"Amoris Laetitia hinges on...real-life situations...so fractured that an individual cannot immediately leave a civilly remarried relationship..Francis argues that this structural trap reduces their subjective culpability....Th[is] quote dismantles...[as] a secundum quid dilemma [type of informal fallacy]"

Secundum quid (comes from the Latin "a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid", meaning "[what is true] in a certain respect and [what is true] absolutely" or "from the statement unqualified to the statement qualified).^[1] It is a type of informal fallacy that occurs when the arguer omits the fact that a statement applies with qualifications or exceptions, or fails to recognize the difference between rules of thumb (soft generalizations, heuristics that hold true as a general rule but leave room for exceptions) and categorical propositions, rules that hold true universally.

Since it ignores the limits, or qualifications, of rules of thumb, this fallacy is also named ignoring qualifications or sweeping generalizations. The expression misuse of a principle can be used as well. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secundum_quid#:~:text=Secundum%20quid%20(comes%20from%20the&text=%5B1%5D%20It%20is%20a%20type,applies%20with%20qualifications%20or%20exceptions%2C]

Google AI overview on quote below: That is the pith of Francis’ [Amoris Letitia] argument.

We disagree with this position on three grounds. In this we are following St. Thomas Aquinas as interpreted by John Capreolus and Jude Dougherty[3]: first, we think that it is impossible to have irresolvable secundum quid dilemmas. The cause of the dilemma can always be removed or the conscience reformed. Nobody is forced to sin. One can cease sexual relations in the second marriage without sinning. Such a decision would undoubtedly come with challenges, but those challenges in themselves are not morally evil and can be overcome through grace and virtue. the francis counter aguemnt e disagree with this position on three grounds. In this we are following St. Thomas Aquinas as interpreted by John Capreolus and Jude Dougherty[3]: first, we think that it is impossible to have irresolvable secundum quid dilemmas. The cause of the dilemma can always be removed or the conscience reformed. Nobody is forced to sin. One can cease sexual relations in the second marriage without sinning. Such a decision would undoubtedly come with challenges, but those challenges in themselves are not morally evil and can be overcome through grace and virtue. [https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/fidelity-and-discernment-reading-amoris-laetitia/]

This passage provides a precise counterargument to the "pastoral mitigation" defense of Amoris Laetitia. It is taken from a widely discussed 2016 theological essay, "Fidelity and Discernment: Reading 'Amoris Laetitia'," which uses the Thomistic taxonomy of moral choices to challenge Pope Francis’s framework. [1, 2]

To fully unpack how this argument aims to dismantle the Pope's defense, it helps to analyze the mechanics of Thomistic moral philosophy that the quote relies on:

1. Simpliciter vs. Secundum Quid Dilemmas

In classical Thomism (heavily analyzed in Jude Dougherty's work on medieval moral dilemmas), a distinction is made between two types of moral perplexity: [1]

• Perplexus Simpliciter (Absolutely Perplexed): A situation where an agent is trapped by circumstances completely beyond their control and must choose between two sins. Aquinas argued that God’s universe is inherently rational; therefore, a simpliciter dilemma cannot exist. God never forces a human being into a situation where sin is mathematically inevitable. [1]
• Perplexus Secundum Quid (Qualified Dilemma): A situation where someone feels trapped into sinning, but only "in a certain respect"—meaning the dilemma was created by their own past bad choices, an uneducated conscience, or a lack of virtue. [1]

2. How this Refutes the Francis Defense

The defense of Amoris Laetitia hinges on the idea that real-life situations are sometimes so fractured that an individual cannot immediately leave a civilly remarried relationship without causing further harm (e.g., hurting the children, breaking a vow of companionship). Pope Francis argues that this structural trap reduces their subjective culpability. [1, 2]

The quote dismantles this by using John Capreolus (the "Prince of Thomists") to assert that this is merely a secundum quid dilemma. The authors argue that: [1, 2]

1. Nobody is forced to sin: An objective moral trap does not exist.
2. The dilemma is removable: The couple can simply choose to live "as brother and sister" (ceasing sexual relations).
3. Challenges are not sins: While abstaining within a second marriage will certainly cause emotional, psychological, or familial stress ("challenges"), hardship is not a sin. [1]

The Bottom Line

By invoking Aquinas, Capreolus, and Dougherty, this critique asserts that Pope Francis’s argument subtly treats complex pastoral situations as if they were simpliciter dilemmas (unresolvable traps). The critique concludes that by claiming a person "cannot help but sin," Amoris Laetitia denies the power of divine grace and virtue to overcome human hardship, effectively reducing moral absolutes to variable situations. [1, 2]

"Certain currents of modern thought have gone so far as to exalt freedom to such an extent that it becomes an absolute... This is the direction taken by doctrines which have lost the sense of the transcendent or which are explicitly atheist. The individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme tribunal of moral judgment which hands down categorical and infallible decisions about good and evil... But in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear."

You have perfectly identified one of the most critical passages in modern Catholic magisterial text—Paragraph 32 of Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor.

When traditional and conservative theologians critique Amoris Laetitia, this exact passage serves as their foundational blueprint. By applying John Paul II’s warning about "absolute freedom" to Pope Francis’s document, critics formulate a highly structured argument.

A comprehensive breakdown of how this specific quote is used to critique Amoris Laetitia highlights two primary lines of thought.

---

⚖️ The Critique: Accommodating a "Supreme Tribunal"

Critics argue that Amoris Laetitia (specifically Chapter 8) inadvertently succumbs to the exact modern current John Paul II warned against. Their critique centers on two main points:

• The Over-Exaltation of Conscience: Veritatis Splendor warns against turning conscience into a "supreme tribunal" that decides what is good or evil. Critics claim that Amoris Laetitia approaches this boundary by allowing divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to discern in their own conscience whether they can receive Holy Communion. They argue this permits the individual conscience to grant an exception to an objective moral law (the permanence of marriage).
• The Disappearance of Absolute Truth: John Paul II argues that when freedom is made absolute, "the inescapable claims of truth disappear." Critics assert that by emphasizing complex circumstances over the objective state of a second marriage, Amoris Laetitia risks reducing absolute moral laws into mere "ideals" that are too difficult for the average person to achieve, effectively eroding the absolute nature of Catholic dogma.

---

🛡️ The Counter-Critique: The Defense of Amoris Laetitia

Defenders of Pope Francis and Amoris Laetitia strongly reject this reading, arguing that the critique misapplies John Paul II's words.

• Submission to Truth, Not Creation of Truth: Defenders point out that Amoris Laetitia never claims conscience can reinvent the moral law. Pope Francis explicitly writes that conscience must be formed by the Gospel and the Church. The individual is not "handing down infallible decisions about good and evil" (which Veritatis Splendor condemns). Rather, the individual is recognizing that while their situation is objectively irregular, their personal guilt is diminished by circumstances.
• Acknowledging Fragility, Not Absolute Freedom: Veritatis Splendor attacks secular, atheistic doctrines that pretend man has absolute, god-like autonomy (similar to Pico's radical view of man as his own maker). Conversely, Amoris Laetitia is built entirely on the premise that human freedom is frail, broken, and limited. It does not celebrate absolute freedom; it accommodates human weakness.

---

Summary of the Theological Clash

Concept	Veritatis Splendor (John Paul II)	Amoris Laetitia Critique (Francis)
Primary Danger	Morality becoming entirely subjective, destroying universal truths.	Legalism becoming rigid, destroying pastoral mercy for broken people.
Role of Conscience	Must submit strictly to objective moral laws.	Must discern how an objective law applies to complex, compromised realities. AI Mode Conversation: pico della mirandola modern popes and theologians he influenced pico della mirandola modern popes and theologians he influenced Giovanni Pico della Mirandola has had a profound, often surprising impact on modern Catholic theology and the papacy, transforming from a Renaissance figure whose works were once banned by Pope Innocent VIII into a primary philosophical inspiration for modern human dignity doctrines. [1, 2] His re-emergence in the 20th and 21st centuries is primarily credited to major Catholic theologians who bridged his ideas into the framework of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II). [1, 2] 🏛️ Influenced Theologians Henri de Lubac, S.J. (1896–1991): The eminent French Jesuit and cardinal was arguably the most influential modern rehabilitator of Pico. In his landmark 1974 study, Pic de la Mirandole, de Lubac defended Pico against modern secularists who claimed him as an atheist or a champion of absolute human autonomy. De Lubac argued that Pico’s Oration on the Dignity of Man was deeply rooted in traditional Christian theology and the Incarnation, using Pico to construct a robust framework for Christian Humanism. Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J. (1918–2008): One of America’s most prominent 20th-century theologians, Dulles began his academic journey by publishing a dedicated study on Pico della Mirandola in 1941. Pico's syncretic approach to finding universal truths across disparate traditions heavily informed Dulles's later ecumenical work and theological models. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] 🇻🇦 Influenced Modern Popes & Vatican Teachings Through the lineage of "Ressourcement" theologians like de Lubac, Pico's emphasis on free will and unique human potential directly shaped modern papal encyclicals on human rights. [1, 2, 3] Pope St. John Paul II (1920–2005): Heavily influenced by de Lubac (whom he personally elevated to Cardinal in 1983), John Paul II integrated Renaissance humanism into his theological personalism. He frequently championed an "infinite" and inalienable conception of human dignity that mirrored Pico's view of human uniqueness under God. Pope Benedict XVI (1927–2022): As a theological expert at Vatican II alongside de Lubac, Joseph Ratzinger engaged deeply with the synthesis of faith, reason, and Christian humanism—doctrinal developments that traced their historical heritage back to Pico’s concordist philosophy. Pope Francis (1936–present): The ongoing legacy of Pico's theology is explicitly codified in official Vatican documentation under Pope Francis. The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith’s 2024 declaration on human dignity, Dignitas Infinita, formally cites Pico della Mirandola and his Oration in its opening historical footnotes to outline the foundational development of human dignity in Western thought. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] If you are researching a specific aspect of his modern impact, let me know: Would you like to explore how secular philosophers (like existentialists) interpreted him differently than Catholic theologians? Are you interested in the details of why his 900 Conclusions were initially banned by the Renaissance papacy? [1, 2] AI can make mistakes, so double-check responses First Things Avery Cardinal Dulles - First Things Dec 15, 2008 — ... but a greater sign may be that he was elected president of both the Catholic Theological Society and the (primarily Protestant... The Lamp Magazine No Angel - The Lamp Magazine Dec 8, 2023 — Giovanni Pico della Mirandola became a legend in his lifetime: even if it is not true that he mastered twenty-two languages by the... Springer Nature Link Giovanni Pico della Mirandola | Springer Nature Link Apr 6, 2018 — Because of his concordist tendencies, he cannot be identified as a strict Aristotelian, Platonist, Thomist, or adherent of any par... Show all what heretical view did francis follow To clarify a common point of confusion: Pope Francis does not follow or advocate for any heretical views, nor did he adopt the specific condemned theories of Pico della Mirandola. When the modern Vatican references Pico della Mirandola (such as in the 2024 doctrinal document Dignitas Infinita), it is drawing strictly upon his highly celebrated concept of human dignity and free will from his Oration. The Church separate those mainstream philosophical ideas from the highly specific theological claims that got Pico into trouble with the Renaissance papacy. [1, 2, 3] In 1487, Pope Innocent VIII condemned 13 specific propositions out of Pico’s 900 Theses. The specific "heretical" or heterodox views Pico was accused of holding include: [1, 2] Universalism (Temporary Hell): Pico famously argued that "a mortal sin of finite duration is not deserving of eternal but only of temporal punishment." This directly contradicted the Catholic dogma of eternal damnation. [1] The Inclusion of Magic and Kabbalah: Pico argued that Jewish Kabbalah and "natural magic" were the ultimate tools for proving the divinity of Christ. The Church strongly condemned this mix of Christian theology with esoteric and occult practices. [1, 2] Origenism: Pico defended the early Church writer Origen of Alexandria, arguing it was more reasonable to believe Origen was saved rather than damned. Origen's ideas on the ultimate reconciliation of all souls had already been condemned centuries prior. The Nature of the Eucharist: He proposed highly technical, non-traditional scholastic explanations for how Christ becomes present in the bread and wine, which the papal commission flagged as erroneous. Ultimately, Pico later submitted an Apologia clarifying his loyalty to Catholic dogma, and Pope Alexander VI formally cleared him of all heresy charges in 1493. [1, 2] When Pope Francis or modern theologians cite Pico today, they are referencing his orthodoxy-approved thesis: that God uniquely granted humans free will to shape their own path. [1, 2] If you'd like to dive deeper, let me know: Would you like to read the exact text of how the Vatican frames Pico's ideas in Dignitas Infinita? Are you interested in the political drama between Pico, the Medici family, and the Popes that led to his arrest? [1, 2] Study.com Oration on the Dignity of Man | Summary, Analysis & Importance Pico della Mirandola. He believed that it was humans' ultimate destiny to become cherubim, or angels that serve God. In this way, ... Palladium Magazine The Rival Theologies of Artificial Intelligence Jun 6, 2026 — The Catholic Church famously persecuted some of these thinkers—the pope at the time prohibited the live Oration due to allegations... Cambridge University Press & Assessment The Popes and Magic (Chapter 17) - The Cambridge History of the ... Feb 28, 2025 — Despite the evident heterodoxy of such propositions, consequences for Pico were light, except for a general ban on the book, as th... Show all human dignity and free will from his Oration which pope condemned this writing Pope Innocent VIII was the pope who intervened, halted the planned debate, and ultimately condemned Pico’s collection of writings. [1, 2] However, it is crucial to understand that the Pope did not condemn Pico's ideas on human dignity and free will—he condemned the other specific, heretical concepts attached to them. [1, 2] The historical timeline explains how this happened: The Setup: In 1486, a 23-year-old Pico published a list of 900 Theses (propositions) on philosophy and theology. He invited scholars from all over Europe to Rome for a massive debate. To introduce this debate, he wrote an introductory speech, which later became famously known as the Oration on the Dignity of Man. [1, 2, 3, 4] The Papal Intervention: Before the debate could even begin, Pope Innocent VIII stepped in and appointed a commission to review the 900 Theses. [1] What Was Condemned: The papal commission flagged 13 specific theses as heretical or dangerous. These were the problematic claims regarding magic, the Kabbalah, and the non-eternity of Hell. Because Pico aggressively tried to defend those 13 errors in a follow-up book (his Apology), an angry Pope Innocent VIII ended up banning all 900 of his propositions and ordering them burned. [1, 2, 3, 4] The Fate of the Oration: Because the Pope quashed the event, Pico never actually delivered the Oration in public. The speech itself was not explicitly put on trial for heresy. Instead, it was shelved and only published years after Pico's death. [1, 2, 3, 4] When later generations finally read it, they ignored the banned underlying 900 theses and focused entirely on the opening beautifully written paragraphs: Pico's inspiring vision of free will and human potential. That is why the Oration survived to become a celebrated pillar of Catholic humanism today, despite Pope Innocent VIII’s crackdown on the rest of Pico's work. [1, 2, 3] If you'd like to explore this further, let me know: Would you like to know how Pico's story ended under the next pope, Pope Alexander VI? Do you want to examine the exact analogy of Adam that Pico uses in the Oration to describe free will? [1] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Giovanni Pico della Mirandola Jun 3, 2008 — After he died in 1494, others mistakenly called this address an Oration on the Dignity of Man: Pico never gave it a title. Interve... EBSCO Oration on the Dignity of Man | History | Research Starters The full text of the Oration became known after his death, in 1496, when his nephew published his complete works. Facebook·The Ritman Library Oration on the dignity of man 1557 edition - Facebook Sep 10, 2026 — Some of his theses were condemned as heretical, especially those influenced by Jewish Kabbalah and mystical traditions. Show all Did amoris letilia follow pico's ideas No, Amoris Laetitia does not follow Pico della Mirandola's ideas. Philosophically and doctrinally, it relies on entirely different theological roots. [1, 2] While it is true that Pope Francis admires Pico’s historical contributions to the concept of human dignity (as explicitly noted in the 2024 document Dignitas Infinita), Amoris Laetitia (his 2016 exhortation on family and marriage) relies strictly on St. Thomas Aquinas, not Pico, to make its arguments. [1, 2, 3] The fundamental differences in how Pico and Amoris Laetitia view free will, human nature, and moral choices illustrate why they do not overlap: 1. Unlimited Freedom vs. Broken Freedom Pico’s Idea: In his Oration, Pico describes human free will as completely unfettered. He argues that humans have no fixed nature and can use their radical freedom to elevate themselves to the level of angels or degrade themselves to the level of beasts. [1, 2] Amoris Laetitia: Pope Francis takes a much more traditional, realistic approach to human freedom. He acknowledges that human free will is heavily constrained by psychological limitations, trauma, social conditioning, and the effects of sin. Instead of celebrating a radical ability to self-create, Amoris Laetitia focuses on how fragile human freedom actually is. [1, 2] 2. The Role of Personal Conscience Pico’s Idea: Pico’s humanism emphasizes the individual’s sovereign mind and intellectual power to ascend toward God. Amoris Laetitia: Pope Francis does place a major focus on individual conscience. However, instead of using Pico's framework of self-actualization, he builds on Thomistic theology (the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas). He argues that while moral laws are absolute, a person's subjective culpability (guilt) for breaking those laws might be lessened by complex life circumstances. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] Summary If Amoris Laetitia followed Pico, it would treat the human person as a completely autonomous agent capable of perfect self-transformation through sheer will. Instead, the document is a text centered on pastoral mercy, tailored precisely to human weakness, relying on traditional Catholic theology rather than Renaissance idealism. [1, 2, 3, 4] If you are exploring the controversies surrounding this papal document, let me know: Would you like to know more about why Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia caused so much debate among modern theologians? Are you interested in how St. Thomas Aquinas’s view of "mitigating circumstances" was used by Pope Francis? [1, 2] Renovatio/Zaytuna What Pico Thought—and What It Wrought - Article - Renovatio Sep 11, 2023 — For Pico, we can choose to become angelic or we can choose to become brutish, but we will always be dignified by virtue of being h... Wikipedia Oration on the Dignity of Man - Wikipedia The root of this dignity lay in his assertion that only human beings could change themselves through their own free will, whereas ... America Magazine Top 10 takeaways from “Amoris Laetitia” - America Magazine Apr 8, 2016 — *Amoris Laetitia* (The Joy of Love) is a document by Pope Francis that reflects on family life and encourages families. The docume... Show all Did amoris letilia follow pico's ideas accorinf to john pauls II's verdad spledor Strictly speaking, Pope John Paul II’s Veritatis Splendor (1993) does not mention Amoris Laetitia (2016) because it was written more than two decades before Pope Francis's document existed. Furthermore, neither document directly explicitly links Amoris Laetitia to Pico della Mirandola. [1] However, you have hit upon a major debate in modern Catholic theology. When conservative theologians and critics use Veritatis Splendor to criticize Amoris Laetitia, they often argue that Amoris Laetitia accidentally slips into the exact same flawed, Renaissance-style view of freedom that Pico della Mirandola championed. [1, 2] The underlying theological argument connects these pieces through several key concepts: 1. The Core of the Critique: "Creative Conscience" Pico’s View: In his Oration, Pico famously wrote that man has no fixed nature and is his own "molder and maker," possessing total autonomy to shape his own moral reality. What Veritatis Splendor Condemns: In Veritatis Splendor, John Paul II fiercely condemns the modern idea of a "creative conscience." He warns against the error of thinking that an individual's conscience has the autonomy to "create" its own moral rules or decide that an objectively sinful act is "good for them" based on their unique situation. Conscience, John Paul II argued, does not create truth; it must submit to objective moral truth. [1, 2, 3] The Alleged Link to Amoris Laetitia: Critics argue that by allowing divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to discern on a case-by-case basis whether they can receive Communion, Amoris Laetitia drifts away from Veritatis Splendor. They claim it adopts a "Pico-style" autonomy, where individual circumstance and personal conscience override universal, absolute moral laws. [1, 2] 2. The Defense: Thomism, Not Pico Defenders of Pope Francis strongly reject the idea that Amoris Laetitia follows Pico’s radical human autonomy. They argue that Amoris Laetitia does not say people can create their own laws (Pico). Instead, it relies on St. Thomas Aquinas's teachings on mitigating factors. It argues that while the objective moral law remains perfectly intact, a person's psychological or situational weakness might reduce their personal guilt. Therefore, it is rooted in mercy for broken human nature, not Pico's celebration of unlimited human power. [1, 2] Summary According to the logic of Veritatis Splendor, if a document treats human conscience as entirely autonomous and capable of making exceptions to absolute moral laws, it is following a dangerous, flawed humanism similar to Pico's ideas. Whether Amoris Laetitia actually does this remains one of the biggest theological debates in the modern Church. [1, 2] Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis’s Amoris Laetitia and for the restoration of the Church. Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet. The Catholic Monitor The Catholic Monitor https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com I ask all The Catholic Monitor readers to also pray for the end of this war. Watch "Trump Calls Putin To Get Iran War Offramp! w/ Scott Ritter" on YouTube: ...Read more Please Pray for Trump to end the Iran War: Watch "Trump Calls Putin To Get Iran War Offramp! w/ Scott Ritter" on YouTubeFranklin & Graham calls on Christians to pray for 'end to the bloodshed' ahead of Trump-Putin summit...7mo Please Pray for Trump to end the Iran War: Watch "Trump Calls Putin To ... Daily news from a Catholic perspective on issues relating to current events in the Catholic Church, world politi... Conclave Notes: Has the Trad Media fallen into a COVID-like mass formation with Leo XVI? While it's humorous to see the former anti-Francis Trad pundits suddenly acting like teen age girls infatuated with Leo, it could lead to a Trojan Horse effect It appears that a group of Bishops or Cardinals needs to give Leo XIV Dubia questions on if he still supports "Invalid and Sacrilegious" Confession "Prevost’s reported support...allowing divorced & civilly 'remarried'...to receive Holy Communion": “Whoever…helps...promulgation of heresy…is suspected of heresy.” - The Catholic Monitor -- Open letter urges Pope Leo XIV to correct ‘scandalous incoherence’ in Amoris Laetitia...[Wow! Even notorious Popesplainer Fr.] Harrison warns that Pope Francis taught a ‘dangerous self-contradiction’ on Communion for the divorced and ‘remarried,’ petitioning Pope Leo to correct the record. [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2025/08/open-letter-urges-pope-leo-xiv-to.html] --  Dr. Seifert, regarded as one of the greatest living Catholic philosophers, founding Rector of the International Academy of Philosopher & friend of John Paul II, to Cardinals: INVESTIGATE FRANCIS' HERESIES, VALIDITY BEFORE THE CONCLAVE.."If Francis is found guilty of heresy or apostasy, then: - His cardinal appointments would be invalid" [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2025/04/dr-seifert-philosopher-personal-friend.html]  -- Are the Cardinals who will participate in the upcoming conclave authentically appointed & morally justified in voting, or will the shadow of Francis's possible illegitimacy cast itself over the next papacy?  [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2025/04/are-cardinals-who-will-participate-in.html] -- 5 Dubia Questions for 1P5's Steve Skojec & All faithful Catholics especially Francis is definitely Pope Cardinals, Bishops & pundits [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/06/5-dubia-questions-for-steve-skojec.html] Francis Notes: l– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation: “[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306) Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said “the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church.” [https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt] – “If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html – “Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html – If Francis betrays Benedict XVI & the”Roman Rite Communities” like he betrayed the Chinese Catholics we must respond like St. Athanasius, the Saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste & “Eminent Canonists and Theologians” by “Resist[ing]” him: https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/12/if-francis-betrays-benedict-xvi.html   –  LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017: The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'” –  On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont: “The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.” – On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida: “Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.” Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God. Election Notes:  – Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: “212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted…Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden” [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1] – Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times “Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003”: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html – Tucker Carlson’s Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written” according to Rush: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/tucker-carlsons-conservatism-inc-biden.html?m=1 – A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/01/a-hour-which-will-live-in-infamy-1001pm.html?m=1 What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the [J6] DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: “Anitfa ‘Agent Provocateurs‘”: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1]  Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it. Pray an Our Father now for America. Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

---