Friday, March 30, 2018

Hellgate: Pope Francis Owes World a Public Denial of the Heretical Words Attributed to him by Scalfari

Pope Francis owes the Church and the whole world a public denial of the heretical words attributed to him by Eugenio Scalfari, a 93-year-old atheist and abortion advocate, that made worldwide headlines.

The Vatican's statement that Scalfari's article is not “faithful” to Francis's exact words is not enough to redress the damage that the Pope has done by allowing this to happen for a second time.

He has to do this for the sake of the millions of persons who read that the Pope denies Hell and now think they don't have to repent.

Francis specifically has to do this for the sake of the elderly atheist and abortion advocate who is close to meeting God the judge.

It appears that the Pope is the abortion advocate's worst enemy.

If Scalfari goes to Hell because either Francis told him there is no hell or because the Pope doesn't rebuke him for lying that the Holy Father said there is no hell and calling him to repentance then the end result is the same for him.

It appears extremely unlikely that Scalfari completely made up or fabricated that Francis, in private, told him there is no hell despite what the Holy Father said on the subject at other times, but for the sake of argument we'll ask what does it mean if the abortion advocate lied about the Pope's words.

All the persons like Scalfari who read in the media of the papal "there is no Hell" statement and don't repent thus ending up in Hell can blame Francis to some extent.

Francis friendly leftist and conservative Catholic media writers who whitewash this latest scandal are not doing the Pope, Scalfari, the Catholic Church or sinners a favor.

In fact, they join Francis in being their worst enemy.

They are joining the Pope in not being Christ-like.

Jesus said there is a Hell and told sinners to repent so they wouldn't go there. He didn't tell sinners to stay in their sins such as lying.

Vatican expert John L. Allen Jr. says Francis allows Scalfari to lie, whether it's due to senility or evil intent, about the Pope's words because he wants "to respect and cherish the elderly":

"First, there’s basically zero plausibility that Francis actually said what Scalfari cites him as saying on Hell..."

"Yes, Burke’s communique says the quotes can’t be trusted, but nowhere does he explicitly come out and say, “The pope didn’t say that and doesn’t believe it.” Why not?..."

"I remember asking a cardinal close to Francis after the first Scalfari “interview” appeared in 2013, the big headline from which was Francis denying that God is Catholic [and denied Hell the first time in this 2013 interview], why the Vatican hadn’t come down harder."

"The cardinal said he’d asked Pope Francis the very same question, and here was the pope’s answer: “You know, by now he [Scalfari] is quite old … we have to be gentle with him,” which is consistent with the pope’s repeated pleas to respect and cherish the elderly." [https://cruxnow.com/news-analysis/2018/03/30/unpacking-a-non-interview-pope-interview-this-time-on-hell/]

The Catholic World Reporter journalist Christopher R. Altieri, while admitting the Holy Father is not Christ-like, says the Pope allows Scalfari to lie about the papal words because of the CWR journalist's incredible and almost insane reasoning that Francis is "willing to expose himself to Scalfari’s outrageous slings for the sake of Scalfari’s own soul":

"For the record: Pope Francis believes in hell. He has preached on hell, warned of hell, threatened evildoers with hell, even explained hell to children..."

"The Pope may believe himself Christ-like in this: willing to expose himself to Scalfari’s outrageous slings for the sake of Scalfari’s own soul, or ready to suffer the venomous arrows of a professionally scandalized coterie of malcontents who accuse him of dining with prostitutes and publicans. Francis is not Christ-like for either: he is Scalfari’s dupe." [http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/03/30/pope-francis-believes-in-hell-and-he-needs-to-stop-talking-to-eugenio-scalfari/]

Both the above writers seem worried about Francis, but not about Scalfari's immortal soul or about all the Scalfari's who read in the media that there is no Hell who can blame Francis, in part, if they end up in Hell.

The Pope needs to rebuke Scalfari for the sake of his immortal soul and all the persons like Scalfari whose souls may be in danger because they think the Pope doesn't believe in Hell so why should they repent from sin.

If Francis doesn't make a public denial of the heretical words attributed to him, rebuke Scalfari and call him to repentance then he needs to resign from the papacy.

Pray an Our Father now for Scalfari's soul and that Francis makes a public denial of the heretical words attributed to him by Scalfari, rebukes him as well as call him to repentance or resigns from the office of the papacy.




    

Barroslettergate to Lettergate to Hellgate Pattern leads to Questions: Who is lying? & Why is there No Flat Denial from the Vatican saying: The Pope didn’t say that and doesn’t Believe it?

There is a pattern emerging as one views Barroslettergate being replaced by Lettergate to the newest Pope Francis scandal per month: Hellgate.

Here is Francis's 2018 scandals per month in review:

In Barroslettergate or the Bishop Juan Barros sex abuse cover-up scandal, Francis said he had not received any evidence about the sex abuse case when a member of his inner circle of nine Cardinals and chief adviser on sex abuse personally deliver a letter of evidence to the Pope.

The question that needed to be asked was:

Who is lying?

In Lettergate, when the Letter came out all of the secular media, all of the leftist Catholic media and surprisingly the conservative Catholic media such as Life Site News as well as the traditional Catholic media such as the Remnant went along with the Francis Vatican's disinformation that Pope Benedict XVI was 100 percent behind Francis's failed papacy after reading 11 books on Francis's teachings.

On the day the letter came out the Catholic bloggers and Canon 212 immediately screamed in headlines that it was obviously fake news.

The question that needed to be asked was:

Who is lying?

The next day, the Vatican in a attempt to show that the Letter wasn't fake admitted that Benedict hadn't read the 11 books, after that they admitted to manipulating the photo and finally the great Vatican expert Sandro Magister, through his sources, revealed that there were missing paragraphs which showed Benedict refused to endorse the books and was angry that the 11 books included a heretical theologian who had attacked him and Pope John Paul Il's Vetitatis Splendor.

Now in Hellgate, the question that needs to be asked is:

Who is lying?

Lawyer Christopher Ferrara put it best:

"This is the second time that Pope Francis, according to Scalfari, has professed the “annihilationist” heresy, the first being Scalfari’s interview of Francis in 2015. Even allowing for Scalfari’s self-admitted tendency to publish interviews with the Pope that are reconstructions rather than verbatim transcripts, the question remains: Is this in substance what the Pope said?"

"At this point, only one sort of denial will suffice: An unequivocal statement that Francis wishes it to be known that the words attributed to him by his friend are a total fabrication and that in no way, shape or form did Francis profess that there is no hell and that the souls of the damned are merely annihilated upon death."


"But that is exactly the denial we have not received. Vatican press spokesman Greg Burke instead offered this slithery equivocation (my translation):

'The Holy Father recently received the founder of the daily La Repubblica in a private meeting on the occasion of Easter, without however granting him an interview. What is referred to by the author of today’s article is the fruit of his reconstruction, in which the exact words spoken by the Pope are not cited. No quotations in the aforementioned article should therefore be considered as a faithful transcription of the words of the Holy Father.'”

"This 'denial' is essentially a confirmation that the Pope said something of the kind — the second time he has done so — even if the quotation is not precisely verbatim. There is no flat denial that the Pope believes in annihilationism. As for the claim that Francis had not granted an interview to a journalist who was asking him a series of questions for the fifth time, which is hardly credible, this is at best an implicit admission that Francis said something in private that he did not wish to be made public."[http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/fe/perspective1179.asp"]    


Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.




Tuesday, March 27, 2018

Pope Francis's Judas-like Betrayal of Chinese Catholics has First Victim: Bishop Guo Xijin Kidnapped then Released by Police & now Banned from saying Mass by Regime

It seems fitting that in Holy Week the first Chinese Christ-like victim is send to his Calvary by Pope Francis's partner, the Chinese Communist regime, in the papal Judas-like betray of the Chinese Catholics.

Sadly, Francis's partnership is the right word because without his approval none of this could be happening.

Today, Asia News reported:

Underground Bishop of "Mindong, Msgr. [Vincent] Guo Xijin kidnapped by [Chinese Communist] police before Easter... after refusing to concelebrate during these Easter holidays with illegitimate bishop Zhan Silu... one of seven illegitimate and excommunicated bishops awaiting reconciliation with the Pope" due to his papal diplomatic action. (AsiaNews.it, "Mindong, Msgr. Guo Xijin kidnapped by the police before Easter," March 27, 2017)

Chinese Cardinal Joseph Zen asked the following question about Francis's diplomatic action:

"[T]oday would our diplomats advise Joseph to go and humbly beg for dialogue with Herod?"

The papal answer is apparently yes.

As a commenter on the Catholic Monitor with the tag of Jac said:

"I would compare this evil deed of the Pope towards the Chinese Catholics to the kissing by Judas."

"I am ashamed that nobody among the high ranking Cardinals has dared to protest."

-Update March 28, 2018-

Bishop Msgr. Guo Xijin was released by Chinese Communist police and now" [p]olice have banned him from celebrating Mass as bishop." (AsiaNews.it, " Mindong, Msgr. Guo is back, but banned from celebrating Mass as bishop," March 28, 2018)

Say a Our Father now for the suffering Chinese Catholics and Bishop Guo Xijin as well as that every person on earth with a shred of decency cry out against this profoundly immoral "diplomatic" action of Pope Francis and Cardinal Parolin.




Sunday, March 25, 2018

Instead of Nazi-like Gun Control Marches & Rallies, Public Schools need to be Reformed or Outlawed to Stop School Shootings




Newsweek says Pope Francis is apparently signaling approval of the youth gun control march:

"With the 'March for our Lives' rally fresh in the minds of hundreds of thousands of gun control supporters who took to U.S. streets in protest this weekend, the leader of the Catholic Church [Pope Francis] has called on young people not let themselves be silenced." [http://www.newsweek.com/pope-francis-after-march-our-lives-church-leader-wants-youth-keep-shouting-859735]

Fr. Z, also, noted the "coincidence" between the march and "a document [that] was released from the Pre-Synodal Meeting of Young People in Rome" on the same day:

"On the same day that in Washington DC there is a "march" staged by talking-point saturated young people about – call it what it is – undermining the 2nd Amendment rather than upholding it, a document was released from the Pre-Synodal Meeting of Young People in Rome... The coincidence of the march and the document struck me, on the eve of Palm Sunday.  Pueri hebraeorum… a few days later turn into a mob that chooses Barabbas.  I’m not necessarily making a connection, of course... Reasoned discourse and facts have been pitched in sacrifice to the volcano god of teen emotions." [http://wdtprs.com/blog/2018/03/of-dc-gun-marches-young-people-synods-and-volcano-sacrifices/]

Natural News editor Mike Adams saw in this "volcano god of teen emotions" a parallel with the “Hitler Youth” rallies:

"The 'Hitler Youth' invasion of Washington D.C. took place today as young fascists-in-training were corralled into the nation’s capitol to demand that government authoritarians strip away the civil liberties of all law-abiding Americans in the name of 'gun control.'"

"Just like Hitler Youth enthusiasts, these fascists-in-training are told they’re “saving lives” for “a better future,” and that the only thing standing in their way is a bunch of violent gun owners who want to murder every baby in sight. (The irony of all these left-wingers actually condoning the abortion murder of babies, of course, is completely missed in all this.)"

"What none of these children are being told, of course, is that Hitler took away gun rights from the Jews before exterminating six million of them in the Holocaust. It’s so much easier to commit genocide, Hitler discovered, when the people you’re tying to murder can’t fight back. Echoing the madness of the Third Reich, the propagandist-in-chief of today’s lunatic Left anti-gun movement is David Hogg, a profanity-laced, foulmouthed student who is seething with anger and seems forever on the verge of outright calling for all gun owners to be exterminated by the government." [https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-03-24-hitler-youth-student-gun-control-march-invades-washington-follows-in-the-footsteps-of-nazis-who-disarmed-the-jews-before-the-holocaust.html]

Pope Francis and the Media, if they really want to stop school shootings, instead of apparently attempting to coordinate youth against the Second Amendment, should be teaching the Ten Commandments which are outlawed in public schools.

If they really want to stop shootings, they need to realize that public schools more than guns need to be reformed or outlawed.

We need to remember that market researcher, C. Britt Beemer, thought that the Columbine shooting had changed our country's mindset. His surveys show 70% of parents now think danger in schools will continue to increase. “Informed parents” are, also, dissatisfied with public school's drugs, peer pressure, and poor teaching. He sees a trend towards single income families and home schooling.

After 50 years of feminist propaganda, parents appear to be realizing that children are smarter and healthier when they spend more time with them. After 150 years of education propaganda, parents are beginning to see public schools as unsafe to the moral, intellectual, and bodily safety of their kids.

John Taylor Gatto — former New York City and State Teacher of the Year — documents how the education system purposely has created a mass of illiterates. His book, The Underground History of American Education, demonstrates that in 1840 — before public education — 93% to 100% of poor and rich had “complex literacy.”

But, since “compulsory” schools began, each succeeding generation has become more illiterate. After WWII, with increased funding of public schools, black illiteracy doubled and white illiteracy quadrupled. Notice that the increased funding of our public schools preceded the “dumbing down” which in turn preceded the violence.

Justice Department records show that violent criminals are overwhelmingly (80%) illiterate. Since WWII, as illiteracy increased, so did crime. Out-of-wedlock births quadrupled and in the 60's “bizarre violence … became common.”

Why the “dumbing down”? Gatto documents that throwing money at education is a waste unless certain instituted changes are reversed. The first “well-documented” change that gave rise to illiteracy was the American schools' massive conversion to “non-phonetic ways of teaching reading.”

Then, in the 1960's, schools began replacing morality and discipline with reinforcement schedules. There was no longer right or wrong, only the sterile, therapeutic concepts of “positive and negative reinforcement” to maintain the “social order.” It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why in the 60's “bizarre violence… became common.”

As the strange psychology of “planned smiles”, “stern looks”, “self-esteem” and “aggression management” replaced the Ten Commandments, school security guards and metal detectors became a growth industry.

And teachers that were true educators, like Jaime Estalante of Stand and Deliver fame, and teachers-of-the-year like John Gatto were weeded out. Look it up on the Internet — they were both forced out. We all can remember two or three good teachers like Estalante and Gatto, but they were the exceptions, not the rule.

If it is true — as Gatto with overwhelming evidence shows in his book — that the educational system purposely has created a mass of illiterates, and if Justice Department statistics are true that violent criminals are overwhelmingly (80%) illiterate, then the education system is increasingly unsafe at any price for teens.

As Fr. Z said of these teens:

"Reasoned discourse and facts have been pitched in sacrifice to the volcano god of teen emotions."

If the teens used their minds they would realize:

Before the 1960's there were no school shootings.

What changed?

Not gun laws, but:

In the 1960's, schools began replacing morality and discipline with reinforcement schedules. There was no longer right or wrong, only the sterile, therapeutic concepts of “positive and negative reinforcement” to maintain the “social order.” It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why in the 60's “bizarre violence… became common.”

Has anyone ever heard of school shootings at private or religious schools and at home school homes?

School shootings only happen at PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

Public Schools need to be reformed or outlawed to stop school shootings more than outlawing guns.

Public schools being reformed or outlawed would not only save the physical life of youths, but the eternal life of all youths who are forced to go to institutions that outlaw the Ten Commandments.

Where the Ten Commandments are outlawed then might makes right as it did in Nazi Germany which means all the gun control laws, school security guards and metal detectors in the world will not make the youths safe.








David Hogg’s armband looks just like the armbands from the Third Reich

Don’t forget that David Hogg was featured in a photo tweet by his sister, Lauren Hogg, promoting new Nazi-like armbands to demand gun confiscation from the American people. “David Hogg And His Sister Create Nazi-Like Armbands To Promote Gun Control,” reports Squawker.org:

Lauren Hogg, the younger sister of David Hogg and surprisingly not verified on Twitter, has created special armbands for gun control advocates to wear to school, the March For Our Lives demonstration, and anywhere else you think you can wear it and not get embarrassed. The band, of course, is to be worn on your arm, and the symbol in the middle resembles a peace sign. But does it really?
If the Hogg armband for gun control looks familiar, it should:

And here’s a photo of David Hogg sporting his “peace symbol” Nazi-like armband while demanding gun control:

Many people don’t remember this, but the Nazi symbol (swastika) also began as a peace symbol, but was of course twisted by Adolf Hitler into a symbol of tyranny and genocide. Many of today’s anti-gun Leftists are openly promoting a rainbow variation of the Swastika as a “symbol of peace:”

David Hogg physically resembles Adolf Hitler in fist-pounding salutes, angry speech patterns and more

In today’s rally, David Hogg became a full-fledged propaganda politician-in-training, reading from an obviously scripted speech, full of flowery words and high ideals that covered over his real goal: The complete disarmament of all law-abiding Americans.
Hogg is actually calling for a “revolution” against gun owners, reports ABC News. [https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-03-24-hitler-youth-student-gun-control-march-invades-washington-follows-in-the-footsteps-of-nazis-who-disarmed-the-jews-before-the-holocaust.html]

Pray a Our Father now for our youth.

Friday, March 23, 2018

The Letter, Veritatis Splendor and Amoris Laetitia

Here's a summary of the Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI Letter that makes the tongue in cheek bordering on sarcasm language obvious and also his unhappiness at those who attack Veritatis Splendor:

"I am unable to read the eleven volumes" but the "small volumes show, rightly, that Pope Francis is a man of profound philosophical and theological formation, and they therefore help to see the inner continuity between the two pontificates... I don’t feel like writing a short and dense theological passage on them... Professor Hünermann, who during my pontificate had distinguished himself by leading anti-papal initiatives. He played a major part in the release of the 'Kölner Erklärung' [Cologne Declaration], which, in relation to the encyclical 'Veritatis splendor', virulently attacked the magisterial authority of the Pope, especially on questions of moral theology... I am sure you will understand my refusal." As an aside, 'Veritatis splendor' contradicts the moral theology of Amoris Laetitia Have a nice day. [http://m.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/full-text-of-benedict-xvis-letter-to-mons.-vigano#.WrU3eXNlAwh]

Anyone who has read Veritatis Splendor knows it condemns the moral theology of Amoris Laetitia.

Hünermann is for the moment the face of Pope Francis's Amoris Laetitia which is condemned by Veritatis Splendor for it's betrayal of infallible Catholic doctrines on freedom and conscience.

Who is Professor Hünermann who "played a major part in the release of the 'Kölner Erklärung'" [Cologne Declaration]?

The 1989 New York Times tells us the Cologne Declaration dissenters were teaching heresy on freedom and conscience of whom the professor was a leader according to Benedict:

"As divisions inside the Roman Catholic Church appear to deepen, dissident theologians across Western Europe have begun openly challenging the conservative teachings and highly centralized leadership of Pope John Paul II.

The catalyst for the movement was the Pope's appointment of a conservative prelate as Archbishop of Cologne, West Germany, last December, but since then a battery of other criticisms have been aimed at the John Paul by theologians from at least eight countries.

Complaints include the overruling of local opinion in the naming of bishops, moves to silence independent and left-leaning theologians, the systematic weakening of national bishops' conferences, a narrow interpretation of sexual morality and the Pope's authoritarian style of rule. 'He Must Expect Opposition'

'If the Pope does what does not belong to his office, he cannot demand obedience in the name of Catholicism,' some 163 theologians from West Germany, the Netherlands, Austria and Switzerland said January in a statement now known as the Cologne Declaration...

This week, the Vatican also published a recent speech by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, in which he responded to 'a litany of objections,' the recitation of which, he said, 'has become like the performance of a duty for progressive-thinking Catholics.'

The Cardinal, who is one of the most powerful figures in the Vatican, specifically charged that those who reject the church's position on contraception, homosexuality, divorce and the ordination of women are trying to give new meaning to the concepts of 'conscience' and 'freedom' contrary to traditional teachings...

The appointment of conservative bishops has caused distress in many dioceses, most recently in Vienna and Salzburg, yet it was the Pope's decision to name Joachim Cardinal Meisner, the former archbishop of Berlin, [the Dubia Cardinal and friend of Benedict who died last year] to head the wealthy and powerful archdiocese of Cologne last December that brought the simmering issue to a boil." [https://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/14/world/theologians-in-europe-challenge-pope-s-conservative-leadership.html]


The Letter, Tongue in Cheek Bordering on Sarcasm Language and "Climate of Fear" at the Vatican

The 90-year old Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI Letter is obviously a tongue in cheek bordering on sarcasm statement and not a confirmation that there is no contradiction between the Benedict and the Pope Francis pontificates.

Here's a summary of the Letter that makes the tongue in cheek bordering on sarcasm language obvious:

"I am unable to read the eleven volumes" but the "small volumes show, rightly, that Pope Francis is a man of profound philosophical and theological formation, and they therefore help to see the inner continuity between the two pontificates... I don’t feel like writing a short and dense theological passage on them... Professor Hünermann, who during my pontificate had distinguished himself by leading anti-papal initiatives. He played a major part in the release of the 'Kölner Erklärung', which, in relation to the encyclical 'Veritatis splendor', virulently attacked the magisterial authority of the Pope, especially on questions of moral theology... I am sure you will understand my refusal." As an aside, 'Veritatis splendor' contradicts the moral theology of Amoris Laetitia Have a nice day. [http://m.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/full-text-of-benedict-xvis-letter-to-mons.-vigano#.WrU3eXNlAwh]

Persons who use tongue in cheek or sarcastic language, if it is not solely meant as dark humor, usually do so because they feel they cannot speak plainly or bluntly.

Why would Benedict feel like he can't speak plainly?

Journalist Steve Skojec wrote about situations where people might not speak plainly:

"Dr. Carver describes four situations in which a foundation for Stockholm Syndrome is present. 'These four situations,' he says, 'can be found in hostage, severe abuse, and abusive relationships':
  • The presence of a perceived threat to one’s physical or psychological survival and the belief that the abuser would carry out the threat.
  • The presence of a perceived small kindness from the abuser to the victim
  • Isolation from perspectives other than those of the abuser
  • The perceived inability to escape the situation..."
"We have heard for some time about the 'climate of fear' at the Vatican. This isn’t new — in an anonymous letter from a former member of the Curia penned in 2015, this exact term was used. More recently, we have seen this fear publicly discussed by not just journalists at LifeSiteNews and the National Catholic Register who have spent time in Rome, but Bishop Athanasius Schneider, who lived under Soviet communism and has compared the situation in Rome to his experiences..."

"I have often described Müller to others as 'essentially under house arrest.' The fear of monitored communications on the part of CDF officials has been noted in these pages before... One source of mine described the situation at the Vatican, as I have previously written, as 'like an occupied state.'" [https://onepeterfive.com/stockholm-syndrome-at-the-cdf-has-cardinal-muller-been-compromised/]

Does this describe the situation that Benedict is in?

Is it possible he is essentially under house arrest?

Wednesday, March 21, 2018

Lettergate Disinformation Rout is a Canon 212 & Band of Bloggers Victory

Almost all the Catholic bloggers, affectionately known at the Catholic Monitor as the Band of Bloggers, united as one voice under the banner of Frank Walker's Canon212.com to single handedly rout the Lettergate disinformation of Pope Francis's Vatican.

The Francis Vatican was defeated and caused to retreat in disorder despite the cooperation of the secular media and all of the Catholic media: leftist, conservative and traditional. 

When the Letter came out all of the secular media, all of the leftist Catholic media and surprisingly the conservative Catholic media such as Life Site News as well as the traditional Catholic media such as the Remnant went along with the Francis Vatican's disinformation that Pope Benedict XVI was 100 percent behind Francis's failed papacy after reading 11 books on Francis's teachings.

As soon as the letter came out the Catholic bloggers and Canon 212 immediately screamed in headlines that it was obviously fake news.

The headline at the Catholic Monitor was:

Benedict says Pope Francis is "Profound" Philosopher, has X-Ray Vision & can Leap Tall Buildings in a Single Bound

The Internet and Twitter was flooded with similar headlines and twits calling the Letter fake news and ridiculing the idea that Benedict called Francis profound.

Francis's Vatican, in the face of the Band of Bloggers ridiculing, blinked.

The seemingly all powerful Vatican media apparatus backed down, knuckled under, the Internet and Twitter confrontation of the Catholic blogger's ridicule of the Letter.

The next day, the Vatican in a attempt to show that the Letter wasn't fake admitted that Benedict hadn't read the 11 books, after that they admitted to manipulating the photo and finally the great Vatican expert Sandro Magister, through his sources, revealed that there were missing paragraphs which showed Benedict refused to endorse the books and was angry that the 11 books had heretical theologians who had attacked him and Pope John Paul Il's Vetitatis Splendor.

Anyone who has read Vetitatis Splendor knows that it condemns the teachings of Pope Francis's Amoris Laetitia.

The secular media and the Catholic media, after the facts started coming out, finally admitted the Band of Bloggers under the banner of Canon 212 were right.

They admitted that the Letter was fake news.

The Francis Vatican's disinformation attempt to create the lie that there is no contradiction between Benedict and Francis's failed papacy was routed.

Francis's credibility is shattered thanks to the Band of Bloggers and Frank Walker, but most of all to the grace of God.

Say an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.













Friday, March 16, 2018

Unprofound Theologian Pope Fransis's Three Favorite Theologians are Second Rate Relativists or Heretical Dissenters


Is Pope Francis the new Pope Horonius?

The unscholarly Pope Honorius was a heretic who promoted the Monothelitist heresy. He was condemned by a general council and Pope St. Agatho and Pope St. Leo II.

The Catholic Encyclopedia said of Honorius that he "was not a profound theologian, and allowed himself to be confused and mislead." (Edward Feser.blogspot, "Denial flows into the Tiber," December 18, 2016)

Theologian Tracey Rowland wrote that Francis before the papacy said "I can't imagine anything more boring than Fundamental Theology." She quotes Ross Douthat saying:

"Francis is clearly a less systematic thinker than... his predecessors" to the papacy. (Catholic Theology, page 192)

Francis is not a profound theologian and neither are the Pope's three favorite theologians who are the basis of his theological formation or thinking.

Austen Ivereigh at Crux recently did a reviewed of Massimo Borghesi's book called "Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Una Biografia intellettuale" which shows that much of Pope Francis's thinking comes from Fr. Gaston Fessard.

Ivereigh claims that Fessard is "anti-Hegelian."

As usual, Ivereigh is wrong.

Back in 1950, Thomist Jules "Icaac was accusing Fessard of identifying this quasi-science of thought with the science of the real order, or metaphysics. That is what Hegel does."

"The executive function of the dialectic, as Isaac interpreted Aquinas, uses the law of thought in a concrete instance of thinking or arguing. Because Fessard used these laws not as laws of arguing, but as laws of the development of historical events, he is again accused of Hegelianism." ("Gaston Fessard S.J., His Work Toward A Theology of History," by Mary Alice Muir, 1970, page 30)

Sadly, Fessard hoped to save Hegel's dialectic thought with his confused twisting of Aquinas, but instead it appears that he became a soft Hegelian historicist and relativist because of his second rate thinking.

Fr. Edmundus Waldstein, O. Cist., at sancrucensis.wordpress.com, gives an overview of another of Francis's favorite theologians Fr. Bernard Haring whose dissenting moral theology appears to be the basis for Amoris Laetitia's approval of a "process of discernment which leads to the commission of intrinsically evil acts" in adulterous relationships (i.e. "irregular relationships"):

"In a discussion with the General Congregation of the Society of Jesus, the Holy Father praised Fr. Bernard Haring for having helped overcome a decadent scholastic moral theology that had been fixated on negative commandments, and opened up a way for moral theology to flourish. Now, Haring’s moral theology is a great example of what it might mean to begin processes as opposed to occupying spaces." (Dubia and Initiating Processes, December 7, 2016, sancrucensis.wordpress.com)

Even Amoris Laetitia supporter Jeff Mirus in a March 7, 2017 article for Catholic Culture.com said anyone who would praise Haring "as one of the first to give Catholic moral theology new life in the twentieth century must be ignorant, confused, or subversive."

In the beginning of the post, titled "Pope Francis and Bernard Haring: The literally infernal cheek of dissent," Mirus said:

"Pope Francis praised...Fr. Bernard Haring, for being one of the first to try to revive an ailing moral theology following the Second Vatican Council."

The article presented some of the moral theologian's dissenting heretical teachings:

"In his 1973 book Medical Ethics Haring defended sterilization, contraception and artificial insemination...According to Haring, under difficult circumstances, we may engage in a process of discernment which leads to the commission of intrinsically evil acts."

The big agenda of Haring, besides allowing intrinsically evil acts, is a Hegelian philosophic idealistic subjective metaphysics of historical becoming which denies objective truth and Catholic objective truth. Waldstein, O. Cist., explains:

"This is a soft version of certain strands of modern historicism, indebted to Hegel. Having abandoned nature, and an objective teleological order, Hegel and some of his followers give to history a role analogous to that played by nature in classical philosophy.... Haring is proposing something similar for the life of the Church."

"I call this sort of historicism “soft” since its proponents would not all be willing to affirm the dark core of Hegel’s account of the good. But by adopting historicist terms they tend to draw conclusions that imply the basically subjectivist, modern account of the good, and the account of freedom that follows from it. Thomas Stark has shown how these problems play out in the theology of Cardinal Kasper [Another of Francis's favorite theologians]."[https://sancrucensis.wordpress.com/2016/12/07/dubia-and-initiating-processes/#more-5361]

Finally, we get the theologian Francis considers "the greatest theologian for today."

The nihilist that Pope Francis considers to "be the greatest theologian for today" believes that there is no "possibility of an objective basis for truth" and that there is no objective meaning or reality. (Dictionary.com definitions of nihilism)

The extremely heretical nihilist Michel de Certeau believed in all of the above.

In simple words, de Certeau's theology denies objective truth and objective Catholic truth.

The present Pope considers him the most eminent modern theologian. Francis said:

"For me, de Certeau is still the greatest theologian for today." (onepeterfive.com, March 8, 2016, "Pope Francis Reveals His Mind to Private Audience")

De Certeau in his greatest book "Heterologies" said:

"It is not Mr. Foucault who is making fun of domains of knowledge... It is history that is laughing at them. It plays tricks on the teleologists who take themselves to be the lieutenants of meaning. A meaninglessness of history." ("Heterologogies," Pages 195-196)

Historian Keith Windschuttle shows that the Pope's favorite modern theologian is a radical who thinks that there is no outside reality. Windschuttle wrote:

"Of all the French theorists... de Certeau is the most radical. He is critical of the poststructuralist Foucault for his use of documentary evidence and of Derrida for the way he privileges the practice of writing. For de Certeau, writing is a form of oppression... he argues... writing itself constitutes the act of colonisation..."

"Like both structuralist and poststructuralist theorists, de Certeau subscribes to the thesis that we have access only to our language and not to any real, outside world..."

"De Certeau claims that writing can never be objective. Its status is no different from that of fiction. So, because history is a form of writing, all history is also fiction." ("The Killing of History," Pages 31-34)

By Francis's greatest modern theologian's logic then Jesus Christ, true God and true man, who walked the earth during the reign of Pontius Pilate is fiction.

The central doctrine of Catholism, the Incarnation, is fiction.

Post Structuralists like de Certeau, more widely known as Postmodernists, believe all reality is fiction or "narrative."

They change the "narrative" or story usually to compile with their leftist or liberal views on politics, sexual morality or whatever their pet project happens to be.

They rarely use scholarship to backup their "narrative" point of view, only mind numbing long confusing writing that obscures instead of clarifying.

The Postmodernists in the media are one exception to the obscurantism of non-clarity.

Their "narratives" are clear and well written, but again rarely is there scholarship or strong evidence to backup their stories. They use spin to obscure.

Media spin "narrative" is "news and information that is manipulated or slanted to affect its interpretation and influence public opinion." (Dictionary.com)

They usually use their "narratives" in history, news, the Bible and any writing as a vehicle to promote their ideological ideas.

With that background, here is the Pope's favorite theologian's central religious ideas. The de Certeau Scholar Johannes Hoff wrote:

"According to this new approach to the Biblical narrative, the focal event of Christianity is not the incarnation, the crucifixion, or the resurrection of Christ, but the empty tomb. The Christian form of life is no longer associated with a place, a body, or an institution, but with a quest for a missing body: the missing body of the people of Israel, and mutatis mutandis the missing body of Jesus."
(Article by Johannes Hoff, "Mysticism, Ecclesiology And The Body Christ: Certeau's (Mis-) Reading of Corpus Mystium and the Legacy of Henri de Lubac" Page 87, Titus Brandsma Institute Studies In Spirituality, Supplement 24, "Spiritual Spaces: History and Mysticism in Michel De Certeau")

The nihilist theologian believes that the central truths of Christianity are about "absence" or nonexistence. De Certeau scholar Graham Ward wrote:

"For de Lubac the... Eucharist is not a sign of the presence of Christ's body, it is Christ's body... And yet Certeau... makes the Eucharist (as later the church and body of mystical text he treats) into substitutes, acts of bereavement, signs of absence." ("Michel de Certeau - in the Plural, " Page 511)

In other words, Francis's greatest modern theologian believes that the Eucharist is not the body of Christ present, he doesn't even believe it is a sign of the presence of Christ's body like some Protestants, but a sign of "absence."

Might de Certeau's influence on Francis be the reason he never kneels before the Eucharist, but kneels to wash the feet of those he like Certeau might consider oppressed?

De Certeau's influence on Francis may be the reason he reportedly said:

"It is not excluded that I will enter history as the one who split the Catholic Church." (Der Spiegel magazine, December, 23, 2016)

De Certeau scholar Frederick Christian Bauerschmidt wrote:

"Certeau... came increasingly to stress the clash of interpretation, the "law of conflict," that applies even to the church. Under the pressure of this clash, the ecclesial/eucharistic body is "shattered." ("Michael de Certeau - in the Plural", Page 359)

Francis's greatest modern theologian doesn't believe in the central truths of the Catholic Church.

The Pope's most eminent modern theologian doesn't even believe in objective truth.

Does Francis believe in the central doctrines of the Catholic Church or in objective truth?

The question needs to be asked:

If the Pope is a disciple of de Certeau and Postmodernism, then what ultimately do he and these thinkers believe in?

Philosopher Stephen Hicks said:

The "Left thinkers of the 1950s and 1960s... Confronted by the continued poverty and brutality of socialism, they could either go with the evidence and reject their most cherish ideals - or stick by their ideals and attack the whole idea that evidence and logic matter..."

"Postmodernism is born of the marriage of Left politics and skeptical epistemology..."

"Then, strikingly, postmodernism turns out not to be relativistic at all. Relativism becomes part of a rhetorical political strategy, some Machiavellian realpolitik employed to throw the opposition off track..."

"Here it is useful to recall Derrida: 'deconstruction never had any meaning... than as a radicalization... within the tradition of a certain Marxism, in a certain spirit of Marxism.'" ("Explaining Postmodernism," Page 90, 186)

For Postmodernists like de Certeau, Derrida, Foucault and it appears Francis, if he is their disciple, falsehood or truth doesn't matter.

The only thing that matters is achieving power for their liberal ideology or group.

Instead of economic Marxism, the post-modernist in the 1970's focused on what de Certeau and other post-modernists termed "oppression" of groups.

Power not truth for groups such as women, gays, transexauls, workers and any sub-category of minorities was the new goal to achieving control.

An example is abortion: women had to have power over their bodies so the truth that the unborn baby is human must be denied and politically incorrect.

Another example is homosexual acts: gays had to have power over their bodies so the truth that is was a sin and lead to disease and a early death had to be denied and politically incorrect.

Remember that liberals it appears in most cases, who never use Marxist words, are nothing but post-modernist who use words like equality and compassion as masks for raw power and to protect those in their liberal group.

For example, the liberal media looked the other way about credible charges of rape against Bill Clinton that would be unthinkable if the same charges were made against Donald Trump.

Venezuela is another example.

The liberals from Fr. James Martin to Pope Francis will not lift a finger or say a word against the dictatorship to stop the Venezuelan people from being starved and brutalized because the country's dictator appears to be part of their liberal group.

The liberals means to achieve power in the Church is praxis theology.

Internationally renowned theologian Dr. Tracey Rowland said Francis's "decision - making process" outlined in Evangelii Gaudium is "the tendency to give priority to praxis over theory."

She states that chapter eight of Amoris Laetitia "might be described as the praxis chapter rather than a theory chapter." Theory meaning Catholic doctrine.

The renowned theologian asks how footnote 351 of Amoris Laetitia "can be consistent with paragraph eighty-four of John Paul II's Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio and paragraph twenty-nine of Benedict XVI's Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis? A pastoral crisis may arise if the lay faithful and their priests have to choose between... two Popes (John Paul II and Benedict XVI) on one side, and a third Pope (Pope Francis) on the other." ("Catholic Theology," Page 192, 198, 199)

The choice appears to be between the infallible doctrines of the Catholic Church or praxis theology.

Rowland says "praxis types agree in rejecting classical metaphysics." She then explains praxis ideology or "theology":

"Doctrinal theory is at best extrinsic and secondary. The reflex character of theory-praxis tends toward a reduction of theory to reflection on praxis as variously understood. The normativity tends toward an identification of Christianity with modern, secular (liberal or Marxist) process." ("Catholic Theology," Page174)

If what the internationally renowned theologian is saying is true of Pope Francis and praxis "theology," then the Church is in the greatest crisis in history.

If the above is true then the Church has a theologically unprofound Pope who has, unconsciously or consciously, betrayed Jesus Christ and His Gospel for the world.

It appears that Francis has exchanged the Gospel of Jesus Christ for "secular (liberal or Marxist)" ideology which denies objective truth.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of Church, the beloved bride of Jesus Christ.

Does Cld. Cupich Think Hitler was Good or Bad?



On Face the Nation Cupich said he would give Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians


On Feb. 1, the National Catholic Reporter reported that Cardinal Blase Cupich attacked the "Benedict Option":

"'That's not who we are, 'Cupich said of the "Benedict Option,' which takes its name from a book that calls for a conservative counterculture... Instead, Cupich said, Catholics should go out and engage the world, much like Jesus' disciples after Pentecost, or those who fought Hitler in World War II." [https://www.ncronline.org/news/people/cardinal-cupich-rejects-benedict-option-calls-engagement-world]

How would the Cardinal have engaged Hitler in World War II?

Does Cupich think Hitler was good or bad?

Below is a list that the Cardinal would most likely agree with from the liberal Quora.com on Hitler's so-called good and bad points:


"Good. For following -

  • Animal rights & Environmental protection rights [and gun control].
  • Volkswagen (People’s Car).
  • Autobahn.
  • Anti-smoking & Anti tobacco campaigns.
  • Bringing Germany out of poverty, unemployment.
  • Free health care
  • Putting a gun on his head and shooting. But it was too late.
  • All the Science & Tech advancements of his time. Germany under Hitler was way ahead in Sci-Tech than any other country. There are theories that US stole all their (Germany’s) rocket science, and other technologies, and kidnap Nazi scientists and forced them to work for them(US), and only because of these scientists that US is able to progress so easily in Space and Rocket science in 60s, 70s. Though I don’t know how true it is but this theory has some strong evidences present on the internet.

"Bad. For Following

  • Holocaust.
  • Concentration Camps.
  • Killing, torturing, not hundreds, not thousands but millions of Jews in only few months.
  • World War II.
  • Invading many European nations.
  • Killing thousands of Non-Jews [and legalizing abortion]."[https://www.quora.com/Was-Hitler-good-or-bad]
Even though Cupich is personally against abortion he said on Face the Nation said that he would give Communion to pro-abortion politicians. Hitler was such a politician. He legalized abortion in Germany.

In his interview with Face the Nation the then Archbishop Blase Cupich was asked:



"When you say we cannot politicize the communion rail, you would give communion to politicians, for instance, who support abortion rights."

Cupich said on Face the Nation in 2014 that he would give Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians:

"I would not use the Eucharist or as they call it the communion rail as the place to have those discussions or a way in which people would be either [sic] excluded from the life of the church. The Eucharist is an opportunity of grace and conversion. It’s also a time of forgiveness of sins. So my hope would be that that grace would be instrumental in bringing people to the truth." [http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/on-giving-communion-pro-abortion-politicians]

In 1933, when the Nazis came to power, one of pro-abortion politician Hitler's first acts was to legalize abortion for the "health of the mother" which meant abortion on demand. By 1935 Germany had 500,000 abortions a year.[http://www.klannedparenthood.com/nazis-and-abortion/hitler-was-pro-choice/]

Cupich stated that pro-abortion politicians like Hitler should receive Holy Communion and he, also, explicitly said cutting up babies is morally equal, much the same as, joblessness and other issues. The Chicago Cardinal said:

"While commerce in the remains of defenseless children is particularly repulsive, we should be no less appalled by the indifference toward the thousands of people who die daily for lack of decent medical care; who are denied rights by a broken immigration system and by racism; who suffer in hunger, joblessness."

Cardinal Cupich sounded like a Nazi sympathizer when he compared the genocide and mutilation of unborn babies to joblessness and other issues.

He compared the "Planned Parenthood grisly traffic in aborted babies body parts to... joblessness and a broken immigration system."
("Leftist CDL Cupich In Running to Chair US Bishops' Pro-Life Committee," Church Militant, October 24, 2017)

Would Cupich call Hitler "Prolife" since he agreed with many of his consistent ethic of life stances?

Hitler agreed with many of Cupich's consistent ethic of life stances.

The Cardinal and Hitler stand united in the following consistent ethic issues. The Nazi dictator fought against joblessness and anti-environmentalism.

The progressive pro-Cupich magazine Commonwealth reported that Pope Francis, in an article titled "How Pope Francis Reframed the Politics of Being 'Prolife,'" now says:

Being "prolife" is not a "single-issue" and, also, means '''the environment devastated by man's predatory relationship with nature'... undocumented immigrants and unemployed workers."
(Commonwealth, By John Gehring, September 13, 2017)

Since pro-life is not a single issue then by Cupich's Nazi sympathizer-like reasoning then Hitler's grisly death camp genocide should be counterbalanced by the fact that the Nazi government reduced unemployment from six million to one million and was one of the first to create environmental protection laws.

Francis and the Cardinal in their statements down play the abortion genocide while making climate change a top priority and appear to, also, equate environmentalism (and even tobacco smoking which was just outlawed in the Vatican) with having a consistent ethic life position.

By their reasoning Hitler was pro-life since it's not a single issue and he agreed with many of Cupich and Francis's consistent ethic of life stances.

Hitler had a "stance against Tobacco use" and the "Nazi's were the first to create environmental protection laws in history" according to the Nazi sympathizer website europeanknights project.com.
(12 Things You We're Not Told About Adolph Hitler and Nazi (NSDAP) Germany," January 13, 2017)

The scholarly book "How Green Were the Nazis?: Nature, Environment, and Nation in the Third Reich," also, impartially reports that Hitler's government "mounted the most effective anti-smoking propaganda campaign ever before 1980" and "nature protection and conversation laws... from an environmentalist perspective, the best in the world." (amazon.com/go/aw/reviews/082141672, First review)

Lifesitenews.com pointed out that Cupich said abortion "is a 'controversial issue.' It needs to be 'put behind us so the government can focus on it's budget.'"

This statement sounds like something similar to what a Nazi sympathizer would say:

The Jewish genocide is a "controversial issue," it needs to be put behind us so the government can focus on it's budget, joblessness, environmental issues and train prices.

The Lifesitenews responding to the Chicago Cardinal's statement said:

"Your Eminence, abortion is immoral because it kills... Dietrich Bonhoeffer didn't fret about train prices in Nazi Germany. He spoke truth to power about the genocide of Jews and eventually lost his life."
("Cardinal Cupich shows his priorities in responses to two different tragedies," November 8, 2017, Lifesitenews.com)

The California Catholic Daily wrote:

"Cupich indicates there’s a moral equivalence between abortion and other moral issues."


Charles J. Chaput
Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput: “The deliberate killing of innocent life is a uniquely wicked act”.

"None other than Philadelphia’s archbishop, the Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput has fired back.

Archbishop Chaput wrote in his August 10 editorial for Catholic Philly:

'Here’s a simple exercise in basic reasoning... theft is bad, assault is worse and murder is worst. There’s a similar texture of ill will connecting all three crimes, but only a very confused conscience would equate thieving and homicide. Both are serious matters. But there is no equivalence.'

'A case is sometimes made that abortion is mainly a cultural and moral issue, and politics is a poor solution to the problem. The curious thing is that some of the same voices that argue against political action on the abortion issue seem quite comfortable urging vigorous political engagement on issues like health care, homelessness and the environment.'

'When it comes to moral issues, basic reasoning oftentimes proves more valuable than nuance... The latter obfuscates and confuses, as it blurs the distinctions and degrees separating good from evil, leaving people wondering what’s good and what’s evil.'" [http://cal-catholic.com/nuance-vs-clarity/]

Say a Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.
 



Monday, March 12, 2018

Benedict says Pope Francis is "Profound" Philosopher, has X-Ray Vision & can Leap Tall Buildings in a Single Bound

The silliness of the Francis papacy has reached a new level.

The 90-year old Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI who in his last photo on October 2017 had a black eye (google the photo and do a close up of his face) and looked so feeble he appeared near death has according to the Vatican news agency just read 11 books by Francis as well as wrote a letter saying "Pope Francis is a man with profound philosophical and theological formation."

If Benedict did by some miracle read the 11 books and wrote the letter then he either has dementia or has lost his mind.

Vatican news agency please send a camera crew in so we can see the new Benedict who in just a few months is a new man full of gusto who can read 11 books of Francis's new found profound clarity of prose as well as profundity in theology and philosophy.

Let us see the full of gusto Benedict tell us before a camera about the new found profoundness of the present Pope.

Do a internet search of anyone and everyone who has read Francis's writings including those of his greatest admirers and you will not find a single writer that says he is a profound philosopher or theologian.

Even Pope Francis's favorite theologians such as Michel de Certeau or Gaston Fessard are second rate thinkers at best. I know because I have written articles on both of them.

Let's take the silliness to the next level.

Benedict wrote a letter saying Francis has x-ray vision and can leap tall buildings in single bound.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Update on March 13, 2017:

Today, the Vatican admitted that Benedict didn't read the eleven books and failed to explain why it didn't publish "the full text of the letter at yesterday's presentation" according to the National Catholic Register.

Also, the Vatican failed to respond to Fr. Z and others who say the letter doesn't sound like Benedict or to the question from the Register "for clarification of the letter and to explain what 'inner continuity' means."



Saturday, March 10, 2018

Are Pope Francis & Cupich Catholics or Dung Covered with Snow Lutherans?

Cardinal Blase Cupich, in his latest column wrote:

"The Holy Father’s core conviction about the resurrection of Jesus also helps us make sense of his urging not to judge others or become an obstacle by denying God’s grace to those whose lives are imperfect. The pope rightly believes that, as one who has broken down the barrier between time and eternity through his resurrection, Christ loves without limit or condition."

"... For instance, like Pope Francis, he advocated for “the law of gradualness” when it comes to judgment in particular cases. He wrote that there is a need to recognize “the distinction between objective disorder and subjective guilt, which depends greatly on intentions, motivations and concrete circumstances. … In this line the law of gradualness has been rightly developed. … As judge, Christ is not a cold legalist.”

"... Absent such an appreciation, there will always be a tendency to fixate on laws and rules, or to place one’s confidence in human efforts of personal heroism as the starting point of the spiritual life, as opposed to trusting in God’s ever-present grace and mercy to overcome any sin. I notice that just this past week, the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith warned of the danger of teachings that propose that we can earn salvation by our own efforts. This error has deep roots in the church’s history and is called Pelagianism, the belief that we can will our own salvation." [https://www.chicagocatholic.com/cardinal-blase-j.-cupich/-/article/2018/03/07/what-makes-pope-francis-tick-]

Sadly, Cupich and Francis are not advocating “the law of gradualness,” but the heretical "gradualness of the law" which teaches "that repentance does not require a decisive break with sin."

Jimmy Akin explains that in "1997 the [Pope John Paul II] Pontifical Council for the Family issued a vademecum (i.e., handbook) for confessors in which it gave guidance to those hearing confessions about how to handle certain situations."

"In particular, it warned confessors against the idea of thinking that repentance does not require a decisive break with sin, saying:"

"The pastoral 'law of gradualness', not to be confused with the 'gradualness of the law' which would tend to diminish the demands it places on us, consists of requiring a decisive break with sin together with a progressive path towards total union with the will of God and with his loving demands [Vademecum for Confessors 3:9]."

Akin, also, shows how Pope John Paul II rejected the Cupich/Francis  heretical "gradualness of the law" in the his apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio, saying:

"[Married people] cannot however look on the law as merely an ideal to be achieved in the future: they must consider it as a command of Christ the Lord to overcome difficulties with constancy."

"And so what is known as 'the law of gradualness' or step-by-step advance cannot be identified with 'gradualness of the law,' as if there were different degrees or forms of precept in God's law for different individuals and situations."

"In God's plan, all husbands and wives are called in marriage to holiness, and this lofty vocation is fulfilled to the extent that the human person is able to respond to God's command with serene confidence in God's grace and in his or her own will."

"On the same lines, it is part of the Church's pedagogy that husbands and wives should first of all recognize clearly the teaching of Humanae vitae as indicating the norm for the exercise of their sexuality, and that they should endeavor to establish the conditions necessary for observing that norm." [Familiaris Consortio 34].

To give him the benefit of the doubt, it is possible that Cupich doesn't understand the two law's definitions when he claims “the law of gradualness” is the heretical "gradualness of the law":

"Pope Francis, he advocated for 'the law of gradualness' when it comes to judgment in particular cases. He wrote that there is a need to recognize “the distinction between objective disorder and subjective guilt, which depends greatly on intentions, motivations and concrete circumstances."
 [https://www.chicagocatholic.com/cardinal-blase-j.-cupich/-/article/2018/03/07/what-makes-pope-francis-tick-]

What Atkin said in 2014 of the Synod document called a Relatio post disceptationem applies to Cupich's above statement:

It "appears more to reflect the 'gradualness of law' that was warned against in those documents, according to which a decisive break with sin is not required before receiving absolution and holy Communion, and in which a different standard of what constitutes sin would be applied to some than is applied to others."[http://m.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/the-law-of-gradualness-12-things-to-know-and-share#.WqNnd9-IbqA]

Cupich claims that the reason that Francis believes in the heretical "gradualness of the law" is because of the "Holy Father’s core conviction about the resurrection of Jesus."

Sadly, Cupich and Francis implicitly deny not just the power of the resurrection, but the resurrection itself by saying that it doesn't rise us by infused grace to cooperate in a new life with Christ free to fulfill the moral law even if we fail to do so.

In Catholic theology, "Christ’s Passion and death are the cause of the forgiveness of guilt, by which forgiveness we die unto sin: whereas Christ’s Resurrection is the cause of newness of life, which comes through grace or justice" which allows us to cooperate with with God's infused grace to fulfill the moral law. St. Paul Center.com says that St. Thomas Aquinas teaches:
“Two things concur in the justification of souls, namely, forgiveness of sin and newness of life through grace. Consequently, as to efficacy, which comes of the Divine power, the Passion as well as the Resurrection of Christ is the cause of justification as to both the above. But as to exemplarity, properly speaking Christ’s Passion and death are the cause of the forgiveness of guilt, by which forgiveness we die unto sin: whereas Christ’s Resurrection is the cause of newness of life, which comes through grace or justice: consequently, the Apostle says (Romans 4:25) that ‘He was delivered up,’ i.e. to death, ‘for our sins,’ i.e. to take them away, ‘and rose again for our justification.’ But Christ’s Passion was also a meritorious cause. . .' (Summa Theologiae III, q. 56, art. 2, ad 4; emphasis added)."[https://stpaulcenter.com/jesus-didnt-just-die-for-our-salvation-why-he-rose-from-the-dead/]
What Cupich calls “the law of gradualness,” is the heretical "gradualness of the law" which is connected to the Cupich/Francis denial of the infallible Catholic doctrines of sanctifying grace and justification.

What he calls Pelagianism "that we can earn salvation by our own efforts" appears to be his and Francis's denial of Catholic sanctifying grace and justification in which Catholics cooperate with God's infused grace.

Contrary to Martin Luther's thinking and Cupich's thinking if he is consciously or unconsciously a follower of Luther, the Catholic Church never taught that we can earn by our own efforts salvation, but by grace and our free will we cooperate with God's grace in our salvation.

We know Cupich is a disciple of the present Pope's Lutheran teachings.

According to Francis himself, he agrees with the heretical Luther doctrine of justification that says the resurrection doesn't "by grace truly sanctifies and liberates, and that baptized Christians are always free to fulfill the moral law, even when they fail to do so."

Cupich apparently agrees with the Pope who claims Luther in his doctrine of justification  "did not err." Francis said:

"Lutherans and Catholics, Protestants, all of us agree on the doctrine of justification. On this point, which is very important, he did not err." (patheos.com/blog/scotticalt, "Pope Francis is Wrong about Luther and Justification," April 5, 2017)

On January 2, Vatican expert Edward Pentin reported that Pope Francis's president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio unwittingly said that the official endorsement of the Argentine directive of Amoris Laetitia contradicted the infallible doctrine of Trent:

"He said it is 'precisely this theological element that allows absolution and access to the Eucharist, always — we repeat — in the presence of an impossibility to immediately change the condition of sin.'”
[http://m.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/three-bishops-issue-profession-of-truth-about-sacramental-marriage#.Wkx_mDWIbqA]

The Cardinal in the above statement said it is impossible to "change the condition of sin" which is another way of saying Amoris Laetitia's "in concrete situations which does not allow him or her to decide otherwise."

Trent said "If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified  and constituted in grace, impossible to observe, let him be anathema."

Coccopalmerio's above statement of the Pope's understanding of sin is important because he was Francis's selected Vatican official who stated:

"While the content of the pope's letter itself does not contain teachings on faith and morals, it does point toward the interpretations of the Argentine bishops and confirms them as authentically reflecting his own mind." [https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2017/12/05/pope-francis-makes-his-letter-argentine-bishops-amoris-laetitia-part-official]       

As stated by Francis's own selected Vatican official Coccopalmerio to explain the pontiff's authentic interpretation:

The Pope's Amoris Laetitia appears to have fallen into the heresies of Martin Luther and situation ethics which are condemned by Trent and Veritatis Splendor.


Pope Francis said of the heresy of Luther on justification which includes his teaching on sin:

"Lutherans and Catholics, Protestants, all of us agree on the doctrine of justification. On this point, which is very important, he did not err." (patheos.com/blog/scotticalt, "Pope Francis is Wrong about Luther and Justification," April 5, 2017)

On May 25, 2016, the Catholic Herald said new "revelations suggest that some of Amoris’s most contentious paragraphs – relating to “situations of sin” and “mitigating factors” – had their origin in Archbishop Fernández’s articles, which gave a critique of John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor."

The evidence shows that the Pope’s intimate friend and ghostwriter Archbishop Víctor Manuel Fernandez did a "cut and paste" from his ten year old anti-John Paul II tracts which made up some of the most controversial parts of the papal document according to a May 25 article of The Spectator.

Francis' friend, The Spectator said, is seen as "a joke figure" in terms of his reputation as a theologian who wrote a silly book called “Heal me with your mouth. The art of kissing.”

All these revelations came from Vatican expert Sandro Magister's blog. Magister said Pope John Paul II condemned the situational ethics of "theologians" like Fernandez in his important and magisterial encyclical ‘Veritatis Splendor.’ [http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351303?eng=y&refresh_ce ]

The Vatican expert in the article showed how intimate a friend then Archbishop Bergoglio and the future pope was to his protege:

"Partly on account of those two articles, the congregation for Catholic education blocked the candidacy of Fernández as rector of the Universidad Católica Argentina, only to have to give in later, in 2009, to then-archbishop of Buenos Aires Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who fought tooth and nail to clear the way for the promotion of his protege."

The Catholic Herald quoted a passage from Fernandez's situational ethics articles which were "consciously echoed" in Amoris Laetitia’s paragraph 301:

“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.”

This passage according to the Catholic Herald may be directly counter to defined Catholic doctrine:

"This paragraph of the exhortation has been criticised by theologians including E. Christian Brugger, who argued that it apparently goes against Church teaching: 'This seems to contradict the defined doctrine in Trent on Justification, canon 18: 'If any one says the commandments of God are impossible to keep, even by a person who is justified and constituted in grace: let him be anathema.'”

First Things, in "Francis's Argentine Letter And The Proper Response " by Elliott Milco, says the exact same thing about Francis's letter which endorses the Argentine norms.

America's most influential journal of religion and public life, First Things' Deputy Editor Milco says:

"The Church teaches and has always taught, from St. Paul to the Council of Trent and beyond, that grace strengthens and liberates us from the bonds of sin, and that while we may never, in the present life, be perfectly free from the inclination to do wrong, it is possible through grace to keep the commandments."

"This doctrine was given force of law in Trent's decree on justification: 'If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to observe, let him be anathema.'"

"'The same decree explains that 'God does not command impossibilities, but by commanding admonishes you to do what you can and to pray for what you cannot, and aids you that you may be able.'"

"The real problem with the Argentine norms is their deviation from this larger and more fundamental principle: that grace truly sanctifies and liberates, and that baptized Christians are always free to fulfill the moral law, even when they fail to do so. Jesus Christ holds us to this standard in the Gospel. It is presumptuous of Francis—however benign his intentions—to decide that his version of 'mercy' trumps that given by God himself."

Brugger and Milco are not speaking about the Kasper proposal, but the Catholic doctrine of infused grace which was denied by Martin Luther and the other "reformers"

On that other issue, Fr. Raymond de Sousa's article "What Argentina's 'Amoris Laetitia' Guidelines Really Mean" in the National Catholic Register tries to make the case that the Kasper proposal in it's totality actually suffered a lose despite media hype claiming otherwise and despite Francis's efforts to implement the total proposal.

De Sousa tries to makes the case that the Argentine norms is not mistaken because it could be treated in pre-Amoris Laetitia "standard principles of moral theology and confessional practice, analogous to the the moral culpability of contraception when the spouses do not agree."

On this separate issue from the topic of grace, Brugger in the Catholic World Report with the article "The Catholic Conscience, the Argentine Bishops, and "Amoris Laetitia" destroys the De Sousa attempt to justify the Argentine norms by using Pope John Paul II's Veritatis Splendor that shows it creates a "destructive dichotomy, that which separates faith from morality."

He demonstrates that the only solution to the problematic Argentine norms is to form consciences not create loopholes so persons can sin in invincible ignorance.

Be that as it may, the point is that the Kasper proposal isn't the issue here, but Amoris Laetitia and the Argentine norms apparent denial of a defined doctrine of the Council of Trent on grace which the "reformers" denied.

The "reformers" idea of imputed grace saw man as "totally depraved" and corrupt who even after justification was not infused with grace and truly changed on the inside.

Luther's reported image of imputed grace was that of man as a pile of dung covered with snow.

Man isn't changed on the inside (he is still a pile of dung), but "justified" man is covered with grace (snow) while not being changed on the inside.

As Milco said Trent's doctrine on infused grace says "that grace truly sanctifies and liberates, and that baptized Christians are always free to fulfill the moral law, even when they fail to do so."

It is a very big and scary moment in Church history when it appears that a Pope is openingly teaching error that is anathema by the infallible Trent:

Moral Theologian Dr. E. Christian Brugger, on April 22, wrote Amoris Leatitia (A.L.) in 301 is "inconsistent with the teaching of Trent on grace."

Brugger then writes that it appears that Canon 18 of Trent, which is infallible doctrine, gives an anathema to Pope Francis's 301 teaching on grace.

Pray a Our Father now for the restoration of the Catholic Church.