If you read the Declaratio of Pope Benedict XVI, which he made to the Cardinals in the Consistory of Feb. 11, 2013, you are left with the news that the Pope is going to renounce the ministery on Feb. 28, 2013 at 8 PM.. This was not just the opinion of Catholics 2, 4, 6, or 7 years later. It was the avid expectation of the faithful that very evening of Feb. 28, 2013.
This is proven by the fact of the huge crowds of cheering Catholics at Castel Gandolfo which gathered to hear the Pope renounce, carrying signs which hailed him AS POPE Benedict!
And the video shows a fervor and love which Bergoglio as NEVER received.
Before 8 p.m., Pope Benedict XVI comes out to speak with the crowds. The journalist narrating calls him, the Pope. He is dressed as the Pope. He is even wearing the dreaded Papal Ring that Bergoglians insist no longer wears and has.
And oops! He even says, I am still the Supreme Pontiff!
And oops! He never says, I renounce the Papacy. Nor, I renounce the Petrine Munus. Why he does not even say, I renounce the Petrine Ministry.
In fact he does not renounce anything.
Oops!
No wonder the link from the Vatican Website, in the official page of the text of the short speech by the Pope, to the video no longer works.
And the journalist even says that we might see Pope Benedict as Emeritus speak to the Crowds like this again! Oops!
He is speaking as the Pope! as the journalist says this. Oops!
No renunciation of anything occurred on Feb. 28, 2013. Whether this was intentional or not, whether the Pope was confused or not, because he omitted a renunciation of petrine munus, he is still the pope, whether anyone cares or not, whether anyone accepts that or not, whether they want it or not.
And after 7 years, Pope Benedict still has not found a black cassock in all of Rome. Imagine that!
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on THE “RENUNCIATION” OF THE PAPACY BY Pope Benedict XI WHICH NEVER HAPPENED
John Salza & Prayers of RELEASE FOR FREEMASONS AND THEIR DESCENDANTS
Author John Salza, a former 32nd Degree Freemason, has written a good book “Why Catholics Cannot be Mason’s.” Hopefully, he know and promotes the following prayers and others like them.
Fr. John Hampsch, C.M.F.
PRAYERS OF RELEASE FOR FREEMASONS AND THEIR DESCENDANTS
If you were once a Mason or are a descendant of a Mason, we recommend that you pray through the following prayer from your heart. Don’t be like the Masons who are given their obligations and oaths one line at a time and without prior knowledge of the requirements. Please read it through first so you know what is involved. It is best to pray this aloud with a Christian witness or counselor present. We suggest a brief pause following each paragraph to allow the Holy Spirit to show any additional issues which may require attention.
“Father God, creator of heaven and earth, I come to you in the name of Jesus Christ your Son. I come as a sinner seeking forgiveness and cleansing from all sins committed against you and others made in your image. I honor my earthly father and mother and all of my ancestors of flesh and blood, and of the spirit by adoption and godparents, but I utterly turn away from and renounce all their sins. I forgive all my ancestors for the effects of their sins on me and my children. I confess and renounce all of my own sins. I renounce and rebuke Satan and every spiritual power of his affecting me and my family.
I renounce and forsake all involvement in Freemasonry or any other lodge or craft by my ancestors and myself. I renounce witchcraft, the principal spirit behind Freemasonry, and I renounce Bxphomer, the Spirit of Antichrist and the curse of the Luciferian doctrine. I renounce the idolatry, blasphemy, secrecy and deception by Masonry at every level. I specifically renounce the insecurity, the love of position and power, the love of money, avarice or greed, and the pride which would have led my ancestors into Masonry. I renounce all the fears which held them in Masonry, especially the fears of death, fears of men, and fears of trusting in the name of Jesus Christ.
I renounce every position held in the lodge by any of my ancestors, including “Tyler”’ “Master”, “Worshipful Master”, or any other. I renounce the calling of any man “Master”, for Jesus Christ is my only master and Lord, and He forbids anyone else having that title. I renounce the entrapping of others into Masonry and observing the helplessness of others during the rituals. I renounce the effects of Masonry passed on to me through any female ancestor who felt distrusted and rejected by her husband as he entered and attended any lodge and refused to tell her of his secret activities.
1st Degree
I renounce the oaths taken and the curses involved in the First or Entered Apprentice degree, especially their effects on the throat and tongue. I renounce the Hoodwink, the blindfold, and its effects on emotions and eyes, including all confusion, fear of the dark, fear of the light, and fear of sudden noises. I renounce the secret word BOAZ, and all it means. I renounce the mixing and mingling of truth and error, and the blasphemy of this degree of Masonry. I renounce the noose around the neck, the fear of choking and also every spirit causing asthma, hay fever, emphysema or any other breathing difficulty: I renounce the compass point, sword or spear held against the breast, the fear of death by stabbing pain, and the fear of heart attack from this degree. In the name of Jesus Christ I now pray for healing of..(throat, vocal cords, nasal passages, sinus, bronchial tubes etc) for healing of the speech area, and the release of the Word of God to me and through me and my family.
2nd Degree
I renounce the oaths taken and the curses involved in the second or Fellow Craft degree of Masonry, especially the curses on the heart and chest. I renounce the secret ~words JACHIN AND SHIBBOLETH and all that these mean. I cut off emotional hardness, apathy, indifference, unbelief and deep anger from me and my family. In the name of Jesus Christ I pray for the healing of … (the chest/lung/heart area) and also for the healing of my emotions and ask to be made sensitive to the Holy Spirit of God.
3rd Degree
I renounce the oaths taken and the curses involved in the third or Master Mason degree, especially the curses on the stomach and womb area. I renounce the secret words MAHA BONE, MACHABEN, MACHBINNA and TUBAL CAIN, and all that they mean. I renounce the Spirit of Death from the blows to the head enacted as ritual murder, the fear of deaths, false martyrdom, fear of violent gang attack, assault, or rape, and the helplessness of this degree. I renounce the falling into the coffin or stretcher involved in the ritual of murder. I renounce the false resurrection of this degree, because only Jesus Christ is the Resurrection and the Life! I also renounce the blasphemous kissing of the Bible on a Witchcraft oath. I cut off all spirits of death, witchcraft and deception and in the name of Jesus Christ I pray for the healing of…(the stomach, bladder, womb, liver, and any other organs of my body affected by Masonry), and I ask for a release of compassion and understanding for me and my family.
Holy Royal Arch Degree
I renounce and forsake the oaths taken and the curses involved in the Holy Royal Arch Degree of Masonry, especially the oath regarding the removal of the head from the body arid the exposing of the brains to the hot sun. I renounce the Mark Lodge and the mark in the form of squares and angles which marks the person for life. I also reject the jewel or talisman which may have been made from this mark sign and worn at lodge meetings. I renounce the false secret name of God, JAHBULON, and the password, AMMI RUHAMAH and all they mean. I renounce the false communion or Eucharist taken in this degree and all the mockery, skepticism and unbelief about the redemptive work of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary. I cut off all these curses and their effects on me and my family in the name of Jesus Christ, arid I pray for…(healing of the brain, the mind etc.)
18th Degree
I renounce the oaths taken and the curses involved in the eighteenth degree of Masonry, the Most Wise Sovereign ‘Knight of the Pelican and the Eagle and Sovereign Prince Rose Croix of Heredom. I renounce and reject the Pelican witchcraft spirit, as well as the occult influence of the Rosicrucians and the Kabbala in this degree. I renounce the claim that the death of Jesus Christ is a “dire calamity”, and also the deliberate mockery and twisting of the Christian doctrine of Atonement. I renounce the blasphemy and rejection of the deity of Jesus Christ, and the secret words IGNE NATURA RENOVATUR INTEGRA and its burning. I renounce the mockery of the communion taken in this degree, including a biscuit, salt and white wine.
30th Degree.
I renounce the oaths taken and the curses involved in the thirtieth degree Masonry, the Grand Knight Kadosh and Knight of the Black and White Eagle. I renounce the password, “STIBIUM ALKABAR”, and all it means.
31st Degree
I renounce-the oaths taken and the curses involved in the thirty-first degree of Masonry, the Grand Inspector Inquisitor Commander. I renounce all the gods and goddesses of Egypt which are honored in this degree, including Anubis with the ram’s head, Osiris the Sun god, Isis, the sister and wife of Osiris, and also the moon goddess. I renounce the Soul of Cheres, the false symbol of immortality, the Chamber of the dead and the false teaching of reincarnation.
32nd Degree
I renounce the oaths taken and the curses involved in the thirty-second degree of Masonry, the Sublime Prince of the Royal Secret. I renounce Masonry’s false Trinitarian deity AUM, and Its parts; Brabma the creator, Vishnu the preserver and Shiva the destroyer. I renounce the deity of AHURA-MAZDA, the claimed spirit or source of all light and the worship with fire, which is an abomination to God, and also the drinking from a human skull in many Rites.
York Rite
I renounce the oaths taken and the curses involved in the York Rite of Freemasonry, including Mark Master, Past Master, Most Excellent Master, Royal Master, Select Master, Super Excellent Master, the Orders of the Red Cross, the Knights of Malta, and the Knights Templar degrees. I renounce the secret words of JOPPA, KEB RAIOTH, AND MAHER-SHALAL-HASH-BAZ. I renounce the vows taken on a human skull, the crossed swords, and the curse and death wish of Judas of having the head cut off and placed on top of a church spire. I renounce the unholy communion and especially of drinking from a human skull in many Rites.
Shriners (America only-doesn’t apply in other countries)
I renounce the oaths taken and the curses and penalties involved in the Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine. I renounce the ‘piercing of the eyeballs with a three-edged blade, the flaying of the feet, the madness, and the worship of the false god Allah as the god of our fathers. I renounce the hoodwink, the mock hanging, thy mock beheading, the, mock drinking of the blood of the victim, the mock dog urinating on the initiate, and the offering of urine as a commemoration.
33rd Degree
I renounce the oaths taken and the curses involved in the thirty-third degree of Masonry, the Grand Sovereign Inspector General. I renounce and forsake the declaration that Lucifer is God, I renounce the cable-tow around the neck. I renounce the death wish that the wine drunk from a human skull should turn to poison and the skeleton whose cold arms are invited if the oath of this degree is violated. I renounce the three infamous assassins of their grand master – law, property and religion — and the greed and witchcraft involved in the attempt to manipulate and control the rest of mankind.
(All participants should now be invited to sincerely carry out the following:)
1. Symbolically remove the blindfold (hoodwink) and give to the Lord for disposal.
2. In the same way, symbolically remove· the veil of mourning.
3. Symbolically cut and remove the noose from around the neck, gather it up with the cable-tow running down the body, and give it all to the Lord for His disposal.
4. Renounce the false Freemasonry marriage covenant, removing from the 4th finger of the right hand the ring of this false marriage covenant, giving it to the Lord to dispose of.
5. Symbolically remove the chains and bondage of Freemasonry from your body.
6. Symbolically remove all Freemasonry regalia and armor, especially the Apron.
7. Invite participants to repent of and seek forgiveness for having walked on all unholy ground, including Freemasonry lodges and temples, including any Mormon or other occult / Masonic organizations.
8. Symbolically remove the ball and chain from the ankles.
9. Proclaim that Satan and his demons no longer have any legal rights to mislead and manipulate the person(s) seeking help.
Holy Spirit, I ask that you show me anything else which I need to do or to pray so that I and my family may be totally free from the consequences of the sins of Masonry, Witchcraft, Mormonism, and Paganism.
(Pause, while listening to God, and pray as the Holy Spirit leads you.)
Now, dear Father God, I ask humbly for the blood of Jesus Christ, your Son, to cleanse me from all these sins I have confessed and renounced, to cleanse my spirit, my soul, my mind, my emotions, and every part of my body which has been affected by these sins, in Jesus’ name!
I renounce every evil spirit associated with Masonry arid Witchcraft and all other sins, and I command in the name of Jesus Christ for Satan and every evil spirit to be bound and to leave me now, touching or harming no one, and go to the place appointed for you by the Lord Jesus, never to return to me or my family. I call on the name of the Lord Jesus to be delivered of these spirits, in accordance with the many promises of the Bible. I ask to be delivered of every spirit of sickness, infirmity, curse, affliction, addiction, disease or allergy associated with these sins I have confessed and renounced. I surrender to God’s Holy Spirit and to no other spirit all the places in my life where these things have been. I ask you, Lord, to baptize me in your Holy Spirit now according to the promises in your Word. I take to my self the whole armor of God in accordance with Ephesians Chapter Six and rejoice in its protection as Jesus surrounds me and fills me with His Holy Spirit. I enthrone you, Lord Jesus, in my heart, for you are my Lord and my Savior, the source of eternal life. Thank you, Father God, for your mercy, your forgiveness, and your love. In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.“
This prayer is taken from Unmasking Freemasonry – Removing the Hoodwink by Selwyn Stevens, published by Jubilee Publishers, PO Box 36-044, Wellington 6330, New Zealand. Copying of this prayer is both permitted and encouraged provided reference is made to where it comes from.
NOTE: The Internet contains this prayer and much more on Freemasonry. Do a search on “Freemasonry” or “Unmasking Freemasonry”
Is Bp. Schneider a “Flying Monkey” or another Type of Enabler?
Is Bishop Athanasius Schneider an enabler of Francis?
If he is then what type of enabler might he be?
The literature on narcissist enablers claims there are types of enablers:
“Narcissism does not exist in a vacuum. It can’t. Therefore, there are enablers… who support the narcissist… people the narcissist recruits to their side. These people are usually called ‘flying monkeys,’ but there are other types of enablers, too.”
“These are the people who might not agree with or defend the narcissist, but who enable the narcissist… who says things like, ‘She’s [he’s] your mother [pope]’… ‘How can you abandon your husband [pope]’… ‘I give in to your sister [pope] to keep the peace.'”
“… If one spouse hits the other, and the assaulted spouse does not leave the relationship or call the police, they’ve taught the batterer that this behavior is acceptable because there have been no consequences.” (Pairedlife.com, “The Narcissist’s Enablers,” June 17, 2019)
Bishop Schneider appears to be the second type of enabler as are all Francis traditionalists.
Schneider and all Francis traditionalists don’t agree with Francis on pachamama idolatry, diversity of religions, Communion for adulterers and the betrayal of the Chinese underground Church, but he and they enable Francis to keep doing these blasphemies against God and battering faithful Catholics.
Moreover, Schneider the Enabler and all the Francis traditionalists will never stop defending Francis’s “papal right” to keep committing blasphemies against God and battering faithful Catholics black and blue such as in China because “he’s our pope” and “we must keep the peace and not have schism” despite the blasphemies and batterings.
The Bergoglians are running in terror. They have closed worship in two entire dioceses in Northern Italy. They are refusing to distribute the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar in mouths. They are positively terrified.
It makes no sense, since the Corona Virus only attacks those who are already in poor health and most of these are the very elderly who cannot make it to church anyhow.
But it makes sense if the leadership of your Church is HIV positive, because you have no or a very weakened immune system.
Those who want to make up their religion have no supernatural motives and no real hope of eternal life. They know that, because they know that howsoever much they might pretend, their god, themselves, is not a god and cannot save them from Death.
Catholics on the other hand continue to go bravely to Mass and to communion, placing all their hope in the God of Life who rose from the death and can protect His own from eternal death and temporal death.
Many Catholics in Italy have never accepted communion in the hand. This current trial is helping many open their eyes to the fact that the Bishops in communion with Bergoglio are atheists, that is, they believe in nothing but their own ideologies. They have, thus, no courage or hope against the Corona Virus.
The closing of Churches and refusal of the Sacraments, however, shows that the Bergoglian Church has the long term goal to close churches and end the Sacraments. They want a religion where you pay them to enjoy themselves in debauchery, and to receive from them the thinking points for the one world order. All those who insist Bergoglio is the pope are collaborators with that agenda whether they want it or not.
Oh, any let us take note of this: AIDS is 100% lethal, Corona Virus is 1.9% lethal. But they never shut the Churches or insisted on communion in the Hand for the former plague. They had no fear of it, they did not want to “stigmatize” those who had it. They acted as if they already had it, or if those with it were already their own. Telling. Very telling.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on SOME BISHOPS ARE TOO QUICK TO DENY CATHOLIC THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CELEBRATION OF THE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS AND TO RECEIVE THE BODY AND BLOOD OF OUR LORD Jesus Christ OUT OF SERVILE FEAR OF INFECTION BY THE CORONAVIRUS.
Essences or Intersectionality: Understanding Why We Can’t Understand Each Other
MARCH 1, 2020BY ADAM J. MACLEODA major source of political division in America is the difference between those who believe in essences and those who follow intersectionality. Those who hold theories of intersectionality believe that human identity and much of reality itself is a construct that they can revise, not an objective reality that we can all know. This limits the possibility of political discourse: we cannot reason together if one side no longer believes in the capacity of reason to discern what is true.
Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren threw kerosene on the culture war’s embers with a recent quip about marriage. An official for a sexual-identity activist group asked her what she would say to someone who believes that marriage is “between one man and one woman.” Warren answered, “Well, I’m going to assume it’s a guy who said that. And I’m gonna say, ‘Then just marry one woman. I’m cool with that.’ Assuming you can find one.”
The other half of Americans found Warren’s quip bizarre. Many intelligent women who don’t post their views on social media believe that marriage is a man–woman union. One of them, an accomplished, Ivy League–educated lady I know, reacted to Warren’s comment this way: “That’s ridiculous. Everyone knows that men are not naturally monogamous. That’s what marriage is for.”
Warren’s quip titillated a class of people who exercise increasing dominance over America’s cultural and educational institutions. They encountered her comment live on television, on social media, or in discussions in the faculty lounge. They cannot believe that anyone other than a (heterosexual, white) male loser still clings to the notion that marriage has a nature. That notion is unintelligible to them, so they conclude that it must be unintelligible.
On the other hand, Warren’s quip baffled many ordinary Americans. They encountered it on the radio while on their way to coach football or soccer practice, or commuting home from work to attend their children’s piano recitals. They cannot understand what being a “guy” has to do with perceiving the essence of marriage. Nor do they understand why Warren thinks that women would find it a turn-off.
Our problem is not that these two groups disagree, but that they cannot even manage to achieve disagreement. We do not understand each other. This essay examines one reason why. It goes by different names, because it results from the convergence of different trends and ideas that we can succinctly call “Intersectionality.”
Intersectionality is many things. It is a group of theories that join at the confluence of postmodern philosophy, poststructural social science, and critical cultural and legal studies. It is also a movement, which brings spokespeople for minority races, gender- and sexual-identity activists, and socialists together with a certain kind of feminist. And, as Warren’s quip illustrates, it is also a pose. It is a way for “woke” people to demonstrate their intellectual, social, and moral superiority over the unwoke.
The most essential tenet of Intersectionality is that nothing is essential. There is no essential human nature, nothing essential about reason or logic, no essential meaning of “man” or “woman” or “white” or “efficient” or “liberty” or “law.” At the deepest point in the Intersectionality pool, the very center of the confluence where all of its tributaries come together, everything is invented by those who hold power. Not only cultural norms and language, but also natural rights and duties, biological definitions, religious convictions, economic and scientific rules, and logic are all constructed “discursive practices.” Everythingis a social construct, built by those who want to leverage their superior economic, cultural, or political positions to preserve their privileges and keep others down in the zero-sum contest for power.
This is one of two convictions that all Intersectionalists share in common. They are all, to varying degrees, against essence. They are all convinced that some term or feature that unenlightened people take for granted is both artificial and unjust. They do not always agree on which terms and features must be torn down. But they all share a motivation to tear down some aspect of the apparent essence of something.
Socialists and critical legal studies theorists focus on the constructs of “law” and “economics.” They teach our young people that “due process,” “price,” and “liberty” are suspect artifices imposed upon the poor by the rich. Critical race and dominance feminist theorists teach our young people to reject traditional notions of natural equality and equality before the law. Gender-identity and queer theorists go after the assumption that there can be anything essentially “masculine” or “feminine.” And so on.
The other conviction that all Intersectionalists share is that the most privileged people, who are responsible for the construction of most of the oppressive discursive practices, are heterosexual, white males. This is why Warren assumes that anyone who believes in natural marriage is “a guy” (her viewer’s imaginations supplied the dude’s obvious race and sexual orientation). A transgender, black female (for example) is too far down the Intersectional stream, and therefore too righteous, to believe that marriage has an essential nature.
Now, regular readers of Public Discourse will immediately notice that the two convictions shared by all Intersectionalists are in tension with each other. It seems that they cannot both be true: Either there is a white male (or black female, lesbian, transgender, etc.), or there isn’t. Either there is an essence-of-male or there isn’t.
But a hard-core Intersectionalist would reject the rules of your discursive regime. Your reaction presupposes an arbitrary concept of meaning. And it employs logic, which is another invention of the oppressive powers. The signifier “white male” need not correspond to any real person, or any real, signified thing. And critical claims are not logical proofs of what is necessarily true in the world. Everything is power relations, and so all assertions are tactics.
Read a little Intersectionality scholarship and you will discover that it is not a domestic product. The headwaters of Intersectionality sprang out of the ravaged soil of post-war France, and were fed by the post-Structuralist thinkers Jacques Derrida, Jacques Lacan, and Michel Foucault. Their disciples, especially Judith Butler and Kimberlé Krenshaw, directed post-Structuralism into English-speaking academic institutions (a move that the leftist, literary critic Camille Paglia has sharply criticized as unnecessary and counter-productive) where they developed it into Intersectionality theory.
Poststructuralists taught that ways of producing knowledge, such as literature and science, are not ways of pursuing truth. Rather, to produce knowledge is to participate in what Foucault referred to as a “discursive regime.” Each discursive regime was built by powerful people (mostly white men), who adopted rules to govern the regime from within, and thus to exclude those who refuse to play by the rules.
For example, the scientific method is a set of socially constructed rules that governs the regimes of science. The axioms of logic are also artificial, governing the regime of philosophy. And authority is the set of arbitrary rules that govern the regime of religion.
Even one’s own identity is constructed. Lacan taught that human identity is not an ontological existence or presence. It is, instead, an absence. One Lacan expert explains that a person in Lacan’s theory “is almost entirely defined by lack,” especially by the lack of the other gender. In Lacan’s account, no human being has an independent existence. A human subject only comes to be real when it expresses itself to another and is realized by the other’s affirmation of and desire for it.
A person’s identity therefore has no inherent nature, and no external referents except for the discursively-constituted reference point of another person’s desires and affirmation. There is no human nature. There is no single human being. To identify as something is to project a subjective, inner experience out into the world, where it must be realized in discourse with others.
This is why everyone must affirm the identities expressed by sexual-identity minorities—by coercion if necessary. Someone who acts or refrains from acting because of her conviction that a man is biologically a male, for example, is thwarting the efforts of a transgender person to exist in the discursive practices of the world. The vendor who objects on grounds of conscience must still bake the rainbow cake. The customer’s existence is at stake.
When Intersectionality claimants protest that public expressions of traditional American principles erase them or do violence to them, this is what they mean. To the unwoke, it seems bizarre to say that affirming equal liberty, the rule of law, or the essence of masculinity or femininity is equivalent to killing someone. But according to the Intersectional way of thinking, bodily existence is not itself reality. The realization of identity in discursive practices is what makes one really exist. To refuse to affirm another’s expressed identity is to erase them from existence.
Needless to say, this raises the stakes for freedom of expression and the enterprise of education. Our civic and educational discourse is, from the Intersectional perspective, existential. That all discursive practices are artificial is also one reason why many students now perceive no obligation to adhere to the principle of non-contradiction. One particularly woke student informed me, “Aristotle invented logic, and Aristotle was a misogynist.” In her mind, therefore, the entire discursive practice of logic was invalid. Except to recite what the professor probably wants to read on the exam, such students have no need for the first principles of reason.
Because they see the practices of “justice,” “law,” and “science” as discursive regimes, Intersectionalists can claim their authority when useful, and do so without irony or scruples. By using those terms, they are not appealing to objective references. Having built strongholds at the summits of every social-science discipline and gained power in natural sciences, they adjust the rules governing each discursive regime to suit their ends. And they make further adjustments when their ends are achieved and new ends come into view.
Intersectionality is a way to gain power without responsibility to manners, law, facts, or reason. So, one can readily understand why young people find it attractive. But it has certain costs. One is the incessant need to find unequal effects of law. Indeed, Intersectionality requires inequality to rectify, and it will invent inequalities in order to justify its program. For example, it contorts non-discrimination laws to punish business owners for causing disparate effects, even when the owners act with no discriminatory intent and their policies apply equally to everyone. Intersectionality assumes that all unequal effects result from rigging the discursive regime.
A more profound cost, and one that we have not yet begun to understand, is the loss of reason as a means of discerning what is true and deciding what is to be done. We cannot reason together about truth; we do not all share a commitment to it. And it is not clear whether we can reason together about our “discursive regimes,” such as science and logic and religion—for the end of Intersectionality is either the deconstruction or appropriation of those regimes.
What would be left if Intersectionality were finally to triumph? The essence of Intersectionality is anti-essence: anti-culture, anti-nature, anti-reason, anti-being. It is not difficult to see where these ideas lead. If we accept the premise that all ways of pursuing knowledge of truth are mere discursive regimes, then all discourse between incompatible regimes becomes zero-sum warfare. Understanding is not possible, or even desirable.
Particular strands of Intersectionality might offer something constructive, but only to the extent that they reject the anti-essentialist assumptions of other strands. For example, feminists might propose ways for women and girls to flourish, but only if they defend the essence of femininity. That would prove intolerable to gender-identity activists.
It appears that Intersectionalists are right about one thing: these conflicts are existential. Each new stream that flows into Intersectionality erases the essence of the one before it. It seems unlikely that any identity group will survive this. In the end, victory will belong to the most ruthless eraser of all.
In short, no one can make peace with Intersectionality theory. Its demands are totalizing, and it sweeps everything caught in its currents relentlessly downstream. It requires either complete rejection or willingness to accept its most radical implication—the end of knowledge of what is true. The resilience of socialist and totalitarian ideologies in the twentieth century, and their recent resurgence, should remind us that the triumph of reason is not inevitable. We must choose it.
Adam J. MacLeod is Professor of Law at Faulkner University, Thomas Goode Jones School of Law and a lecturer in the Witherspoon Institute’s graduate seminar on the Moral Foundations of Law. He has been a Thomas Edison Fellow in the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Prope… READ MORE
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on HERE IS AN EXPLANATION OF WHY IT IS SOMETIMES SO DIFFICULT TO DIALOGUE WITH ANOTHER PERSON ABOUT SERIOUS SUBJECT MATTER
When we speak of schism, we can speak of two realities, the theological and the factual; of two kinds of failing, the sin and the canonical crime; and of two species of schism: separation from other members of the true Church and separation from the true pope.
In this article I will discuss the precise meaning of the truth that: All who accept Bergoglio as Pope are in formal schism from Jesus Christ, by explaining those 3 words: accept, formal and schism.
Let us begin with the word: schism.
“Schism”, the English word, is derived from the Greek word meaning a separation by cutting. In theology, it refers to the separation of one part of the Church from another part, or from one part of a community from another part.
In canon law it is the crime of deliberately refusing communion with other members of the true Church. It is punished by immediate excommunication latae sententiae, in canon 1364. Catholics in communion with the true pope, and with all other Catholics who are in communion with him, can never be, thus, guilty of this crime.
Take for example, the Greek Orthodox Churches today. They are in schism from the Catholic Church and from the Popes since 1054. The Patriarch and clergy who started the schism were guilty of the sin and the canonical crime. The schism was first canonical, then theological and then factual. It lead to a schism both from the Church and from the Popes. It was a perfect schism, in the sense that it fulfilled all conditions.
Not every member of the Greek Orthodox Churches today accept that schism. Many of them think it is wrong. Several laymen in the Greek Orthodox Church in America told me the schism exists only among the clergy, the vast majority of the laity wish their clergy would repent of it.
For those laity, the schism remains as factual and canonical, but perhaps no longer theological, because they are moved by Faith to see that it is wrong and they reject it.
The Schism of 2013
In the Catholic Church, we have a major schism also. It began in March of 2013, on March 13, when the College of Cardinals presumed to elect another pope in an illegal conclave. The conclave was objectively and canonically illegal because it convened when there was no legal sede vacante, Pope Benedict XVI not having yet renounced the petrine munus, as Pope John Paul II required in canon 332 §2 of the Code of Canon Law of 1983. The Papal Law on elections, Universi Dominici Gregis, in n. 37, forbids a conclave if there is no legal sede vacante.
Due to the flippancy and presumption of at least some of the College of Cardinals the invalid resignation of Pope Benedict XVI was announced as valid. The rest of the Cardinals, including Cardinals Burke, Sarah, Brandmueller etc.., all proceeded to the Conclave without doing their due diligence or in spite of it.
Now since Canon Law presumes guilt in those who should know the law, the Cardinals are all canonically guilty of the crime of Schism, and in virtue of canon 1364 were excommunicated from the Catholic Church by Pope John Paul II on March 13, 2013.
The rest of us who were deceived by the false announcement, however, did not enter into schism, neither canonically nor as a sin. But by following the false announcement we were factually separated from the true Pope, Pope Benedict, and theologically entered into schism from Jesus Christ, objectively speaking.
It has been seven years, and the Holy Spirit has stirred many souls to speak about the invalid resignation and announce the truth, that Benedict XVI is the true Pope.
The clergy who refuse to examine the facts, when laymen and clergy and now 2 Bishops give testimony to the truth, move from being in de facto schism to canonical schism, because they show a mens rea, a guilty mind. They are guilty because all who are led by the Spirit of God are open to the truth and accept the truth, and they realize that communion with the true Pope is more important than communion with all of the rest of humanity or all of the rest of the clergy.
The ones who knew from the beginning the resignation was invalid, are in perfect schism from Christ, since they are separated from the true Pope and from the true Church, by a personal sin, by canonical penalty, by fact and by theological reality.
Those who still do not know of the schism, are theologically and factually separated from Pope Benedict, since they no longer consider him the true pope, but they are not guilty of the sin or crime of schism, because they honestly think they are in communion with the true pope.
But if we consider schism under the notion of formal and material, then all those who are not duped, but reject the evidence, are in formal schism from Jesus Christ, because they chose to not care to be in communion with the true pope and thus are responsible for risking to be outside of communion with the true pope, even if Benedict is the true pope. That is called a sin in causa. And it is a formal sin of schism, even if it is not a direct sin of schism, as one who examines the facts, sees that Benedict is the true pope, but still rejects him as the pope.
However, of those who think Bergoglio is pope, but who have never refused to examine the evidence, they cannot be said to be in formal schism since they lack ill will and have never formally accepted on that account the big lie that Benedict resigned, even though they think he did resign, basing their opinion on the hearsay that they still have not bothered to examine as unreliable. They are in material schism, that is, de facto schism.
However, as Pope Boniface VIII said in his Bull, Unam Sanctam, all who de facto refuse to be subject to the true pope shall be damned. This is no small thing. And thus, all who belittle the controversy over the renunciation of Pope Benedict are manifestly deceiving themselves and others. And that is a mortal sin against truth and fraternal charity.
I say de facto, because even if you have good will, but are deceived, if you follow Bergoglio you will be led into mortal error and mortal sin: sacrilege, approbation of adultery, approbation of sodomy, etc.. And such there is for you, in such a case, no good hope of salvation, because there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, which has always been defined as those in communion with the true Pope, who is now Benedict XVI. For this reason, the more some persons attack Pope Benedict and the truth of the canonical problem in his renunciation, the more they become depraved morally speaking, because by acting in that way they become more and more formally in schism from Jesus Christ and reject more and more firmly in mind and heart the truth.
Here at FromRome.Info all the writers are dedicated to the truth. That is why, day and night we preach from the housetops: Benedict is the true Pope, Bergoglio never was. In communion with Pope Benedict, Archbishop Paul Lenga and Bishop Rene Henry Gracida, Don Alessandro Minutella, Don Enrico Roncaglia, Father Walter Covens, and many other hundreds of thousands, we are members of the true Roman Catholic Church. We invite you to return home! We invite you back to the only Barque of Salvation!
Do not risk your immortal soul by acting or not acting because of the hearsay of Cardinals who perpetrated the schism. Look to the documents of the Church and employ the laws which Pope John Paul II left us for discernment in this controversy. Consider how insane it is to accept any claims as true from men who will not separate themselves from such a fraud and monster!
__________
CREDITS: The Featured Image is a detail of the fresco depicting the famous vision of Don Bosco, of the Church in the midst of a great battle at sea, with the bark of the true Pope attacks by all the other ships, but finding refuge between the two columns of the Eucharist and Our Lady Help of Christians.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on ARE YOU A SCHISMATIC? IF YOU ACCEPT JORGE BERGOLIO AS A LAWFUL OCCUPANT OF THE CHAIR OF SAINT PETER, YOU ARE
Frank Walker is the Editor and publisher of Canon212.com, the most popular Catholic News aggregation site for those who want to know what is really going on in the Church in all its grizzly detail. It is an invaluable source to see the problems in the Church for what they are and to cut through fake news and fake propaganda of corrupt — very corrupt — ecclesiastical institutions and Catholic media organizations.
So that the readers of FromRome.Info have the opportunity to know Mr. Walker better, whose news commentary video’s are featured regularly here, I asked Mr. Walker if he would agree to be interviewed by email. Here are my questions, and Mr Walker’s responses:
Q. As I wrote in my recent article, There is always a background story, I am convinced the personal history of each person explains a great deal of why they do what they do and how they do it. Since you are famous among Catholics for your news aggregation site, Canon212.com, can you tell the readers of FromRome.Info something about yoruself, your life, your spiritual pilgrimage, your professional work and how you came to start Canon212.com?
Thanks, Brother. — My family was a typical Catholic family. We were liberals. Sister Mary Lynn would play us Jesus Christ Superstar in religion class. In high school they gave us ‘I am lovable and capable’ stickers to wear and sent us through the ‘Encounter’ retreat weekend where they played George Harrison songs and we wrote each other ‘palanka’ letters and hugged. I went to college to please my folks when I really just wanted to be play music in the clubs. So I did both. When I added trying to make a future for my girlfriend and I, there were a lot of things not really working out and I ended up getting depressed, waitering and sleeping and wishing that I could die. I felt like I was floating out in space among the stars.
I had stopped going to Mass, and I’d soaked up all the lies a ‘liberal arts’ education will give you today.
One day I found an old book lying around by Bishop Sheen called ‘Go to Heaven.’ I had no idea who he was, but I felt like his words went all the way out in space and reached me. They taught me somehow that life was a battle between good and evil, and the battleground was our souls. After a few months I found a box of things my ex-girlfriend had abandoned in the attic. Among them was an old ceramic sculpture of Mary and baby Jesus that she’d made as a girl, and a rosary. I remembered the beads where the Our Fathers and Hail Marys went, so I started praying that. Soon I realized that the whole crazy idea about God becoming a man who belonged to a family, and all the medieval spires and devotions were actually the way God was.
During the prior six months or so I’d learned that God loves me no matter who I am, or how successful. I also learned how to discern between a worthless negative thought and a positive one. Thank you, Jesus.
Two weeks later my ex-girlfriend called me out of the blue. We got back together and figured out where we went wrong. We realized that we shouldn’t live together until we’re married, and we should go to Mass on Sundays from now on. I gave up playing music and got a responsible teaching job. That was 33 years ago.
One day, and three baby girls later, I saw Mother Angelica’s show. I got such a kick out of her! You never, ever saw someone like that on television. She was so brave. From there, along with countless other people, I began to learn all the things I’d never been taught about the Faith. From Mother, and also from Rush Limbaugh, I learned that it’s never good to be a liberal.
After our first child, I left teaching and studied to be a corporate training designer. After a few years, when I started working independently, I asked God to help me and began going to early morning Mass every day as sort of a deal. Years after that, we decided to say the rosary with our kids every day. My work was going well, but I didn’t feel like I was being very helpful. I started reading and re-educating myself on faith, history, the saints. I subscribed to the best Catholic magazines I could find. (Many of them I saw advertised in the back of National Review). I learned that there was sort of a breach between the ancient Church and what we have these days, that I had been robbed of the catechesis other generations had, and with terrible results.
One day I made the St. Louis de Montfort Consecration, where you offer all your good works and their merits to Our Lady, and from there my life started to get more difficult. No more travelling or business meetings, and humble grueling work, but we always had what we needed. One day I stumbled onto a Catholic news aggregator I could help. That was eleven years ago.
Looking back on everything I can see God’s miraculous mercy and the power of grace through the sacraments and devotions of the Church and her faithful teachers.
Q. The rise of alternate Catholic media has followed closely upon revelations of extreme characters of the aberrant behavior of members of the clergy and Sacred Hierarchy. I remember my youth, when one presumed the priest was as holy as things in the Sanctuary, where no one was every allowed to enter but the altar boys and the Priest. How do you see the need of Catholics to be informed has changed, is changing, and will change in our lifetimes?
When we were young, there was no alternate media. It was only liberal. The true Catholic faith was almost entirely suppressed. Mother Angelica broke through, but her work has been mostly undone. Now with Francis, almost the entire hierarchy has been corrupted. So has the media – even the traditional faithful media. The visible Church is sort of a stunt-church these days. It’s a trick that the rich and powerful have handed us. So every tiny bit of truth we can spread is needed more than ever. Like Belloc said, “the truth has a life of its own.” It doesn’t matter the how big or small.
Now that Francis is there, I see no reason for restraint in reporting negative information about the hierarchy. If Francis were a Catholic pope, it might be different. But as it is, the entire structure is now a target. Shine the light so the roaches run. Fumigate. I don’t think it’s right to withhold contempt for evil, contemptible acts and actors. It’s misleading. So I try to describe them in the most accurate terms. The fact that the subjects are popes, bishops or priests makes the acts even worse. It would be a sin to show false respect in such cases.
Q. Readers of Canon212.com cannot help but notice that you are very well informed about politics, especially of the tricks and dangers of Marxists and Marxism. How did you come to be so well informed, and how important do you think is this kind of counter-critique of the prevalent Marxism in society and in the Church, necessary for Catholics today?
Faithful Catholics continue to be politically neutralized by the Catholic press. There’s nothing good or Catholic about liberalism, but you’d never know that from reading our leading ‘lights.’ That’s why they need to be constantly reminded that lending support to leftists, either directly or by discouraging more conservative efforts, means you’re siding with the enemies of Christ. But the most important thing to the Catholic media is that Catholics remain politically powerless and unable to stand.
Marxism is the satanic flowering of Luther’s Reformation. It’s so ubiquitous today that we don’t even see it. It’s founded upon evil: jealousy, lies, thievery, depravity, hatred of God, and murder. It’s the anti-religion. Its enemy is Christ’s Church and all that’s good. And it’s the true religion of the world’s elites, of Francis, and almost all the ‘bishops’
So I think the counter-message is very important. If you are going to be ‘militant’ as any Catholic should, you have to know how to find the front. You have to know the enemy and their goals and strategies.
If I’m more conscious of these techniques, maybe it’s because I’m tired of the people I love being tricked and ruined and sent off to Hell. Rush Limbaugh, who’s very sick and not a Catholic, is nevertheless militant and practiced in undoing Marxist strategies. I check his show for a few minutes every day, and I read many terrific polemicists. I’m a big fan of George Neumayr, for example.
Once you’ve identified the Marxist players, you have to make a critical analysis of what they do and say. Their techniques are very studied and tested, and they repeat patterns and trends that have worked over the years. They exploit people’s sins, weaknesses, and ignorance. Hundreds of years of scheming and a lot of money and support go into making a Francis or an Obama.
Q. There are a lot of different kinds of Catholic journalism today, to use the word, “Catholic” merely as indicative of which religion they profess to practice, and not in a manner referring to whether they are faithful or not. Can you give the readers of FromRome.Info your thoughts on the kinds of Catholic journalism available and why not all of them are worthy reading or not?
Journalism, as it exists today, is more of an effort to hide and twist than to inform. It’s very important to the powers that be that we sheep remain ignorant and able to be misdirected. The Prince of this World rules a kingdom of lies and Christ’s truth is always like a pearl.
I don’t read all the different types of journalism. I only look at things I may be able to link at Canon212.com. If a news outlet has any money to do actual travel or reporting, then they’ll probably be liberals like the writers at Crux or National Catholic Reporter. Those are good sources because they reveal some newsy facts and they spin them according to the goals of their backers. If you know that they’re unreliable and biased, then you’ll see where to start looking for the truth.
More and more outlets like the Catholic Herald, National Catholic Register, CNA and the other EWTN vehicles are growing similar to Aleteia and Patheos. They support Francis and his regime, and almost all the bishops, yet find room for some criticism. They implement the Marxist cultural program of environmentalism and anti-capitalism which Francis is trying to sell as Catholic doctrine. They are in the business of softening scandal and protecting the status quo.
The independent bloggers like “From Rome” are absolutely essential, because they’re the only place to get honest and accurate analysis, as well as news, polemics, and expertise. Many still fall short and some are skewed by their ties and other constraints, but you can still learn from them. If they are speakers, pushing books, or occasionally featured at a main outlet (people like Patheos’ Dave Armstrong for example) they’ll typically be poor sources.
The “Where Peter Is” blog is a new kind of globalist-backed effort dedicated to defending Francis from actual Catholic critics while feigning strong faith by adhering closely to the dubious Francis’s false teachings.
The faithful Catholic press such as the Remnant, the terrific LifeSite news, and One Peter Five are growing more restrictive in their content in an effort to square the circle of an anti-Catholic pope who must be honored and tolerated yet ‘resisted’ somehow. I wonder if this isn’t ultimately a funding issue. There do not appear to be any true Catholic funding sources in the world these days. Even the German billionaire Gloria Von Thurn seems to have gone south. On top of that, non-canonical excommunications are flying around, and that would seriously impact such sources.
GloriaTV is a fantastic site. Also there are some great faithful Italian writers who understand the Vatican very well. The legalistic analyses of people like Chris Ferrara and Brian McCall are indispensable, if not entirely reliable in these days of a tyrannical Church machine
Finally, Twitter has become a terrific source of top stories and analysis, even with a few words. I try to limit who I follow so that I can get a good picture of the breaking news.
I’m sure there are many videos and podcasts, Taylor Marshall and Raymond Arroyo for example, who can be good sources. But they and many others are reliable only within certain Francis-defending boundaries. I typically don’t follow them just because of time, but they are growing.
There are very few news sources that can’t be labeled as either generally unreliable or as a part of a ‘false resistance,’ which gives a pretense of defending the Faith, but often stumbles when it comes to actionable truth.
Q. What do you see is the future of Canon212.com? What do you want to achieve with it? How would you describe what you see as your own particular mode of journalistic practice?
I think this work is similar to what an editor of a newspaper would do. I feel like it’s my job to give an accurate picture of what is happening right now, and that is a very polemical thing. I don’t see how much I can do beyond that right now. My headlines are often much different from the point of the articles they link. That’s because the truth has been buried. So I feel that I’m planting little sorely needed seeds of truth. I care about my readers. I want them to have information they need to do the things God has in mind for each of them.
Q. What do you think really happened in February 2013, at the Vatican?
I can only guess, but it looked like an Obama coup at the time. I was not surprised at all to see a nasty Francis on the balcony a month later. In 2013 the American pro-Catholic political party, feeble as it was, had been so neutered that the modern power support for the Church was crushed. It was a perfect opportunity to steal the Church, and the fulfillment of a very old plan.
Q. What do yout think the St Gallen Mafia really are, what are their objectives, who is backing them, how dangerous are they?
I saw your piece on the origins of those schemers. — Society seems to have been driven by enemies of Christ for a few hundred years. The banks, the Masons – you can only speculate. But a rival entity has taken the Church’s leadership place in the world for some time, and the St. Gallen infiltrators were just doing what they were told. The powerful elusive men who seem to guide the planet (I don’t think the world is evolving or drifting) have, in the end, a Satanic, post-Christian goal for mankind.
Q. How are Catholics to cope with the near universal mindless acceptance by the clergy of Bergoglians as their superiors, even though they show themselves to have less faith than Lutheran or Anglican ministers? And sometimes less morals than even Muslim Imams?
I think the solution to this mess is to regain a legal, functional Church. It’s not the size of the Church that matters, it’s whether it’s functioning properly, because that organic reality of a true Catholic body will only grow. Until the Church is pure and functional, it won’t attract anyone. MonsterBishops and an anti-Catholic pope can’t realistically be called the Church. But how can we make a legal and true home for the Church today? We need to have a legal, Catholic pope first, who’s uncompromising, as a true Catholic would be.
Q. Finally, do you think Benedict is still the Pope, and that Bergoglio never was the Successor of Saint Peter? And if so, in each case, why?
I don’t know if Benedict is still pope, but I would not be surprised if he were, for a few reasons:
Some, like you, Brother, point to canonical violations in the way he abdicated. He could have purposely undermined his abdication for various reasons. One being that, if you rule out the various Vatican press manipulations, he seems to think he’s in some way Pope
He could have been pressured. There is history and evidence
The rarity of a papal abdications makes them by nature highly suspicious, something which should be investigated before making assumptions. This does not appear to have been done
There is a climate of heresy, lies, dirty money, intrigue, crime, and real fear in the Vatican.
Francis, in a historic first, does not formally hold the Catholic faith. Despite protests that he is a periodic occurrence, which cite very minor papal discrepancies from the past, Francis doesn’t possess the ‘charism’ that popes have always had
If Francis is indeed false, it’s probably because:
Benedict may still be pope for various investigate-able reasons above
Francis is a manifest formal heretic and evidence shows he probably always was
He clearly and closely serves the goals and strategies of the world’s powerful elites, who oppose and attack the Church
His pre-planned conclave election appears to have violated Canon law
If all the men acting as priests, bishops, or pope were required to be Catholic, then the vast majority would be eliminated. I think that should happen. Then the Church visible would be the same as the Church Militant as it exists in God’s eyes. I’m sick of pretending that faithless men are part of the Church. They just aren’t. They’ve abandoned their offices.
Thank you Mr. Walker for consenting to be interviewed by FromRome:info. My gratitude and that of all my readers….
You’re welcome, Brother. God bless you and thank you for your powerful work for the Church.
3 THOUGHTS ON “BR. BUGNOLO INTERVIEWS FRANK WALKER OF CANON212.COM”
Em SWhat an excellent, brave, solid, example of a Catholic man you are, Mr. Frank Walker. I think you ought to write a book. I first began reading Canon212 when I was still at my Catholic University (thank God) and remember thinking the headlines were phenomenally hilarious! The website struck me as a sort of Catholic version of Drudge Report but with a creative touch of humor and a greater sense of Truth (so a lot better than Drudge). Since then, it is the only website in the English speaking world that monitors the most up-to-date decline of the Bergoglian anti church and the glorious ascent of what is still left of the True Church of Pope Benedict XVI. There is only one statement above that I’ll need some clarity on and that is: “The legalistic analyses of people like Chris Ferrara and Brian McCall are indispensable, if not entirely reliable in these days of a tyrannical Church machine.” (I’d say definitely not entirely reliable. Ferrara is losing his marbles!)May God and Our Lady Reward you for all you do, Frank!Liked by 2 people
Michael DowdExcellent interview Brother Alexis. Frank Walker is a (the?) source of truth about the Catholic Church. He is surely a Godsend. If you like what he does support him financially. ________________________________________________________I am i the process of listening to an audio version of the Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky. Yesterday, was the story of the Grand Inquisitor which can be seen as the story of our Church today where Christ has been excluded and the satisfaction of man’s physical needs and permission to sin has replaced His teaching. We would all to do to read the Grand Inquisitor story. And read it again and again. https://www2.hawaii.edu/~freeman/courses/phil100/11.%20Dostoevsky.pdfLiked by 1 person
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on MEET FRANK WALKER, A FAITHFUL GUIDE THROUGH THE MORASS OF FALSE NEWS AND PROPAGANDA FLOWING FROM FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL AND HIS FRIENDS
On Feb. 26, Cardinal Giovanni Battisa Re, the Dean of the College of Cardinals sent a circular letter to every member of the College in response to the letter of complaint about the Vatican-China accord which Cardinal Joseph Zen, of Hong Kong, had sent likewise to every member in October of 2019.
Cardinal Re’s letter was published here and commented upon, yesterday. Today, Cardinal Zen published his response. Here is the text and my brief comments.
First the original Italian, which I copy here from Cardinal Zen’s personal Blog, then my English translation below:
A S.E. Rev. ma Sig Card. G.B. Re
Decano del Collegio Cardinalizio
Sig. Cardinale
Mi sia permesso di usare il mezzo di una lettera aperta per una comunicazione più tempestiva.
Per via indiretta ho preso visione della sua lettera del 26 Febbraio la quale (Prot. N. 1/2020) ha anche l’onore di aver così inaugurato il suo alto ufficio di Decano del Collegio Cardinalizio.
Ammiro il suo coraggio nell’avventurarsi in questioni che Ella pure riconosce essere “complesse”, mettendo a rischio il prestigio del suo appena inaugurato onorevole ufficio. Ma si sa che oggi c’è un vicepapa che riesce a mettere coraggio a tutti i servitori nella Santa Sede.
Veniamo alla lettera.
1. Per chiarire la visione di Giovanni Paolo II e di Benedetto XVI riguardo al comunismo mi basta ora rimandarLa a pag. 161-162 del libro “ultime conversazioni” (Papa Benedetto mi fece avere una copia con la dedica “in comunione di preghiera e di pensiero”).
La domanda del giornalista Peter Seewald:
“Ha condiviso e sostenuto attivamente la Ostpolitik del papa (Giov. Paolo II)?”
Benedetto rispose: “Ne parlavamo. Era chiaro che la politica di Casaroli, per quanto attuata con le migliori intenzioni, era fallita.
La nuova linea perseguita da Giov. Paolo II era frutto della sua esperienza personale, del contatto con quei poteri.
Naturalmente allora non si poteva sperare che quel regime crollasse presto, ma era evidente che, invece di essere concilianti e accettare compromessi, bisognava opporsi con forza.
Questa era la visione di fondo di Giov. Paolo II, che io condividevo.”
2. Per provare che l’accordo firmato era già stato approvato da Benedetto XVI basta mostrarmi il testo firmato, che fino ad oggi non mi è stato concesso di vedere, e l’evidenza dell’archivio, che Ella ha potuto verificare. Rimarrebbe solo ancora da spiegare perchè allora non è stato firmato.
3. Il cambiamento “epocale” del significato della parola “indipendenza” temo che esista solo nella testa dell’eminentissimo Segretario di Stato, indotto magari da una errata traduzione dal cinese fatta dal giovane minutante della Congregazione dell’Evangelizzazione dei Popoli, ormai monoculus rex in regno caecorum, il quale fu corresponsabile anche degli almeno 10 errori nella traduzione della lettera di Papa Benedetto del 2007.
Data però l’intelligenza dell’Eminentissimo mi è difficile credere che sia stato ingannato, è più probabile che abbia voluto “lasciarsi ingannare”.
4. Non capisco l’ultima parte della sua lettera, quantomeno confusa. I fatti sono lì. Ho evidenza che Parolin manipola il Santo Padre, il quale mi manifesta sempre tanto affetto, ma non risponde alle mie domande. Davanti a delle prese di posizione della Santa Sede che non riesco a capire, a tutti i fratelli desolati che si rivolgono a me dico di non criticare chi segue quelle disposizioni. Siccome, però, nelle disposizioni si lascia ancora la libertà a chi ha una obiezione di coscienza, incoraggio questi a ritirarsi allo stato delle catacombe, senza opporsi a qualunque ingiustizia, altrimenti finirebbero per rimetterci di più.
In che ho sbagliato?
5. Sono al cento per cento d’accordo con l’invito a pregare.
Ricordo che recentemente la Santa Sede pure ha raccomandato l’invocazione alla Madonna “Sub tuum praesidium” e quella all’Arcangelo S. Michele.
Ovviamente c’è l “Oremus pro Pontifice” che conclude con “et non tradat eum in animam inimicorum ejus”.
Le auguro momenti più felici nel suo lungo servizio come Decano del Collegio Cardinalizio.
obblig, mo
Card. Zen
Now, my English translation, for those who do not read Italian:
To His Eminence, the Most Rev. Lord Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re
Dean of the College of Cardinals,
Lord Cardinal,
Permit me to use the means of an open letter as a quicker response.
Indirectly, I came to know of your letter of February 26 (Protocol number 1/2020), which also had the honor of inaugurated your high office as Dean of the College of Cardinals.
I admire your courage to jump into question which You yourself recognizes are “complex”, risking the prestige of your just inaugurated honorable office. But now everyone knows that there is a Vice-pope who is succeeds in encouraging all the servants of the Holy See.
Let us come to Your letter.
1.To clarify the vision of John Paul II and Benedict XVI in regard to communism, it is sufficient for me to direct your to pages 161-162 of the book, “Recent Conversations” by Pope Benedict (a copy of which he gave me with the dedication, “in a communion of prayer and thought“).
To the question of the journalist, Peter Seewald: “Did you share and sustain actively the Ostpolitik of the pope (John Paul II)?”
Benedict replied: “We spoke of it. It was clear that the politics of Casaroli, as much as it was implemented with the best of intentions, had failed.
“The new direction persued by John Paul II was the fruit of his personal experience, of his contacts with those powers.
“Naturally, then, one could not hope that that regime would quickly collape, but it was evident that, instead of being conciliatory and accepting compromises, it was necessary to oppose it with force.
“This was the basic vision of John Paul II, which I shared.”
2. To prove that the Accord as signed had been approved by Benedict XVI it would have been sufficient to show me the signed text, which even til today has not been permitted to me to see, and the evidence of the Archive (of the Secretary of State), which You were able to verify. There would then only remain to be explained why it was not signed.
3. The “epochal” change of meaning for the word “independence”, I fear, exists only in the mind of his eminence the Secretary of State, caused perhaps by a faulty translation of the Chinese by a young clerk of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, which already has become a monoculus rex in regno caaecorum (a one eyed king in a kingdom of the blind), who was co-responsible for at least 10 errors in the translation of the Letter of Pope Benedict in 2007.
Given, however, the intelligence of His Eminence, it is difficult for me to believe that he was deceived, and more probable that he wanted to deceive others.
4. I do not understand the last part of Your letter, as much as it is confusing. The fact are this: I have evidence that Parolin manipulated the Holy Father, who always showed me great affection, but never responded to my questions. In regard to some of the positions taken by the Holy See, which I do not manage to understand: to all the desolate brothers who turn to me, I say do not criticize those who follow those directions. For just as, however, in the directions there is still left the liberty for the one with objections of conscience, I encourage these to withdraw to the state of the catacombs, without opposing any injustice, otherwise they would end up dealing worse with us.
In this, have I erred?
5. I am 100% in agreement with the invitation to pray.
I remember that recenty the Holy See also recommended the invocation to Our Lady, “Sub tuum praesidium” and that to Michael the Archangel.
Obviously, there is the “Oremus pro Pontifice” (Collect for the Holy Father) which concludes “et non tradat eum in animam inimicorum eius” (and do not hand him over to the desire of his enemies).
I wish for you happier moments in your long service as Dean of the College of Cardinals.
With respect,
Card. Zen
Read the letter again to see the subtle irony used by the Chinese Cardinal. The Dean will serve only 4 years as such, before he must retire, and his admiration for the courage of the Dean to enter into questions which are not his competence. He aslo refers to the fact that the Dean did not share with him his backstabbing circular letter. This is one mad Chinese Cardinal.
Cardinal Zen also called Cardinal Re’s bluff and demanded the evidence of the Papal Signature by Pope Benedict. He also pointed out that he has intelligence on how the document was prepared on the basis of intentionally faulty translations.
In short, Cardinal Zen just dropped the bomb on Parolin and Re, and exposed them both as clumbsy liars. The real implication of his letter, then, in wishing a long career to Cardianl Re is to say that Re has just doomed himself in the eyes of the members of the College as unreliable and untrustworthy, which are the key requirements to remain Dean.
___________
CREDITS: The Featured Image is a screenshot of the header image of Cardinal Zen’s blog, used here in accord with fair use standards for editorial commentary, and with the text of the open letter, with the presumed permission of His Eminence.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on IT IS ENOUGH TO MAKE ONE’S STOMACH TURN. THE ACORD WHICH THE VATICAN WORKED OUT WITH THE RULERS OF COMMUNIST CHINA HANDING OVER THE Catholic Church IN CHINA TO THE COMMUNIST REGIME OF CHINA WHICH WAS NEGOTIATED IN PART BY THE INFAMOUS CARDINAL THEODORE McCARRICK AS SPECIAL ENVOY OF FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL TO RED CHINA.
Cardinal Viganò, as an expert diplomat of proven record, in response to the letter from Cardinal Re, writes in support of Cardinal Zen, in an open letter.
First the Italian Original (source), and then my English translation.
Eminenza Carissima,
sono l’arcivescovo Carlo Maria Viganò, già Nunzio Apostolico negli Stati Uniti d’America.
Ho seguito con profonda partecipazione, condividendo la Sua sofferenza nella preghiera, i Suoi numerosi accorati Appelli a papa Bergoglio, per la drammatica situazione della Chiesa Martire in Cina, che lui stesso ha colpevolmente aggravato con il proditorio e sciagurato Accordo segreto firmato dalla Santa Sede con il Governo Comunista Cinese.
I Suoi accorati Appelli, Caro Fratello in Cristo, sono rimasti sistematicamente inascoltati e persino derisi in modo ipocrita e perverso. Quanto al Cardinale Parolin, ha agito da mero sconsiderato esecutore di un malvagio ordine superiore.
Ho letto stamane la ignominiosa e vergognosa Lettera che il Card. Giovanni Battista Re ha indirizzato a tutti i cardinali contro di Lei. Ne sono profondamente rattristato e indignato, e desidero esprimerLe tutto il mio affetto, la mia preghiera e la mia solidarietà fraterna nell’episcopato.
Lei è un coraggioso Confessore della Fede a cui va tutta la mia venerazione e ammirazione!
Purtroppo la menzogna in Vaticano è eretta a sistema, la verità è totalmente stravolta, l’inganno più perverso è spudoratamente praticato anche dai più insospettabili, che ora si prestano ad agire da strumenti complici dell’Avversario. Si è giunti addirittura ad affermare che “papa Benedetto XVI aveva approvato il progetto di Accordo” firmato nel 2018, quando invece tutti sappiamo della sua strenua resistenza e della sua reiterata riprovazione delle condizioni poste da un Regime persecutorio e sanguinario.
Il Vaticano ha fatto di tutto e di più per consegnare nelle mani del Nemico la Chiesa Martire Cinese: lo ha fatto siglando il Patto segreto; lo ha fatto legittimando “vescovi” scomunicati, agenti del regime; lo ha fatto con la deposizione di Vescovi legittimi; lo ha fatto imponendo ai Sacerdoti fedeli di registrarsi presso la chiesa succube della dittatura comunista; lo fa quotidianamente tacendo sulla furia persecutoria che proprio a partire da quell’infausto Accordo è andata inasprendosi in un inaudito crescendo. Lo sta facendo ora con questa ignobile missiva a tutti i cardinali, volta ad accusarLa, a denigrarLa e ad isolarLa.
Nostro Signore ci assicura che niente e nessuno potrà mai strappare dalla Sua mano coloro che resistono al nemico infernale e ai suoi accoliti, trionfando su di loro “per mezzo del Sangue dell’Agnello e grazie alla testimonianza del loro martirio” (Ap. 12, 11).
Il Vostro esempio, Caro Cardinale, e il prezzo altissimo che state pagando per difendere la Causa di Dio e della sua Chiesa, provochi in noi un salutare scossone, ci strappi dall’inerzia e dall’assuefazione con le quali assistiamo supini alla resa della Chiesa Cattolica nei suoi più alti vertici e nella sua gerarchia, all’eresia e all’apostasia, per essersi messa a seguire il Principe di questo mondo, menzognero e omicida sin da principio.
Parce, Domine, parce populo tuo,
quem redemisti, Christe, sanguine tuo,
ne in aeternum irascaris nobis.
+ Carlo Maria Viganò
Arcivescovo tit. di Ulpiana
Nunzio Apostolico
Now my English translation:
Your dearest Eminence,
I am Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America.
I have followed, with profound attention and sympathy, Your suffering in prayer, your numerous heartfelt Appeals to pope Bergoglio, for the dramatic situation of the Martyred Church in China, which he himself has culpably aggravated with the prodigious and wretched secret Accord signed between the Holy See and the Communist Government of China.
Your heartfelt Appeals, dear Brother in Christ, have gone systematically unheeded and even derided in a hypocritical and perverse manner. As much as regards Cardinal Parolin, he has acted as the mere inconsiderate executor of a malign order of his superior.
I read, this morning, the ignominious and shameful Letter which Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re has addressed to all the Cardinals against You. I am deeply saddened and indigant on this account, and I desire to express to You my entire affection, my prayer and my fraternal solidarity in the Episcopate.
You are a corageous Confessor of the Faith who has all my veneration and respect!
Unfortunately, systematic lying is now the structure of the Vatican, truth has been entirely turned on its head, and the most perverse deceit is shamelessly practiced even by the most unexpected persons, who no present themselves to act as complicit instruments of the Adversary. They have gone so far as to affirm that “Pope Benedict XVI approved the project of the Accord” which was signed in 2018, when, on the contrary, everyone knows of his strenuous resistence and of his repeated reproval of the conditions proposed by Regime of persecutors and blood-letters.
The Vatican has done everything and even more to consign the Martyred Church of China into the hands of the Enemy: it did this by signing the secret Pact; it did this by legitimizing excommunicated “bishops”, agents of the regime; it did this by deposing legitimatte Bishops; it did this by imposing puon faithful Priests the duty to register at the local church subjected to the Communist Dictatorship; it does this daily by remaining silent at the mad persecution which indeed after the signing of this inauspicious Accord grows worse and worse in an unheard of crescendo. It is doing this now with this ignoble missive to all the Cardinals, aimed at accusing You, at denigrating You and at isolating You.
Our Lord assures us that nothing and no one can ever snatch from His Hand those who resist the infernal enemey and his altar-boys, as He shall triumph over them “by means of the Blood of the Lamb and thanks to the testimony of their martyrdom” (Apocalypse 12:11).
Your example, dear Cardinal, and the very high price which you are paying for defending the Cause of God and of His Church, provokes in us a salutary response, it snatches us from idleness and from accomodation with those who supinely assist at the surrender of the Catholic Church by Her highest officers and in Her hierarchy, to heresy and apostasy, so as to follow the Prince of this world, a liar and a murderer from the beginning.
Parce, Domine, parce populo tuo, quem redemisti, Christe, sanguine tuo, ne in aeternum irascaris nobis.
+ Carlo Maria Viganò Arcivescovo tit. di Ulpiana Nunzio Apostolico
As always, I do not think I need to add anything to this most noble letter. Let us pray for Archbishop Viganò and Cardinal Zen, that they are led by this event to see that Pope Benedict XVI is the true Pope and that Cardinal Bergoglio is a usurper, a destroyer and a false prophet.
Doubtful Schneider vs. St. Bellarmine & Bp. Gracida: “A Doubtful Pope is no Pope”
Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s opinion on “doubtful matters”:
“[T]he Magisterium of the Church, since Popes Pius X and Benedict XV, has seemed to reject such an opinion, as the formulation of the spurious decree of Gratian was eliminated in the Code of Canon Law 1917. The canons that address the automatic loss of an ecclesiastical office for heresy in the 1917 Code of Canon Law (canon 188 §4) and in the 1983 Code of Canon Law (canon 194 §2) are not applicable to the pope, because the Church deliberately eliminated from the Code of Canon Law the following formulation taken from the previous Corpus Iuris Canonici: “unless the pope is caught deviating from the faith (nisi deprehendatur a fide devius).” By this act, the Church manifested her understanding, the mens ecclesiae, regarding this crucial issue. Even if one does not agree with this conclusion, the matter remains at least doubtful. In doubtful matters, however, one cannot proceed to concrete acts with fundamental implications for the life of the Church, such as, e.g., not to name an allegedly heretical or an allegedly invalidly elected pope in the Canon of the Mas or preparing for a new papal election.” [https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/bishop-schneider-releases-essay-on-the-question-of-the-true-pope]
Schneider is right:
“In doubtful matters, however, one cannot proceed to concrete acts with fundamental implications for the life of the Church.”
Bishop Rene Gracida summed the situation we are in with the doubtfulness of the Pope Benedict XVI resignation:
“[I]f the [Pope Benedict XVI] Renunciation is doubtful, then in virtue of canon 332 §2, it is invalid for lack of due manifestation” [https://abyssum.org/ ]
Moreover, it appears that if someone has definite solid reasons from canon law to doubt the validity of Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation one can it appears possibly commit a sin if he doesn’t resolve that doubt before claiming Francis is definitely pope.
The important theological book “Rodriguez and the Confession of Doubtful Mortal Sins” in page 225 says:
“If one does not resolve the doubt and deliberately does the action anyhow, it means that he is willing to offend God gravely, and therefore he commits a mortal sin.” (Google: Theological Studies -cdn- 1 PDF by U. Adelman – Cited by 1 Related articles)
Moreover, Dogmatic theology scholar Fr. Elwood Sylvester Berry (1879-1954), who was professor at Mount St. Mary’s Seminary in Maryland, in his apologetic and dogmatic treatise which according to his introduction “was originally written in Latin” stated that according to Doctor of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine: “a doubtful pope is no pope… ‘if a papal election is doubtful for any reason'” therefore a imperfect council of bishops is needed:
“Hence the saying of Bellarmine: a doubtful pope is no pope. ‘Therefore,’ continues the Cardinal, ‘if a papal election is really doubtful for any reason, the elected should resign, so that a new election may be held. But if he refuses to resign, it becomes the duty of the bishops to adjust the matter, for although the bishops without the pope cannot define dogma nor make laws for the universal Church, they can and ought to decide, when occasion demands, who is the legitimate pope; and if the matter be doubtful, they should provide for the Church by having a legitimate and undoubted pastor elected. That is what the Council of Constance rightly did.'” 8 (The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise, By Rev. E. Sylvester Berry, Page 229, Note 8: Bellarmine, “De Concilio, ii, 19)
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.Fred Martinez at 3:53 PM
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on A DOUBTFUL POPE IS NO POPE !!!
Em S
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.