Excerpt from a blog post I wrote at the time of this tweet, December 2016:
“Creativity! The FrancisGenius is going to provide creative answers to mercyproblems, enabling new undertakings, because Francis has the Spirit!
The endgame to implementation and enforcement of Amoris Laetitia is not in yes or no answers. The endgame will be to assign the questions and criticisms to a malformed, primitive, simplistic moral theology, which needs to be enlightened by the Third Person of the God of Surprises. That is why you are hearing all the talk lately about spirits, and it will soon become clear which Spirit or spirits are on which side.
The endgame will be false transcendence. If twitter allowed more than 140 characters (and now it does), it might sound something like this:
“Doctors of the law remain fixated on the ‘ideals’ of the Gospel, and indeed the ‘ideals’ remain unchanged. But the God of Surprises demands us to unleash the creativity of mercy at this time, to bring about new undertakings amidst the concrete situations of real life. This is the fruit of grace to which the spirit is calling. It is a grace that transcends mere ideals, bringing God’s profound mercy and hope to those on the peripheries.”
Does that sound about right? “Francis” laid the groundwork for all this through a diabolical twisting of 1 Cor 11:17-34, buried deep within AL, paragraphs #185-186.”
I started writing another essay around the same time, based on those two paragraphs #185-186 from Amoris. I shelved it, because I thought that maybe I was too far out over my tips. But the last few weeks have revealed a pattern that points directly toward what I had foreseen back then: An attempt at marketing a One World Religion, in which no one is ever excluded, and thus unity is achieved through “diversity”. There have been several trial balloons lately: The denial of Hell on Holy Thursday, the assurance of atheist saints, the “we are all children of God, even the unbaptized”, the Truth can be made into an idol, and of course the latest, “the Holy Spirit is a disaster”. There are others.
So I’ve updated the essay, and hopefully you make it through the next 3000 words. I’ll give you the conclusion up front: Having tried and failed in claiming that their heresies are consistent with perennial Church teaching, by referencing and footnoting previous magisterial documents in a way that was not very clever, and their unpopularity now growing day by day, they need to sweep these things away and claim that none of it matters: The doctrines remain as they always were, but to speak only of doctrine is very small-minded. We are now called to the higher duty of UNITY above and beyond the mere doctrinal “ideals”. God’s mercy extends always and everywhere for everyone; it TRANSCENDS the doctrines. In fact, it transcends Catholicism itself, and it also transcends other religions and even atheism. The Telos toward which the God of Surprises is calling is “Unity through Diversity”, always going out to the margins, never being close-minded, abstract or rigid, because “no one can be condemned forever.”
The time bomb is planted deep in Amoris Laetitia, way before Chapter Eight, in paragraphs #185-186. Before we look at those paragraphs, let’s examine the scripture passage *supposedly* being explained therein. The referenced scripture text is 1 Cor 11:17-34. The principle subject is eating and drinking unworthily. Note well: The beginning and ending of this passage (v.17-22, 33-34) refer to an abuse having to do with the context in which the Eucharist was celebrated, that is, the “Lord’s Supper” or agape meal preceding the Mass. The middle part (v.23-32) refers to the actual Eucharist itself. This distinction is extremely important.
Here is St. Paul to the Corinthians (footnotes in italics, must of which are Haydock):
 Now this I ordain: not praising you, that you come together not for the better, but for the worse.  For first of all I hear that when you come together in the church, there are schisms among you; and in part I believe it. For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be made manifest among you.  When you come therefore together into one place, it is not now to eat the Lord’s supper.
 “There must be also heresies”: By reason of the pride and perversity of man’s heart; not by God’s will or appointment; who nevertheless draws good out of this evil, manifesting, by that occasion, who are the good and firm Christians, and making their faith more remarkable.
 “The Lord’s supper”: So the apostle here calls the charity feasts observed by the primitive Christians; and reprehends the abuses of the Corinthians, on these occasions; which were the more criminal, because these feasts were accompanied with the celebrating of the eucharistic sacrifice and sacrament.
 For every one taketh before his own supper to eat. And one indeed is hungry and another is drunk.  What, have you not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God; and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? Do I praise you? In this I praise you not.  For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread.  And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me.  In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.  Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.  But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.  For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.  Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.
 “Or drink”: Here erroneous translators corrupted the text, by putting and drink (contrary to the original) instead of or drink.
 “Guilty of the body”: not discerning the body. This demonstrates the real presence of the body and blood of Christ, even to the unworthy communicant; who otherwise could not be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, or justly condemned for not discerning the Lord’s body.
 “Drink of the chalice”: This is not said by way of command, but by way of allowance, viz., where and when it is agreeable to the practice and discipline of the church.
 But if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.  But whilst we are judged, we are chastised by the Lord, that we be not condemned with this world.  Wherefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.  If any man be hungry, let him eat at home; that you come not together unto judgment. And the rest I will set in order, when I come.
Paul is writing around the year 54 to the church in Corinth, which he himself had founded. The referenced passage comes later in the letter, after Paul had already issued rebukes for some very serious sins, including fornication, adultery, and sodomy (“effeminates and sodomizers” in the Greek…Paul liked specificity). The main issue of this section is the importance of examining ones conscience and worthy reception of the Eucharist.
In first century Corinth, the custom was for the Mass take place as part of an extended celebration, with a communal meal prior to the actual Mass, symbolic of the Passover setting in which Christ himself instituted the Eucharist. This communal meal, which was later abolished when fasting norms were introduced, is what St. Paul is talking about in vv. 17-22, 33-34. Go read it again. The problem was that the rich were overindulging, or keeping to themselves, thus leaving not enough for the poor, hence defeating the whole purpose of the pre-Eucharist charity meal. When he says “Don’t you have homes?” he means that if you’re really that physically hungry, have something at home before you come to church, so you can properly “share” in the celebration both materially and socially.
Sandwiched between the verses about the communal meal, we have the middle vv.23-32, where St. Paul is clearly shifting gears to talk about the actual Eucharist, not the communal meal. His tone turns far more grave (v. 27-29), because the sins he is referring to are not simply about failing to share/socialize at the communal meal, but rather all of those far worse sins he had called out earlier in the letter (Chapters 5-6). He issues a stern warning about those who eat and drink judgment unto themselves because they fail to examine (‘prove’) themselves and ‘discern’ before receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. Remember these words, because they will be twisted, in fact inverted, in truly diabolical fashion.
How do we know this is the correct interpretation of the passage? Because it doesn’t make sense any other way. Try reading v.29 and then v.33 in succession. Do you see how those two verses obviously refer to two different “meals”, because the instructions are opposed to one another? v.29 says discern whether you are worthy to eat, v.33 says you should all eat together. Check out Haydock if you want more detail:
Verse 17: “S. Paul found that several abuses had crept in among the Corinthians at their Church meetings, where before the holy mysteries…they used to have those
charitable suppers, called the Agape. For as our Saviour eat first a common supper with his apostles, before he instituted the holy sacrament, so the Christians in many places brought meats with them, and eat a supper together, in token of that friendship and union, which they had with all their brethren, before they began to celebrate the holy mysteries. It is this supper, which according to the common interpretation S. Paul here (v. 20.) calls the Lord’s supper…”
Verses 23-32: “He puts every one in mind, that whosoever shall eat this bread, (v. 27.)
so called from the outward appearances, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall, by such a sacrilege, be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. And (v. 29.) that he eateth, and drinketh judgment, or condemnation to himself, not discerning the difference betwixt celestial food and other meats…This demonstrates the real presence of the body and blood of Christ, even to the unworthy communicant; who otherwise could not be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, or justly condemned for not discerning the Lord’s body. The real presence in the sacrament is also proved by the enormity of the crime, in its profanation…Hence the dreadful punishments we read of in verses 27 and 30…To avoid this, let a man prove himself, examine the state of his conscience, especially before he receives the holy sacrament, confess his sins, and be absolved by those to whom Christ left the power of forgiving sins in his name, and by his authority. If we judge ourselves in this manner, we shall not be judged, that is, condemned.” HERE
By the way, it’s not a coincidence that this same passage was used first by protestants, and then by the Vatican II crowd, in their desire to destroy the sacrificial nature of the Mass, and deny the Eucharist itself, by falsely over-emphasizing the communal aspect in order to cover up the obvious teaching on the True Presence in vv.23-32. Their conflating of the communal meal with the actual sacrifice of Calvary re-presented on the altar is a prophetic set up to what comes next. The entirety of Modernism, reaching its zenith in the Church with Vatican II and its aftermath, has led us unavoidably to this moment.
Now that we have an understanding of the scripture passage, let’s move on to the relevant paragraphs of Amoris Laetitia. Here are the two paragraphs that provide cover for the full blown heresy in Chapter Eight of the same document, and fuel the false narrative spouted by Bergoglio, Kasper, Marx, etc. #185 introduces 1 Corinthians into the “catechesis”:
Along these same lines, we do well to take seriously a biblical text usually interpreted outside of its context or in a generic sense, with the risk of overlooking its immediate and direct meaning, which is markedly social. I am speaking of 1 Cor 11:17-34, where Saint Paul faces a shameful situation in the community. The wealthier members tended to discriminate against the poorer ones, and this carried over even to the agape meal that accompanied the celebration of the Eucharist. While the rich enjoyed their food, the poor looked on and went hungry: “One is hungry and another is drunk. Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the Church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?” (vv. 21-22).
That first sentence is a hint about what comes next, but the rest of the paragraph is all well and good. It even makes the accurate distinction between the agape meal and the actual Eucharist. Now, watch this:
The Eucharist demands that we be members of the one body of the Church. Those who approach the Body and Blood of Christ may not wound that same Body by creating scandalous distinctions and divisions among its members. This is what it means to “discern” the body of the Lord, to acknowledge it with faith and charity both in the sacramental signs and in the community; those who fail to do so eat and drink judgement against themselves (cf. v. 29). The celebration of the Eucharist thus becomes a constant summons for everyone “to examine himself or herself ” (v. 28), to open the doors of the family to greater fellowship with the underprivileged, and in this way to receive the sacrament of that Eucharistic love which makes us one body. We must not forget that “the ‘mysticism’ of the sacrament has a social character”. When those who receive it turn a blind eye to the poor and suffering, or consent to various forms of division, contempt and inequality, the Eucharist is received unworthily. On the other hand, families who are properly disposed and receive the Eucharist regularly, reinforce their desire for fraternity, their social consciousness and their commitment to those in need.
Paragraph #186 is a jaw-dropping diabolical inversion of truth. Antipope Francis here intentionally conflates the two separate admonitions from St. Paul, and the outcome is precisely the OPPOSITE of what St. Paul actually teaches. In this version, reading Paul through Jorge, it is those who have failed to share the Eucharist (aka rigid doctors of the law who withhold the Eucharist from those unworthy to receive) who are guilty of taking the Eucharist unworthily themselves. Is it not abundantly clear what he means by “open the doors to greater fellowship with the ‘underprivileged’”? The people who fail to discern – the guilty ones – are the mean people who are blocking “unity” by denying the Eucharist to others. It’s the Faithful Catholics who are the ones creating “scandalous distinctions…divisions, contempt, inequality.” Read #186 again and again, until you understand.
The logical ends of this are now playing out before our eyes:
- Unrepentant mortal sinners must be shown mercy, because unity is the ultimate commandment
- The law remains unchanged, but it is to be seen merely as an “ideal”
- The mercy of God transcends the reality of the law
- Those who refuse to accept this “greater reality” commit mortal sin themselves
- The transcendence of the Spirit also extends to protestants, non-Christians, and atheists, because “a little bread and wine does no harm”, we are all children of God, proselytizing is solemn nonsense, and atheists go to Heaven. Capiche?
Do you now understand why the non-response from Antipope Bergoglio to the dubia and every other letter, petition and plea put before him? The referential footnotes in Chapter Eight having been long ago exposed as completely dishonest, falsely claiming continuity with traditional thought, Bergoglio needs to lay claim to channeling a higher authority: The Third Person of the Trinity, of course. And so he will cite Holy Scripture as a CONTRAST to the closed-mindedness of the mean Old Church for failing to properly declare the “doctrine” of Unity through Diversity/Sharing, and will accuse orthodox Catholics of heresy for calling him out on it. This isn’t “big tent” Catholicism, this is the annihilation of Catholicism. Are you ready for what that means for you?
Consider his scolding of the curia regarding “diseases impeding reform” in his Christmas address of 22 December 2016:
“There are also cases of malicious resistance, which spring up in misguided minds and come to the fore when the devil inspires ill intentions (often cloaked in sheep’s clothing). This last kind of resistance hides behind words of self-justification and often accusation; it takes refuge in traditions, appearances, formalities, in the familiar, or else in a desire to make everything personal, failing to distinguish between the act, the actor, and the action.”
Imagine what this is going to mean not only for priests and bishops, but for every one of the faithful. You are going to be forced to play a part in this, and very soon. Start praying, or start praying harder, and prepare yourself and your family for what is coming. Matthew 24 is a great place to start.
“And many false prophets shall rise, and shall seduce many. And because iniquity hath abounded, the charity of many shall grow cold. But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom, shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come. When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand.Then they that are in Judea, let them flee to the mountains: And he that is on the housetop, let him not come down to take any thing out of his house: And he that is in the field, let him not go back to take his coat. And woe to them that are with child, and that give suck in those days. But pray that your flight be not in the winter, or on the sabbath. For there shall be then great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, neither shall be. And unless those days had been shortened, no flesh should be saved: but for the sake of the elect those days shall be shortened. Then if any man shall say to you: Lo here is Christ, or there, do not believe him. For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Behold I have told it to you, beforehand.” Matt 24:11-25