New Insight

x

Tony M <tonyjpm74@gmail.com>

I finally understand why no-one in the hierarchy is prepared to protect the Faithful of the Catholic world from the heresies flowing from the Chair of Peter and why the Dubia correction was not carried out by Cardinal Burke and Cardinal Brandmuller, and it seems, never will be.

And I also understand why none of the hierarchy has the will, courage, and commitment to the Lord, to investigate the possibility of an invalid election of Bergoglio in the face of all the heresies and blasphemies that have flowed from his mouth and pen since he took the Chair of Peter in 2013.

Cardinal Brandmuller is afraid he will finish up the same way two of the other Dubia cardinals did, those cardinals being Cardinals Caffara and Meisner.

Both Caffara and Meisner, were reported to die suddenly and unexpectedly less than a year after the Dubia questions re the Apostolic Exhortation ‘Amoris Laetitia’ was written and delivered to Jorge Bergoglio. 

Added to that, their deaths were only two months apart.

That was quite a strong message to send to the remaining Dubia cardinals.

And they got the message.

See here:-

https://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal-carlo-caffarra-dies-at-79

Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, the archbishop emeritus of Bologna and one of the original four cardinals to sign the dubia sent to Pope Francis, has died suddenly at the age of 79.

https://gloria.tv/post/LfxduALWjYBa3fgrFmHZnXbWL

Cardinal Carlo Caffarra – one of the Dubia cardinals – has died this morning unexpectedly although he has been sick for a long time.

The end of an era?

Cardinal Joachim Meisner of Cologne, Germany, is seen in this 2005 file photo. The 83-year-old cardinal died unexpectedly in his sleep July 5 while on vacation in southern Germany. 

https://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal-joachim-meisner-dies-at-83

Cardinal Joachim Meisner, the archbishop emeritus of Cologne who was a strong defender of the Church’s doctrine and orthodoxy, has died at the age of 83.

The German cardinal died “peacefully” after falling asleep while on vacation in Bad Füssing, Cologne’s Domradio reported on Wednesday, citing the archdiocese…..………….In a telegram to Cardinal Woelki, Pope Francis said “with profound emotion I learned that, suddenly and unexpectedly, Cardinal Joachim Meisner was called from this earth by the God of mercy.”

Brandmuller got the message to the extent that…..Gloria TV wrote an article that was headed, “No “Formal Correction” Because Brandmüller Lost His Nerve”, https://www.gloria.tv/post/KsEQzP2baRpi4qg9GjZFcYpqU…..the article saying, ‘Brandmüller lost his nerve when the Cardinals Meisner and Caffarra died and told Cardinal Burke that he wouldn’t go any further. Therefore Burke dropped the formal correction.’

So Cardinal Brandmuller did not want to die suddenly, unexpectedly and peacefully in his sleep. 

There is little wonder as to why courageous and outspoken Archbishop Vigano remains in hiding.

Cardinal Burke had been trying to get support from many cardinals for the issuing of a ‘Formal Correction’ of Bergoglio after the Dubia was not answered by the ‘tricky one’. 

However he could find no other cardinal to go with him.

Now remember folks, this was to be a ‘Formal Correction’ for a document that was, in effect, sanctioning Sacrilegious Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried.

SACRILEGIOUS RECEPTION OF OUR GOD, LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST!!!!

And there is not a Cardinal in our Church who is prepared to protect the Lord……. and communicants in a state of mortal sin….. from this sacrilege taking place……but rather supporting it by either explicitly or tacitly endorsing that monstrous and outrageous document.

This is not an ‘accompaniment of Mercy’…… but one of total disregard, disrespect and sacrilege towards God Himself, and with absolutely no concern for the eternal future of the flock they have responsibility for.

NOT ONE CARDINAL!!!!

Surely this is what was being referred by Our Lady in Quito Ecuador in 1611 when she said to Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres, ”In this supreme moment of need of the Church, those who should speak will fall silent.”

Those messages from Quito spoke specifically of these times we are living in, and now ringing true in a way far louder than ‘Big Ben’ rings in London!!!

There are so many commentators in our church who are rightly expressing concern about the meaning and flow on effects of the absurdly named and confected ‘Amazon Synod’ (which river is next??) and the ensuing Exhortation, ‘Querida Amazonia’. 

But the sacrilegious fruits of ‘Amoris Latitia’, it seems, cannot be stopped, and the document itself not retracted. The problem of ‘Amoris Latitia’remains not dealt with!!!

This makes all the talk and concern for the ‘river synod’ and its Exhortation’ purely academic, and somewhat futile, if everyone knows that the heretical and blasphemous Bergoglian juggernaut cannot and will not be stopped anyway.

Words, words, words……if no Hierarchy are prepared to deal with this disastrous situation!!!!!

There is no impediment to an investigation into an invalid election of a man who is going doctrinally and blasphemously berserk from the ‘Chair of Peter’, and hereticising the faithful on a global scale, like never seen before in the history of our Church!!!  No Impediment!!!

The fact that he is manifestly heretical from the ‘Chair’ means it is manifest that he cannot be Pope (automatic excommunication as per writings of Doctor of the Church St Robert Bellarmine and others), but also makes it imperative to determine how…. ever…. this debacle came to materialise in the first place, so that ultimately it can be reversed and the True Church move forward fully intact.

SO WHO IS GOING TO PROTECT THE CATHOLIC FAITHFUL OF THE WORLD FROM THE HERESIES COMING FROM THE MOUTH AND PEN OF JM BERGOGLIO……. AND PROTECT US FROM THE ENFORCERS  OF THE MAN HIMSELF ?????

NONE OF THE CARDINALS!!!

VERY FEW BISHOPS!!!

AND A SMALL MINORITY OF PRIESTS!!!

We have Bishop Gracida, Archbishop Lenga, Archbishop Vigano, and hopefully, a few others we have not been able to find or identify yet. 

Though a minority……… there are many priests sprinkled throughout the world……..who will not go with Bergoglio all the way, who refuse to abandon the true faith by going with the NEW FALSE CHURCH prophesied in the messages delivered to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich.

These clergy will be the basis and foundation of the Remnant Church of these ‘End Times’ as we move towards the Second Coming of Christ and the Era of Peace to follow…….and an extraordinarily happy ending to these times of so much tribulation.

And if we stay close to the Lord and His Blessed Mother in prayer….. day by day…..moment by moment…..we can pass through all of this with peace in our hearts and be very , very fruitful towards the salvation of souls…… for which the ‘New False Church’ has no concern.

PS    Anyone who says we must grin and bear a rampant heretic being on the Chair of Peter….. bringing on the loss of so many souls all over the planet…..as a result of the implementation of his heresies……has no real concern for the current loss of souls in the midst of this unprecedented disaster in our Church today.

REPEATING: There is no actual impediment to doing something about it by the initiation of a full blown investigation into every single aspect of the ‘election?’ of JM Bergoglio……. in order to establish the validity/invalidity once and for all.

There is much, much evidence of Canon Laws and the Apostolic Constitution ‘Universi Dominici Gregis’ being contravened in the process of the apostate ‘St Gallen Mafia Club’ getting rid of Pope Benedict XVI and getting their man on the ‘Chair of Peter’.

The concept of ‘Universal Acceptance’ is ‘dead in the water’ because there was never ‘Universal Acceptance’ by Orthodox, Traditional (ie. True) Catholics of Bergoglio’s supposed Papacy anyway.  

NEVER WAS!!!

I know many clergy and lay people around my country and around the world, who never did accept Bergoglio as Pope. The very concept seems to be flawed when lined up against some Doctors of the Church and others 

See below the most recent article published a few days ago, by Gloria TV on the matter of the “Formal Correction”.

https://www.gloria.tv/post/MJPh2xurinbj4X76LxRpNk8rh

Burke Reveals Why He Didn’t Issue the Promised “Formal Correction”

Asked by Edward Pentin why no group of cardinals challenges Francis, Cardinal Burke answered (NCRegister.com, March 7),
“Is there such a group?” He explained, “There are two or three or four cardinals who have spoken up.”
Burke confesses that “I’m trying to do my part” and observes that, in Church history, there was at least a group of three or more cardinals who would tell the Pope that something is wrong.
Gloria.tv learned from several retired Cardinals that Burke tried years ago to find other cardinals to form a group that would issue the “formal correction,” announced in 2017, in response to Francis’ unanswered Dubia. But Burke couldn’t find any companions. They wanted to remain “loyal” to Francis.  (TM Comment: ‘Which necessarily means “disloyal” to Christ.)
After the Cardinals Meisner and Caffarra died, also Brandmüller lost his courage refusing to go any further.

VIDEOS: fromrome.info/category/videos/(opens in a new tab)

FULL DISCLOSURE INTERVIEWS BR. BUGNOLO

MARCH 9, 2020FROM ROME EDITOR1 COMMENT

Mike and Joe have a very intriguing guest on the show. A man, with a habit, building a Military Order to fight enemies and defend Christians in the Holy Land. Did you say “Deus Vult?” Some 300 men already lined up. (This program was pre-recorded on Saturday). The Link will be come active at 8 PM Rome Time, 2 PM New York City Time, 4 AM Syndey Time.

CANON LAW, EDITORIALS

A 7TH ANNIVERSARY OF SHAME!

March 13, 2020

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Today is the seventh anniversary of a day that will live in infamy.

A day of wickedness and flippancy.

A day wherein the Cardinals of the Catholic Church showed their utter contempt for:

1. Pope Benedict XVI
2. The Catholic Faith in the Papacy
3. The Canons of the Catholic Church
4. The Papal Law on Conclaves
5. Common sense

Let me explain why I say this, point by point, in reverse order.

The Cardinals betrayed common sense 7 years ago today

It is obvious by now, that if anyone on the planet ,who had common sense, sat down and talked to Bergoglio for 15 minutes, he would realize that he is not a fit candidate to be Roman Pontiff.

But the College of Cardinals had been housed together with him for two weeks prior to March 13, 2013.

Therefore, the last 7 years proves that God certainly did not approve of their judgement in selecting such a man. Indeed, it was an epic failure of the College of Cardinals, as I wrote, in 2015.

The Cardinals betrayed John Paul II’s law on Conclaves

The Cardinal Electors violated the papal law on conclaves, in several ways.

First of all, they violated the Law, Universi dominici gregis, as regards the requirement in n. 37, of that law, when they held a Conclave without verifying whether there was a legal sede vacante.

A legal sede vacante means that either the previous pope is dead, and they confirm that with a funeral, or the previous pope resigned according to the norm of Canon 332 §2.

I have it from no less than the Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Legal Texts, Mons. Arrieta, whose commentary on the Code of Canon Law I keep at by desk, that there never was any meeting of canon law experts to verify if the Declaratio of Pope Benedict, of Feb. 11, 2013 — commonly called Pope Benedict’s Renunciation — was in conformity with the norm of canon 332 §2.

Second, the Cardinals violated n. 81, of the same papal law, by entering into agreements and promises to vote for Bergoglio, as Cardinal Daneels of Beglium admitted in his Biography composed of interviews he gave. But the College has never acted on the self admission, which in Canon Law tradition is an indisputable act of self imputation of a canonical crime. I have covered this issue in an extensive Chronology of Events, which still remains the most authoritative collection of facts on the matter, on the net.

Thrid, the Cardinals rushed to elect Bergoglio by violating the same Papal Law on the number of ballots permitted on each day: four, as is specified in n. 63, of the same papal law, regarding limit on the number of ballots to be taken on the 2nd day of balloting and all subsequent days.  Because, as has been confirmed by several testimonies in the last 7 years, Bergoglio was elected on the 5th ballot. And this has never been denied.

Fourth, while there has been much controversy over whether the Cardinals could proceed to a fifth ballot in the case of a 4th balloting which contained 1 more vote paper than the number of Electors present, there remains 2 legal questions which have never been addressed about this:

1. The Cardinals could not lawfully proceed to a 5th Ballot unless they paused the election and held a discussion on the interpretation of the papal law, using the right conceded to them in that same law, in n. 5, for this purpose. If they proceeded to a 5th ballot without such a discussion and vote, then even if they interpreted it as valid, that omission made their interpretation illicit, and hence the entire election invalid.
2. Whether the Auditors of the Papal Conclave, as specified in n. 70 of the same papal law, held any meeting or discussion in accord with the norm, there specified, regarding the auditing of the final vote. Because in the case that there was no meeting in accord with n. 5 of the same papal law, in regard to whether to proceed to a 5th ballot when only 4 ballots were permitted, then likewise if the Auditors did not meet, the election was canonically invalid. And if they did meet, they had to declare in the case of the lack of a vote in accord with n. 5, that the election was invalid.

Since the multiple reports about a 5th balloting are all silent about what should have happened as regards nn. 1 and 2, here above, it can be rightfully doubted the election was valid. Because a doubtful pope is no pope.

The Cardinals Betrayed the Canons of the Catholic Church

Seven years ago today, the Cardinals consummated their betrayal of the Canons of the Catholic Church promulgated by Pope John Paul II, in 1983, in the text known as the Codex iuris canonicis, or the Code of Canon Law.

First, the Cardinals violated canon 40, which required them not to take any decision in regard to Pope Benedict XVI’s Declaratio of Feb. 11, 2013, until they had the Latin text in hand in its final corrected version. Since the Vatican Press office in the days following February 11 published at least 3 versions of the text, there is sound canonical evidence that Cardinal Sodano, through Father Lombardi, violated canon 40 in instructing Giovanna Chirri at 11:58 AM, on that morning, to announce to the world that Pope Benedict has announced his resignation from the Pontificate on Feb. 28.  Canon 40 declares invalid any act taken by a subordinate, before he has in hand the integral text of the act of his superior.

Second, the Cardinals violated canon 41, which required them to examine if the legal act contained in the Declaratio was an act specified by the Code of Canon Law and was in all its particulars a command to do something opportune.  But since in the entire Code of Canon Law there is no mention of an act of renunciation of ministerium, the act posited by Pope Benedict XVI was clearly an an actus nullus, and thus canon 41 required them not to act upon it. Also since a renunciation of ministerium does not effect the loss of the papal office, the fact that the Declaratio speaks of calling a Conclave is an inopportune detail or provision. Canon 41 requires that those with mere ministry of execution, in such a case, have recourse to the superior to correct these issues. Once again, according to Mons. Arrieta, nothing of the kind happened.

Third, the Cardinals violated canon 38, which required them not to interpret the Declaratio of Pope Benedict as being in conformity to Canon 332 §2, on the grounds that by naming the ministerium instead of the canonically required munus, the act would gravely injure the rights of the Faithful to know if the pope had validly resigned or not, would cause doubt and risk schism in the Church. For in such a case, Pope Benedict XVI would have had to granted a derogation of canon 332 §2 in his Declaratio, in conformity with canon 38, otherwise the act would have been irritus. He did not, so the act was irritus — a technical canonical term which means having not effect in law, void, on account of having not followed due procedure (ritus).

Fourth, the Cardinals violated canon 36 §1, which requires them to interpret strictly any papal act which violates the norm of any canon, let alone Canon 332 §2. To interpret strictly means that they had to read ministerium as exclusive of any signification of munus, and thus hold that the Declaratio was prima facie incapable of causing Pope Benedict to validly resign the papal munus, the papal office and the papal dignity.

Fifth, the Cardinals violated canons 126 and 188, which require that a juridical act of renunciation of office contain the proper or essential act specified in the law.  As is clear from the Code of Canon Law, which speaks of the Papal Office in canons 331, 332, 332, and 749, the proper term for the papal office is the petrine munus, not the petrine ministerium.  Hence, they were required in accord with canon 188 to judge the renunication irritus on the grounds of substantial error.

Sixth, the Cardinals violated canons 17 and 145 §1, which require respectively that the terms of all canons be understood in their proper sense, that ministerium and munus, when mentioned in any canon be understood thus, and to undertake a study of the entire Code of Canon Law and canonical tradition, in the case of the doubt as to whether ministerium can suppose for munus. They did no such thing in February of 2013, as Mons. Arrieta affirmed to me.

Seventh, the Cardinals violated canon 332 §2, which requires them to recognize a papal renunication only if the Pope renounces his munus, and does so freely and manifests this duly.  But since a good number of the Cardinal Electors were present in the Consistory of Feb. 11, 2013, they heard with their own ears that he made errors in Latin and that he said ministerium not munus, in the crucial core section of the Declaratio. They also heard him say munus twice before that. So they had indisputable canonical evidence that the Pope knew what he was doing, knew how to distinguish munus from ministerium, and did NOT intend to renounce his munus.

The Cardinals violated the Catholic Faith in the Papacy

Seven years ago, today, the College of Cardinals violated the Catholic Faith in the papacy. First, in the strict sense of the Faith, namely, that there can only be one pope. Because, it was clear already by March 3, 2013, that Pope Benedict XVI by his own decision was going to retain the papal dignity by using the title “Pope Emeritus”. There was at least one scholarly refutation of the validity of this published on March 3, 2013 by Father Gianfranco Ghirlanda, S. J., former rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University at Rome. So they could not be ignorant of the fact. The same canonical scholar that week affirmed that a heretical pope loses office immediately. So in choosing an obvious heretic as Pope they also violated the Catholic Faith.

The Cardinals showed their utter contempt for Pope Benedict XVI

Seven years ago, today, the Cardinals consummated their utter contempt for Pope Benedict XVI, in that they responded with glee at his renunciation, and not with consternation and respectful attempt to dissuade him from it.

As reported in the press, in February of 2013, only one Cardinal, Cardinal Pell went on record as saying that the resignation should not happen. He said this before Feb. 28, 2013. He was also the first Cardinal the Vatican allowed to be prosecuted after February of 2013. Hmm.

Respect and reverence for the Holy Father, especially when frail and aged, requires first of all that the Cardinals assist him in executing his will, not obstructing it nor allowing it to be executed in an invalid manner.

Yet it also requires, out of gratitude, that they attempt to convince a good man not to resign. If they omit that, they are basically saying he is not a good man or that they despise him.

And they showed their contempt, not only in sentiment, but by positive canonical ommissions, in seemingly in several ways, because in February of 2013 none of them were under a pontifical secret, yet in 7 years they never have confirmed — to my knowledge — in any interview that they did not do the following:

1. They did not ask Pope Benedict to explain to them why he made his decision or what it meant, to make sure he was resigning freely.
2. They did not ask Pope Benedict to correct the 40 errors in the Latin text which he read, before it was published, so as to prevent the shame of such a thing staining the last act of his papacy and the Apostolic See.
3. They did not investigate or question Archbishop Gänswein and those around the pope as to the circumstance of the act to be certain that he was not manipulated or coerced.
4. They did not ask one another what they knew about the matter. If so, they would have discovered that Pope Benedict did not seek the counsel of others (according to Archbishop Gänswein) or refused the counsel of his better advisers (according to Archbishop Gänswein and Cardinal Brandmuller). If they had done this, they would have been altered to the necessity to examine the act further.
5. The consummated their disrespect through all these things and for not treating the Holy Father with that due respect for an aged man, in which one presumes frailty and therefore double checks everything to make sure it is done rightly.

Conclusion

For all these reasons, I think it can be said, objectively, that today marks the 7th anniversary of a day which will live in infamy in the history of the Church until the end of time and for all eternity. The Cardinals gravely failed in their duty as Cardinals and as Electors and as Bishops and Catholics. They failed also deliberately and by omission. Their failure also was canonically imputable, since the Code of Canon Law holds as presumptive, the responsibility of men with such high office to know the law and follow it.

Hence, it is objectively and canonically certain, that Bergoglio is not the pope. Because a man whose claim to the papacy is vitiated by so many canonical doubts, is not the pope, according to the ancient maxim of St. Robert Bellarmine, S. J.: a doubtful pope is not the pope.

_________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is a detail of the photograph by Tenan, which is used here in accord with the Creative Commons Atribution-Share Alike 3.0 unported license explained here.

+ + +

← March 11th – 2020 Presidential Politics – Trump Administration Day #1147

Mini-Tuesday Takeaways: The DNC Club Has Bernie Surrounded – Now Comes The Terms For Exit…

Posted on March 11, 2020 by sundance

Bernie Sanders came into mini-Tuesday hoping for Michigan and Washington State to help him stay within closing distance of DNC favorite Joe Biden.  However, Bernie was crushed in Mississippi, Missouri and Michigan by the machine – not by Joe Biden.

Bernie was left with a possible 50/50 split in Washington State where over 125,000 voters mailed-in ballots for Elizabeth Warren (mailed prior to withdrawal), not accidental, all by Club design.  The Club is in control now, full control; and Biden is the malleable vessel the administrative state hopes to utilize to take control of all government function.

Bernie lost the heavily union influenced state of Michigan by over 200,000 votes (53/37); many of those union votes were against losing their Cadillac healthcare plans.  A stunning defeat for Senator Sanders in a state he narrowly carried in 2016. The losses in Mississippi (81 to 15) and Missouri (60 to 35) were by even wider proportions.

Michigan was a big loss because…. To make matters worse, Bernie Sanders now sees the Club has out maneuvered his last remaining hope.  Florida, Ohio, Illinois and Arizona all vote on March 17th.

Florida (219 delegates) is a lost cause.  ‘Fidel’ Sanders will likely see a similar outcome he received in Mississippi, no delegates.  Illinois (155 delegates), like Michigan, is under the full control of the Club – no viable hope.  Bernie’s road-map included Ohio (136 delegates), but the Club knee-capped him on that possibility; intentionally and smartly, by cancelling all indoor rallies under the auspices of Coronavirus.  That only leaves Arizona (67 delegates); but by then it’s likely too late, and the best possibility is another 50/50 split.

So Bernie Sanders campaign is done.

Hence, he never spoke last night as he absorbs exactly how best to play out his remaining political currency.

The only leverage Bernie Sanders carries now is the March 15th CNN debate in Arizona.

The DNC wants this contest over, & The Club does not want to see Joe Biden’s diminished mental acuity exposed.  This is the only remaining leverage for Bernie Sanders.

Again, The DNC Club is smart and they think ahead of the contingencies.  That’s why the CNN March 15th debate was modified in advance.  Current rules: no Arizona debate audience allowed; no media presence permitted; both candidates seated behind desks.  No stress to exhibit Biden’s diminished capacities.

Bernie could suspend or concede prior to the debate; or Bernie could concede during the debate; it matters not.  Bernie will concede.  The question is: will there be a debate?

Given the heavily controlled DNC/CNN format for the debate, the most likely scenario is:

Bernie concedes openly or privately this week and then The Club use the “debate” as a 90 minute infomercial to promote the Club’s interests.  Under this scenario Bernie and Joe will have a friendly fireside chat about policy to help heal the divisions.

It would be a 90 minute nationally televised PR opportunity for Bernie to exit while supporting The Club candidate.  The goal: to bring Bernie supporters into the Club.

There may not be a debate; however, the Club would likely not want to lose such an opportunity for a nationally televised healing event, and their media allies will push the unity narrative hard into the psyche of the young and impressionable Bernie supporters.

Following the script; and in a similar party alignment that we saw exhibited on Super Tuesday…. On March 17th Florida, Arizona, Ohio and Illinois will all vote for Joe Biden.  Georgia follows suit on March 24th, and it’s all downhill from there.

Bernie’s last remaining input will be to assist the Club with a few progressive elements for the convention platform, and a soft-landing for AOC+3 to avoid electoral backlash. Biden will not have any input into the Democrat platform for 2020, all of the handlers will take control now.

Jill Biden will continue her primary role as caregiver, breathing sighs of relief each time Joe talks and doesn’t go bananas.  Jill will be assisted by Symone Sanders and a small circle of well compensated close confidants who will keep Biden’s diminished mental state hidden from view.  The proletariat media will be complicit in this endeavor.

One consistent approach by The DNC Club is that once they have defeated their internal enemies; as long as that enemy pays homage to the Club, admits and recognizes the power and control; and humble themselves before the Club leadership’s magnanimity; the Club will find a way for their internal opposition to keep face publicly.

There is no path for Bernie beyond negotiating narrow terms for exit.

Bernie fought the establishment, and the establishment won.

The Club is powerful; and The DNC has defeated him.

It’s over.

.

NEWS

THE GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH REFUSES TO SUSPEND MASSES

MARCH 10, 2020

FROM ROME EDITOR

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Drawing from its rich liturgical history and the teaching of its Saints, the Bishops of the Greek Orthodox Church in Greece have refused calls to suspend liturgical functions. The official statement rebuts the claim that the faithful can contract Corona Virus while receiving the Most Holy Communion in the Greek Rites.

In the liturgy of St. John Chyrsostum and St. Basil, Holy Communion is administered thus: the consecrated Host, a leavened loaf cut into the form of a cube (see featured image at top of page), is then cut into smaller cubes and placed in a Chalice full of Chrisr’s Most Precious Blood, and distributed cube by cube to the faithful, with spoon to an open mouth. The ancient practice avoids all contact of the hands of the priest with the mouth of the communicant. And after each communion, the Priest must put the spoon back into the Chalice of the Blood, where the accident of the alcohol sterilizes the spoon.

Instead, the Greek Church has called on all the clergy and faithful to offer prayers for the exterminate of the pest and end of the crisis.

Meanwhile, the Catholic Bishops of Slovakia — a nation with only 1 confirmed case of Corona virus, have decided to suspend all public functions in the country for two weeks.

+ + +

NEWS

CONTE IS LEADING ITALY INTO CHAOS

MARCH 10, 2020

FROM ROME EDITOR

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

I met a taxi driver yesterday who knows more about government that the Italian Premier (Prime Minister), Giuseppe Conte.  When I asked him what he thought about the new Decree to prevent the spread of corona virus — which came out on Saturday night — he said it is easier to issue a decree than solve the problem, because solving the problem took money and whits.

As an anthropologist, not a prophet, I foresee disaster in Italy. The break down of law and order. For the same reason: you cannot effectively respond to an epidemic through decrees.

Common sense recognizes that a virus is a living organism which does not respect decrees. Coronavirus 19, because it does not cause symptoms or problems in most persons, who are used to having influenza now and then, will thus spread rapidly to everyone in Italy. It is simply a mechanism of life. There is no way to shut down human life by decrees that will prevent it.

Consequently, as the death toll rises astronomically, the exasperation of the people will also rise. They will see that these draconian measures do not work. And since Italians are first and foremost lovers of human beings, they will begin to nurture the most profound anger for the authorities which are denying them the Sacraments and the opportunity to visit loved ones in their time of need, be with family members — the new decree effectively imprisons everyone in the Region in which they live and forbids egress and ingress — and attend the public funerals of loved ones — here funerals are magnificent events where thousands come out to mourn the passing of not a few citizens of each town.

Anthropologically what Conte is doing is unsustainable. It will be biologically ineffective. And from the point of the police forces in Italy, it will be impossible to enforce.

The result will be a breakdown of law and order. And it has already begun. Because the new Decree in denying visits of spouses and girl-friends to prisoners has caused 22 Prison Riots in the space of 48 hours. A thing unheard of in Italian history!

Bl. Ann Catherine Emmerich in her mystical visions of 1820 for the city of Rome saw that there will come a time with a violent mob will sweep the city wrecking destruction everywhere.

We are about to see that happen. Not today, or next week, but perhaps by the end of spring.

____________

+ + +

4 THOUGHTS ON “CONTE IS LEADING ITALY INTO CHAOS”

1. Em SMARCH 10, 2020 AT 8:28 AM Bergoglio and Conte are the perfect pair of Freemasons to take down Italy and change it so radically for good. If Bergoglio is the “religious”, masonic, anti christ, Conte strikes me as the “political” anti christ as he ran for office with the Freemasonic ideal “New Humanism” (https://www.corrispondenzaromana.it/il-premier-conte-il-nuovo-umanesimo-la-massoneria/). When Bergoglio welcomed Conte at the Vatican, Conte gave Bergoglio a three volume set of the Divine Comedy and Bergoglio gifted Conte a copy of his heretical masterpiece “Laudato Si” along with a medal that had an olive branch joining a split stone, symbolizing peace. This is a judeo-masonic symboln not Christian or Catholic whatsoever. Bergoglio began speaking of a new humanism, preparing the way as a forerunner for Conte. Besides Bergoglio and Conte’s handshake seems to me a little too close to the masonic one, they’ve also been working way too closely in meeting with certain world leaders together in the Vatican. ***BONUS ARTICLE***https://www.recnews.it/2019/10/10/conte-scrisse-a-un-gran-maestro-pensare-che-di-maio-voleva-denunciare-i-massoni/Like
2. Ana MilanMARCH 10, 2020 AT 9:40 AM Immune boosting foods & supplements would be a greater benefit to the populace than preventing them from going to work & generally socialising. The virus can enter homes through windows & doors being left open for air. You cannot turn a home into a prison & expect families to be happy about that. Naturally, they’ll want to be with family members who aren’t feeling too well & to attend the funerals of those who unfortunately succumb, so such stringent & untested measures will not work. All one can do is to follow closely the medical advice of washing hands thoroughly & use & bin tissues when sneezing & after blowing nose. Adding to the depression which comes with any ‘flu is certainly not going to help & public servants & Vatican should be alert to this. We’ve already witnessed PF smacking a Chinese woman & now he’s virtually smacking the entire laity by withdrawing their right to attend Holy Mass & the Sacraments which they need to support them through this crisis. Also I would recommend that our Hierarchy should organise nationally the Blessing of the Sick which I can verify has real benefits & could even greatly lessen the effects of Corona Virus.Liked by 1 person
3. Ordo Militaris RadioMARCH 10, 2020 AT 11:41 AM This may sound crazy, but has the socialist government of Italy close the bars and restaurants now with the new decree? if not, then it is purely an attack against religion. i’m hoping there are underground Masses in Italy by priests who are still faithful to Christ.Like
4. From Rome EditorMARCH 10, 2020 AT 12:17 PM Bars and restaurants are allowed to be open from 6 am to 6 pm, but this will kill most restaurants, since Italian eat their evening meals after 7 pm.Like

NEWS

THE SUSPENSION OF MASSES IS A BERGOGLIAN OBJECTIVE

MARCH 10, 2020FROM ROME EDITOR6 COMMENTS

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Riccardo Cascioli is right, there is an air of China now in Italy. Because the Catholic Religion has effectively been suppressed by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference just as it is suppressed in China.

Except that in China there is more religious liberty, in that they have still their public religious services in most other religions!

Everyone knows this will to suppress masses has come from Santa Marta.

Italy has a special legal relationship with the Catholic Church, founded upon the Lateran Pact: a treaty between the Apostolic See and Mussolini which originated the special legal status of the Church in Italy.

In all questions of the meaning of that relationship, the Bishops Conference of Italy defers to the Vatican. Legal Scholars are speaking out: it is clear that the decrees of the Italian government regarding the suspension of all public religious services cannot be understood to apply to the Catholic Church, which in Her own churches is free of all government control in matters of religion.

Thus, what is this will to suppress the Mass and Sacraments? Whence does it come?

I think the answer lies in the admiration that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has for the People’s Republic of China. Several of his ecclesiastical pawns have even gone so far as to praise China as the perfect embodiment of Catholic social teaching.

So, let us figure:

In China the Catholic Church is suppressed. And this is the perfect expression of Catholic Social Teaching.

Therefore, to have the perfect expression of Catholic social teaching, in Italy, you need to …

I think you can finish the comparison.

But obviously, “Catholic social teaching” in the mouth of Bergoglio does not mean what it means in the mouth of Pope Leo XIII.

I predict, not as a prophet, but as someone who has closely observed the modus operandi of Bergoglio, that the suspension of the Sacraments will continue indefinitely.

But when the Government approves, Bergoglio will order the practice of new religious rituals in the churches of Italy, ones which mix things from all the religions of the world. This is the objective of the Abu Dahbi statement. This is the objective of the Amazon Synod. Thus, one must presume it is also the objective of shutting down the Church in Italy, when the Lateran pact gives the Church the right to do the exact opposite.

+ + +

__________

NEWS

ITALIAN BISHOPS EXCOMMUNICATE ITALIANS, PRAISE CHINA

MARCH 10, 2020

FROM ROME EDITOR

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Silence is tacit consent. But praise is explicit approval.

Catholics from all over the world found it incomprehensible that the Vatican would sign an accord with the Marxist tyranny of China that would require Catholics in China to embrace heretical and schismatic clergy of the patriotic Church and call them “Catholics”. But so much has that accord changed things, that in the letter denouncing Cardinal Zen of Hong Kong, Cardinal Re, the Dean of the College of Cardinals implied that whereas before the independent Church in China was that of the government, now the clandestine Church — the illegal one — the Vatican recognizes to be the Catholic!

The implications of all of this are that the Catholic Church has been taken over at its summit by Marxists and that they are fully aiming to do to the Church what China did to the Church in China.

It seems a preposterous inference. But daily events are proving it true! Now any Catholic priest in Italy can be arrested for the crime of saying Mass in public. Baptisms, Marriages, Confirmations, even funerals for the dead are also illegal. Or so the Bishops’ Conference would have you think.

And the Bishops will let them be arrested! They have banned the Sacraments, in attempt to give force to a governmental decree from which the Church is immune by law!

This was a decision of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Italy, which has NO authority in Canon Law or civil law to give orders to anyone!

But in Italy there is a Lateran Pact, which the Popes since Pius XI have used to defend the liberty of the Church in Italy.

Yet at the emanation of the decree of the left wing Government here in Italy: silence. No opposition. And indeed, approval.

This can be seen in today’s issue of the Avvenire, the official newspaper of the Italian Bishops’ Conference. Article after Article tells the reader to comply with the government, accept that there are no more masses. Watch the mass of Bergoglio on the internet!

And no word on who made the decision to order the Bishops and clergy of Italy to stop public services. How like the  Marxist Party!

The alliance of the Bishops with China in persecuting the Church seems complete. Even the Avvenire, while counseling acceptance of having no Sacraments, praises China for having come out of the darkness of the stigma of having the Corona Virus. Now everyone has it! No more  anti-Chinese prejudice!

Is not that what Christianity is all about?

If you do not believe me, read pages 12 and 15 of today’s edition:

___________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is a photo of the pages cited from the daily newspaper, Avvenire, used here in accord with fair use standards for editorial commentary.

+ + +

A Day in the Senate with the Born-Alive Act

Hadley Arkes

TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 2020

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?hl=en&shva=1#inbox/FMfcgxwHMGLSfXgxqxFVPkLjMCDsRTdB

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act finally came before the Senate in the last days of February. This was the sequel to the Act passed in 2002, the Act that sought to cast the protections of the law on babies who survived abortions.

As the readers of this column know by now, that bill sprang from a proposal I had written for the debating kit of George H.W Bush in 1988.  By the time it was put in legislative form, the penalties were dropped, in part to avoid a veto from President Clinton (in 2000), but in part also to make the bill a pure “teaching” bill.”

The bill would break out to the public news that most people would find jolting.  Most people did not know that under Roe v. Wade and its companion case of Doe v. Bolton, the right to abortion would extend through the entire length of the pregnancy – and even when a child survived the abortion.

It turned out that there were far more of these babies surviving than we had known at the time.   But it was the mass of killings taking place in the abattoir of Dr. Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia that brought a new attention to the problem – and offered the moment to act.

With the support of Trent Franks of the Judiciary Committee in the House, I joined with some accomplished friends to draft a new bill, to restore the penalties that had been dropped from the original bill.  That move has made the difference for the Democrats – and further illuminated the landscape.

People curiously forget that when the original bill was enacted in 2002, the Democrats were in control of the Senate.  They did not like the bill, but they were willing to vote for such a modest measure carrying no penalties, especially if they could do it with a voice vote, with no one going on the record.

That is what makes it disingenuous for Democrats now to say that the bill isn’t needed because we already have a law that forbids the killing of  a child who survives an abortion. What comes into play now is an old aphorism of Lord Bracknell, roughly translated in this way: that “it would be superfluous to make laws, unless those laws, when made, were to be enforced.”

To add serious penalties, civil and criminal, for the killing of the child is finally to take this legislation seriously as legislation.

And when that was done, the dramatic change in the Democrats could  then be read in a vote so startling that even the Republicans seem struck dumb in how to deal with it.  With Republicans in control of the House, the new Born-Alive Act was brought to the floor in September 2015, when it passed  248-177.  It was brought again in January 2018, when it passed 241-183.  Every voting Republican voted for these bills, and every Democrat but five or six, voted in opposition.

And now, with the bill in the Senate, every Republican voted for it, along with three Democrats, while every vote in opposition came from Democrats, holding the line.   The bill garnered 56 votes, but short of the 60 needed to overcome the Democratic filibuster.

The Democrats had arrived at the most radical position yet on the matter of abortion – so radical that the Republican managers of the bill, along with President Trump, still haven’t quite figured out how to express it.

The matter was blurted out, almost in passing, by Sen. Patty Murray from Washington. She remarked that “Republicans are peddling a ban that is blatantly unconstitutional.”  That is, this move to protect children born alive is incompatible with that “right” proclaimed in Roe v. Wade. For virtually all Democrats now in Congress and national politics, that right to abortion is a right that extends beyond pregnancy itself and entails nothing less than the right to kill a child born alive.

That is the ground now on which the question should be called and fought out in the presidential election.  But President Trump hasn’t apparently grasped this gift that has been given to him.

And yet, neither has the sponsor of the bill, Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska, who persistently failed to draw out the meaning of what his colleagues on the other side were revealing. Twenty years ago Sen. Rick Santorum asked Sen. Barbara Boxer  to offer the earliest moment when a newborn child could be protected by the law, and she said “when you bring your baby home.”

That answer became a source of embarrassment, as Boxer could never explain her way out of the problem. At every turn Sen. Sasse has passed up the chance to draw his colleagues into colloquies of this kind.  That would not affect the vote, but the confrontation could draw the attention of a wider public.

Twenty years ago, the beloved Henry Hyde was astonished that the National Organization of Women would come out so strongly against this modest bill.  But the other side knew that we were asking what was different about that same child five minutes earlier, before it was born – but then five days, five months earlier.

Hyde’s happy bewilderment revealed a state of affairs that still holds:  the other side understands this bill better than some of our own allies, because it understands the principle that lies at the heart of the thing.

*Image: The Massacre of the Innocents by Sano di Pietro, c. 1470 [The MET, New York]

AMERICAN FOUNDING, POLITICS

Conservative Liberalism, Liberal Despotism: Part 2

MARCH 9, 2020BY 

NATHANAEL BLAKE

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?hl=en&shva=1#inbox/FMfcgxwHMGLSffMgcKStqTBXTlnpVjNq

Liberal doctrines necessarily require disenfranchising and punishing those who hold rival beliefs. Liberal ideology is jealous, and will have no other gods before it. American conservatives should reject this revolutionary liberalism and the attempts to make it the central principle of our national heritage. We need not deny that liberal ideas influenced the Founding, but we ought to follow our forefathers in tempering them.

Is American conservatism the guardian of liberal ideology? Some factions in the Right’s current debates assert that the American Founding was based on classical liberal ideology, which, they argue, it is the task of conservatism to defend. Perhaps the most notable intellectual champion of this view was the late Claremont professor Harry Jaffa, who argued that American conservatism consisted of preserving and expanding the liberal ideology that he thought was the essence of the Founding.

As I explained in my Public Discourse essay yesterday, this is an attempt to steal an intellectual base, insofar as liberal ideology was only one influence (and not the greatest) among many during the American Founding. The American colonists did not need John Locke’s theories in order to have representative government, trial by jury, and the many other liberal practices they rebelled to protect. Thus, American conservatives who are skeptical of liberal ideology are in no way betraying their patrimony. Elevating the liberal theory of Locke and other Enlightenment thinkers to the preeminent place presumes what is in dispute, which is whether liberal ideology is superior to the alternatives and therefore that the Founding should be understood in light of liberal theory as its highest constitutive element.

Consent of the Governed

Historical accuracy is not the only challenge facing the attempt to define the United States as a project of Enlightenment liberalism. A theoretical difficulty with practical consequences is that the American Founding never fulfilled the requirements of classical liberal political theory. As Jaffa noted, liberal theory asserts that “it is the unanimous consent of equals that transforms a number of individuals into a people.” The doctrine of human equality demands the consent of the governed—all of them. Everyone must agree to the initial social contract that legitimizes subsequent limited majority rule. This may seem an abstract point, but it precipitates a theoretical crisis for those insisting that America was founded as an expression of classical liberal theory; and their responses—certainly Jaffa’s response—reveal the contradictions and despotic potential at the heart of ideological liberalism.

Historically, nothing in the nature of a unanimous social contract can be found in the history of the colonies at the time of their rebellion and union into the United States. This was not for a lack of concern about the problem: after the break from Great Britain, some of the more theoretically preoccupied patriots speculated about whether the colonies, or their constitutive localities, or even all Americans, were in a state of nature relative to each other. But nothing close to unanimous consent was ever achieved, or even really sought after.

The revolution, after all, was the work of a minority. Estimates place the number of Tory loyalists at around that of the revolutionary patriots, with many other colonists being, so far as possible, neutral. Had a referendum on independence been conducted, it is by no means clear that “leave” would have won. Furthermore, a majority of adults were excluded from political participation, on account of being female, propertyless, indentured, or enslaved. If the Revolution resulted in the formation of a new social contract and government, it was not the product of unanimous consent, or even of majority rule, but of a minority of a minority.

Thus, by the logic of classical liberal theory, the United States appears to have been illegitimate from the start, as it was not formed by the unanimous consent of equals. Jaffa offered two ways out of this conundrum, both of which have significant repercussions for how we view our government today. Both his influence and his clarity—he did not shy away from hard conclusions—make addressing these essential for conservatives who debate the nature of our nation’s liberal heritage.

Jaffa’s first method of legitimation is to understand the requirement for unanimous consent as having an ontological primacy, rather than a temporal one. The idea of the state of nature, and the natural equality of man it supposes, explain the rights and duties of just government, even if historically there never was any such state of nature or formation of a social contract. The liberal model of how a people is established from the state of nature should be taken seriously, but not literally. The unanimous consent that human equality requires to form a government from the state of nature is an event, not in the past, but instead in our hearts, insofar as we adhere to the ideal of equality. A government dedicated to liberal equality may therefore be justified in the present, regardless of the actual history of its formation.

This construct makes adherence to liberal ideology, rather than precedent or even popular approval, the source of governmental legitimacy. Liberalism is the standard of justice, and governments that do not strive toward it delegitimize themselves, regardless of how longstanding they are, how many elections they win, or even how well they govern. For a current example, observe the denunciations of the governments of Poland and Hungary, which have repudiated liberal ideology while remaining broadly democratic.

That the governed may consent to governments that reject liberal ideology is a problem for liberal theory. Jaffa addressed this difficulty by declaring that those who are unfit to rule themselves may be ruled for their own good. His vindication of the minority that were responsible for the American Founding depended on excluding those who were opposed to independence from the requirements of unanimous consent. He accomplished this by arguing that the first requirement for being capable of self-government is accepting the liberal theory of self-government.

Enlightened Despotism

Liberalism is thus the only legitimate form of government among enlightened men, but there are different rules for the unenlightened. Jaffa endorsed J. S. Mill’s justification for despotism (enlightened, of course) in dealing with barbarians, asserting that “the civilized may have to govern the uncivilized without their consent. Even extreme forms of despotism may be justified if they are necessary.” Similarly, dissenters from the liberal order are automatically excluded from the requirement for unanimous consent in forming a social compact, and they may also justly be excluded from participation in the subsequent government by majority rule.

Thus, in the American context, the revolutionaries had the right, even the duty, to exclude and exile (violently if necessary) the Tories from politics. The Tories had excommunicated themselves from the creed of liberalism and, therefore, from any right of participation in the formation of a government that was to be based on liberalism. As Jaffa put it, “the acceptance of the idea of human equality, as that idea was comprehended within ‘the laws of nature and of nature’s God,’ would appear to be the necessary condition par excellence for defining who might participate in a free election.” Liberal democracy requires that believers in liberalism control participation in government and that dissidents may justly be excluded from political power and participation.

The theoretical liberal requirement for unanimous consent in forming a government is secured (ontologically, though not historically) by denying, violently if necessary, the rights of all non-liberals to participate in government. Jaffa believed that the Declaration’s right to revolution “is a right to use violence against anyone who would deny us the enjoyment of our rights. . . . [A]n enlightened minority has the same right to use force against a brutal majority as an enlightened majority has against a brutal king.” The maxim that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed only applies when the governed are liberals who recognize their consent as the source of just government. Liberals, even if they are a small minority, may need to rule non-liberals despotically until they are converted to liberalism. All men are equal, but liberals are more equal than others.

Thus does the theoretical liberalism of unanimous consent in forming a government, followed by majority rule in administering it, justify in practice the rule of a self-declared enlightened minority over an ostensibly unenlightened majority. And the enlightenment that certifies the minority’s fitness to rule is belief in the principles of liberalism. At the heart of Jaffa’s teaching is the right of enlightened liberals to resist non-liberals violently, conquer them, and despotically rule over them until they convert to the true faith of liberalism. This argument for enlightened liberal despotism is not often made explicit, but it is part of the set of ideas that Jaffa and his many disciples have sought to enshrine as the heart of American conservatism.

Those of us who are not charmed at the prospect of liberal despotism might question the benevolence of our would-be overlords, who would surely and sorely be tempted to govern in their own self-interest, rather than on behalf of (eventual) equality. We may also recall C. S. Lewis’s insight that “a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. . . . [T]hose who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” Furthermore, we might be skeptical that those who practice this enlightened despotism will respect the procedural and constitutional limitations that some “conservative classical liberals” place their trust in.

Conservative or classical liberals might reply that liberalism is not a suicide pact, and that liberal regimes are not obligated to extend full civic equality to those who would use it to destroy liberalism: per Karl Popper, liberalism may be illiberal toward those who are themselves illiberal, and who are thereby self-excommunicated from the liberal order. This is a plausible argument, but it gives the lie to liberalism’s claims to neutrality. The liberal promise to be impartial in disagreements over the ultimate end of human beings, the nature of the good life, and the highest good, is deceptive. Liberalism is not a neutral framework in which those with disparate views on these subjects may live in peace. Rather, it is an armed doctrine, with metaphysical presumptions of its own and disciples who aim to subjugate non-liberals unless they convert.

Implications for Policy Today

This ideological liberalism has implications for American policy, foreign and domestic. Jaffa provided a theoretical justification for the view that the United States government is the champion of a militant liberal ideology, that justifies violence against regimes that do not adhere to it and the suppression of citizens who do not accept it. If the United States is a creedal nation, and if that creed is the sole source of legitimate government, then dissenters from this revolutionary creed are in fact enemies of the people and the state. And foreign regimes that are not founded on this liberal faith must be regarded as intrinsically oppressive to their people and threatening to the United States.

This ideological outlook had a dominant place in the foreign policy of George W. Bush’s administration; and while the errors of the effort to democratize the Middle East by force of arms have decreased the ideology’s allure, it still has advocates in the conservative movement, and American troops still fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nor is the influence of this liberal view confined to democracy-spreading foreign policy hawks who want to bomb Iran and broadcast liberal propaganda into Hungary.

Domestic policies also depend on whether or not our nation is defined by liberal political theory and its veneration of individual autonomy. The French–Ahmari debate was precipitated, after all, by “Drag Queen Story Hour” events hosted at public libraries. For French, these efforts at normalizing adult sexual entertainment for children are among the “blessings of liberty.” On matters of religion, French’s doctrines place the government in the untenable position of being strictly neutral between Christ and Satan.

Neutrality may sometimes be a useful legal fiction, but it is a practical impossibility. Thus, while French, as an accomplished lawyer, outclassed Ahmari regarding legal questions during their dispute, he has in turn struggled to address the philosophical issues raised by liberalism’s obvious practical partiality. Liberal ideology is not neutral between competing conceptions of the highest good and the ultimate end of human beings. As Jaffa understood, even if French does not, liberal doctrines necessarily require disenfranchising and punishing those who hold rival beliefs. Liberal ideology is jealous, and will have no other gods before it.

American conservatives should reject this revolutionary liberalism and the attempts to make it the central principle of our national heritage. We need not deny that liberal ideas influenced the Founding, but we ought to follow our forefathers in tempering them. We should take our stand in defense of our national traditions of liberal practice, whose roots are deeper than this liberal ideology that perverts and poisons them. We can defend our patrimony of liberal practices without bending the knee before Enlightenment liberal ideology.

About the Author

NATHANAEL BLAKE

Nathanael Blake has a PhD in political theory and is a senior contributor to The Federalist. He lives in Missouri.