jump to navigation

Shock! Francis Actually Meant What He Said in Amoris Laetitia! September 14, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, damnable blasphemy, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, Francis, General Catholic, horror, rank stupidity, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, shocking, the struggle for the Church.

I know I’m way late on this, being away always at the wrong time, but an explosive development came out late last week, and you can tell how important it is by the backflips the usual papolotrists are doing trying to explain it away.  Heck, Jeff Mirus reduced adultery to a venial sin to try to make this an inconsequential development!

So, the bishops of the Buenos Aires developed a document explaining to priests how to implement the infamous chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia, doing so along plainly literal lines, taking the document at its word and just going from there, giving free reign to priests to give Communion to divorced people who have remarried without obtaining an annulment.  They submitted this interpretation to Franky George Bergoglio for his approval and he granted it, with great vigor.  In fact, he says the plainly heterodox “interpretation” of the document is the only one possible/permissible.  Which, duh, but a lot of folks have egg on their faces now, and they’d rather turn the Catholic Faith into a meaningless mishmash of pretzel logic than be wrong (Mirus, for one, has done this for years, even well before Francis).

Summary via LifeSite/Rorate below:

In a letter reportedly leaked by a priest in Argentina, Pope Francis writes that there is “no other interpretation” of Amoris Laetitia other than one admitting divorced and remarried Catholics to Holy Communion in some cases. The letter, dated September 5, comes in response to a confidential document by the bishops of the Buenos Aires pastoral region to priests instructing them on the application of the Pope’s controversial apostolic exhortation. LifeSite has acquired copies of both original documents and has provided professional side-by-side translation……..

LifeSiteNews’ translation of the Pope’s letter is here

LifeSiteNews’ translation of the bishops’ directive is here

The bishops’ directive called “Basic Criteria for the Application of Chapter Eight of Amoris Laetitia” says that in “complex circumstances” when the remarried couple could not “obtain a declaration of nullity,” the priests can nevertheless move forward to grant them access to Holy Communion. If the priest recognizes that “in a particular case there are limitations that diminish responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), particularly when a person judges that he would fall into a subsequent fault by damaging the children of the new union,” says the directive, “Amoris Laetitia opens the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (cf. notes 336 and 351).”

The Pope’s letter affirms this path with effusive praise for the bishops’ work. Writing to the delegate of the Buenos Aires Pastoral Region, Monsignor Sergío Alfredo Fenoy, the Pope says, “I thank you for the work they have done on this: a true example of accompaniment for the priests.”

Pope Francis adds: “The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations. And I am certain that it will do much good. May the Lord reward this effort of pastoral charity.”……..

………The leaked document is the first time there is explicit confirmation that Pope Francis interprets Amoris Laetitia as allowing communion for divorced and remarried Catholics without the condition that the couple in the irregular situation live as brother and sister without sexual relations, as was always required by the Church.

Is anyone surprised?  Did anyone think Francis would repudiate the plain meaning of Amoris Laetitia?  How many demonstrations of radicalism and even heterodoxy must we have before some people will accept the idea that we have not just a bad pope, an incautious pope, but one that is openly promoting things directly contrary to the constant belief and practice of the Faith and the very Word of Life Himself?!?  I mean for crying out loud when will you get over your manifest error that Church = pope and pope = Church?!?
I just, totally coincidentally, completed some reading on the fall of Pope Liberius to the Arians. That, at least, was done under extreme duress, but fall he did.  He did most definitely sign onto at least a semi-Arian formulation.  Then we have the subsequent “problems” of Honorius/Formusus and John XXII.  The point being, popes have on several occasions promoted dubious doctrinal beliefs, including two of the three most recent occupants of the See of Peter. But Francis is stressing the machine well beyond its limits, we either have to admit that we have a pope who is endorsing error – I pray God innocently – or we have to basically pretend that the entire moral edifice of the Church means nothing.
Am I over-reacting?  Can there be an over-reaction to this development, the first solemn confirmation that Amoris Laetitia was no mistake, no inadvertant claim, that the positions contained therein express the true will of the pope made with complete deliberation?  This is really unprecedented.  All previous such instances were much more vague, more minor, or on far more inconsequential matters than  what we see now.  As Rorate noted in a subsequent post, we’re now down to a very clear situation – within the Church herself –  of standing with Christ, or standing with satan.  Is that too much?  I don’t think so, at all, but perhaps this can be your place to vent on the subject, if you haven’t, already.
As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.


1. Baseballmom - September 14, 2016

I still posit the possibility that this confirms an invalid papacy. IF there was a group of Cardinals who met before the conclave and IF Jorge Bergoglio was their man THEN Benedict is still pope.

2. Guy mcclung - September 14, 2016

Has JB invalidated his papacy by publicly proclaiming heresy?

Tantumblogo - September 14, 2016

That’s the million dollar question. I cannot say, but I will say the evidence supporting that as a claim continues to accumulate at a terrifying pace.

3. Mrs. Maureen Avila - September 14, 2016

If Jorge Bergoglio is truly in formal heresy, and his choice of comrades as well as his written and spoken words regarding human sexuality and marriage suggest that he may be, then he has disqualified himself as a reigning Pope, according to St. Robert Bellarmine; but he must be declared a heretic by competent Church authority. St. Thomas Aquinas said that heretics should then be executed because they are such a grave danger to souls.

4. bluebird4458 - September 14, 2016

Tantum: Could you please tell me where the expression “Where Peter is, there is the church?” I think that this is where many people get the idea that whatever the Pope says, is the church speaking. Please clarify

Tantumblogo - September 14, 2016

You refer to whence it came, its etymology? I know its been widely repeated, including by many Saints, but we live in unprecedented times . Never before has a pope so obviously taught things at variance with the Doctrine of the Faith in a persistent manner, even after attempts at correction. Generally speaking, I’d say the expression is true, but we live in times that have never before occurred in the Church, at least so far as the historical record reveals.

I do think something has gotten off-kilter with regard to mass understanding of the papacy. We’re talking doctrines that have been settled for centuries, derived directly from Scripture, being directly challenged by the Vicar of Christ! Who ever heard of such a thing?!? And while another pope lives! Somehow I think this all relates back to a kind of creeping impeccability stemming from wide scale misunderstanding of Vatican I but it’s a bit nebulous to nail down.

Margaret Costello - September 14, 2016

I thought the saying was “where the bishop is, there is the Church.” Although I could be wrong. If it’s about Peter, then A) it’s just a saying and could be wrong B) it certainly didn’t apply to the many popes in the past who were horrid:+)

God bless~

Camper - September 15, 2016

St. Ignatius of Antioch in 117AD said, “Where the bishop is, there is the church.” I’ve never heard the analogous saying about St. Peter, though I’ve only been Catholic for twelve years, ten formally.

5. Margaret Costello - September 14, 2016

“particularly when a person judges that he would fall into a subsequent fault by damaging the children of the new union” Ok, can anyone explain to me what this actually means?

How is refraining from having relations with your adulterous partner a cause for damaging children or falling into a supposed “fault”? If you live as “brother and sister” how does that damage children? And why do I get the sense that the whole “you can live as brother and sister if their are children in the mix” a modernist novelty and compromise dreamed up by JPII? Isn’t living in public adultery a scandal? Isn’t it putting yourself in an occasion to sin? And if these people really cared about children and not hurting them, why did they commit adultery and shack up to begin with?

God bless~

dthy - September 15, 2016

Good questions, because the best thing that parents can do for their children is to obey the laws of God.

Rod Halvorsen - September 15, 2016

Same view I have. It is a Mosaic accommodation wholly like the allowance for divorce in the first place. Except…we have the clear words of Christ to follow, unless…hmmmm….

Now accompany me for just one moment…

I mean, what if I decide to take on a young woman {we’re just friends!!!} and spend every other weekend with her? I mean, poor thing’s alone and she needs a man about the house. Of course…{Wink, Wink, Nod, Nod}…we aren’t up to anything untoward, and naturally there is no monkeybusiness going on {how could there be, since “mortal sin” is such an old outdated concept…} So far all’s well, so much so that I meet my favorite priest Father Beachbaltar after Saturday evening Mass for a beer at the sport’s bar, he approving of my relationship since he has no metaphysical certitude of any nefarious activities at my playpen. Well, until…the utterly unlikely happens and my 25-year-old swimsuit model has to take a sabbatical from her day job as is getting a little fuller around the middle and starts craving anchovies on her mint chocolate chip ice cream at 3 in the morning cuz….she’s got one in the oven…planted there by Yours Truly.

Immediately, under the New Order, things must change!

Why, with the bouncing baby due in mere months, the God of Surprises offers me new challenges I must rise to meet! First and most important, I must avoid the temptation to be a “self-absorbed, Promethean neo-Pelagian” I MUST stand erect and now support my Side Order along with my Main Entree {the one at home with the 2.5 kids…wouldn’t want to “breed like a rabbit” you know…}.

Now all this sounds well and good, but I must be attending Mass {along with my Swimsuit Model who is a Hindu, of course, who must “take Communion” as well, but that is for another post…}. And go to Mass I do, cheerfully, accompanying my Room-Mate and our Little Button from time to time.

Now after all this, is it REALLY reasonable to expect me and she to keep hands-off? I mean, c’mon, she has a wonderful, caring man who has “accompanied” her thru a tough time in her life. Gray as he might be, she now understandably gets randy as she-wolf in heat. Why not?

Well, you all know the answer there! Thank Heavens I don’t have to explain myself to a “fomenter of coprophagia”, a priest who makes the confessional a torture chamber!!! All I need to do is ring up Father Beachbaltar and arrange a time to get to the Internal Forum where he and I can work it out in fast order, you know, over a cup of coffee while we wait for our burgers at Mickey Dee’s. The answer is a foregone conclusion due to the Year of Mercy, of course, so I am at peace and my Friend gets it whenever she wants it… Such a servant am I.

Why, my presence at Mass should be a blessing to the parish community!!! I’m accompanying someone in need, serving the marginalized, keeping the “human person” at the center!!

And if my Mrs. at home with the 2.5’ers at some point feels in her heart that she just would rather go a different way because at work she’s met a really nice gal who likes walks on the beach, sundowners on a mountaintop and horserides in the desert just like Mrs does, why, it’s no problem! Mrs and I can shake hands and part, yet, due to merciful “serene theology” meet Father Beachbaltar at Mass every Saturday night {unless there’s a good football game on or my Friend is randy…} and get our worship on with my Friend, accompanying each other {and our kids, don’t forget our kids!!!}, eating and drinking to our merry…


Why, I’d be a Bergoglian Saint!!

Baseballmom - September 15, 2016

Rod my dear, you can write! Thanks 😀

marykpkj - September 16, 2016

Absolutely priceless! This about sums up, not the ‘worst case scenario’, but the day-to-day reality of what is being mercifully shoved down our throats. What a piece of work.

Rod Halvorsen - September 16, 2016


“Formal heresy” isn’t the thing, and Catholics need to understand that. So WHAT if the Pope doesn’t fall into “formal heresy”. What IS the thing is the wholesale avoidance of holiness by our prelates.

It’s like this; A car windshield can be ruined by one big rock…OR…by a thousand little pits that obscure the vision and lead to disaster. So many wonderful Catholic commentators these days have a tailgate party every time it is proven Frank didn’t actually affirm and teach “formal heresy”, not realizing the tremendous damage done by the “little pits”!

See, tho I don’t have a “Friend” on the side {if I did, I wouldn’t be writing this as I wouldn’t be this side of a dirt nap, my wife being who she is and all… LOL}, I AM a sinner, and I NEED, no, REALLY need the Church to stand firm on Her perennial teachings.

I do not expect Bishops or even Popes to be perfect, but I do expect them to affirm the need to be so.

After all, a Jewish Carpenter once told us that we must be…just as our Father in Heaven is.

The standard isn’t The Lowest Common Denominator, it is GOD HIMSELF.

Pray for the Pope and the Bishops and, as always,

God Save the Catholic Church.

6. TLM - September 14, 2016

“Has JB invalidated his Papacy by publicly proclaiming heresy?”

Don’t know. I hear some arguing no, actually his letter to the Bishops was (number 1) leaked and (number 2) not a pronouncement ‘from the Chair’. That said, he is clearly guiding the flock to hell. So………I’m wondering…………..what in the world do the Bishops call THAT???!!! It should be a whole lot easier to determine since he is clearly ‘teaching heresy’ even if it’s not ‘formal’, but I’m certainly no canon lawyer, we are at the mercy of the Bishops…………which btw, are doing pretty much NOTHING so far.

Tantumblogo - September 14, 2016

I think the case can still be made he has not, yet, quite definitively publicly proclaimed error as truth, but the margin keeps getting slimmer and slimmer, and the trends are all in the wrong direction. I think an argument can still be made that the portions of Amoris Laetitia that are so, to put it kindly, problematic, may not constitute formal teaching that contradicts established doctrine, there is some room for interpretation, but now we have a sort of interpretation that is not doctrinal in itself but plainly pointing in the wrong direction.

But arguments can also be made on the other side. I was probably a bit too hot when I wrote that post, because we are getting very, very close to the unthinkable.

Camper - September 15, 2016

What I don’t understand is why bishops of all stripes, SSPX and ‘Roman’ stand and say that JB is teaching all kinds of heretical things? It is crickets from the Roman bishops, with no serious exceptions to my knowledge (Schneider does not count) and the SSPX does not use the word ‘heresy’ loudly. Why?

Mrs. Maureen Avila - September 16, 2016

The Bishops of Alberta seem to be adhering to the traditional Church norms re divorce/remarriage , continence and communion:
This article appeared today

Tantumblogo - September 16, 2016

While Ireland appears to be declaring remarried divorcees with no annulment can present and receive. There’s a word for that, isn’t there?

Camper - September 17, 2016

The SSPX and ‘Roman’ bishops are not crying ‘heresy!’ when they should be shouting it from the rooftops. They don’t know how to do their work!

7. aroamingcatholicny - September 15, 2016

An Act of Apostasy! At one point when 1st released, the Rocket Scientists at “The Warehouse In Detroit”(ChurchMilitant.com), called Amoris Laetitia “A thoroughly orthodox document.”
That story was pulled the next day.

8. Janet Wilkie - September 15, 2016

JP II covered the situation we have now in Universi Dominici Gregis. Members of the “St. Gallen Mafia” have openly admitted that they organized the election of Francis, unsuccessfully after the death of JPII, and successfully after Benedict’s resignation.

This violates the prescribed method of election mandated in UDG.

Paragraph 76 of the UDG states: “Should the (papal) election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without a need for a declaration on the matter; consequently it confers no right on the one elected.”

Look it up for yourself. Electors have openly admitted violating the conditons. “Francis” is not the pope. He never was. His election was “null and void” according to UDG.

Therefore, all the concern about whether we have a heretical pope is null and void too. We don’t. He is not the pope. His election was both illicit and invalid.

Look it up. Type in Universi Dominici Gregis, and scroll down to paragraph 76. Then read the rest. JPII was obviously aware of the situation, and was trying to prevent it.

Baseballmom - September 15, 2016

That was pretty much my initial comment.

9. Jeff C. - September 15, 2016

Tantum, have you seen the latest post from Mirus? He actually tries to make the case that you can’t expect the Pope to provide the correct interpretation of his own document! He says that a private correspondence (ie the letter sent to the bishops) is not protected by infallibility.

Tantumblogo - September 15, 2016

Well I think the latter is correct, which, in a sense, I am thankful for, a pope can err in private correspondence, but it seems then that Mirus is hanging his hopes on the idea that the Holy Ghost will prevent Francis from making, or attempting to make, his interpretation doctrinal. In the real world, however, this interpretation will very quickly disseminate through episcopal conferences around the world and be interpreted as the Lord’s Own Will because it came from the pope and wouldn’t the pope know how to interpret his own document? That is to say, those disposed to use Amoris Laetitia to essentially destroy the moral doctrine of the Faith now have the perfect instrument with which to do so. Therefore, I find Mirus’ arguments, as is almost always the case with him when it comes to trying to explain away the revolution in the Church, to be about how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin. It may salve his conscience, but the destruction continues apace, and accelerates to relativistic speeds.

10. Mary Ann Parks - September 15, 2016

He has not endorsed heresy in a manner which expresses the charism of infallibility. Thank God.

Tantumblogo - September 15, 2016

I do not disagree. But as I alluded in another comment, he keeps edging closer and closer.

11. VALENTINE CHILEGA - September 15, 2016

The Pope and B. Aires Bishops are absolutely right!

Camper - September 17, 2016

You haven’t made any kind of argument, and for thinking this, you will go to hell if you don’t change.

Attention! Help this guy revert!

12. The Cat is Definitely Out of the Bag | A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics - September 15, 2016

[…] Viz yesterday’s post, I don’t think there is any doubt that Francis’ “private letter” to the bishops of Buenos Aires has had the desired effect.  The “leak” was far from accidental, I’m sure.  How else do you get awesome coverage like this, without a good leak?: […]

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: