Liber Accusationis – ZeroHedge: Papal Push For A Utopian Totalitarian Nightmare.

Tags

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

francsi-at-unThis just came across my radar. Over at the “c”atholic website ZeroHedge, the proprietor, one Tyler Durden (nom de plume) has commentary about the Francis speech given to the Italian journalists. I have republished it below, but the original can be seen here.

The reason that I am posting this material is due to an observation that a consensus is forming among writers and bloggers whose main focus is on the ECONOMIC sector of the Visibislium Omnium, et Invisibilium, and its sub-set of monetary/fiscal policy and the financial markets in general.

The consensus that is forming is that Francis is an integral part of the Agenda 21 plan launched by the United Nations in order to create a ONE WORLD ORDER with a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT including a ONE WORLD RELIGION.

And it is exactly this issue that we addressed in the post from last Wednesday titled The Bishops Really Need To Start Speaking Out About This… (see here) In that post, we observed that numerous writers and blogger, from the secular part of God’s creation are also sounding the warning about what Francis is up to.

And what Francis is up to has nothing to do with the welfare of the Catholic Church in general nor in particular: the salvation of souls.

This above is in line with the numerous letters and petitions for clarification that have already appeared from the Catholic world addressed to Francis, the bishop of Rome. The latest and by far the most comprehensive being written by Michael Matt, Christopher Ferrara, John Vennari, and appearing simultaneously at The Remnant and Catholic Family News is the Liber Accusationis “With Burning Concern”. Messers Matt, Ferrara, Vennari have published, in three parts an Open Accusation Against Francis

Part I:

With Burning Concern: We Accuse Pope Francis: The Remnant & Catholic Family News – I of III (see here)

Part II:

With Burning Concern: We Accuse Pope Francis Part II (see here)

Part III:

With Burning Concern: We Accuse Pope Francis: The Remnant & Catholic Family News – III of III (see here)

Once again, it needs to be stressed that it is of CRITICAL IMPORTANCE AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME, for the Bishops of the HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH to start speaking up about this situation that is quickly spinning out of control.

The republication below is just more OBJECTIVE confirmation of just this FACT.

FOR THE RECORD

Pope Slams RumorMongers, Journalists As “Potential Weapons Of Mass Destruction”

Doing nothing to dispel chatter of a papal push for a utopian totalitarian nightmare, Pope Francis seemed to suggest that freedom of speech was over-rated in an address he gave this week. Media that stereotype entire populations (like ‘Deplorables’?) and journalist fear-mongers are akin to “terrorists,” according to Pope.

As the first ever Pope to address a joint session of Congress, he took some shots at the structural evils of free market capitalism and the unequal distribution of wealth. As early as 2013, when he penned his Apostolic Exhortation, in which he laid out his broad vision for the Catholic Church, Pope Francis has been clarifying his positions on these topics.

With the subsequent release of his controversial encyclical on global warming in June 2015, he established two pressing themes that monopolized his visit.

Climate change was the focus of his address to the UN General Assembly on September 25, as he kicked off the 2015 UN Summit on Sustainable Development and its seventeen-point utopian agenda for the entire planet, packaged in a thinly disguised reboot of Agenda 21. According to IPS news:


“Judging by his recent public pronouncements – including on reproductive health, biodiversity, the creation of a Palestinian state, the political legitimacy of Cuba and now climate change – Pope Francis may upstage more than 150 world leaders when he addresses the United Nations, come September… The Pope will most likely be the headline-grabber, particularly if he continues to be as outspoken as he has been so far.”

Along the way, he has managed to stun even many Catholics with pronouncements about issues that they think should be none of his business. And now, as Reuters reports, Pope Francis appears to be aiming his papal power at press freedom of speech…


Journalism based on gossip or rumors is a form of “terrorism” and media that stereotype entire populations or foment fear of migrants are acting destructively, Pope Francis said on Thursday.

Francis, who made his comments in an address to leaders of Italy‘s national journalists’ guild, said reporters had to go the extra mile to seek the truth, particularly in an age of round-the-clock news coverage.

Spreading rumors is an example of “terrorism, of how you can kill a person with your tongue”, he said. “This is even more true for journalists because their voice can reach everyone and this is a very powerful weapon.”

Francis, who has often strongly defended the rights of refugees and migrants, said journalism should not be used as a “weapon of destruction against persons and even entire peoples”.

Neither should it foment fear before events like forced migration from war or from hunger,” he added.

As was discussed previously, this is another concept taken from the “Apostolic Exhortation” handbook; some suggest it sounds like a call for a revolution.

Pope Francis undoubtedly knows that some of these ideas are not likely to go over as well in the United States as they did in Latin America. Especially as the US Election exposes the disgusting bias in mainstream media. According to the New York Times noted last year,

“As his papal jetliner was returning to Rome (from his recent visit to South America), Francis signaled that he knew his economic message was already facing criticism in the United States and pledged to study it. Some critics blame him for rebuking capitalism with an unduly broad brush. Others say he ignores that globalization has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.”

The Pope also knows, however, that the UN has strong-armed member nations to sign on to an impossible globalist agenda that will require a total shift of the world’s wealth, and a restructuring of international politics and economics with a one-world government and a universal religion at the steering wheel. Even to the Pope’s admirers, that sounds a less like peace and love and more like a utopian totalitarian nightmare.

Restoration Round-up: Good News From Naples Italy

Tags

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

eponymous-flower

Busy couple of days so today will be a re-post from the Eponymous Flower Blog. (see here)

The Institute of Christ King Sovereign Priest is starting to take over churches in Italy now.

This is important for a number of reasons, a couple mentioned in the post.

One other reason, not mentioned is the that the FrancisChurch had to shut down two historic monasteries of the Dominican Order in the last couple of years in Italy. One was in Naples. In turn, the Dominican’s in the US are experiencing a “Lefebvrist drift”. (see here)

This move by the Institute should give all food for thought, shall we say…

Enjoy the post and the weekend….

Immemorial Rite: Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest Entrusted With Parish Work in Naples

(Rome) Naples archbishop, Cardinal Crescenzio Sepe, has commissioned the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest (ICRSS) the task of celebrating the Immemorial Mass of All Ages in the diocese and to take over the pastoral care of the faithful of the old rite.

The celebration of Holy Mass will take place Sunday and Feasts at at  6 o’clock in the Church ofthe  Arciconfraternita Santa Maria del Soccorso, the Archconfraternity of Mary Help of Christians, in the district of Arenella. The church is not to be confused with the parish church, which is a few meters away.

The Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest has sent two canons, Father Louis Valadier and the new priest, Father Florian Braun to Naples to meet with the Archbishop’s request. Today, on the feast of Saint Januarius, the patron of Naples, the two priests took up their pastoral work.

With the appointment of the priests also ends the previous summer break in the celebration in the traditional rite, which was set for two months. It’s a victory, and the faithful are very relieved as the Coetus Fidelium of Naples has announced.

The new Canon was ordained in 2012 for the Institute of Christ the King. Most recently he was scholastic and choirmaster at order’s own seminary in Gricigliano in Tuscany. Canon Florian Braun is a very new priest, who was ordained last July along with another ten candidates for the Institute of Christ the King and Higher Priest.

The Church of the Confraternity was, after the publication of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum to become the home of the faithful of the Roman Rite. The church is located in its pristine state. In contrast, the high altar dating from 1607 was demolished in the nearby parish church during the post-conciliar liturgical reform.

In the city there are three more Mass locations in the traditional rite according to the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. Nowhere, unfortunately is the traditional rite allowed at a reasonable time on Sunday morning.

Text: Giuseppe Nardi
picture: Francesco De Filippo (Screenshot)

Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com

The Bishops Really Need To Start Speaking Out About This…

Tags

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

the-bishopsToday we pick up where we left off in yesterday’s post titled This Has Nothing To Do With Christian Unity… (see here).  In that post, we explained how the speech Francis gave on the 12th of September 2016, in which he identified and vilified those who he called “destroyers”, had very little if anything to do with their “actions”, whether real or imagined, as it related to the issue of “Christian Unity”.

What the vilification did have to do with, is Francis’ clandestine drive to find a new funding model for the post-Christian FrancisChurch.

What we will do today is extend examination of this FrancisProcess of finding this new FUNDING MODEL. This funding model in turn can only be implemented if Francis takes Catholicism into the ONE WORLD RELIGION. And this is exactly what Francis, the bishop of Rome has up his sleeve.

This we define as our base HYPOTHESIS.

The reason for the above inference is that the old funding model, i.e. the one instituted by the Catholic Church, one based on Our Lord’s teaching (alms giving and corporal Works of Mercy) and one that had been very effective until the Second Vatican Council, has not been working so well for the post-conciliar NUChurch. Actually, it’s a disaster.

Evidence of just this situation your humble blogger has provided in various posts starting with this one written in the early days of this blog (21 November 2014): Funding: The Transfer Window (see here). The most recent post supporting this INFERENCE has come by way of the excellent work being done in this area by Elizabeth Yore which appears on The Remnant website. Your humble blogger has re-published Mrs. Yore’s work in these two posts here and here.

Further evidence for the above FrancisChurch HYPOTHESIS was provided yesterday, referencing Sandro Magister’s blog. In that post (see here) we learn that the Vatican prelates understand the OBJECTIVE REALITY of going down the “liberal Protestant church” IDEOLOGY route. Here is the relevant text:  

(…) they (13 Cardinals) were warning him against leading the Catholic Church as well to “the collapse of liberal Protestant churches in the modern era, accelerated by their abandonment of key elements of Christian belief and practice in the name of pastoral adaptation:”

Further to the above, we have provided on this blog other information coming from the German Church that demonstrates that the liberal Protestant churches are disintegrating faster in Germany than the German Catholic Church. Here is that text from Markus Günther writing in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, one of the largest and most reputable newspapers in Germany which cause a stir at the end of 2014 when it appeared (see here):

But why are the seekers no longer finding guidance? Why are the supply and demand no longer jibing? The most popular answer to this question is: because the Church is no longer relevant to the times. She must conform more closely to the realities of the lives of modern people. Initially, that sounds plausible, but under closer scrutiny reveals itself to be idiocy. For the Evangelical church in Germany has done nearly everything which is being demanded from the Catholic Church in order to become more relevant to the times: women priests, the elimination of celibacy, liberality in moral theology, the complete acceptance of homosexuals and the divorced. If these were the real reasons for the malaise of Christendom, the Protestants should be far better off than the Catholics. But that simply isn’t the case. A second error in thinking is introduced by the popular buzzword “relevant to the times” [German: zeitgemäß, which can mean “modern,” “suitable,” or even “appropriate,” and often carries all of these shades when applied to the Church]: Wherever the Church does not base herself upon timeless, incontrovertible truth, she reveals herself to be purely man-made. Political programs should be “relevant to the times,” entertainment programming, too; but a religion must take command of absolute truths – or it is no religion at all.

So in essence, when we are dealing with Francis, or the post-conciliar NUChurch in general, what we are in reality dealing with is a POLITICAL PROGRAM. And all concerned parties, whether it’s Francis, the German Episcopate or the Catholic prelates, know that going down the “liberal Protestant church” IDEOLOGY route is a non-starter. In terms of Church finances, that is.

So this has been the evidence provided by your humble blogger so far.

Adding to the above EVIDENCE, yesterday we obtained more information confirming our above defined HYPOTHESIS. In a speech at the UNITED NATIONS, Barrack Obama gave the game away. Here is how the agit/prop shop known as The Washington Post, in the article titled At U.N., Obama offers a defense of a liberal world order under siege reported this speech: (excuse the link but… see here): (emphasis added)

President Obama, in his final speech to the United Nations Tuesday, made an impassioned plea on behalf of a liberal world order that he admitted was under growing threat from wars in the Middle East and rising nationalism at home and in Europe.

Speaking to the U.N. General Assembly for the eighth and last time as president, Obama sought to rise above the conflicts of the moment and outline a future of international cooperation, stressing the importance of the global liberal institutions formed after World War II, including the United Nations.

Even though Obama never mentioned the term “liberal world order”  the WashPo authors had no trouble identifying what in fact Obama was referring to, and their lede and text made it through the WashPo editors.

The manner in which the above post ties into Francis and NUChurch, or rather FrancisChurch, is provided for us by another secular source, this time from the sub-set of human activity that is Economics. In a post titled Moving Toward A One World Government, A One World Economy And A One World Religion (see here), from the 18th of October 2015, the author Michael Snyder writes the following in his lede:

The global elite have never been closer to their goal of a united world.  Thanks to a series of interlocking treaties and international agreements, the governance of this planet is increasingly becoming globalized and centralized, but most people don’t seem alarmed by this at all.  In the past 30 days, we have seen some of the biggest steps toward a one world government, a one world economy and a one world religion that we have ever witnessed, but these events have sparked very little public discussion or debate.  So please share this article with as many people as you can.  We need to wake people up about this before it is too late.

As to the subject that interests us here, Mr. Snyder identified the movement toward a “ONE WORLD RELIGION”.

So now the question becomes: how does this fit Francis’ TRUE (HIDDEN) AGENDA?

Here is how Mr. Snyder, writing for the secular The Economic Collapse Blog fingers Francis as the key PLAYER regarding the movement toward the “one world religion”: (emphasis are the author’s)

What Pope Francis had to say at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Manhattan has received very little coverage by the mainstream media, but it was exceedingly significant.  The following is how he began his address

I would like to express two sentiments for my Muslim brothers and sisters: Firstly, my greetings as they celebrate the feast of sacrifice. I would have wished my greeting to be warmer. My sentiments of closeness, my sentiments of closeness in the face of tragedy. The tragedy that they suffered in Mecca.

In this moment, I give assurances of my prayers. I unite myself with you all. A prayer to almighty god, all merciful.

He did not choose those words by accident.  In Islam, Allah is known as “the all-merciful one”.  If you doubt this, just do a Google search.

And this is not the first time Pope Francis has used such language.  For instance, the following comes from remarks that he made during his very first ecumenical meeting as Pope…

I then greet and cordially thank you all, dear friends belonging to other religious traditions; first of all the Muslims, who worship the one God, living and merciful, and call upon Him in prayer, and all of you. I really appreciate your presence: in it I see a tangible sign of the will to grow in mutual esteem and cooperation for the common good of humanity.

The Catholic Church is aware of the importance of promoting friendship and respect between men and women of different religious traditions – I wish to repeat this: promoting friendship and respect between men and women of different religious traditions – it also attests the valuable work that the Pontifical Council for interreligious dialogue performs.

Pope Francis clearly believes that Christians and Muslims worship the exact same God.  And so that helps to explain why he authorized “Islamic prayers and readings from the Quran” at the Vatican for the first time ever back in 2014.

Concluding, what we see  in the above text is the supporting EVIDENCE for a move toward a one world government, which includes a one world religion as one of its main components. The Economic Collapse Blog provides supporting EVIDENCE that Francis is driving this PROCESS.

Therefore, when we observe the “unusual” if not outright heretical behavior of Francis, the bishop of Rome, (see HERE and HERE) we need to view his behavior in this wider context. By limiting ourselves to the “theological ghetto” to which the neo-Modernists have consigned Catholicism, we are led to focus on ecclesiastical issues – internal Catholic or Catholic versus protestant, or Christian versus non-Christians, while missing the wider CONTEXT of that which is going on around us. So when a Francis comes along, a pontiff who has very little if any interest in doctrinal matters or the primary mission of the Catholic Church which is the salvation of souls, focusing rather on ecclesiastical matters in terms of their effect on POLITICS, the Catholic is at a loss for explanations.

Yet non-Catholics and bloggers whose main area of interest has nothing to do with the Catholic Church per se, are picking up these “anomalies” and identifying them. This work carried out by blogs such as the Economic Collapse, the Alt-Market.com and the Mises Institute to just name three, and websites like ZeroHedge that are disseminating their work, are researching, investigating and writing about this “strange” state of affairs that they are observing, which is emanating from behind the Sacred Vatican Walls.

We as Catholics in turn, would be foolish not to pay heed to that which these blogs are finding and publishing. In REALITY, what they are doing is what the Scholastics and the Thomist’s have always done, i.e. they are focusing on different sub-sets of the wider, comprehensive and exhaustive environment that is God’s creation.

What they are doing in FACT is nothing more than researching, investigating, writing and disseminating that knowledge that comes from our FIRST SOURCE of FAITH, namely: that known through “natural light of human reason from the things that are made”. (see here)

Going further, what they are explaining is what we call the 1st Principle of the LEX ARMATICUS, namely:

Those individuals and institutions that comply to the et Invisibilium, will remain a part of the Visibisium Omnium. Those that do not, will be consigned to the trash heap of history.

And it is demonstratively obvious that going down the “sterile (…) more spinster than mother” “liberal Protestant church” IDEOLOGY route, Francis is heading straight for the above identified TRASH HEAP.

Furthermore, given this confirmation from the secular world, we as Catholics, including the laity, the clerics and the hierarchy would be foolish not to take advantage of their important efforts and contributions.

From what I have observed and have chronicled, the laity, especially the Catholic bloggers, has been speaking out about this move toward a ONE WORLD RELIGION. The clerics are beginning to speak up. (see here)

But what is really now needed is for the hierarchy to start taking a stand. What the Catholic Church needs right now is for the Bishops to start speaking out about this drive toward a ONE WORLD RELIGION.

And they need to speak up “before it is too late”.

 

This Has Nothing To Do With Christian Unity…

Tags

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

francis-soros

The 14th Apostle?

Today brings news from behind enemy lines. Elizabeth Yore writing at The Remnant is doing very impressive yeoman’s work exposing what can be termed George Soros’ “kitchen cabinet” and the Vatican connection.

Another seemingly independent and unrelated OCCURANCE was observed on the 12th of September 2016, written up on the website of Vatican Radio. The story entailed Francis viciously “rebuking” the “destroyers”. As it turned out, the who, as in who Francis was “rebuking” was the “destroyers” of “Christian unity”. (see here) NB: Appropriate response from the Catholic Blogosphere here.

The connection between Francis’ “rebuking” and the Vatican’s Soros connection as it turns out was provided by one of the better Vaticanists writing today, Mr. Andrea Gagliarducci.

Starting over at the Remnant.

In today’s revelation we find out more from the DC Leaks and the cooperation between the Soros front group Open Society Foundation and the FrancisVatican or as we like to call in on this blog, the revolutionary soviet that is holed up on the 4th floor (?) of the Domus Sactae Marthae. To find the latest revelations coming out of WikiLeaks as per The Remnant, please see here.

My dear readers can find more on this subject matter and commentary at two of my favorite blogs here and here so I will not repost below.

Now over to Mr. Gagliarducci and his MondayVatican Blog.

I would like to draw your attention now to another blog that provides CONTEXT to The Remnant post. For those who are not familiar with Mr. Gagliarducci’s blog, he happens to be a vaticanist with very good and abundant sources inside the “Sacred Vatican Walls”. His blog is written in a manner where one really has to “read between the lines”. This no doubt, is due to his sources needing to be protected. Therefore, Mr.. Gagliarducci “signals” a subject (provides DATA POINTS) that is most likely the “focus of discussion” in the Vatican itself, and then bloggers like yours truly try to find corroboration in the Catholic, “c”atholic or secular press.

For a good discussion on the “signaling effect” please review the post titled Francis And The Signaling Effect (see here). But I digress…

So today we will be focusing on a post that appeared at the MondayVatican blog titled  Pope Francis and the Issues of Ideological Colonization (see here). The first passage reads as follows: (emphasis added)

Is there really a wish to water down the Church’s core issues behind slogans like social justice, care for poor, and welcome for migrants – topics that are nevertheless a very important part of the social teaching of the Church? Is there really a strategy to praise the social-pragmatic side of the Church’s teaching (love for the poor and for one’s neighbor) in order to let the Church’s teaching on the dignity of human life pass unobserved?

These questions are food for thought as international events provide further details. A series of leaks – the so called DC Leaks – revealed that the businessman, George Soros, contributed significant amounts of money from his “Open Society Foundation” in order to “switch the American Catholic Church’s priorities” from life and family issues to social justice issues.

According to DC Leaks, in April, 2015, Open Society transferred the amount of $650,000 to PICO and Faith in Public Life, two progressive organizations. The money was donated with the aim of organizing publicity campaigns to support economic and social justice, in order to create a critical mass of US bishops aligned with the Pope. The documents also reveal that the two organizations were chosen since they were involved in long-term projects aiming to change “the priorities of the US Catholic Church.”

How much they succeeded is yet to be seen. The reports show that the Catholic Church is considered by Soros just as one among other secular institutions, in step with his strategy to exploit religions – a strategy that poses as one of the biggest adversaries of faith.

When “reading between the lines” in the above text, what is important to observe that the problem is identified. That problem is MONEY.

Furthermore, “questions” are being asked as to whether Francis intends to “water down the Church’s core issues behind slogans like social justice, care for poor, and welcome for migrants”. 

The implication being that if Francis gets to “water down the Church’s core issues”, more MONEY will be forthcoming from the secular institutions.

Let’s call this our HYPOTHESIS

What Mr. Gagliarducci does further down in his post is provides the connection (EVIDENCE) between the identified problem (MONEY) and the observation of the “watering down of the Church’s core issues”.

Reading further here is what is of interest:

In the end, Europe is experiencing a fight between its Catholic and Protestant worlds. The Protestant ethic in the end is the Church’s sworn enemy, and it was the Protestant ethic that created the kind of ideological colonization about which Pope Francis is always issuing warnings.

Many of the discussions within the wealthy German Church are apparently informed by the idea that the faithful must be given their freedom so that they remain attached to the Church, and that the final aim of Church policy is apparently that of not losing the very taxpayers who endow the Church’s structures with enormous wealth. Thanks to these taxes, the German Church can undertake her charitable works. But the German Church can also exert a strong influence on the bishops’ conferences of developing countries, which depend completely on outside funding, most frequently from the German bishops.

Individual freedoms are thus imposed in the name of a faithless economic force. (…) 

The issue of gender ideology is etched at the base of the Church’s fight to stay Catholic and not to concede anything to Protestantization, while also aware of the fact that a Protestant would simply accept gender ideology in the name of everyone’s individual freedom to be whatever he wants. This freedom must be paid for: in the name of incomes, some people are willing to put their belief to one side; because of poverty, other people are obliged to do so. This is also the reason why the Church (and the Holy See) must have financial independence: so as not to depend on donations from those who use donations to ask for a change of identity.

So what Mr. Gagliarducci is doing in these four paragraphs is connecting the dots and identifying the ROOT CAUSE of the problem, namely:

  1. The “players” behind the Sacred Vatican Walls have identified that “protestantism” is being used as a proxy (substitute) issue to ram through GENDER IDEOLOGY, a construct of the Frankfurt School’s Critical Theory. (Hold that thought.)
  2. The real issue is the Kirchensteuer, or the money that flows from the German government’s collection of this Church Tax to the German Bishops’ Conference. Therefore, the real issue is identified as: Individual freedoms are thus imposed in the name of a faithless economic force.
  3. A FALSE PREMISE is being “developed” that rests on the FALSE claim that: More Protestantism (individual “freedoms”) equals More Kirchensteuer Revenue.
  4. The “players” know this to be a FALSE PREMISE, therefore do not want to concede anything to “Protestantism” a.k.a the Frankfurt School in reality.
  5. What is key is to gain “financial independence” for all parties concerned.
  6. “Protestantism” has nothing to do with obtaining “financial independence” or more precisely: financial sustainability and viability.

Notice point 5 is in essence the 2nd Principle of the LEX ARMATICUS, i.e. Even neo-Modernists need to eat.

And how do we know that the scenario defined above (Point 1) is correct?

Over at the Sandro Magister’s Blog, in a post titled A Pope Like None Before. Somewhat Protestant (see here), this post begins with the following passage:

ROME, July 22, 2016 – In the alarmed letter that thirteen cardinals from five continents were preparing to deliver to Pope Francis at the beginning of the last synod, they were warning him against leading the Catholic Church as well to “the collapse of liberal Protestant churches in the modern era, accelerated by their abandonment of key elements of Christian belief and practice in the name of pastoral adaptation:”

Therefore, the above confirms Point 1, i.e. that the Prelates behind the Sacred Vatican Walls understand that “protestantization” of the Catholic Church does not translate into the bottom line, like they say.

Francis most likely also knows this, which is why he is so “friendly” with the “monied” interests the likes of Soros, the German government via the Kirchensteuer and the United Nations with their assorted funding mechanisms, that are presently funding and could flow in the future to FrancisChurch.

Concluding, the information (DATA POINTS) that Mr. Gagliarducci is presenting to the Catholic world is that:

  • TeamFrancis is under increasing financial pressure,
  • TeamFrancis is reaching out to the secular institutions for funding,
  • TeamFrancis can’t do this directly, i.e. go to the secular institutions, since these two forces have diametrically opposite ends, i.e. the secularists represent “a strategy that poses as one of the biggest adversaries of faith“,
  • Therefore, TeamFrancis is in effect trying to “protestantize” the Catholic Church enough as to circumvent the theological “obstacles”,
  • The “players” in the Curia and Vatican are cognizant of the FALSE PREMISE that Francis is floating and see through TeamFrancis’s strategy,
  • They are providing this information to the Vaticanists to get it out into the Public Domain.

Given the above, we can see what the REAL motivation was behind Francis’ vicious “destroyer” homily on the 12th of September 2016.

And it had nothing to do with Christian unity, whatever that happens to be.

Excuses Really Are Like…

Tags

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

francis-and-obama-i

Feeling a bit under the weather (air conditioning did it again), I have not been posting with my regular frequency. Today a re-post of a Zero Hedge post, which also contains a Brandon Smith of Alt-Market blog post from a couple of years back. These two post are very timely since they capture the true nature of the present predicament in what can be termed, Western Civilization and not only the U.S. of A.

But before I republish, I would just like to remind my dear readers that the reason your humble blogger can transition with such great ease from one EPICALLY FAILED NEO-MODERNIST EXPERIMENT™, such as FrancisChurch to another EPICALLY FAILED NEO-MODERNIST EXPERIMENT™ that is the ObamaPresidency is due to our LEX ARMATICUS. And just a quick reminder, our 3rd Principle of the LEX ARMATICUS, or as we call it the Schmidberger Principle states:

3rd Principle: (The Schmidberger Principle)

Every abnormal situation inherently tends toward normalization. This is due to the nature of the matter.

And what we are seeing in the below post is what your most humble blogger has termed the NORMALIZATION PROCESS™.

Note bene: Notice the analogous situation where Francis’ problems are laid at the feet of a free media (see here), which as it so happens is the same reason given by Obama for Sick, Crooked, Unelectable Hillary’s problems in the below post.

Correlation does sometimes translate into causality.

Besides, whatever happened to the 1st Amendment freedom of speech guarantee?

Via Zero Hedge, the post titled  Obama Explains Why The Presidential Race Is Such A “Nail-Biter” is being republished…

FOR THE RECORD

 

Obama Explains Why The Presidential Race Is Such A “Nail-Biter”

The President of “the most transparent administration ever” is shocked at how close the election has become. Having seemed to be try to shame the black community into voting for Hillary (calling it a “personal insult”), CNN reports that President Obama has found another scapegoat  – blaming “misinformation” from right-wing websites for the “nail-biter.”

President Obama told African American leaders he’d take it as “personal insult” if the community doesn’t turn out in droves and vote for the Hillary Clinton in November.

As NYPost reports,

Speaking at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation gala Saturday night, Obama made an impassioned pitch to voters who may be leery of Clinton by putting his legacy as the first African American president on the ticket in November.

“I will consider it a personal insult, an insult to my legacy if this community lets down its guard and fails to activate itself in this election,” Obama said. “You want to give me a good send-off, go vote.”

Here’s why… Hillary is losing the Black vote…

zero-hedge-1

And while Clinton continues to lead among non-white voters, overall her national poll numbers are plunging… 

zero-hedge-2

But do not worry, President Obama has an excuse for that too… (via CNN)

President Obama says “misinformation” fed by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and right-wing web sites partly explains why the presidential race is such a nail-biter.

At a fundraiser in New York City, he cited political polarization and specifically called out the influence of conservative media.

“This should not be a close election, but it will be. And the reason it will be is not because of Hillary’s flaws, but rather because, structurally, we’ve become a very polarized society,” Obama said Sunday.

He continued, “If all you’re doing is watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh and reading some of the blogs that are churning out a lot of misinformation on a regular basis, then it’s very hard for you to think that you’re going to vote for somebody who you’ve been told is taking the country in the wrong direction.”

“And so, structurally, we already have these divisions and it’s going to be hard to overcome those,” Obama said.

For the men and women who paid tens of thousands of dollars to attend the fundraiser, the implication was clear: We need your checks to help counter the conservative media narrative.

*  *  *

So… to summarize – it’s the right-wing “crazies” that have polarized this nation; not policy that created welfare cliffs, sent black income inequality to record highs, enabled a record number of Americans on food stamps, continued to enact crony capitalism at every chance, extended the socialist state – further dividing the ‘payers’ from the ‘receovers’, and crushed US productivity?

“If you like your black president, you can keep him… by voting for Hillary and ignoring all that truthiness from the ‘other side'”

While writing this brief update on Obama’s somewhat separate from reality pereception, were were reminded of a post from over two years ago that seems even more relevant as we near the election… via Brandon Smith of Alt-Market blog,

Is The Cloward-Piven Strategy Being Used To Destroy America?

In the mid-sixties at the height of the “social revolution” the line between democratic benevolence and outright communism became rather blurry. The Democratic Party, which controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress, was used as the springboard by social engineers to introduce a new era of welfare initiatives enacted in the name of “defending the poor”, also known as the “Great Society Programs”. These initiatives, however, were driven by far more subversive and extreme motivations, and have been expanded on by every presidency since, Republican and Democrat alike.

At Columbia University, sociologist professors Richard Cloward and Francis Fox Piven introduced a political strategy in 1966 in an article entitled ‘The Weight Of The Poor: A Strategy To End Poverty’. This article outlined a plan that they believed would eventually lead to the total transmutation of America into a full-fledged centralized welfare state (in other words, a collectivist enclave). The spearpoint of the Cloward-Piven strategy involved nothing less than economic sabotage against the U.S.

Theoretically, according to the doctrine, a condition of overwhelming tension and strain could be engineered through the overloading of American welfare rolls, thereby smothering the entitlement program structure at the state and local level. The implosion of welfare benefits would facilitate a massive spike in poverty and desperation, creating a financial crisis that would lead to an even greater cycle of demand for a fully socialized system. This desperation would then “force” the federal government to concentrate all welfare programs under one roof, nationalize and enforce a socialist ideology, and ultimately, compact an immense level of power into the hands of a select few.

Cloward and Piven claimed that this could be accomplished at a grassroots level through community activism, and, that it would facilitate a more compassionate federal authority, however, there are numerous problems with these assertions.

The Cloward-Piven Strategy has nothing to do with grassroots activism, and accomplishes nothing tangible for the downtrodden poverty class. In fact, I would dare to say that Cloward and Piven as well as most social engineers are well aware that the concept ultimately only serves to give even more dominance to the establishment and pilfer even more freedom from the masses.

Cloward-Piven is not limited to the destabilization of state and local welfare programs. It can easily be used against federal level entitlements, and in reality, is much more effective against an entity with the proven tendency towards exponential debt spending. Though the federal government may be able to borrow fiat dollars through the Federal Reserve to prolong welfare rolls while the states cannot, a more volatile threat arises when debt monetization begins to wear down the purchasing power of the currency. Weakened purchasing power results in reduced consumer activity, less industrial growth, less GDP, and obviously, more poverty. The dollar has lost approximately 98% of its purchasing power since 1972, and after 50 years of the so-called “War on Poverty”, nearly one third of the American population now repeatedly slips under the official poverty line.

In the past decade alone, the number of people dependent on food stamps and EBT for their survival in the U.S. has doubled from 25 million people to nearly 50 million people. Those who receive some kind of payment from the government, including those on social security, disability, and veterans benefits, are approximately 100 million. Americans on social security do not consider themselves welfare recipients because they paid into the system, however, the point remains that if the federal money tap shuts down due to overwhelming participation, the checks will stop whether you paid into the system or not.

In the end, it is the Federal Government itself that is most vulnerable to the Cloward-Piven Strategy, and I believe the goal is to set fire to ALL social structures in the U.S., then assimilate them into a new globalist system.

The tactic of overwhelming the welfare structure REQUIRES the complicity of the government itself. A grassroots activist movement cannot and will never compel federal and state governments to expand welfare initiatives if they do not wish to. If welfare programs are not expanded beyond their capacity to be maintained, they cannot be overwhelmed. Therefore, government must cooperate with the Cloward-Piven Strategy by generating more and more welfare programs to be exploited. That is to say, the elitists who control our government, regardless of their claimed political party, must WANT to arrange circumstances to allow for Cloward-Piven to be successful.

Another key component of Cloward-Piven is the existence of an immense number of poverty stricken people. Without a significant portion of the population under the poverty level, there is no mass of people to use as a weapon. Again, grassroots activists would be hard pressed to actually create the kind of poverty levels they would need for exploitation. But wait! Government, along with the aid or direction of central bankers, is able to create any level of poverty it wishes at any time by simply pretending to bungle everything it does. Once again, Cloward-Piven (much like Saul Alinsky’s repertoire of propaganda scams) is far more useful to the power elite than it is to the common citizen. As former White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, famously said: 

You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before…”

In light of the Cloward-Piven Strategy, which is at its very core a method to artificially induce crisis, the otherwise insane policy actions of the Obama Administration and preceding puppet presidents now become perfectly logical. Obama, after all, has been a long time proponent of the methods of Saul Alinsky, the left wing gatekeeper equivalent to Neo-Con godfather Leo Strauss. Cloward and Piven were also both avid followers of Alinsky, who promoted lies, misdirection, subversion, and abandonment of conscience in order to win social power at any cost (special note – Alinsky also dedicated his book ‘Rules For Radicals’ to Lucifer…yeah, to the friggin’ devil).

Under Obama’s watch alone, our real national debt including unfunded liabilities and entitlements has risen to nearly $200 trillion. Our “official” national debt has gone from $10 trillion to $17 trillion in the short time Obama has been in office. Real unemployment including U-6 measurements stands at around 20% of all Americans. Personal wealth and savings have plummeted. Wages remain in stasis while prices on necessary goods continue to rise.

In my articles ‘The Socialization Of America Is Economically Impossible’ and ‘Obamacare: Is It A Divide-And-Conquer Distraction?’, I examined much evidence suggesting that Obamacare was actually designed to fail, and that the bumbling of the Obama White House when dealing with the program was purely deliberate. When coupled with Obama’s handling of the current illegal immigration conflict, I would say that the Cloward-Piven Strategy is in full force.

Why fight tooth and nail against all common sense and history, why lie openly to millions of registered voters to get the program in place, only to allow it to derail because of a poorly designed website!? Because, Obama and his handlers know full well that it will end up costing the country billions that we cannot afford, and aid in a resulting crash.

Why the sudden surge of illegal immigrants into the U.S.? Why not! The White House has made it clear that it has every intention of keeping them within America by allowing the border patrol to ship the detained across the country where they are then released. Obama’s threat to use executive action to force through his own version of the immigration bill is the icing on the cake. Amnesty is essentially guaranteed, I believe, in the near term, which is why tens of thousands of Central American parents are willing to send their children on a journey where they could very well be kidnapped by sex traffickers or killed. If the White House really wanted to stop this humanitarian crisis, the President would state publicly and clearly that America is not a drive through welfare center, that there will be no free goodies at the second window, and that there will be no chance of amnesty, instead of diverting more agents to the border to ensure more illegals are shipped into the interior.

The president does not wish to stop the flood of immigrants exactly because Cloward-Piven requires their presence. Not only would this officially add millions of people to welfare rolls, but I would venture to suggest that Obama will likely include automatic sign-up to universal healthcare as part of his amnesty measures.

If there wasn’t enough strain on the social welfare structure before, there certainly will be now.

I would remind readers, though, that in the final analysis this is NOT about Obama. I have seen other commentators including Glenn Beck discuss Cloward-Piven in the past, but always through the blinders of the false left/right paradigm. Obama could not have attained the levels of destabilization he has without standing on the shoulders of those political errand boys who came before him. Ronald Reagan, for instance, was also responsible for signing the Immigration Reform And Control Act of 1986 into law, which was supposed to trade the amnesty of 3 million illegals for greater border security.  This new “more comprehensive” security was never implemented by Reagan.  Both Republican and Democratic regimes have made our current calamity possible, and the leaderships behind both parties are nothing more than paid mascots for international financiers and globalists who have a very different vision of what America should be.

If we allow ourselves to fall into the trap of making the developing crisis about a singularly unimportant man such as Obama, then the elites get exactly what they want – an angry and desperate citizenry out for the blood of a middleman and out for the blood of each other, while they sit back, relax, and wait to swoop in as our financial saviors with strings attached.

For those naïve enough to assume that Cloward-Piven is just a well intentioned activist method, it is important to understand that even if that were so, the effect of the Cloward-Piven Strategy will never achieve the goal its creators claimed to support. In my view, it is probable that they never really intended for it to produce wealth equality or an increased quality of life.

The tactic can only decrease wealth security by making all citizens equally destitute. As we have seen in numerous socialist and communist experiments over the past century, economic harmonization never creates wealth or prosperity, it only siphons wealth from one area and redistributes it to others, evaporating much of it as it is squeezed through the grinding gears of the establishment machine. Socialism, in its very essence, elevates government to the role of all-pervasive parent, and casts the citizenry down into the role of dependent sniveling infant. Even in its most righteous form, Cloward-Piven seeks to make infants of us all, whether we like it or not.

A FAITH, That They Have Long Lost…

Tags

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

francis-and-fr-lombardi

Today we continue with our recent subject matter relating to the “recognition” negotiations between the Society of St. Pius X and the Ecclesia Dei Commission and drill down into some detail. So today will be a CONTEXT day at the Deus Ex Machina Blog.

Aside, since it is Friday, this post will be longer than usual. But on the back side, you dear reader have all weekend to read it. But I digress…

Back to business. As you recall, in yesterday’s post (see here), your humble blogger derived the following CONCLUSION through the Peirce/Ockham pragmatic methodology (see here):

To be more precised, the SSPX MUST explain to the FAITHFUL and to Modernist Rome how it is that the UNIVERSAL CHURCH finds itself in the following position:

Where The SSPX Is Therefore, There Is The Church.

Needless to say and as it was observed in yesterday’s post, this CONCLUSION is a problematic one.

And not just for your most humble blogger.

The CONCLUSION is problematic for the respective parities to the “recognition” negotiations.

First, it is problematic for the SSPX since it imposes on them responsibilities, just like it does on all clergy. This OBLIGATION of “correcting Peter” is imposed on all Catholics due to St. Paul, who corrected St. Peter in Antioch (Galatians 2:11-14). One can say that St. Paul set the precedent. Yet with the SSPX, one can also say that they have additional  EXTRAORDINARY responsibilities, bah OBLIGATION since… let’s put it this way… they are very good at “correcting Peter” and have a consistent history of “correcting Peter”. Not only do they “correct Peter”, but as we seen in yesterday’s post, they “correct Peter” CORRECTLY.  And on an aside, we know just how fond Francis, who needs to be corrected (see here), is of being corrected (see here).

With respect to the precedent for this OBLIGATIONS arising from St. Paul, in his letter to the Galatians (1:8), he wrote the following:

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

Problematic indeed!

But no matter the scale of the problem for the SSPX, the scale of the problem is much, much greater for the neo-Modernist hierarchy of the post-conciliar NUChurch.  Their major problem is one of an EXISTENTIAL NATURE. The degree to which they have destroyed the Catholic Church is visible for all to see.  There is no way of hiding this OBJECTIVE REALITY. On a philosophical (metaphysical) level, John Lamont has aptly pointed out the following cause and effect relationship:

Neomodernism, however, on a religious level is a purely negative thesis. As a result it has no attractive force of its own, and ecclesiastical structures that fall into its grip eventually die away – a process now visible all over the world.

As to operational and … shall we say more practical aspects of the neo-Modernist takeover of the Catholic Church, the basis for this aspect of the EXISTENTIAL threat that the neo-Modernists face rests on two issues, namely the VISIBILITY and the INDEFECTABILITY of the Catholic Church.

Let’s start with a brief overview and then go to the VISIBILITY issue.

Referencing the New Advent Encyclopedia, we can read the following passage under the heading of “The Church” (see here): (EMPHASIS added)

Christ’s teaching on this point [The Church] may be briefly summarized here. It is to be a kingdom ruled in His absence by men (Matthew 18:18John 21:17). It is therefore a VISIBLE theocracy; and it will be substituted for the Jewish theocracy that has rejected Him (Matthew 21:43). In it, until the day of judgment, the bad will be mingled with the good (Matthew 13:41). Its extent will be UNIVERSAL (Matthew 28:19), and its duration to the end of time (Matthew 13:49); all powers that oppose it shall be crushed (Matthew 21:44). Moreover, it will be a supernatural kingdom of truth, in the world, though not of it (John 18:36). It will be one and undivided, and this unity shall be a witness to all men that its founder came from God (John 17:21).

Given the above, the following characteristics as to the VISIBILITY of the Church apply:

In asserting that the Church of Christ is VISIBLE , we signify, first, that as a society it will at all times be conspicuous and public, and second, that it will ever be recognizable among other bodies as the Church of Christ. These two aspects of VISIBILITY  are termed respectively “material” and “formal” visibility by Catholic theologians.

Drilling down further we learn that:

The material visibility of the Church involves no more than that it must ever be a public, not a private profession; a society manifest to the world, not a body whose members are bound by some secret tie. Formal visibility is more than this. It implies that in all ages the true Church of Christ will be easily recognizable for that which it is, viz. as the Divine society of the Son of God, the means of salvation offered by God to men; that it possesses certain attributes which so evidently postulate a Divine origin that all who see it must know it comes from God.

Got that?

It’s not a NGO!

Next, we have the INDEFECTABILITY  issue. Here is the appropriate citation:

Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of INDEFECTIBILITY. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men.

And…

The gift of INDEFECTIBILITY  is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

So by now, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out just where the respective sides, i.e. SSPX and NUChurch stand with respect to the above.

Given the above, it becomes visibly obvious that the neo-Modernists have an external problem with the Faithful, or that part of the FAITHFUL who still knows their FAITH (catechism). What is worse though, the neo-Modernists have an INTERNAL problem. This INTERNAL PROBLEM is with the Catholic clergy, as per Don Nicola Bux observation (see here). In other words, with those in the clergy that have not lost their FAITH.

This problem in turn can be summarized as follows: the Catholic clergy (assuming that they know the basics of their FAITH and this assumption the neo-Modernists MUST MAKE) cannot reconcile that which the NUChurch teaches (think Amoris Laetitia – see here) with that with the Catholic Church has taught in all ages.

The above definitions and reasoning allows one to UNDERSTAND more fully the gravity of the position of the neo-Modernists. One shortcoming of their position is that they CANNOT trust any member of the clergy, since they can’t read in that individual’s heart, if he is in fact a Catholic or a neo-Modernist. The neo-Modernist response to just this can be seen in the following observations: Francis holed up with his revolutionary soviet on an entire floor of the Domus Sanctae Marthae (see here), new guidelines for removing bishops (see here), new guidelines for female contemplatives (see here), prior Vatican approval for new religious communities and societies (see here),  new FrancisChurch seminary screening guidelines (see here), selection of FrancisBishops to replace Ratzingerians and Wojtylians (see here). In Francis’ latest moves, we see this neo-Modernist “survival instinct” manifest itself in new guidelines with respect to the selection of candidates for bishop. (see here)

These quite extraordinary decisions listed above and made by Francis demonstrate his and the neo-Modernist’s FEAR that they might have obtained power, but they are not sure if they can maintain it.

On the back of that which is written above, Francis and the neo-Modernists now have a more immediate and urgent FEAR. Francis knows for a FACT what is in the hearts of the SSPX clergy. But what he doesn’t know is what is in the hearts of the current clergy in the Church hierarchy. No matter how hard he tries to dispose of them, there are just too many of them. And those who he can’t readily dispose of, he FEARS will recognize and identify the SSPX as the VISIBLE and INDEFECTIBLE Church.

Let that sink in for a second.

A further complication for Francis and the neo-Modernists is the FACT that they have no control over the SSPX. This is no doubt behind the desperation with which Francis wants to “regularize” the SSPX (see here). Since the SSPX has complete control over its personnel and assets, and are outside of the organizational structure of the post-conciliar church, Francis can’t touch them. To be more precise, for Francis, it’s better to have minimal CONTROL then not to have any CONTROL, new springtime of the “spirit of Vatican II” be damned. And we know that Francis is all about CONTROL (see here).

Back to NUChurch. Due to Francis’ (materially) heretical decisions and behavior, the Catholic clergy are, in FACT beginning the recognize the SSPX as the VISIBLE and INDEFECTIBLE Church.

This realization might explain this here. But I digress…

Francis’ FEAR in turn, is definitely well founded. The SSPX meet all the criteria for being recognized as the VISIBLE and INDEFECTIBLE CATHOLIC CHURCH, i.e.:

  • have a global reach, (material” and “formal” UNIVERSALITY),
  • are at all times conspicuous and public,
  • are recognizable among other bodies as the Church of Christ
  • preserve unimpaired their essential characteristics, 
  • never underwent any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally, 
  • never became corrupt in faith or in morals, 
  • have not abandoned their claim to the Apostolic hierarchy (even to the NUChurch hierarchy), or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men.

THEREFORE “innocent” and “harmless” anecdotes like the one your humble blogger presented in yesterday’s post, namely:

We’ve (SSPX) been told that at the last meeting of the Congregation of the Faith, where they all meet together, all the cardinals and bishops which are members, we call that a plenaria, this is the full meeting, there was only one cardinal who said, ‘no, no. no, the Society must absolutely accept the whole council’. And other voices who said ‘these people do only one thing, (that is) to repeat what the Church has always taught’. So you see, there is something on the move…               

… to Francis and the neo-Modernists are neither “innocent” nor “harmless” at all. In fact, they are a matter of life and death.

Or as we identified above: an EXISTENTIAL THREAT.

Furthermore, what must strike further FEAR if not TERROR into Francis and the neo-Modernists is the following:

In it [the Church], until the day of judgment, the bad will be mingled with the good (Matthew 13:41)

The reason that the above would strike further FEAR if not TERROR into Francis and the neo-Modernists is that with the SSPX being outside the NUChurch, the distinction is real easy to make. Especially for the Catholic clergy.

And how can the faithful Catholic priest, bishop or cardinal separate the bad that is mingling with the good?

Our Lord also provides the answer, as per Father Stehlin’s homily:

So you see, that’s our (SSPX) apostolic spirit. The desire of the salvation of souls. This is the only thing that directs the SSPX to go, to talk with Rome, to try to bring them back to Catholic Tradition and make them understand how important it is, what we have is the greatest, the greatest gift that God has given to the world. And you see, very important… ‘do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles? Every good tree, brings good fruits. And the evil tree brings forth evil fruits. And by the fruits you will recognize them.   (see here)

Concluding, and given the above, when we as laymen look at what are called the “recognition” negotiations, we are not in FACT looking at a marginal group of 3 bishops, 600+ priests and 600,000+ Faithful (SSPX) trying to “do a deal” with a Vatican commission and ultimately the current bishop of Rome (Modernist Rome).

What we are observing in FACT is an EPIC struggle, a struggle to the death, between a false religion, grounded in an unnatural IDEOLOGY that is dying a NATURAL DEATH, pitted against a remnant of Faithful, who have not denied Our Lord nor abandoned the Faith – as passed down through the generations, that He provided us for our salvation, nor abandoned the Church which is the only means of our salvation.

The SSPX, as the VISIBLE and INDEFECTIBLE Church is not only growing as a priestly society, but is also converting the post-conciliar NUChurch and those in Modernist Rome who have not lost their faith. (see here) This growth is also having a snowballing effect at present. (see here and here). And it should not come as any surprise that Francis and the NUChurch are desperately trying to stop this “Restoration of all things to Christ”.

Yet Francis and the neo-Modernists do not recognize that their battle is already lost. They do not recognize it since they do not place a great deal of weight on the FACT that Our Lord declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. For them to recognize this inevitability, they would need to possess supernatural Faith.

In other words…

a FAITH that they have long lost.

 

Where The SSPX Is Therefore, There Is The Church

Tags

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

archbishop-lefebvre-ii

Today is “Plant your flag and make a stand” Day at the Deus Ex Machina Blog.

Sort of.

The reason I say “sort of” is that this blog is written with the clear and stated intent of providing OBJECTIVE, or as OBJECTIVE as possible, analysis of the state of REALITY within the Catholic Church and its environs, i.e. Visibilium Omnium, et Invisibilium. What this humble blogger  tries to avoid is making SUBJECTIVE judgments.  I leave that to others, more qualified authors and bloggers than yours truly, which is why I link to their work and reference them heavily in my posts.

Now to today’s subject matter with a short prologue about methodology.

The subject matter of this post is in essence a response to a post that appeared at the Stumbling Block Blog written by Frank Walker. In the post titled WE TAKE THIS BRIEF MOMENT TO PAUSE FOR A POPE (see here), your humble blogger was mentioned and the following passage can be read:

I was surprised to see Mr. Armaticus, who seemed fairly enthusiastic about SSPX Bishop Fellay’s report on the personal FrancisPrelature he’d been offered, praise Ann Barnhardt’s recommendation today. 

Believe it or not, I was surprised by this outcome as well.

Yet since one of the main tenets of that which I write and post is “consistency”, derived through my analytical methodology, I could not get around “coming” to the conclusion to which I came.

So first, methodology.

When I look at the various DATA POINTS that I observe in the daily information flow coming out of the Catholic-o-sphere, I make an assessment as to the importance of the DATA POINT/S that I am observing. Naturally, I assign a larger weighting to DATA POINTS that affect “dogma” than I do to DATA POINT/S that effect pastoral “practice”, for example. I also place the largest weighting on those DATA POINT/S that effect the highest priority of the Church, i.e. the “salvation of souls” and I decrease the weighting from there on out.

Furthermore, I place a higher weighting on textual citations which are “formulaic” then I do on those that I consider banal chatter. To give an example of just this, in a Sandro Magister post titled A “Pontificate of Exception.” The Mystery of Pope Benedict (see herewe are informed that:

The formula, emphasized by Gänswein with the use of the German word, is not accidental. It contains a transparent reference to the “state of exception” theorized by one of the greatest and most talked-about political philosophers of the twentieth century, Carl Schmitt (1888-1985).

With respect to the above, I have assigned a very high weighting to this DATA POINT due to first, its “formulaic” nature and second, to the proximity of the SOURCE of this DATA POINT provider, to the party of our interest, i.e. Benedict XVI.

On the other end of this continuum are statements to which I would give minimal weighting. One of these is the following: (see here)

“Your goodness is a place in which I feel protected,” he said of his successor.

Reference citations of this sort definitely fall into what can honestly be termed the Verrecchian “pseudosacral homopoetic prose” or drivel, if spoken. (see here) DATA POINTS that fall into this category get the lowest weighting, obviously.

And finally, I also maintain fixed markers against which I confront the DATA POINT/S. Naturally, the DATA POINT/S that do not conform to my fixed markers are naturally subjected to Occam’s Razor, or are categorized as contrary to the Faith, i.e. heterodox/heretical for the purposes of the analysis.

So those are a few insights into the methodology (see here)

Now to the problem at hand.

The Known Knowns on which my CONCLUSION  for supporting the Ann Barnhardt position rests, pertain to “the question of who and where is Peter”.

I have already provided an extensive analysis of the issue of “who is Peter?” in the post titled  Ockham’s Razor Finds: Benedict Still Pope, Francis Is False Pope, Universal Church in State of Necessity since 24 April, 2005 (see here

The next question that needs to be addressed is: “what do we know about Peter? In the Holy Gospel according to Matthew (16:18-19) we are provided with the following OBJECITVE EVIDENCE:

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Which brings us to the issue of “where is Peter?”.  According to a Father of the Church, St. Ambrose, the following is the case:

Where Peter is therefore, there is the Church

So now that we have established the PROPER organizational structure, the chain of command and competences, i.e. that Peter can “bind” and “loosen”, we need to establish what it is that Peter can “bind” and “loosen”.

Our next Known Known comes from Luke (10:16) in which Our Lord teaches:

 He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me…

What this passage establishes is the constraints (limitations) of what it is that Peter can teach, i.e. the papal teaching office.  In other words, a simple, OBJECTIVE reading of just this passage alone allows us to set the parameters (limits) of the papal teaching office.

Therefore, we can examine what it is that Our Lord taught and compare it with what Francis, the bishop of Rome is teaching. We do this to establish that that which Our Lord taught and that which the current successor of St. Peter is teaching are indeed one and the same. Let’s call this the TRUE starting PREMISE.

Starting from the TRUE PREMISE above, it is OBJECTIVELY CORRECT to state that what Our Lord taught and that which the current “successor” of St. Peter is teaching, are NOT one and the same.

The most recent PROOF comes via a post by Louie Verrecchio at the AKA Catholic Blog titled It’s time to either expose or depose Francis. (see here) In this post, Mr. V details at least three “differences” between what Our Lord taught and what Francis, the bishop of Rome is claiming to be Our Lord’s teaching. Therefore, Mr. V goes on to make the OBJECTIVELY CORRECT conclusion that:

And yet every last one of us knows damned well that a formal heretic cannot be pope. 

In terms of the St. Ambrose marker used in our analysis, the OBJECTIVELY TRUE conclusion is: where Francis, the bishop of Rome is, the Church isn’t.

But since we are living in an age of “two popes”, we have a second possibility to identify “who and where Peter is?”, namely the Pope “Emeritus”.

Which brings us to the second part of the St. Ambrose maker: “there is the Church”.

We know (Known Known) that the Catholic Church exists, and it exists VISIBLY. Here is the EVIDENCE and the SOURCE as to where the Church exist:

We’ve (SSPX) been told that at the last meeting of the Congregation of the Faith, where they all meet together, all the cardinals and bishops which are members, we call that a plenaria, this is the full meeting, there was only one cardinal who said, ‘no, no. no, the Society must absolutely accept the whole council’. And other voices who said ‘these people do only one thing, (that is) to repeat what the Church has always taught’. So you see, there is something on the move…                       

In the above citation, what we have is EVIDENCE that there are “other voices”, composed of cardinals and bishops, who simultaneously are members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and who consider the SSPX to repeat what the Church has always taught”. 

In other words: “where the Church is”.

By using this formulaic expression, what the members of the plenaria of the CDF, with the exception of one cardinal are in fact saying is the following:

He who hears you the SSPX hears me, and he who rejects you the SSPX rejects me…

PROOF of the OBJECTIVE CORRECTNESS of the above conclusion comes from the FACT that the CDF has dropped all previous requirements to conform to the Vatican II documents to which the SSPX objected.

So how could this above situation be explained?

There can only be one OBJECTIVELY CORRECT answer. That answer MUST rest on the mechanism that exists in NATURAL LAW that is a STATE OF NECESSITY. (see here and here and here)

Concluding, I would like to add my supporting reasons for why Ann Barnhardt’s  CONCLUSION is correct. They are as follows:

The SSPX have, since 1976 relied upon “extraordinary” supplied jurisdiction under a State of Necessity to administer Sacraments (Confession and Marriage) to the Faithful.

The SSPX are very familiar with this mechanism of NATURAL LAW that is the STATE OF NECESSITY and its successful application. PROOF is that they are now considered, by a large part of the CDF members to be the VISIBLE CATHOLIC CHURCH. (I will return to this issue in a follow-up post)

Having an in-depth understanding of the mechanism of NATURAL LAW that is STATE OF NECESSITY, the SSPX understand that it is not limited to just the Sacraments, but to the entire situation in which the Catholic Church finds itself in at present, including Church governance.

Having an in-depth understanding of what constitutes Our Lord’s teaching (as CONFIRMED by the CDF) and being cognizant of the actual teaching of Francis, the bishop of Rome (see here), the SSPX have an obligation to publicly state that: it is a moral certainty that what Francis teaches is not that which Our Lord taught. 

Furthermore, the SSPX have an added obligation and that is this: since the SSPX relied on the STATE OF NECESSITY to justify (CORRECTLY – CONFIRMED by the CDF) their extraordinary supplied jurisdiction, they must explain to the wider Church the situation in which the FAITHFUL find themselves.

To be more precised, the SSPX MUST explain to the FAITHFUL and to Modernist Rome how it is that the UNIVERSAL CHURCH finds itself in the following position:

Where The SSPX Is Therefore, There Is The Church.

 

And Ann Barnhardt’s recommendation facilitates exactly that.

Once again:

The SSPX should cease all negotiations with Bergoglio, publicly state that it is a moral certainty that Bergoglio is not the pope, and publicly declare allegiance to the one and only living Vicar of Christ, Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger.

Post scriptum:

I do not think negotiations need to be ceased “with Bergoglio” since the parties to the negotiations are the CDF and the SSPX.

 

Ann Barnhardt – The Way Forward

Tags

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

ann-barnhardtToday I republish THE Ann Barnhardt post that I have been waiting for.

It turns out to be Ann Barnhardt’s “way forward” post that sets out the OBJECTIVE REALITY in the Catholic Church Anno Domini 2016 and explains the situation that the SSPX finds itself in at present. Furthermore, the post sets out a WAY FORWARD for all the CATHOLIC forces within the Catholic Church who are engaged in this EPIC BATTLE with EVIL.

I have provided “emphasis” and added emphasis” to that part of the text that I think is ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL to understand. Furthermore, the CONCLUSION that Ann comes to is precisely the one that the Deus Ex Machina Peirce/Ockham Pragmatic Methodology model (The MODEL) yields. (see here) To briefly summarize the CONCLUSION, here is the pertinent text:

This is Bergoglio’s trap.  It is Bergoglio that will double cross you, no matter how precise and air-tight your written agreement with Ecclesia Dei is.  These men are evil and without shame or honor.  Written agreements mean NOTHING to them.  Written agreements are a joke to them, a tool to be used on men that they consider to be “rubes”.  IF you enter into an agreement with Antipope Bergoglio, he will renege on it immediately and come down on you just as he did with the FFI’s, and now the contemplative communities.  If you don’t enter into an agreement with Antipope Bergoglio, he will unilaterally declare you part of his NewFrancisOneWorldChurch and then come down on you like a ton of bricks.

And here is what Francis will do (confirmed by the MODEL):

If Bishop Fellay ceases negotiations with Antipope Bergoglio, Bergoglio will unilaterally declare the SSPX to be “in”, and will demand that the SSPX capitulate to his demands.  When the SSPX refuses, Antipope Bergoglio will then declare the SSPX to be in schism.

In other words, Francis will UNILATERALLY RECOGNIZE the SSPX regardless of whether they agree terms or not. Once again, this is the result that the MODEL confirms.

The proposed course of actions by Ann is also THE CORRECT ANSWER, as per MODEL to the present situation. That text is as follows:

The SSPX should cease all negotiations with Bergoglio, publicly state that it is a moral certainty that Bergoglio is not the pope, and publicly declare allegiance to the one and only living Vicar of Christ, Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger.

The JUSTIFICATION for the above course of action is based on the State of Necessity that exists in the Church, a mechanism in NATURAL LAW that the SSPX are VERY, VERY familiar with.

The Deus Ex Machina Blog has set out this JUSTIFICATION in the following two post:

Pope Benedict XVI Declared A State of Necessity!

 

Ockham’s Razor Finds: Benedict Still Pope, Francis Is False Pope, Universal Church in State of Necessity since 24 April, 2005.

 

The above two posts give the PROPER JUSTIFICATION working from a TRUE PREMISE as to the PROPOSED course of action as laid out by Ann Barnhardt.

And now… (see original Barnhardt post here)

 

FOR THE RECORD

 

On the Current Antipapacy, the SSPX and Other Totally Non-Inflammatory Topics

There is much ground to cover here.  I shall try to keep this from devolving into a non-linear stream of consciousness.

What if I gave you a map, but the orientation was off by 90 degrees?  North was west, east was north, etc.  There would be no way you could find your way UNTIL YOU CORRECTED THE ORIENTATION. You cannot find your way on a map, or through life, unless your orientation, your base premises upon which you move through time and space, are TRUE.

I continue to get emails and also to see in comment threads on other websites that people – faithful people – are losing their faith because of Bergoglio.  I received one email from a woman who declared that Bergoglio proved that the entire notion of the Magisterium of The Church was a fiction – not just within the past three years, not just since Vatican II, but for the entire 2000 years of The Church.  This is what holding the FALSE PREMISE that Bergoglio is the pope yields.

Folks, this Bergoglio stuff and the situation with The Church is very, very easy to understand and is in no way soul-crushing or faith-killing IF one simply acknowledges what is now a moral certainty – Bergoglio is an antipope. Ratzinger’s resignation was made in SUBSTANTIAL ERROR.  The question of coercion, while interesting and certainly worthy of exploration, is with regards to the validity of the Ratzingerian resignation, moot.  The question of whether or not Ratzinger believes Bergoglio is the pope is moot.  Ratzinger’s mind is not the arbiter of reality.  Ratzinger believes his substantial error to be true – doesn’t everyone believe their errors to be true in realtime as they are making them?  Have you ever sat down and said consciously to yourself, “I know that my position/belief is false, but I consciously disregard my knowledge of said falsehood/error, and now believe that that which I know to be false is, in fact, true.”  No.  We lie to ourselves, and we believe our lies.  We come to erroneous conclusions, but we believe that our conclusions are correct.  Ratzinger has convinced himself that he could bifurcate the papacy.  This is SUBSTANTIAL ERROR. He is wrong.

Now, to the question that I see tying so many people in knots: Does it matter who the pope is?

The answer is YES.  It absolutely matters.  You’re not crazy.  You’re not dumb. You’re not a bad Catholic or a bad person for not just thinking that it matters, but that it matters tremendously, and wanting to discuss it.  People who are saying that it doesn’t matter are, very simply, wrong.

The Truth matters.
Objective reality matters.

For many of us who are converts, the Papacy is commonly the last hurdle to clear before fully acknowledging that The Church, is in fact the One. True. Church.  For me it came from the old timer that taught me the cattle business.  One evening, while he was holding forth on feedlot management concepts, specifically on the human resource management side of things, he said very simply, “Look, SOMEONE has GOT to be in charge.”  Of course.  We all know this.  In any large organization, there has to be a person with whom the buck stops, and ultimate responsibility resides.  There has to be one person who can, if need be, make final, binding decisions.  Absent this, there will be chaos and eventual implosion.  For Christ to establish His Church Militant, that is, His Church on Earth, with no one in charge, no one to make binding decisions when need be, is simply unthinkable – impossible even.  Further, we see from scripture that He not only created such an office, but imbued it with supernatural protection.  Of course He did.  Anything less would not make sense.  We aren’t talking about a feedyard.  We are talking about The Body and Bride of Christ, established by Christ, which is God’s gift to mankind through which His Truth and Grace is communicated. The paradigm is of Divine origin, and therefore is perfectly conceived and established.

When I see trad Catholics, utterly desperate to deny that Bergoglio is an antipope, saying that “it doesn’t matter”, I shake my head.

Let me be very, very blunt here.  People who up until a matter of months ago would defend the institution of the papacy as an utterly integral component of the Visible Church Militant (which it is), and are now preaching that the papacy is not important, and the identity of the Pope is not important, are, it seems to me, doing this because they are terrified of losing income – be it from a formal, paying job or from donations – or afraid of losing social status, political, or career connections.  In short, they are terrified of losing HUMAN RESPECT in some form.

Converts, especially, are looking at this situation and seeing this total about-face, taking the See of Peter from a defining and non-negotiable, deal-breaking component of Catholicism (which it is), to being declared “irrelevant” and the identity of the Pope “unknowable” IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN STATUS, INCOME, AND SOCIAL CONNECTIONS and are being scandalized right back out the door.

This has to stop.

If the papacy itself does not matter, then The Church does not matter.

If The Church does not matter, then Christ does not matter.

If Christ does not matter, then Christ is not God.

If Christ is not God, then life is hopeless and meaningless, and all that matters is maximizing immediate personal sensual gratification – by any means necessary.

Again, I cannot emphasize with enough vehemence the utter criticality of arguing from a true premise.  The truth is objective, external and KNOWABLE – most especially with regards to The Church, because The Church is VISIBLE. Where Peter is, there is The Church.  Who Peter is, and who Peter is NOT, is therefore not only important, but critically important.  Just as Ratzinger’s flippancy in attempting to abandon his RESPONSIBILITY – the excuses about continuing to wear the papal white because “there were no black cassocks available”, and perhaps even worse the blaming of his abandonment of his duties on “jet lag” from traveling to World Youth Day, a neo-pagan festival that should be permanently suspended and forgotten anyway – is not only scandalous, but insulting.  So too is the flippant argument that the papacy doesn’t matter – all to avoid taking a position that “the world” will not like.

It is precisely because I love and respect the See of Peter that I refuse to shrug at its usurpation, or to call a man that I am morally certain is an antipope, Peter.  It is NOT papolatry to NOT claim indifference to whom the pope is or is not.  I believe that the one and only currently reigning Pope, Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger, is now, because of his catastrophic actions, one of the worst, if not the very worst pope in the history of The Church. But he is still the Pope, and visibly so.

The Satanic Endgame: SCHISM

What satan is trying to do here is to drive as many people out of the One True Church as possible. He has set the chessboard masterfully, and has multiple attack angles.

FIRST: Antipope Bergoglio is going to throw the entire Novus Ordo wing of The Church into schism sooner rather than later.  Amoris Laetitia is, at its core, all about one thing: DESECRATION OF THE EUCHARIST. We all know by now that Bergoglio told a group of Argentinian clergy IN WRITING that desecration of the Eucharist by admitting to Holy Communion unrepentant adulterers and fornicators was the only correct interpretation of the document.  A document which, remember, has zero meaning or force because Bergoglio is an antipope and thus has zero authority.  Again, back to the whole true premise/false premise thing.  Next, Antipope Bergoglio will open Holy Communion to Lutherans, which will almost immediately become a winking mandate to give Holy Communion to absolutely everyone – including non-Christians. At this point, I think it will be safe to say that Bergoglio, on behalf of satan, will have fully schismed and will have set up a completely new, seperate universalist, “one world religion”, with himself at its head.

Satan wants every single human being now inside the Catholic Church to follow Bergoglio into this schism.

Which brings us to the SSPX

On the other side of the spectrum, we have traditionalism, people who will NOT follow Bergoglio into his NewFrancisOneWorldChurch.  Satan has the chessboard set for them, too.  The SSPX is currently parlaying and negotiating with Antipope Bergoglio.

Stop there for a moment:  SSPXers, do you see the problem here?  You are negotiating your status WITH AN ANTIPOPE.  How can this possibly yield good fruit for you, The Church or anyone else?  Again, we’re back to the essential nature of the TRUE PREMISE.  These negotiations are built upon the false premise that you are negotiating in good faith with the Vicar of Christ.  Please do not delude yourself into believing that you are negotiating with +Pozzo and Ecclesia Dei separate and apart from Bergoglio.  This is Bergoglio’s trap.  It is Bergoglio that will double cross you, no matter how precise and air-tight your written agreement with Ecclesia Dei is.  These men are evil and without shame or honor.  Written agreements mean NOTHING to them.  Written agreements are a joke to them, a tool to be used on men that they consider to be “rubes”.  IF you enter into an agreement with Antipope Bergoglio, he will renege on it immediately and come down on you just as he did with the FFI’s, and now the contemplative communities.  If you don’t enter into an agreement with Antipope Bergoglio, he will unilaterally declare you part of his NewFrancisOneWorldChurch and then come down on you like a ton of bricks.

WHY?  Very simply, satan, who is behind all of this, wants all of the traditionalists to SCHISM THEMSELVES.

Bishop Fellay knows that if he capitulates to Antipope Bergoglio that a massive number of his priests and faithful WILL LEAVE THE SSPX AND GO TO SEDEVACANTIST SECTS THAT ARE ALREADY IN SCHISM.

If Bishop Fellay ceases negotiations with Antipope Bergoglio, Bergoglio will unilaterally declare the SSPX to be “in”, and will demand that the SSPX capitulate to his demands.  When the SSPX refuses, Antipope Bergoglio will then declare the SSPX to be in schism.  And here is the nuance of the satanic chess strategy: it’s a bluff.  Don’t you see?  Bergoglio IS NOT THE POPE.  His declarations have the same force as mine.  Bergoglio can’t force you to do anything, nor can he declare you to be in schism for not capitulating to his heresies and blasphemies.  Satan is trying to TRICK THE SSPX INTO BELIEVING THAT THEY ARE IN SCHISM, WHEN, IN FACT, THEY ARE NOT.

Once again, all of this depends on operating from a TRUE PREMISE, namely that Bergoglio is an antipope, and that Ratzinger, in spite of his spectacular error and failings, is Peter. And if it is any consolation to both the SSPX and to those of you out there in general reading this, Rome contacts have told me that Bergoglio is now openly discussed as probably being an antipope within the Curia, but they are all so terrified of him due to their careerist mentalities, that they all agree that there is “nothing we can do” and that “we just have to wait for him to die.”

And now for what I think the path forward for the SSPX should be – and I know full well that I am going to lose almost everyone who is still reading this, but it makes no difference.

The SSPX should cease all negotiations with Bergoglio, publicly state that it is a moral certainty that Bergoglio is not the pope, and publicly declare allegiance to the one and only living Vicar of Christ, Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger.

Ratzinger will never do anything – for good or ill – to the SSPX, because he refuses to exercise his responsibility as Pope.  Further, this will make clear that the SSPX will recognize NO actions taken against it by Bergoglio, AND that the SSPX remains exactly as it is, inside The Church, faithful to the Holy See.  And then the SSPX will truly become before this is all over, I strongly suspect, a lifeboat.

And referencing what I stated above about the Roman Curia now discussing Bergoglio as a likely antipope, but feeling helpless – perhaps a bold statement by the SSPX that there is now a moral certainty that Bergoglio is an antipope would be enough of an icebreaker to allow others within the Curia, and perhaps even the College of Cardinals to discuss it openly as well.

But they key to this is the private and public insistence upon operating from a true premise – and frankly, shouldn’t it be so in everything we do, both big and small?  It is not lost on me that the leap of faith that Our Lord is asking us to take is to declare loyalty to the probable worst pope in the history of The Church – Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger.

If I were in charge, which thank God I’m not, that’s what I would do. As the person ultimately in charge of myself, and who will answer for my life at my Particular Judgment, that is what I have and will continue to do.

I hope this helps.

Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us.

Learning From History That We Do Not Learn From History

Tags

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

battle-of-vienna-iHope all my loyal readers had a pleasant weekend.

I also hope that my readers took advantage of the video that I put up (with partial transcriptions – see here) to find out just what we as Catholics have “lost” in terms of our culture and history in this age of deconstructive post-modernism. If not, please view/read. I guarantee that it will be worth your time and effort.

Today we tie in to the above thought (video), provide CONTEXT and explain a very significant Holy Day of Observation of which we as Catholics have been robbed by the notorious, diabolical Annibale Bugnini. Today in the Roman Liturgical Calendar we celebrate the Feast of the Most Holy Name of the Blessed Virgin Mary. In 2002 however, John Paul II restored it along with the Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus thankfully.

The Feast of the Most Holy Name of the Blessed Virgin Mary itself, has been a universal Roman Rite feast since 1684, when Pope Innocent XI included it in the General Roman Calendar to commemorate the Polish King John III Sobieski’s victory at the Battle of Vienna in 1683. The significance of this victory is that it was the final time that the Mohammadens threatened Central and Western Europe and was in fact the beginning of the end of the Ottoman Empire. This battle, 112 years after the Battle of Lepanto (7 October, 1571) and 118 years after the Great Siege of Malta (11 September 1565) put an end to the Ottoman/Mohammedan threat of Europe for the next 332. In Anno Domini 2015, the half-witted, IDEOLOGUE German Chancellor opened the borders to incite the next Mohammedan invasion of the Old Continent, an invasion that Europe is living through presently. A complete overview of the Battle of Vienna is entailed in the video below:

Here is the Wikipedia entry that is very appropriate to understand the CONTEXT:

Some scholars argue the power of the Caliphate began waning by 1683, and without the acquisition of significant new wealth the Ottoman Empire went into a fast decline. Ottomanist scholars, however, have based research on Ottoman archives that show the decline narrative to be tenuous — their historiography describes an economically vibrant and growing empire with a sophisticated political leadership brought to a premature end after the First World War.

Now the post-modernist “Ottoman” researchers would say that, wouldn’t they?
Furthermore, I find it hard to imagine a country that is an economic and military power going to “third world country” status overnight. Think of the Soviet Union to Russia transition post 1985. But it might be just me. And I digress…

Quickly summing up the above, the Mohammedan Ottoman Empire, which conquered Constantinople in 1453, lived off of the intellectual and economic capital created by Western Civilization for approximately 112 years. More insights here and here. This “expansion” phase was due to “the acquisition of significant new wealth” as per Wikipedia citation. At the Great Siege of Malta 112 years later, the Ottoman’s suffered a devastating defeat at the hands of the Military Order of the Knights Hospitaller, led by Jean Parisot de Valette, the Grand Master of the Order. NB: An image of Grand Master de Valette is used as the avatar by this most humble blogger. But getting back to the story, beginning in the time period circa 1565 and ending at the Battle of Vienna in 1683, (118 years) the period of Mohammedan decline set in and ultimately ended  353 years later, or at the end of WWI in 1918. Summing up this episode in Mohammedan history, one can say that the intellectual and economic treasure that the Mohammedan’s captured in Constantinople lasted for 465 years, at the end of which the Mohammedans reverted to a primitive, or “third world” state.

To finish the subject matter for today, I would like to draw your attention to an article that appeared at Breitbart titled Outrage As Austrian Populists Celebrate Historic Turkish Defeat. In this article, it would appear that the Austrians, who were in fact most affected by the Ottoman threat, are beginning to rediscover their history. And this is the reason for the “outrage”. Here is the explanation behind the “outrage”:

Ms. Meinl-Reisinger believes that the event would attempt to insinuate a parallel between the historic siege with the current migrant crisis. She said that attempting to make such an association would be “racist” [Ed note: what isn’t “racist” today?] and that the city government should not fund the event.

All one can do at this point is to cite Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel who observed that:

We learn from history that we do not learn from history.

And Hegel’s works would be those that the likes of Ms. Meinl-Reisinger should be familiar with. Which brings to mind another famous quote, this time by  Thomas Gray who observed in a poem, Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College (1742):

“Where ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise.” .

All one can say is that ignorance is bliss, and not just at Eton.

Below is the Breitbart post. (see here)

PS It would appear that the “re-vote” in the Austrian Presidential election’s second round is being put on hold. (see here) The official reason is because of technical problems involving glue failing to stick on postal votes.” But in reality, it would appear that the “wrong” candidate is favored to win. (see here) Isn’t “‘liberal’ democracy” wonderful?

FOR THE RECORD

austria-election

Outrage As Austrian Populists Celebrate Historic Turkish Defeat

The populist anti-mass migration Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) has stirred up controversy by celebrating the 333 year anniversary of the end of the Turkish siege of Vienna.

The second siege of Vienna is one of the defining pieces of Austrian history as it was the final time the Islamic world would try and conquer Europe through military means. Everything from the croissant to coffee came to Europe as a result of one of the most famous battles in European history.

The populist FPÖ are now stirring controversy for celebrating the 333rd anniversary of the siege as critics accuse them of further inflaming a tense relationship between Austria and Turkey, reports Kronen Zeitung.

The FPÖ announced that they will be holding an event named, “Protect the West. Then As Now” on the 12th of September to commemorate the lifting of the second siege of Vienna at the luxurious Palais Ferstel.

The permit for the event states that it was created to educate all political parties on the historical event and of possible parallels today, but Vienna city councillor for the liberal New Austria party, Beate Meinl-Reisinger, is calling the event “FPÖ propaganda”.

Ms. Meinl-Reisinger believes that the event would attempt to insinuate a parallel between the historic siege with the current migrant crisis. She said that attempting to make such an association would be “racist” and that the city government should not fund the event.

The FPÖ, on the other hand, state that the event is purely educational. Vienna chief Dominik Nepp said the event will show not only the historical reasons for the siege but will also look at the science behind it.

Critics have said that the event may be a further provocation to the Turkish government following tensions between Vienna and Ankara which stem from the aftermath of the failed coup against Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in July.

Several prominent politicians including FPÖ presidential candidate Norbert Hofer (pictured above) and Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz slammed the demonstrations of pro-Erdoğan supporters in the wake of the coup questioning their loyalty to Austria.

A Turkish constitutional court ruling that it was legal for children as young as twelve to consent to sex with adults also inflamed a row between the two countries. Ankara blamed Kronen Zeitung, Austria’s largest newspaper, for taking the ruling out of context, while Austrian politicians demanded real answers from Turkey on the ruling.

Secularists Debunk Francis’ JunkTheology™ – The Primer

Tags

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

Today I will write very little.

But a lot of watching.

At the highest level, the video above can be seen as a primer for any Proselytizing… ahem….Evangelization program.

Furthermore, and more importantly, this is basic information that all the Faithful should know.

So grab a nice chilled bottle of Chardonnay or a six-pack of Pabst Blue Ribbon, kick back and savor the next 1 hour and 9 minutes.

It will be the best investment of time you will ever make.

h/t to Fr. Z. – see here

Update 05:00 9 September 2016

God, this is so good.

You will read this and you will like it!

Here are some gems:

Stefan Molyneux:

Universalism, which is really the foundation for philosophy. If nothing can be universalized, there is no such thing philosophy or science or math or any of those kinds of things. Universalism is the key to philosophy and in fact, under the Catholic Church in particular, but in Christendom as a whole, universalism was extended to humanity for the first time, at least that I could dig up. But because n the past there was Aristotle saying, you know some men are only fit to be slaves and should not have the protection of the laws and the rights of free men and so on. But in Christendom there was great concern over the universality of ethics (…) because all souls are made in the image of God and there should be no compulsion in religion, and so there was great sensitivity in the 16th  century for the rights of the native Indians who were being somewhat abused at times in the European settlement let’s say of North America. There was foundations for international law and the Catholic Church in particular was very positive towards science for the most part, funded science and was a great patron and advocate of science. The Catholic Church founded the university system which I guess we can see in your video all around you in Canberra.

The idea that REASON, or I guess what was called “logos” is intrinsically part of the divine nature of the Christian belief, is something that was very much buried in the education that I received.
And last but not least, the separation of church and state had its origins in Catholicism and I guess last but not least but one, ECONOMICS. There was a strong tradition of economics that founded the …. not the labor theory of value, which is Marxist fallacy, but the SUBJECTIVE value… theory of price, that price is something that is SUBJECTIVELY valued and can’t be OBJECTIVELY measured by labor input and so on, came out of the Scholastics in the 12th and 13th centuries and there’s a fairly direct line through that of the Austrian School of Economics of the 19th and 20th centuries.

So to take a short speech and make it even shorter, it seems to me that a lot of the history that I was taught is… I don’t know what’s the nicest way to put it… a little one sided, a little limited and the degree of respect that the Catholic Church and the other Christian churches and denominations had for Aristotle, you know, they called him the Philosopher and he was considered to be …. of course he was not a Christian, he was the pre-Christian thinker by hundreds of years. And the idea that reason and science and universality is the way you approach the mind of God, was something that I really had not been exposed to at all. In fact, I had been exposed to quite the opposite, which I guess is what happens when you read those who win one particular battle, you get just one side of things.

(…)

Dr. Duke Pesta:

What Christianity offered metaphysically, and I think we can stipulate that metaphysics, even if there is no God, whether God exists of not, the idea of metaphysics is certainly one that has been important to philosophers. And as you said, I think that metaphysics is really the, in many respects,  the underpinning of universalism. If you can’t talk metaphysically about a subject, then there can be no universality. In fact, I would argue, the more modern culture, post-modernism has rejected essences, universals and absolutes, the more absolutely chaotic and destructive to the idea of truth itself things have become. Philosophy in the modern era has become more or less bankrupt. I  mean, most modern philosophy is really now just a recap of what happened before. There’s very little new thinking about truth and about right and about wrong and aesthetics and beauty.

(…)

And what people fail to recognize is that one of the subjects that the universities covered was natural philosophy, which we would call science. The rather progressive thinkers of the Church hierarchy who put these universities in place, certainly they stressed theology, the study of God as the queen of all the arts and sciences. But never the less, there was a place carved out for the study of the world.  The argument being that if God created the universe, and God gave us rationality, then there is no rational reason that we can’t study it. And out of that effloresced .. you wouldn’t have had… this is the point I make, you couldn’t have had the enlightenment, you could not have had it, had it… it had happened only in the West primarily because there was a primary strain of tolerance for REASON and for abstract thought that was not Christian within Western Culture itself, that then gave rise to that. So I am not trying to suggest that Christianity if the only intellectual way to do anything, but of all the world’s philosophical traditions, Christianity has got some pretty serious intellectual chops, and I think ignoring that, as we so often do in our kids education, turns religion into a caricature.

(…)

[Explanation of Francis, bishop of Rome]

What you call this animanistic principle, we call paganism. Right? I think the real argument here is between paganism and monotheism. And the way monotheistic  religions, primarily Christianity and Judaism before the modern age, a little bit more Islam, moved the ball in the direction you mentioned. And I think, .. in my mind, in the modern world, with all of our technology, I don’t believe we are creating more atheists, I really do think we’re harkening back to a paganistic world view. If you think about all the rhetoric of the “global warmers” , about how mother earth, gia is being destroyed by her children. We should nurture and protect her. If you think about how the modern progressives …or even Obama declaring for president between two ancient Greek pillars and all those pictures they had on Time magazine in 2008 when he was running with the sort of halo behind him, with the lights, there is a real sense… or, or it’s the rise of the Nietzschian superman right, that transcends all morality, a certain kind of immortality in that. And so, if you think about paganism, the argument than to me in history swings between… you’re either going to have some sort of a monotheistic system or more likely you are going to have a pagan one. And the very inconsistencies you mentioned in paganism are exactly right. IT’s what happened when pagan Romans deified pagan men as  emperors and gods, those contradictions fell to pieces.

Update #2 06:30 9 September 2016

Answering the “who am I to judge” question.

But stepping back to the free will question, I think it’s absolutely important. I think you’re exactly right. I think the problem is bigger than maybe we’ve states so far. It’s not just that people are “economically determined”. We’ve got a major problem here where you either … increasingly from the biology, the biological sciences, the argument is coming that we are all genetically programmed, we are genetically determined. Your angry, you’re happy, you love, you hate, simply because you’re put together that way. You’re a pedophile simply  because your genes put you together… there’s this new movement on now to declassify pedophilia  as just one more alternative sexuality right like homo… I think we’re going to get there, too.  So the idea that we are all genetically determined, then you can’t hold anybody accountable, you can’t really punish people, you can’t JUDGE them.

The “determinist’s” violation of the law of non-contridiction.

Well of course this argument that comes out of the left that there’s more material, environmental and cultural economic determinism flies out the window when they come across ideas that they find oppositional. At which point they wish to ban them and they wish to drive them away and they call people racist, sexist and homophobic and misogynistic, all of which are moral judgments that depend on free will and they… fall apart in that whole area.

Francis, situation inside “Sacred Vatican Walls” and “power”

It’s the jungle. It’s back to the jungle. And this is the thing for me. When you remove the idea of God, again, the reality of God is we’re going leave to the side, it’s a matter of faith, you take the idea of God off the table philosophically, you remove that as a possibility, you always, it always goes back to the jungle. It always comes down to power. Look at our universities. These supposedly civilized, sophisticated places. They’re not. They’re places where power trumps everything. What Black Lives Matter ‘s looking for, what the feminists are looking for on campus, what the neo-marxists … they are not looking for equality. They’re not looking for dialogue. They want power. They don’t want to level the playing field, they want to flip it. That’s what they’re after here. And the idea of God was so valueable, as the idea of God progressed philosophically, from let’s face it, the pagan understanding of God, like you said, it’s really kind of simple minded, it’s a kind of superstitious animism right, it’s … and that’s what’s coming back now. We’re not creating more atheists here, we’re creating more pagans. Whe’re paganizing culture by getting rid of God.      

Update #3 09:15 9 September 2016

One more…

Why Christianity is THE option for the secularists?

Christianity, as a philosophy, is rationally correct to me in this regards and it’s an important regard. Christianity argues that every human heart is capable of good and evil. Every human being is capable of better and worse, right and wrong, true and false. That is a hallmark of Christian thinking. It’s true of classical thinking as well but it’s the hallmark of Christian thinking. Since we jettisoned that, notice what’s happened here. Some people are pure hearted and others not. We no longer believe that everyone is capable of evil. If you’re African American for instance in a university, said you cannot be racist because the power structure is against you. If your poor, you’re the 99%, you can’t be greedy. It’s only that 1%. What’s happened now that we jettisoned Christianity, … not only are you jettisoning the soul,  not only are you jettisoning transcendence, not only are you jettisoning free will, you’re also jettisoning this idea that we are all, in our hearts capable of choosing one way or another. So we have entire demographics now who are innocent no matter what they do. Other demographics, white privilege studies that we’re teaching kindergartners now, no matter what you do, if you’re Caucasian you are guilty of all this litany of sins. This is regressive. This is not progressive.  This is anti-rational, not rational. This is racism and bigotry masquerading as progressivism. And there is no excuse for it other than the fact that they have more power now in many of our cultural institutions than the preceding Christian… Judeo-Christian world views do. And it’s a power thing. We won, you lose. So effectively the progressives are telling you: you suck it. You’re white, your guilty, you’re black, your innocent… your rich, you’ re evil, you’re poor, you’re a victim. This is what we’re doing now across culture.

All the things that classical liberalism used to fight against, now they’re embracing. Discrimination, segregation, all this stuff. Keeping people apart from each other, reducing people to their gender, their sex, their skin color, that what they’re doing now in the name of progressive rationalism. Things that a simple reading of the Gospels, regardless whether you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God or not, a simple reading of the Gospels should tell you, you can’t do it. It took us 2000 years to abolish slavery in the West. And we did it. Most of the abolitionists in the 19th century were Christians. Because their world view demanded it.

You have nothing corresponding on the rationalist’s side. When I find these reasonable people who don’t believe in anything  insisting again and again and again it’s rational to love your neighbor, I ask them why and they never ever have an answer. They always default… and tell me you never heard this Stefan, they always default to the cultural contract or the social contract. We agree not to hurt each other, because in the long run, we can work together. Well that works when you’re on this side of things, but what if I’ve got all the cards and you don’t?  Why should I give them up for you at this particular moment it’s the jungle mentality. I can take it from you. The Hitlers and the Stalins and the Maos all use the social contract to gain power, and when they gain power, what do they do? They took it away from everybody else. It seems to be the norm when you look at how these things play themselves out culturally.

And here, Dr. Duke Pesta destroys Francis’ JunkTheology:

The modern world, absent all the things that have gone away, you know, God, faith, the superstructures of theology and belief, the modern world wants absolute freedom without any consequences. And those are the two things that you can’t have. If you sum the bible up, you sum the whole of Christian tradition up, you sum more or less the whole of world religion up, theology up for more or less 5000 years, it comes down to that, doesn’t it. That you can’t be free and be without consequences in your culture. In that they don’t go together. You can be free and without consequences, or you can have consequences and no freedom,  but they don’t go together.   And the story of Christianity, the story of Christ is the story of genuine freedom comes from a recognition of consequence.  And call it heaven, call it hell, call it carrot/stick, call it true false, call it life and death, call it the jungle versus civilization. All those are fair. The reality is, as we’ve talked about today, can they exist in the current climate. Everything tends towards the jungle now.  Nothing tends towards the consequence, so I’m like you.

I don’t see, maybe they will, maybe reason will conquer in a 100 years. Maybe they’ll come up with some formulaic way of doing it. Maybe they’ll be able to medicate people into behaving them the way they want them to be. But then again, should that day ever come, we’re back to the dystopia right.

To which Stefan Molyneux answers:

No free will.