If all true, another devastating account from Remnant News.

An excerpt.

It seems that not a week goes by without some twisting of Sacred Scripture by a Pope who, as the past three-and-a-half years have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt, has the singular distinction among all his predecessors of being nothing short of a font of error. This unparalleled development has prompted the emergence of a group of diocesan priests who have compiled a vast assortment of Francis’s errors under the title Denzinger-Bergoglio, declaring as their motivation “We all have responsibility for the Church of the Lord.”

Indeed we do. Which is why this newspaper is obliged to follow the example of these priests by reporting and refuting as many of Francis’s errors as possible. For compared to the innumerable errors of Francis, the infamous errant sermons of John XXII, which provoked furious public opposition from orthodox theologians at the time, leading to the wayward Pope’s deathbed retraction, are trivial in comparison. The faithful have a duty to respond to this situation in keeping with their natural right as baptized members of the Church Militant to communicate with the sacred pastors and with each other regarding ecclesial concerns. (Cfr. Canon 212 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law) Hence this new feature: the Font of Error Update, which mirrors the intent of the Denzinger-Bergoglio website. Where Sacred Scripture in particular is concerned, we have learned from bitter experience that practically nothing Francis says by way of interpretation can be trusted; every “interpretation” must be checked. And, far too often, one will find that the Bible says the opposite, or very nearly the opposite, of what Francis claims, particularly where the teaching and mission of Christ are concerned. (A particularly egregious example, discussed here, is the twisting of Matthew 19:3-9 from Our Lord’s condemnation of the Pharisees’ toleration of divorce into a condemnation of present-day Catholic as Pharisees for defending Christ’s teaching against divorce!) The latest example is the Audience Address of September 7, 2016, a discussion of the eleventh Chapter of Matthew wherein John the Baptist, in prison, sends his disciples to ask Jesus if he is the promised Messiah. John, says Francis, “was anxiously awaiting the Messiah and in his preaching had described him [sic] in bold colors, as a judge who would finally install the reign of God and purify his people, rewarding the good and punishing the wicked.” But, according to Francis, Jesus had “launched his public mission with a different style” and “John suffers… because he does not understand this style of Jesus and wants to know if he really is the Messiah or should we wait for another.” That is, Francis suggests that John the Baptist was disappointed with the “style” of Jesus and therefore dubious about His Messianic pedigree. Francis begins his twisting of the Gospel by noting that earlier in Matthew’s account (Matthew 3:10), Jesus had indeed preached: “For now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that doth not yield good fruit, shall be cut down, and cast into the fire.” But, according to Francis, when John’s disciples inquire of Jesus whether he is the Messiah:

“the reply of Jesus seems at first sight not to correspond to the request of the Baptist. Jesus, in fact, says: “Go and related to John what you have seen and heard: the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are purified, the deaf heard, the dead rise gain, the poor have the Gospel preached to them. And blessed is he who shall not be scandalized in me (Matt 4-6).” Here the intention of the Lord Jesus becomes clear: He responds that he is the concrete instrument of the mercy of God, who encounters everyone, bringing the consolation of salvation, and in this way manifests the judgment of God.

Note, first of all, the conflation of God’s mercy with His judgment, as if His mercy simply is His judgment and there is no judgment or condemnation. Note also the subversive implication that John, not expecting this merciful Messiah, suffered with doubt because Jesus was healing the sick, raising the dead, and preaching the Gospel to the poor as opposed to simply rewarding the good and punishing the wicked as John had prophesied. Francis thus sets up a false opposition between John’s prophesy of the coming Messiah and Jesus’s works of mercy, when in fact there is no opposition at all. He twists Christ’s miracles into a “style” that John supposedly could not comprehend: the beneficiaries of the miracles “recover their dignity and are no longer excluded, the dead return to life, while to the poor is announced the Good News”—as if John somehow objected to this!