My emphasis below:
Yet now we have a Pope Francesco in the flesh, and elements of Murphy’s vision have come to pass, or so it seems: the attention-grabbing breaks with papal protocol, the interventions in global politics, the reopening of moral issues that his predecessors had deemed settled, and the blend of public humility and skillful exploitation—including the cashiering of opponents—of the papal office and its powers.
A pope who has earned his popularity by claiming 2000 years of teaching breaking commandments obstructs salvation was wrong, the Church is in error.
The exact details of that agenda can sometimes be difficult to discern. Phrases like master of ambiguity circulate among admirers and critics alike.
All agree that he is a master at taking truth and making it unidentifiable.
Many of Bergoglio’s fellow Jesuits believed they had a postconciliar mandate to make the pursuit of social justice the order’s organizing mission.
Changing the mission of Christs Church from the institution responsible for salvation to a social service agency is certainly an astute observation of the perverted agenda being executed.
Francis may indeed see his papacy as a kind of moderate corrective to the previous two. Rather than conceiving of himself primarily as a custodian of Catholic truth against relativizing trends,
True enough that his pontificate has abandoned custody of the Deposit of Faith and the mission of teaching truth but in my observation, the Holy Father has discredited Christ's Church as the arbiter of Truth - which is actually worse than his own personal circus in St. Peter's Square.
Take careful note of this paragraph:
If people who are living as adulterers can receive Communion, if the Church can recognize their state of life as nonideal but somehow tolerable, then either the Church’s sacramental theology or its definition of sin has been effectively rewritten. And the ramifications of such a change are potentially sweeping. If ongoing adultery is forgivable, then why not other forms of loving, long-standing sexual commitment? Not only same-sex couples but cohabiting straight couples and even polygamous families (a particular concern among African cardinals) could make a plausible case that they deserve the same pastoral exception, rendering the very idea of objective sexual sin anachronistic in one swift march.
Herein lies the beauty and fruit of Pope Francis 'ambiguity'.
We know that he knows the lethal definition he is attempting to impose upon Truth and Christ's Church as the Arbiter of It. We have watched what could only be described as deception - by omission and commission - around the agenda to impose theological and sacramental chaos. All the shady characters he has surrounded himself with haven not helped his image.
The magnitude of the deception rises to the level of sinister. He would have been better off taking ownership of the heresy he seeks to impose.
There is an outdated principle in this article that I suspect will be explosive to all who will have the sad duty to unravel.
But altering a teaching on sex and marriage that the Church has spent centuries insisting it simply cannot alter—a teaching on a question addressed directly (as, say, homosexuality is not) by Jesus himself—is a very different thing. It would suggest to the world, and to many Catholics, that Catholicism was formally capitulating to the sexual revolution. It would grant the Church’s progressives reasonable grounds for demanding room for further experiments. And it would make it impossible for many conservatives, lay and clerical, to avoid some kind of public opposition to the pope.
The media missed the revolution which has already taken place. Everyone can take this to the bank: Catholics absolutely will rise to publicly oppose Pope Francis should he dare to pull the trigger.
They are going to poop their drawers in Rome when it happens.
They built an empire where their corruption was swept under the rug for centuries by Catholic laity and they have no idea that it met its end.
Here is another error:
Such a development probably would not produce an immediate crisis or schism. But it would put the Church on the kind of trajectory that the Anglican Communion and other Protestant denominations have traced on these issues, and would make some eventual division much more likely.
The Catholic Church is tied to the Chair of Peter - not its occupant. Christ's descendants and heirs to his Church have never and will never leave the Chair of Peter in the hands of a man imposing heresy and leading Catholics into temptation and sin.
The opposition will rise against the occupant of the Chair of Peter wherein his administration will run into the plan of the God of Surprises.