“In comments to LifeSite, Feser said: “For the most part, Pope Francis’s latest statement on capital punishment just repeats things he has said before, but there is one element that is not only new but possibly even more problematic than his previous remarks.”
“The Pope says that the death penalty is ‘a serious violation of the right to life that every person has,’” Feser noted. “That obviously gives the impression that capital punishment is a species of murder, and thus always and intrinsically evil rather than wrong only under modern circumstances.”
“The larger goal, as Kasper’s book on Martin Luther makes clear, is to fully overcome “confessionally constricted Catholicism” in the name of ecumenical unity. Hence, as others explain, the revolution’s attempts to weaken Catholic markers such as the papacy, celibacy, auricular confession, indissoluble marriage, and the Holy Eucharist. The plan is to refashion the Church into a sort of federation of local churches—a postmodern “polyhedron” with diversity on doctrine and more (cf. Evangelii Gaudium 236, 32).
Pope Francis’s “small-step strategy is the right one,” explains Kasper to the homosexual activist Frédéric Martel. “If you advance too quickly, as in the ordination of women or the celibacy of the priesthood, there will be a schism… I tried to move the debate [on recognizing homosexual couples] forward at the  synod, but we weren’t listened to. Francis found a middle way by talking about people, about individuals. And then, very gradually, he moved the lines.”
Kasper was gesturing towards the mafia’s ominous last “knot”: the relationship between “civil laws and the moral law.” Both Kasper and Danneels hailed homosexual “marriage” laws—while Martini and Danneels defended or even promoted legal abortion. For the “gently” leashed revolution leads, finally, to the “anti-creation”—pillared on the legal “rights” to abortion and the homosexual subversion of marriage.
“We will win,” insists Kasper to Martel, smiling.”
Peron 101. What to do with liars? Watch their deeds not their lips.
“Bishop Schneider tries to get at the fact that context makes clear that he couldn’t have meant permissive will when referring to diversity of religions when he obviously meant positive will when referring to diversity of races and sexes.
So Francis busts out The Perón Rule and tells Bishop Schneider what he wants to hear: “Yeah, sure, sure, kid, that’s what I meant. You go ahead and tell people I meant permissive will. That’s the ticket!”
For those of you who are unfamiliar with The Perón Rule, here it is, in the form of an anecdote taken from The Dictator Pope:”
“So this is where we’re forced to walk by faith and not by sight. If we want to continue to believe, we have to trust that God knows something we don’t and that all will be made clear. That there are things that remain hidden, and that we won’t solve this by our own human cleverness and reason.
But all of that being said, pretending these things can be construed in an orthodox fashion also does no favors to anyone. In fact, it damages the credibility of those who attempt to do so.
I get it. There are no good answers. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be discussing the problem as it is, rather than trying to find a spoonful of sugar to ram it down with.”
“Viganò also claims at least one other Argentine bishop, Cdl. Leonardo Sandri, knew about the allegations against McCarrick as early as 2000.
Pope Francis’ friendship and his promotion of McCarrick as a close papal advisor continued to be the case even when in 2016, the Vatican affirmed the veracity of the accusations that the founder of the IVE, Fr. Buela, was guilty of sexually abusing seminarians. The Vatican sanctioned Buela, ordering him to have no contact with the community — even while McCarrick was living at the IVE seminary in Washington, D.C.
Deep questions remain as to Bergoglio’s relationship with McCarrick, particularly in light of the fact that, in spite of Bergoglio’s vigorous opposition to McCarrick’s project with IVE in Argentina, he was still heavily supported by McCarrick, who admitted in his Villanova talk that he had lobbied for Bergoglio’s election to the papacy in 2013. “
Why was Francis elected? What was the goal by the St Gallen Mafia? The Church is in need of a course correction, it just isn’t the one Marx has in mind.
“Cardinal Reinhard Marx signaled today that the Catholic Church in Germany is open to revisiting Catholic sexual teaching that prohibits contraception, cohabitation, and homosexual relationships.
During their March 11-14 spring assembly in Lingen, Germany, the German Bishops’ Conference discussed possible causes and reasons for the current clerical sex abuse crisis in Germany. Invited speakers raised the idea of ordaining the so-called viri probati (morally proven men), as well as accepting contraception, cohabitation, homosexual relationships, as well as gender theory.
The German bishops have now decided to further discuss these themes in a series of discussions which they call a “synodal path.”
“Now, as history shows, the “universal acceptance” does not guarantee that the man will be a good pope, but it does guarantee he will be a true pope. In fact, it doesn’t even guarantee that the pope will not be a positively evil pope, or even “a devil like Judas the apostle.” The heretics Wycliffe and Hus rejected numerous popes on the basis that they were too evil to be true successors of St. Peter. In response, the Council of Constance formally condemned the following proposition:
“If the pope is wicked, and especially if he is foreknown to damnation, then he is a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition and is not the head of the holy Church Militant since he is not even a member of it.” – CONDEMNED”
NB I admire Dr. Carroll. I think I have every book he published (& enjoyably read), which is quite a stack.
“Remember that many who are calling those like Bishop Gracida, journalist Munguia and others “schismatics” for calling for a cardinal investigation are following in the footsteps of the real schismatics who promoted and followed Antipope Anacletus II.
Renown Catholic historian Carroll explicitly says that what matters in a valid papal election is not how many cardinals claim a person is the pope. What is essential for determining if someone is pope or antipope is the “election procedures… [as] governed by the prescription of the last Pope”:
“Papal election procedures are governed by the prescription of the last Pope who provided for them (that is, any Pope can change them, but they remain in effect until they are changed by a duly elected Pope).”
“During the first thousand years of the history of the Papacy the electors were the clergy of Rome (priests and deacons); during the second thousand years we have had the College of Cardinals.”
“But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses. These methods must then be followed in the next election after the death of the Pope who prescribed it, and thereafter until they are changed. A Papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope.”
“Since Antipopes by definition base their claims on defiance of proper Church authority, all have been harmful to the Church, though a few have later reformed after giving up their claims.”
The schismatic followers of Antipope Anacletus II didn’t want St. Bernard to investigate who was the real pope. It was the followers of the real pontiff Pope Innocent II who asked Bernard to investigate.
Why are so many traditional and conservative Catholics afraid of a cardinal investigation of the apparent “serious irregularities” against John Paul II’s constitution that governed the 2013 conclave that could invalidate the conclave which elected Francis?”