After Francis’ Canada Trip: Rain Dance for Italy

A heretic is a murderer of souls. Many prelates have forgotten that cowards will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven either. With their silence they have refused to defend the Bride of Christ who is being raped by the apostate Bergoglio. These cowards have become Bergoglio's accomplices by refusing to publicly condemn his heresies. The silence of Fr. Chad Ripperger also leaves a lot to say because he is one who since the beginning of this farce has not tired of promoting false obedience to the heresiarch Jorge by teaching that one must obey "legitimate" authorities but has omitted to teach that none faithful catholic can obey a manifest heretic because the Magisterium of the Church has dictated the automatic excommunication for the accomplices of the heretics. All of Bergoglio's accomplices have helped him destroy many souls. They will have to give an account to God for his betrayal. They have preferred to be faithful to a heretic than to God.

Thanks for that John Fritz Logan.
In that interview Bergoglio is selling a skilfully devised, but in fact totally flawed rationale, that makes his slow, steady incremental development and implementation of 'new teachings', (eg. those in Amoris Laetitia and potentially in relation to contraception), look to be the legitimate development of Catholic doctrine....when in fact it is plainly & simply the introduction of heresy into Church teaching....by stealth.
Jorgy....you are a very tricky boy......and I don't buy a word of what you say!!!
Plain and simply he is a heretic.....and he is playing us all!!!!

Google translate from interview

"Interviewer: Many Catholics, but also many theologians, believe that there is a need for a development in the doctrine of the Church regarding contraceptives. It would seem that even his predecessor, John Paul I, thought that a total ban might need reconsideration. What do you think about it, in the sense: is it open, in short, to a revaluation in this sense? Or is there a chance for a couple to consider birth control?

Francis: This is a very timely thing. But know that dogma, morality, is always on a path of development, but in a development in the same sense. To use something that is clear, I think I have said it other times here: for the theological development of a moral or dogmatic question, there is a rule that is very clear and illuminates. This is what Vincenzo di Lerins did in the 10th century more or less. He says that the true doctrine in order to move forward, to develop, must not be quiet, it develops ut annis consolidetur, dilatetur tempore, sublimetur aetate. That is, it consolidates over time, expands and consolidates and becomes firmer but always progressing. This is why the duty of theologians is research, theological reflection, you cannot do theology with a "no" in front of you. Then it will be the Magisterium a say no, you have gone further, come back, but the theological development must be open, theologians (there) are for this. And the Magisterium must help to understand the limits. On the contraceptive issue, I know that a publication has come out on this issue and on other marriage issues. These are the proceedings of a congress and in a congress there are ponenze, then they discuss among themselves and make proposals. We must be clear: those who held this congress did their duty, because they tried to go forward in the doctrine, but in the ecclesial sense, not outside, as I said with that rule of St. Vincent of Lerins. Then the Magisterium will say, yes it is good or not good. But so many things are called. Think for example of atomic weapons: today I officially declared that the use and possession of atomic weapons is immoral. Think of the death penalty: today I can say that we are close to immorality there, because the moral conscience has developed well. To be clear: when the dogma or morality develops, it is fine, but in that direction, with the three rules of Vincenzo di Lerins. I think this is very clear: a Church that does not develop its thinking in an ecclesial sense is a Church that goes backwards, and this is the problem of today, of many who say they are traditional. No, no, they are not traditional, they are "backward", they go backwards, without roots: it has always been done this way, in the last century it has been done this way. And the "retreat" is a shame because it does not go forward with the Church. Instead, tradition said someone - I think I said it in one of the speeches - tradition is the living faith of the dead, while these "backward" who say they are traditionalists, it is the dead faith of the living. Tradition is precisely the root, the inspiration to move forward in the Church, and this is always vertical. And "backwardness" means going backwards, it is always closed. It is important to understand well the role of tradition, which is always open, like the roots of the tree, and the tree grows ... A musician had a very beautiful phrase: Gustav Mahler, he said that tradition in this sense is the guarantee of the future, it is not a museum piece. If you conceive the closed tradition, this is not the Christian tradition… it is always the juice of the roots that carries you forward, forward, forward. For this, for what you say, think and carry on faith and morals, but while it goes in the direction of the roots, of the juice, it's okay. With these three rules of Vincenzo di Lerins that I have mentioned."

I just google translated some parts of a new Italia interview with Francis of which the 'pontifical academy of life' posted parts.

He suggests that doctrine can develop but only within the Church and that the magisterium can say no or yes that is good. He said the congress had done its duty but that it stayed within the Church limits.

He further proclaimed his despotic notion of magisterial authority, but he didn't suggest he had ordered or was involved in the congress, nor that his magisterium would do something with it.

He instead spoke of development of him attack atomic weapons and getting close to finding the death penalty 'immoral'.

He did start attacking those who reject doctrinal development within the Church and Traditionalists. Those seemingly in a more general sense.

Wouldn't that mean an attack on Muller, all the cardinals and bishops who signed that fraternal correction and also the Scandinavian bishops, including the Arhbishop of Stockholm he had made cardinal?