jump to navigation

Francis, asked about “new concrete possibilities” for Church Doctrine, answers “Yes. Period.” April 18, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, disaster, episcopate, Francis, horror, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church.

Hilary White has gone apoplectic over this, and I can see why.  Francis was directly asked a very specific question by American Church-insider blogger Francis Rocca regarding change to what Rocca calls the “discipline” (it’s not mere discipline, it’s solemn Doctrine, but we can see how the constant apologists will be framing this matter, redefining Doctrine down to discipline) in the matters of morality touched on by Amoris Laetitia, and especially as it relates to those persisting in adulterous “unions.”  The answer was very clear and to the point, but I’ll let you decide for yourself:

Today on the plane press conference on the way back to Rome from Greece, Pope Francis was asked a very direct question about the exhortation*:

Some maintain that nothing has changed with respect to the discipline that governs the access to the Sacraments for the divorced and remarried, and that the law and the pastoral practice and obviously the doctrine remains the same; others maintain instead that much has changed and that there are many new openings and possibilities. The question is for one person, a Catholic, that wants to know: Are there new concrete possibilities, that did not exist before the publication of the Exhortation or not.

His answer, though it went on longer, contained a straightforward affirmation:

“I can say yes.” (“Posso dire di sì“)

And that “yes” was immediately followed with a “punto,” meaning “period.”  As in yes, period, or yes, damnit, I’m the Bishop of Rome, and I can do whatever I want.

Intent is the key to everything in the moral sphere.  Asked directly if he intended to change Church “discipline” – and again, this is not a matter of discipline, but touches on a command straight from Our Blessed Lord’s own mouth – Francis did not equivocate.  “New concrete possibilities” has been, for 50 years now, post-conciliar Church-speak for radical change.  You can draw your own conclusions.

Now I kind of doubt Francis or the Vatican will issue clear commands to admit manifest adulterers to the Blessed Sacrament.  He and his allies may be that bold, but I imagine they’ll just let events play out as they know they will – it will be the national conferences that will issue “guidelines” demanding/recommending/permitting the divorced and remarried (without annulments) to the Blessed Sacrament.  Very soon this “permission” will become de rigeuer, and essentially mandatory, like Communion in the hand, god-awful protestant hymns, and barring Latin from the Mass.  And I strongly doubt it will stop there.  It is an open question whether the Ecclesia Dei communities will long be permitted to refuse such “service” to demanding customers.

It’s late and I’ve got to go, but I wonder if this rare moment of candor will finally convince some folks that the occasional orthodox bones they are thrown do not represent the “real” Francis of their surely well-meaning longings?  I tend to doubt it, very little seems able to penetrate the bastions of the papologists, but it might move a few.  Not that I rejoice in that.  This whole business is as sorry as it is sad.

PS – This has been reported and translated by many and this is not a translation issue.


1. Murray - April 18, 2016

Prepare to be assailed by Mottramists complaining that you didn’t include the rest of the Holy Father’s answer. People are desperately wishcasting that his reference to Cardinal Schonborn’s presentation somehow negates or modifies his Punto. It does nothing of the sort, of course, but they have become impervious to reason by this point.

2. A Mom - April 19, 2016

Prayer for Priests (St. Thérèse de Lisieux)

O Jesus, Eternal Priest, keep your priests within the shelter of Your Sacred Heart, where none may touch them. Keep unstained their anointed hands,which daily touch Your Sacred Body. Keep unsullied their lips, daily purpled with your Precious Blood. Keep pure and unearthly their hearts, sealed with the sublime mark of the priesthood. Let Your holy love surround them and shield them from the world’s contagion. Bless their labors with abundant fruit and may the souls to whom they minister be their joy and consolation here and in heaven their beautiful and everlasting crown. Amen.

Prayer to St. Joseph for Persecuted Priests

Dearest St. Joseph, be the protector and defender of those priests undergoing persecution for being faithful to their Lord and Sovereign Priest, Jesus Christ. See in them the image of thy beloved child, and cherish them with that tender solicitude which God places in Thy paternal heart. Obtain for them the good graces of thy Queen and Spouse, for such graces of predilection will surely lighten their burdens and render their crosses sweet. Amen.

St. John Vianney, pray for us.
Our Lady of the Clergy, pray for us.
Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

3. Mark docherty - April 19, 2016
4. Hilary White - April 19, 2016

“Apoplectic” is a bit strong. I don’t get personal about the stuff I write about. I get pretty upset with the old guy hired by the owners of the house I rent when he comes over with his weed wacker and tries to mow down my wildflowers. The pope threatening the faithful seems pretty outrageous, but there’s little concretely I can do about it. Except warn people. But when the computer’s off, it’s just normal life. Gardening, going for walks, playing with the kitties, trying to go to bed early…

Tantumblogo - April 19, 2016

Sorry Hilary I didn’t mean it to be a criticism, per se’, but you have begun a campaign of calling out Pope Francis for his heresy to his face. I know that’s caused quite a hostile reaction from some quarters, though you won’t hear a criticism from me. So sorry if my language seemed too strong, bear in mind, I never use a 2 cent word when a 5 cent word will do, but at the same time, I have a limited vocabulary, so I tend to use the same big words over and over again. To impress people with my smartization.

5. docmx001 - April 19, 2016

The silence from the bishops is deafening. That’s what is really starting to settle in for me right now. We’ve got what, maybe 50 lay people in the English speaking world willing to speak out? So that would mean a few hundred worldwide? I guess God has had stranger plans…

Joseph D'Hippolito - April 19, 2016

Of course it’s deafening! The bishops are all good little careerists. More importantly, this silence — and the Apologetics-Industrial Complex’s tendency to spin like gyroscopes on steroids every time Francis says something — reflects the fundamental Catholic belief in Salvation Through Ecclesiastical Loyalty. That might be conventional wisdom but far too often throughout Christianity, conventional wisdom and popular piety have replaced truth.

6. Guest - April 19, 2016

The worst part about all this is that you are effectively gagged shut by people who desperately want this man to be Pope. You cannot present the teaching after Vatican I because people do not want to believe sedevacantism is a valid position. We are now at a point where people believe a pope can be a heretic and deposed and will close their ears and say “Lalala”!

c matt - April 19, 2016

Some of us desperately want this man not to be the Pope. His being the Pope is the problem. Wish this was all coming from that dude in Montana or wherever.

7. Dismas - April 19, 2016

Different religion?

8. Joseph D'Hippolito - April 19, 2016

You know, this really isn’t all that new or all that recent. JPII beat Francis to it when he used “Evangelium Vitae” as a cover for his arbitrary revisionism concerning capital punishment for murder. Practically nobody outside the the Traditionalist branch opposed it because of JPII’s cult of personality and the idea of Salvation Through Ecclesiastical Loyalty, which motivates people like Voris, Shea, Longenecker, Fisher, EWTN, the Apologetics-Industrial Complex, et al — and which is what far-too-many Catholics really believe.

Tim - April 19, 2016

STEL…….otherwise known as obediolatry.

Dismas - April 20, 2016

Mr. D’Hippolito – you could not be more right on the money. The way to Francis was paved by his immediate predecessors, none more worthy of note perhaps than JPII.

Joseph D'Hippolito - April 20, 2016

Dismas, thanks so much. I’ve been waiting more than a decade for somebody to understand and agree with that analysis.

I have a favor to ask. Could you please make a copy or screenshot of my post and your response (including Tim’s) and e-mail it to Mark Shea or post it on his Facebook page? Watching him go apoplectic would be worth it. 😀

Dismas - April 20, 2016

Ah, Mr. D’Hipolito one of your comments brought a smile to my face. Truth be told, this is the one, single blog I pay any attention to. And beyond that, to hunt and peck for characters on a keyboard and have them successfully appear on a screen is the limit of my technological capability. I have never considered shooting my screen, although many times I have considered taking a hammer to my computer.

But to the crux of your comments I regret that you have not run across folks who get that piece of the picture. Now maybe you have. Seems pretty elementary and obvious, no? We stick to the fundamentals like Vince Lombardi demanded. This is a revolution within the Church. We can never lose sight of this fundamental fact when we are considering any of these issues. And since the Church is supernatural and we know Who It’s Leader is, we also know who is ultimately in charge of the revolution.

Just as in civil society (becoming daily less so) these revolutionaries are quite cunning and intelligent and they aspire to high places, so it is in the Church, no?

So whether a person wants to imbue them with “good motivations” or not is superfluous, right?

Bergoglio did not start this stuff. Taken in the larger context of all the post-conciliar popes, he is simply a point on a continuum.


Guest - April 20, 2016

You’re right about it involving more than Francis. It started with at least Paul VI, and at most John XIII, and has been continuing since then. Where you are wrong is the necessity to be submissive to the pope and obedient to the bishops in union with him. It is necessary for salvation. You may ask, “well, what if they are heretics?” And here’s the point that many people don’t want to accept: A heretic has no authority in the Church because he is no longer a member of the Church. This includes the pope. If a council declares loss of office, they are not really deposing the pope; they are declaring what has already taken place.

Don’t believe me? Read the complete context of what Bellarmine writes:


A Church cannot depose a true pope. A heretical papal claimant is already deposed, like Nestorius lost his office before any official declaration. They ought to declare it for the good of the Church. One cannot believe a man is a heretic and consider him a pope at the same time.

Joseph D'Hippolito - April 20, 2016

I’ll see your Bellarmine and raise you a Fr. Melchior Cano:


When people submit to bad teaching, let alone to episcopal heretics, they enable falsehood and sabotage truth. Saying that a heretic has “no authority” in the Church, especially when such a heretic holds an episcopal office, is nothing but rhetorical gymnastics.

Guest - April 20, 2016

Okay, but are you sure it is TRULY Catholic to call a man Holy Father and then do nothing he says? Or is it TRULY Catholic to realise that the man is not the Holy Father and ignore him because of that?

Here’s an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church”

The three dangers to the faith we must avoid are: heresy, schism and apostasy. For the longest time I was deceived by the R&R charades. Are you POSITIVELY willing to say that it is not heresy to say that the pope can be a public heretic or not schism to do nothing that he says despite recognising him as pope? Have you studied the matter and willing to stake your salvation on it? We have to know our faith or we will lose it!

Joseph D'Hippolito - April 20, 2016

Guest, I suggest you read Acts 4: 1-22 (especially Acts 4: 19-20) and all of Acts 7. Those who sat in the “seat of Moses,” the revered religious leaders of Jesus’ day, actively opposed Him while He was alive and after His death. Those leaders’ positions and authority did not change — until the Roman army under Titus destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

Bishops, cardinals and popes can claim all the apostolic authority they want, just as those in the “seat of Moses” essentially did. But if they don’t speak or recognize truth, they not only inhibit the faithful. They blaspheme God’s holy Name and, effectively, work for Satan.

I stake my salvation on Jesus’ finished work on the cross and His resurrection, not the opinions of ecclesiastics.

Guest - April 21, 2016


Can’t figure out how to reply to your post directly.

This doesn’t seem possible because the Church teaches that she is indefectable and the Holy Sprint guides her. If she could defect from the faith she has been teaching error concerning her indefectability for quite a while now..On the other hand, while the Church itself cannot defect from the faith, individual members can, including those who hold office.

I’ll leave it at that. The only position that seems likely, given all my searching, studying and prayer, is the sedevacantist position. This is because a few of the four marks are missing from the church most people believe is the Catholic Church. So this is why recognizing it as the Catholic Church is hard. People make up all sort of reasons like ‘the passion of the Church” or “V2 can be ignored because it was only pastoral” but these arguments I see contradict what the Church teaches about herself.

I won’t bother you anymore with this but leave it at that.

Dismas - April 20, 2016

Dear Guest:

There are some of us out here who, having been at this for a while and having noted the empassioned arguments for and against all sorts of things not limited to sedevacantism, each defensor stacking high his “proofs” from this or that saint, scriptural quote, snippet of history or maybe canon law, have arrived at the conclusion that there are just some things that are mysteries and we had best leave such things to God.

The sedevacantists may well be correct. They sure have some compelling arguments. And if it turns out they be correct, I’ll be at the front of the line slapping them on the back and congratulating them.

But there sure are some equally compelling arguments against the assertion.

I’m not bright enough to figure the whole thing out, nor am I in any way equipped to do so simply because I have paid some attention to ecclesiastical matters for a couple of decades, am literate, have internet access and claim to love the Church.

One thing that has puzzled me is the apparent need for some among the sedevacantist population to evangelize for their cause. Could it be because they so love the Church and/or care so much for souls that they want all of us to rise to their truth? Or might it be because at some level they recognize the potential tenuousity of their position and are assuaged when they can convince someone of it? I suppose there are as many motivations as there are people.

Guest - April 20, 2016

R&R people misrepresent the teachings of the Church because they teach errors concerning the obedience due to and authority of the pope. If you read, for example, articles from the Remnant, you’ll see that Robert Siscoe completely misrepresented Bellermine by selectively quoting him. They even teach errors concerning the ordinary and universal magisterium, because only by denying the fact that the people they recognise as authorities teach errors infallibly and bindingly can they continue to hold their positions. It’s a question of what position is more Catholic, and what the true traditional position is. One cannot recognise a man as pope and resist his teachings concerning faith and morals, universal disciplines, and ignore everything he says that doesn’t meet the definition of infallibility. Non sedevacantist traditionalists generally make mince meat of the actual Church teachings and foster a schismatic attitude and Gallicanism, deriding the Catholic attitude as “papalotry”. The thing that troubles me most is that it is easy to study and find out what they’re teaching is not Catholic. It’s not that hard to do now that we have the Internet. But even as they lie through their teeth the laity take them as the true teaching authority of the Church.

You may not be bright enough to figure it all out, but at least read your preV2 catechism, read the Catholic Encyclopedia to see the Church’s mind before V2 and don’t consider someone you like the true magisterium of the Church. At the end of the world the deception will be so grand that everyone who doesn’t love the truth will believe lies and be deceived. The question of who is Pope IS important because ones salvation hinges on being submissive to him. It’s not a matter of indifference. Says so right in the Batlimore Catechism:

Q. 524. From whom must all persons derive whatever lawful authority they possess?

A. All persons must derive whatever lawful authority they possess from God Himself, from whom they receive it directly or indirectly. Therefore, to disobey our lawful superiors is to disobey God Himself, and hence such disobedience is always sinful.

Q. 525. What do you mean by the authority of the Church?

A. By the authority of the Church I mean the right and power which the Pope and the Bishops, as the successors of the Apostles, have to teach and to govern the faithful.

Dismas - April 20, 2016

Dear Guest:

I don’t have anything new to add. I think I addressed it in my prior comment. While you build a really good case you do not, at least in my feeble mind, build a case that cannot be very adequately rebutted. Declaring the man that the Church has apparently named Pope to not be the Pope would require an argument that cannot be adequately rebutted – and then some. For me.

I have found it futile to argue with sedevacantists and by saying this I intend no offense whatsoever to you or to any other person who holds these views. And as I say, when everything shakes out there is the very real possibility that you could be correct. So bully to you!

If I am incorrect in not jumping out and naming Bergoglio as an imposter, please do pray for me that God forgive me this error. Just as I hope and pray that God will forgive the sedes if they happen to be wrong.

I have not to date discussed these matters with a sedevacantist who entertained the possibility that they might have it figured wrong.

Guest - April 21, 2016

Sedevacantists are sure they are right for the same reasons traditional Catholics are sure they are right. To a non-Catholic, Catholics look arrogant; to a traditionalist who is not a sedevacantist, sedevacantists look arrogant.

But I won’t post on it anymore since no one wants t talk about it. God bless you too.

Tantumblogo - April 21, 2016

More or less my view encapsulated in the first 3/4 of your comment. That, and being a former protestant, and understanding the critical need for authority and jurisdiction, I simply cannot go there. It’s a bridge to far for me, with too many implications that cut to the heart of this thing called the Church, and even more, my faith. I would have enormous trouble remaining faithful from a sede vacantist viewpoint. Just strictly my point of view.

Tantumblogo - April 21, 2016

Wow. Really strong comment. Had not seen it yet.

Yes, Francis did not appear out of nowhere. He is the unavoidable end result of a process that began decades ago. Under Benedict, some of us (I include myself as first on that list, especially as I was new to this Catholic “thing”) could fool ourselves into believing that the corner had been turn, the ship begun to right, etc. It looks more and more like Benedict was nothing but a temporary respite, or more accurately, a brief pause, perhaps even for consolidation, along the same path. I always bear in mind that much of the insanity we see in the Church today was brought to the fore by a young assistant to the heretic Rahner at Vatican II……one Joseph Ratzinger. Yes, he came to ameliorate many of his views, later, but never directly repudiated them, and did not do much to evict the modernist elements from the Church (though, Summorum Pontificum was a gift of inestimable value).

I don’t want to pick on Benedict too much, but he was also the CDF through much of JPII’s reign, when much of this apostasy and radicalism were allowed to firmly entrench themselves in the Church. There was a possibility after Paul VI that a truly restorationist pope could have moved hard to squash the revolution against the Church (it would have been incredibly ugly and difficult, but possible), but that opportunity was squandered and, really, JPII did a great deal to help normalize and institutionalize the revolution. Again, he was one of its proponents at the dread council.

I could go on, but it’s all of a piece. I say it again, the papal acts and programs of the period 1958-2013 made Francis inevitable, and it is virtually inevitable, barring Divine intervention, that his successor will be even worse. I don’t mean to sound too negative, but having watched matters fairly closely for a decade or so now, my observations tell me that the Restoration, should it come (prior to Christ), will not really get much traction until after my lifetime. Even if I live to be 100.

That is to say, things are going to get much worse before they get better. Stay close to Our Lady, she is the only way to remain faithful through the trials to come.

9. docmx001 - April 19, 2016

It’s not just the Blessed Sacrament being abused (can’t believe I just wrote that) but also Penance/Reconciliation: https://nonvenipacem.com/2016/04/19/sex-lies-and-videotape/

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: