It Can No Longer Simply Be Said That The Post-conciliar “church” Is Catholic… (w/Update)


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

So today more on the Bologna School.

The background for this post is provided by a non-Catholic (formally). His name is Jordan Peterson and Dr. Peterson’s video will be used to define the proper CONTEXT for what it means to be Catholic… in the secular sense of that term.

Nota bene: And provides even more anecdotal evidence that there can only be one RELIGION and Catholicism is it!

Aside, very important discussion on the OLD PROSELYTIZATION at the 10:00 minute mark. But I digress…

The reason your humble blogger has raised this subject matter is because nobody else is doing this. Yet this is the fundamental philosophical IDEOLOGICAL school of “thought” driving TeamFrancis and Francis’ downstream decisions. To understand this, is to understand what the OBJECTIVE REALITY is within the Sacred Vatican Walls.

The reason that the Bologna School is presently being hidden under the living room rug at the Domus Sanctae Marthae homo-hostel is that it contradicts the operationally expedient  Benedict=Francis NARRATIVE(B=FN)

The B=FN in turn is needed, among others to disguise the FrancisChurch in its foray into Identity Politics. Now you might say dear reader, this is a patently transparent and superficially logically fallacy, i.e. APPEAL TO IMPROPER AUTHORITY. Well folks, it doesn’t take much these days…

And the silence in this case, is proof of just this.

Another short digression. A more practical reason Francis’ identity politics need to be disguised is that,… well,… most of the money flowing into the “contributions made pursuant to Canon 1271 of the Code of Canon Law” comes from one particular identity group. (see here and here)

To understand the funding element of what can be called “post-conciliar church USA”, that in turn funds in large part the FrancisChurch, I bring you dear reader two pieces of information.

The first is the Deus ex Machina post titled USCCB Sends MASSIVE Signal To “DavosPope” That Pro-Life Movement More Important Than FrancisChurch… In that post we posited the following:

So the Catholic Bishops in these here United States have come to the realization that they are in a catch 22 situation. They are trying to hold onto the human trafficking funding, quietly appease the homosexualists, while at the same time trying to stop the atrophying of their conservative and neo-conservative funding source.

And it is this latter source of funding that is represented by the Catholic Pro-Life Movement.

The second piece of information comes via a more recent post about… wait for it… the US Catholic Bishops and their silence about the very positive decisions made by the President of the United States with respect to saving human lives. And here we are talking about the heinous infanticide that is taking place in the US and globally, but funded to a large degree by the US governments international aid payments. And coincidentally, the funding mechanism that President Trump is taking the budget cutting ax to.

In a post titled US Bishops Silent on Trump’s Many Pro-life Measures, we learn the following:

The U.S. bishops continue to attack their president on social justice issues like immigration, health care, gun control, climate change and tax reform while turning a blind eye to his many pro-life accomplishments.

So why am I bringing this to your attention?

The reason is that what we are witnessing is a “fine” balancing of interests. On the one hand, the US Catholic Bishops are frantically trying to hold on to the massive US government subsidies that they obtain from their human trafficking activities. On the other hand, they don’t want to alienate the Pro-Life (Anti-Infanticide) movement.

And here, we see this balancing act on full display.

So given the above, we go over to FrancisChurch behind the Sacred Vatican Walls.

Back to Identity Politics. One very important reason for Francis’ foray into identity politics is that this is where the money is now.

Proof of just this comes via two other pieces of information. One pertains to the massive haul that the KIRCHENSTEUER brought in to the German “church” in 2017 for the German Bishops’ Conference. (see here) While the second piece of information is the gloveling… or maybe not, since IDEOLOGY is downstream of personal interest, that the German Bishops’ Conference Vice-President is making to the homo-lobby.

So what we are seeing is a rising German economy providing a large KIRCHENSTEUER payout  to the German Bishops’ Conference on a continuously shrinking payer base. The only unknown at present is the number of payers that the KIRCHENSTEUER funded German “c”atholic church lost in 2017. Below are the running totals up to 2016:

Year Renunciations
2010               180,000
2011               127,000
2012               116,000
2013               179,000
2014               218,000
2015               182,000
2016               162,000

(see here and here)

And the risk is obvious. Once the German economy reverts to the sick man of Europe, i.e. once the Euro currency is no more, the entire funding mechanism of not only German “c”atholic church but the entire German Bishops’ Conference’s soft power funding of revolutionary post-Modernists (cultural Marxist) movements collapses.

And in the meantime, we are watching our favorite proxy, i.e. the stock price of Deutsche Bank. (Last: 15.324, High: 18.756, Low: 9.416 – in Euros)


So now that the back-story is in place, we move onto the Bologna School.

The Bologna School is a historical school of ecclesiastical history, specializing in the history of the Second Vatican Council, and largely supportive of the so-called hermeneutic of rupture, creating a pre-Conciliar and post-Conciliar period. The leading minds of this historical school have been Alberto Melloni and Giuseppe Alberigo. (see here)

If we look at the “practical aspects” of operating under a Bologna School IDEOLOGY, one is that it allows the post-conciliar church to capture the funding from sources that would not exist if the post-conciliar church maintained continuity with the Universal Catholic Magisterium.

Therefore, if we are working from a CORRECT premise, one can then infer that the separation of the Catholic Church from the FrancisChurch is the LEAST WORST solution for FrancisChurch maintaining CONTROL over their current structure of funding.

And obviously, this control also extend to their bank accounts and the tangible assets of the INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH.

And who is creating the major problem standing in the way for this transition and  “smooth sailing” of FrancisChurch going forward?

Well, returning to our objective source, i.e. Wikipedia, why it’s these people:

Among the critics of the School have been Vatican chief historian Walter Brandmüller, Italian historian Roberto de Mattei, and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI). In contrast, they assert that the Second Vatican Council was a hermeneutic of continuity with the past.

Which crushes the B=FN.

Going forward, and given that the proper CONTEXT is provided above, who is the most prominent figure of the Bologna School movement, and the designated candidate to take over for Francis once he passes on to his JUST and Merciful “reward”?

To answer that question, we turn to Sandro Magister. Here is that information:

15 November, 2011 A Bologna School Cardinal?

From Chiesa:

The school of Bologna is getting the purple

One of its prominent representatives, Luis Antonio Tagle, will soon be made a cardinal. He was the one who wrote the key chapter in the world’s most widely read history of Vatican Council II, interpreted as a rupture and “new beginning.” But in the curia this has been kept quiet.

And here is our observation from a few weeks ago here.

See folks, the posts write themselves…

So what does this all mean?

Well, if we put the information from Dr. Peterson’s video and the FrancisChurch foray into Identity Politics, combined with an OBJECTIVE understanding of what is in fact the hermeneutic of rupture, one base assumption that can be made becomes very apparent.

And that assumption is this:

It Can No Longer Simply Be Said That The Post-conciliar church Is Catholic!

UPDATE 07:45 11 January, 2018

Oh my!

Like I said earlier, the posts write themselves:

… with this kept in mind…




The One Who Didn’t Climb The Mountain, But On The Backs Of “The Poor”…


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

And now that we have familiarized ourselves with the back-story of Bergoglio and his Team, it is only fitting to re-publish the Sandro Magister post pertaining to what is becoming known as the Kolvenbach file. (see here)

I would also like to draw your attention to a post that appeared on this blog titled El Papa Loco? This post should be read to provide added CONTEXT to the below.

I will offer two comments. It is now becoming quite clear that Francis is losing the conservative and neo-con catholics.

Lastly, notice the “hand of fate” that always helped Bergoglio advance or overcome whatever issues that he might have had with this co-religionists. I have emphasised this point. What is the case, is that Bergoglio’s populism was “instrumental”. Notice how he played off the “pueblo” against the hierarchy. But the “mystery” “power players” have never been identified. Got to wonder what “secret societies” lurk behind that hand of fate? To this day, this is the Bergoglio approach and a part of his support network.


The Bergoglio Mystery. Why the General of the Jesuits Didn’t Want Him Made Bishop

A new book about Pope Francis is on the way, one that has already been making a stir, even before its scheduled release on February 26:

> Lost Shepherd: How Pope Francis is Misleading His Flock

The title sounds decidedly critical. But not from prejudice. The author of the book, Philip Lawler, is one of the most authoritative and balanced Catholic writers in the United States. He was editor of “Catholic World Report,” the news magazine of Ignatius Press, the publishing house founded by the Jesuit Joseph Fessio, a disciple of Joseph Ratzinger. And today he directs “Catholic World News.” He was born and raised in Boston. He is married and the father of seven children.

In the initial phase of Francis’s pontificate, Lawler did not fail to appreciate its novelties. But now, as it turns out, he has come to see in him the “lost shepherd” of a flock sent out to wander.

And he has developed this critical judgment on Jorge Mario Bergogio as pope in part through a careful reexamination of Bergoglio as a Jesuit and bishop in Argentina.

Which is exactly what has been done by other biographers of the current pope, both for and against him: to reconstruct his Argentine journey, in order to obtain from this a better understanding of his activity as pope.


One striking example of this revisitation of Bergoglio’s Argentine phase is in the most recently published book about him: “The Dictator Pope,” released as an e-book in Italian and in English at the end of last autumn by an anonymous author, likely a native English speaker, who conceals himself under the pseudonym of Marcantonio Colonna.

One of the passages of “The Dictator Pope” that has raised the biggest uproar is the one in which the author lifts the veil on the judgment on Bergoglio written in 1991 by the superior general of the Society of Jesus, Peter Hans Kolvenbach (1928-2016) of the Netherlands, in the course of the secret consultations for and against the appointment of Bergoglio as auxiliary bishop of Buenos Aires.

The pseudonymous Marcantonio Colonna writes:

“The text of the report has never been made public, but the following account is given by a priest who had access to it before it disappeared from the Jesuit archive: Father Kolvenbach accused Bergoglio of a series of defects, ranging from habitual use of vulgar language to deviousness, disobedience concealed under a mask of humility, and lack of psychological balance; with a view to his suitability as a future bishop, the report pointed out that he had been a divisive figure as Provincial of his own order.”

Too little and too vague. Beyond doubt, however, is the existence of a judgment on Bergoglio that the Vatican authorities requested from Kolvenbach in view of his appointment as bishop.

Just as beyond doubt is the severe friction that existed between the ordinary Jesuit at the time and his superiors of the Society of Jesus, both in Argentina and in Rome.

Abundant, solid, and concurrent information on this friction is provided by other biographies of Bergoglio, not suspect of preconceived hostilities, because they were written by authors very close to him or were even reviewed by him in the course of their composition.

This latter is the case, in particular, with the volume “Aquel Francisco,” written by the Argentines Javier Cámara and Sebastián Pfaffen with the pope’s supervision, dedicated precisely to the years of Bergoglio’s greatest isolation within the society of Jesus.

It does not cover up the fact that Jesuits who were opposed to him went so far as to circulate the rumor that Bergoglio had been sent into exile in Córdoba “because he was sick, crazy.”

But it is completely silent on the judgment against his appointment as bishop written by Jesuit general Kolvenbach, whose name does not appear even once in the more than 300 pages of the book.

Nor is there any news of the Kolvenbach report in what is so far the most exhaustive and “friendly” biography of Bergoglio, written by Austen Ivereigh of England:

> The Great Reformer. Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope

But on the origin and context of that negative judgment of Kolvenbach, the information given by Ivereigh/Bergoglio is extensive and valuable. And it deserves to be reprised here.


Bergoglio himself referred to this friction with his Argentine confreres in the interview he granted to “La Civiltà Cattolica” and to other magazines of the Society of Jesus shortly after his election as pope:

“My authoritarian and quick manner of making decisions led me to have serious problems and to be accused of being ultraconservative. But I have never been a right-winger.”

In Argentina, in effect, the campaign against Bergoglio was led by the Jesuits of the Center for Research and Social Action, CIAS, made up “mostly,” Ivereigh notes,  of “older, academic, upper-class” progressives irritated over the success of this Jesuit “from a lower-middle-class background, and not even a doctorate in theology,” who “privileged popular religiosity while neglecting the research centers”: a type of religiosity “very close to the people, to the poor,” but in their judgment “more Peronist than modern.”

It was not enough to placate them that Bergoglio, in 1979, ended his term as provincial of the Argentine Jesuits. His leadership over a substantial portion of the Society was by no means diminished. On the contrary, Ivereigh writes, “he had more influence by the end of his time of rector than he had had as a provincial.”

But precisely for this reason his opponents became more and more antagonistic. The criticisms of the CIAS and of others made their way to Rome, to the curia generalizia of the Society of Jesus, where the assistant for Latin America, José Fernández Castañeda, was also hostile to Bergoglio, and evidently they convinced the new superior general, Kolvenbach. Who in fact, in 1986, at the time of choosing the new head of the Argentine province, appointed none other than the candidate of the CIAS, Víctor Zorzín, who immediately took as his right-hand man “one of Bergoglio’s fiercest critics,” Ignacio García-Mata, who succeeded him.

After this came a purge that Ivereigh compares with the “clash between the Peronists and anti-Peronists” of Argentina in the 1950’s, with the difference that now “the ‘gorilas’ [fanatical anti-Peronists] were in the CIAS, and the ‘pueblo’ was with Bergoglio and the others.” In short: “a cleansing, in which everything associated with the deposed regime was reversed.”

And Bergoglio? In May of that same year of 1986, in agreement with the new provincial, Zorzín, he migrated to Germany, officially for a doctorate on Romano Guardini. But in December of the same year he was already on his way back home, to the rejoicing of his still numerous followers. Who in fact succeeded in electing none other than him as procurator of the Argentine province for a summit at the curia generalizia of Rome in September of 1987.

The next year it was Kolvenbach who went to Argentina, for a meeting with the provincials of the continent. But he avoided meeting Bergoglio, in spite of the fact that he was staying very near by. Ivereigh writes: “Over the next two years, the province increasingly polarized and turned in on itself” and Bergoglio “was increasingly blamed for stirring this up.” He cites the minutes of the meetings of the provincial consultors: “In every one of them we spoke about him. It was a constant worry, what we were going to do with this man.”

In 1990 they exiled Bergoglio to Córdoba, no longer with any position, and they sent his closest confreres abroad. But soon after came the miracle. The archbishop of Buenos Aires, Antonio Quarracino, asked Rome for none other than Bergoglio as his auxiliary bishop. And he got him.

Ivereigh does not mention this. But it is here, in the secret consultations that precede the appointment of every new bishop, that Jesuit superior general Kolvenbach set down in writing his negative judgment on the appointment of Bergoglio. He was not heeded. But there is one episode immediately after the consecration of Bergoglio as bishop, in the summer of 1992, that shows how bitter the discord between the two remains.

While waiting for his new residence to be prepared, Bergoglio was accommodated at the house of the Jesuit curia of Buenos Aires, where in the meantime his archenemy García-Mata had become provincial.

Ivereigh writes:

“But it wasn’t an easy relationship. Bergoglio blamed García-Mata for defaming him in a report the provincial had written to Rome – the report was secret, but one of the consultors had informed Bergoglio – while García-Mata felt threatened by Bergoglio’s popularity among the younger Jesuits.”

The weeks went by and Bergoglio was for García-Mata an ever more “interfering” presence. Until on July 31, the feast of Saint Ignatius, the provincial hinted that he should leave. “But I’m very comfortable here,” Bergoglio answered.

Ivereigh continues:

“If he wanted him out, said Bergoglio, he should inform him formally. So García-Mata wrote to Father Kolvenbach, who backed the provincial, who left the general’s letter in Bergoglio’s room. García-Mata received a written response in return, in which Bergoglio gave the date of his departure.”

Against this background one can understand why from them on, during his many trips to Rome, Bergoglio never set foot in the curia generalizia of the Jesuits, staying instead at the clerical residence on Via della Scrofa, nor did he ever speak with Kolvenbach.

In order to be reconciled with the Society of Jesus, in short, the first Jesuit pope in history had to do nothing less than precisely that, be elected pope.

But today we know about the preceding conflict almost exclusively from his point of view, mediated by his biographer friends.

The point of view of the others, starting with the judgment of his general from a quarter of a century ago, is still to a large extent unknown to us.

(English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.)

FrancisChurch And The “Not Irrational” Case For The Destruction Of Being…


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Folks, the posts are starting to write themselves!

There is something big afoot behind the Sacred Vatican Walls and in the wider Universal Church. From my work station, I am noticing that themes that I identify as significant, are generating posts in the wider Catholic blogo-sphere.

One example. I sensed at the beginning of the year that something was afoot with Pope Benedict. Next thing I know, there is an orchestrated campaign from the heretical dissident camp trying to make the false comparison between Benedict’s personal magisterium and that of the formal heretic Francis. I started writing a post on just this, and… wham… Non Veni Pacem beats your humble blogger to the punch! (see here)

One more example, and it pertains directly to what you dear reader will be reading below.

I started doing a post about the causes that might lay behind the intentional destruction of the Institutional Church by Francis and his FrancisMinions. All of a sudden, I see TWO posts that provide direct EVIDENCE, one anecdotal and one empirical to support my HYPOTHESIS. The result was our last post titled To Be, Or Not To Be. This Is The FrancisQuestion… 

It would appear that the Catholic blogo-sphere has “caught a wave”. In other words, individual bloggers are independently identifying the same critical issues at any certain point in time and massing their collective firepower to expose these particular issues.

And it’s not just the Catholic bloggers that are in sync and on message. It would appear that the secular bloggers and you-tubers are riding the same wave and are in sync with the Catholic blogo-sphere as well. Here (Peterson and Ben Shapiro) is one excellent example which I will use in a future post. Now that’s what I call “catholic” homiletic!

So moving on to today’s subject matter, if you recall, today your humble blogger will answer the question that he posed at the end of the last post. That question went as follows:

Given that Francis knows exactly the scale and breadth of the damage and destruction that has been wrought onto the Institutional Church, especially in Latin America by the Bologna School approach, why has he been forcing them onto the Universal Church for his entire bishopric of Rome?

To answer this question, we turn to… ready for it… Dr. Jordan Peterson. The video titled How to Rise to the Top of the Dominance Hierarchy starts with a short introduction to Jean Piaget, the Swiss psychologist. Dr. Peterson explains that what drove Piaget was the reconciliation of science and religion. For those who have watched the above linked video (Peterson and Ben Shapiro) will notice this same theme arising. It starts at about the 07:30 minute mark. So what we are seeing is a META-NARRATIVE that is developing in NATURE ITSELF.

Moving on to answering our question, we will use the Jordan Peterson framework.

Our starting point will be that the common denominator for human existence is “suffering”. (see here)  The manner in which rational people, especially Catholics deal with the suffering is that they first accept it, and then they try to reduce it.

Now folks, it’s a clinical psychologist that is telling us this.

Next, the manner in which Catholic try to reduce that suffering is to “sort themselves out”. This is done in order to transcend the individual’s suffering.

But what happens if the individual has a serious behavioral disorder, such as alcoholism or one of the sexual intrinsic disorders?

Well, according to Dr. Peterson, the empirical evidence proves that the best treatment for alcoholism, and by extension the other intrinsic disorders is… wait for it… religious conversion.  (see here)

And to support this last claim, I bring you a recent post from Fr. Z.’s blog titled: The “Gay” (I hate that word) Priest Problem. 

These posts are writing themselves, I tell you…

So if the “by far most effective” treatment for alcoholism is “religious conversion”, then this must be the case for all the other intrinsic disorders.

If this is the case, and the empirical evidence strongly supports it, then for the Catholic Faithful, and especially the clergy who possess supernatural Faith, have the PERFECT solution at hand.

And that solution is ACTUAL GRACE.

Here is a good definition that works for our purposes from Catholic Answers: (see hereemphasis added)

Actual grace, by contrast, is a supernatural push or encouragement. It’s transient. It doesn’t live in the soul, but acts on the soul from the outside, so to speak. It’s a supernatural kick in the pants. It gets the will and intellect moving so we can seek out and keep sanctifying grace.

Nota bene: Notice how Faith (actual grace) and science (religious conversion most effective treatment for alcoholism) are reconciling?

So that’s the back-story, as they say.

Well, if the above is true, and it appears to be both from a dogmatic position as well as from a scientifically empirical position, how does one explain the below? (see here)

How could this be?

One explanation is that “Fr.” Martin does not ascribe to what is currently known as “biological determinism”. Or to you and me folks, OBJECTIVE REALITY.

And just to provide the scientific evidence that the intrinsic disorder known as ‘LGBTQUEER’ is in fact disordered, please go over to our post about Randy Engel and the letter she wrote to Francis, the bishop of Rome. (see HERE).

What the above also tells us is that “Fr.” Martin doesn’t ascribe to the scientifically supported position that the “most effective by far” treatment for ANY intrinsic disorder is ACTUAL GRACE.

And herein lies the answer to the question posed at the end of the last post.

Just as with the back-story, Dr. Jordan Peterson provides us with the insight as to what is in fact playing itself out in the FrancisChurch, and specifically with their “coming out” against “biological determinism”, i.e. OBJECTIVE REALITY.

In the video above titled How to Rise to the Top of the Dominance Hierarchy, starting at the 09:00 minute mark, we get the following explanation: (emphasis added)

That’s the ultimate question of nihilism. Right? Why bother solving the problem if all that’s going to happen is 20 more problems are going to come your way. Why not just give up and die?

Well, right. It’s a good question. It’s a good question, right? Is the suffering so intense that the whole game should just be brought to an end. That’s another fundamental question of existence. And people who have become truly malevolent, answer that question in the affirmative.

 They say, it is too much. We should destroy it.

Now I wouldn’t say that they are precisely doing it for humanitarian reasons but you have to understand and appreciate the logic. It’s not irrational. That’s the other thing. It’s not irrational to work for the destruction of being. IT’s not irrational. In fact, it could be the most rational thing you can come up with. It depends on your initial set of presuppositions.

So from the above, what we are seeing is that “Fr.” Martin and by extension his promoter, Francis and what is known as the Bologna School are working towards the “destruction of being”. This “being” is the Catholic Church as Our Lord founded it.

The reason why they are working for the destruction of the Catholic Church is that they are starting from false presuppositions. The reason they adopted these false presuppositions is that these folks are most likely suffering from serious intrinsic disorders, which have made them into nihilists.

The suffering must be so intense in fact, that these people have become truly malevolent. (see here)

This malevolence is driving them to also make a second false presupposition, and that presupposition is that “it’s too much” suffering. The reason why they have become malevolent in the first place is because they do not posses supernatural Faith. If they did, they would have a mechanism to “sort themselves out” and “reduce” the suffering. As per Fr. Z. post.

But since they have no supernatural Faith, they cannot access the actual grace that they desperately need, if they are to sort themselves out.

So they “give up” and “die”. First supernaturally, and then physically.

But if it was only them, the story would not be so bad.

Remember, “multi”, not “omnes”!

Because their malevolence is combined with an abnormally high degree of narcissism,  they have decided that their intrinsic disorders are not only too much for them to deal with, but for the entire Universal Church as a whole.

So what they are doing is that they are trying to “destroy ” their perceived source of suffering.

And finally, what also needs to be understood is that this “malevolence induced intent on destruction of the Universal Church as Our Lord founded it” is not irrational.

It might be the most ration thing… that these two can come up with. In their present state, that is.

And it is this aspect of FrancisChurch that the Bishops and especially the Cardinals need to understand!

Taking this diagnosis to the macro level, what we see in FrancisChurch is that Francis, in order to climb the career ladder to the Throne of St. Peter, (instead of climbing a mountain) has relied on a network of intrinsically disordered clerics, aham… Msgr. Ricca and Card. Danneels to name just two, to not only put him in power, but to maintain his grip on the Vatican apparatus.

This is the reason that we are witnessing reports of gay orgies in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith buildings, Cardinal Maradiaga keeping high maintenance rent-boys at his service, paid for by church funds and murals of gay orgies appearing in Sacred places of worship, just to name three.

What these people all have in common is that they are all nihilists. Their condition has degenerated to the point where these people have given in to their fallen human nature and have individually decided that “sorting themselves out“, for them, is just too much.

What makes their “suffering” even more toxic and extreme is that it is proximal, in that they are bound by the Catholic Catechism and the Code of Canon Law. This proximity is morphing into the aggressive defense mechanism on their part, signs of which are the brutal and vicious striking out at their enemies, whether real or imagined. 

And finally, this collective toxic and extreme individual “suffering” under the Francis bishopric of Rome’s patronage has taken a more sinister turn. This pathology, for that is what it is, is manifesting itself now in a collective effort to bring down the Universal Church, hence the brutal attacks on the Catholic Catechism, which is in fact an attack on the Universal Magisterium and ultimately on Nature and its Creator.

And it is this mechanism that we will be a witness to at the upcoming SodomSynod™ that these pathological heretics are preparing to put the Universal Church through in 2018.


To Be, Or Not To Be. This Is The FrancisQuestion…


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? (Matt 19:4)

Boy, oh boy,… boy oh boy!

Today is the Feast of the Epiphany and I already have in my possession enough material for TWO Restoration Round-up 2018 posts of 1000 words each on hand.

Just to remind, information making the cut to be included in these posts must be of SIGNIFICANTLY UNIQUE importance that moves the Overton Window. In other words, this Restoration material “moves” what is considered the “mainstream range of acceptable opinions that can be held by respectable people“.

And this above referred to move is positive. What this new information does is that it brings the debate battle to the death between Tradition and the “spirit of VII” right smack into the middle of the Overton Window.

So let’s get cracking…

To wrap this debate itself in more technical terms, this death struggle is between two “operational” interpretations of not so much what actually transpired at the Second Vatican Council, but of how it was interpreted… bah, SOLD to the pew sitters (wallets) post factum. And given the Orwellian dictum that ‘he who controls the past, controls the future, and he who controls the present controls the past’, the fight is over who controls the interpretation of the “spirit of VII” presently. This maxim also strongly supports our contention behind the significance of the last post here and specifically the book that appeared under the title of: Slaying the “Spirit” of VII” with the Light of Truth.

This battle is commonly presented in terms of two post-conciliar “operational” hermeneutics (methodology of interpretation), one of continuity and one of rupture.

The reason why both these hermeneutics are “operational” is that they serve as “vehicles” through which the Universal Magisterium will be either maintained or discarded. If the Magisterium is maintained, it remains Catholic. If the Magisterium is discarded, post-conciliar church becomes a “new religion”, i.e. a sect.

So this death match is for all the marbles!

Actually, for all the tangible assets, cash on hand and rights to future cash flows!

The reason that the hermeneutic of rupture arose was because a part of the post-conciliar progressivist cabal thought that the post-conciliar church was moving too slowly toward the “new religion”.

If not now, when?

So in order for the “hermeneutic of rupture”, something quite “alien” to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, operational vehicle to be introduced into the Catholic Overton Window, it needed first to be “legitimized”. The vehicle through which it was legitimized is through “open dialogue”. And the promotion of this  “dialogue” was then wrapped in what became known as the Bologna School.

Nota bene: Notice how little if anything is being written about the Bologna School these days?

Back to the subject at hand and taking one step back. Please recall that to a neo-Marxist, cum neo-Modernists, there are two ways in which something is legitimized. There is the Leninist/Trotskyite mechanism, i.e. overthrow of established regime (legitimization by force), or the Gramscian mechanism (legitimization by stealth), i.e. subversion through infiltrating the departments of the targeted institution. Needless to say, the Bologna School melded into the post-conciliar church through the implementation of the Gramscian approach.

The above is critical to understand before we move on.

The problem with the hermeneutic of rupture though, 50 years on, is that it is an objectively abysmal failure.

What’s more, an objective case can be made for the presupposition that it is this “rupture” element inside the post-conciliar church that is wreaking havoc in the Institutional Church and causing its disintegration.

This anecdotal evidence is now being joined by empirical evidence, which is overwhelming and it is beginning to be methodically compiled and presented to the Church at large.

So let’s go to the empirical evidence, shall we?

A post containing a new study appeared yesterday at the 1Peter5 blog. In the  post written by Jack P. Oostveen and titled The Data on the Death of Religious Orders: How Does Your Favorite Measure Up?, we are presented with information about the “health and strength”, or the lack there of, of the various religious communities.

Readers of this blog will be familiar with this material and methodology since it has been partially presented earlier on this blog. In post titled A Final Rendezvous With Destiny and With Death in April of 2015, we used this same methodology, but on a sample group of religious orders. The 1Peter5 post in turn can be considered the magnum opus of studies of the Catholic religious communities. Furthermore, it is a post that EVERY ordinary or superior general of EVERY diocese or religious community within the UNIVERSAL CHURCH should become INTIMATELY familiar with, screen-grabs of the various graphs being INDELIBLY IMPRINTED in the mind of said ordinary or superior general.

But that’s not all the new information…

As it just so happens, on the same day as the 1Peter5 post appeared, a second post appeared over on The Catholic Herald website. In a post titled How to save the English Church, we are provided with much very insightful information. What I would like to concentrate on here is one piece of significant empirical evidence that appears in this passage:

Let us put these numbers another way. In 1970, for every 10,000 Sunday Mass-goers, there were 40 priests to serve them. But by 2014, the same number had 46 priests. In fact, Catholics in 2014 had a better priests-to-practisers ratio than at any time between 1950 (and no doubt long before) and the 1990s.

What this data tells us is that the ratio of pew sitters to priests is very consistent over time, and especially over the period that interests us, i.e. the entire post-conciliar crisis period. In other words, the crisis in vocations is almost perfectly correlated with and proportional to the crisis in mass attendance.

So the inference that can be drawn form the above information is that with a steady increase in vocations, one can expect to see a proportional increase in mass attendance. And this no doubt has to do with the fact that religious families produce vocations, and the rate at which they produce vocations is roughly constant.

Therefore, if we presuppose that the above is a correct analysis of the current situation, the way forward to get the Catholic Church out of Her present crisis is similar to the one proposed by Jack P. Oostveen in his 1Peter5 post: (emphasis added)

Of those institutes whose timelines are depicted in Figure 9 (Traditionalist, aka Catholic), we can ask ourselves what they have in common, aside from the fact that they were founded at a time of liturgical and doctrinal crisis in the Church. They all, in some way, are meeting the challenges of today. Each of them is confronting the crisis through sound liturgy and doctrine, like teaching, preaching, or living their religious lives in accordance with the Deposit of Faith.

Graph here:

The author, in his conclusion section then goes on to ask the most significant question that needs to be asked by all FAITHFUL CATHOLICS, and that is this:

Considering the magnitude of the loss, one has to wonder: why is there such reluctance among so many of the prelates and Superiors of the Congregations to acknowledge the reason for which the decline began and then to respond accordingly? The ongoing decline does not only pertain to those religious congregations in severe decline; it affects the entire Church and all humanity.

In our follow-up post, we will answer this question, so stayed tuned because the answer will be quite shocking.

But for now, and concluding, what Jack P. Oostveen, the author of the analysis in  1Peter5 suggest, and the empirical study of the religious communities supports his recommendation is that the post-conciliar church needs to “confront the crisis through sound liturgy and doctrine, like teaching, preaching, or living their religious lives in accordance with the Deposit of Faith”.

As for the recommendation of the author of the post that appeared in The Catholic Herald, here is what he suggests:

The basic model is simple: lift a surplus-to-requirements church out of the normal parish system and give it to a niche group that can do something distinctive with it.

And by niche groups, Stephen Bullivant means: Institute for Christ the King (St Walburge’s and English Martyrs) and the Syro-Malabar Church and the FSSP. All three groups proclaim sound liturgy and doctrine.

Yet these above suggestions are directly opposite to those that are promoted by the Bologna School. What’s even odder is that the Bologna School knows that their “doctrinal” approach is a FAILED approach.

For this information, we go over to the MondayVatican blog from way back in early 2015. In a post titled Pope Francis: Which Peripheries?, we can read the following:

What a pity, then, that a Pew Forum survey suggests instead that this approach (Bologna School) may not be helpful. In a survey on reasons why Catholics leave to join Protestant sects, the Pew Forum established as the first three reasons the search for a personal connection with God, participation in a particular style of worship and, finally, a felt need for a greater emphasis on morality.

And where was this survey taken?

Well, right in Francis’ back yard. Latin America!

Here’s more from this post and the next paragraph:

This latter reason provides interesting data, as interesting as the data suggesting that evangelicals strongly defend family and life issues and reject gender ideology at the same time that the Catholic Church in South America shows itself to be weak on ethical issues.

Oh my!

And then this is how Andrea Gagliarducci at the MondayVatican closes this discussion:

The loss of Latin America’s faithful seems to be endemic. Pope Francis’ Argentina merited treatment as a case history in the Van Thuan Observatory’s 2012 Report on Social Teaching in the World as the country that more than any other has been subjected to the colonization of human nature carried out by international lobbies.

And this was written before Francis “came out” as one of the major “colonizers” for the “international lobbies”. Here we are talking about something along the lines of this here.

I will leave off by asking just one question. And the question is this:

Given that Francis knows exactly the scale and breadth of the damage and destruction that has been wrought onto the Institutional Church, especially in Latin America by the Bologna School approach, why has he been forcing them onto the Universal Church for his entire bishopric of Rome?

The answer will be provided in the next post, so stay tuned…

Team Francis Confirms That FrancisChurch Is Not Catholic…


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What a start to a New Year!

Folks, we haven’t reached the Feast of the Epiphany and I already have enough material for a Restoration Round-up post! But one piece of information reaches a higher level of SIGNIFICANCE. Therefore, we interrupt the Predictions 2018 thread and present this information to you, my dear and loyal readers.

And as usual, before we get into the subject matter a few words about methodology. In order for any information to make it into a Restoration Round-up post, it has to contain an element of SIGNIFICANCE. In other words, the appearance of a new TLM mass in a parish church, even if it is a first in 50 years, in Anno Domini 2018 just doesn’t make the cut these days.

What makes the cut is information that is “significantly” UNIQUE or one that MOVES the Overton Window. And one that is UNIQUE and MOVES the Overton Window simultaneous is… well… is information (DATA POINT) worth a post in and of itself.

And this is what we are dealing with today.

So, just as a friendly reminder, the Overton Window is defined as:

… a concept in political sociology referring to the range of acceptable opinions that can be held by respectable people. “Respectable” of course means that the subject can be integrated with polite society. Respectability is a strong precondition on the ability to have open influence in the mainstream.

Got it?

Getting started, we go over to Fr. Z’s blog. On this blog, the following post appeared titled: BOOK NOTES – What I’m receiving and reading about the “spirit of Vatican II”, the Devil, priests in history. (see here) In this post, Fr. Z’s readers are informed that he received information of a new book that came onto the market. The title of that new book can be seen here:

And here is what Fr. Z wrote about the title:

First, I love the title. Second, I love the fact that the title is over the name of a writer with “SJ”. Third, Bp. Paprocki. Fourth, I have an essay in it. What’s not to like?

Notice the warlike, combative optics?

But what I would like to draw your attention to, and one reason for which Fr. Z might like the title, is that… wait for it…  is that it MOVES the Overton Window. The manner in which it moves the Window is that we are a witness to a member of the Catholic clergy, and a Jesuit no less, writing a book with a title in which the “spirit of VII” is presented in a negative light.

Further, and what makes the title very, very UNIQUE is that it juxtaposes “the spirit of VII” versus “the light of Truth”.

Oh, the irony…

But that’s not all.

If we recall a post that this humble blogger wrote titled: This Is YUGE: A Faithful Priest Knocks Out Francis …which coincidentally was the most read post on the Deus ex Machina blog in 2017, we discussed what is known as FRAMING. Here is how it was presented:

Framing is the manner in which one structures an argument. It is used as a common persuasion technique since a proper framing of an argument can leave the opponent without any good “avenues of escape”.

And here is how we explained Fr. Weinendy’s FRAMING of his arguments in the post:

Fr. Weinandy offers us this gem of a passage wherein he sets out his position by incorporating the formula: clarity=truth=work of the Holy Spirit.

To teach with such a seemingly intentional lack of clarity inevitably risks sinning against the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth. The Holy Spirit is given to the Church, and particularly to yourself, to dispel error, not to foster it. 

So using the above FRAMING, what we see in the “Slaying the “Spirit” of VII” with “the Light of Truth” comparison is:

“Spirit of VII ≠ Truth 

And once again, this is a member of the clergy and a member of the Society of Jesus that has put his name under a book with a title using this FRAMING.

And the proverbial cherry on the birthday cake is this. In the book, the forward is written by a Catholic bishop who IS the reigning ordinary in a US dioceses. In other words, Bishop Paprocki is someone with real executive power.

Concluding, what we are observing is a SIGNIFICANT move of the Overton Window.  According to the Overton Window, any “respectable person” who decides to publicly hold a position that falls squarely into the “range of acceptable opinions”, is more than justified. 

After the appearance of this book, any “respectable person” CAN hold the acceptable opinion” that “the Spirit of VII” does not subsist in the Truth, i.e. is not Catholic.

And it is perfectly justifiable to hold this “mainstream” position.

To be precise, going forward, the “Spirit of VII” ≠ Truth NARRATIVE meets the “respectability” precondition, which give this NARRATIVE “the ability to have open influence in the (post-conciliar) mainstream”.

And speaking of the post-conciliar mainstream,… it gets even better.

Team Francis just sent confirmation that it holds this same position.

Confirmation of this FACT can be read below in the following Twitter exchange:

… thereby FRAMING his argumentwithout any good “avenues of escape”.

Leaving off on this note, all that is left to do is:

Let the debate begin!


PS Please hold this thought, since it appears to be highly SIGNIFICANT in the manner in which the Faithful Bishops and Cardinals responsed, or lack of, to the heretical “Joy of Sex” FrancisDocs. But more on that when enough EVIDENCE falls into the “Forced Schism” bucket . Sorry for the cryptic ending, but the bucket is only half filled right now.

Statement On “Amoris” By Bishops Of Kazakhstan


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Re-posted from LMS Chairman blog.



Statement on Amoris by Bishops of Kazakhstan

This document speaks for itself; I post it here in full.


Profession of the immutable truths
about sacramental marriage

After the publication of the Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris laetitia” (2016) various bishops issued at local, regional, and national levels applicable norms regarding the sacramental discipline of those faithful, called “divorced and remarried,” who having still a living spouse to whom they are united with a valid sacramental matrimonial bond, have nevertheless begun a stable cohabitation more uxorio with a person who is not their legitimate spouse.

The aforementioned rules provide inter alia that in individual cases the persons, called “divorced and remarried,” may receive the sacrament of Penance and Holy Communion, while continuing to live habitually and intentionally more uxorio with a person who is not their legitimate spouse. These pastoral norms have received approval from various hierarchical authorities. Some of these norms have received approval even from the supreme authority of the Church.

The spread of these ecclesiastically approved pastoral norms has caused a considerable and ever increasing confusion among the faithful and the clergy, a confusion that touches the central manifestations of the life of the Church, such as sacramental marriage with the family, the domestic church, and the sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist.

According to the doctrine of the Church, only the sacramental matrimonial bond constitutes a domestic church (see Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 11). The admission of so-called “divorced and remarried” faithful to Holy Communion, which is the highest expression of the unity of Christ the Spouse with His Church, means in practice a way of approving or legitimizing divorce, and in this meaning a kind of introduction of divorce in the life of the Church.

The mentioned pastoral norms are revealed in practice and in time as a means of spreading the “plague of divorce” (an expression used by the Second Vatican Council, see Gaudium et spes, 47). It is a matter of spreading the “plague of divorce” even in the life of the Church, when the Church, instead, because of her unconditional fidelity to the doctrine of Christ, should be a bulwark and an unmistakable sign of contradiction against the plague of divorce which is every day more rampant in civil society.

Unequivocally and without admitting any exception Our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ solemnly reaffirmed God’s will regarding the absolute prohibition of divorce. An approval or legitimation of the violation of the sacredness of the marriage bond, even indirectly through the mentioned new sacramental discipline, seriously contradicts God’s express will and His commandment. This practice therefore represents a substantial alteration of the two thousand-year-old sacramental discipline of the Church. Furthermore, a substantially altered discipline will eventually lead to an alteration in the corresponding doctrine.

The constant Magisterium of the Church, beginning with the teachings of the Apostles and of all the Supreme Pontiffs, has preserved and faithfully transmitted both in the doctrine (in theory) and in the sacramental discipline (in practice) in an unequivocal way, without any shadow of doubt and always in the same sense and in the same meaning (eodem sensu eademque sententia), the crystalline teaching of Christ concerning the indissolubility of marriage.

Because of its Divinely established nature, the discipline of the sacraments must never contradict the revealed word of God and the faith of the Church in the absolute indissolubility of a ratified and consummated marriage. “The sacraments not only presuppose faith, but by words and objects they also nourish, strengthen, and express it; that is why they are called “sacraments of faith.” (Second Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium, 59). “Even the supreme authority in the Church may not change the liturgy arbitrarily, but only in the obedience of faith and with religious respect for the mystery of the liturgy” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1125).

The Catholic faith by its nature excludes a formal contradiction between the faith professed on the one hand and the life and practice of the sacraments on the other. In this sense we can also understand the following affirmation of the Magisterium: “This split between the faith which many profess and their daily lives deserves to be counted among the more serious errors of our age.” (Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes, 43) and “Accordingly, the concrete pedagogy of the Church must always remain linked with her doctrine and never be separated from it” (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, 33).

In view of the vital importance that the doctrine and discipline of marriage and the Eucharist constitute, the Church is obliged to speak with the same voice. The pastoral norms regarding the indissolubility of marriage must not, therefore, be contradicted between one diocese and another, between one country and another. Since the time of the Apostles, the Church has observed this principle as St. Irenaeus of Lyons testifies: “The Church, though spread throughout the world to the ends of the earth, having received the faith from the Apostles and their disciples, preserves this preaching and this faith with care and, as if she inhabits a single house, believes in the same identical way, as if she had only one soul and only one heart, and preaches the truth of the faith, teaches it and transmits it in a unanimous voice, as if she had only one mouth”(Adversus haereses, I, 10, 2). Saint Thomas Aquinas transmits to us the same perennial principle of the life of the Church: “There is one and the same faith of the ancients and the moderns, otherwise there would not be one and the same Church” (Questiones Disputatae de Veritate, q. 14, a. 12c).

The following warning from Pope John Paul II remains current and valid: “The confusion, created in the conscience of many faithful by the differences of opinions and teachings in theology, in preaching, in catechesis, in spiritual direction, about serious and delicate questions of Christian morals, ends up by diminishing the true sense of sin almost to the point of eliminating it” (Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitenia, 18).

The meaning of the following statements of the Magisterium of the Church is fully applicable to the doctrine and sacramental discipline concerning the indissolubility of a ratified and consummated marriage:

  • “For the Church of Christ, watchful guardian that she is, and defender of the dogmas deposited with her, never changes anything, never diminishes anything, never adds anything to them; but with all diligence she treats the ancient doctrines faithfully and wisely, which the faith of the Fathers has transmitted. She strives to investigate and explain them in such a way that the ancient dogmas of heavenly doctrine will be made evident and clear, but will retain their full, integral, and proper nature, and will grow only within their own genus — that is, within the same dogma, in the same sense and the same meaning” (Pius IX, Dogmatic Bull Ineffabilis Deus)
  • “With regard to the very substance of truth, the Church has before God and men the sacred duty to announce it, to teach it without any attenuation, as Christ revealed it, and there is no condition of time that can reduce the rigor of this obligation. It binds in conscience every priest who is entrusted with the care of teaching, admonishing, and guiding the faithful “(Pius XII, Discourse to parish priests and Lenten preachers, March 23, 1949).
  • “The Church does not historicize, does not relativize to the metamorphoses of profane culture the nature of the Church that is always equal and faithful to itself, as Christ wanted it and authentic tradition perfected it” (Paul VI, Homily from October 28, 1965).
  • “Now it is an outstanding manifestation of charity toward souls to omit nothing from the saving doctrine of Christ” (Paul VI, Encyclical Humanae Vitae, 29).
  • “Any conjugal difficulties are resolved without ever falsifying and compromising the truth” (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, 33).
  • “The Church is in no way the author or the arbiter of this norm [of the Divine moral law]. In obedience to the truth which is Christ, whose image is reflected in the nature and dignity of the human person, the Church interprets the moral norm and proposes it to all people of good will, without concealing its demands of radicalness and perfection” (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, 33).
  • “The other principle is that of truth and consistency, whereby the church does not agree to call good evil and evil good. Basing herself on these two complementary principles, the church can only invite her children who find themselves in these painful situations to approach the divine mercy by other ways, not however through the sacraments of penance and the eucharist until such time as they have attained the required dispositions” (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34).
  • “The Church’s firmness in defending the universal and unchanging moral norms is not demeaning at all. Its only purpose is to serve man’s true freedom. Because there can be no freedom apart from or in opposition to the truth”(John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 96).
  • When it is a matter of the moral norms prohibiting intrinsic evil, there are no privileges or exceptions for anyone. It makes no difference whether one is the master of the world or the “poorest of the poor” on the face of the earth. Before the demands of morality we are all absolutely equal” (emphasis in original) (John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 96).
  • “The obligation of reiterating this impossibility of admission to the Eucharist is required for genuine pastoral care and for an authentic concern for the well-being of these faithful and of the whole Church, as it indicates the conditions necessary for the fullness of that conversion to which all are always invited by the Lord“ (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration on the admissibility to the Holy Communion of the divorced and remarried, 24 June 2000, n. 5).

    As Catholic bishops, who – according to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council – must defend the unity of faith and the common discipline of the Church, and take care that the light of the full truth should arise for all men (see Lumen Gentium, 23 ) we are forced in conscience to profess in the face of the current rampant confusion the unchanging truth and the equally immutable sacramental discipline regarding the indissolubility of marriage according to the bimillennial and unaltered teaching of the Magisterium of the Church. In this spirit we reiterate:

  • Sexual relationships between people who are not in the bond to one another of a valid marriage – which occurs in the case of the so-called “divorced and remarried” – are always contrary to God’s will and constitute a grave offense against God.
  • No circumstance or finality, not even a possible imputability or diminished guilt, can make such sexual relations a positive moral reality and pleasing to God. The same applies to the other negative precepts of the Ten Commandments of God. Since “there exist acts which, per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object” (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 17).
  • The Church does not possess the infallible charism of judging the internal state of grace of a member of the faithful (see Council of Trent, session 24, chapter 1). The non-admission to Holy Communion of the so-called “divorced and remarried” does not therefore mean a judgment on their state of grace before God, but a judgment on the visible, public, and objective character of their situation. Because of the visible nature of the sacraments and of the Church herself, the reception of the sacraments necessarily depends on the corresponding visible and objective situation of the faithful.
  • It is not morally licit to engage in sexual relations with a person who is not one’s legitimate spouse supposedly to avoid another sin. Since the Word of God teaches us, it is not lawful “to do evil so that good may come” (Romans 3, 8).
  • The admission of such persons to Holy Communion may be permitted only when they with the help of God’s grace and a patient and individual pastoral accompaniment make a sincere intention to cease from now on the habit of such sexual relations and to avoid scandal. It is in this way that true discernment and authentic pastoral accompaniment were always expressed in the Church.
  • People who have habitual non-marital sexual relations violate their indissoluble sacramental nuptial bond with their life style in relation to their legitimate spouse. For this reason they are not able to participate “in Spirit and in Truth” (see John 4, 23) at the Eucharistic wedding supper of Christ, also taking into account the words of the rite of Holy Communion: “Blessed are the guests at the wedding supper of the Lamb!” (Revelation 19, 9).
  • The fulfillment of God’s will, revealed in His Ten Commandments and in His explicit and absolute prohibition of divorce, constitutes the true spiritual good of the people here on earth and will lead them to the true joy of love in the salvation of eternal life.

Being bishops in the pastoral office those, who promote the Catholic and Apostolic faith (“cultores catholicae et apostolicae fidei”, see Missale Romanum, Canon Romanus), we are aware of this grave responsibility and our duty before the faithful who await from us a public and unequivocal profession of the truth and the immutable discipline of the Church regarding the indissolubility of marriage. For this reason we are not allowed to be silent.

We affirm therefore in the spirit of St. John the Baptist, of St. John Fisher, of St. Thomas More, of Blessed Laura Vicuña and of numerous known and unknown confessors and martyrs of the indissolubility of marriage:

It is not licit (non licet) to justify, approve, or legitimize either directly or indirectly divorce and a non-conjugal stable sexual relationship through the sacramental discipline of the admission of so-called “divorced and remarried” to Holy Communion, in this case a discipline alien to the entire Tradition of the Catholic and Apostolic faith.

By making this public profession before our conscience and before God who will judge us, we are sincerely convinced that we have provided a service of charity in truth to the Church of our day and to the Supreme Pontiff, Successor of Saint Peter and Vicar of Christ on earth .

31 December 2017, the Feast of the Holy Family, in the year of the centenary of the apparitions of Our Lady at Fatima.

+ Tomash Peta, Archbishop Metropolitan of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana

+ Jan Pawel Lenga, Archbishop-Bishop of Karaganda

+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana

Support the work of the LMS by becoming an ‘Anniversary Supporter‘.

The Council Of Econe – Fiat Justitia Ruat Caelum


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Returning to our Predictions 2018 thread and our analysis of the Francis bishopric of Rome, a very significant post appeared on the Non Veni Pacem blog. (MUST READ HERE) The post is titled: Pope Benedict adds more evidence that he doesn’t consider himself retired, nor does he think it possible.

In the opinion of this humble blogger, it is this blog that is presently doing the most important critical analysis of the period in Catholic history leading up to, encompassing and post the “abdication” of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.

To be more precise, what the Non Veni Pacem blog is trying to establish is nothing short of the OBJECTIVE REALITY of the current situation in which there are two individuals, dressed in white, both residing behind the Sacred Vatican Walls. Objectively speaking, we know that this situation is not real in that there cannot be “two popes”. As even the neo-con George Weigel observes (OBJECTIVELY TRUE STATEMENT), there is no such thing as an EMERITUS POPE. (see hereSo by simply making an  assumption such as: Pope Benedict knows what George Weigel knows, one is required to obtain a thorough understanding and explanation of the “mindset” of Pope Benedict XVI, for the period leading up, encompassing and post his “abdication”. Bah, it becomes of the utmost importance.

The importance of these events are not limited to the Catholic Church either. There are  reports of “perplexed secularists” appearing of late. (see here) The reason behind the significance of this information relates directly to the “deconstruction” of Western Civilization by the post-Modernists. It goes without saying that these “perplexed secularists” see the Catholic Church as the foundational element of Western Civilization and of Her demise as nothing short of a “return to barbarism”. (see here

In the ECCLESIASTICAL sub-set of the Visibilium Omnium, one reason illuminating the importance of Non Veni Pace’s work, i.e. pinning down our understanding of what can be called Catholic Objective Reality (COR), can be seen in the following post titled: Canon212 Update: Happy New Year From Five Bishops to Francis! In Canon212 Update, Frank Walker informs his viewers that 5 bishops have already contradicted the FrancisDoc “Joy of Sex”, i.e. corrected Francis this year. In the Letter from the Kazakhstani Bishops, we can read that the FrancisDoc is ‘alien to the Church’s entire faith and Tradition’.

Bringing into this conversation the material presented in the Deus ex Machina post from the 5th of August, 2016 titled, Ockham’s Razor Finds: Benedict Still Pope, Francis Is False Pope, Universal Church in State of Necessity since 24 April, 2005, along with the Non Veni Pacem post now, we now have more EVIDENCE of a very consistent factualhistorical and analytical framework emerging that justifies the conclusion of that post, which incidentally serves as its title.

Concluding, what all Faithful Catholics need to understand is that the Church as founded by Our Lord must be recognizable. It must be recognizable EVERYWHERE, ALWAYS and BY ALL. Here is how the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia states this requirement: (see here)

The marks of the Church are certain unmistakeable signs, or distinctive characteristics which render the Church easily recognizable to all, and clearly distinguish it from every other religious society, especially from those which claim to be Christian in doctrine and origin.

That such external signs are necessary to the true Church is plain from the aim and the purpose which Christ had in view when He made His revelation and founded a Church. The purpose of the redemption was the salvation of men. Hence, Christ made known the truths which men must heed and obey.

He established a Church to which He committed the care and the exposition of these truths, and, consequently He made it obligatory on all men that they should know and hear it (Matthew 18:17). It is obvious that this Church, which takes the place of Christ, and is to carry on His work by gathering men into its fold and saving their souls, must be evidently discernible to all. There must be no doubt as to which is the true Church of Christ, the one which has received, and has preserved intact the Revelation which He gave it for man’s salvation.

Were it otherwise the purpose of the Redemption would be frustrated, the blood of the Saviour shed in vain, and man’s eternal destination at the mercy of chance.

Without doubt, therefore, Christ, the all-wise legislator, impressed upon His Church some distinctive external marks by which, with the use of ordinary diligence, all can distinguish the real Church from the false, the society of truth from the ranks of error.

These marks flow from the very essence of the Church; they are properties inseparable from its nature and manifestive of its character, and, in their Christian and proper sense, can be found in no other institution. In the Formula of the Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381), four marks of the Church are mentioned — unity, sanctity, Catholicity, Apostolicity — which are believed by most theologians to be exclusively the marks of the True Church.

I would just add, “by all Catholic theologians” in the place of “most”.

Given the above, what is becoming clear for all observers of this bishopric of Rome, both secular and clergy is that it lacks some if not all the marks of the Catholic Church.

And it is in FACT this “conundrum” that the Non Ven Pacem and the Deus ex Machina blogs are trying to reconcile.

IF the conclusions of the Deus ex Machina blog, as supported by the Non Veni Pacem blog is correct, i.e. as outlined in point 3) of the conclusion, i.e.

The Universal Catholic Church has been put under a State of Necessity by Benedict XVI at the time of his ascension to the Throne of St. Peter, i.e.  April 24, 2005. The State of Necessity was “formalized” by Benedict’s “resignation that wasn’t”. The current state is that the Catholic Church is under Benedict’s “pontificate of exception”…

THEN the reconciliation between this period in Catholic history known as the Francis bishopric of Rome and the Catholic Church as instituted by Our Lord (and as defined by the Universal Magisterium) will be quite easy for the future Council of Econe.

All that that Council will need to do is declare the Francis bishopric of Rome as exierunt autem numquam. (Never having existed)

And this must be done by the future Council of Econe even if “fiat justitia ruat caelum!.


Predictions for 2018 – More Calls For Francis To Resign And More Evidence For “Rigged” Conclave…


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Francis and Obama in happier times.

Oh my!

2017 2018 (h/t Akita – thks) gets off to an interesting start. Coming right out of the gates, John Zmirak, the Senior Editor of The Stream suggests that Francis resign.

This comes via Breitbart who picked up this story (see here) and comes on the back of a Fox News Opinion piece by Adam Shaw from the 17th of June, 2016. (see here) And this is not to mention the various calls from Faithful Catholic circles for Francis, the bishop of Rome to take a similar course of action. (see here)

So according to the META-PROCESS identified on the Deus ex Machina blog, you dear reader are witnessing individual, independent OCCURENCES, becoming PATTERNS. These PATTERNS will turn into PROCESSES and eventually fall into the FACTS bucket.

So please read the below and consider this another of the Deus ex Machina predictions going into the new year.

Specifically, the Deus ex Machina blog predicts that we will witness more of these calls for Francis to resign from voices in the mainstream secular media. I will even go further and predict that we will see evidence of “conclave fixing” of the 2013 Conclave that elected Francis, coming out from government sources, whether through Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests or from WikiLeaks dispatches.

2018 will not be a good year for Francis or his enablers.

In the mean time, stay tuned sports fans…

Zmirak: Pope Francis Should Repent or Else Resign

In his 2018 wish list, John Zmirak, Senior Editor of The Stream and author of the new Politically Incorrect Guide to Catholicism, writes that he hopes Pope Francis “repents or else resigns” this year.

From The Stream:

Pope Francis has done more to divide Catholics than any pope in 150 years. He has clouded the Church’s teaching on marriage and sexuality. Francis has thrown out the clear, recent teaching of two of his immediate predecessors — which echoed Church practice and preaching for 2000 years. He has politicized the papacy, using its bully pulpit to further crudely crafted left-wing talking points on everything from the economy to immigration to climate science. He has marginalized and punished his critics, to the point that a new book calls him the “Dictator Pope.” Now he’s defending his handpicked lieutenant, Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga. That Honduran leftist (and anti-Semite) is accused of massive corruption that benefited him personally, to the tune of $40,000 per month. Other favorites of Pope Francis include the disgraced Belgian Cardinal Wilfrid Daneels — who was caught on tape trying to silence a sex abuse victim — and LGBT advocate Fr. James Martin, SJ.

In the best case scenario, Pope Francis will see the error of his ways, and spend the rest of his pontificate undoing the damage he’s wrought. Failing that, he should imitate the example of Pope Benedict XVI and admit that he can no longer lead the Church. He should resign, and open a political institute based in Buenos Aires. Something tells me George Soros would fund it.

Read the rest here.

Predictions for 2018 – Organic Development Of The “Future Council Of Econe” Narrative…


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Greetings in the New Year!

I am going to start this post… and year off on a self-congratulatory note. On the Feast of St. Sylvester, known to you and me as New Year’s Eve, the Deus ex Machina blog recorded its 500,000 page view. Given that this blog was launched on the 8th of November 2014 or roughly 1150 days ago (actually relaunched since first few trial posts appeared one year earlier), this means that it has averaged about 435 page views per day.

Never would have imagined… if you know what I mean.

So one New Year resolution is to keep on keeping on…

Now on to the subject at hand. Today, on New Year’s Day I will start the new year off with some predictions.

As you dear and loyal readers know, its one thing to report while it’s quite another to forecast. What separates the two is what is known as “analysis”. And what separates the good analyst from your average one is the “predictivability” (yes, it is an actual word) of the analysis.

So when you dear reader come over to this blog, what you in fact read is your humble blogger’s engaging in “predictive analytics” (Encompassing a variety of statistical techniques from predictive modelling, machine learning, and data mining that analyze current and historical facts to make predictions about future or otherwise unknown events.)

Moving on to the first of the predictions themselves…

Prediction #1

First out of the gate, I will start off with a prediction and simultaneously provide a validatory example.

Starting with the validatory example…

As my dear and loyal readers know, from time to time I allude to the “future Council of Econe”. This is an attempt to start building a NARRATIVE on the part of your humble blogger.

Now this “future Council of Econe” NARRATIVE is not like your average run of the mill, FAKE NEWS media narrative. What separates this narrative out from the rest is that it will be one that is “organically developed”. By organic development, what is meant is that it conform to the following methodology:

Organic Development: reconciliation of reason with revelation, of science with faith and of philosophy with theology, SUBJECT TO: that source of our Faith that comes from divine Revelation.

Given that the process of such organic development is quite slow, think Sacred Liturgy, what this blogger has been doing is “sowing the seeds” for this organic narrative when there appears to be fertile ground.

One example of this strategy can be seen in the below Tweet:

As you can see from the above, yours truly was “piling on” to the Massimo Faggioli tweet here:

Needless to say, “Big Beans” as he is known in some parts of the Catholic blogosphere was trying to rattle the neo-con’s and Traditionalist’s cage with that tweet.

Among the responses to Signore “Big Beans” came from none other than the Catholic affairs journalist from the “Failing” FAKE NEWS NYTimes, Mr. Ross Douthat. Here is how Mr. Douthat responded:

Aside from the comic value of the above tweet, it would not be wise to see it exclusively in that CONTEXT.

What one needs to understand from the above information is that Mr. Douthat has in fact identified the objective reality of the present situation in the Universal Church, and that objective reality is what is known as a “binary opposite”. What we are dealing with here is a situation that the respective positions of Rahner and Archbishop Lefebvre are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. Or at least in the opinion of Mr. Douthat.

No Hegelian “wiggle room” what… so… ever…

… and quite radical position for someone writing for the NY Times, if you ask me…

Drilling down a bit further into this tweet, what Mr. Douthat’s tweet encases is the non-violation of the third Law of Thought, i.e. the law of the Excluded Middle. And just as a reminder, that law states: for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true. But they both can’t be true simultaneously.

Therefore, ceteris paribus either Rahner is a “saint” or Archbishop Lefebvre is a “saint”. But they can’t both be “saints” at the same time.

Or at least not in the same “religion”.

And that is what I would call an objectively true claim (conclusion) based on a correct premise!

Or what Stefan Molyneux would call an “argument”.

Aside, at the 15:00 minute mark, Stefan explains the difference between Catholicism and the protestant sects without knowing it.

Moving on to the wider context of narrative, what we are a witness to in Mr. Douthat’s tweet can easily be described as a germination of the “future Council of Econe” narrative.

What is happening is that mainstream Catholics, and writing for the failing NYTime must put one in that category, are recognizing the inherent contradiction within the FrancisTheology™ as espoused by “Big Beans” and the Francis himself.

This “organic development” comes on the back of developments chronicled in our post titled Restoration Round-up 2017: Congregation For The Doctrine Of The Faith Goes “Lefebvrian”… (w/Updates). In that post, we chronicled how the general meeting, or the plenaria of Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith also recognized that a return to Tradition, as espoused by the followers of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre is the solution to their “problems”. Once again, the relevant passage:

To be more specific, sometime in or before May of 2016, the CDF Plenaria, and according to Bp. Fellay, the Prefect of the CDF himself, realized that “what appeared to be the problem that is us (SSPX), maybe it looks like a solution (return to Tradition)” for the CDF’s problem with Modernism.

And the reason that it is a SOLUTION is as simple as this: a return to Tradition eliminates ALL the inherent contradictions presently subsiding in post-conciliar NUChurch.

And the only way to clear up PUBLICLY and DEFINITIVELY that the Catholic Church rejects the Modernist, neo-Modernist and post-Modernist ERRORS, not to mention reaffirms the FOUR MARKS of the indefectible ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC Church, is for a Council of Econe to pronounce that it is still so!

So going forward, my first prediction is that in 2018 there will be more sightings of this “future Council of Econe” narrative from the neo-conservatives, conservatives and small “t” traditionalists within the Catholic Church.

Your humble blogger will in turn be watching out for these sightings and chronicling them as they appear.

In the next post, a rather disheartening prediction.

So get ready for it, since your have been warned.



Sometimes Prayers Never Offered Get Answered…


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Folks, what a way to end 2017.

And this on a personal note to boot.

As my dear readers know, my former parish where I served as an altar boy has been undergoing quite a conversion of late. St. Stanislas Kostka Parish in the Bucktown neighborhood is the oldest Polish parish on the Near North Side of Chicago. It is celebrating its 150th year anniversary this year.

In November, the pastor offered the first proper Catholic Mass (according to the 1962 Missale Romanum) since the destruction of Latin Liturgy in the 1960’s. In those days, the Congregation of the Resurrection which administered the parish, would by today’s standards be considered as innovators. They had the moveable Cranmer Table up in 1967 already. So its with no small amount of schadenfreude that I am watching this PROCESS of the Restoration of the Sacred Liturgy unfold.

And then this!

Below is a post that just appeared on Fr. Z’s blog. In the post, Fr. Z. reproduces a letter from the current pastor of St. Stan’s, Father Anthony Bus, C.R.

The reason that I am bringing this letter to your attention is that it is by far the best letter that I have ever come across in a church bulletin.

It’s… it’s…it’s downright Petersonian!

I am reproducing only the letter, with Fr. Z. comments and emphasis, since I don’t what the provenance to distract. The original post can be read here.



A Joyful Proclamation

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

As the Church celebrates the Feast of the Holy Family and the Solemnity of the Holy Mother of God, I joyfully proclaim to you that we will continue offering the Holy Eucharist in the manner of our ancestors, the priest and the people together raising their eyes to the East, toward the Father and from where the Lord will come at the end of time. Having celebrated the Divine Liturgy, Ad Orientem, through the seasons of Advent and Christmas, I will continue this posture of prayer as we move forward here at St. Stanislaus Kostka.

That this option for offering the Sacred Mysteries of our faith was nearly universally eclipsed in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council was unfortunate to say the least. [Do I hear an “Amen!”?] Over the years I have read innumerable commentaries on the ongoing need for the renewal and reform of the Mass. I assess, and agree with others, that a major key to authentic and enduring renewal is a simple gesture that is powerfully transforming. That the priest and people together raise their eyes Ad Orientem, inspires a shift in focus that reawakens the senses to the very essence of the Catholic Liturgy and therefore, a reawakening to the essence of our Christian identity.

We need only look to the Holy Family and the Saints who have preceded us on the journey. Their lives were characterized by a steadfast gaze on God, looking away from themselves in order to fulfill God’s will in their lives. Even Christ Jesus, when among us in the flesh, pointed beyond himself, to the Father.

With the Ancients of Old, the essence of our faith is not only a turning away from ourselves, but also a mutually shared sacrifice that is deeply life giving. Not only did Christ point us to the Father, he offered himself in atonement for our sins for the purpose of our salvation. The Blessed Virgin Mary participated deeply and intimately in the Sacrifice and down through the ages the Saints have done likewise.

In gratitude we share in Christ’s Sacrifice, and that of our ancestors, when we gather in sacred assembly – a gathering that is both communal and collective as well as private and personal. The Sacrifice is central to our adoration and worship of Almighty God, preceded and followed by our being fed in Word and Sacrament. Our turning Ad Orientem facilitates a proper response to having been fed with the Word of God as well as an appropriate preparation for the Supper of the Lamb.

The posture of the priest and the people together offering Christ and themselves in Christ, to the Father, is refreshingly counter-cultural and a healing remedy to the self-indulgence and narcissism sadly characteristic of the times in which we live. The priest, in persona Christi, is the shepherd who leads the flock and feeds the flock as together, priest and people, make the arduous journey from here to the full realization of Christ’s kingdom.

At the altar of sacrifice, the priest lays down his life and the sacred assembly does likewise. This is our mutual fiat – our “yes” spoken and offered in thanksgiving that the Lord receive us as a people in need of redemption. The Lord indeed comes to us with redeeming grace and remains with us in spite of our infidelities and failings. Together, priest and people offer themselves in Christ, to the Father, as a plea that God make all things new and keep us on the narrow, but difficult path that serves humanity even as it carries us to the homeland.

Simply put, in our time, priest and people have fallen prey to the seduction and sickness of a radically secularized society. Our turning Ad Orientem, following the ancient manner of offering the Sacred Mysteries, is a humble gesture that powerfully places all things in sacred perspective – we go to the Father in Christ and Christ comes to us that we not collapse as we strive to fulfill our mission of sacrificial love in deference to the Lord.

In the Holy Mother and Blessed Child,

Fr. Anthony Bus C.R., pastor