There comes a point in every profession that one must speak about the criteria for professional incompetence. I will just leave it at that.
Another reason that laymen are not the best suited to explain the Faith on social media.
But for those who do not know their faith, the One who is the Most Blessed Sacrament is the Lord and Creator of All, the giver of life and the source of all Healing. He is also the Judge of all.
If you are in the state of grace, then have no fear whatsoever of receiving the Sacrament, even in the time of plague. Because your faith will merit your salvation, and we are not made for this world, but for life in the world to come.
This is simplicity of heart. If you think God the Father gives diseases to those who receive His Son, you are simply an atheist and blasphemer. And if you think He will not reward those who trust in His Son, then you are an infidel.
Likewise, if you are looking to escape every cross, then you have not yet showed supernatural faith in Christ’s crucified! Better to place ourselves in the hands of God than in the hands of doctors and scientists, who have never saved anyone from physical death, let alone eternal damnation.
Here we need to make distinctions. There is no Saint in the Church who fled from a plague. There are many Saints who helped the sick and risked death, some of whom died of the plague, others whom did not. The Saints did not flee, because by faith they knew that we are to live for God. Period. Whatever befalls us, God is in control.
Saint Bernardine of Sienna assisted his fellow townsmen in the plague. He was lambasted by relatives for it. And some of them died of the plague. But he did not. He went on to be one of the greats saints of Italy who called the Italian people back to the Faith in the 15th century.
Even though there is not the obligation to give the sacraments which do not pertain to eternal salvation during the time of a plague — Saint Alphonsus teaches this in his Theologia Moralis — a priest will be damned if he refuses the Sacrament of Penance to sinners during a plague. Likewise, the Sacrament of Baptism. This is because it is a grave duty of the priestly dignity to save souls. And to refuse the positive means of salvation to any soul, so as to save one’s own life from a possible risk, is a mortal sin against both charity and the priestly duty.
But, medically we know there is minimal risk of death from the Corona Virus. The mortality rate of those who end up in hospitals, who are only a tiny fraction of the entire population — most of whom when they contract Corona virus have no or few symptoms — is only 3.8%. So for the entire population it is less than perhaps a half of a percent. And these are all individuals with bad states of health, except for a very few. So Corona virus presents no real threat to anyone with normal health, more than the normal influenza which kills more people each month in the world, ever year, than the Corona Virus has ever killed ever.
For that reason, those who act disproportionally are not acting rationally. Most of all when they discount God Himself present in the Eucharist! This is simply atheism. And shows that some persons have very little faith or sense. Remember, God created viruses. They serve His will to punish sin and sinners and give the just means of meriting eternal life. This does not mean that we should be deliberately careless, but it does mean that we should take God as our surety and trust in Him. He is the First Cause and our last End. Nothing can happen to us unless He wills it. Confess your sins and live ever as His trusting servants and friend. And certainly do not let hypochondria lead you to omit the Sacraments, if you are in the state of grace.
Swiss bishop joins Cdl Burke’s criticism of Pope Francis’s post–Amazon Synod document
Bishop Marian Eleganti — who had first published a more positive comment on Querida Amazonia — says: ‘I am unhappy about this development of dismantling the priest and clericalizing the laity.’Mon Mar 9, 2020 – 6:28 pm EST
Bishop Marian Eleganti, auxiliary of Chur, Switzerland.
March 9, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Bishop Marian Eleganti, the Swiss auxiliary bishop of Chur, has responded to the new comments made by Cardinal Raymond Burke about Pope Francis’s post-synodal exhortation Querida Amazonia, which the cardinal calls “troubling.” Cardinal Burke especially opposed the idea of laicizing the Church in the Amazon.
Eleganti — who had first published a more positive comment on Querida Amazonia — says: “I agree with Card. Cordes and Card. Burke in this regard, and I am unhappy about this development of dismantling the priest and clericalizing the laity.”
As LifeSite reported today, Cardinal Burke issued his first public critique of Querida Amazonia in an interview with the National Catholic Register’s Edward Pentin. In this interview, the American cardinal says that “there are passages in the document which gravely contradict theological truths,” and he rejects the potential laicization of the Church by saying that “if the Amazon Church is going to be a lay Church, then it won’t be Catholic.” Burke also reminds us that in the Church as instituted by Jesus Christ Himself, “the pastoral charity exercised by those called to be apostles and successors to the apostles is essential.”
Furthermore, Cardinal Burke sees that there is, in this new papal document, a sort of hidden agenda, saying, “I don’t even find them [the hidden parts] so hidden, in the sense that the language is clear enough, and there are a number of interpreters who tell us exactly what is intended.” He refers, for example, to Víctor Fernández, the archbishop of La Plata “stated very clearly that none of these issues like clerical celibacy and deaconesses are resolved, that the Pope simply saw that he had to wait a little bit to accomplish his agenda because there are people causing difficulty.” That is to say, in Burke’s eyes, the topics of the married priesthood and the female diaconate are not yet off the table.
Bishop Eleganti himself had, one day after the publication of Querida Amazoniaon February 12, issued a statement praising the document for its “loving, conciliatory, unagitated and pleasant, humble tone.” He declared himself “grateful” for Pope Francis’s explicit “rejection of female ordination.” He also saw that this papal document turned out “different from what was expected,” also with regard to the married priesthood.
However, Eleganti also detected a weakness in the document: “Francis does not seem to think about the conflicts between ordained and non-ordained ministers of the Church, which remain a great weakness of his proposal,” he wrote. “The German-speaking countries have enough experience and conflicts in this regard which to this day could not be solved and have their origin in the creation of full-time non-ordained community leaders authorized or empowered by the bishops,” the Swiss bishop argued.SUBSCRIBEto LifeSite’s daily headlinesSUBSCRIBEU.S. Canada World Catholic
Now, in response to Cardinal Burke, who mentioned both Eleganti’s and Cardinal Gerhard Müller‘s positive response to the new papal document in a critical way since it could “lead the faithful into error,” Eleganti writes: “Of course I was very relieved at first that the Pope did not directly attack celibacy and keep the gate closed for the priesthood of women.”
But next to this joy, he adds: “However, I have long seen the danger of deconstructing the priesthood by reducing it only to Holy Mass and Confession. The ontological difference to the general priesthood of the baptized and the unity of the three ministries (governing; teaching; sanctifying) in the sacramental priesthood must not be touched. They are transmitted through ordination and constitute the sacramental character of the Church. I agree with Cardinal Cordes and Cardinal Burke in this regard, and I am unhappy about this development of dismantling the priest and clericalizing the laity.”
Cardinal Paul Josef Cordes had published in the German Catholic newspaper Die Tagespost an analysis of Querida Amazonia with regard to its novel teaching that the priest’s main duties are merely the administration of the sacraments of the Eucharist and of Penance, while the laity could take over many of the other duties, to include the governing office.
Here, he points out that the three spheres of the ecclesial office and duties — the munera docendi (teaching), sanctificendi (sanctifying), and regendi (governing) — have a “spiritual interdependency.” They are “theologically inseparable” and they lose their “efficacy” when separated. A priest is to act “in the person of Christ.”
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on FRANCIS’ AMAZON SYNOD DOCUMENT OFFERS THE PROMISE OF THE DISMANTLING OF THE ROLE OF THE PRIEST IN THE AMAZON AND THE CLERICALIZING OF THE LAITY
Footnote in Pope’s Amazon exhortation opens door to married priests, female deacons: Jesuit priest
Liberation theologian and participant at Amazon Synod Father Víctor Codina says the new papal document has a key footnote like Amoris Laetitia.Mon Mar 9, 2020 – 3:01 pm EST
March 9, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The Liberation theologian Father Víctor Codina, S.J., published on March 6 an essay proposing and presenting the “interpretive key” to Pope Francis’ February 12 post-synodal exhortation Querida Amazonia, saying that the Pope’s mentioning of an Amazonian rite in a footnote has a similar importance as the footnote in Amoris Laetitia which gave an opening toward Communion for “remarried” divorcees. He claims that, with that new Amazonian rite, married priests can be introduced, as well.
Codina’s essay was immediately picked up and published by the Amazonian ecclesial network REPAM whose key organizers are also members of the pre-synodal committee, such as Cardinal Claudío Hummes, Bishop Erwin Kräutler, and Mauricio López (its executive secretary). Both Hummes and Kräutler are also members of the Vatican’s “special council” that was established after the October 2019 Amazon Synod. Codina was also a participant at the Amazon Synod.
The Spanish retired professor of theology (University of Bolivia) is a liberation theologian who published his new essay on his blog of the website of the Liberation group Amerindia, to which also Leonardo Boff and Paulo Suess belong (with Boff and Codina both having studied under Karl Rahner). Codina was a participant at the secret meeting in Rome that took place ahead of the Amazon Synod and at which also Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, the general secretary of the Synod of Bishops, as well as Cardinal Hummes and Cardinal Walter Kasper participated. There are indications that some of Kasper’s fundamental ideas about establishing a non-ordained ministry for lay women might very well have found entrance into Querida Amazonia.
Codina explains in his essay that, in his “ecclesial dream, Francis promotes for the Amazon a native and well-formed laity, a plurality of lay ministries, a permanent diaconate for men, base communities, an incarnated and inculturated religious life,” as well as a larger role for women, among others. He then goes on to say that many were “very disappointed” when “the only news that media spread was that the Pope rejected the ordination of married men.” People now feared that “the ecclesiastical springtime that Francis had begun was in danger,” he adds.
Codina then presents us the “interpretative key” that can be found in this new papal document. As others have done in the recent past, the Jesuit insists that the new document “does not want to substitute the final document of the Synod, but to help a creative reading of the synodal journey.”
Codina concludes that, since the final document “proposes the ordination of married men and works towards the female diaconate (111 and 103 of the final document), this means that these issues remain open and therefore it is false to say that the Pope excludes or forbids them. Francis is silent, he does not close any door.” Also returning to the theme as stressed by Father Antonio Spadaro, Codina sees here that the Pope, with his writing, wishes to overcome polarities in the Church. At the same time, the theologian explains, the Pope wishes to create something larger than just the presence of the Eucharist in the Amazon region. “Without the Eucharist,” he explains, “there is not Church, but without ecclesial community, the Eucharist becomes a magical or empty rite.”
That means, the Pope wishes to “initiate a Church that is not pyramidal and vertical from the hierarchical center, but rather a Church centered on the People of God,” along with its “broad lay capillary” action, from the bottom up.SUBSCRIBEto LifeSite’s daily headlinesSUBSCRIBEU.S. Canada World Catholic
In light of establishing a new ecclesial structure in the Amazon region, Codina reminds us the Pope, already in his post-synodal exhortation on marriage and the family, Amoris Laetitia, in paragraph 3, insisted that not all doctrinal, moral and pastoral discussions are to be resolved by the intervention of the Magisterium. That is to say, the Pope wants the local Church to “discuss and discern” the question of “the ecclesial ministries.” It is here that Father Codina now speaks about “a small, unnoticed pastoral footnote” and then points to the footnote 120 of Querida Amazonia‘s paragraph 82 where he speaks about inculturation. In that footnote, the Pope mentions that the Amazon Synod had proposed an Amazonian rite (in the Final Document numbers 116-117). After referring to the fact that the Church has 23 different rites which include certain “ecclesial structures” and that in many of the Eastern Churches, “there are married priests,” Codina comes to his key statement:
“This footnote opens up new paths, as was footnote 351 of Chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia, which opened up the possibility of reconciliation and communion for divorced people who have remarried. Here the possibility of an Amazonian rite is opened up, which not only inculturates liturgies but also ecclesial structures, in dialogue and discernment between the Amazonian churches and the universal Church which is presided over in charity by the Bishop of Rome.” In conclusion, Codina wonders whether “a new Amazonian rite” could not be “one of these novelties of the Spirit that go beyond our ordinary discussions and horizons?”
There are indeed parallels between Amoris Laetitia (AL) and Querida Amazonia (QA). In both cases the synodal discussions had been heated due to the seriousness of the proposals at the synods – in the case of AL Communion for the “remarried” divorcees, in the case of QA the married priesthood and female diaconate. In both cases, Pope Francis was faced with strong opposition from within the Universal Church against these novelties. As Archbishop Bruno Forte, the Archbishop of Chieti-Vasto, Italy later revealed in the case of Amoris Laetitia, the Pope had told him during the family synod that “if we speak explicitly about Communion for the divorced and remarried, you do not know what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly, do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.” Forte was then special secretary of the Synod of Bishops.
That is to say, Pope Francis chose a more indirect, if not stealthy, approach, in order to bypass and avoid too strong of a resistance. He said in paragraph 305 of Amoris Laetitia, that, despite an “objective situation of sin,” it is possible that a person “can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.” The included footnote 351 then adds that “In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments,” followed by references to both sacramental Confession and the Eucharist.
It will be seen whether or not footnote 82 of paragraph 120 in Querida Amazoniawill prove to be a similar key footnote.
In light of this discussion, it might also be of worth to consider Cardinal Walter Kasper’s statements, since he himself had been involved in a preparatory study meeting before the Amazon Synod, as we mentioned above. First of all, when asked during an interview at the end of 2019 whether the Pope will even go beyond what was proposed by the Synod’s Final Document, he answered: “I think he will do it. And, in fact, he has promised to publish the Exhortation before the end of this year.” He also called the results of the Amazon Synod “very good.” When asked about the female diaconate, the retired curial cardinal answered: “It is difficult today to explain that, but I think it is an ancient tradition, which we keep with the Eastern Churches. But I think that, with time, the doors will open. In addition, there are already many ministries in the Church for which ordination is not needed.” He added that these women who call for access to ordination “have the right to be heard.”
In 2017, Cardinal Walter Kasper – who had been a key man behind Communion for the “remarried” divorcees as invited by Amoris Laetitia – made some important remarks that now seem to make more sense. At the time, he called the discussion of the married priesthood “urgent,” and then added that “the pope thinks that this discussion is worth it; he sees it positively.” However, explained the cardinal then: “He [the pope] wants to leave the decision up to the bishops’ conferences.” They can “come to him and make a request.” “If this request is a reasonable request, I have the impression that he is willing to respond then positively to it,” concluded Kasper. “It is now up to the bishops’ conferences.”
In 2016, Leonardo Boff said in an interview the following about Kasper: “Only recently, Cardinal Walter Kasper, a close confidant of the pope, told me that soon there will be some great surprises.” When asked by the interviewer what they could be, the liberation theologian answered: “Perhaps a diaconate for women, after all. Or the possibility that married priests may be again engaged in pastoral care. That is an explicit request from the Brazilian bishops to the pope, especially from his friend, the retired Brazilian Curial Cardinal Claudio Hummes. I have heard that the pope wants to meet this request – for now and for a certain experimental period in Brazil.”
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Liberation theologian and participant at Amazon Synod Father Víctor Codina says the AMAZONIAN SYNOD papal document has a key footnote like Amoris Laetitia. THE DOOR IS OPENED TO BERGOLIAN HERESY
One of the biggest fears I have is that in 2024 people will not understand just how bad Nikki Haley is.
Electing Haley after President Trump in 2024 is the equivalent of electing George Bush following Reagan in 1988. This scheming, conniving, lying and corrupt politician is worse than John McCain, George Bush and Mitt Romney combined.
Today Romney in a skirt, aka Nikki Haley, endorsed Kelly Loeffler over Doug Collins for the South Carolina senate seat.
[…] Haley, a Republican governor of South Carolina before serving as the Trump administration’s U.N. ambassador, headlined a campaign event in Marietta, Georgia, and officially endorsed Loeffler’s election bid. The rally, which was billed as Loeffler’s biggest since being appointed to the seat, was aimed at shoring up GOP support for her campaign. (read more)
Kelly Loeffler was appointed by Georgia Governor Kemp because Loeffler is married to Jeffrey Sprecher; a GOPe party insider, mega-donor, and multi-millionaire CEO of the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE). Jeffrey Sprecher is the founder and CEO of ICE, which now owns the New York Stock Exchange. Kelly Loeffler’s company, the financial platform Bakkt, is a subsidiary of the Intercontinental Exchange.
No doubt Mr. Sprecher (pictured above circled) leveraged his network and political influence upon Governor Kemp to get his well-connected wife appointed. Jeffrey Sprecher likely also worked with with Mitch McConnell to install his wife, onto the Senate Agriculture Committee. McConnell made the appointment. Loeffler now has oversight over her and her husbands’ stock exchange interests.
Corrupt as hell. All of it. Insider party schemes, combined with Deep Swamp politics and personal influence puddling for financial interests. The familiar network of personal financial benefit. In 2012 Mrs Loeffler donated $750,000 to Mitt Romney’s Super PAC.
Political connections is why Kelly Loeffler was selected by Governor Kemp, and that same pay-to-play political network is exactly why Nikki Haley has endorsed her in the upcoming election. I have ZERO doubt Loeffler’s husband will be providing considerable financial payments to Nikki Haley in her run for the presidency. Transparent swamp dealing.
Jeffrey Sprecher owns the largest stock exchange in the world: the New York Stock Exchange. It has more than 2,400 listed companies and has a market capitalization of about $22.9 trillion. Gee, and Nikki Haley endorses…. go figure.
GEORGIA – […] In recent interviews, nearly a dozen ethics experts in Washington said the entanglement of Loeffler’s public and private interests has few, if any, recent precedents in Congress.
ICE deploys lobbyists to influence federal regulatory agencies and Congress, including committees on which Loeffler now sits. Loeffler’s husband and other ICE executives often testify at congressional hearings. And, when she was ICE’s senior vice president for corporate communications, Loeffler herself publicly criticized the company’s primary regulator, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, for proposing “excess regulation” during the financial crisis of the late 2000s.
That commission answers directly to the Agriculture Committee’s commodities subcommittee, of which Loeffler is now a member. (link)
James Carpenter says:March 9, 2020 at 10:52 pmSundance has her pegged. Why On Earth so many folks can’t/don’t see through her is very disturbing. We’ve come so far and we’ve so far to go. Nikki Haley would be exactly as Sundance describes: …”the equivalent of electing George Bush following Reagan”… or WORSE!Liked by 2 peopleReply
Heika says:March 9, 2020 at 10:47 pmAh yes… Nikki Haley, a big piece of Neocon warmongering by-product (putting it nicely). I agree wholeheartedly with Sundance and have always seen her as such. She literally sabotaged PT’s early efforts to calm things down in Mid East. SHE is a POS.Liked by 2 peopleReply
TheHumanConditionsays:March 9, 2020 at 10:53 pmThey are definitely one of the couple’s President Trump talks about, and they are ugly as sin. Self-important, smug, evil scum. The kind of people that think they should RULE the rest of us. Get’em OUT! And take their ill-gotten gains!Liked by 2 peopleReply
dufrstsays:March 9, 2020 at 10:49 pmI am hoping DeSantis turns out to be a good one, but only time will tell. So far so good. I will be looking to him as a potential MAGA successor.LikeReply
NICCO says:March 9, 2020 at 10:55 pmFather,we ask for your favor,strength,wisdom and protection upon Doug Collins and that he is elected to U S senate seat in Georgia,in the name above all names we pray Jesus Christ,King of Kings ,Lord of Lords,soon to return Messiah,AmenLikeReply
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on IT IS DIFFICULT FOR TRUMP TO DRAIN THE SWAMP WHEN SOME OF THE SWAMP CREATURES ARE REPUBLICAN BUT HE HAS TO DO WHAT HE WAS ELECTED TO DO
Never let a crisis go to waste… And right on cue the Democrats in Washington DC see an opportunity to use the Coronavirus as a tool to spend and expand dependency initiatives.
One of President Trump’s biggest and non-discussed success stories has been his economic policy initiatives allowing people to be financially secure, independent and non-reliant on government hand-outs. However, the financial health and success of Americans is adverse to the political interests of Democrats who structure all of their policy objectives upon creating a dependent citizenry.
Weaponizing Coronavirus now becomes a tool for House Democrats to push-back against economic freedom; diminish the last several years of independence; and return to the era where more people become dependent on government.
It is not a question of “if legislation will happen”, it is simply a matter of “what” legislation will look like. What elements will the Democrats attempt to exploit most? The answer is very predictable when looking at their preferred approach.
Looking at the proclaimed and political preference from Adam Schiff things become clear.
It would appear Democrats plan to create a bailout where people are paid not to work. “Paid sick leave” where the federal government takes over the ‘paying’. This will work well for those who consistently manipulate employment systems to avoid work and take advantage of federal payments to continue their avoidance.
“Enhanced unemployment insurance” is another way to pay people not to work. Extending unemployment benefits into infinity was a key part of Obama’s failed trillion dollar stimulus bill. It also allows Democrats to pay their activists to engage in GOTV efforts, instead of employment, while being paid.
“Low interest loans” to cronies and politically connected business interests allows Democrats to funnel taxpayer funds to their political allies.
“Expanded food assistance” keeps the dependency model working under the false premise of ‘helping’ lower income workers. What food assistance payments actually do is transfer taxpayer funds to Big Agriculture, and Wall Street multinationals, that can then raise prices and gain additional profits. Middle-class workers don’t qualify, but end up paying via taxes and higher prices.
“Free accessible testing” – As we have seen from past ‘free’ programs, nothing is actually free. A testing program sets up Big Pharma and Big Insurance to benefit most via expanded reimbursement rates. “Affordable treatment” does exactly the same.
If you want to find out who would benefit most, simply follow the lobbyist spending:
Outside groups, often called “special interest groups”, are entities that represent their interests in legislative constructs. These groups are often representing foreign governments, Wall Street multinational corporations, banks, financial groups or businesses; or smaller groups of people with a similar connection who come together and form a larger group under an umbrella of interest specific to their affiliation.
Sometimes the groups are social interest groups; activists, climate groups, environmental interests etc. The social interest groups are usually non-profit constructs who depend on the expenditures of government to sustain their cause or need.
The for-profit groups (mostly business) have a purpose in Washington DC to shape policy, legislation and laws favorable to their interests. They have fully staffed offices just like any business would – only their ‘business‘ is getting legislation for their unique interests.
In the modern era this is actually the origination of the laws that we eventually see passed by congress. Within the walls of these buildings within Washington DC is where the ‘sausage’ is actually made.
Again, no elected official is usually part of this law origination process.
Almost all legislation created is not ‘high profile’, they are obscure changes to current laws, regulations or policies that no-one pays attention to. The passage of the general bills within legislation is not covered in media. Ninety-nine percent of legislative activity happens without anyone outside the system even paying any attention to it.
Once the corporation or representative organizational entity has written the law they want to see passed – they hand it off to the lobbyists.
The lobbyists are people who have deep contacts within the political bodies of the legislative branch, usually former House/Senate staff or former House/Senate politicians themselves.
The lobbyist takes the written brief, the legislative construct, and it’s their job to go to congress and sell it.
“Selling it” means finding politicians who will accept the brief, sponsor their bill and eventually get it to a vote and passage. The lobbyist does this by visiting the politician in their office, or, most currently familiar, by inviting the politician to an event they are hosting. The event is called a junket when it involves travel.
Often the lobbying “event” might be a weekend trip to a ski resort, or a “conference” that takes place at a resort. The actual sales pitch for the bill is usually not too long and the majority of the time is just like a mini vacation etc.
The size of the indulgence within the event, the amount of money the lobbyist is spending, is customarily related to the scale of benefit within the bill the sponsoring business entity is pushing. If the sponsoring business or interest group can gain a lot of financial benefit from the legislation they spend a lot on the indulgences.
Recap: Corporations (special interest group) write the legislation. Lobbyists take the law and go find politician(s) to support it. Politicians get support from their peers using tenure and status etc. Eventually, if things go according to norm, the legislation gets a vote.
Within every step of the process there are expense account lunches, dinners, trips, venue tickets and a host of other customary financial way-points to generate/leverage a successful outcome. The amount of money spent is proportional to the benefit derived from the outcome.
The important part to remember is that the origination of the entire process is EXTERNAL to congress.
Congress does not write laws or legislation, special interest groups do. Lobbyists are paid, some very well paid, to get politicians to go along with the need of the legislative group.
When you are voting for a Congressional Rep or a U.S. Senator you are not voting for a person who will write laws. Your rep only votes on legislation to approve or disapprove of constructs that are written by outside groups and sold to them through lobbyists who work for those outside groups.
While all of this is happening the same outside groups who write the laws are providing money for the campaigns of the politicians they need to pass them. This construct sets up the quid-pro-quo of influence, although much of it is fraught with plausible deniability.
This is the way legislation is created.
If your frame of reference is not established in this basic understanding you can often fall into the trap of viewing a politician, or political vote, through a false prism. The modern origin of all legislative constructs is not within congress.
“we’ll have to pass the bill to, well, find out what is in the bill” etc. ~ Nancy Pelosi 2009
“We rely upon the stupidity of the American voter” ~ Johnathan Gruber 2011, 2012.
Once you understand this process you can understand how politicians get rich.
When a House or Senate member becomes educated on the intent of the legislation, they have attended the sales pitch; and when they find out the likelihood of support for that legislation; they can then position their own (or their families) financial interests to benefit from the consequence of passage. It is a process similar to insider trading on Wall Street, except the trading is based on knowing who will benefit from a legislative passage.
The legislative construct passes from K-Street into the halls of congress through congressional committees. The law originates from the committee to the full House or Senate. Committee seats which vote on these bills are therefore more valuable to the lobbyists. Chairs of these committees are exponentially more valuable.
When we understand the business of DC, we understand the difference between legislation with a traditional purpose and modern legislation with a financial and political agenda.
I appreciate a good debate, but the attack launched against me personally won’t offer much worthy of attention because it is founded upon a totally incapacity to think. As I will explain.
First, let me publicly thank them for calling me Brother. I will respond by referring to them as Mister, because I believe that in debating a Catholic should be respectful of persons and of truth, and disrespectful of error and falsehood.
However, as regards the title it is incorrect. I am not a Bennyvacantist. A Bennyvacantist, if the word means anything but a purile slur — and I assumed Mr. Siscoe and Mr. Salza are gentlemen and would never stoop to such behavior — must mean someone who holds that Pope Benedict has vacated the Apostolic Throne. But that is not my position, that is the position of Mr. Siscoe and Mr. Salza.
So there is some major confusion. As the attack on me personally regards the accusation that I am misusing words and changing definitions, I am not nitpicking the title, I am merely showing that my interlocutors are misusing words and changing the proper meaning of particles. So that kind of puts doubt that their critique of my position on dogmatic facts will be sound.
Here is their opening charge against me:
There’s a common saying that schism always ends in heresy. If a false doctrine isn’t trumped up to justify the schism, a true doctrine is distorted and eventually denied to sustain it. The latter is taking place before our eyes with Br. Alexis Bugnolo, whose “Benevacantist” position has now forced him to falsify the meaning of dogmatic facts by entirely redefining the term. It was only a matter of time before this happened, since his rejection of the peaceful and universal acceptance (UPA) has always really been a rejection of the infallibility of the Magisterium in judging dogmatic facts. As we will see later, according to Cardinal Ratzinger himself, by rejecting the legitimacy of Francis’ election, Br. Alexis Bugnolo has rejected a truth of the faith, denied the infallibility of the Magisterium, and cut himself from communion with the Catholic Church. And this teaching of Cardinal Ratzinger is perfectly consistent with what all the theologians have taught, and what Martin V defined at the Council of Constance.
I concede the first proposition…but they should have not
It is true as regard the Greek Schismatics, for example. But why is it true. Because when you separate yourself from the true Pope you fall away from Christ’s Mediation of grace. We see heresy arise in all schisms which perdure a long time, when they intentionally reject the Roman Pontiff.
However, it is really poor judgement that my opponents cite this principle at the very beginning of their diatribe. Because, as you can see, logic itself turns against them:
MAJOR PROPOSITION: There’s a common saying that schism always ends in heresy. If a false doctrine isn’t trumped up to justify the schism, a true doctrine is distorted and eventually denied to sustain it.
MINOR PROPOSITION: But Jorge Mario Bergoglio by the universal acceptance of every Catholic author in the last 7 years who accepts the perennial magisterium has spoken heresy, has refused to retract it and continues to profess it.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, Bergoglio must be in schism, because he has ended in heresy. But if he is in schism he is not the pope.
Contrariwise, after 7 years, Pope Benedict XVI has not fallen into heresy. Therefore he must be in union with the true pope. But Bergoglio is not the true pope, since he has fallen into schism. Therefore, he must be the true pope, because the Church cannot be without its Head.
Truths of the Faith
As we will see later, according to Cardinal Ratzinger himself, by rejecting the legitimacy of Francis’ election, Br. Alexis Bugnolo has rejected a truth of the faith,
The Faith is defined as the totality of Divine Revelation, when “the Faith” is used as a metynymic term for the whole of the Catholic Religion. Faith as a virtue is not called, “the faith” in English, as anyone who has ever taken 1 course in theology at a Catholic institution should have learned.
So when Mr. Siscoe and Mr. Salza classify Dogmatic Facts as truths of the faith, I have to shake my head. They have just redefined the Faith. It is a truth of faith, but not of the Faith. It is a truth of faith, because faith requires implicitly that when we show obedience of assent to the teaching of the Magisterium, that we accept that certain authorities involved in is promuglation are in fact legitimate. Thus, as Mr. Siscoe and Mr. Salza rightly say, elsewhere in their article:
Again, we see that a dogmatic fact must be believed with faith because of its connection to revealed truth, and is a fact that the Church judges infallibly due to its relation with a revealed truth.
Here, Mr. Siscoe and Mr. Salza change their definition of Dogmatic Fact. Now they say it regards revealed truth. Whereas before in their opening peroration they said is was “a truth of the faith”, which I explained, must mean a revealed truth.
The problem here arises from the Latin, since we say of truths of the faith that they are de fide. And Latin does not have the definite article, the. If you are skilled in the philosophy of particulars and universals, and in the theology of dogma and in the English language, you can understand this. But you won’t learn it in law school or in other disciplines, because they do not teach it.
So I can honestly concede that Mr. Siscoe and Mr. Salza are scandalized at my use of terms when speaking about all these three arguments, and about canon law, because they simply are trying to squeeze what I am saying into the wrong categories of their own minds, which do not know how to distinguish them properly. I see this commonly among many Catholics and I do not get angry at it, since I know that I once also did not understand this before I went to Seminary and 3 pontifical universities. Though for the record, I do not hold a degree in them. My degree is in Cultural Anthropology.
This leaves Br. Bugnolo in quite the predicament. If he remains in communion with Pope Benedict, he too is a member of the Church of Antichrist.
Here Mr. Siscoe and Mr. Salza make a grave error in their ecclesiology. As Catholics we should be in communion with all the other members of the Catholic Church. Not to do so would be schismatic. So whether you think Benedict is the pope or not, you should be in communion with him. To say that anyone who is is a member of the Church of the Antichrist is as much false, as it is an absurd exaggeration and horrendous thing to say. Because by saying it, they are implying that Pope Benedict XVI is the Antichrist.
I think this lapsus linguae is very revealing.
Yet if the refuses to accept his own judgment that Benedict’s abdication was invalid, he is “rebelling against the papal law,” and “condemned by Unam Sanctam.”
But as regards the judgement that Benedict’s Declaratio did not have the proper canonical form to effect his separation from the petrine munus, I do not recall that I have ever said that this is so because I judge it so. If Mr. Siscoe and Mr. Salza can find such a statement, I will withdraw it. But as I have loved the Papal magisterium from my youth, and know well in whas it consists, I learned when I was a boy, reading Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori, that in matters of the Catholic religion we must leave aside our own judgement completely and simply accept the words used by Holy Mother Church or by the Saints at their face value. And this includes canon law. Do my opponents do that?
I submit that all rational and sane men by universal acceptance will grant that in saying that when Benedict renounces ministerium while canon 332 requires the renunciation of munus, that the renunciation is not in conformity to the norm of law and is rendered of no effect by canon 38, irritus by canon 188 and not binding on anyone in virtue of canon 41, that I am not using my own judgement to support my own opinion, I am merely reiterating the law in the circumstances which prima facie it appears to apply to. And as every lawyer knows, the prima facie meaning of a law or legal text has the presumption in every argument.
Dogmatic Facts
In the formation of Catholic Clergy, prior to the study of theology or canon law, a seminarian has to study philosophy. This is required because you cannot understand theology without the intellectual ability to make the proper distinctions and to undrstand words in their proper senses. I have had such formation at Our Lady of Grace Seminary in Boston, where I graduated cum laude.
So on the central argument of Dogmatic Facts, I concede all the authors cited. But I point out that none of them is magisterial and that theologians are often imprecise even if they are substantially correct. This is mostly because they write for one purpose, but readers read them for another purpose and so miss the finer points of context, which change how you apply the principles or truths they ennunciate. That is why no theologian or canonist has publicly denounced my position. In fact, Edward Pentin on Saturday, at his blog, affirmed that Mons. Nicola Bux knows many canonists who hold the same position.
Let me cite Mr. Siscoe and Mr. Salza, where they write:
Here is how another real theologian, Tanquerey, explains dogmatic facts in Vol. I of Dogmatic Theology (1959).
“The Church is infallible in regard to dogmatic facts. A dogmatic fact is one which is so much connected with a doctrine of the Church that knowledge of it is necessary in order to understand the doctrine and to preserve it safely. Dogmatic facts can be threefold: historical, doctrinal and hagiographical. Thus, dogmatic facts are the legitimacy of the Holy Pontiff, the ecumenical (universal) nature of a Council. That the Church is infallible in regard to dogmatic facts is certain.” (Tanquerey, Dogmatic Theology, vol. 1, 1959, p. 146.)
The debate with me, however, regards only the historical Dogmatic Facts, though I admit referring to doctrinal dogmatic facts. Elsewhere, above this, in their article they attack me claiming my examples of dogmatic facts are wrong:
As anyone who has ever consulted a theology manual concerning dogmatic facts would know, the nomination of a bishop is not a dogmatic fact, regardless of whether he accepts the nomination. Neither is the choice of the Cardinals during a conclave.
Here, I really got to chuckle. Evidently, Mr. Siscoe and Mr. Salza think that dogmatic facts are like points in a cartesian plane, through which there are no intersecting lines. I know that this is false, because when I studied what dogmatic facts were under Dr. Peter Felhner, OFM Conv., I asked him the question: If it is a dogmatic fact that Vatican I was a true council because it defined papal authority, then would not all the facts which lead to that also be dogmatic, like the fact that Pope Pius IX was the canonically elected, was validly ordained a Bishop, was validly baptized, and was born and existed. His answer was yes, they are remotely considered as dogmatic facts, whereas that Vatican I was a valid council is the proximate dogmatic fact. Also there are negative and positive dogmatic facts. A positive one is that which is connected to a dogma by positively affirming it. A negative one is that which is not connected to a dogma by affirming that contrary evidence is not authoritative. Such as for example the teaching did not come from an authentic source, which becomes dogmatic inasmuch as it negative demonstrates that the contrary doctrine is not dogmatic.
Wherefore, when I say the nomination of a bishop is a dogmatic fact, I am referring to remote historical dogmatic facts. I did not specify their connection to dogma, because in the context of my writing I am referring to the acts themselves inasmuch as they are classified. Obviously, the nomination of a man as Bishop does regard a dogmatic fact, because as Bishop he holds the ordinary power of the magisterium, and his teaching enters into the ordinary magisterium of the Church only if he is a licitly appointed or validly ordained Bishop of the Catholic Church holding jurisdiction. If he did not accept, then that he was not a Bishop is a negative dogmatic fact. But his appointment by the Pope is a remote dogmatic historical fact, inasmuch the act proves that the Pope was the true pope, and the Pope exercises the Magisterium which touches upon many points of doctrine affirming or which will be used to affirm the definition of dogma or doctrine int he future.
If you know philosophy you understand these things.
Church Doctrine vs. the teaching of theologians
The next major confusion that Mr. Siscoe and Mrs. Salza have regards doctrine. The word means simply teadching. The Church teaches and theologians teach. But not every opinion of a theologian is Church doctrine. For example, Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori wrote a book on Moral Theology in which he presents thousands of his own opinions on matters of morals. But it would be incorrect to say that since he is canonized and a doctor fo the Church that his opinions are church doctrine or binding doctrine. Yes, they are approved of, inasmuch as the Church probably will not punish anyone for holding them, but nearly all of them have never been formally taught by the extraordinary Magisterium, even though many of them may regard and be derived from the ordinary magisterium.
When you study dogmatic theology 101, you learn these things.
So, I have to object to what Mr. Siscoe and Mr. Salza write when they say:
The consequences of rejecting this Doctrine
They make the statement in reference to the opinions they cite from theologians in the previous section:
Fr. E. Sylvester Berry’s book, The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise, which was originally published in 1927
Tanquerey, explains dogmatic facts in Vol. I of Dogmatic Theology(1959).
Msgr. Van Noort provides the same explanation in his manual of Dogmatic Theology, The Church of Christ, published in 1957.
Now, as can bee seen from their identities, it is a dogmatic historical remote negative fact that they are not Bishops of the Catholic Church and never held an office which participated in the ordinary magisterium of the Church. Therefore, their doctrine is not magisterial. And therefore it might contain some imprecision and may even be wrong. I do not think their doctrine is wrong, but I do think that some of their statements regard other kinds of dogmatic facts, or are extrapolations poorly expressed. No one is required to accept their doctrine as the state it, since it is not the doctrine of the Church in the form in which the state it, it is their own doctrine.
I am not sure if Mr. Siscoe and Mr. Salza understand these distinctions.
Nay, it seems that they suffer from super-scrupulosity in accepting the doctrines of theologians who are fallible men and suffer from a complete lack of scrupulosity in accepting the terms of Canon Law which does not come from man, but from the office of Saint Peter, approved in Heaven by Mouth of God Himself, saying: whatsoever you bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven.
I find their inability to do this inexplicable. I find their imbalanced approach also inexplicable, though I tried to explain it here.
Intrinsic and extrinsic proofs
One of the fundamental problems that Mr. Siscoe and Mr. Salza seem to have is their inability to distinguish the proper hierarchy of forensic evidence.
Forensic refers to things which pertain to the scrutiny of a court. Forensic evidence is evidence presented to judgment. We are not talking about courts here, but we are talking about evidence which pertains to the truth or value of canonical acts in the Church. So I use the term forensic in this sense.
Now among such evidence there is a hierarchy. Let us take an example to illustrate this. A man is charged with murder. There is his confession, the video tape of the murder, the testimony of witnesses which saw it, or heard it when it happened, and of witnesses who heard others speak of it or of the accused confess it. Then there is the evidence from the crime scene which is strictly spoken of as forensic evidence when gathered for a prosecution in court.
In the USA the legal system puts the judgement about the evidence to be admitted for a trial before all other proceedings of the actual case, because it is important to get the evidence correct. Thus, I think we can agree that some evidence is more determinative than other evidence.
For example, if there is a video of the actual murder, and the testimony of someone a week later who heard the accused say he was not innocent. The testimony cannot be regarded as crucial or important. Even the testimony of someone who heard the crime but did not see it. There is a hierarchy of importance. And this is determined by its proximity to the historical event or act which is under investigation or dispute.
But for Mr. Siscoe and Salza, they want the remote and post factum consequential evidence of what Bishops thought happened because they uncritically listened to the media say Benedict did in fact resign the papacy to be the SOLE determinative factor, and want everyone to ignore the crucial proximate evidence that Benedict renounced ministerium not munus.
I think anyone can see that is simply not a sound way of proceeding.
But that some theologian in the past at any time advocated the use of such remote post factum evidence as proof, is really praeter rem to the present argument. Because in the past documentation was hard to come by. Ancient manuscripts and notes and transcripts have bene lost. One does not have certain proximate evidence, so there is some necessity to argue a case on the basis of remote post factum evidence. But with Benedict XVI that is not necessary as we all have all the proximate evidence in his Declaratio and the Code of Canon Law.
Legitimacy
Thus in regard to the election of Roman Pontiffs or their renunciations, the conformity of their election or renunciation to the norm of law in force at the time is the principle and proximate forensic criterion upon which to base the evaluation of the proximate or remote positive or negative historical dogmatic fact that they were elected or not, or did resign or not. That is what legitimacy means.
Legitimacy does not mean public opinion. But when the proximate evidence is lacking or obscure some theologians have appealed to post factum evidence to establish legitimacy. But they are not talking about canonical legitimacy in the sense of conformity to law, but in the sense of determined by the judgement of a Council or the Apostolic College.
The citations made to Martin V regard the Council of Constance which condemned Huss. The question of the legitimacy of Martin V’s election results from the 38 year controversy over who was validly elected in the election of 1378, whence sprang the Great Schism in the Church. Because Martin V was elected after both rivals renounced their claims, though one later fled to Spain and left a series of successors as anti-popes. Since the Great Schism was put to an end in a Council, it is one of the few domgatic facts which prove the possible doubts to a papal title, in this case Martin V, whom the Hussites charged was not the valid pope on that account. So the statements made about universal acceptence had value in that debate, since the proximate evidence of 1378 was long put in doubt.
Conclusion
Understanding all of the above, because I learned it from those more knowledgeable than myself, hold that Benedict still the pope for the reasons I have stated in my Index to Pope Benedict’s Renunciation. I do so because I recognize things the way the Church teaches them, while my opponents rush off to find some other kind of evidence while ignoring the proximate issues.
For this reason I think the arguments marshalled against my position are false, praeter rem, erroneous, mistaken, and based on a lot of lack of familiarity with philosophy, theology and canon law, and the principles of forenic evidentiary methodology.
+ + +
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Brother Alexis Bugnolo destroys the argument of Siscoe and Salza by showing that when Mr. Siscoe and Mr. Salza classify Dogmatic Facts as truths of the faith they have just redefined the Faith. It is a truth of faith, but not of the Faith. It is a truth of faith, because Faith requires implicitly that when we show obedience of assent to the teaching of the Magisterium, that we accept that certain authorities involved in is promuglation are in fact legitimate.
Rome, March 9, 2020: The office of the Governor of the Vatican City has issued a special decree regarding provisions to be taken to prevent the spread of the Corona Virus.
Here are photos of the two page decree. I will publish an English summary, below:
The instructions from the Director of Health and Hygene are basic precautions:
Wash one’s hand frequently
Avoid approaching those who are suffering acute respiratory infection
Do not touch one’s own eyes, nose or mouth with one’s hands
Cover the nose and mouth when sneezing or coughing
Do not take antiviral or antibiotic medicines without a prescription
Clean surfaces with a solution of Bleach or 75% Alcohol.
Use medical masks only if you suspect that you are sick or if you are assisting someone who is.
The Governor’s Office has issued the following norms:
Post notices which regard these regulations at the entrances of all departments and facilities.
Suspend all meetings and gatherings which include persons who work in the health sector or public sector.
Suspend or avoid all activities in spaces which are enclosed which do not allow for the spacing of at least 1 meter between persons.
Adopt measures for the sanitation of all public transport means.
Suspend all educational meetings.
Limit movements and trips which are unnecessary.
There has already been forbidden that those accompanying the sick wait for them in waiting rooms of health facilities in the Vatican City state
Residents of the Vatican City State are to notify Vatican Health Authories by telephone and schedule a visit at their residence, if they notice that they have contracted any possible symptoms of Corona Virus (dry cough, cold, sore throat, fever, and difficulty breathing).
Non Vatican City residents are counseled not to go to the walk-in patient facility of the Vatican City state but to contact a Doctor at the Health Foundation at the Vatican.
The Governor’s office ends by emphasizing the importance of correctly following the instructions given. But no financial or criminal penalties are imposed for non observance.
It seems obvious, from this decree, which does NOT suspend religious services, that the Vatican is not taking seriously the news about Corona Virus, and that there is a massive disconnect between the Italian Bishop’s Conference suspension of all services in Italy, an no suspension of services at the Vatican.
Saint Peter’s Basilica remains open to tourists. However, the Vatican Museums are closed.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on HERE ARE THE SPECIAL ORDERS ISSUED BY THE VATICAN FOR Vatican City
Monday, March 9, 2020: Sometimes there is a mystical or spiritual way of looking at reality which makes it comprehensible. And sometimes, if there is such, it is hard to understand.
The recent illegitimate and uncanonical decision of the Italian Episcopal Conference to mandate the suspension of all public religious services in Italy in all Catholic Churches, Monasteries, Convents, Sanctuaries, Basilicas, in Italian Territory is just one case.
They Government has not decreed such a thing. While the Government Decree concerns both the regions above (See Graphic above), and all of Italy, according to the Lateran Pact no law of the Italian State applies to the Church on the question of religious services. The new Decree does not therefore mention the Church. Legal Scholars in Italy are sounding out, even on national TV, and confirming this.
As one can clearly see, only a small part of the country is affected. — To get an idea of scale, all of Italy is the same size as the State of Colorado. The regions placed under tight control by the Government Decree, are thus, no much larger than the suburbs of Denver.
The result of the Bishops’ Conference decision, however, is that the great sin of naming the Anti-Pope in the Canon of the Mass, in the very presence of God Almighty in the Most Blessed Sacrament — In Italy, the Italian Canon names the Pope after the Consecration — has definitively ended in public.
Now the people of God in Italy, at least, will not be responsible for that sin any longer.
So from a spiritual point of view, the panic among Bergoglians is shutting the Bergoglian Church down.
Also, since all masses are now private, those priests who in conscience know they should not name Bergoglio or should name Benedict are now free to do so. The make believe of the Bergoglian Pontificate has been unwittingly struck a major blow.
___________
CREDITS: The Featured Image of the graphic was taken from a photo of today’s edition of Il Giornale, p. 7. If you live in Italy, you want to get a copy of this paper today, which has the best reporting on the Government Decree and how absurdly it was promulgated and hashed up. The image is used here in accord with fair use standards for editorial commentary and as a free advertisement of today’s edition of Il Giornale.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THERE IS A GOOD SIDE TO THE SINFUL DECREE ABOLISHING PUBLIC MASSES IN ITALY?????
Might Archbishop Lenga’s Turkmenistan be the first Country to Convene an Imperfect Council to Declare Francis an Antipope?
– Updated March 6, 2020
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 Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
There has been a lot of speculation by Catholics about the next Conclave.
Will Benedict die before Bergoglio, or Bergoglio before Benedict?
If Benedict before Bergoglio, will any Cardinal Elector break with the others and elect a successor to Benedict? — Only 1 is required.
If Bergoglio before Benedict, will the Cardinals proceed to a Conclave, or will the recognize that Benedict was always the pope?
Who would be the next Pope? Someone made a Cardinal by Bergoglio or someone made a Cardinal by Benedict or John Paul II.
But so far, I have not seen any Vaticanista or even blogger approach the question of what role the Corona Virus might play in the next Conclave.
So here goes.
The Corona Virus was reported in one patient at the out-patient clinic at the Vatican yesterday. Today, the entire office of the Secretary of State was sanitized.
Panic is spreading at the Vatican. If they sanitized the Secretary of State offices, then the infection probably has spread to the entire Roman Curia and all of the Vatican, since the Secretary of State is the beehive, as it were, of the entire Vatican apparatus. Numerous officials go in and out on a hourly basis. Numerous officials go from the Secretary of State to all parts of the Vatican. Not to mention the mail, which is processed by the Vatican Post Office in restricted spaces above and below ground.
So we can be certain that the Corona Virus will spread at the Vatican in the next 14 days.
Before the arrival of the Corona Virus at the Vatican it was widely reported that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has the flu. This years flu is very powerful. Those who grew up in the New World, like myself and Bergoglio, won’t have resistance to it.
Thankfully, I already had the flu. I was sick for 10 days, in bed constantly. And for another 10 days, I was so weak I was in bed most of the time. I had a lot of time to think of eternity, and when I was nearly recovered, I decided to start FromRome.Info as a full time apostolate advocating for Pope Benedict.
Those who catch this influence are likely to be harmed particularly severely if they catch the Corona Virus at the same time. Its not polite to speculate about a specific person dying at the Vatican, so I won’t.
But not only Bergoglio but every Cardinal who works in the Roman Curia might fall sick.
Thus, the scenario of a new Conclave this spring is now very likely.
Pope Benedict XVI is under quarantine and I think he will have a better chance of surviving the Corona Virus, since he has lived his whole life in Europe and has much more robust antibody preparation.
The prospect of a new Conclave this spring probably sends chills of terror down the spines of many Cardinals. They would have to come to Italy, and remain in the confined quarters of Santa Marta and the Sistine Chapel for several weeks, making their infection by the Corona Virus highly likely. Others might already have succumbed at the Vatican, changing entirely the political dynamic of the next conclave.
Many probably will decide not to participate.
Others will have a lot of reasons to think of Judgement of God.
Also, who will want to be pope? He will have to live at one of the major epicenters of the Corona Virus?
You can be sure that all those Cardinals who might have weakened immune systems will opt out.
The ones who do have the courage might very well be inclined to act on the kind of proposal which I based my Letter to the Cardinal Dean on, or upon that which my proposal to relect Pope Benedictcontained.
Because the consequences of electing another pope, while Benedict XVI lives, is having another antipope. And who wants to risk the Corona Virus to be an antipope or have a dubious claim to the papacy? That would not be a good ending to an ecclesiastical career which aimed for real achievements.
But on account of the epidemic, the College might simply refuse to convene, and leave the Church with Pope Benedict on the one hand, and a sede vacante in the Bergoglio Church on the other. And that would make the crisis in the Church even more confusing.
In any event, God is in control and this corona virus might be the divine intervention that some Bishops and Cardinals — who refuse to look at Canon Law and — prayed for instead, which is sent in reply, but not quite the kind they expected.
___________
CREDITS: The Featured Image is a photo of the funeral mass of Pope John Paul II, presided over by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in his capacity as Dean of the College of Cardinals, and attended by the entire College of Cardinals. Source and rights, here.
![Screenshot_2020-03-10 Steve Skojec on Twitter I've seen this sentiment a couple of times in the past few days I don't belie[...]](https://fromrome.files.wordpress.com/2020/03/screenshot_2020-03-10-steve-skojec-on-twitter-ive-seen-this-sentiment-a-couple-of-times-in-the-past-few-days-i-dont-belie....png?w=474)
By Maike Hickson
T2020 says:
freepetta says:
James Carpenter says:
Heika says:
Jim in TN says:
TwoLaine says:
NICCO says:
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.