ZZZZZ

The Remnant and Steve Skojec are right in saying that the Vatican II’s ambiguities which were a forerunner of Amoris Laetitia’s ambiguity lead to false ecumenism within the Church and outside.

Monday, April 01, 2019

Remnant & Skojec are Wrong in saying Francis is same as Benedict & John Paul II

The Remnant and Steve Skojec are right in saying that the Vatican II’s ambiguities which were a forerunner of Amoris Laetitia’s ambiguity lead to false ecumenism within the Church and outside.

Strangely, the non-traditionalist conservative Matthew Schmitz put it best:

“[T]he post-Vatican II settlement [of]… Upholding Catholic teaching on paper but not in reality as led to widespread corruption… a culture of lies… that allowed men like McCarrick to flourish.”

It allowed the Church of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI to keep heretics and homosexual predators in the hierarchy such as McCarrick and others like him to flourish and to promote neo-sacrilegious media productions such as the Assisi fiasco and the kissing of the Koran.

This was wrong and God will judge them for their failures to be good fathers (popes) in allowing evil men into God’s Church to abuse and to lead many to indifferentism and away from salvation which is only in Jesus through His Church.

Both sincerely in my opinion because of false philosophical personal ideas while not totally abandoning Thomism tried to do the practically almost impossible task of being loyal to the infallible teachings of the Church while holding on to neo-modernist Personalist versions of Kantian and Hegelian philosophy as well as the ambiguities of Vatican II.

Benedict if you read his later writings finally rejected Kantianism, but apparently couldn’t completely give up Hegelianism.

However, he realized in a vague way that the ambiguity of Vatican II was destroying the Church so he brought back the Traditional Latin Mass and attempted to fight against sex abuse, the Vatican gay lobby and reform the finances to the Church.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, these efforts united the financially corrupt old guard of Cardinal Angelo Sodano and the Vatican gay lobby which brought about Vatileaks and other pressures against Benedict that eventually lead to the Benedict resignation and the papacy of Jorge Bergoglio whose pontifical validity has been questioned by many even in the hierarchy from the beginning to this day.

As Bishop René Gracida has said there was never universal acceptance of Bergoglio by the Church.

But even more importantly, there are reasonable doubts about the validity of Benedict’s resignation and Bergoglio’s lawful election to the papacy which were never present with the other papacies which Bishop Gracida declares must be investigated and interpreted by the cardinals as John Paul’s conclave constitution explicitly states.

This is one reason that Francis is not the same as Benedict and John Paul.

The other reason that The Remnant and Skojec are wrong about saying Francis is the same as Benedict and John Paul can be put simply in analogy:

John Paul and Benedict were sincere doctors with medicine that was getting the patient sicker.

Benedict realized the medicine was bad and slowly started giving good medicine.

But in my opinion, Francis is a doctor who is trying to kill the patient by slow poisoning.

In my opinion, it is obvious that Francis doesn’t have even a remnant of Thomism. Nor does he apparently care about being loyal to the infallible Church teachings. He appears to be a nihilistic postmodernist like his favorite theologian Michel de Certeau. 

Francis’s only grasp of reality or meaning appears to be leftist and Peronist ideology as well as his close friend the kissing bishop’s Bernard Haring Hegelian situation ethics all dressed in religious language.

While Benedict and John Paul upheld Church teachings on paper while not always in reality, Francis with Amoris Laetitia, the Argentine letter, the death penalty Catechism change and the latest indifferentism papal statement isn’t even upholding the infallible teachings on paper.

George Gilder wrote a book called “Sexual Suicide” which helped me return to the Church because it showed that the Catholic teachings on sexuality were true and those outside those teachings were committing slow suicide.

Francis in my opinion is trying to kill the Church by slow suicide.

He will not succeed because Jesus promised the gates of Hell will not prevail.

Those who don’t oppose him in my opinion are his accomplices unless they are in invincible ignorance.

In my opinion, it appears that if Francis doesn’t convert he may be heading down a path of destruction along with all his accomplices if they don’t convert if they aren’t in invincible ignorance.

I feel sorry for them.

We must pray for him and his accomplices, but most of all we must pray for all those abused and lead away from salvation by their promotion of heresy.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Fred Martinez at 10:30 PMShare

4 comments:

  1. Islam_Is_Islam8:55 AMThank you, Mr. Martinez, for this summary regarding Canon 332.2:

    But even more importantly, there are reasonable doubts about the validity of Benedict’s resignation and Bergoglio’s lawful election to the papacy which were never present with the other papacies which Bishop Gracida declares must be investigated and interpreted by the cardinals as John Paul’s conclave constitution explicitly states.Reply
Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

DO NOT READ THIS POST ON A FULL STOMACH, IF YOU DO YOU WILL SURELY THROW UP

The Pickering Post

WEDNESDAY, 3RD APRIL 2019

If you would like to be involved or support the upkeep and further development of this site, it would be very welcome no matter how small.MISSION STATEMENT
GALLERYNEWSCARTOONSHALALSHOPLOGINREGISTER


MAKE THE SWAMP GREAT AGAIN!

HARRY RICHARDSON

Harry Richardson is a long-time student of Islam and author of best seller, “the Story Of Mohammed – Islam Unveiled’, http://thestoryofmohammed.blogspot.com.au

BLOG / WEBSITE / BOOK / FREEDOM AND HERITAGE


Tue 2 Apr 2019 01:05:24 pm/989 COMMENTS


I’m sure you all get things like this sent to you all the time. It is often hard to know whether they are genuine or not.

Why do people make up things like this? Maybe they are Conservatives trying to make the Left look bad. Maybe they are leftists trying to obfuscate or make Conservatives look gullible.

Whatever the reason, it pays to check such things out before sending them on.

Fortunately, I have people I can check these things with, and they told me that this is all Halal. Apparently: –  

“Yes. This is all true  and verified by Attorney Gregg Jarrett in his bestseller “The Russia Hoax,” in  “Clean House” by Judicial Watch President, Tom Fitton who had to sue under The  Freedom of Information Act (and wait three years for the Obama goons to release  the info proving he was right, and that Hillary had a secret illegal server and  busted them up); as well as in “Clinton Cash” by Peter Schweizer and  “Compromised: how money and politics drive FBI corruption” by Seamus  Bruner.  It’s all there, and everyone  except the corrupt officials charged with investigating it are doing a damn  thing about it.”

Well that was what I was told but I am always sceptical. As Abraham Lincoln once famously said: “Just because it is on the internet, doesn’t mean it is necessarily true.”

So, I thought we could do something a little different on this one. I don’t have time to check these things out. However, I think some of you on the Pickering Post do.

Since we also have a range of opinions, I thought I would throw this open to you guys and ask you all to check it out piece by piece. To make things easy, I have numbered each point.

If you check out one point, be sure to put the number in your comment with a link to where you found the information. Just to have some fun, you can all say whether you think it is true or false at the start and we will see who picked it by the end.

Perhaps once we are near the end, someone could make a tally of what is true, false and not yet validated.

I hope it is true.

There have been plenty of smart people who have known what was going on in the swamp. Unfortunately, the swamp had aircover from the Clinton/Bush/Obama dynasty. 

That aircover is now gone and I suspect we are going to see swamp dwelling cockroaches running for cover left, right and centre in the next few months.

Love to see America becoming great again. Go Trump for 2020.

Have a read and see what you think.

Let’s follow the trail. Everyone needs to read this. Slowly, and patiently, because it’s very important……

Here’s what it looks like when all the pieces are sewn together. It smells like conspiracy and treason.

  1. From 2001 to 2005 there was an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation. A Grand Jury had been impaneled. Governments from around the world had donated to the “Charity.” Yet, from 2001 to 2003 none of those “Donations” to the Clinton Foundation were declared.
  2. Hmmm, now you would think that an honest investigator would be able to figure this out. Guess who took over this investigation in 2002? None other than James Comey.
  3. Guess who was transferred in to the Internal Revenue Service to run the Tax Exemption Branch of the IRS? Your friend and mine, Lois “Be on The Look Out” (BOLO) Lerner. It gets better, well not really, but this is all just a series of strange coincidences, right?
  4. Guess who ran the Tax Division inside the Department of Injustice from 2001 to 2005? No other than the Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Rod Rosenstein.
  5. Guess who was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation during this time frame? I know, it’s a miracle, just a coincidence, just an anomaly in statistics and chances, but it was Robert Mueller. What do all four casting characters have in common?
  6. They all were briefed and/or were front line investigators into the Clinton Foundation Investigation. Now that’s just a coincidence, right?
  7. Ok, lets chalk the last one up to mere chance. Let’s fast forward to 2009….. James Comey leaves the Justice Department to go and cash-in at Lockheed Martin.
  8. Hillary Clinton is running the State Department, on her own personal email server, by the way. The Uranium One “issue” comes to the attention of Hillary.
  9. Like all good public servants do.  You know – looking out for America’s best interests.  She decides to support the decision and approve the sale of 20% of all of the US’s Uranium to no other than — the Russians. Now, you might think that this was a fairly straight-up deal, except that it wasn’t: The American People got absolutely nothing out of it. And they’re investigating president Trump for “collusion.”
  10. However, prior to the sales approval, no other than Bill Clinton traveled to Moscow, got paid 500K for a one hour speech, and then met with Vladimir Putin at his home for a few hours.
  11. Ok, no big deal right? Well, not so fast: the FBI had a mole inside the money laundering and bribery scheme. Guess who was the FBI Director during this time? Yep, Robert Mueller, who even delivered a Uranium Sample to Moscow in 2009. Guess who was handling that case within the Justice Department out of the US Attorney’s Office in Maryland? None other than, Rod Rosenstein.
  12. Guess what happened to the informant? The Department of Justice placed a GAG order on him and threatened to lock him up if he spoke out about it. How does 20% of the most strategic asset of the United States of America end up in Russian hands when the FBI has an informant, a mole, providing inside information to the FBI on the criminal enterprise?
  13. Guess what happened soon after the sale was approved? ~145 million dollars in “donations” made their way into the Clinton Foundation from entities directly connected to the Uranium One deal.
  14. Now guess who was still at the Internal Revenue Service working the Charitable Division? None other than, Lois Lerner. Ok, that’s all just another series of coincidences.  Nothing to see here, right? Let’s fast forward to 2015.
  15. Due to a series of tragic events in Benghazi and after the 9 “investigations” the House, Senate and at State Department, Trey Gowdy who was running the 10th investigation as Chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi discovers that Hillary ran the State Department on an unclassified, unauthorized, outlaw personal email server.
  16. He also discovered that none of those emails had been turned over when she departed her “Public Service” as Secretary of State which was required by law.
  17. He also discovered that there was Top Secret information contained within her personally archived email. (Let’s not forget – at least 10 CIA spies in China were killed by the Chinese because of the leaks, and God knows what else occurred). Sparing you the State Departments cover up, the nostrums they floated, the delay tactics that were employed and the outright lies that were spewed forth from the necks of the Kerry State Department, we shall leave it with this…… they did everything humanly possible to cover for Hillary.
  18. Now this is amazing:  guess who became FBI Director in 2013? Hint: he secured 17 no-bid contracts for his employer (Lockheed Martin) with the State Department and was rewarded with a six million dollar thank you present when he departed Lockheed.None other than James Comey.
  19. Amazing how all those no-bids just went right through at the State, huh? So he’s the FBI Director in charge of the “Clinton Email Investigation” after, of course, his FBI Investigates the Lois Lerner “Matter” at the Internal Revenue Service and exonerates her.
  20. Nope…we couldn’t find any crimes there. So what happened next? In April 2016, James Comey drafts an exoneration letter of Hillary Rodham Clinton — something he had no authority to do.  Meanwhile the DOJ is handing out immunity deals like candy. They didn’t even convene a Grand Jury.
  21. Like a lightning bolt of statistical impossibility, like a miracle from God himself, like the true “Gangsta” that Comey is, he steps out into the cameras of an awaiting press conference on July the 5th of 2016 and exonerates Hillary from any wrongdoing. Can you see the pattern?
  22. It goes on and on.  Rosenstein becomes Asst. Attorney General; Comey gets fired based upon a letter by Rosenstein; Comey leaks government information to the press; Mueller is assigned to the Russian Investigation sham by Rosenstein to provide cover for decades of malfeasance within the FBI and DOJ.  And the story continues.
  23. FISA Abuse, political espionage…. pick a crime, any crime, chances are…… this group and a few others did it, bringing new meaning to the term “organized crime.” All the same players. All compromised and conflicted. All working fervently to NOT go to jail themselves. All connected in one way or another to the Clintons. They are like battery acid, they corrode and corrupt everything they touch. How many lives have the Clinton two destroyed?
  24. As of this writing, the Clinton Foundation, in its 20+ years of operation, being the largest International Charity Fraud in the history of mankind, and has never been audited by the Internal Revenue Service.
  25. Let us not forget that Comey’s brother works for DLA Piper, the law firm that does the Clinton Foundation’s taxes.
  26. And the person who is the common denominator to all the crimes above while doing her evil escape legal manoeuvres at the top of the 3 Letter USA Agencies?   Yep, that would be Hillary R. Clinton!
  27. WHO IS  LISA BARSOOMIAN? 
  28. Let’s look a little into Mrs. Lisa H. Barsoomian’s background. Lisa H. Barsoomian, a US Attorney who graduated from Georgetown Law, is a protege of James Comey and Robert Mueller.
  29. Barsoomian, with her boss, R. Craig Lawrence, represented Bill Clinton in 1998. Lawrence also represented:
  30. Robert Mueller three times;
  31. James Comey five times;
  32. Barack Obama 45 times;
  33. Kathleen Sebelius 56 times;
  34. Bill Clinton 40 times; and
  35. Hillary Clinton 17 times.
  36. Between 1998 and 2017, Barsoomian herself represented the FBI at least five times. You may be saying to yourself, OK, who cares? Who cares about the work history of this Barsoomian woman?
  37. Apparently, someone does, because someone out there cares so much that they’ve “purged” all Barsoomian court documents for her Clinton representation in Hamburg vs. Clinton in 1998 and its appeal in 1999 from the DC District and Appeals Court dockets (?).
  38. Someone out there cares so much that the internet has been “purged” of all information pertaining to Barsoomian. Historically, this indicates that the individual is a protected CIA operative.
  39. Additionally, Lisa Barsoomian has specialized in opposing Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of the intelligence community.
  40. And, although Barsoomian has been involved in hundreds of cases representing the DC Office of the US Attorney, her email address is Lisa Barsoomian at NIH dot gov. The NIH stands for National Institutes of Health. This is a tactic routinely used by the CIA to protect an operative by using another government organization to shield their activities. It’s a cover, so big deal, right? I mean what does one more attorney with ties to the US intelligence community really matter?
  41. It deals with Trump and his recent tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminium imports, the border wall, DACA, everything coming out of California, the Uni-party unrelenting opposition to President Trump. It deals with the Clapper leaks, the Comey leaks, Attorney General Jeff Sessions recusal and subsequent 14-month nap with occasional forays into the marijuana legalization mix …. and last but not least Mueller’s never-ending investigation into collusion between the Trump team and the Russians.
  42. Why does Barsoomian, CIA operative, merit any mention? BECAUSE … She is Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s WIFE … That’s why!

GET THIS INFORMATION OUT TO EVERYONE YOU CAN.

Jaw dropping, shocking and extremely sad that this info has never been exposed.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

STEVE SKOJEC CLINGS TO THE “IMPOSSIBLE-TO-VERIFY” ‘PROOF’ OF THE VALIDITY OF THE REIGN OF FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL: FRANCIS’ REIGN IS UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED AND IS INFALLLIBLY CERTAIN.

Sunday, March 31, 2019

1P5’s Skojec claims “that a Pope Universally Accepted *IS* Infallibly Certain,” but is it Infallible or Certain?

The Catholic Monitor received a second comment from OnePeterFive’s publisher Steve Skojec which requires a response. 

But, again, before I respond to it I want to say I like Steve. In our few correspondences by email he has being a gentleman. I pray for him and his important work. I have recently been a bit worried about him because lately he has started multiplying disparagements for what someone is calling the “Skojec Little Book of Insults.” 

Below is part of the ending of the comment I received from Steve:

“So the point I was making — the point you missed — is that while I was not claiming that John of St. Thomas’s definition of Universal Acceptance was infallible, I *AM* claiming that a pope universally accepted *IS* infallibly certain. The former is the opinion of a very learned theologian with no magisterial authority; the latter is a consensus view of theologians and long understood, if not formally defined, by the Church.” [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/03/why-are-siscoe-and-skojec-apparently-so.html?m=1]

So Skojec is “claiming that a pope universally accepted *IS* infallibly certain. The former is the opinion of a very learned theologian with no magisterial authority; the latter is a consensus view of theologians and long understood, if not formally defined, by the Church,” but is his claim infallible, “certain” or does is it have “a consensus view of theologians”?

The OnePeterFive’s publisher is getting his “universally acceptance” idea from Robert Siscoe. Steve in the previous comment to another post at the Catholic Monitor said:

“This is why the Church teaches that it is infallibly certain that a pope universally accepted is the pope. Francis was universally accepted — as Robert Siscoe said, this isn’t mathematical unanimity, but practical universality.” [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/03/is-skojecs-theologian-of-universal.html?m=1]

A scholar at the Von Veni Pacem website convincingly shows that Siscoe’s idea of “universally acceptance” is not infallible, “certain” nor does is it have “a consensus view of theologians”:
“Firstly, and by far most importantly, it is utterly impossible that a determination of the *present* juridical status of anyone can be a matter of divine Faith. The thing itself is obviously not comprehended among the two primary objects of Faith; matters of doctrine and morals. It is simply a question of present juridical validity. For instance, it is certainly not recorded in either Scripture or Tradition (which obviously concern the past) that Francis is a real pope. Neither has any past pope (again, obviously!) declared that Francis’ election has been valid.
“But your contention is not this, but that it is a matter of the *secondary* object of Faith; that is, you say it is a dogmatic fact. But this does not work for present popes, only past ones. Why? A dogmatic fact is one that is so connected to a *primary* fact of faith that, without it, that primary fact becomes impossible. In the present question, we can take as an example the dogmatic fact that Pius IX was a real pope. Why is this a matter of divine Faith? There are two reasons:
“First and most important is that he himself defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. If he wasn’t a real pope, that is no longer, and never was, a dogma. If the Church were to come to believe a “dogma” through a supposed solemn papal declaration that never occurred because the supposed pope was not a pope at all, it wouldn’t be a dogma, so the Church would be in error on a matter supposed to be infallible, thus the Church would be fallible, which would mean the Church had defected.
“Secondly, the indefectibility of the Church is a primary dogma, but that requires an unbroken line of popes, because a pope is an essential requirement in the constitution of the Church as such, as decreed by Divine Law. If Pius IX were not a true pope, the line of succession would have been broken (especially considering his long reign).”
“But there HAVE been interregnums, and no one knows exactly how long one could last before it constitutes a break in the line. It could be as long as a generation, and probably not longer. But therefore, as long as a *current* putatative pope reigns, there is the possibility that his election was invalid, regardless of universal acceptance. If he is a fraud, and exposed as such, there is no great difficulty in reversing all his “papal” acts. Therefore, none of his acts can be a matter of dogmatic fact; there are no dogmas whatever that depend on *the present pope* being a valid pope. Neither can his standing as a link in the unbroken chain of popes be definitively established, because if he is not a real pope then, even assuming that Benedict XVI is not still the pope, we are simply in an interregnum. Thus the current pope’s validity cannot be a matter of dogmatic fact in that regard either.
“MAJOR POINT: The designation of dogmatic fact as to the validity of a papal election can only apply to *past* popes.”
“Your Assertion (1) is faulty on both counts (both A and B)Re/ 1,A — It was most certainly not defined as a dogma by Martin V that a pope accepted with moral unanimity by the Church is definitely a valid pope, because:
“Firstly, ALL dogmas must be stated in clear terms as to what exactly is being defined (Cartechini, De Valore, ch. 3, part I, Tradibooks ed.). But Dz 674 does not do so. It says that a Hussite recanting of his heresy must be asked: “Whether he believes that a pope, canonically elected, who lived for a time, his proper name being expressed, is the successor of Blessed Peter…”
“What exactly does “who lived for a time” (quo tempore fuerit) mean?
“Literally it means “in the time which he *was* [pope]”. This probably is referring to former popes, excluding the present one. In any case, it is not clear what we are being asked to believe here. As Cartechini says: “Lex dubia nulla est” (a doubtful law is null).There are many other reasons that I could quote from Cartechini to show that Dz 674 cannot be a dogma, but I don’t want to get bogged down in details right now. Let me just add a quote from your own book, True or False Pope, p. 440, footnote 8: “A dogma…means a clear cut proposal, as we have previously explained…”
“Secondly, there is grave question as to whether Francis was “canonically elected”. In fact, that’s the whole thrust of the Substantial Error argument; that he was NOT canonically elected. Dz 674 then, far from militating against that position, actually supports it, since it requires canonical regularity in an election of a valid pope.
“Re/ assertion 1,B — I would like to know how one can speak of the “unanimous teaching of theologians”. You only cite five. How does such a small number constitute unanimity? Besides, excepting John of St. Thomas, all these theologians were active in modern times; there is no real theological tradition on this point, so far as I am aware, and without it we cannot speak of unanimity in any meaningful sense.
“Firstly, your citation of Berry is not to the point, because the context of his discussion concerns PAST popes, not present ones. Scratch Berry. He seems to support my position, not yours.
“Secondly, your citations of Van Noort:The first citation clearly also addresses past popes, not present ones.The second one does indeed concern present popes. His book was published in 1957, and therefore written before that, and Pius XII died in October of 1958. Here, Van Noort claims that Pius XII is guaranteed to be a valid pope by the infallible Ordinary Magisterium, as follows:
“The Church possesses infallibility not only when she is defining some matters in solemn fashion, but also when she is exercising the full weight of her authority through her ordinary and universal teaching. Consequently, we must hold with an absolute assent, which we call ‘ecclesiastical faith,’ the following theological truths:..Pius XII is the legitimate successor of St. Peter.”
“Most unfortunately, there is a completely irredeemable and fatal flaw of fact in this reasoning. What Van Noort seems to forget here is that the Universal Ordinary Infallible Magisterium requires universality not only in space, but in time. In other words, the bishops’ unanimous teaching of a particular truth must be not only something they, worldwide, are agreed on NOW, but also something which they have Traditionally always agreed upon.
“In support of this I have to adduce your OWN exposition of this fact, given in True or False Pope, pp. 439ff, in particular p. 440: “Ordinary acts of the magisterium…to be considered as belonging to the Church’s [infallible] teaching…are infallible only insofar as they fit into the constant teaching…reflect or echo the permanent teaching and unchanging Faith of the Church.” (Canon Berthod)
“I am afraid that this does not at all jive with Van Noort’s exposition. You have to pick one or the other; it’s either Van Noort or your own opinion as supported by other authorities. Since your teaching in ToFP is consonant with the Old Catholic Encyclopedia article, Infallibility (V. 7, p. 800), which you also cite, not to mention many other authorities that could prove that this is the Traditional teaching of the Church on the OUM, I suggest you go with Tradition, and your own previous position, and chuck Van Noort here.So scratch Van Noort too. It seems you aren’t even sure if you agree with him.
“What about your next theologian, Card. Billot?His thesis certainly supports your position. (NVP: perhaps not. It seems ++Billot was selectively quoted)
“Let’s move on to Cardinal Journet.First of all, let’s just note that he’s not exactly a paragon among theologians. And though he had the reputation of being conservative in his day, he went along with Vatican II. Call that an ad hominem if you want, but aside from that, while the quote you give from him does indeed support your position, so far as I can see, it really offers no arguments, or even authorities, just assertions. I find the citation valueless. I could explain why in detail, but I think the reader should not be subjected to such a waste of time.
“Cardinal Journet is on your side too then, though I think his opinion here is worthless.So far, I believe that theologians are *not* unanimous in agreeing with your position. We are about to find that John of St. Thomas most likely is not on your side either. If I am right, we have a grand total of two theologians that support your contention.Now what about John of St. Thomas?
“An examination of the quotes you cite from him reveals that most of his argument hinges upon a seeming presumption that the teaching of Martin v in Dz 674 is de fide.I want to keep this as short as possible, leaving details for later if necessary, so I’m going to stab at the vitals of the matter.
“1) That Dz 674 is simply not de fide, I’ve explained above. It is doubtful if John of St. Thomas even claims Dz 674 is infallible. Since he seems to be speaking of past popes, not current ones, the basic perennially known dogma of the indefectibility of the Church could be the dogma he is referring to, and he may only quote Dz 674 as support for this.
2) If he claims that universal acceptance guarantees validity, John’s whole treatment speaks not of a presently reigning pope, but only of past ones.
“As to the second point, let me give a few quotes:Quote 1: “we discuss whether or not it is de fide that this specific person, who *has been* legitimately elected…”Note the past tense. And please don’t suggest that it is past *progressive*, thus implying something that has occurred and is continuing up to the present. I do not have John’s original Latin text, but I don’t need it in order to eliminate this possibility. I don’t need it because there is no such *thing* as a past progressive tense in Latin. This is past tense, period.Quote 2: “It is immediately of divine faith that this man in particular, lawfully elected and accepted by the Church (past tense), is the supreme pontiff…”
“One may say that the present tense “is” in the last clause qualifies the entire statement as speaking of a pope that *was* elected, but is *presently* pope. That would be hasty. Latin has no articles. Therefore, “is *the* supreme pontiff” could just as legitimately be rendered as “is *a* supreme pontiff”. The first usage would imply that we are speaking of the pontiff currently reigning. The second that we are speaking of pontiffs in general, and thus possibly past cases only. This quote is not clear enough to show anything.
“As an aside, note also that, in the following context, John says “although it [the certainty of validity of election] is made much more manifest…when de facto the pope defines something.”
“And you yourself correctly comment on this: “the Pope acts as the rule of faith only when he defines a doctrine to be believed by faith.” In other words, when he makes a solemn, ex cathedra definition of a dogma.
“This last observation is pertinent to my point above, that it could only be a dogmatic fact that a *current* pope is a valid pope if he *has* at some time already made a dogmatic definition, as did Pius IX or others. Otherwise, all bets are off, since the only other way is for him to pass away and be dead for some decent length of time.
“Quote 3: “…this matter — namely, whether a particular man has been (past tense) lawfully elected and canonically established (past tense) as the rule of faith — is something that the Church can determine as a truth of faith.”
“This clearly means that the Church can determine as a truth of faith (more exactly, as a dogmatic fact), that a *past* pope has been a real pope. Again, I say this is simply because the indefectibility of the Church requires an unbroken succession of popes. It is not because Dz 674 is a dogma; Dz 674 merely gives authoritative support to that dogma, which has always existed in the Church.
“Given the facts about the quotes just given, let’s come back to Cardinal Billot’s teaching.As far as I can tell, he truly does think that the valid election of a *present* pope is a dogmatic fact. As I believe I have definitively shown, that is completely impossible. Therefore, Cardinal Billot is just plain wrong.
“We have to admit that he is one theologian who is clearly on your side.One could speculate that he read John of St. Thomas with an ultramontane prejudice. After all, he was a Jesuit, and of the good old school. He no doubt took very seriously that fourth vow of the Jesuits: to serve the pope in whatever way asked. And he was asked to serve as a papal theologian. It is not at all hard to imagine that he just went overboard a bit here.
“I have completely ignored John of St. Thomas’ discussion concerning whether lack of the necessary conditions for a papal election could invalidate it. This is because I see nothing wrong whatever in his treatment — whether here or elsewhere — PROVIDED we are speaking of a pope who has already passed into history.
“I conclude that it is an extravagant statement to say it is a heresy to deny that Francis is pope. While it is in normal times not prudent to question the validity of a papal election, these are most certainly not normal times, and there are very good reasons to question this one in particular. All the faithful should feel no scruples in doing so, provided they do so with prudence, with serious and objective reasons, and out of a love of the Church.”[https://nonvenipacem.com/2019/03/25/guest-post-a-friendly-challenge-to-robert-siscoe/]

Moreover, Steve you, in the second comment using Siscoe’s writings, claim that “universally acceptance” is “a dogmatic fact, and it comes from more than just John of St. Thomas. St. Alphonsus talks about this”:

“I am claiming that when a pope is universally accepted, the Church offers infallible certainty about his legitimacy. This is why it is called a dogmatic fact, and it comes from more than just John of St. Thomas. St. Alphonsus talks about this when he says: 

‘It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff.’” [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/03/why-are-siscoe-and-skojec-apparently-so.html?m=1]

The problem is Siscoe apparently is possibly either a poor scholar or possibly a bit disingenuous in his leaving out the second part of a quote by a Doctor of the Church.

He says “peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope who was not legitimately elected… nevertheless becomes a true Pope… [by] universal acceptance… curing any defects that may have existed in the election… Here is what [Doctor of the Church] St. Alphonsus taught”:

‘It is of no importance that in the past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterward by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would become the true Pontiff.'”
(TrueorFalsePope.com, “Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a  Pope,” 2-28-19 & 3-20-19) [read this whole article here]

The problem with Siscoe’s quote is he leaves out the very next sentence:

“‘But if for a certain time, he was not accepted universally and truly by the Church, during that time then, the pontifical see would be vacant, as it is vacant at the death of a Pope.’ ‘Verita Della Fede’, vol. VIII, p. 720.'”
(CathInfo.com, “Contra Cekadam by Fr. Francois Chazal,” December 2, 2017)

Did Siscoe leave it out because he is a poor scholar or for some other reason or because it said “for a certain time”?

What does “for a certain time” mean?

Is that “certain time” immediately at the conclave or is it a few years after the conclave?

Does this possibly mean that since Francis “afterwards… for a certain time… was not accepted universally… then, the pontifical see would be vacant”?

Francis is not “accepted universally.”

I am honored to know a successor of the Apostles, Bishop Rene Gracida, who questions the validity of Francis and is calling for the cardinals to investigate if he was “lawfully elected.”

Moreover, Siscoe can’t have it both ways in his quotes when they apparently contradict each other.

In the above same article he quotes John of St. Thomas saying:

“[T]his man in particular lawfully elected and accepted by the Church, is the supreme pontiff.”(TrueorFalsePope.com, “Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a  Pope,” 2-28-19 & 3-20-19) [read this whole article here]

This quote of John of St. Thomas agrees with renowned Catholic historian Warren Carroll’s declaration about valid popes having to be “lawfully elected”:

Carroll explicitly says that what matters in a valid papal election is not what some theologians say, canon law or how many cardinals claim a person is the pope. What is essential for determining if someone is pope or antipope is the “election procedures… [as] governed by the prescription of the last Pope”:

“Papal election procedures are governed by the prescription of the last Pope who provided for them (that is, any Pope can change them, but they remain in effect until they are changed by a duly elected Pope).” 

“During the first thousand years of the history of the Papacy the electors were the clergy of Rome (priests and deacons); during the second thousand years we have had the College of Cardinals.”

“But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses. These methods must then be followed in the next election after the death of the Pope who prescribed it, and thereafter until they are changed. A Papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope.”

“Since Antipopes by definition base their claims on defiance of proper Church authority, all have been harmful to the Church, though a few have later reformed after giving up their claims.” 
[http://www.ewtn.com/library/homelibr/antipope.txt]  

But getting back to Siscoe’s selective quote of St. Alphonsus, a good place to go to find out what the Doctor of the Church really meant is to go to a scholar who quotes him in full.

This is Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira who Siscoe respects as shown by his website:

“‘Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira’s Endorsement of ‘True or False Pope?'”  Note: Having recently learned of the passing of the great Brazilian scholar, Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira, we are publishing a portion of his endorsement of True or False Pope?, which will appear in the upcoming second edition. (1-8-2019)” [http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/?m=1]

There is good reason to respect de Silveira’s scholarship has he himself explains:

“In the 1970 Brazilian edition of my study of the heretical Pope, in the French edition of 1975 and in the Italian in 2016, I stated that on the grounds of the intrinsic theological reasons underpinning the Fifth Opinion I considered it not merely probable but certain. I chose not to insist on the qualification ‘theologically certain’ for an extrinsic reason, namely, that certain authors of weight do not adopt it.43 This was also the opinion of the then Bishop of Campos, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, as expressed in a letter of 25th January 1974, when he sent my work to Paul VI, asking him to point out any possible errors (which never took place), expressly stating that he referred to the study ‘written by lawyer Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, with the contents of which I associate myself .’”[https://www.scribd.com/document/374434852/Arnaldo-Vidigal-Xavier-Da-Silveira-Replies-to-Fr-Gleize-on-Heretical-Pope]

Here is what  de Silveira say in his book “Implications Of New Missae And Heretic Popes”:

“On this same sanatio in raclice by virtue of the acceptance of the Pope by the whole Church, 
Saint Alphonse of Liguori writes, in less heated but perhaps even more incisive terms: 

“It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession 
of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, 
since by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff. But if during a certain time he had not 
been truly and universally accepted by the Church, during that time the Pontifical See would have been 
vacant, as it is vacant on the death of a Pontiff’
 (2). 

“4. The Election of a Person who Cannot Be Pope 

“The designation, as Pope, of a person who cannot occupy the charge, would constitute a special 
case of dubious election
. For it is a common opinion (3) that the election of a woman, of a child, of a 
demented person and of someone who were not a member of the Church (a person not baptized, a 
heretic, an apostate, a schismatic) would be invalid by divine law. 

“Among these causes of invalidity it seems to us that it would be necessary to distinguish those 
which would admit of a “sanatio in radice” from those which would not. A woman could not become 
Pope under any hypothesis. But the same thing would not apply with a demented person, who could be 
cured; with a child, who could grow; with a non-baptized person, who could be converted. 

“This being laid down, we ask: in the hypotheses of invalidity which admits of sanatio in radice , 
would the eventual acceptation by the whole Church of the invalidly elected Pope remedy the vices of 
the election?
 

“A complete answer to this question would require a detailed analysis of each of the cases of 
invalidity. And this would exceed the objectives which we have set for ourselves. 

“Such being the case, we shall only consider the hypothesis which is most relevant to the 
perspective in which we place ourselves: The election of a heretic to the Papacy. What would happen if 
a notorious heretic were elected and assumed the Pontificate without anyone having contested his 
election? 


(1) Billot , Tract de Eccl. Christi, tom. I, pp. 612-613. 

(2) Saint Alphonse de Liquori , Verita della Fede, in “Opera…”, vol. VIII. P. 720, n. 9. 

(3) See: Ferreres , Inst. Canonicae, tom. I, p. 132; Coronata , Inst, luris Canonici, vol. I, p. 360; Schmalzqrueber , 
lus Eccl. Univ., tom. I, pars II, p. 376, n. 99; Caietan , De Auctoriatate…, cap. XXVI, n. 382, pp. 167-168. 

187 

“At first sight, the answer to this question is, in theory , very simple: since God cannot permit that 
the whole Church err about who is her chief, the Pope peacefully accepted by the whole Church is the 
true Pope (1). It would be the duty of the theologians, on the basis of this clear theoretical principle, to 
resolve the concrete question which would then be put: either proving that in reality the Pope had not 
been a formal and notorious heretic at the moment of election; or showing that afterwards he had been 
converted; or verifying that the acceptation by the Church had not been pacific and universal; or 
presenting any other plausible explanation. 

“A more attentive examination of the question would reveal, nevertheless, that even on purely 
theoretical grounds, an important difficulty arises, which would consist in determining precisely what is the concept of pacific and universal acceptation by the Church
For such acceptation to have been 
pacific and universal would it be enough that no Cardinal had contested the election?
Would it be 
enough that in a Council, for example, almost the totality of the Bishops had signed the acts, recognizing 
in this way, at least implicitly, that the Pope be the true one?
Would it be enough that no voice, or 
practically no voice had publicly given the cry of alert?
Or, on the contrary, would a certain very 
generalized though not always well defined distrust be sufficient to destroy the apparently pacific and 
universal character of the acceptance of the Pope?
And if this distrust became a suspicion in numerous 
spirits, a positive doubt in many, a certainty in some, would the aforementioned pacific and universal acceptance subsist?
And if such distrusts, suspicions, doubts and certainties cropped out with some 
frequency in conversations or private papers, or now and again in published writings, could one still 
classify as pacific and universal the acceptance of a Pope who was already a heretic on the occasion of 
his election by the Sacred College?”
 [https://archive.org/stream/ SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissa eAndHereticPopes/Silveira% 20Implications%20of%20New% 20Missae%20and%20Heretic% 20Popes_djvu.txt]

It is obvious that the renowned theologian de Silveira does not think that St. Alphonsus taught what Siscoe claims he taught that “peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope who was not legitimately elected… nevertheless becomes a true Pope… [by] universal acceptance… curing any defects that may have existed in the election… Here is what [Doctor of the Church] St. Alphonsus taught”:

‘It is of no importance that in the past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterward by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would become the true Pontiff. [The rest of the quote of St. Alphonsus is left out.]'”
(TrueorFalsePope.com, “Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a  Pope,” 2-28-19 & 3-20-19) [read this whole article here]

Does Siscoe think that “peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope who was not legitimately elected… nevertheless becomes a true Pope… [by] universal acceptance… curing any defects that may have existed in the election” include such as things as: 

– “a special case of dubious [unlawful] election. For it is a common opinion (3) that the election of a woman, of a child, of a demented person and of someone who were not a member of the Church (a person not baptized, a heretican apostate, a schismatic) would be invalid by divine law.” 
– Renowned Catholic historian Carroll explicitly says that what matters in a valid papal election is not what some theologians say, canon law or how many cardinals claim a person is the pope. What is essential for determining if someone is pope or antipope is the “election procedures… [as] governed by the prescription of the last Pope.”
“… But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses. These methods must then be followed in the next election after the death of the Pope who prescribed it, and thereafter until they are changed.  A Papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope.”[http://www.ewtn.com/library/homelibr/antipope.txt]

On top of all the evidence above even if in a parallel universe “universal acceptance” was infallible or certain then it still doesn’t work. Francis is not “accepted universally.”

I am honored to know a successor of the Apostles, Bishop Gracida, who denies the “universal acceptance” of Francis, questions the idea of  “universal acceptance” and is calling for the cardinals to investigate if he was “lawfully elected.” Bishop Gracida declared:

“I am in receipt of an email from Steve Skojec, publisher of the website OnePeterFive in which he defends his posts in which he argues for the validity of the election of Francis the Merciful on the basis of the ‘universal acceptance’ of Francis’ election by the world’s Catholic population.”

“The idea of “universal acceptance” of the election of popes of the past may have had it’s origin in the first centuries of the Church when popes were chosen by acclamation of the assembled citizens of Rome, and perhaps later when the princes and kings of Europe decided on the legitimacy of papal contestants in the time of the Avignon captivity of the papacy.”

“But the idea of “universal acceptance” as the principle determining the validity of Francis’ claim to the Chair of Peter is absurd in this day of instant electronic communication. There is not a world-wide Pew or Gallup poll that can determine the degree of “acceptance” of the Bergolian regime as valid by the world’s Catholic population.”

“From the moment that Francis appeared on the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica improperly dressed and accompanied by men of known or suspected homosexual orientation many Catholics besides myself were shocked and dismayed.”

“Almost immediately almost every word publicly uttered by Francis shocked Catholic sensibilities, such as telling the woman with several children to “stop breeding like rabbits.” Many Catholics withheld their “acceptance” and adopted a wait-and-see attitude.”

“Then the Amoris Laeticia debacle unfolded and now an even larger percentage of Catholic around the world began to express reservations about the ‘papacy’ of Francis the Merciful. There was never universal acceptance of the validity of Jorge Bergolio.”[https://abyssum.org/2019/03/23/why-do-intelligent-men-pursue-the-application-of-an-obsolete-concept-universal-acceptance-to-the-problem-of-the-invalidity-of-the-papacy-of-francis-the-merciful-in-this-day-and-age-of-instant-elec/ ] 

Francis is not “accepted universally.” But, even more important, it is obvious that besides “acceptance” a valid pope needs to be “lawfully elected.”

That’s the problem with Skojec’s and Siscoe’s selective quotes about “universal acceptance” while ignoring the “lawfully elected” parts of the quotes.

This is why Bishop Rene Gracida’s call for a cardinal investigation is important. 

Bishop Gracida is saying what Pope John Paul II’s conclave constitution says about the question of if Francis was “lawfully elected” or not: only the cardinals can investigate it and interpret it.

Siscoe, Skojec, canon lawyers or John of St. Thomas can’t interpret it, John Paul II’s constitution prescribes that cardinals interpret it.

Why are Siscoe and Skojec apparently so afraid of a investigation by cardinals since they continually ignore or avoid addressing the subject by the “universal acceptance” mantra?

I ask both to please give a specific answer to why they are apparently so afraid of a investigation.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church and for Catholics to not just bemoan heresy, but put pressure on the cardinals to act as well as for the grace for a cardinal to stand up and investigate and to be the St. Bernard of our time. 

 In fact, please offer Masses, fast and pray the rosary for these intentions during Lent and after the Lenten season.       

Steve’s total comment:

  1. Steve8:31 AM
  2. Hi Fred,

    I can’t escape the feeling that in most of the cases where people are making the claims that Benedict is still the pope, there is a serious issue with misunderstanding something that is written. 

    In the case of my comment, when I said I wasn’t claiming it as infallible, what I meant was that I was not claiming the instruction of John of St. Thomas as infallible. The reason is because you said, in your March 20th post: 

    Steve Skojec has been apparently claiming John of St. Thomas’s idea on “universal acceptance” of popes is infallible Catholic doctrine.

    My quote from John of St. Thomas was meant to help explain what Universal Acceptance consists of, because it appears that a number of people actually think that if, at some point after a pope’s election, any handful of Catholics begins to question his legitimacy, this somehow nullifies Universal Acceptance. 

    This is obviously absurd. Universal Acceptance happens at the time of election. If the cardinal electors present a man as validly elected, and there is no protest about the election, it has been accepted. Some appear to extend universal acceptance to all the bishops of the world when they receive news of an election (which would have happened much more slowly in years gone by than it does today) but nevertheless, with Francis, we had not the protest of even one bishop — including Bishop Gracida, who seems now to favor your ideas enough to reprint them. 

    You go on to quote me saying, “This is why the Church teaches that it is infallibly certain that a pope universally accepted is the pope.”

    And then you ask: Why is he saying “the Church teaches that it is infallible” then saying “I’m not claiming it as infallible”?

    I am claiming that when a pope is universally accepted, the Church offers infallible certainty about his legitimacy. This is why it is called a dogmatic fact, and it comes from more than just John of St. Thomas. St. Alphonsus talks about this when he says: 

    “It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff.” 

    Your blog is making me split this in two, so, this is 1 of 2. 
  3. Reply
  4. Replies

    1. Steve8:32 AM
    2. Now, 2 of 2: 

      The words used by theologians to explain this phenomenon is that any defect in an election is, by the power of this universal acclamation, “healed in the root.” 

      You can find further support of the idea of this infallibility — known as a “dogmatic fact” — in the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, which states: 

      The following questions involve dogmatic facts in the wider sense: Is Pius X, for instance, really and truly Roman Pontiff [1909], duly elected and recognized by the Universal Church? This is connected with dogma, for it is a dogma of faith that every pontiff duly elected and recognized by the universal Church is a successor of Peter.

      It goes on, saying that while theological dispute continues over the nature of dogmatic facts, all parties agree that that the Church is infallible in such definitions: 

      the definitions of dogmatic facts demand real internal assent; though about the nature of the assent and its relation to faith theologians are not unanimous. Some theologians hold that definitions of dogmatic facts, and especially of dogmatic facts in the wider acceptation of the term, are believed by Divine faith. For instance, the proposition, “every pope duly elected is the successor of Peter”, is formally revealed. Then, say these theologians, the proposition, “Pius X has been duly elected pope”, only shows that Pius X is included in the general revealed proposition that “every pope duly elected is the successor of Peter”. And they conclude that the proposition, “Pius X is successor to Peter”, is a formally revealed proposition; that it is believed by Divine faith; that it is a doctrine of faith, de fide; that the Church, or the pope, is infallible in defining such doctrines. Other theologians hold that the definitions of dogmatic facts, in the wider and stricter acceptation, are received, not by Divine faith, but by ecclesiastical faith, which some call mediate Divine faith. They hold that in such syllogisms as this: “Every duly elected pontiff is Peter’s successor; but Pius X, for example, is a duly elected pontiff; therefore he is a successor of Peter”, the conclusion is not formally revealed by God, but is inferred from a revealed and an unrevealed proposition, and that consequently it is believed, not by Divine, but by ecclesiastical faith. It would then also be held that it has not been formally defined de fide that the Church is infallible in the definition of dogmatic facts. It would be said technically to be theologically certain that the Church is infallible in these definitions; and this infallibility cannot lawfully be questioned. That all are bound to give internal assent to Church definitions of dogmatic facts is evident from the correlative duties of teacher and persons taught. As it belongs to the duty of supreme pastor to define the meaning of a book or proposition, correlatively it is the duty of the subjects who are taught to accept this meaning.

      You can see the original article here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05092a.htm

      So the point I was making — the point you missed — is that while I was not claiming that John of St. Thomas’s definition of Universal Acceptance was infallible, I *AM* claiming that a pope universally accepted *IS* infallibly certain. The former is the opinion of a very learned theologian with no magisterial authority; the latter is a consensus view of theologians and long understood, if not formally defined, by the Church. 
    3. I intend to continue to explore Church teaching on the matter because it would not surprise me at all if there is some formal definition that would aid us here, but that I have simply not found it yet.[http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/03/why-are-siscoe-and-skojec-apparently-so.html?m=1]

    Fred Martinez at 4:55 PM

    Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

    YES, NARCISSISTS DO LOSE IT AND FALL APART!!! BE PREPARED TO BE THE SUBJECT OF THEIR ANGER.

    Do narcissists ever lose it and fall apart? What causes a narcissist to hit rock bottom?

    Roger Carroll

    Roger CarrollAnswered Jan 17 2018

    QUORA.COM

    They seem to “lose it” and “fall apart” quite regularly. When you witness a narcissist in a rage, they have “lost it” and they are “falling apart”. A manipulation didn’t work out right. A lie wasn’t believed. They weren’t getting the attention they wanted. A “get back at” revenge backfired. They were told “no”. They wanted sympathy and didn’t get it. People “close” to a narcissist witness them “losing it” and “falling apart” on a regular basis. The people “close” to them usually take the brunt of the narcissist who is “losing it” or “falling apart”, but at the same time bear the “responsibility” of “helping” the narcissist find “it”, put “it” back together, and aid the narcissist in “getting back at” WHOEVER caused the narcissist to “lose it” or “fall apart” or “fixing” WHATEVER caused the narcissist to “lose it” or “fall apart” or “go off”.
    What causes a narcissist to “hit rock bottom”? When they have tons of their bullshit for sale, nobody is buying their bullshit, and nobody is feeling sorry for them not being able to sell their bullshit. Nobody “close” to help them “get back at” people. Nobody to “fix” what goes wrong. Nobody who cares if they “lose it”. Nobody cares if they “fall apart”. Nobody cares if they “go off”. When they find THEMSELVES in the same position they try so hard to put their victims in, ALONE, with nobody to help, and nobody who cares how they are treated. They seldom ever hit “rock bottom”, they specialize in making other people hit “rock bottom.”

    Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on YES, NARCISSISTS DO LOSE IT AND FALL APART!!! BE PREPARED TO BE THE SUBJECT OF THEIR ANGER.

    Only by repenting of false sonships can we be renewed as children of God, in the authentic Sonship of Christ.


    What Kind of Son?

    Fr. Paul D. Scalia

    SUNDAY, MARCH 31, 2019

    Lent is all about sonship, and what kind we will choose. It’s about Christ’s Sonship first, and then our being children of God through, with, and in Him. Lent reaches its final purpose and meaning at the Easter Vigil when the catechumens are baptized and the faithful renew their baptismal promises – i.e. when we become or are renewed as children of God.

    The readings reflect this. The first Sunday of Lent puts before us the Son’s temptations away from the Father. He had just heard the Father’s voice at the Jordan: “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.” Now the devil tests the Father’s words by proposing another kind of sonship – one not bestowed and willed by the Father, but based instead on his own suggestions: If you are the son of God. . .

    Our Lord triumphs by trusting in the Father, receiving what He gives, and rejecting any counterfeit sonship. As if to confirm this victory, the second Sunday of Lent gives us the Father’s voice on Mount Tabor: “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him.” The whole season, then, is about rejecting counterfeit sonship, scouring away what is not of Christ, and preparing ourselves to be reborn or renewed as children of God.

    It is in this context of sonship – both real and counterfeit – that we should hear today’s parable of the Prodigal Son. Of course, it’s really about two sons. Although very different, they have this in common: each chooses his own kind of sonship, apart from the father. Or, better, each one embodies a different way that we fall prey to the devil’s lies and craft sonship of our own.

     The younger son’s rebellion is the more infamous. He “swallowed up [the father’s] property with prostitutes,” as his brother bluntly puts it. This “life of dissipation” might strike us as his gravest sin. But, in fact, it’s just the terrible fruit, not the root, of his rebellion.

    The root sin of the prodigal is to want sonship on his terms: “Father, give me the share of your estate that should come to me.” This harsh demand reveals his desire to have all the benefits of sonship – his inheritance – but without the father. Note that he wants not only to be away from the father, but that the father not exist at all. “Father, give me the share of your estate that should come to me” means in effect, I want what comes to me when you die. . . .I can only live the sonship I want when you are gone. . . .I wish you were dead.

     The younger son is Adam grasping for the fruit, trying to have on his own terms what the Father desires to give freely – and being bitterly disappointed. This is the sickness of fallen man. We want the things of God without God. We want the goodness of creation without the Creator, the dignity He gave us without any responsibility to Him, and the eternal life He promises without His path.

    *

    The post-Christian West wants the intellectual, moral, and spiritual patrimony of Christendom – but without Christ. In the end, we, like the prodigal son, find that we cannot have one without the other. The Father’s gifts without the Father soon betray us. And we, like the prodigal, find ourselves among the pigs.

     Then there’s the older son. He too has a sonship of his own design. It’s just not as obvious. The younger son sets his own course in clear contrast to the father. The older son sets his terms for his relationship (or the lack thereof) with the father, but not so clearly. He, too, wants the things of the father without the father. Rather than being dissolute and irresponsible, however, his terms are mercantile and (he hopes) profitable.

    “Look, all these years I served [or: slaved for] you and not once did I disobey your orders.” That is the voice not of a son but of an employee or even a slave. It betrays the older son’s distorted view of sonship and poor understanding of his father. He sees himself as working, not in union with the father or for the family’s good, but only out of obligation. The older son is home alone: in the father’s house all this time but not of the father’s house.

    If the prodigal son represents those who stray and even rebel against the Church (the Father’s house) the older son represents those who, while in the Church and perhaps even laboring for the Church, function only out of a sense of duty.

    Unlike the prodigal’s dissolute living, this vice threatens those who take the faith seriously and, again unlike the prodigal, do not want to leave the Father’s house. They risk being in the Father’s house but without a sense of being His children. The danger for them is to allow the things of the Father to substitute for the Father Himself – to seek piety rather than holiness and to settle for external observance over filial obedience.

    “Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you.” Although we hear these words from the younger, both sons could speak them. Both sons lack a genuine relationship with the father. Each in his own way twists it out of shape, fashioning a sonship for himself.

    In light of this parable, it is common to try to recognize ourselves in one son or the other. But the reality is that we resemble both to some degree. At this halfway point in Lent, then, we do well to ask not if but how we act like each. When and how do I prefer the blessings of God to God Himself? And likewise: When and how do I reduce my relationship with the Father to a mere quid pro quo?

    Only by repenting of these false sonships can we be renewed as children of God, in the authentic Sonship of Christ.

    *Image: Return of the Prodigal Son by an unknown artist of the Neapolitan School, c 1630s [Dulwich Picture Gallery, South London, England]

    Share this:

    © 2019 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.orgThe Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

    Fr. Paul D. Scalia

    Fr. Paul D. Scalia

    Fr. Paul Scalia is a priest of the Diocese of Arlington, Va, where he serves as Episcopal Vicar for Clergy. His new book is That Nothing May Be Lost: Reflections on Catholic Doctrine and Devotion.

    Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Only by repenting of false sonships can we be renewed as children of God, in the authentic Sonship of Christ.

    A LENTEN MEDITATION


    The Little Number of Those Who Are Saved

    by St. Leonard of Port Maurice


    Saint Leonard of Port Maurice was a most holy Franciscan friar who lived at the monastery of Saint Bonaventure in Rome. He was one of the greatest missioners in the history of the Church. He used to preach to thousands in the open square of every city and town where the churches could not hold his listeners. So brilliant and holy was his eloquence that once when he gave a two weeks’ mission in Rome, the Pope and College of Cardinals came to hear him.

    The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament and the veneration of the Sacred Heart of Jesus were his crusades. He was in no small way responsible for the definition of the Immaculate Conception made a little more than a hundred years after his death. He also gave us the Divine Praises, which are said at the end of Benediction. But Saint Leonard’s most famous work was his devotion to the Stations of the Cross. He died a most holy death in his seventy-fifth year, after twenty-four years of uninterrupted preaching.

    One of Saint Leonard of Port Maurice’s most famous sermons was “The Little Number of Those Who Are Saved.” It was the one he relied on for the conversion of great sinners. This sermon, like his other writings, was submitted to canonical examination during the process of canonization. In it he reviews the various states of life of Christians and concludes with the little number of those who are saved, in relation to the totality of men.The reader who meditates on this remarkable text will grasp the soundness of its argumentation, which has earned it the approbation of the Church. Here is the great missionary’s vibrant and moving sermon.


    Introduction

    Thanks be to God, the number of the Redeemer’s disciples is not so small that the wickedness of the Scribes and Pharisees is able to triumph over them. Although they strove to calumniate innocence and to deceive the crowd with their treacherous sophistries by discrediting the doctrine and character of Our Lord, finding spots even in the sun, many still recognized Him as the true Messiah, and, unafraid of either chastisements or threats, openly joined His cause. 

    Did all those who followed Christ follow Him even unto glory? Oh, this is where I revere the profound mystery and silently adore the abysses of the divine decrees, rather than rashly deciding on such a great point! The subject I will be treating today is a very grave one; it has caused even the pillars of the Church to tremble, filled the greatest Saints with terror and populated the deserts with anchorites. 

    The point of this instruction is to decide whether the number of Christians who are saved is greater or less than the number of Christians who are damned; it will, I hope, produce in you a salutary fear of the judgments of God.Brothers, because of the love I have for you, I wish I were able to reassure you with the prospect of eternal happiness by saying to each of you: You are certain to go to paradise; the greater number of Christians is saved, so you also will be saved. 

    But how can I give you this sweet assurance if you revolt against God’s decrees as though you were your own worst enemies? I observe in God a sincere desire to save you, but I find in you a decided inclination to be damned. So what will I be doing today if I speak clearly? I will be displeasing to you. But if I do not speak, I will be displeasing to God.Therefore, I will divide this subject into two points.

    In the first one, to fill you with dread, I will let the theologians and Fathers of the Church decide on the matter and declare that the greater number of Christian adults are damned; and, in silent adoration of that terrible mystery, I will keep my own sentiments to myself.

    In the second point I will attempt to defend the goodness of God versus the godless, by proving to you that those who are damned are damned by their own malice, because they wanted to be damned. So then, here are two very important truths.

    If the first truth frightens you, do not hold it against me, as though I wanted to make the road of heaven narrower for you, for I want to be neutral in this matter; rather, hold it against the theologians and Fathers of the Church who will engrave this truth in your heart by the force of reason. If you are disillusioned by the second truth, give thanks to God over it, for He wants only one thing: that you give your hearts totally to Him. Finally, if you oblige me to tell you clearly what I think, I will do so for your consolation.


    The Teaching of the Fathers of the Church

    It is not vain curiosity but salutary precaution to proclaim from the height of the pulpit certain truths which serve wonderfully to contain the indolence of libertines, who are always talking about the mercy of God and about how easy it is to convert, who live plunged in all sorts of sins and are soundly sleeping on the road to hell. To disillusion them and waken them from their torpor, today let us examine this great question: Is the number of Christians who are saved greater than the number of Christians who are damned?

    Pious souls, you may leave; this sermon is not for you. Its sole purpose is to contain the pride of libertines who cast the holy fear of God out of their heart and join forces with the devil who, according to the sentiment of Eusebius, damns souls by reassuring them. To resolve this doubt, let us put the Fathers of the Church, both Greek and Latin, on one side; on the other, the most learned theologians and erudite historians; and let us put the Bible in the middle for all to see. Now listen not to what I will say to you – for I have already told you that I do not want to speak for myself or decide on the matter – but listen to what these great minds have to tell you, they who are beacons in the Church of God to give light to others so that they will not miss the road to heaven. In this manner, guided by the triple light of faith, authority and reason, we will be able to resolve this grave matter with certainty.

    Note well that there is no question here of the human race taken as a whole, nor of all Catholics taken without distinction, but only of Catholic adults, who have free choice and are thus capable of cooperating in the great matter of their salvation. First let us consult the theologians recognized as examining things most carefully and as not exaggerating in their teaching: let us listen to two learned cardinals, Cajetan and Bellarmine. They teach that the greater number of Christian adults are damned, and if I had the time to point out the reasons upon which they base themselves, you would be convinced of it yourselves. 

    But I will limit myself here to quoting Suarez. After consulting all the theologians and making a diligent study of the matter, he wrote, “The most common sentiment which is held is that, among Christians, there are more damned souls than predestined souls.”Add the authority of the Greek and Latin Fathers to that of the theologians, and you will find that almost all of them say the same thing. This is the sentiment of Saint Theodore, Saint Basil, Saint Ephrem, and Saint John Chrysostom. What is more, according to Baronius it was a common opinion among the Greek Fathers that this truth was expressly revealed to Saint Simeon Stylites and that after this revelation, it was to secure his salvation that he decided to live standing on top of a pillar for forty years, exposed to the weather, a model of penance and holiness for everyone. 

    Now let us consult the Latin Fathers. You will hear Saint Gregory saying clearly, “Many attain to faith, but few to the heavenly kingdom.” Saint Anselm declares, “There are few who are saved.” Saint Augustine states even more clearly, “Therefore, few are saved in comparison to those who are damned.” The most terrifying, however, is Saint Jerome. At the end of his life, in the presence of his disciples, he spoke these dreadful words: “Out of one hundred thousand people whose lives have always been bad, you will find barely one who is worthy of indulgence.”


    The Words of Holy Scripture

    But why seek out the opinions of the Fathers and theologians, when Holy Scripture settles the question so clearly? Look in to the Old and New Testaments, and you will find a multitude of figures, symbols and words that clearly point out this truth: very few are saved. In the time of Noah, the entire human race was submerged by the Deluge, and only eight people were saved in the Ark. Saint Peter says, “This ark was the figure of the Church,” while Saint Augustine adds, “And these eight people who were saved signify that very few Christians are saved, because there are very few who sincerely renounce the world, and those who renounce it only in words do not belong to the mystery represented by that ark.” 

    The Bible also tells us that only two Hebrews out of two million entered the Promised Land after going out of Egypt, and that only four escaped the fire of Sodom and the other burning cities that perished with it. All of this means that the number of the damned who will be cast into fire like straw is far greater than that of the saved, whom the heavenly Father will one day gather into His barns like precious wheat. 

    I would not finish if I had to point out all the figures by which Holy Scripture confirms this truth; let us content ourselves with listening to the living oracle of Incarnate Wisdom. What did Our Lord answer the curious man in the Gospel who asked Him, “Lord, is it only a few to be saved?” Did He keep silence? Did He answer haltingly? Did He conceal His thought for fear of frightening the crowd? No. Questioned by only one, He addresses all of those present. He says to them: “You ask Me if there are only few who are saved?” Here is My answer: “Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.” Who is speaking here? It is the Son of God, Eternal Truth, who on another occasion says even more clearly, “Many are called, but few are chosen.” He does not say that all are called and that out of all men, few are chosen, but that many are called; which means, as Saint Gregory explains, that out of all men, many are called to the True Faith, but out of them few are saved. Brothers, these are the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Are they clear? They are true. Tell me now if it is possible for you to have faith in your heart and not tremble.


    Salvation in the Various States of Life

    But oh, I see that by speaking in this manner of all in general, I am missing my point. So let us apply this truth to various states, and you will understand that you must either throw away reason, experience and the common sense of the faithful, or confess that the greater number of Catholics is damned. Is there any state in the world more favourable to innocence in which salvation seems easier and of which people have a higher idea than that of priests, the lieutenants of God? At first glance, who would not think that most of them are not only good but even perfect; yet I am horror-struck when I hear Saint Jerome declaring that although the world is full of priests, barely one in a hundred is living in a manner in conformity with state; when I hear a servant of God attesting that he has learned by revelation that the number of priests who fall into hell each day is so great that it seemed impossible to him that there be any left on earth; when I hear Saint Chrysostom exclaiming with tears in his eyes, “I do not believe that many priests are saved; I believe the contrary, that the number of those who are damned is greater.

    “Look higher still, and see the prelates of the Holy Church, pastors who have the charge of souls. Is the number of those who are saved among them greater than the number of those who are damned? Listen to Cantimpre; he will relate an event to you, and you may draw the conclusions. There was a synod being held in Paris, and a great number of prelates and pastors who had the charge of souls were in attendance; the king and princes also came to add luster to that assembly by their presence. A famous preacher was invited to preach. While he was preparing his sermon, a horrible demon appeared to him and said, “Lay your books aside. If you want to give a sermon that will be useful to these princes and prelates, content yourself with telling them on our part, ‘We the princes of darkness thank you, princes, prelates, and pastors of souls, that due to your negligence, the greater number of the faithful are damned; also, we are saving a reward for you for this favor, when you shall be with us in Hell.’

    “Woe to you who command others! If so many are damned by your fault, what will happen to you? If few out of those who are first in the Church of God are saved, what will happen to you? Take all states, both sexes, every condition: husbands, wives, widows, young women, young men, soldiers, merchants, craftsmen, rich and poor, noble and plebian. What are we to say about all these people who are living so badly? The following narrative from Saint Vincent Ferrer will show you what you may think about it. He relates that an archdeacon in Lyons gave up his charge and retreated into a desert place to do penance, and that he died the same day and hour as Saint Bernard. After his death, he appeared to his bishop and said to him, “Know, Monsignor, that at the very hour I passed away, thirty-three thousand people also died. Out of this number, Bernard and myself went up to heaven without delay, three went to purgatory, and all the others fell into Hell.

    “Our chronicles relate an even more dreadful happening. One of our brothers, well-known for his doctrine and holiness, was preaching in Germany. He represented the ugliness of the sin of impurity so forceful that a woman fell dead of sorrow in front of everyone. Then, coming back to life, she said, “When I was presented before the Tribunal of God, sixty thousand people arrived at the same time from all parts of the world; out of that number, three were saved by going to Purgatory, and all the rest were damned.”

    O abyss of the judgments of God! Out of thirty thousand, only five were saved! And out of sixty thousand, only three went to heaven! You sinners who are listening to me, in what category will you be numbered?… What do you say?… What do you think?…I see almost all of you lowering your heads, filled with astonishment and horror. But let us lay our stupor aside, and instead of flattering ourselves, let us try to draw some profit from our fear. Is it not true that there are two roads which lead to heaven: innocence and repentance? Now, if I show you that very few take either one of these two roads, as rational people you will conclude that very few are saved. And to mention proofs: in what age, employment or condition will you find that the number of the wicked is not a hundred times greater than that of the good, and about which one might say, “The good are so rare and the wicked are so great in number“?

    We could say of our times what Salvianus said of his: it is easier to find a countless multitude of sinners immersed in all sorts of iniquities than a few innocent men. How many servants are totally honest and faithful in their duties? How many merchants are fair and equitable in their commerce; how many craftsmen exact and truthful; how many salesmen disinterested and sincere? How many men of law do not forsake equity? How many soldiers do not tread upon innocence; how many masters do not unjustly withhold the salary of those who serve them, or do not seek to dominate their inferiors?

    Everywhere, the good are rare and the wicked great in number. Who does not know that today there is so much libertinage among mature men, liberty among young girls, vanity among women, licentiousness in the nobility, corruption in the middle class, dissolution in the people, impudence among the poor, that one could say what David said of his times: “All alike have gone astray… there is not even one who does good, not even one.”Go into street and square, into palace and house, into city and countryside, into tribunal and court of law, and even into the temple of God. Where will you find virtue? “Alas!” cries Salvianus, “except for a very little number who flee evil, what is the assembly of Christians if not a sink of vice?

    All that we can find everywhere is selfishness, ambition, gluttony, and luxury. Is not the greater portion of men defiled by the vice of impurity, and is not Saint John right in saying, “The whole world – if something so foul may be called – “is seated in wickedness?” I am not the one who is telling you; reason obliges you to believe that out of those who are living so badly, very few are saved.But you will say: Can penance not profitably repair the loss of innocence? That is true, I admit. But I also know that penance is so difficult in practice, we have lost the habit so completely, and it is so badly abused by sinners, that this alone should suffice to convince you that very few are saved by that path.

    Oh, how steep, narrow, thorny, horrible to behold and hard to climb it is! Everywhere we look, we see traces of blood and things that recall sad memories. Many weaken at the very sight of it. Many retreat at the very start. Many fall from weariness in the middle, and many give up wretchedly at the end. And how few are they who persevere in it till death! Saint Ambrose says it is easier to find men who have kept their innocence than to find any who have done fitting penance.

    If you consider the sacrament of penance, there are so many distorted confessions, so many studied excuses, so many deceitful repentances, so many false promises, so many ineffective resolutions, so many invalid absolutions! Would you regard as valid the confession of someone who accuses himself of sins of impurity and still holds to the occasion of them? Or someone who accuses himself of obvious injustices with no intention of making any reparation whatsoever for them? Or someone who falls again into the same iniquities right after going to confession? Oh, horrible abuses of such a great sacrament! One confesses to avoid excommunication, another to make a reputation as a penitent. One rids himself of his sins to calm his remorse, another conceals them out of shame. One accuses them imperfectly out of malice, another discloses them out of habit. One does not have the true end of the sacrament in mind, another is lacking the necessary sorrow, and still another firm purpose.

    Poor confessors, what efforts you make to bring the greater number of penitents to these resolutions and acts, without which confession is a sacrilege, absolution a condemnation and penance an illusion?Where are they now, those who believe that the number of the saved among Christians is greater than that of the damned and who, to authorize their opinion, reason thus: the greater portion of Catholic adults die in their beds armed with the sacraments of the Church, therefore most adult Catholics are saved? Oh, what fine reasoning! You must say exactly the opposite. Most Catholic adults confess badly at death, therefore most of them are damned.

    I say “all the more certain,” because a dying person who has not confessed well when he was in good health will have an even harder time doing so when he is in bed with a heavy heart, an unsteady head, a muddled mind; when he is opposed in many ways by still-living objects, by still-fresh occasions, by adopted habits, and above all by devils who are seeking every means to cast him into hell. Now, if you add to all these false penitents all the other sinners who die unexpectedly in sin, due to the doctors’ ignorance or by their relatives’ fault, who die from poisoning or from being buried in earthquakes, or from a stroke, or from a fall, or on the battlefield, in a fight, caught in a trap, struck by lightning, burned or drowned, are you not obliged to conclude that most Christian adults are damned?

    That is the reasoning of Saint Chrysostom. This Saint says that most Christians are walking on the road to hell throughout their life. Why, then, are you so surprised that the greater number goes to hell? To come to a door, you must take the road that leads there. What have you to answer such a powerful reason?The answer, you will tell me, is that the mercy of God is great. Yes, for those who fear Him, says the Prophet; but great is His justice for the one who does not fear Him, and it condemns all obstinate sinners.

    So you will say to me: Well then, who is Paradise for, if not for Christians? It is for Christians, of course, but for those who do not dishonor their character and who live as Christians. Moreover, if to the number of Christian adults who die in the grace of God, you add the countless host of children who die after baptism and before reaching the age of reason, you will not be surprised that Saint John the Apostle, speaking of those who are saved, says, “I saw a great multitude which no man could number.“And this is what deceives those who pretend that the number of the saved among Catholics is greater than that of the damned… If to that number, you add the adults who have kept the robe of innocence, or who after having defiled it, have washed it in the tears of penance, it is certain that the greater number is saved; and that explains the words of Saint John, “I saw a great multitude,” and these other words of Our Lord, “Many will come from the east and from the west, and will feast with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven,” and the other figures usually cited in favor of that opinion. But if you are talking about Christian adults, experience, reason, authority, propriety and Scripture all agree in proving that the greater number is damned. Do not believe that because of this, paradise is empty; on the contrary, it is a very populous kingdom. And if the damned are “as numerous as the sand in the sea,” the saved are “as numerous at the stars of heaven,” that is, both the one and the other are countless, although in very different proportions.

    One day Saint John Chrysostom, preaching in the cathedral in Constantinople and considering these proportions, could not help but shudder in horror and ask, “Out of this great number of people, how many do you think will be saved?” And, not waiting for an answer, he added, “Among so many thousands of people, we would not find a hundred who are saved, and I even doubt for the one hundred.” What a dreadful thing! The great Saint believed that out of so many people, barely one hundred would be saved; and even then, he was not sure of that number. What will happen to you who are listening to me?

    Great God, I cannot think of it without shuddering! Brothers, the problem of salvation is a very difficult thing; for according to the maxims of the theologians, when an end demands great efforts, few only attain it.That is why Saint Thomas, the Angelic Doctor, after weighing all the reasons pro and con in his immense erudition, finally concludes that the greater number of Catholic adults are damned. He says, “Because eternal beatitude surpasses the natural state, especially since it has been deprived of original grace, it is the little number that are saved.”So then, remove the blindfold from your eyes that is blinding you with self-love, that is keeping you from believing such an obvious truth by giving you very false ideas concerning the justice of God, “Just Father, the world has not known Thee,” said Our Lord Jesus Christ. He does not say “Almighty Father, most good and merciful Father.” He says “just Father,” so we may understand that out of all the attributes of God, none is less known than His justice, because men refuse to believe what they are afraid to undergo. Therefore, remove the blindfold that is covering your eyes and say tearfully: Alas!

    The greater number of Catholics, the greater number of those who live here, perhaps even those who are in this assembly, will be damned! What subject could be more deserving of your tears?King Xerxes, standing on a hill looking at his army of one hundred thousand soldiers in battle array, and considering that out of all of them there would be not one man alive in a hundred years, was unable to hold back his tears. Have we not more reason to weep upon thinking that out of so many Catholics, the greater number will be damned?

    Should this thought not make our eyes pour forth rivers of tears, or at least produce in our heart the sentiment of compassion felt by an Augustinian Brother, Ven. Marcellus of St. Dominic? One day as he was meditating on the eternal pains, the Lord showed him how many souls were going to hell at that moment and had him see a very broad road on which twenty-two thousand reprobates were running toward the abyss, colliding into one another. The servant of God was stupefied at the sight and exclaimed, “Oh, what a number! What a number! And still more are coming. O Jesus! O Jesus! What madness!” Let me repeat with Jeremiah, “Who will give water to my head, and a fountain of tears to my eyes? And I will weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people.“Poor souls! How can you run so hastily toward hell? For mercy’s sake, stop and listen to me for a moment! Either you understand what it means to be saved and to be damned for all eternity, or you do not. If you understand and in spite of that, you do not decide to change your life today, make a good confession and trample upon the world, in a word, make your every effort to be counted among the littler number of those who are saved, I say that you do not have the faith. You are more excusable if you do not understand it, for then one must say that you are out of your mind. To be saved for all eternity, to be damned for all eternity, and to not make your every effort to avoid the one and make sure of the other, is something inconceivable.


    The Goodness of God

    Perhaps you do not yet believe the terrible truths I have just taught you. But it is the most highly-considered theologians, the most illustrious Fathers who have spoken to you through me. So then, how can you resist reasons supported by so many examples and words of Scripture? If you still hesitate in spite of that, and if your mind is inclined to the opposite opinion, does that very consideration not suffice to make you tremble? Oh, it shows that you do not care very much for your salvation! In this important matter, a sensible man is struck more strongly by the slightest doubt of the risk he runs than by the evidence of total ruin in other affairs in which the soul is not involved.

    One of our brothers, Blessed Giles, was in the habit of saying that if only one man were going to be damned, he would do all he could to make sure he was not that man.So what must we do, we who know that the greater number is going to be damned, and not only out of all Catholics? What must we do? Take the resolution to belong to the little number of those who are saved. You say: If Christ wanted to damn me, then why did He create me? Silence, rash tongue! God did not create anyone to damn him; but whoever is damned, is damned because he wants to be. Therefore, I will now strive to defend the goodness of my God and acquit it of all blame: that will be the subject of the second point.

    Before going on, let us gather on one side all the books and all the heresies of Luther and Calvin, and on the other side the books and heresies of the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians, and let us burn them. Some destroy grace, others freedom, and all are filled with errors; so let us cast them into the fire. All the damned bear upon their brow the oracle of the Prophet Osee, “Thy damnation comes from thee,” so that they may understand that whoever is damned, is damned by his own malice and because he wants to be damned.First let us take these two undeniable truths as a basis: “God wants all men to be saved,” “All are in need of the grace of God.” Now, if I show you that God wants to save all men, and that for this purpose He gives all of them His grace and all the other necessary means of obtaining that sublime end, you will be obliged to agree that whoever is damned must impute it to his own malice, and that if the greater number of Christians are damned, it is because they want to be. “Thy damnation comes from thee; thy help is only in Me.”


    God Desires All Men to be Saved

    In a hundred places in Holy Scripture, God tells us that it is truly His desire to save all men. “Is it My will that a sinner should die, and not that he should be converted from his ways and live?… I live, saith the Lord God. I desire not the death of the sinner. Be converted and live.” When someone wants something very much, it is said that he is dying with desire; it is a hyperbole. But God has wanted and still wants our salvation so much that He died of desire, and He suffered death to give us life. This will to save all men is therefore not an affected, superficial and apparent will in God; it is a real, effective, and beneficial will; for He provides us with all the means most proper for us to be saved. He does not give them to us so they will not obtain it; He gives them to us with a sincere will, with the intention that they may obtain their effect. And if they do not obtain it, He shows Himself afflicted and offended over it. He commands even the damned to use them in order to be saved; He exhorts them to it; He obliges them to it; and if they do not do it, they sin. Therefore, they may do it and thus be saved.

    Far more, because God sees that we could not even make use of His grace without His help, He gives us other aids; and if they sometimes remain ineffective, it is our fault; for with these same aids, one may abuse them and be damned with them, and another may do right and be saved; he might even be saved with less powerful aids. Yes, it can happen that we abuse a greater grace and are damned, whereas another cooperates with a lesser grace and is saved.Saint Augustine exclaims, “If, therefore, someone turns aside from justice, he is carried by his free will, led by his concupiscence, deceived by his own persuasion.” But for those who do not understand theology, here is what I have to say to them: God is so good that when He sees a sinner running to his ruin, He runs after him, calls him, entreats and accompanies him even to the gates of hell; what will He not do to convert him? He sends him good inspirations and holy thoughts, and if he does not profit from them, He becomes angry and indignant, He pursues him. Will He strike him? No. He beats at the air and forgives him. But the sinner is not converted yet. God sends him a mortal illness. It is certainly all over for him. No, brothers, God heals him; the sinner becomes obstinate in evil, and God in His mercy looks for another way; He gives him another year, and when that year is over, He grants him yet another. But if the sinner still wants to cast himself into hell in spite of all that, what does God do? Does He abandon him? No. He takes him by the hand; and while he has one foot in hell and the other outside, He still preaches to him, He implored him not to abuse His graces. Now I ask you, if that man is damned, is it not true that he is damned against the Will of God and because he wants to be damned?

    Come and ask me now: If God wanted to damn me, then why did He create me?Ungrateful sinner, learn today that if you are damned, it is not God who is to blame, but you and your self-will. To persuade yourself of this, go down even to the depths of the abyss, and there I will bring you one of those wretched damned souls burning in hell, so that he may explain this truth to you. Here is one now: “Tell me, who are you?” “I am a poor idolater, born in an unknown land; I never heard of heaven or hell, nor of what I am suffering now.” “Poor wretch! Go away, you are not the one I am looking for.” Another one is coming; there he is. “Who are you?” “I am a schismatic from the ends of Tartary; I always lived in an uncivilized state, barely knowing that there is a God.” “You are not the one I want; return to hell.” Here is another. “And who are you?” “I am a poor heretic from the North. I was born under the Pole and never saw either the light of the sun or the light of faith.” “It is not you that I am looking for either, return to Hell.”

    Brothers, my heart is broken upon seeing these wretches who never even knew the True Faith among the damned. Even so, know that the sentence of condemnation was pronounced against them and they were told, “Thy damnation comes from thee.” They were damned because they wanted to be. They received so many aids from God to be saved! We do not know what they were, but they know them well, and now they cry out, “O Lord, Thou art just… and Thy judgments are equitable.”

    Brothers, you must know that the most ancient belief is the Law of God, and that we all bear it written in our hearts; that it can be learned without any teacher, and that it suffices to have the light of reason in order to know all the precepts of that Law. That is why even the barbarians hid when they committed sin, because they knew they were doing wrong; and they are damned for not having observed the natural law written in their heart: for had they observed it, God would have made a miracle rather than let them be damned; He would have sent them someone to teach them and would have given them other aids, of which they made themselves unworthy by not living in conformity with the inspirations of their own conscience, which never failed to warn them of the good they should do and the evil they should avoid. So it is their conscience that accused them at the Tribunal of God, and it tells them constantly in hell, “Thy damnation comes from thee.” They do not know what to answer and are obliged to confess that they are deserving of their fate.

    Now if these infidels have no excuse, will there be any for a Catholic who had so many sacraments, so many sermons, so many aids at his disposal? How will he dare to say, “If God was going to damn me, then why did He create me?” How will he dare to speak in this manner, when God gives him so many aids to be saved? So let us finish confounding him.You who are suffering in the abyss, answer me! Are there any Catholics among you? “There certainly are!” How many? Let one of them come here! “That is impossible, they are too far down, and to have them come up would turn all of hell upside down; it would be easier to stop one of them as he is falling in.” So then, I am speaking to you who live in the habit of mortal sin, in hatred, in the mire of the vice of impurity, and who are getting closer to hell each day. Stop, and turn around; it is Jesus who calls you and who, with His wounds, as with so many eloquent voices, cries to you, “My son, if you are damned, you have only yourself to blame: ‘

    HAT TIP: RICHARD STOKES

    Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

    A CONSERVATIVE MANIFESTO

    1. AGAINST THE DEAD CONSENSUSby Various3 . 21 . 19

    The 2016 election laid bare profound but long-hidden ideological divisions among America’s conservative intellectuals.

    Some of us heartily supported the Trumpian insurgency. Others reluctantly pulled the lever for Trump. Still others opposed his candidacy, adopted the label “Never Trump,” or even endorsed Hillary Clinton.

    Yet more than two years later, we speak with one voice: There is no returning to the pre-Trump conservative consensus that collapsed in 2016. Any attempt to revive the failed conservative consensus that preceded Trump would be misguided and harmful to the right.

    We give credit where it is due: Consensus conservatism played a heroic role in defeating Communism in the last century, by promoting prosperity at home and the expansion of a rules-based international order. At its best, the old consensus defended the natural rights of Americans and the “transcendent dignity of the human person, as the visible image of the invisible God” (Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus) against the depredations of totalitarian regimes.

    But even during the Cold War, this conservatism too often tracked the same lodestar liberalism did—namely, individual autonomy. The fetishizing of autonomy paradoxically yielded the very tyranny that consensus conservatives claim most to detest.

    America’s public philosophy now puts great stock in “the right to define one’s own concept of . . . the mystery of human life,” as Justice Anthony Kennedy, the libertarian conservative par excellence, wrote while upholding the constitutional “right” to abortion. But this vast leeway to discover the meaning of existence extends to destroying the freedom and lives of others (the unborn child’s, in the case of abortion).

    Yes, the old conservative consensus paid lip service to traditional values. But it failed to retard, much less reverse, the eclipse of permanent truths, family stability, communal solidarity, and much else. It surrendered to the pornographization of daily life, to the culture of death, to the cult of competitiveness. It too often bowed to a poisonous and censorious multiculturalism. 

    Faced with voters’ resounding “No!” to these centrifugal forces, consensus conservatives have grown only more rigid in their certainties. They have elevated prudential judgments and policies into sacred dogmas. These dogmas—free trade on every front, free movement through every boundary, small government as an end in itself, technological advancement as a cure-all—foreclose debate about the nature and purpose of our common life.

    Consensus conservatism long ago ceased to inquire into the first things. But we will not.

    We oppose the soulless society of individual affluence.

    Our society must not prioritize the needs of the childless, the healthy, and the intellectually competitive. Our policy must accommodate the messy demands of authentic human attachments: family, faith, and the political community. We welcome allies who oppose dehumanizing attempts at “liberation” such as pornography, “designer babies,” wombs for rent, and the severing of the link between sex and gender.

    We stand with the American citizen.

    In recent years, some have argued for immigration by saying that working-class Americans are less hard-working, less fertile, in some sense less worthy than potential immigrants. We oppose attempts to displace American citizens. Advancing the common good requires standing with, rather than abandoning, our countrymen. They are our fellow citizens, not interchangeable economic units. And as Americans we owe each other a distinct allegiance and must put each other first. 

    We reject attempts to compromise on human dignity.

    In 2013, the Republican National Committee released an “autopsy report” that proposed compromising on social issues in order to appeal to young voters. In fact, millennials are the most pro-life generation in America, while economic libertarianism isn’t nearly as popular as its Beltway proponents imagine. We affirm the nonnegotiable dignity of every unborn life and oppose the transhumanist project of radical self-identification.

    We resist a tyrannical liberalism.

    We seek to revive the virtues of liberality and neighborliness that many people describe as “liberalism.” But we oppose any attempt to conflate American interests with liberal ideology. When an ideological liberalism seeks to dictate our foreign policy and dominate our religious and charitable institutions, tyranny is the result, at home and abroad.

    We want a country that works for workers.

    The Republican Party has for too long held investors and “job creators” above workers and citizens, dismissing vast swaths of Americans as takers unworthy of its time. Trump’s victory, driven in part by his appeal to working-class voters, shows the potential of a political movement that heeds the cries of the working class as much as the demands of capital. Americans take more pride in their identity as workers than their identity as consumers. Economic and welfare policy should prioritize work over consumption.

    We believe home matters.

    For those who enjoy the upsides, a borderless world brings intoxicating new liberties. They can go anywhere, work anywhere. They can call themselves “citizens” of the world. But the jet-setters’ vision clashes with the human need for a common life. And it has bred resentments that are only beginning to surface. We embrace the new nationalism insofar as it stands against the utopian ideal of a borderless world that, in practice, leads to universal tyranny.

    Whatever else might be said about it, the Trump phenomenon has opened up space in which to pose these questions anew. We will guard that space jealously. And we respectfully decline to join with those who would resurrect warmed-over Reaganism and foreclose honest debate.

    Sohrab Ahmari
    New York Post

    Jeffrey Blehar

    Patrick Deneen
    University of Notre Dame

    Rod Dreher 
    The American Conservative 

    Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry
    Ethics and Public Policy Center

    Darel Paul 
    Williams College 

    C. C. Pecknold
    The Catholic University of America 

    Matthew Peterson 
    The Claremont Institute

    James Poulos
    The American Mind

    Mark Regnerus 
    University of Texas at Austin

    Matthew Schmitz
    First Things 

    Kevin E. Stuart 
    Austin Institute 

    David Upham
    University of Dallas

    Matthew Walther 
    The Week 

    Julia Yost 
    First Things

    Institutional affiliations are for identification purposes only and do not represent institutional endorsement.

    Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on A CONSERVATIVE MANIFESTO

    HOW CAN THE Catholic Church STILL EXIST WHEN THE MAJORITY OF FRENCH CITIZENS ARE MOSLEM? WILL IT BE A DUPLICATE OF THE PRESENT-DAY Catholic Church IN THE MOSLEM COUNTRIES OF THE NEAR EAST?

    THE END OF CHRISTIAN FRANCE?

    NEWS:WORLD NEWS


    by Juliana Freitag  •  ChurchMilitant.com  •  March 28, 2019    2

    Jérôme Fourquet’s new book offers stark statistics on the state of the French Church


    Catholicism is barely surviving in France. Political analyst Jérôme Fourquet, director of the opinion department of the French Institute of Public Opinion (IFOP), published a book this month called L’archipel français: naissance d’une nation multiple et divisée, presenting despairing data regarding the decline of Catholicism in France. The study, a multidimensional analysis of the factors that have deeply affected the present fragmentation of French society, sets forth such low numbers for the Catholic Church that Fourquet considers these more than just “an alarm bell,” but the official prelude of the end of Christian France, the disappearance of the “eldest daughter of the Church.” Fourquet considers these more than just ‘an alarm bell,’ but the official prelude of the end of Christian France.Tweet

    France’s detachment from Christianity is so strong that Fourquet defines this as a “post-Christian era” as “French society’s displacement from their Catholic matrix is almost total.” The recent numbers confirm a trend that has only been increasing since the French Revolution. At this point, only 4 percent of French people regularly attend Mass on Sundays (8 percent in rural zones), civil marriages make up more than 60 percent of all marriages, and if the decrease continues, France might baptize its last infant in the Catholic faith by 2048. It’s likely that by 2031, sacramental marriages will be a relic of the past. In 1950, France had 50,000 priests; today there are only 10,000, the majority of them in advanced age. A few weeks ago, the seminary of Lille, which was home to aspiring priests of all northern France, temporarily closed its doors owing to low enrollment — only 10 students for the current academic year. Fourquet’s gloomy forecast predicts that France’s very last priest could be ordained as early as 2044.   

    According to Fourquet, “There’s a process of growing dechristianization, which is leading to the ‘terminal phase’ of the Catholic religion, unless it camouflages with secular anti-Christian values, which is already happening.” French Vatican watcher Henry Ricq spoke about “the anguish of our own disappearance” in his 2018 book La grand peur des catholique, where the author affirmed he doesn’t even “recognize the Church anymore” — a Church that’s difficult to find and which many French people regard as a Church “of zombies.”  

    Fourquet also mentions the cultural shift caused by Muslim immigration (Mohammed was the most popular baby boy name in Paris suburbs in 2017, and Pew Research projections estimate that the number of Muslims in France will double by 2050, arriving to 17.4 percent of the country’s population): “For hundreds of years, the Catholic religion has structured the collective conscience of the French. Today’s society is merely a shadow of what it once was. A great change of civilization is underway.” 

    While Catholic churches are full of elderly “zombies,” “mosques are full of young people and their places of worship usually aren’t enough for their entire local communities.” In an interview about his book to French newspaper Les Echos, Fourquet explained that de-Christianization, the loss of influence of mass media, the continuous rise of mass individualism and immigration that have changed France’s demographic profile are a few of the factors that have contributed to “an unprecedented fragmentation of French society. … These are profound phenomena and it is difficult to fight against them. We haven’t found a matrix that could play a powerful cementing role.” 

    Image
    Abp. Georges Pontier


    According to the analyst, the main challenge for this new era is going to be finding a common matrix that could allow coalitions to form within French society again.  Fourquet’s book was launched at the same time as several attacks on church buildings.

    Earlier this month, the historic church of Saint-Sulpice suffered an arson attack. In February, the church of St. Nicholas reported three incidents of vandalism in 10 days, one that included the destruction of a 19th-century statue of the Virgin Mary. In the church of Notre-Dame des Enfants in Nîmes, the police found consecrated Hosts scattered in the rubbish and a drawing of a cross made with human excrement on the wall. Sacred Hosts were also stolen and spread around the Notre-Dame church in Dijon. While these all took place in the last couple of months, the profanation has been persistent for a while. In July 2018, the church of Saint-Pierre du Matroi in Orléans, for instance, was partially set on fire and “Allahu Akbar” had been spraypainted on the walls.  

    Archbishop Georges Pontier, president of the bishops’ conference of France and archbishop of Marsiglia, agreed with some of Fourquet’s points: “Civil society in France was once organized according to Christian references. This period is over. Our societies are now religiously pluralistic.”  Tweet

    But for Pontier, this doesn’t necessarily mean the end of the Church in the country: “The religious aspect is still present. The reflections of religious groups exist and they are heard in public debate.” Regarding the recent wave of church attacks, he insists that it’s limited to a few people: “There are a few individuals who’ll use any means to damage the Church, but it’s not a predominant phenomenon. We are not victims of ‘cathophobia’ [as described by conservative politician Éric Ciotti].” 

    Pontier also insists that the Catholic faith is flourishing, mentioning that his diocese baptizes hundreds of adults every year. Indeed, this seems to be the only positive trend in the French Church, which has seen a growth of 40 percent in adult baptisms in the last 10 years. 

    Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

    THE ONLY WAY TO REVOKE PRIVILEGE IS TO DESTROY IT

    LAWCOMMENTARY

    Obamas’ Chicago Fixer Tina Tchen’s Role in Smollett Case

    Michelle Malkin @michellemalkin / March 27, 2019 / 

    Obamas’ Chicago Fixer Tina Tchen’s Role in Smollett Case

    Actor Jussie Smollett after his court appearance at Leighton Courthouse, March 26, 2019, in Chicago, Illinois. (Photo: Nuccio DiNuzzo/Stringer/Getty Images)

    COMMENTARY BY

    Portrait of Michelle Malkin

    Michelle Malkin@michellemalkin

    Michelle Malkin is a columnist for The Daily Signal, senior editor at Conservative Review, a best-selling author, and Fox News contributor.

    How did hate crime huckster Jussie Smollett get away with it? All crooked roads in Chicago lead back to the Obamas.

    On Tuesday, as part of a sealed deal, the Illinois state attorney’s office dismissed 16 felony charges brought by a grand jury against the Trump-hating actor, who blamed phantom white MAGA supporters for a brutal racist “assault” that left him with a teensy-weensy scratch under his eye. 

    The day before the “attack,” Smollett’s two bodybuilding friends were caught on surveillance tape buying costumery (red hat, ski masks, bandanas, sunglasses, and gloves) that just happened to match Smollett’s descriptions of what his still-fugitive assailants were wearing.

    But I guess there’s no use crying over spilled bleach.

    The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>

    To atone for the-fakery-that-shall-not-be-named, Smollett performed 18 hours of “community service” with Jesse Jackson’s PUSH Coalition and forfeited his $10,000 bond.

    Minority liberal race-hustling has its privileges.

    And that brings us to the Democratic operatives behind the scenes. Two weeks ago, Chicago Sun-Times reporters discovered that Obama crony pal and deep-pocketed campaign finance mega-bundler Tina Tchen had inserted herself in the investigation. 

    Tchen texted Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx just three days after the incident “on behalf of Jussie Smollett and family who I know” to express “concerns.” She suggested that Foxx lean on Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson to yield to the FBI and she shared an unidentified Smollett’s family member’s cellphone number with Foxx.

    Foxx texted back that she had done as requested and that Johnson was “going to make the ask.” The unidentified relative rejoiced: “OMG this would be a huge victory.”

    Only after Foxx meddled did she recuse herself and name an underling to take over—which rendered her Kabuki recusal meaningless to veteran observers of the “Crook” County criminal justice system. So, who was the Smollett relative with all the right (or rather, left) connections? Follow the trail:

    —Tchen and Smollett’s sister, Jurnee Smollett-Bell, joined together in March 2018 at South by Southwest in Austin to proclaim that “There Is No Time’s Up Without Women Of Color.”

    —In May 2018, Tchen and Smollett-Bell took the stage together again—hand-in-hand, glued at the hip—at the United State of Women Summit in Los Angeles (where Tchen’s former boss and gal pal, Michelle Obama, also appeared).

    —Smollett-Bell and another sister, Jazz Smollett-Warwell, worked for the Obama campaigns in 2008 and 2012 and volunteered as tireless surrogates.

    —My search of White House visitor logs shows Jurnee Smollett-Bell paying at least one personal visit to “POTUS/FLOTUS” at their residence in March 2013 while Tchen was serving as a top strategist to both Obamas.

    To minimize Tchen’s role in the Obamas’ political lives as merely an “aide” is journalistic malpractice. As I have previously reported:

    —Tchen personally shoveled more than $200,000 into the 2008 Obama presidential campaign coffers while a high-powered lawyer at white-shoe Skadden Arps.

    —Tchen served as special assistant to President Barack Obama, and then took over as chief of staff in the East Wing for Michelle Obama.

    —Tchen headed up the Obama White House Office of Public Engagement, spearheaded by longtime Chicago pal and fellow corporate lawyer/bundler Valerie Jarrett.

    —Tchen coordinated Hollywood celebrities to promote Obama’s domestic policy agenda through the taxpayer-subsidized National Endowment for the Arts.

    —Tchen was listed in 2009 White House visitor logs I reviewed as having met there with radical left-wing billionaire George Soros.

    —As Breitbart’s Joel Pollak noted, Soros donated a total of $408,000 to super PACs supporting Foxx’s successful primary and general campaigns for Cook County state attorney.

    Given Jurnee Smollett-Bell’s hand-holding friendship with Tchen, Tchen’s intimacy with the Obamas, and Michelle Obama’s chumminess with Jussie Smollett (she hosted him at a musical event at the White House in 2016 and danced with him on stage at a College Signing Day Event in 2018), it is not unreasonable to wonder how much direct knowledge the Obamas themselves may have had about Tchen’s role as Smollett’s fixer.

    Tchen has made quite the career out of exploiting her Obama connections, including cushy spots on VICE’s Diversity and Inclusion Board, Uber’s #MeToo advisory board, and the Grammys’ task force for inclusion and diversity. But those plum jobs and her role in Smollett’s folly all pale in comparison to her newest gig: playing watchdog over the crumbling Southern Poverty Law Center.

    After decades of manufacturing “hate” against peaceful, law-abiding conservatives; sharia opponents; Christian activists; and immigration enforcement hawks, the junk mail order house that grifter Morris Dees built is in chaos amid long-brewing strife over internal gender and racial discrimination—not to mention a slew of outside defamation lawsuits. Fresh off assisting one celebrity hate crime huckster, Tchen will now be doing damage control for the granddaddy of all racial hoax rackets.

    Like I said: Minority liberal race-hustling has its privileges.

    I would advise Americans sick and tired of the crony state and its smear merchants to do all they can to prevent Tchen and the Obama machine from getting their grubby hands on the $PLC’s half-billion-dollar endowment. Support the real victims of hate crime conspiracies. Start with DefendGavin.com. The only way to revoke the privilege is to destroy it.

    Obamas’ Chicago Fixer Tina Tchen’s Role in Smollett Case

    Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on THE ONLY WAY TO REVOKE PRIVILEGE IS TO DESTROY IT

    HERE IS A POSSIBLE EXPLANATION WHY THE SMOLLETT CASE WAS DROPPED AND THE RECORDS CAUSED TO DISAPPEAR. CHICAGO IS CHICAGO!!

    Turns Out George Soros Provided Over 400k Reasons To Drop The Smollett Case

    Simon Daily

    March 27, 2019S

    +

    The Prosecution has dropped all charges against Jussie Smollett and it appears that George Soros could have had a hand in the decision to allow this story teller go.

    “Left-wing billionaire mega-donor George Soros donated $408,000 in 2016 to a super PAC that supported Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx, whose office prosecuted — and dropped — the Jussie Smollett case.

    In a shock announcement Tuesday, prosecutors dropped all 16 felony charges against the left-wing Hollywood actor, whom police had accused of faking a hate crime in January that he blamed on racist, homophobic white Trump supporters.

    Foxx had formally recused herself from the case in February because she had spoken with Smollett’s family. The Chicago Tribune later reported that Foxx had asked police to turn the case over to the FBI after an intervention by Tina Tchen, a former chief of staff for former First Lady Michelle Obama.

    Soros has spent heavily on backing “progressive” candidates for local prosecutorial offices across the nation, following the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement in 2014, which alleged that black defendants have been treated unfairly by the justice system.”

    Ann Coulter tweeted about Soros possible involvement.

    “Oh, I see. Kim Foxx, the Chicago prosecutor who dropped Jussie Smollett charges was put there by George Soros.”Teachers talk equity, access, and being role modelsSponsored by Connatix

    A Former Chief Prosecutor finds Prosecution Foxx’s actions to be an abuse of power.

    Law & Crime Network host Bob Bianchiwho was once the chief prosecutor in Morris County, New Jersey, questioned the decision-making of the local prosecutors.

    “I think prosecutors caved to the court of public opinion and gave the case away,” Bianchi said, calling the dismissal “a sickening abuse of prosecutorial discretion.”

    Bianchi said that remarks by the prosecutors “make no sense,” and the idea that Smollett would do service goes against how criminal cases normally work. “You can’t do community service for an offense until you’ve been convicted and sentenced,” he said.”

    There is plenty of money that could have influenced this decision. Smollett is just lucky that the prosecution was likely bought and paid for. As anyone else would have had to face the music.

    Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on HERE IS A POSSIBLE EXPLANATION WHY THE SMOLLETT CASE WAS DROPPED AND THE RECORDS CAUSED TO DISAPPEAR. CHICAGO IS CHICAGO!!