Those who followed St. Athanasius and his priests outside the city walls to worship in the wilderness, apart from their Arian or Semi-Arian bishops, did so because said bishops were placing their apostolic sees in a crisis of separation from Tradition.
The motu proprio is on its own a good thing. Priests supporting the work of restoring Tradition is a good thing. But if Trads are persecuted in their own local Church, by their own bishop, so be it, that makes them friends of the apostles and prophets who were persecuted…
… I’m not a sedevacantist, so I recognize the local Ordinary here and obey him where he is not leading me into sin, but the man is objectively a modernist. As are almost all bishops today. And Modernism is no better than Arianism…… So they want to suppress the Traditionalist movement? So be it. That would be nothing new. Yet, Christ will continue to be our consolation, as we are in unity with all the Popes and Bishops of 2000 years, in public opposition to their modernism. – Joseph Ostermeir
In 2019, Trad Inc. Catholics were defending Francis because they apparently don’t read Catholic history books:
These persons need to realize the Arian heretics were saying the same thing as One Peter Five is saying about the Catholic resistance about St. Athanasius. That he was in schism.
The historian Warren Carroll admitted that Pope Liberius excommunicated Athanasius which isn’t an infallible papal action. (EWTN.com, “Has any Pope been Guilty of Heresy”)
(As an interesting note, in the article above the historian Carroll said “I deny that any [real non-anti-pope] Pope was ever a heretic.” He wrote this before Francis)
The Doctor of the Church was resisting the Arian heretic bishops outside the papal approval.
Cardinal John Henry Newman said Athanasius ordained priests against the authority of the Arian heretical bishops who were validly appointed bishops.
In fact, scholar Joseph Bingham on page 98 in “The Antiquities of the Christian Church” said:
“Athanasius… made no scruples to ordain… [Bishop] Euesebius of Samosata… ordained bishops also in Syria and Cilicia.”
Moreover, Newman in his “The Development of Christian Doctrine” denied that Bishop Athanasius’s “interference” in the dioceses of the heretical Arian bishops was schism:
“If interference is a sin, division which is the cause of it is a greater; but where division is a duty, there can be no sin interference.” (Gutenberg.org, “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine,” Sixth Edition)
Was Doctor of the Church St. Athanasius a schismatic?
Moreover, serious scholars are claiming Francis is a material heretic. The 19 Scholar’s Open Letter say that Francis is a material heretic which also brings into play the Bellarmine and Francis de Sales option of declaring an explicit heretical pope self-deposed.
Bishop Rene Gracida’s Open Letter to the Cardinals analysing and quoting Pope John Paul II’s Universi Dominici gregis questions the validity of the Francis conclave calling for an cardinal investigation into the validity of the Francis conclave.
Latin language expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo’s in-depth thesis “Munus and Ministerium: A Textual Study of their Usage in the Code of Canon Law of 1983” using exhaustive quotations from canon law showing why canon law explicitly states that ministerium and munus cannot be synonyms that mean the exact same thing or nearly the same thing thus denying the validity of Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation.
Also, some are saying Archbishop Jan Lenga who was the Apostlic Administrator of Kazakhstan, and the country of Turkmenistan is in schism for saying Francis is an anti-pope because Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation was invalid.
It must be remembered in history that St. Bernard of Clairvaux claimed the supposed pope in Rome was an anti-pope as Lenga is doing and was declared correct by an imperfect council which he headed.
Author Msgr. Leon Cristiani wrote:
“King Louis convoked a Council at Etampes, to consider the question of the double pontifical election… Bernard was received at Etampes as God’s envoy.” (St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Pages 70-71)
Was Doctor of the Church St. Bernard in schism?
Joseph Ostermeir of The Okie Traditionalist website said it best about the possible suppression of Catholicism by Francis which is called Traditionalism in our time as it was called orthodoxy in the time of St. Athanasius, “St. Nicholas (aka Santa Claus)” and Arius the heretic:
Francis might amend Summorum Pontificum? The future of the TLM is in jeopardy? What if, what if my bishop takes away the Latin Mass for us speaking out too much in the church parking lot?
So be it. As St. Athanasius said, they can take away our churches, but they cannot take away our Faith. And, he said those faithful to Tradition are the true Church.
When they are in material schism from the historic Church, us refusing to be a part of that does not place us in any kind of schism. It would then be better to operate outside the diocesan structure–under those conditions–because that would then be more faithful to the Church. In my opinion.
Those who followed St. Athanasius and his priests outside the city walls to worship in the wilderness, apart from their Arian or Semi-Arian bishops, did so because said bishops were placing their apostolic sees in a crisis of separation from Tradition.
The motu proprio is on its own a good thing. Priests supporting the work of restoring Tradition is a good thing. But if Trads are persecuted in their own local Church, by their own bishop, so be it, that makes them friends of the apostles and prophets who were persecuted…
… I’m not a sedevacantist, so I recognize the local Ordinary here and obey him where he is not leading me into sin, but the man is objectively a modernist. As are almost all bishops today. And Modernism is no better than Arianism…
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He want 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.
Francis Notes:
– 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)
– 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.
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 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.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Those who followed St. Athanasius and his priests outside the city walls to worship in the wilderness, apart from their Arian or Semi-Arian bishops, did so because said bishops were placing their apostolic sees in a crisis of separation from Tradition.
Those who followed St. Athanasius and his priests outside the city walls to worship in the wilderness, apart from their Arian or Semi-Arian bishops, did so because said bishops were placing their apostolic sees in a crisis of separation from Tradition.
The motu proprio is on its own a good thing. Priests supporting the work of restoring Tradition is a good thing. But if Trads are persecuted in their own local Church, by their own bishop, so be it, that makes them friends of the apostles and prophets who were persecuted…
… I’m not a sedevacantist, so I recognize the local Ordinary here and obey him where he is not leading me into sin, but the man is objectively a modernist. As are almost all bishops today. And Modernism is no better than Arianism…… So they want to suppress the Traditionalist movement? So be it. That would be nothing new. Yet, Christ will continue to be our consolation, as we are in unity with all the Popes and Bishops of 2000 years, in public opposition to their modernism. – Joseph Ostermeir
In 2019, Trad Inc. Catholics were defending Francis because they apparently don’t read Catholic history books:
These persons need to realize the Arian heretics were saying the same thing as One Peter Five is saying about the Catholic resistance about St. Athanasius. That he was in schism.
The historian Warren Carroll admitted that Pope Liberius excommunicated Athanasius which isn’t an infallible papal action. (EWTN.com, “Has any Pope been Guilty of Heresy”)
(As an interesting note, in the article above the historian Carroll said “I deny that any [real non-anti-pope] Pope was ever a heretic.” He wrote this before Francis)
The Doctor of the Church was resisting the Arian heretic bishops outside the papal approval.
Cardinal John Henry Newman said Athanasius ordained priests against the authority of the Arian heretical bishops who were validly appointed bishops.
In fact, scholar Joseph Bingham on page 98 in “The Antiquities of the Christian Church” said:
“Athanasius… made no scruples to ordain… [Bishop] Euesebius of Samosata… ordained bishops also in Syria and Cilicia.”
Moreover, Newman in his “The Development of Christian Doctrine” denied that Bishop Athanasius’s “interference” in the dioceses of the heretical Arian bishops was schism:
“If interference is a sin, division which is the cause of it is a greater; but where division is a duty, there can be no sin interference.” (Gutenberg.org, “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine,” Sixth Edition)
Was Doctor of the Church St. Athanasius a schismatic?
Moreover, serious scholars are claiming Francis is a material heretic. The 19 Scholar’s Open Letter say that Francis is a material heretic which also brings into play the Bellarmine and Francis de Sales option of declaring an explicit heretical pope self-deposed.
Bishop Rene Gracida’s Open Letter to the Cardinals analysing and quoting Pope John Paul II’s Universi Dominici gregis questions the validity of the Francis conclave calling for an cardinal investigation into the validity of the Francis conclave.
Latin language expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo’s in-depth thesis “Munus and Ministerium: A Textual Study of their Usage in the Code of Canon Law of 1983” using exhaustive quotations from canon law showing why canon law explicitly states that ministerium and munus cannot be synonyms that mean the exact same thing or nearly the same thing thus denying the validity of Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation.
Also, some are saying Archbishop Jan Lenga who was the Apostlic Administrator of Kazakhstan, and the country of Turkmenistan is in schism for saying Francis is an anti-pope because Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation was invalid.
It must be remembered in history that St. Bernard of Clairvaux claimed the supposed pope in Rome was an anti-pope as Lenga is doing and was declared correct by an imperfect council which he headed.
Author Msgr. Leon Cristiani wrote:
“King Louis convoked a Council at Etampes, to consider the question of the double pontifical election… Bernard was received at Etampes as God’s envoy.” (St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Pages 70-71)
Was Doctor of the Church St. Bernard in schism?
Joseph Ostermeir of The Okie Traditionalist website said it best about the possible suppression of Catholicism by Francis which is called Traditionalism in our time as it was called orthodoxy in the time of St. Athanasius, “St. Nicholas (aka Santa Claus)” and Arius the heretic:
Francis might amend Summorum Pontificum? The future of the TLM is in jeopardy? What if, what if my bishop takes away the Latin Mass for us speaking out too much in the church parking lot?
So be it. As St. Athanasius said, they can take away our churches, but they cannot take away our Faith. And, he said those faithful to Tradition are the true Church.
When they are in material schism from the historic Church, us refusing to be a part of that does not place us in any kind of schism. It would then be better to operate outside the diocesan structure–under those conditions–because that would then be more faithful to the Church. In my opinion.
Those who followed St. Athanasius and his priests outside the city walls to worship in the wilderness, apart from their Arian or Semi-Arian bishops, did so because said bishops were placing their apostolic sees in a crisis of separation from Tradition.
The motu proprio is on its own a good thing. Priests supporting the work of restoring Tradition is a good thing. But if Trads are persecuted in their own local Church, by their own bishop, so be it, that makes them friends of the apostles and prophets who were persecuted…
… I’m not a sedevacantist, so I recognize the local Ordinary here and obey him where he is not leading me into sin, but the man is objectively a modernist. As are almost all bishops today. And Modernism is no better than Arianism…
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He want 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.
Francis Notes:
– 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)
– 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.
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 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.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Those who followed St. Athanasius and his priests outside the city walls to worship in the wilderness, apart from their Arian or Semi-Arian bishops, did so because said bishops were placing their apostolic sees in a crisis of separation from Tradition.
Francis’s “DEVELOPMENT” of “the Supraheresy” that was “Unknown even to the Heretics of Earlier Ages” vs. Benedict XVI & the Infallible Vatican I on “Lawful Development” of Scripture and Tradition
It is true that St. Athanasius was condemned by Pope Liberius though he was the leader of the defenders of orthodoxy against Arianism at the time. Pope Liberius was a weak man (the first Pope after St. Peter never honored as a saint) and he was imprisoned and probably had been tortured to force him to support the Arian heresy, at the time he condemned St. Athansius. He was therefore obviously acting under duress, as St. Athanasius pointed out when he refused to accept the validity of the excommunication. Though Pope Liberius did condemn St. Athanasius under heavy pressure from his captors, he refused to sign a clearly Arian statement of faith, but did sign an equivocal statement which could be interpreted either in an orthodox or an Arian sense.
The infallibility of the papacy was therefore preserved even under Liberius’ weak leadership. But Popes are not infallible when making excommunications, or any disciplinary judgment, for they are limited by the information they have on the individual or situation in question. They are only infallible in making doctrinal pronouncements ex cathedra. It is vitally important always to remember that the Pope has two kinds of authority, magisterial (when he is speaking ex cathedra, that is, in a way intended to be binding on the faithful), in which he is infallible; and administrative, as head of the Church appointed by Christ to govern it (which would include excommunications). – Catholic historian Warren Carroll [https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/has-any-pope-been-guilty-of-heresy-1118]
It appears that most Catholics don’t know that Francis’s latest attack on Traditionalist Catholics which Gloria.tv called “Francis Plans Bloodbath: Roman Rite Communities Will Be FORCED Into Novus Ordo” (https://www.gloria.tv/post/cCnpRKVZbAvb6QHZBBNYhUQu7) is apparently an attack on the infallible Vatican I and Pope Benedict XVI’s teachings on the limits of the authority of the pope and “lawful development”:
– For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. – First Vatican Council
– The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not “manufactured” by the authorities.Even the pope can only bea humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity…. The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition. – Pope Benedict XVI when still Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger [https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-popes-boundenness-to-tradition-as.html]
To put this in context, Fr. John Hunwicke explained the problems that Francis has with Vatican I and “lawful development” as opposed to “the Supraheresy”:
Every time the current regime has yet another doctrinal accident, ‘developmemt’ is invoked. The Graf von Schoenborn did it at the News Conference after Amoris laetitia when Diane Montagna asked whether that document contradicted Familiaris consortio. Leering down at her, he even had the condescending impertinence to mention Blessed John Henry Newman. During the Deathgate scandal, the same naughty little word has again been bobbing around in the troubled waters.
What few commentators appear to have pointed out is that Newman… he was doing it as an Anglican to satisfy himself that the Catholic Church which he was on the point of joining had never changed its doctrine.
I do not recollect that during the Arian Controversy, or the Reformation disorders, either side ever justified the positions they tenaciously held by invoking Development. My impression is that each side simply bandied Scripture and Tradition cheerfully around so as to show that what they held was the truth “clearly” shown forth in Scripture and Tradition.
Bergoglianism has been encapsulated in an even more extreme form than this by the cynically blasphemous observation of the jesuit “General” that the Lord’s Words were not captured on camera, and by Fr Rosica’s boastfully candid admission that the Church is now entirely at the mercy of a pope to whom neither Scripture nor Tradition are prescriptive. Such exponents appear to offer a model of Christian teaching ministry unknown even to the heretics of earlier ages. Here we have not a heresy, but the supraheresy. Earlier heresiarchs may have monkeyed around with, and perverted the sense of, both Scripture and Tradition, but, I think, never before have we had the diabolical claim that a major heretical teacher is quite simply free from any control whatsoever within the Word of God whether written or orally transmitted. When I use the term ‘diabolical’, I mean it in the fullest possible sense. The fingerprints all over these preposterous claims are unmistakeable.
Some celebrated words in Pastor aeternus of Vatican I admirably taught that the Successor of S Peter was not promised the inspiration of the Spirit so that he could teach new doctrine, but so that by His help he could guard and faithfully set forth the Deposit of Faith handed down through the Apostles. [http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2018/08/development-and-newman.html]
This get us to Pope Benedict’s idea of “lawful development” as opposed to Francis’s idea of“monkey[ing] around with… both Scripture and Tradition” according to the Pray Tell Blog:
The question can be raised in light of this issue whether there is a tension between Ratzinger’s deference toward liturgical tradition and its relation to Petrine authority on the one hand, and his understand- ing of the Holy See as “gardener” of the liturgy on the other hand. What exactly constitutes the liturgical “Tradition of faith” within the liturgy for which “the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity”?80 The pres- ent location of the peace predates the Gregorian reforms, and since 77 ratzinger, Spirit of the Liturgy, 70. 78 ratzinger, God Is Near Us, 68. 79 Of course the exchange of peace in the new liturgy could also be suppressed; however, the Pope in Sacramentum caritatis, 9, strongly endors- es the current form of the sign of peace as a gesture of “great value.” Such approbation makes a future suppression of the practice unlikely. 80 ratzinger, Spirit of the Liturgy 66.5THE FuTuRE OF THE ROMAN RITE: READING BENEDICT IN THE LIGHT OF RATzINGER then a distinctive theology has arisen from it.8 But Ratzinger’s com- ments on the offertory prayers and the sign of peace convey a strong preference for the earliest meaning of these rituals. How, then, does he understand “lawful development” and organic growth in light of two millennia of Christian worship? In the first place, Ratzinger was very critical of “archaeological enthusiasm” that sought the oldest known form of the liturgy, deem- ing this the “pure” form of the rite and all subsequent growths “the product of misunderstandings and ignorance of the past.”8 While he acknowledged that “[a] great deal of this was right,” he cautioned that “liturgical reform is something different from archaeological excavation, and not all the developments of a living thing have to be logical in accordance with a rationalistic or historical standard.”8 This thinking harmonizes with what has been examined thus far: Ratzinger clearly was attracted to the original meanings of specific liturgical rituals, but he desired them within the context of careful, organic growth in light of a genuine understanding of the liturgy as the Church’s self-expression, and not as the forced product of a historicism and liturgical rigorism that seeks the ancient for its own sake. Ratzinger acknowledged this contemporary archaizing trend and its consequent dismissal of the liturgical inheritance of the Middle Ages as a danger latent within the liturgical movement before the Council.8 At Fontgombault he rejected this approach in defense of “genuinely legitimate developments” of the medieval period, and pro- posed a “return to an exegesis rooted in the living reality of the Church, of the Church of all ages” so that “within the limitations which are certainly to be found in the texts of Trent, Trent remains the norm, as re-read with our greater knowledge and deeper understanding of the Fathers and of the New Testament, as read with the Fathers and with the Church of all ages.”85 This return is to be done, he asserted, in harmony with the Church and her pastors and not led by specialists, as was the case with the reforms following the Council.86 There seems to exist a tension, then, between Ratzinger’s prefer- ence – and now Benedict’s preference concerning the sign of peace – for original liturgical rituals and organic development in relation to Petrine authority. Even if a potential change in liturgical rite or 8 See michael p. foley, “A Crisis of Meaning in the Sign of Peace,” The Latin Mass (Advent/Christmas 007) 6-9. 8 ratzinger, Preface to Reid, Organic Development, . 8 Ibid. 8 LAQL 6. Cf. ratzinger, Milestones, 57. 85 LAQL 7-8. 86 LAQL 8.6 DAVID G. BONAGuRA, JR. potential growth harmonizes with the Church and her pastors, such as in Benedict’s collegial consultation with the bishops on moving the sign of peace, does the Pope have the authority to change a part of the liturgy that existed legitimately and grew in its own right over the course of fifteen hundred years? If so, then it seems the liturgical norm is not Trent, or even the reform of St Gregory the Great, but rather the first few centuries of liturgical worship; yet Ratzinger cautioned against establishing such a rational and historical standard. On the other hand, it is noted that Ratzinger did not advocate reintroducing further ancient practices into the reformed liturgy; his comments on the offertory and the peace follow from initiations made by others. But within these two specific rituals, the question remains as to what should be the standard for proper organic growth following their ini- tiations, even when they stand to benefit the whole Church.87 Nevertheless, despite this difficulty, there is no tension between liturgical epochs for the theologian Joseph Ratzinger, and now Pope Benedict XVI, because his standard is the genuine spirit of the lit- urgy that has permeated the Church for two millennia and found its most recent expression in the liturgical movement and Sacrosanctum concilium. As a theologian, Ratzinger reminded his readers that “the Liturgy is not about us, but about God.”88 Now as Roman Pontiff, Benedict has already implemented his reform of the spirit of the lit- urgy through Sacramentum caritatis, Summorum pontificum, and his own manner of celebrating the liturgy. Even moving the sign of peace is aimed primarily at fostering this same spirit. Thus a large-scale rubri- cal reform of the reform does not seem to be in the works; any such initiative must wait until the “new liturgical movement” desired by Ratzinger in The Spirit of the Liturgy and put in motion since Benedict’s election takes hold. As he told Peter Seewald, only then can a proper assessment of rubrics occur, an assessment that may still be decades away. For the interim, Benedict’s concluding comment in his preface to his “opera omnia” succinctly captures his early achievements and future vision for liturgical reform as pope: “I would be happy if this new edition of my liturgical writings could contribute to displaying the great perspectives of our liturgy, and putting certain frivolous controversies about external forms in the right place.”89 David G. Bonagura, Jr., is a graduate student at the Institute of Religious Studies at St Joseph Seminary in Dunwoodie, New York, and an associate editor of The university Bookman. [https://www.praytellblog.com//wp-content/uploads/2010/02/13.3Bonagura1.pdf]
Finally, renowned Catholic philosopher Edward Feser explains what “lawful development” looks like in layman’s language:
But development is not a matter of looking for loopholes by which the Church “could teach” some novel doctrine you’ve come up with. The Church either already teaches something, at least implicitly, or she does not. If she does, then naturally she could teach it. But if she doesn’t, then she can’t teach it. As the First Vatican Council taught:
For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
And as Pope St. Pius X exclaimed: “Far, far from the clergy be the love of novelty!”
In his book on Aquinas, Chesterton says, concerning the development of doctrine:
When we talk of a child being well-developed, we mean that he has grown bigger and stronger with his own strength; not that he is padded with borrowed pillows or walks on stilts to make him look taller. When we say that a puppy develops into a dog, we do not mean that his growth is a gradual compromise with a cat; we mean that he becomes more doggy and not less.
Now, part of the point here is that a true development of doctrine is neither the introduction into Catholic teaching of some novelty from outside (which would be like putting pillows and stilts on a child) nor the reversal of past teaching (which would be like a puppy becoming less dog-like). But the example also illustrates the point (whether Chesterton meant it to or not) that development is something that happens rather than something the Church does. A child’s developing is not like a child’s stretching. It is not something he tries to do.
Unsurprisingly, then, proposals that doctrine be actively “developed” in this or that direction end up resembling amputations of doggy parts or strapping pillows, stilts, and the like onto a child. To cash out the metaphors, such proposals involve ignoring aspects of past teaching that conflict with a proposed novelty, strained reinterpretations of texts that contradict the novelty, claiming to see novel theses asserted in ancient texts that have never historically been understood to assert such theses, and so forth.
That brings us to a sixth point: Much of what is peddled as “development of doctrine” these days is precisely the kind of thing Pius X condemned as modernism. Go read Pascendi Dominici Gregis. And weep. [http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/11/two-further-ideas-about-development-of.html]
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis’s Amoris Laetitia.
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.
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.
Francis Notes:
– 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)
– 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.
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 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.
Flashback: Are Bp. Gracida & Bp. Lenga the New St. Athanisuis Bishops? & Might Lenga’s former territory of Turkmenistan be the first country to declare Francis an Antipope in an Imperfect Council as St. Bernard of Clairvaux’s Imperfect Council in France was the first to declared the supposed pope in Rome Anacletus an Antipope?
Might Lenga’s former territory of Turkmenistan be the first country to declare Francis an antipope in an imperfect council as St. Bernard of Clairvaux’s imperfect council in France was the first to declared the supposed pope in Rome Anacletus an antipope?
Is Lenga in schism as some may be stating for claiming Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation was invalid thus Francis is an antipope?
It must be remembered in history that St. Bernard claimed the supposed pope in Rome was an antipope as Lenga is doing and was declared correct by an imperfect council which he headed. – The Catholic Monitor
Archbishop Jan Lenga was formerly the “Apostlic Administrator” of not only Kazakhstan, but of the tiny country of Turkmenistan. (Fatima, Russia and Pope John Paul II: How Mary Intervened to Deliver Russia,” Page 202)
Interestingly, The Catholic Monitor which has given some coverage to Archbishop Lenga’s position that Francis is an antipope has begun noticing that the people of Turkmenistan are starting to read the online Monitor.
Might Lenga’s former territory of Turkmenistan be the first country to declare Francis an antipope in an imperfect council as St. Bernard of Clairvaux’s imperfect council in France was the first to declared the supposed pope in Rome Anacletus an antipope?
Is Lenga in schism as some may be stating for claiming Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation was invalid thus Francis is an antipope?
It must be remembered in history that St. Bernard claimed the supposed pope in Rome was an antipope as Lenga is doing and was declared correct by an imperfect council which he headed.
Author Msgr. Leon Cristiani wrote:
“King Louis convoked a Council at Etampes, to consider the question of the double pontifical election… Bernard was received at Etampes as God’s envoy.” (St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Pages 70-71)
Was St. Bernard in schism?
The Arian heretics were saying the same thing about St. Athanasius. That he was in schism.
The saint was resisting the Arian heretic bishops even apparently outside the valid pope’s approval.
It appears that Archbishop Lenga may force the cardinals and bishops to do an investigation and call an imperfect council into the validity of the Francis’s papacy because a bishop cannot suspend a bishop. Only a pope can suspend a bishop.
But, Lenga states Benedict is still pope because of a invalid resignation and therefore Francis isn’t pope according to the archbishop.
Cardinal John Henry Newman it appears showed that a validly appointed bishop can’t suspend another validly appointed bishop.
Newman said Athanasius ordained priests against the authority of the Arian heretical bishops who were validly appointed bishops.
In fact, scholar Joseph Bingham on page 98 in “The Antiquities of the Christian Church” said:
“Athanasius… made no scruples to ordain… [Bishop] Euesebius of Samosata… ordained bishops also in Syria and Cilicia.”
Moreover, Newman in his “The Development of Christian Doctrine” denied that Bishop Athanasius’s “interference” in the dioceses of the heretical Arian bishops was schism:
“If interference is a sin, division which is the cause of it is a greater; but where division is a duty, there can be no sin interference.” (Gutenberg.org, “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine,” Sixth Edition)
Was Doctor of the Church St. Athanasius a schismatic?
Moreover, serious scholars are claiming Francis is a material heretic. The 19 Scholar’s Open Letter say that Francis is a material heretic which also brings into play the Bellarmine and Francis de Sales option of declaring an explicit heretical pope self-deposed.
Bishop Gracida’s Open Letter to the Cardinals analysing and quoting Pope John Paul II’s Universi Dominici gregis questions the validity of the Francis conclave calling for an cardinal investigation into the validity of the Francis conclave.
Latin language expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo’s in-depth thesis “Munus and Ministerium: A Textual Study of their Usage in the Code of Canon Law of 1983” using exhaustive quotations from canon law showing why canon law explicitly states that ministerium and munus cannot be synonyms that mean the exact same thing or nearly the same thing thus denying the validity of Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Mass and the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Why Benedict XVI is still Pope, and Bergoglio never was is simple:
1.) Benedict officially resigned tbe ministerium, but not the munus (office).
2.) Benedict still behaves as Pope by giving Apostolic blessings, using his papal name, etc.
Assuming 1 and 2 were not an issue:
3.) Benedict committed resignation-invalidating substantial error by claiming a bifurcated papacy, w Bergoglio as active member.
4.) Benedict was also under resignation-invalidating duress when the Vatican was not able to do electronic financial transactions for a couple of days, a problem “resolved” the day after his announced resignation.
Assuming 3 and 4 were not an issue:
5.) There was conclave-invalidating vote canvassing done by the St. Gallen Mafia beforehand.
AND, assuming 5 were not an issue:
6.) Bergoglio is a manifest heretic.(Pacha-demon worship in Vatican, Holy Communion for adulteters, etc., etc., etc. ,etc……)
‘Nuff said!
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis’s Amoris Laetitia.
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.
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.
Francis Notes:
– 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)
– 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.
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 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.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on PRAY FOR AN IMPERFECT COUNCIL
TIMELY NEW DOCUMENTARY REFUTES THE FOUR BIGGEST LIES TOLD BY THE ABORTION INDUSTRY
Choosing Death: The Legacy of Roe is Available Exclusively at DailyWire.com
NASHVILLE, TN – May 13 marked the premiere of a timely new documentary from The Daily Wire, Choosing Death: The Legacy of Roe. While the documentary was originally set to release in June, the unprecedented and shocking Supreme Court leak in May inspired The Daily Wire to accelerate its release.You can view the documentary trailer here.
When the leaked draft of a majority Supreme Court decision by Justice Samuel Alito overturning the landmark abortion decision Roe v. Wade surfaced last week, the abortion debate became the nation’s top priority. Should Roe be overturned, abortion policy would be left for the states to decide. With the future of Roe hanging in the balance, pro-abortion activists are marching to justices’ homes to protest. Pro-life organizations are being vandalized. Amid all of the political uproar, Choosing Death — presented by The Daily Wire’s Michael Knowles — is timelier and more important than ever.
“Pro-abortion activists shout down their opponents and dress up in Handmaid’s’ Tale garb to distract from the truth about abortion,” said Knowles. “Choosing Death dives deep into every aspect of this issue — political, legal, moral, and personal. After you watch this documentary, you’ll walk away with a comprehensive understanding of this horrific and barbaric industry.”
For half a century, the abortion industry has propped itself up on legal perversion, political corruption and medical malpractice. But more than anything, the abortion industry has propped itself up on lies — lies that have been repeated ad nauseum by entrenched powers that censor the truth.
Choosing Death refutes the four greatest lies told by the abortion industry:
Lie 1: Abortion is a medical issue, not a moral one
Lie 2: Abortion alleviates social and racial inequality
Lie 3: Legal abortion saves women’s lives
Life 4: Pro-life advocates just want to control women
As we approach the fiftieth anniversary of Roe v. Wade, as the Supreme Court prepares to potentially overrule its deadliest decision in American history, The Daily Wire is cutting through the lies and the obfuscations and the censorship to bring you the reality of abortion in America in a way you’ve never seen it before.
Choosing Death features a number of pro-life voices — including activists, medical professionals, abortion survivors and former Planned Parenthood employees:
Abby Johnson, Former Planned Parenthood director
Lila Rose, Founder of Live Action
Claire Culwell, Abortion survivor whose twin was killed in the womb
Star Parker, President of Center for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE)
Christina Bennet, Black pro-life leader
Alexandra DeSanctis, Staff writer for National Review and a visiting fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center
“The ability to tell the difference between truth and lies is not just a luxury to make you a more informed person. It’s not just the difference between knowledge and ignorance. The difference between truth and lies can be the difference between life and death,” adds Knowles.
Choosing Death: The Legacy of Roe is available exclusively at DailyWire.com.
###
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on CHOOSING DEATH: THE LEGACY OF ROE
Courage Begets Courage More With Melissa Mackenzie Newsletter Publisher, The American Spectator
January 6 Bust January 6 has achieved one thing: Americans now know, if they had any doubt, that Liz Cheney hates Donald Trump. She hates him more than Nancy Pelosi (who she admires) and she hates him more than her own party (who she’s back-stabbing.) While Kitzinger is crying, Liz Cheney is taking her sharply hewn bone knife to the Republican party. She is a woman on a mission. She’s a woman on a mission with little to lose. Wyoming, her carpet-bagged home (her real home is the Swamp), has abandoned her. Spite animates her. If her political fortunes are foiled, so too, will Trump’s be. There’s a small problem. Her rage doesn’t have an audience and the audience it has isn’t that attentive because they’re animated by her fixations, too. She is preaching to the choir and the Amen-pew. The members of the audience long ago priced the January 6 snafu into their political calculations. Americans have noted the crazy and are now beset with more pressing concerns – chiefly, how to feed their babies. In a perfect political environment, a Soviet show trial is bread and circuses for the bored masses. In a political environment circled about with inflation, 401K losses, food shortages, and impending doom, the show trial is a slap in the face. It’s worse than annoying. It’s insulting. The American people are being grossly insulted. Liz Cheney might not have anything to lose but Democrats do. I’ve been thinking about how Republicans obsessed about Bill Clinton. Bill was a liar and a cheat and everyone knew it. He was awful. He was impeached. Republicans hated him. And then, America, in a good economy and living on the gravy train decided that change felt risky. Clinton was a liar and a cheat but he was predictable and the economy didn’t need fiddlin’ with. And so he got reelected. It wasn’t a huge victory. He scraped by. But he won. Despite Liz Cheney’s earnest venom, the American people are looking at Biden, then Trump, then Biden and if they HAD to choose, they’d choose Trump. At least they weren’t poor. At least they could buy tampons and baby formula. There’s a lot of talk about Ron DeSantis. I think he has a great chance of securing the nomination. Possibly. But I think Trump has a better one. And if people have to choose between Trump and Hillary (I think she’s running) or Trump and Pelosi’s mutant California nephew, I think it will be Trump. CAVEAT: If Republican base voters start to get nervous, they may see De Santis as a less baggage laden alternative. A new poll out of New Hampshire has De Santis edging Trump out. That’s New Hampshire, though. Trump is old and so is Biden. A young, hip Republican might look really good. COUNTERPOINT: If the Dems and their establishment GOP enablers keep it up, revenge may animate the GOP base and go scorched earth and vote for, what they hope is a Trump unleashed. Things are definitely in flux. The J6 committee knows they’re failing to capture anyone’s imagination. Expect spiteful shenanigans. I expect some dramatic arrests. They’re at the justify-your-existence stage. Drama is incoming. All of it doesn’t change reality, though. Remember the guy who said, “It’s the economy, stupid”? Yeah, it’s the economy, stupid. Condolences to Liz.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on LIZ CHENEY HATES DONALD TRUMP. LIZ CHENEY REALY HATES HIM, I MEAN REALLY, SHE HATES HIM WITH A PATHOLOGICAL HATRED. THE MORE THE LIBERAL MEDIA GIVES HER PUBLICITY THE MORE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS UNDERSTANDING THE PATHOLOGICAL NATURE OF LIS CHENEY’S HATRED OF DONALD TRUMP
Do both Sedes & Neoconservatives believe that every act of Governing & Ambiguous Teaching of Vatican II Popes & other Popes such as Pope John XXII are Infallible contrary to Vatican I?
– 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.” – The Catholic Monitor
Here is what Vatican I expert Fr. Chad Ripperger, PhD, in his book “Magisterial Authority” says to Lewis and others who it appears are “proximate to heresy”:
“[T]reat[ing] ALL papal statements as if they are infallible… is proximate to heresy because it rejects the precise formulation of the conditions of infallibility as laid out in by Vatican I… by essentially saying that the pope is infallible regardless of conditions.”
“… Worse still, those who were to follow a pope who was in error in a non-infallible teaching which is taught contrary to something that is infallible is not, therefore, excused.” (Magisterial Authority, Pages 5-14) – The Catholic Monitor
There is a difference between “material” heresy and “formal” heresy. A Pope can be a “material” heretic — i.e. he can actually hold personal heretical views (as did John XXII) since a Pope is only infallible when making Ex Cathedra statements to the Universal Church on matters of faith and morals.
HOWEVER, a Pope cannot be considered a formal heretic until/unless a duly formed juridical body within the Church examines his alleged “heresies” and requests a retraction or repudiation of any of his positions which are actually found to be contrary to Church doctrine, and only — if then — such a Pope refuses to repudiate and/or correct his personally held beliefs.
[The Catholic Monitor wonders if Sedevacantists and Neoconservatives are united and of one mind on one belief:]
Do both Sedes and Neoconservatives both believe that every act of governing and ambiguous teaching of Vatican II popes and other popes such as Pope John XXII are infallible contrary to Vatican I?
Is it possible that Sedes and Neoconservatives may be infallibly definitely united and of one mind on this subject?
– This problem is exacerbated by our current historical conditions. As the theological community began to unravel before, during and after Vatican II, those who considered themselves orthodox were those who were obedient and intellectually submissive to the Magisterium, since those who dissented were not orthodox. Therefore the standard of orthodoxy was shifted from Scripture, intrinsic tradition (of which the Magisterium is a part) and extrinsic tradition (which includes magisterial acts of the past, such as Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors), to a psychological state in which only the current Magisterium is followed.
Neoconservatives have fallen into this way of thinking. The only standard by which they judge – orthodoxy is whether or not one follows the current Magisterium. As a general rule, traditionalists tend to be orthodox in the sense that they are obedient to the current Magisterium, even though they disagree about matters of discipline and have some reservations about certain aspects of current magisterial teachings that seem to contradict the previous Magisterium (e.g., the role of the ecumenical movement). Traditionalists tend to take not just the current Magisterium as their norm but also Scripture, intrinsic tradition, extrinsic tradition and the current Magisterium as the principles of judgment of correct Catholic thinking. This is what distinguishes traditionalists and neoconservatives
Inevitably, this magisterialism has led to a form of positivism. Since there are no principles of judgment other than the current Magisterium, whatever the current Magisterium says is always what is “orthodox.” In other words, psychologically the neoconservatives have been left in a position in which the extrinsic and intrinsic tradition are no longer included in the norms of judging whether something is orthodox or not. As a result, whatever comes out of the Vatican, regardless of its authoritative weight, is to be held, even if it contradicts what was taught with comparable authority in the past. Since non-infallible ordinary acts of the Magisterium can be erroneous, this leaves one in a precarious situation if one takes as true only what the current Magisterium says. While we are required to give religious assent even to the non-infallible teachings of the Church, what are we to do when a magisterial document contradicts other current or previous teachings and one does not have any more authoritative weight than the other? It is too simplistic merely to say that we are to follow the current teaching. What would happen if in a period of crisis, like our own, a non-infallible ordinary magisterial teaching contradicted what was in fact the truth? If one part of the Magisterium contradicts another, both being at the same level, which is to believed?
Unfortunately, what has happened is that many neoconservatives have acted as if non-infallible ordinary magisterial teachings (such as, for instance, the role of inculturation in the liturgy as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church) are, in fact, infallible when the current Magisterium promulgates them. This is a positivist mentality. Many of the things that neoconservatives do are the result of implicitly adopting principles that they have not fully or explicitly considered. Many of them would deny this characterization because they do not intellectually hold to what, in fact, are their operative principles. – Fr. Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P. [http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_sp_ripperger.html] – The Catholic Monitor comment section [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/06/a-catholic-monitor-discussion-on.html]
The Catholic Monitor would like to recommend Fr. Paul Kramer’s book “On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio” toSedevacantists on the difference between Francis and Pope Benedict XVI:
On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio Paperback – November 15, 2021…
… This volume examines the question of the validity or nullity of Jorge Bergoglio’s and Pope Benedict XVI’s claims on the papacy, according to the same criteria as employed by St. Bernard of Clairvaux (canonical validity of election and orthodoxy in faith) in his examination of the claims of Innocent II and Anacletus II on the papacy. In this work I systematically present the case against Jorge Mario “Francis” Bergoglio, and prove that Benedict XVI is still the only legitimate claimant to the papal throne and sole holder of the Petrine munus at the present time.
This volume also presents a summary of the main points of the Catholic doctrine on papal heresy in a compressed form, with new material and arguments explaining points which were only touched upon in the first volume, such as the essential distinction between episcopal and papal authority, so as to make the Church’s doctrine on the question of papal heresy more easily and clearly understandable. (Soft cover edition) [https://www.amazon.com/true-false-pope-against-Bergoglio/dp/1945658266]
Next, as all Catholic Monitor (CM) reader know the CM comment section has been having a lively ongoing discussion with Sedevacantists and Francis advocates who are possibly Traditionalists as well as conservatives (Neoconservatives) for the last few weeks. Below are discussions where some of the above quotes were taken from:
Anonymous said…
An ecumenical council defined the gates of hell as the death dealing tongue of heretics. Formal heresy has nothing to with being admonished, but it’s defined as KNOWINGLY teaching heresy. Furthermore, canon law says that heretics are automatically ex communicated, and it wouldn’t make sense for an automatic penalty to require any declaration or paper work. We cannot judge a true pope, but we can judge a heretical pope, because by embracing heresy he is no longer Catholic, and hence no longer the pope. If we couldn’t understand he’s a heretic before any official declaration, nobody could judge him at all, because the first see is judged by no one. Finally both sacred scripture and Vatican I say that the pope’s faith cannot fail, and I don’t think that was a rhetorical flourish, for if the pope’s faith could fail the Church could not be indefectible.
When we put all those points together we see that sedevacantism theology on the pope is correct in principle on most points. It’s weakness would be lack of apostolic succession.
I am no sedevacantist but I have read traditional Catholic dogmatic and moral theology.
Sedevacantism is an attractive position, because it provides a refuge for people that don’t have the Eastern Rites like I have in my area.
“For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.
Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry and I ask pardon for all my defects. And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.
Notice, Pope Benedict the date and time his resignation would come into effect and declared that the See of Peter would be vacant at that time and that a Conclave would be convened to elect a new Supreme Pontiff. It is as simple and simple can be.”
-Munus gone after he gave up the See of Peter. Left the chair Vacant. Beneplenism, Benevacantism ultimately leads to sedevacantism in a different flavor.
Here is what Vatican I expert Fr. Chad Ripperger, PhD, in his book “Magisterial Authority” says to Lewis and others who it appears are “proximate to heresy”:
“[T]reat[ing] ALL papal statements as if they are infallible… is proximate to heresy because it rejects the precise formulation of the conditions of infallibility as laid out in by Vatican I… by essentially saying that the pope is infallible regardless of conditions.”
“… Worse still, those who were to follow a pope who was in error in a non-infallible teaching which is taught contrary to something that is infallible is not, therefore, excused.” (Magisterial Authority, Pages 5-14)
“Why are you [who apparently don’t think there have been antipopes in Church history] so obsessed with Francis being infallibly definitely the pope to the point you are a afraid of cardinals and bishops correcting your definitively infallibly non-heretical Francis on “communion for adulterers” which apparently may be the opposite of your position maybe if Aqua is reading you right and now you are apparently defending his “communion for adulterers” new cardinals? Would you love Pope Mcelroy as much as you love Francis? Would you be against correcting a future Pope Mcelroy? Would you be against correcting a future Pope James Martin? Would you love Pope James Martin as much as you love Francis?”
Do both Sedes and Neoconservatives both believe that every act of governing and ambiguous teaching of Vatican II popes and other popes such as Pope John XXII are infallible contrary to Vatican I?
Is it possible that Sedes and Neoconservatives may be infallibly definitely united and of one mind on this subject?
– This problem is exacerbated by our current historical conditions. As the theological community began to unravel before, during and after Vatican II, those who considered themselves orthodox were those who were obedient and intellectually submissive to the Magisterium, since those who dissented were not orthodox. Therefore the standard of orthodoxy was shifted from Scripture, intrinsic tradition (of which the Magisterium is a part) and extrinsic tradition (which includes magisterial acts of the past, such as Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors), to a psychological state in which only the current Magisterium is followed.
Neoconservatives have fallen into this way of thinking. The only standard by which they judge – orthodoxy is whether or not one follows the current Magisterium. As a general rule, traditionalists tend to be orthodox in the sense that they are obedient to the current Magisterium, even though they disagree about matters of discipline and have some reservations about certain aspects of current magisterial teachings that seem to contradict the previous Magisterium (e.g., the role of the ecumenical movement). Traditionalists tend to take not just the current Magisterium as their norm but also Scripture, intrinsic tradition, extrinsic tradition and the current Magisterium as the principles of judgment of correct Catholic thinking. This is what distinguishes traditionalists and neoconservatives
Inevitably, this magisterialism has led to a form of positivism. Since there are no principles of judgment other than the current Magisterium, whatever the current Magisterium says is always what is “orthodox.” In other words, psychologically the neoconservatives have been left in a position in which the extrinsic and intrinsic tradition are no longer included in the norms of judging whether something is orthodox or not. As a result, whatever comes out of the Vatican, regardless of its authoritative weight, is to be held, even if it contradicts what was taught with comparable authority in the past. Since non-infallible ordinary acts of the Magisterium can be erroneous, this leaves one in a precarious situation if one takes as true only what the current Magisterium says. While we are required to give religious assent even to the non-infallible teachings of the Church, what are we to do when a magisterial document contradicts other current or previous teachings and one does not have any more authoritative weight than the other? It is too simplistic merely to say that we are to follow the current teaching. What would happen if in a period of crisis, like our own, a non-infallible ordinary magisterial teaching contradicted what was in fact the truth? If one part of the Magisterium contradicts another, both being at the same level, which is to believed?
Unfortunately, what has happened is that many neoconservatives have acted as if non-infallible ordinary magisterial teachings (such as, for instance, the role of inculturation in the liturgy as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church) are, in fact, infallible when the current Magisterium promulgates them. This is a positivist mentality. Many of the things that neoconservatives do are the result of implicitly adopting principles that they have not fully or explicitly considered. Many of them would deny this characterization because they do not intellectually hold to what, in fact, are their operative principles. – Fr. Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P. [http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_sp_ripperger.html]
Below is the post from which the above comments were made:
The “Recognize and Resist” crowd—which includes Burke, the SSPX, Kwasniewski, 1P5, The Remnant, Catholic Family News, Lifesite, The Fatima Center…—is busily redefining the papacy. They absolutely refuse to acknowledge that, as a pertinacious and manifest heretic, Francis cannot possibly be an actual pope since actual popes must be actually Catholic.
Further, they refuse to see that it takes no legal authority whatsoever to recognize this factual reality, any more than one must be a coroner to recognize a dead body. The coroner merely has the authority to later officially pronounce the body dead. But the body was already factually dead, though not yet legally dead. Further, one need not like the fact that the body is dead; yet it remains dead, regardless of any legal declaration and regardless of one’s feelings.
For more on “R & R” madness, see these posts on the superb Novus Ordo Watch site:
“Rethinking” the Papacy? A New Narrative for the Semi-Trads
No Jekyll-and-Hyde Magisterium: Against the Theological Sophistry of Peter Kwasniewski
Anything but Sedevacantism! Analysis of a curious Phenomenon
Also see the following, and more, on my Jeremiah Alphonsus channel on Youtube:
The Mad Absurdity of the “Recognize & Resist” Position
A Catholic Monitor Comment Section discussion on Sedevacantism: “A False Solution to a Real Problem”:
Fred Martinez said… Debbie said… I don’t see how all the post conciliar popes are not heretics.
Debbie,
That was me (Fred) who posted the above
I know you and I don’t like Ferrara, but nor does Woods who co-authored the book and I still say:
“The Great Facade” is still where I think you should start on your question above and other questions with pages 12n, 39, 57, 58, etc.
Page 59 says sedes and neo-conservatives embrace the “same error.The Magisterium embraces whatever the Pope says.” Unlike Francis the other Vatican II popes didn’t do:
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.'”
Also, “the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” or we become Protestant-like:
“[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)
– 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.”
I, too, have a good friend who is a Sede, but I won’t join him,for the above reasons , others and the infallible Vatican I:
Are you prepared to deny Vatican I?
Vatican I clearly teaches that popes will reign perpetually:
“[T]he true doctrine concerning the establishment, the perpetuity, and the nature of the apostolic primacy. In this primacy, all the efficacy and all the strength of the Church are placed. (Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, chapter 1)” (UnamSanctumCatholicm.com, “False Principles of Sedevantism (Part 1)).
I hope that is helpful. 7:53 PM Fred Martinez said… There are no more cardinals alive who were made so by Pope Pius XII which means no more popes will reign perpetually.
9:56 AM Anonymous said…
You don’t need Cardinals to elect a Pope in an extreme situation…Bishops, archbishops could..
The renowned Catholic historian Carroll explicitly wrote:
“Papal election procedures are governed by the prescription of the last Pope who provided for them (that is, any Pope can change them, but they remain in effect until they are changed by a duly elected Pope).”
“During the first thousand years of the history of the Papacy the electors were the clergy of Rome (priests and deacons); during the second thousand years we have had the College of Cardinals.”
“But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses. These methods must then be followed in the next election after the death of the Pope who prescribed it, and thereafter until they are changed. A Papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope.”
Nothing is true belief if it is not an infallible definition.
Encyclicals, apostolic exhortations, synod documents council documents, apostolic constitutions – nothing – nothing at all is necessarily true becuase they are not infallible defined.
Bergoglio has never spoked to make a single ex cathedra defintion – so you can disagree with anything.
“The Great Facade” is still where I think you should start on your question above and other questions with pages 12n, 39, 57, 58, etc.
Page 59 says sedes and neo-conservatives embrace the “same error.The Magisterium embraces whatever the Pope says.” Unlike Francis the other Vatican II popes didn’t do:
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.'”
Also, “the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” or we become Protestant-like:
“[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)
“Hopefully this will finally lay to rest the false notions that 1) a pope cannot be a heretic, 2) a layperson commits sin in calling a pope a heretic, 3) popes are always owed obedience and cannot ever be criticized, and 4) anyone critical of a pope is guilty of “attack,” “hatred,” etc., or is liable to damnation”:
More official Church teaching:
It shall be lawful for each and all of the cardinals,…as well as for all the clergy and the Roman people,… to withdraw without penalty and at any time from obedience and loyalty to the person so elected even if he has been enthroned (while they themselves, notwithstanding this, remain fully committed to the faith of the Roman church and to obedience towards a future Roman pontiff entering office in accordance with the canons) and to avoid him as a magician, a heathen, a publican and a heresiarch.” Pope Julius II, Council of Lateran V. 1513 “Now when [the Pope] 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.” St. Francis de Sales, “The Catholic Controversy” “…a pope who is a manifest heretic by that fact ceases to be pope and head, just as he by that fact ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; wherefore he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the judgment of all the early fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” St. Robert Bellarmine, “On the Roman Pontiff” “If God permitted a pope to be notoriously heretical and contumacious, he would then cease to be pope, and the Apostolic Chair would be vacant.” St. Alphonsus de Liguori, “The Truths of the Faith” “An heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for by his heresy he is no longer a member thereof: in the event of his still claiming the Roman see a general council, improperly so-called because without the pope, could remove him. But this is not deposition, since by his own act he is no longer pope.” A Catholic Dictionary, 1951. Deposition “The councils of Constance and Basle, and Gallican theologians, hold that a council may depose a pope…(2) /ob fidem/ (on account of his faith or rather want of faith, i.e. heresy). In point of fact however, heresy is the only legitimate ground. For a heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head.” Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913. [Vol. IV p.435] Councils In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless… “Cum ex Apostolatus Officio” Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV, 1559
Hopefully this will finally lay to rest the false notions that 1) a pope cannot be a heretic, 2) a layperson commits sin in calling a pope a heretic, 3) popes are always owed obedience and cannot ever be criticized, and 4) anyone critical of a pope is guilty of “attack,” “hatred,” etc., or is liable to damnation.
There is a difference between “material” heresy and “formal” heresy. A Pope can be a “material” heretic — i.e. he can actually hold personal heretical views (as did John XXII) since a Pope is only infallible when making Ex Cathedra statements to the Universal Church on matters of faith and morals.
HOWEVER, a Pope cannot be considered a formal heretic until/unless a duly formed juridical body within the Church examines his alleged “heresies” and requests a retraction or repudiation of any of his positions which are actually found to be contrary to Church doctrine, and only — if then — such a Pope refuses to repudiate and/or correct his personally held beliefs.
If such a Pope were to recant his errors and repent of them in such a circumstance, he is not a formal heretic.
Dr. John R. T. Lamont, philosopher and theologian, explains the procedures of how Francis’s papacy could cease if he is declared a heretical pope by the Church:
“Some… argue that the dubia and other criticisms of Amoris Laetitia that have been made already suffice as warnings to Pope Francis, and hence that he can now be judged to be guilty of the canonical crime of heresy…”
But for juridical purposes – especially for the very serious purpose of judging a Pope to be a heretic – they do not suffice. The evidence needed for a juridical judgment of such gravity has to take a form that is entirely clear and beyond dispute. A formal warning from a number of members of the College of Cardinals that is then disregarded by the Pope would constitute such evidence.”
“The possibility of a Pope being canonically guilty of heresy has long been admitted in the Church. It is acknowledged in the Decretals of Gratian There is no dispute among Catholic theologians on this point – even among theologians like Bellarmine who do not think that a Pope is in fact capable of being a heretic…”
“It is to be hoped that the correction of Pope Francis does not have to proceed this far, and that he will either reject the heresies he has announced or resign his office…”
“Removing him from office against his will would require the election of a new Pope, and would probably leave the Church with Francis as an anti-Pope contesting the authority of the new Pope. If Francis refuses to renounce either his heresy or his office, however, this situation will just have to be faced.”
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis’s Amoris Laetitia.
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.
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.
Francis Notes:
– 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)
– 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.
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 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.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on INFALLIBILITY
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that it is unconstitutional for Maine to provide public funds for private schools but not religious schools. It is an important victory for religious liberty and school choice.
Maine has many rural areas where there is no public school. It was decided in 1873 that the state would pay for students in those areas to go to any school they wanted, including private and religious ones. In 1980, the state’s attorney general ruled that religious schools would no longer be an option, citing separation of church and state concerns.
The Supreme Court ruled that if the state is going to provide public funding for private schools, it cannot deny funds to religious schools.
That amounts to religious discrimination.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion, said that Maine’s decision to exclude religious schools “effectively penalizes the free exercise of religion.”
In oral arguments last December, Roberts made plain his thinking.
He astutely noted that if the issue is the promotion of “sectarian” thinking, then “if one religion taught the same way as a public school but a different religion taught differently, the first would be able to participate in the program but the other would not.” He added, “So it is the beliefs of the two religions that determines whether or not the schools are going to get the funds.”
What Roberts said would surely apply to situations where Christian schools that entertain secular views (e.g., on creation and marriage) would be eligible for public funding but orthodox ones would not. What else would this be but discrimination based on religion?
It is no secret that African Americans and Hispanics are the two minority groups that have been pushing the hardest for school choice. They want a way out from being confined—condemned would not be too strong a word—to the local public school. While the Maine decision may not have direct application to them, it will surely inspire school-choice activists and lawmakers to craft new school-choice initiatives that will.
The big losers are the teachers’ unions, the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Their efforts to deny equal opportunity to blacks and Latinos took a big step backwards.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on BRAVO CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS!!!
We are starting to see the final denouement with missing baby formula, epidemics of shootings and hate crimes, train-robbings reminiscent of the Wild West in Los Angeles, Tombstonesque shoot-up Saturday nights in Chicago, spiking electricity rates and brownouts, $7 a gallon diesel fuel, unaffordable and scarce meat, and entire industries from air travel to home construction that simply no longer work.
a creed that ignores cause and effect in the real world—
without a shred of concern for the damage done
to those outside the nomenklatura.
By: Victor Davis Hanson
American Greatness
June 5, 2022
One day historians will look back at the period beginning with the COVID lockdowns of spring 2020 through the midterm elections of 2022 to understand how America for over two years lost its collective mind and turned into something unrecognizable and antithetical to its founding principles.
“Sovietization” is perhaps the best diagnosis of the pathology. It refers to the subordination of policy, expression, popular culture, and even thought to ideological mandates. Ultimately such regimentation destroys a state since dogma wars with and defeats meritocracy, creativity, and freedom.
The American Commissariat
Experts become sycophantic. They mortgage their experience and talent to ideology—to the point where society itself regresses.
The law is no longer blind and disinterested but adjudicates indictment, prosecution, verdict, and punishment on the ideology of the accused. Eric Holder is held in contempt of Congress and smiles; Peter Navarro is held in contempt of Congress and is hauled off in cuffs and leg irons. James Clapper and John Brennan lied under oath to Congress—and were rewarded with television contracts; Roger Stone did the same and a SWAT team showed up at his home. Andrew McCabe made false statements to federal investigators and was exempt. A set-up George Papadopoulos went to prison for a similar charge. So goes the new American commissariat.
Examine California and ask a series of simple questions.
Why does the state that formerly served as a model to the nation regarding transportation now suffer inferior freeways while its multibillion-dollar high-speed rail project remains an utter boondoggle and failure?
Why was its safe and critically needed last-remaining nuclear power plant scheduled for shutdown (and only recently reversed) as the state faced summer brownouts?
Why did its forests go up in smoke predictably each summer, as its timber industry and the century-old science of forest management all but disappeared from the state?
Why do the state’s criminals so often evade indictment, and if convicted are often not incarcerated—or are quickly paroled?
Why are its schools’ test scores dismal, its gasoline the nation’s highest-priced, and the streets of its major cities fetid and dangerous—in a fashion not true 50 years ago or elsewhere today?
In a word, the one-party state is Sovietized. Public policy is no longer empirical but subservient to green, diversity, equity, and inclusion dogmas—and detached from the reality of daily middle-class existence. Decline is ensured once ideology governs problem-solving rather than time-tested and successful policymaking.
Similarly, the common denominator in Joe Biden’s two years of colossal failures is Soviet-like edicts of equity, climate change, and neo-socialist redistribution that have ensured (for the non-elite, in any event) soaring inflation, unaffordable energy, rampant crime, and catastrophic illegal immigration. Playing the role of Pravda, Biden and his team simply denied things were bad, relabeled failure as success, and attacked his predecessor and critics as various sorts of counterrevolutionaries.
Biden rejected commonsense, bipartisan policies that in the past kept inflation low, energy affordable, crime controlled, and the border manageable. Instead, he superimposed leftist dogma on every decision, whose ideological purity, not real-life consequences for millions, was considered the measure of success.
The Caving of Expertise
Entire professions have now nearly been lost to radical progressive ideology.
Do we remember those stellar economists who swore at a time of Biden’s vast government borrowing, increases in the monetary supply, incentivizing labor non-participation, and supply chain interruptions that there was no threat of inflation? Were they adherents of ideological “modern monetary theory”? Did they ignore their training and experience in fealty to progressive creeds?
What about the Stanford doctors who signed a groupthink letter attacking their former colleague, Dr. Scott Atlas, because he questioned the orthodoxies of Dr. Anthony Fauci and the state bureaucracies—who we now know hid their involvement with channeling funding to deadly gain-of-function research in Wuhan? Did they reject his views on empirical grounds and welcome a give-and-take shared inquiry—or simply wish to silence an ideological outlier and advisor to a despised counterrevolutionary?
Or how about the 50 retired intelligence “experts” who swore that Hunter Biden’s laptop was not genuine but likely Russian disinformation? Did they rely on hundreds of years of collective expertise to adjudicate the laptop or did they simply wish to be rewarded with something comparable to a “Hero of Woke America” award?
Or what about the 1,000 medical “professionals” who claimed violating quarantine and protective protocols for Black Lives Matter demonstrations was vital for the mental health of the protestors? Or the Princeton creators of a video identifying Jonathan Katz as a sort of public enemy for the crime of stating that racial discrimination of any sort was toxic?
Career Advancement, Cowardice, and Membership in the Club
There can be no expertise under Sovietization; everything and everyone serves ideology. Our military—especially its four-star generals, current and retired—parroted perceived ideologically correct thought. Repeating party lines about diversity, white supremacy, and climate change are far more relevant for career advancement than proof of prior effective military leadership in battle.
The ultimate trajectory of a woke military was the fatal disgrace in Afghanistan. Ideologues in uniform kept claiming that the humiliating skedaddle was a logistical success and that misguided bombs that killed innocents were called a “righteous strike.” Afghanistan all summer of 2021 was to be Joe Biden’s successful model of a graduated withdrawal in time for a 20th-anniversary commemoration of 9/11—until it suddenly wasn’t.
Pentagon decision-making increasingly privileges race, gender, sexuality, and green goals over traditional military lethality—a fact known to all who are up for promotion, retention, or disciplinary action.
How predictable it was that the United States fled Kabul, abandoning not just billions of dollars worth of sophisticated weapons to terrorists, but also with Pride flags flying, George Floyd murals on public walls, and gender studies initiatives being carried out in the military ranks. Ask yourself: if a general during the Afghanistan debacle had brilliantly organized a sustainable and defensible corridor around Bagram Airfield but was known to be skeptical of Pentagon efforts to address climate change and diversity would he be praised or reviled?
The elite universities in their single-minded pursuit of wokeness are ironically doing America a great favor. For a long time, their success was due to an American fetishization of brand names. But now, most privately accept that a BA from Princeton or Harvard is no longer an indication of acquired knowledge, mastery of empiricism, or predictive of inductive thinking over deductive dogmatism.
Instead, we now understand, that various lettered certificates serve as stamps for career advancement—proof either of earlier high-school achievement that merely won the bearer admission to the select, or confirmation that the graduate possesses the proper wealth, contacts, athletic ability, race, gender, or sexuality to be invited to the club.
Universities’ abandonment of test scores and diminution of grades—replaced by “community service” and race, gender, and sexuality criteria—has simply clarified the bankruptcy of the entire higher education industry.
Our “diversity statements” required for hiring at many universities are becoming comparable to Soviet certifications of proper Marxist-Leninist fidelity. Like the children of Soviet Party apparatchiks, privileged university students now openly attack faculty whose reading requirements or lectures supposedly exude scents of “colonialism” or “imperialism” or “white supremacy.”
Faculty increasingly fear offering merit evaluation, in terror that diversity commissars might detect in their grading an absence of reparatory race or gender appraisals. The result is still more public cynicism about higher education because it is apparent that the goal is to graduate with a stamp from Yale or Stanford that ensures prestige, success, and ideological correctness—on the supposition that few will ever worry exactly what or how one did while enrolled.
We have our own Emmanuel Goldsteins who, we are told, deserve our three minutes of hate for counterrevolutionary thought and practice. Donald Trump earned the enmity of the CIA, the FBI, the Justice Department, and the IRS. Now Elon Musk and his companies are suddenly the targets of the progressive state, including repartees from the president himself. To vent, the popular Soviet directs its collective enmity at a Dave Chappelle or Bill Maher, progressives who exhibit the occasional counterrevolutionary heresy.
Cabinet secretaries ignore their duties—somewhat understandable given their resumes never explained their appointments. What binds Pete Buttigieg, Alejandro Mayorkas, and Jennifer Granholm is not expertise in transportation, border security, or energy independence but allegiance to an entire menu of woke policies that are often antithetical to their job descriptions.
“Diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion” started as mandated proportional representation as defined by the state allotting spoils of coveted admissions, hiring, honors, and career advancement by race and gender percentages in the general population. The subtext was that federal and state governments imported and incorporated largely academic theories that alleged any disequilibrium was due to bias.
More specifically, racial and sexual prejudices were to be exposed and punished by morally superior castes—in politics, the bureaucracy, and the courts. There was never any interest in detailing how particular individuals were personally harmed by the system or by the “other,” which explains the Left’s abhorrence of racially blind, class-based criteria to establish justified need.
Reparations
In the last five years, American Sovietization has descended into reparatory representation. Due to prior collective culpability of whites, heterosexuals, and males, marginalized self-defined groups of victims must now be “overrepresented” in admissions, hiring, and visibility in popular culture
As the Soviets and Maoists discovered—and as was true of the Jacobins, National Socialists, and cultural Marxists—once-radical ideology defines success, then life, in general, becomes anti-meritocratic. The public privately equates awards and recognition with political fealty, not actual achievement.
Were recent Netflix productions reflections of merit or ideological criteria governing race and gender? Do the Emmys, Tonys, or Oscars convey recognition of talent, or adherence to progressive agendas of diversity, equity, and inclusion? Does a Pulitzer Prize, a Ford Foundation grant, or a MacArthur award denote talent and achievement or more often promote diversity, equity, and inclusion narratives?
Consequences of Failing Up
Where does woke Sovietization end once accountability vanishes and ideology masks incompetence and malfeasance?
We are starting to see the final denouement with missing baby formula, epidemics of shootings and hate crimes, train-robbings reminiscent of the Wild West in Los Angeles, Tombstonesque shoot-up Saturday nights in Chicago, spiking electricity rates and brownouts, $7 a gallon diesel fuel, unaffordable and scarce meat, and entire industries from air travel to home construction that simply no longer work.
Everyone knows that the status of our homeless population in Los Angeles or San Francisco is medieval, dangerous, and unhealthy. And everyone knows that any serious attempt to remedy the situation would cause one to be labeled an apostate, counterrevolutionary, and enemy of the people. So, like good Eastern Europeans of the Warsaw Pact in the 1960s, we mutter one thing under our breath and nod another publicly.
Behind all our disasters there looms an ideology, a creed that ignores cause and effect in the real world—without a shred of concern for the damage done to those outside the nomenklatura.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Where does woke Sovietization end once accountability vanishes and ideology masks incompetence and malfeasance? We are starting to see the final denouement. So behind all of our disasters there looms an ideology, a creed that ignores cause and effect in the real world – without a shred of concern for the damage being done to our Nation.
The National Abortion Federation’s (NAF) “2020 Violence and Disruption Statistics” report has a dearth of information to support any of its claims. But what NAF lacks in facts, it makes up for it in hyperbole, innuendo, and hypocrisy designed to portray pro-life activists, many of whom are Catholic, in the most negative light possible.
On the first full page of the report, NAF lists the first major instance of “violence” by pro-life advocates to be “anti-abortion protesters congregated outside abortion clinics.” The problem with calling this “violence” is that this is totally legal. It is true that the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act creates a bubble around abortion clinics where pro-life advocates cannot demonstrate; however, as long as they stay outside of the bubble, pro-lifers can congregate to their hearts content.
What is not legal are the pro-abortion advocates protesting outside of the homes of Supreme Court justices. 18 US Code Section 1507 clearly states, “Whoever…with the intent of influencing any judge…in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades…in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge…or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.” The pro-abortion advocates clearly violate this statute making their congregating an illegal act.
NAF should know all of these rules, but it would rather make a scurrilous and hypocritical claim to portray pro-lifers as the wrong-doers.
In addition to “congregating,” NAF points out that many of these pro-life advocates failed to observe “stay-at-home orders and public health guidance to avoid group gatherings.” But when Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Antifa took to the streets in 2020, failing to observe stay-at-home orders, over a thousand doctors declared these actions justified because “white supremacy is a lethal public health issue….”
Even government officials, tasked with enforcing stay-at-home orders, cheered them on. Former New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, for instance, decreed, “We’re in the middle of a national crisis.” Of course, he was referencing systemic racism and used this logic to justify easing COVID-19 restrictions for BLM and Antifa.
NAF also asserts that many of the congregators were “white supremacist individuals.” Yet it provided no evidence to prove this. How did it know these people were white supremacists? Did everyone outside have a swastika tattooed on his forehead? Without any evidence to back up this claim, NAF just grabbed the current buzzword the Left has adopted to attack people that do not agree with its policies.
Another act of violence NAF highlights is “protestors co-opting language of the movement for Black lives in their attempts to intimidate providers and patients.” This is a preposterous claim. Just because BLM uses certain words does not forbid anyone from using similar slogans. Further, employing copy-cat language for a peaceful demonstration does not constitute violence.
After making these arguments, NAF attempts to appeal to authority in an effort to add a veneer of credibility. Citing a January 2020 unclassified report from the FBI, NAF declares that “there is an ongoing increase in anti-abortion threats, disruptions, and violence.” Setting aside the over-politicized nature of the FBI, there is a serious flaw citing this bulletin. If one reads the first bullet from the FBI, the Bureau uses information provided by NAF. They are quoting themselves as a source.
Finally, NAF attempts to present data to support its several pages of innuendo that pro-life activists represent a clear and present danger. But even in this section, the facts are weak.
They claim that their “members report an increase in assault and battery outside of clinics with the majority of incidents involving anti-abortion protestors having altercations…[including] shoving, pushing, tripping, and spitting on clinic escorts, staff, and others outside of clinics.”
While no one should engage in such actions, a little perspective is required. The BLM and Antifa riots in 2020 caused over two billion dollars in property damage according to insurance payouts. They also left at least 25 people dead. Pushing, shoving and tripping are not even in the same league as BLM and Antifa.
In addition to “pushing” and “shoving,” NAF claims that there were 115,517 instances of picketing. However, the “picketing” NAF describes is not similar to a wildcat strike with disgruntled laborers physically attacking scabs for trying to get to work. Starting in 2011, NAF’s own statistics make a distinction between people obstructing the entrance to a clinic and people picketing, which is to say peacefully protesting. In other words, pro-life advocates exercising their constitutionally protected right to assemble is what NAF considers violence.
Ultimately, no one should consider “2020 Violence and Disruption Statistics” a serious report. Rather than using facts and data to support their claims, NAF does everything it can to make pro-lifers look like violent extremists, when, in fact, they are honest, God-fearing folks. No, if one really wants to see genuine abortion-related violence, they would do well to look at the pro-abortion camp, particularly Antifa-affiliated Jane’s Revenge or Ruth Sent Us.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on CALL ME A PRO-LIFER
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.