhile, in Michigan 22-year-old elector Michael Banerian has been receiving death threats. From the Detroit News:

“You have people saying ‘you’re a hateful bigot, I hope you die,’ ” he said. “I’ve had people talk about shoving a gun in my mouth and blowing my brains out. And I’ve received dozens and dozens of those emails. Even the non-threatening-my-life emails are very aggressive.”
The Detroit News verified one message containing a death wish and another containing a death threat, in which the person told Banerian he would “put a bullet” in his mouth. Banerian said he deleted the rest of the emails and messages “because as you can imagine they’re clogging up my email.”

 
From NBC DFW: HERE

The 38 Texans who will vote are all Republicans, because Donald Trump won Texas, but they don’t have to vote for Trump. In Texas, unlike some other states, electors may change their mind, and it has Democrats from around the country urging them to do just that, said Alex Kim, an elector for Texas’ 24th Congressional District.

“At first everyone was kinda enchanted by it,” Kim said. “Now all the electors are starting to get beaten down. There are some electors who have been threatened with harm or with death.”

Kim was named an elector at the Republican Party of Texas State Convention. Since the election, he said he has been receiving thousands of e-mails a day from all across the county.

“Usually the Electoral College is very ceremonial. You’re there, you cast your vote and you’re done…I had no idea it would be like this,” Kim said.

From The Detroit News: HERE

Michael Banerian wants to show that young adults still have faith in the political system, but he said his selection as one of Michigan’s 16 Electoral College voters has prompted emails urging him to vote for Democrat Hillary Clinton and even threatening death…Trump’s opponents have deluged Banerian and other GOP electors with pleas and nasty emails to reverse course and cast their ballots for Clinton, according to the Michigan Republican Party.
“You have people saying ‘you’re a hateful bigot, I hope you die,’ ” he said. “I’ve had people talk about shoving a gun in my mouth and blowing my brains out. And I’ve received dozens and dozens of those emails. Even the non-threatening-my-life emails are very aggressive.”
The Detroit News verified one message containing a death wish and another containing a death threat, in which the person told Banerian he would “put a bullet” in his mouth…
Another elector, Kenneth Crider, said he hasn’t received any death threats or intimidating emails but has gotten more than 300 emails from people in other states asking him to vote for Clinton instead of Trump on Dec. 19.
The 51-year-old heating and air conditioning professional from Livonia said many of the emails were from teachers and professors trying to explain to him the gravity of the situation, urging him to change his mind.

And from Oath Keepers, in case you think I’m making too much of this: HERE

CALL TO ACTION: Oath Keepers Pledge to Protect Electors from Terrorist Death Threats
OFFER OF PROTECTION TO ELECTORS: Oath Keepers is hereby issuing a standing offer of volunteer protection to any of the Electoral College Electors who may feel threatened or in danger from leftist radicals attempting to coerce them into changing their vote as Electors.
 
All communications and requests from electors will be kept in the strictest confidence, and only vetted, trusted, qualified Oath Keepers members will be dispatched to provide security.
That protection can be overt or covert, or a combination of those two postures, at the discretion of the Elector after consultation with our security team leaders, and will consist of our unpaid volunteer retired police officers and experienced combat veterans with personal security detail training and experience. We can, and will, provide this protection from now through their vote on December 19. 2016, and even thereafter if they still feel threatened by terrorists seeking reprisal and punishment for the Electors not bending to their will.
CALL TO ACTION: Due to the gravity of the threat to our Republic from terrorists attempting to steal the election through coercion, this is also a call to action to our state and local leaders, and in particular to our Community Preparedness Team (CPT) leaders, to prepare security details in each of the targeted states to be on standby for immediate deployment if a request for protection comes in from an Elector.
WHY WE ARE DOING THIS: In the wake of President-Elect Donald Trump’s victory on Election Night, Republican Electors across the country have received an increasing wave of harassment and threats, in the form of phone calls, emails, messages on social media, and even in-person visits to their homes, by leftists who seek to pressure those Electors into changing their votes from Trump to Clinton when the Electoral College meets on December 19, 2016. Such harassment and threats intensified after anti-Trump groups published online the names, addressed, phone numbers, emails, gender, and race of Republican Electors in states that went for Trump.

As I stated in the original post, I think a much more likely scenario is using the threat of overturning the election as a blackmail tactic against Trump.
We shall see.  Or maybe we won’t.

What a year it has been.
I’ve been a bit overwhelmed with the events in Rome the past few days, and tomorrow will apparently bring added heresy with the publication of another Apostolic Exhortation. The pace of events, just when you think we are already at flank speed, continues to accelerate.
Let’s reflect back to last Advent, as the false mercy had just descended upon us. I wrote a post warning about the heresy. Some of it was quite prophetic, I’m sorry to say:

“The mercy offered is done so seemingly without any need for contrition.  No worries, you are just fine remaining in your sin, stay right where you are, the Church will come out to the “margins” and meet you there.  Then, we will accompany you back and feed you the Lamb of God, because you’ll be hungry from the journey.
That’s not mercy.  That’s a diabolical inversion of Luke 15:21. It’s as if the father saw the prodigal son in the distance, copulating with a harlot, and killed the fatted calf anyway.
This is what happens when you have vast numbers of clergy, many with red hats (or white), who don’t actually believe in the Real Presence. If they did, there is no way we get to this point.”

Regarding the state of the souls of men who think this way:

“Not only do they not believe the harder truths, they are EMBARRASSED by all of it.  So out of touch, you know. How in the world do you expect us to move about in polite society with all this talk of Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity, SIN, contrition, penance, mortification, firm purpose of amendment, CONVERSION? Are you out of your mind? Here, wrap all that nonsense up in this nice felt banner of Mercy, you’ll feel better.
Here’s the thing. At the end of the day, having the faith means believing ALL OF IT. Until your conscience is formed, molded, fired and cured around this concept, you are lost. Most of us have been on the other side at some point, so we understand how they think, and why they believe what they believe (or don’t). Our culture is so drenched in the errors of modernism, it all should be so obvious to anyone with a brain. But they can’t see what we see, because they refuse the graces being offered to them. They refuse to be converted, choosing narcissism instead.”

Regarding where this is going:

“Back to the question of sacrilegious Communion. With the world growing stranger by the day, I find myself distracted in prayer, with thoughts of tactical measures and wondering how it all ends. I mean, I know it all ends in total victory, which is great sustenance. But I’m talking about the actual “how”. If we wind up with the vast majority of Masses ending in sacrilege, not only with the communicants in mortal sin but also the priests themselves intentionally committing sacrilege, then I’m pretty sure that will be the Abomination of Desolation we’ve all been wondering about. And no faithful Catholic can be a part of that.”

That was five months before Amoris Laetitia came out. I had help from other bloggers, who are credited on the original post.
Read the rest HERE.

New Archbishop of Newark and Cardinal-designate (red hat in less than 12 hours) Joseph Tobin chimes in:

“Amoris Laetitia cannot simply be reduced to a question of ‘yes or no’ in a specific pastoral situation. The Holy Father is capturing the work of two synods so if four cardinals say that two synods were wrong, or that somehow the Holy Father didn’t reflect what was said in those synods, I think that should be questioned. He believes that what he published is rooted deeply in that reflection, which was not an easy one. I was not a member of that synod but reading the documents and knowing a little about the participants, I realise it was not easy but you are dealing with difficult pastoral questions. Just to simply reduce it to a “dubium”, I think it is at best naive.”

Instead, Cardinal-elect Tobin explained, Amoris Laetitia is about “addressing the challenges Catholics in their moral life and their ministers face” and trying to show that “it isn’t simply a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ [but] a whole manner of arriving at the proper conclusion for an individual”.  HERE

“Addressing the challenges Catholics…face” — you mean, like, the Commandments? Because those are pretty much full of Yesses (Thou Shalt) and Nos (Thou Shalt Not).

Also, since you weren’t at the synod, let me remind you that massive numbers of cardinals and bishops voted against the very provisions in question, but then Francis included those in the Post Relatio anyway, and finally into Amoris Laetitia. So these ideas were not at all “rooted deeply in that reflection”, on the contrary, a massive battle took place.

+Tobin is another one of these “One of the heads of the beast appeared to be fatally wounded. But the mortal wound was healed, and the whole world was astonished” from Rev 13:3. After serving as Superior General of the Redemptorists, he was appointed to a curial role. But then he got bounced by BXVI, less than three years into his assignment, for intentionally botching the visitation into the apostate LCWR and then trying to block the report from the CDF. He was sent packing from Rome to Indiana in what was an obvious rebuke and demotion.

At the very start of his curial role, answering a question about the relationship between Rome and the particular churches, he said this:

“But my hope is that the Vatican’s relationship with the local churches can be a sort of creative tension. I think life without tension would be very boring and useless…The challenge is to recognise the diversity of gifts and the plurality of churches and the one spirit that unites us. And I think that is the adventure of a lifetime.” HERE

In August of 2011, with the LCWR at the height of the blowback from the pantsuit sisters, +Tobin went public by blaming the Vatican for all the troubles:

Archbishop Tobin, who was appointed as Secretary in May last year, said that the Visitation has nearly finished its work and that the progressive religious orders will have nothing to fear.
“Certainly, on our side of the river or our side of the pond,” he said, “we had created an atmosphere” where the prospect of canonical penalties was thought possible, and in which the possibility that some communities would be closed down “didn’t seem to be so outlandish.”
“It’s like preaching; it’s not what you say, it’s what they hear … and what a lot of these women heard was someone telling them their life was not loyal and faith-filled,” he added.
Shortly after his appointment last year, Archbishop Tobin told veteran Vatican journalist John Allen that he hoped to offer the Vatican a “different picture” of U.S. women religious.
Archbishop Tobin’s comments to CNS are unusual for high-ranking Vatican prelates, who rarely openly criticize their former superiors. He said, “I believe a visitation has to have a dialogical aspect, but the way this was structured at the beginning didn’t really favour that.”
“I’m an optimist, but also trying to be realistic: The trust that should characterize the daughters and sons of God and disciples of Jesus isn’t recovered overnight. I think women religious have a right to say, ‘Well, let’s see,’” he said.  HERE

But in a few hours he will be a cardinal, because old Joey had an ace up his sleeve.  Ten years ago, he spent a week of tender caresses with, you guessed it, Jorge of Buenos Aires, as they sat next to each other in a Spanish language discussion group at a synod of bishops.

One day during a coffee break Tobin told Bergoglio that while they were all happy with the election of then-Pope Benedict XVI, who had become pope a few months earlier after the death of John Paul II, “in all honesty, Cardinal, you were my mother’s favorite candidate” to be chosen. (Bergoglio was reportedly a strong contender in that 2005 conclave.)
Bergoglio was surprised at hearing this. “How does your mother know me?” he asked. Tobin explained: “Well, she read in the newspaper that you pick up after yourself, you cook your food, and you drive a modest car. And frankly, she’s had it up to here with princes of the church!”
Bergoglio laughed, but never forgot. HERE

I wish I could forget this whole wretched mess.

“Red hat? I don’t need no stinking red hat.”
I’m paraphrasing.
Archbishop of Philadelphia and still Not Cardinal Charles Chaput has issued a response to comments from Cardinal-designate Kevin Farrell, former Bishop of Dallas and now the Prefect for Laity, Family and Life. +Farrell, whose central duty in his new role will be the worldwide enforcement implementation of Amoris Laetitia, had already revealed his treacherous intentions in his new role last month:

“I honestly don’t see what and why some bishops seem to think that they have to interpret this document. I believe that the pope has spoken…I think that the document Amoris Laetitia is faithful to the doctrine and to the teaching of the church It is carrying on the doctrine of Familiaris Consortio of John Paul II. I believe that passionately.  Basically this is the Holy Spirit speaking to us.  Do we believe that the Holy Spirit wasn’t there in the first synod? Do we believe he wasn’t in the second synod? Do we believe that he didn’t inspire our Holy Father Pope Francis in writing this document?…I firmly believe this is the teaching of the church. This is a pastoral document telling us how we should proceed. I believe we should take it as it is.”

Here is what he had to say earlier this week regarding +Chaput’s diocesan guidelines on AL, which upheld traditional Catholic teaching:

“I think that it would have been wiser to wait for the gathering of the conference of bishops…I don’t share the view of what Archbishop Chaput did, no. I think there are all kinds of different circumstances and situations that we have to look at – each case as it is presented to us.  I think that is what our Holy Father is speaking about, is when we talk about accompanying, it is not a decision that is made irrespective of the couple. Obviously, there is an objective moral law, but you will never find two couples who have the same reason for being divorced and remarried.” HERE

+Farrell in his own words exposes why he and AL are such frauds. It is simply not possible for a thing to be both true and untrue at the same time. If the “objective moral law” really exists, as +Farrell claims here and the Catholic faith teaches, then the subjective realities of any individual situation have zero impact on the objective moral law, because… YOU CAN’T CHANGE OBJECTIVE REALITY. Reality – it’s really real. Like the physical universe.  Actually, the objective moral law is even MORE real than the physical universe. It predates the physical universe. Honestly, how hard is this? I have an undergraduate degree in Food Marketing, for crying out loud.
Look, I am critical of +Chaput and every other prelate, individually and collectively, for failing to speak more forcefully against Amoris Laetitia. But that doesn’t mean we can’t recognize incremental progress, and this is pretty good stuff. Here is his response to +Farrell (emphasis mine):

“Why would a bishop delay interpreting and applying Amoris Laetitia for the benefit of his people? On a matter as vital as sacramental marriage, hesitation and ambiguity are neither wise nor charitable…I was a delegate to the 2015 synod and then elected and appointed to the synod’s permanent council. So I’m familiar with the material and its context in a way that Cardinal-designate Farrell may not be… I wonder if Cardinal-designate Farrell actually read and understood the Philadelphia guidelines he seems to be questioning. The guidelines have a clear emphasis on mercy and compassion…But mercy and compassion cannot be separated from truth and remain legitimate virtues. The Church cannot contradict or circumvent Scripture and her own magisterium without invalidating her mission. This should be obvious. The words of Jesus himself are very direct and radical on the matter of divorce…Under canon law – not to mention common sense – governance of a diocese belongs to the local bishop as a successor of the apostles, not to a conference…As a former resident bishop, the cardinal-designate surely knows this, which makes his comments all the more puzzling in the light of our commitment to fraternal collegiality.” HERE

I wonder if this response would have been so forceful had +Burke’s interview with Edward Pentin not been released the other day. Maybe the sides will start to finally line up and show themselves? You know, “open warfare”?
Maybe. If you read the whole thing from +Chaput, there are still plenty of tender caresses for Francis, which seems kind of pointless when you’ve just outed yourself to be on the side of Truth.
In honor of the archbishop, I give you the Blunt Force Trauma speech, followed by some Philadelphia fight music:

My previous post ended with the promise of open warfare coming in the near future; in the wake of the Four Cardinals’ letter. But even I did not expect it to arrive so quickly.
In the interview with Edward Pentin released yesterday, Cardinal Burke lays out the reasons for the letter. Obviously intended as a direct strike at the heart of FrancisHeresy contained in Amoris Laetitia, +Burke speaks plainly about what happens next. It’s canonical, it is hostile, and there is no turning back: OPEN WARFARE kiddos:

What happens if the Holy Father does not respond to your act of justice and charity and fails to give the clarification of the Church’s teaching that you hope to achieve?
Then we would have to address that situation. There is, in the Tradition of the Church, the practice of correction of the Roman Pontiff. It is something that is clearly quite rare. But if there is no response to these questions, then I would say that it would be a question of taking a formal act of correction of a serious error.
In a conflict between ecclesial authority and the Sacred Tradition of the Church, which one is binding on the believer and who has the authority to determine this?
What’s binding is the Tradition. Ecclesial authority exists only in service of the Tradition. I think of that passage of St. Paul in the [Letter to the] Galatians (1:8), that if “even an angel should preach unto you any Gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.”
If the Pope were to teach grave error or heresy, which lawful authority can declare this and what would be the consequences?
It is the duty in such cases, and historically it has happened, of cardinals and bishops to make clear that the Pope is teaching error and to ask him to correct it.

The language is in the strongest of terms. Read it all HERE. Think for a moment, if it has come to this, how many private interventions must there have been? Even worse, imagine how disgusting must have been the responses to those private interventions, for it to come down to this?
Now, we do have some questions we need to ask. The first is, what has caused +Burke’s change of heart since April?  When Amoris Laetitia first came out, and the backlash from faithful Catholics was immediate, he famously threw all of us under the bus:

“some Catholic media are describing (AL) as a revolution in the Church, as a radical departure from the teaching and practice of the Church…Such a view of the document is both a source of wonder and confusion to the faithful and potentially a source of scandal…It is also a disservice to the nature of the document as the fruit of the Synod of Bishops” HERE

If you read the whole article from April, he seemed to have been engaged in an absurd exercise of Move Along, nothing to see here. Absurd to the point I wondered if he had actually read the document. So my first question is, if it was clear to him back in April that everything was fine, why now does there need to be correction? Maybe those Catholic media who called it out from the very day of its publication can get some credit?
Contrast the April quote with this from yesterday:

Are you hearing this concern about confusion a lot?
Everywhere I go I hear it. Priests are divided from one another, priests from bishops, bishops among themselves. There’s a tremendous division that has set in in the Church…
Why is Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia of such particular concern?
Because it has been the font of all of these confused discussions…

That is quite a reversal. Did +Burke genuinely not think this was going to happen at the time he made his comments in April? Was he trying in charity to force an orthodox reading of AL? I don’t know how that could be possible, but there are few other ways to explain it.
It’s almost as if he’s had a vision revealing his role in solving this crisis. One thought that popped into my head is, I wonder if he knows the contents of the Third Secret and now sees his role in it.
A final question is whether there will be retractions from others, like Fr. Longenecker, who used +Burke’s April statement to brutally excoriate faithful bloggers.

“Cardinal Burke is right to say they have caused scandal because their self righteous, ignorant and arrogant writings have caused others to stumble, lose faith in the church and to question the authority of the Holy Father and the church they say they love.” HERE

The vindication is satisfying, but that’s hardly what is important here.  What is important is that we finally have a throw down. It’s happening.
 

Full text HERE.
The five “Dubia” are brilliantly written.  Each question requires a straightforward YES or NO answer (although the news itself is extraordinary because of the subject matter, this is the common format used by local conferences to question the Holy See).
So first of all, THANK YOU, Eminences. It feels like the new new springtime. Deo gratias.
In terms of the yes and the no, for each dubia there is a Catholic answer and a heretical answer. No third way, no nuance, no “graduality”. No jesuitical nonsense, please, just provide a simple yes or no.
The “Dubia”:

It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (nn. 300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio n. 84 and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia n. 34 and Sacramentum Caritatis n. 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in note 351 (n. 305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?
After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia (cf. n. 304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor n. 79, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?
After Amoris Laetitia (n. 301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (cf. Mt 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration, June 24, 2000)?
After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (n. 302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor n. 81, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?
After Amoris Laetitia (n. 303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor n. 56, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?

So what we have here are five questions to which the Catholic answers are No, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes. Just as obvious and well-known is the fact that Francis is intentionally subverting orthodox Catholic teaching in these areas.  IT’S NOT CONFUSING.  He affirmed it on the airplane “Si, punto” and he affirmed it to the heretical South American bishops in his response to their letter.
Francis answers Yes, No, No, No, No.
But of course he did not answer the Cardinals’ letter, so now they have made it public.  This isn’t just a signal, this is a beachhead. Francis now knows, beyond a doubt, that his entire pogrom is in peril. He now knows this will schism the Church.
Make popcorn.
Now we are going to find out how much fun open warfare can be.

“One of the heads of the beast appeared to be fatally wounded. But the mortal wound was healed, and the whole world was astonished and followed the beast.” Rev 13:3

Just sayin.
At this hour, the petition on change.org for the Electoral College to hand the presidency to Hillary has surpassed 3,500,000 signatures.  Never mind that its author is foolishly appealing to the “but but but she won the popular vote! No fair!” line of reasoning, which is pure stupidity. Four previous presidents were elected despite losing the popular vote, most recently in 2000. It’s a non-issue.
But boy, that’s a lot of signatures, and the movement hasn’t really started yet.
Those riots?…those aren’t going away. I bet you never thought #LoveTrumpsHate involved so much arson, destruction of property, and beatings.  Whether or not they are being paid, think about the mindset of these people. How twisted up in your own leftist fantasy land must you be, to think that “protests” can or should overturn the legal democratic process?
Or are they on to something? It feels oddly familiar… where have I seen this before?
Oh that’s right…BREXIT! The Remain contingent threw a fit, and immediately called for a do-over. This despite the fact that the referendum document itself, sent to every home in the UK, plainly stated:

“This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide.” HERE

But never mind that, the Remains are now pursuing a legal challenge to unbind the vote and turn it into a mere suggestion to parliament, AND THEY ARE WINNING. This will be seen as an example to be followed.
Trump stands at 290 votes, with NH and MI still being counted. If those go to Hillary, they need to find a way to steal 21 more votes. You do realize there were already electors, before the election took place, who stated, for the record, that they would never, ever vote for Trump if he won. Yeah, go google that.  Now, for every one of them who dared to speak out, how many, many more of them must there be who kept quiet?  Somebody is going to figure out it is indeed possible to rig the this. It is being worked on right now, without any question. To understand why, you need to understand why the Electoral College exists.
The Electoral College was created for two reasons, and unfortunately one of them does come into play here.
The first reason is that direct democracy at a national level is mob rule, and this concerned the Founding Fathers. They didn’t even want direct democracy at the state level when it came to federal authority – senators were not elected by the people until the last century. For a great example of how things can go ‘wrong’ with direct democracy at the national level, refer back to the Brexit referendum.  The Remains were so confident they would win, they stupidly put it on the ballot.Thanks, guys.
The second and more important reason the Electoral College exists is in the event a person with a lack of character – unfit for the office – should win the vote.
See where this is going?
If you think that Hillary’s lack of character is far worse than Trump’s, well I have news for you. It doesn’t matter that you’re right.  These people think Trump is the most vile human being ever. Go look at youtube for 15 minutes. Not only that, but didn’t you notice that the entire GOP establishment was against Trump?  There are dozens and dozens of RINO electors just begging for the right combination of bribes and promises to flip their vote. The best part is, they’ll get to bathe their treachery in the soothing warmth of “following their conscience.”
There are no federal laws prohibiting an elector from changing his pledged vote.  Those who do so are called Faithless Electors, and it has happened several times in the past, although it has never changed the outcome of the presidency. Several states do have laws against this, but most of them are fairly weak. Some states invalidate the flipped vote, some do not. You will need to do some research into this, and also how the electors are chosen in each state, in order to understand where the battlegrounds may be. Start HERE.
I would have immediately suspected PA as a target, having some of the most corrupt state politics in the nation. But the electors in PA are actually chosen not by the winning party, but by the winning candidate. So they will need to look for another large state, or else they could pursue flipping just one or two electors in a large number of states. Would it really be that hard?
The electors meet on 19 December. The ballots are sent to D.C., where a joint session of congress convenes 6 January 2017, when the ballots will be opened, counted, and the name of the new president announced by the President of the Senate, Joe Biden.
Do I really think this will come to pass? No, I don’t. I think it far more likely that the groundwork will be done, the necessary Faithless Electors will be secured for Hillary, and then they will take it to Trump. In a stunning execution of blackmail par excellence, they will secure his pledge to, more or less, maintain the status quote in return for them letting him keep the presidency while avoiding a challenge.
Don’t rock the boat.
Build the wall, but amnesty for all.
Don’t repeal obamacare, parts of it are just fine.
Don’t prosecute Crooked Hillary, we need unity not spite.
Folks, it’s already happening HERE.
 

“It’s midnight in America. The day before fifty million Americans got up and stood in front of the great iron wheel that had been grinding them down. They stood there even though the media told them it was useless. They took their stand even while all the chattering classes laughed and taunted them.
They were fathers who couldn’t feed their families anymore. They were mothers who couldn’t afford health care. They were workers whose jobs had been sold off to foreign countries. They were sons who didn’t see a future for themselves. They were daughters afraid of being murdered by the “unaccompanied minors” flooding into their towns. They took a deep breath and they stood.
They fought back against their jobs being shipped overseas while their towns filled with migrants that got everything while they got nothing. They fought back against a system in which they could go to jail for a trifle while the elites could violate the law and still stroll through a presidential election. They fought back against being told that they had to watch what they say. They fought back against being held in contempt because they wanted to work for a living and take care of their families.
They fought and they won.”

Read the rest HERE.
And for your Democrat friends, send them the following link. It’s from a Libertarian who voted Bernie in the primary and 3rd party in the general (yes, we have entered the age where a Libertarian will vote for an avowed Socialist if he gets to keep his faux libertine “freedoms”):

“Did you read Wikileaks? Well, you should have. The “conspiracies” were true, and the mainstream media lied to you to about everything. Wikileaks has a 10-year record of never releasing a single falsified document, and is not connected to Russia. Everything they released were the actual e-mails of Hillary Clinton and her campaign staff. You had the opportunity to look through a window into the Hillary Clinton campaign, but you didn’t. By ignoring the leaks, you ignored reality.
By not listening to your fellow Americans, and accusing them of being “conspiracy theorists” and trusting the corporate media, you ignored reality. By only following other liberals on social media, and only reading liberal or corporate news, once again ignoring reality. When Hillary Clinton was caught rigging the primary against Bernie Sanders, and Democrats nominated her anyway they ignored reality.
I took it upon myself to understand Trump, and his supporters. What I found was millions of great Americans who had been disenfranchised, normal people like you and I, who did not recover from the Great Recession. They’re pissed off about Obama Care, endless wars, trade deals that have killed jobs, higher taxes, a rigged economy–and, they are not wrong.”

The rest is HERE.
Enjoy the Trump Train one more day, folks. Tomorrow, I’m afraid I need to bring the full weight of the Truth Train down on this party. The imminent persecution may have been delayed, praise be to God, but it’s still coming.