Fabric Of Reality And Using Truthful Language To Extract Order Out Of Chaos…


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

The Fraudster FrancisCommunications Chief +Vigano with Francis’ “life’s work”, a.k.a. the Theology of Death™, consisting of those “eleven small books” in hand…

Oh my! Oh my! Oh my, my loyal and beloved readers are a tough crowd!

So in yesterday’s post, your humble blogger tried to provide some CONTEXT to understanding Josef Ratzinger, the man, the priest, the bishop, the cardinal, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and finally, the Roman Pontiff His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.

And as it just so happens, Christopher Ferrara jumped in and wrote a post under the title: LETTERGATE UPDATE: Vatican’s Fraudulent Doctoring of Letter from Benedict to Vigano Now Fully Exposed which appeared on the website of The Remnant. This post was also written in the same “spirit”, and was concluded as follows:

A word to the wise: It is a risky business indeed to make definitive declarations about the mind or motives of Benedict, the reasons for his abdication, the situation in which he now finds himself, or the intention behind letters and other statements attributed to him by assorted Bergoglian mafiosi.

Your humble blogger wholeheartedly agrees with these words to the wise.

Furthermore, the intentions behind yesterday’s post titled On The Nature Of The Fabric Of Reality And The Greatest Sentence Written By Human Hands…was not to change anyone’s mind about Josef Ratzinger the man and his history, but rather to explain how his actions were of a profound benefit to, and cannot be understated in our understanding of the PROCESS whose chronicling is the mission, bah…the raison d’etat of this humble blog, i.e. the restoration of all things in Christ.

And a PROCESS it is…

So your humble blogger was getting ready to do a follow-up post about the SIGNIFICANCE of a complete The Letter™, but because of the comments both in the comment box and on Twitter, has had to retrench.

So today, more on the PROCESS.

Let’s begin with the following text written in yesterday’s post:

Well, your humble blogger doesn’t accept the conventional wisdom that there is this “wide variance” in Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict “system of belief”. On the other hand, your humble blogger also doesn’t accept the self-refuting notion that Ratzinger’s “system of belief” was static (fixed) over the 50+ years of his writing, teaching and thinking. The true “Ratzingerian system of belief” has been dynamic and “subsists” somewhere in the middle of these two extreme views moving from left to right.

The reason why His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI is hated by the post-Modernists is contained in the last line, which I have emphasized. The reason why he is hated, regardless of all the neo-Modernistic stuff that he has produced over his 50+years as the foremost neo-Modernist Catholic intellectual is that he stopped the advance of “progress” as a leftist post-Modernist IDEOLOGUE would define it.

More than that, Pope Benedict XVI has turned the Barque of St. Peter around to sail in the opposite direction.

And for this, he cannot and will not be forgiven by the post-Modernists.

To provide supporting evidence for this position, and to help clarify the SIGNIFICANCE of that which Pope Benedict in fact did, we revert back to Dr. Jordan Peterson and a video that I have embedded in yesterday’s post.

Carrying on with a sociological analysis, in yesterday’s post is provided a video from Dr. Jordan Peterson in which he explains a certain aspect of the NATURE of REALITY.  Here is the video titled The Fear of God is the Beginning of Wisdom and a transcript with my comments below:

Ok, so here we go:

Jordan Peterson: You know, all those people, they’re prostrate at the revelation of the law. So it’s like, no wonder! It’s like break the law and see what happens. Break the Universal Moral Law and see what happens. 

The HYPOTHESIS is that the post-conciliar church BROKE THE UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW at the Second Vatican Council and that this is the ROOT CAUSE of its subsequent disintegration.

You know, I see people in that situation… as you all do… all the time. Perhaps me more than you because I’m a clinical psychologist. You know. If the people I’m seeing haven’t broken the Universal (Moral) Law, then you can bloody well be sure that people around them have. It’s no joke. You make a mistake, and things will go seriously wrong for you. And so, it’s no wonder you’d be terrified at the revelation of the structure that governs our being. 

One of the things that’s so remarkable about the Old Testament, and this is another thing Nietzsche commented on… He was a real admirer of the Old Testament. Not so much of the New Testament. He thought it was a sin for Europe to have glued the New Testament onto the Old Testament. Because he thought the Old Testament was a really accurate representation of the phenomenology of being. It’s like: stay awake, speak properly, be honest or watch the hell out, because things will come your way that you just do not want to see at all. And it might not just be you, it might be everyone you know and everything about your culture that is demolished for generation after generation. It’s like stay awake and be careful.

So what we can observe in the post-conciliar church is a church hierarchy that has stopped: staying awake (new springtime no matter how bad the real situation gets), speaking properly (homoerotic pseudo-sacral musings instead of preaching solid Catholic doctrine), being honest (+Vigano is just the latest example) and have stopped watching out as to what is happening around them!

And I think that people only don’t believe that when they are being hubristic.  And I think that most people know that deep in their hearts. You know, when you get high on your horse, and that happens fairly often, if you have any sense, you think ‘geez I’d better be careful’. Tap myself down a fair bit, because if I get too puffed up, man, something’s going to come along and take me out at the knees. And everyone knows that. Pride comes before a fall. That’s why it says in the Old Testament that the ‘fear of God is the beginning of wisdom’.

It is quite evident that over the last 50 years, the men who run the Institutional Church are those who have lost their fear of God.

It’s like, I’ve never in all my years as a clinical psychologist, and this is something that really terrifies me, I have never seen anyone ever get anything at all, even once. You know, there’s that old idea that God has a book and keeps track of everything in heaven, it’s like, ok, ok, you know, maybe it’s not a book. Fine, but that is a really useful thing to think about… maybe you disagree. Maybe you think people get away with things all the time. I’ll tell you. I’ve never seen it.

And the post-conciliar church is the prime example of not getting away with anything…

What I see instead is: things happen. Someone twists the FABRIC OF REALITY. And they do it successfully, because it doesn’t snap back at them that moment. And then, two years later, something unravels. And they get walloped. And they say “Oh my God, that’s so unfair!’. And then we track it. It’s like: ‘what happened before that – this. And then what – this. And then what – this. And then what – Ohhhh… THIS. Well, that’s were it went wrong. It’s yea… Because you can’t twist the FABRIC OF REALITY, without having it snap back. It doesnt’ work that way. And why would it. Because what are you going to do? Twist the FABRIC OF REALITY? I don’t think so. I think it’s bigger than you.

What your humble blogger suspects happened is that Pope Benedict realized sometime during the 1980’s that the post-conciliar experiment went wrong. It was at this time that maybe not his writings, but his actions started to indicate that he had a change of heart. The post-conciliar IDEOLOGUES sensed this, and started to turn against him. Hence Josef Ratzinger went from being the darling of the Rahnerist crowd to a figure of their hatred.

You know, and I think that one of the things that tempts people is the idea that I can get away with it. It’s like, yea, ‘you try it’. You see how well that works. It’s like, you get away with nothing. And that is the beginning of wisdom. And it’s something that deeply terrifies me. 

And finally, one major distinction between the neo-Modernists and the post-Modernists is how they react to the PHENOMENON which Dr. Peterson described as the FABRIC OF REALITY starting to snap back. The neo-Modernists will pull back and allow it to snap back, while the post-Modernists will want to completely tear the FABRIC OF REALITY apart.

And it is this SOURCE of the tension that we are seeing playing out between the FrancisChurch (Francis) and the JPII Church (Pope Benedict), right before our very eyes.

Concluding, what we see quite clearly from Dr. Peterson’s video is the metaphysical, dare I say supernatural explanation for the destruction of the post-conciliar church.

Next order of business…

Given that we are speaking about a PROCESS, and  given that your humble blogger has been using analytical tools squarely nestled in the NATURAL part of the Visibislium Omnium, those being the physical and social sciences, today will make an exception. Today we will draw on Catholic Church history to see what lessons can be learned.

Over on the Gloria.tv website, a post appeared in which the anonymous Catholic author who wrote under the nom de plume of Marcantonio Colonna, was identified. Along with his identification and picture, a short 20 minute video appeared, and was provided by our friend Dr. Joseph Shaw. (see here)


In this video we can see the author of the Dictator Pope explaining how he sees the Restoration PROCESS going forward. The skinny cold be summed up as follows:

Tradition as the future!

In terms of the Peterson observations, one can say that it is the Traditionalists who live in harmony with the FABRIC OF REALITY.

So for our purposes, aside from the confirmation that this humble blogger is on the right track and reading the PROCESS correctly, this information presented by Mr Sire should give us all a needed shot of serotonin to our prefrontal cortex, i.e. should make us feel a bit better, during these dark days of open HERESY being promoted by people inside the Sacred Vatican Walls and Francis, the bishop of Rome.

Aside from the feel good factor, this information provided by Mr. Sire also provides us with some information about PROCESS itself. What this information clearly demonstrates is that no matter how bad it gets, the PROCESS will eventually turn itself around, and it could do so rapidly.

Here is what Mr. Sire had to say:

I describe the Traditionalist movement. And here I have in mind what Fr. Whitters (?) was saying about the Traditinalists forming a firing squad by forming a circle. I believe that all Traditionalists ought to be working together. So it’s not the matter of just the ones that are currently recognized by the Church but also the SSPX which has not yet won full recognition.

And I say that this represents the future of the Church. Just as in previous cases where movements … at moments of corruption have brought the Church low, they have been overcome by a return to Tradition, so it will be now.

I point out a parallel.

Imagine that in the year 1800, one had been speaking to a widely idealist Catholic and he said… that this is at a time when religion had been driven almost underground by the revolution in France, when there were anticlerical  dynasties in the rest of Europe bent upon turning their churches into departments of states, when for 6 months, the Holy See was vacant after Pius VI had died in exile when it seam as if the program of the philisophe to do away with religion, and almost succeeded, this idealist Catholic might have said “my program is for a full revival of Catholicism, a great revival to a devotion to Our Lady, and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception will be defined as a dogma of Faith, a great resurgence in the monastic life and the Society of Jesus, which is suppressed 30 years ago, will be restored and will become again the strongest order in the Church, and a great restoration of the strength of the Papacy, the Papal Office and the doctrine of the infallibility of the Church, of the Pope will be defined a Council’. Well, anyone who considered the worldly probabilities of the time would say that his man was absolutely mad and yet, within 70 years each one of his predictions was fulfilled.

And I say in the coming period, we are going to witness something of the same sort. The recovery of Tradition to heal a sickness that has been cause by one… one of several periods of corruption in the Church.

Concluding, what the above describes, if it was to be summed up using Dr. Petersons diagnosis, would be to say that it took 70 years for Catholicism, using truthful language, to extract order out of chaos.

I will end here since I have run long already…

Mea culpa…


On The Nature Of The Fabric Of Reality And The Greatest Sentence Written By Human Hands…


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

Oh well, that didn’t take long!

As they say, “those” observations about the Pope Benedict XVI LETTER™ didn’t age well…

As my readers know, our last post was titled Don’t Follow The Shiny Object… This post tried to dissuade my fellow Catholic writers and blogger from taking gratuitous potshots at His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, but look at the wider CONTEXT of what was happening around this LETTER™.

So today, your humble blogger will try to put Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI into some perspective, in order to better understand the contents and meaning of … you guessed it… the LETTER™.

Now this “Benedict is a Modernist, therefore…” theme is easy to construct. The main reason for this is that Pope Benedict has been a prolific writer for over 50 years, so there is much material that can be reviewed and which can be rightly criticized. Make that: “selectively” criticized and taken out of the WIDER CONTEXT.

Furthermore, what makes it easy for Pope Benedict’s critics is that Joseph Ratzinger has been on a “journey” from holding intellectual (politically correct according to the contemporary post-Modernist zeitgemäß, i.e.  can mean “modern,” “suitable,” or even “appropriate,” and often carries all of these shades when applied to the Church) positions in his youth, which were squarely lodged in the neo-Modernist, Nouvelle Théologie camp, then descended into what can be called Rahnerism (German Hegelian Relativists). In about the late 1970’s, after sensory data clearly dictated to Ratzinger that the “new springtime of the spirit of Vatican II was a colossal FAILURE, a middle-aged Joseph Ratzinger began changing his theological positions. These changes of position by Joseph Ratzinger were seen as a betrayal to the entire Rahnerist movement, hence the hatred of the “progressives” for Pope Benedict and his work. 

Yet, the degree of this hatred and its severity, when observed through an objective prism, also allows us to gauge the degree to which the German Relativists see Raztinger’s mental “brain power” as a threat to their “socially constructed artificial” IDEOLOGY, i.e. that which is called the German Theological School.

So moving on, what we have seen over this period is Joseph Ratzinger being transformed (rebranded) by the #faketheologians, #fake“c”atholic media and their #fakenews media contacts, from a flaming Relativist and Rahnerist in the 1960’s to an arch-conservative “papal rottweiler” in the 1980’s and 1990’s, and on to a quasi-Thomist Restorationist as Pope Benedict XVI.

And all along, the less observant have been doing nothing more than “following the shiny object”.

Given the above, what is the official Deus ex Machina take on Joseph Ratzinger the theologian and the subsequent Pope Benedict XVI, you may ask dear and loyal reader?

Well, your humble blogger doesn’t accept the conventional wisdom that there is this “wide variance” in Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict “system of belief”. On the other hand, your humble blogger also doesn’t accept the self-refuting notion that Ratzinger’s “system of belief” was static (fixed) over the 50+ years of his writing, teaching and thinking. The true “Ratzingerian system of belief” has been dynamic and “subsists” somewhere in the middle of these two extreme views moving from left to right.

It is this “movement from left to right”, especially by someone with Ratzinger’s intellectual prowess that has the post-Modernists and neo-Modernists in a tizzy!

However, even this above explanation is much too simple…

What can be legitimately claimed about Joseph Ratzinger, the theologian and philosopher is that he is endowed with a staggering intellect. He is by far one of the  most brilliant men, in terms of intellectual prowess of the 20th and 21st century. And the problem with brilliant people is that they have an ability to recognize OBJECTIVE REALITY when others around them can’t. And to the less intelligent IDEOLOGUES, this is a very dangerous PHENOMENON.

The reason why this is important to understand is that Joseph Ratzinger spent most of his clerical life in a relatively isolated environment. Therefore, certain key aspects of his life have an exaggerated meaning– hence the “wide variance” view. Understanding these aspects though, allows us to get a better handle on Ratzinger the man and his life’s work.

This isolated environment is one where the “spirit of the new springtime” crowd has complete control of the NARRATIVE. Actually, one can say that these people have a fanatical adherence to this “new springtime of the spirit of VII” NARRATIVE.

This fanaticism has allowed these people to have completely suppressed REALIST philosophy from the wider debate, not to mention Thomism from Catholic theology and from wider ECCLESIASTICAL affairs. And they did it in the most brutal manor. The manner in which they suppressed Realism/Thomist is by what can be called “poisoning the well”, i.e. linking it with Antisemitism.

To provide a good idea of how this was accomplished, here is John Lamont to explain who this mechanism worked in the post-Modernist liturgical movement: (see here)

Fr. van Hove’s abuse of Garrigou-Lagrange is a characteristic example of anti-Thomist propaganda. His attempt to discredit any revival of interest in Garrigou-Lagrange’s work raises questions in an inquiring reader’s mind. Why single out this particular Thomist as a target, especially if his work was ‘minor at best’?

The answer is that Garrigou-Lagrange played a crucial role in the battle over the revival of modernism in the mid-20th century. In a series of articles in the late 1940s,17 he called attention to the revival of modernist ideas, stated that these ideas were heretical, identified the principles of this neomodernism, and subjected the principles to devastating criticism. Other theologians did some of these things as well,18 but Garrigou-Lagrange was the only one to both thoroughly refute neomodernism, and to state that it was heretical and needed to be treated as such. His initiative was an important precursor to the later condemnation of neomodernism by the encyclical Humani Generis, as Fr. Van Hove states. But it is his intellectual contribution to the defence of the faith that is most significant for neomodernists today, because it makes his scholarly rehabilitation a danger to that school of thought.

So what we see is that the suppression of Thomism wan’t based on philosophical or rational grounds, but rather on emotionalism and propaganda. By assassinating (taking out of CONTEXT) Garrigou-Lagrange’s character, the neo-Modernist’s were able to stigmatize the most dangerous opponent of their IDEOLOGY, and by extension stigmatize Thomism, the foundational philosophical (Realist) infrastructure of Catholic theology (formation of vocations), in the process.

The other important aspect to understand “Ratzinger-the man” is that he is German. And for a German who had the misfortune to live in post-WWII Europe, there were certain logical, realist and rational positions that he as a post WWII Germans could not take. Here is a great post via the Radical Catholic blog titled Church in Crisis: Diaspora Germany, written by Markus Günther and appearing on December 29, 2014 in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, one of the largest and most reputable newspapers in Germany. It provides us with CONTEXT: (see here)

On the night of December 13, almost exactly 50 years ago to the day, a student named Franz (Kamphaus) wandered through the streets of Münster. He could not sleep. He was too upset by the homily he had heard in the cathedral earlier that evening, delivered by a young priest and professor (Fr. Josef Ratzinger) only a few years older than himself, which interpreted Advent and Christmas in an entirely different, even revolutionary way: the old doctrine, according to which human history falls into a time of darkness and a time of salvation – namely, into the time before and the time after the birth of Christ – is one which no one today can take seriously, said the young theologian. Who, after the World Wars, after Auschwitz and Hiroshima, could still speak of the ‘Time of Grace’ which began 2000 years ago in Bethlehem? No, the dividing line between the darkness and the light, between captivity and salvation, does not divide history, but rather our own soul. Advent is not an event which takes place in the calendar, but rather in our hearts – or it founders there fruitlessly. That’s strong stuff, and one can easily understand why the young student had trouble finding sleep after this homily, and instead wanted to be alone to think it all through.

So what we see above is what we now would call the “musings” of a young, impressionable, albeit highly intelligent priest, trying to understand that which has happened around him since his seminary days. This national trauma that the German nation went through after the Second World War has a fundamental impact upon the psyche of not only the nation, but especially on those who could be considered as part of the national intelligentsia.

On a metaphysical level, the above two cases can be viewed as examples of what Dr. Jordan Peterson calls the twisting or TEARING of the FABRIC OF REALITY.

Hold that thought…

Today, we would call it the mistakes of the youth. And it is quite evident that young Josef Ratzinger made those. He made grave mistakes questioning the Immutable Doctrine of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. The questioning of the Catholic doctrine was widespread among the post-war European elites and reached directly to the top. This is the reason why it was the Western Europeans who were instrumental in the calling of the “pastoral” council and rebelled against the Card. Ottaviani’s schema, forcing through the blueprint of destruction of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. And young Fr. Ratzinger played an instrumental part.

So what we later see is a middle-aged Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect for the Holy Office (CDF) and later Pope Benedict XVI, with this considerable baggage of his youth. Further, he is surrounded by individual who don’t have the intellectual wherewithal to recognize and understand the destruction that Vatican II has wrought. The reason could be that they were and still are blinded by their ambition.

And this is the environment in which Pope Benedict XVI is functioning in and living to this day.

Nota bene: Now, this doesn’t include the intrinsically disordered who have a vested interest in the post-conciliar church guided by the “god of surprises”.

Concluding, what we see is a man who has made mistakes in his youth. The mistakes he has made are far larger than most, if not all young men, in that he has aided and abetted in the destruction of the Catholic Church, i.e. the only means of salvation provided to man.

Now, this doesn’t mean that Josef Ratzinger/Pope Benedict believes in Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, but what he does understand is that the Catholic Church is special in that it has “maintained continuous operations and has been an ongoing concern” since Anno Domini 33 and that if the Institutional Church collapses, it will be in a large part due to him.

I will end here because I think that this is the point where we all, as Faithful Catholics should be able to agree.

It is also at this point where our views of Josef Ratzinger/Cardinal Raztinger/Prefect of CDF/Pope Benedict XVI would diverge.

Yet not wanting to cross this threshold today, your humble blogger needs to mention one very important aspect of Pope Benedict XVI’s accomplishments that stands out above all others. It comes in the form of what I consider the greatest sentence ever written outside those that appear in Holy Scripture.

This sentence on a philosophical level can and SHOULD be interpreted as one that tries to MEND the TEAR in what Dr. Peterson terms the “FABRIC OF REALITY”.

Here is that sentence and I would like all you dear readers to meditate on it for a day or two. Please think about the consequences that MUST arise from the proper course of action implied by this sentence!

In the next post, I will return and comment on the second part of the LETTER™. 

So here goes:

“What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.”

And one more video by Dr. Peterson on the Nature of Reality and the consequences of  “breaking the universal law”:

Don’t Follow The Shiny Object…


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

God, where do I begin?

As most of my dear and loyal readers know, a letter appeared that was “written” (it was typed in fact, as opposed to the usual handwritten notes in distinctive diminutive form) by Pope Benedict XVI.

This letter was recognized by ALL to be completely NOT of the style NOR the form of His Holiness Benedict XVI. What’s worse, it was misrepresented by the FrancisChurch minions in such a way that it initially appeared to “endorse” the notion (#fakenews) that Francis, the bishop of Rome is “theologically profound” and that that which he “teaches” is in “internal continuity” with that of the post-conciliar church, as taught by JPII “the great” and His Holiness himself.

And as you dear readers also know, a HUMONGOUS SHIT STORM has ensued.

So today, your humble blogger takes a look at the bigger WHY.

What’s interesting to note, is that this OCCURRENCE has, on a very profound psychological level, allowed those frustrated by the current state of the post-conciliar church, to lash out at His Holiness. Yet by this emotional “lashing out” they are missing the bigger point, i.e. looking at the shiny object.

This hyper-emotionalist lashing out at His Holiness, is due to his allowing the Institutional Church on which the post-conciliar church subsists (as in: Jane subsists on welfare and casual labor), to reach this calamitous state.

Specifically, for allowing the Francis bishopric of Rome to come into existence.

Nota bene: Notice how DEFINITIONS are of the utmost  importance, and how the referencing to the proper sub-definition can allow one to properly identify the problem and then to frame the proper argument? So yes Virginia, one needs to distinguish between the neo-Modernists like His Holiness and the post-Modernists like Francis. Otherwise, you get something like this emotional mish-mash here. And I don’t mean to pick on anyone here in particular.

Back to the subject at hand…

So given that this LETTER has created the above mentioned SHIT STORM, lets critically examine this LETTER and try to place it into its proper CONTEXT. Here is the translation and my comments: (see here)

I thank you for your courteous letter of January 12 and for the attached gift of the eleven small volumes edited by Roberto Repole.

This opening sentence has to do with a “theological work”, which was produced to provide “external credibility” (propositional fallacy: profound theologians and philosophers write multi-volume works, Francis “writes” multi-volume work, therefore Francis is a profound theologian and philosopher) in order to justify that all the homilies, speeches and musings coming out of the Domus Sanctae Martae daily (i.e. Francis “magisterium”), are just the next step in the logical “progression” between the theology of His Holiness and Francis, this ‘theological work” is described by His Holiness as… wait for it… “eleven small volumes”.

And then he goes on to explicitly mention that the “eleven small volumes” he received were “edited”, i.e. prepared (written material) for publication by correcting, condensing, or otherwise modifying it. In other words, a compilation is not even an  “original work” produced by the hand of Francis.

The irony is obvious, especially coming from an authentic and widely recognized theological and intellectual GIANT. Further, the implicit contempt lodged in those three short words used to describe that which is being billed as Francis’ life’s “theological and philosophical” work, just oozes out!

All in all, this first sentence is downright Nietzschean.

I applaud this initiative which is intended to oppose and react to the foolish prejudice according to which Pope Francis would be only a practical man devoid of particular theological or philosophical formation, while I would be solely a theoretician of theology who could understand little of the concrete life of a Christian today.

What’s important in this paragraph is that the “letter” to which His Holiness is responding writing his LETTER, was not written by Francis, but by an intermediary. As was the “initiative”.

Next, it would appear that there were some negotiations involved, since His Holiness uses a quite harsh description of Francis’ theological and philosophical formation, while implying it be non-existent (Francis is ‘a practical man devoid of particular…’). Yes, read in this proper CONTEXT, the denial is an affirmation.

And as to the purported views of Francis and himself, as per this paragraph, His Holiness describes these (2 views) as based on “foolish prejudice”. In other words, His Holiness is assigning a subjective source of “intent” to those who make not only the claim against Francis, but also against him, since he can’t objectify it. Hmmm….

Who is the owner of the intellectual property of the “initiative intended to react to the foolish prejudice…“? It’s definitely not His Holiness.

Hold that thought…

The next problem is that nobody, outside of Francis’ small circle of psychopaths and courtiers make this claim about Pope Benedict. This “claim about Pope Benedict” is not only a caricaturesque depiction of him, but also a logical straw-man. And this straw-man His Holiness turns around and lodges inside the paragraph with full premeditation, as if to undermine its worth. Talk about sticking a dead rat under Francis’ floorboards?

The little volumes demonstrate, rightly so, that Pope Francis is a man of profound philosophical and theological formation, and they therefore help in seeing the interior continuity between the two pontificates, albeit with all the differences of style and temperament.

And again, the “little volumes”, for emphasis…

Using this “little volumes” descriptor for Francis’ life’s work, makes the first sentence a non-sequitur. “Little volumes” don’t lead to a claim of “profoundness”, if for no other reason than syntax. As to what in the wild, wild world of Benedictine put-downs “internal continuity” means, I refer you to the Non Veni Pace blog for the most excellent deconstruction of the essence of this phraseology.

Also notice that the “internal continuity” refers to the “two pontificates”, not to the “philosophical and theological” “little volumes” of Francis works themselves.

Nonetheless, I do not feel that I can write a brief and dense theological page about them because for my whole life it has always been clear that I would write and express myself only on books that I had also truly read. Unfortunately, even if only for physical reasons, I am not able to read the eleven little volumes in the near future, all the more so in that I am under other obligations to which I have already agreed.

And after insulting Francis, in a not-so-cryptic, yet sublime manner, His Holiness drops the hand-grenade into the shitter. He has been asked through the initial letter to “write a brief and dense theological page” which clearly means a “theological endorsement”, i.e. the “external credibility” or in logical fallacy terms, the appeal to authority.

This His Holiness say he cannot do.

And the reasoning?

He then goes on to ridicule Francis’ edited “life’s work” by saying that he hasn’t even read them, and according to the chronology of the two letters, he’s had a month to read “eleven little volumes”.

He also takes another swipe at Francis by stating that “(I) express myself only on books that I had also truly read”. The key word here is “truly”. One way to understand this is that His Holiness is taking a back handed swipe at Francis for his in-coherency and confusion. This passage implies that that which Francis produces cannot be understood in a simple reading of the text. A mean person could make the claim that it is gobbledygook. Further, the implication is that he would need to take a red pen to these “eleven small volumes” if he was to “truly read” them.

But he can’t because:if only for physical reasons”. But that’s not to say that this rejection is due to incapacity. This is clear in the last part of the sentence where he writes: “all the more so in that I am under other obligations.” What His Holiness is saying is that he will not rearrange his earlier obligations, even at the direct request of the… wait for it… the nominal “Roman Pontiff”.

In other words, go away, you bother me.

And His Holiness doesn’t even give Francis the courtesy of a personally written note, in his distinctive diminutive handwriting.

I am sure that you will understand, and I extend to you my cordial greeting.


Benedict XVI

Concluding, and what does this all mean?

What it means is that Francis has a credibility problem. This credibility problem has been caused in large part, if not in the largest part by his “Joy of Adultery” FrancisDocument. 

The “Joy of Adultery” has created a crisis within the top leadership of the Vatican and it is an issue that just won’t go away. Francis has Faithful Catholics writing petitions, filial corrections and request for him to resign. He has his Cardinals writing Dubias.

The basis for all these documents is the claim that Francis is promulgating FORMAL HERESY.

So the clever FrancisTeam members thought that if they could get His Holiness, who is a respected and universally acclaimed authority to give the FrancisMagisterium, as represented by the proxy that are the “eleven little volumes”, his official seal of approval, this could be then spun as a counter argument against all the petitions, filial corrections, requests for him to resign and dubias.

Further, it wold appear that it was explicitly requested of His Holiness to mention “continuity”, which His Holiness consigned into the proverbial “long grass”. It also confirms the above assertion.

So His Holiness recognized the trap that he was being lured into. He didn’t read the “eleven little volumes” for the simple reason that he had been there, done that and had gotten that t-shirt. This “t-shirt” he had gotten was from the German Group compromise that he engineered between the homosexualist Card. Schönborn and the then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (see here)

Nota bene: Post-Modernists don’t play by the rules because to a post-Modernist, there are no rules.

Now all of the above is fine and dandy, but one element still needs to be addressed. That element is the FRAUD that TeamFrancis allowed itself to perpetrate by providing a “doctored” photo of Pope Benedict’s letter into the public domain. This patent FRAUD, picked up and reported by the mainstream #fakenews media and real media is what gave this, what appeared at first to be just another example in a long line of FrancisVatican FRAUD, it’s critical mass to become the international SHITSTORM that it has become.

And the most likely explanation for why TeamFrancis engaged in this FRAUD and tried to promote it through the friendly #fakenews media was that they have a BIG problem.

If you dear readers recall, Francis has called a synod this year. That synod has an explicit agenda and a HIDDEN AGENDA.

The HIDDEN AGENDA is that same HIDDEN AGENDA that was present at the bi-Sexual Secret Synods on the “Family” in 2014 and 2015. The same individuals are running it and the script is likewise that same. The HIDDEN AGENDA was then, and will be now to remove the term “intrinsically disordered” from the Code of Canon Law and from the Catholic Catechism.

The strategy was first to undermine the MORAL THEOLOGY by drilling into the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. But they found very strong opposition to get the HIDDEN AGENDA through, so they settled for a half measure. The half measure was to allow for the admittance of serial adulterers to Holy Communion.

This loophole was nominally specific – serial adulterers, yet the ambiguity of the text (footnote) was such that is opened a BIG GAPING HOLE in Catholic Moral Teaching. Here is how Archbishop Fernandez explains this: (see here)

Amoris laetitia implies a paradigmatic shift in the way complex situations are treated, even if this does not involve the opening of all doors. It certainly goes beyond the possibility for some remarried divorcees to receive communion.

Now this BIG GAPING HOLE in Catholic Moral Teaching is to be used at this next Synod, the one where the promulgation of “identity group politics” will be used to expunge the “rigid” definition of “INTRINSICALLY DISORDERED” from Catholic Moral Teaching. The extras from central casting NUChurch peripheries, in the form of young people with sexual disorders, will be paraded as next in line victims of the neo-Palagians in order to receive FrancisMercy.

But this still isn’t the REAL AGENDA altogether. The REAL AGENDA is to make sexual disorder acceptable in Catholic Moral Teaching. The reason being that most of the people promoting the FrancisTheology and FrancisChurch suffer from this disorder themselves.

They lived in fear of Pope Benedict and his reforms that were designed to get rid of the “filth”. (see here) They got a reprieve under Francis, who needs them to manage the day to day operations of the Vatican. And after all, personnel is policy! Yet the FrancisChurch is disintegrating beneath their feet, and they are worried that the next Roman Pontiff will find himself in a situation where he will really need to clean house.

And it will be the end for them.

So they will do everything to secure their position. This includes working for a physical schism, but one in where they will be left with the tangible assets and bank accounts. 

And to their good fortune, Francis’ Communist IDEOLOGY aligns quite nicely with theirs.

And just as a reminder, here is how the good Archbishop of Tibernia explains it:

These reforms are very important, but they are also the most “reversible”. Another Pope can come and create a huge Curia. In addition, the people who will be in these bodies will be decisive. But I believe that Francis was able to “de-idealize” the Vatican Curia – as well and forever, which should be seen only as an organization at service of the Pope, that does not replace the Pope or the bishops.

So what we see is the INTRINSICALLY DISORDERED within the post-conciliar church, have been hitched by fate to the FrancisHorse and are doing everything in their power to help the brother out. Simultaneously they are helping themselves out.

Their station in life depends on it!

Yet in the mean time, we Faithful Catholics are … hate to say it…

…following the shiny object.



Fraudulent FrancisChurch’s Fetish With Thomism Explained…


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

Oh my!

But before we get to the “oh my!”, in good Thomist style and form, we begin today’s post with a definition.

Definition of fetish

1 a : an object (such as a small stone carving of an animal) believed to have magical power to protect or aid its owner; broadly : a material object regarded with superstitious or extravagant trust or reverence

b : an object of irrational reverence or obsessive devotion : prepossession

c : an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression

2 : fixation

3 : a rite or cult of fetish worshippers

So let’s get cracking.

We begin with a sighting.

The “sighting” that I am referring to appears in the following passage from one of our favorite Catholic blogs and sources of REAL INFORMATION (DATA POINTS), OnePeterFive: (see here)

“It was a true surprise,” sources inside the Synod commented today with admiration, while they noted that “the relatio, which passed not without conflicts, found at the last moment a common base of support.” In the breathless hours of the final draft Cardinal Walter Kasper, cited the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, where he speaks about the “principle of prudence.” And in the relatio of the Germanic Circle he proposed the key word “discernment,” a word dear to the Jesuits and to Bergoglio. That evening Müller carried the book of Aquinas home with him. The next morning he accepted the compromise proposed by the progressives. [emphasis added]

The passage above describes part of the process by which the FrancisChurch and the homosexualist FrancisCardinal Schönborn scammed the Prefect of the CDF, one Cardinal Muller to a compromise over the text produced by the German Group, which later was verbatim pasted into the FrancisDocument “Joy of Adultery”, in order to get the Prefect’s approval of the wording of the said document.

What I would like to draw your attention to is the following part of the above passage: (emphasis added)

In the breathless hours of the final draft Cardinal Walter Kasper, cited the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, where he speaks about the “principle of prudence.”

Now hold that thought…

And please go and read the entire post (see here).

Now, whenever the name of, or reference to St. Thomas of Aquinas appears, your humble blogger has this instinctive reaction to go to the top of the Deus ex Machina blog, click on the page Why Thomism? and spend 5 to 10 minutes re-reading the essay. The reason being that it allows one to place himself in the proper mindset to read the rest of the offending document where the name of St. Thomas appeared. Like our post-Modernist adversaries like to say: CONTEXT is everything.

Now, so why is this proper mindset important?

The reason it is important is because we are dealing with two types of post-conciliar clerics, namely neo-Modernists and post-Modernists. One characteristic that applies to both these camps is that they consider themselves anti-Thomist. One can say, post-Thomist.

In other words, Thomism was suppressed never to raise its head never, ever and ever again at the cult gathering known as the Second Vatican Council. It was at this Council that the cult of fetish worshippers, thought that they were finally putting Thomism to rest once and for all. Here is the relevant passage: (with emphasis and added emphasis)

This propaganda (strategy that suppressed Thomism) was often crassly expressed, to a degree amazing in scholarly venues. But once it had succeeded in making an emotional connection, this crassness – as is the way with propaganda – only strengthened its power. Once this power had been demonstrated, fear of being its victim added to its strength.

Now that the party behind it has achieved dominance in the Church, and banished Thomist philosophy and theology from virtually every Catholic institution of higher education, this propaganda largely takes a retrospective form. The overthrow of the attempted Thomist monopoly on orthodoxy – the ‘razing of the bastions’ touted by Hans Urs von Balthasar – and the alleged enlightenment and freedom of thought that resulted from this overthrow, are presented as the great theological achievements of the Council.

The evils of the Thomists and their suffocating ideology provide the reason for dismissing their positions unexamined, and for proceeding as if the progressive movement that replaced them is in effect the whole of Catholic theology.

In other words, Thomism was not only stigmatized, but also weaponized against the Thomists.

Having this passage indelibly imprinted in my prefrontal cortex, I am always on the lookout for any reference to Thomism by the post-conciliarists since Thomism was supposed to be… well, like Polly, the Norwegian Blue in the Monty Python dead parrot skit. (see here)

So if the above is in fact the correct interpretation of post-conciliar epistemology (study of the nature of truth), and it most certainly is, then why the present fetish with Thomism in FrancisChurch?

A rhetorical question for the time being…

Now, if we are to believe some of the contemporary common wisdom, namely that ALL the present players behind the Sacred Vatican Walls are MEN OF THE COUNCIL, (see here) and if “From Ratzinger to Bergoglio, (is) just the next step in the logical “progression”, then why has Thomism been resurrected by the FrancisChurch and what purpose does St. Thomas’ work serve in this debate?

Once again,

The overthrow of the attempted Thomist monopoly on orthodoxy – the ‘razing of the bastions’ touted by Hans Urs von Balthasar – and the alleged enlightenment and freedom of thought that resulted from this overthrow, are presented as the great theological achievements of the Council.

The answer to this daunting question is provided in the concluding section of the seminal John Lamont essay, namely:

The key to the neomodernist capture of power is however also the reason for their failure to sustain a religious culture. Neomodernism is not like Protestantism, which contains ideas with a positive content as well as being a rejection of Catholicism. These ideas – justification by faith, and the like – are not correct, but they say something substantial, and have an appeal that can give rise to an important movement.

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.

This is one thing that on the natural level permitted the survival of Thomism, despite the drastic measures taken to uproot it from the Church; unlike neomodernism, it has something positive and substantial to say.

Moreover, what it has to say is actually true. This is in no way a guarantee of broad success, but it ensures the continued existence of Thomism in the small constituency of good scholars who are concerned with the truth and in a position to discover it. Whether it will expand much beyond this constituency in the future is unknown, but there is no doubt that its future shows more promise than that of neomodernism.

But this is not the end of the story.

The question of “why Thomism” now turns to the question of “why Thomism now”?

Please remember:

IF: ALL the present players behind the Sacred Vatican Walls are MEN OF THE COUNCIL,

THEN: Thomism should be as irrelevant to them as it was to their philosophical IDEOLOGICAL forefathers at the Council.


The only logical explanation for why Thomism has now reestablished itself in FrancisChurch as the DOMINANT philosophical framework (if only as a rhetorical trick for the post-Modernist’s in charge) 50 short years after it’s suppression, is that it has been recognized as the only philosophical framework that is OBJECTIVELY TRUE by these purported MEN OF THE COUNCIL. 

In other words, all the artificially made up alternative “philosophical frameworks” erected in the post-conciliar church are FALSE. And:

“As a result it (neo-Modernism and post-Modernism) 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.”

And just to finish off this thought with an excellent example, we go back to the OnePeterFive post for this passage:

When asked to explain a little further the concrete circumstances of the Müller-Kasper-compromise during the synod, the source says: “The day of the compromise were in fact really two. On one day, we, especially Müller and Kasper, mostly discussed Thomas Aquinas – who stood, in Latin, in the middle of the table of the Congregation for the Faith.”

The OPTICS of St. Thomas standing, in Latin, in the middle of the table at the CDF sounds much like: an object (such as a small stone carving of an animal) believed to have magical power to protect or aid its owner; broadly : a material object regarded with superstitious or extravagant trust or reverence.


Concluding, what is of the utmost of importance to understand is that which we are watching (the VIRTUAL REALITY) and that which is OBJECTIVELY REAL are not one and the same.

For something to be OBJECTIVELY REAL, it has to be OBJECTIVELY REAL on all the different levels of a given observable OCCURRENCE. In our case, it has to be REAL not only on the pastoral level, but it also has to be REAL on the doctrinal level, it has to be REAL on the theological level and at its ROOT, it MUST be REAL on the PHILOSOPHICAL LEVEL.

So if we look at this PHENOMENON through Ockham’s razor, the most likely explanation of the above continuously sighted references to Thomism by the post-conciliarist MEN OF THE COUNCIL is that:

A minority of at least 10% of this population has come to the UNSHAKABLE BELIEF that Thomism is the ONLY WAY FORWARD if the Institutional Church is to survive.

And this UNSHAKABLE MINORITY OF AT LEAST 10% OF THE POPULATION is  forcing the existing power structures, i.e. FrancisChurch to conform!

I will leave off with the relevant passage from the post titled What Terrifies FrancisChurch, Whether They Know It Or Not… (w/Update):

“When the number of committed opinion holders is below 10 percent, there is no visible progress in the spread of ideas. It would literally take the amount of time comparable to the age of the universe for this size group to reach the majority,” said SCNARC Director Boleslaw Szymanski, the Claire and Roland Schmitt Distinguished Professor at Rensselaer. “Once that number grows above 10 percent, the idea spreads like flame.”

And this above passage quite nicely explains the current FrancisChurch’s fetish with Thomism.

Numquam Ponenda est Pluralitas Sine Necessitate! 

PS Oh My! “Joy Of Sex” Not Thomistic…

The Loose Canon – ‘Habemus Anti-Papam’…


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

Today is truly a special day.

On the one hand, we have the Peterson Effect transitioning into the ECCLESIASTICAL sub-set of human activity and creating a corresponding ++SarahEffect™. (see here)

And now we get new information (DATA POINTS) coming straight from the most trusted of FrancisSources, one Archbishop Victor “heal me with your kiss” Fernandez. (see here) This interview should be seen as a follow-up to the that interview that appears in the Deus ex Machina post titled The Loose Canon.

At first reading, by far the most important piece of information that this interview provides is the confirmation of the position that is held by Catholic writers and  luminaries in their own right, such as Ann Barnhardt, Non Veni Pace, Mahound’s Paradise and the dean of the Catholic bloggers, Louie Verrecchio at the AKA Catholic blog.

The position that the good Archbishop confirmed beyond the shadow of the least bit of outstanding doubt comes via the following question and responce:

Journalist: Is it true, according to your experience, that in the Church today there is “confusion” after the publication of Amoris laetitia?  

AVMF: Amoris laetitia implies a paradigmatic shift in the way complex situations are treated, even if this does not involve the opening of all doors. It certainly goes beyond the possibility for some remarried divorcees to receive communion. This shift, which prevents us from being hard and mathematical in our judgements, is very annoying for some. But the Pope had a note published in the “Acta Apostolicae Sedis” as “authentic magisterium”. Only the Pope can make such a decision and Francis did so. Therefore, there is no confusion.

The significance of what the good Archbishop has done with this answer is that he has accusing Jorge Bergoglio, the current bishop of Rome of being:


This accusation by Archbishop Fernandez also aligns with the position of this blog which can be stated as follows:

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

There are many, many more significant DATA POINTS in this post, so please review and your humble blogger will follow up with post in the immediate future.


Fernandez, “Without the gaze of faith, the Pope is reduced to a character”

Andrea Tornielli 12/03/2018
Vatican City

“The great saints and reformers, those who provoked real changes in the Church and in history, did not love slogans but gestures along with the gift of self. But for quite some time now we have been used to living with slogans in the Church”. Five years after the election of Pope Francis, Vatican Insider interviewed Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez, rector of the Catholic University of Argentina, and a theologian particularly close to the Pope. 

How do you assess these first five years of pontificate? What has characterized it most?  

I would rather not dwell on the results obtained in international politics, nor on the results that may have been achieved in the reform of the Curia or Vatican finances. Because this would imply a somewhat worldly vision. Let us leave it to the media to engage in these analyses. As Catholics, we believe in the mystery of the Spirit that loosens the knots and transforms reality in its own way and pace. If you ask me what Gandhi did, I could tell you that I can no longer remember exactly what he did and what he achieved. But I know beyond doubt that he has left a very important mark in history and that he has provoked changes that have changed humanity. 


What is the most popular message inside and outside the Church?  

 In the case of Francis, I believe that his constant invitation, with words and gestures, to return to the Gospel‘s original freshness and to its heart made of mercy and justice for the weakest, will not be forgotten. At the same time, the call for a stripped Church, more joyful and able to open up to dialogue and service, will not end. Even if somebody in the future will try to go back in this regard, I believe that Francis’ great and irreversible reform, which has already been achieved, consists in the fact that a reversal will hardly be accepted. Who would ever think that after Francis, a papacy of condemnations parading power and wealth, that is not willing to dialogue with everyone, that ignores the weak of this world, could ever flourish? 


What is the most important reform that Pope Francis wishes for the Church?

 The deepening of what I have just mentioned. There are still many members of the Church who speak little about Jesus Christ, who do not show affection and admiration when they nominate Him, who prefer to judge the faults of others and present ethical norms as rock solid in order not to accept that vertigo one feels when proclaiming God’s unconditional love for each person, of transmitting Jesus Christ’s salvific and close love. At the same time, there are still many resistances to leave the comforting structures that give us security, but that ever more so attract less faithful. 


Do you think there is a risk of reducing the Pope’s messages to slogans, which like all slogans end up becoming empty, that is to say to be used according to convenience, but without real change?  

The great saints and reformers, those who provoked real changes in the Church and in history, did not love slogans but gestures along with the gift of self. For some time now, however, we have been used to living with slogans in the Church. For example, there are those who say that they are “pro life”, but prefer not to talk about immigrants, about the commitment to the poorest, the struggle for justice so that fewer people die because of malnutrition or illnesses that could be cured. That is a slogan. In the same way, others repeat phrases by Francis as slogans, and even speak of the “springtime of the Church”, perhaps not to come off as opponents or to secure some place in the Church, but if you look at their habits, their actions, their insistence and choices, they do not seem to correspond to the spirit of this Pope. It is a way of closing oneself to the transforming wind of the Spirit by being “politically correct”. 


The media (but not only) have much-emphasized Pope Francis’s human and likable characteristics, which have made him a popular and beloved character. Do you not see the risk that he becomes too much of a “character”? And that, therefore, too much attention is focused on him and his person?  

 It is true. And yet with no doubt, he has never been fond of personality cult. When he appreciates someone very much, he says, “Humiliate yourself”. His being very close to people has to do with his recognition of the value of popular religiosity, and he wants his papacy to be an embodied sign of Jesus’ tender and merciful closeness. But whoever does not see all this from the point of view of the most authentic Catholic faith, ends up forgetting the purpose of everything, which is Jesus, and remains stuck on the character. It is like “being stuck looking at the finger pointing at the moon” like the ancient Zen proverb says. This implies a serious danger, because it produces the opposite effect: if they see an error or a weak point, or if one day the Pope does not smile because he feels weak or sick, his character breaks. Anyway, I see that within the Catholic sphere, Francis’ style is producing an irreversible de-idealization of the papacy. Until now, only few Catholics have been able to criticize the Popes, but now there is enormous freedom to do so without anyone being punished for it. This strip the figure of the Pope from that excessively sacred halo of a superior and untouchable being. 


There are those who often speak – sometimes magnifying their importance – of the so-called “internal resistances”, phenomena that Francis’ predecessors have also known: how much do they count and how much do they affect the daily life of the Church?  

 They are much more damaging than before because of the enormous attention of the media and social networks. Few people previously read a newspaper. Today, however, there are many who follow the news on the Internet, and the media which generally highlights what makes a lot of noise, the negative things, the criticisms. Years ago, a very conservative and negative person would speak only with his wife, because not even his neighbours would listen to him. Now that person can open a blog, and spread even lies and slander, or unfounded suspicions, and he will always have readers. He can also devote himself all day long to commenting on Internet forums and have his voice amplified. The more moderate and serene people, who are the majority, seem to act less in this direction. In Argentina, where in recent years there has been a strong and persistent discrediting campaign in the media and social networks, the Pope has undoubtedly maintained an 80 percent approval according to the most serious enquiries. But that 80 percent makes little noise.  


Is it true, according to your experience, that in the Church today there is “confusion” after the publication of Amoris laetitia?  

 Amoris laetitia implies a paradigmatic shift in the way complex situations are treated, even if this does not involve the opening of all doors. It certainly goes beyond the possibility for some remarried divorcees to receive communion. This shift, which prevents us from being hard and mathematical in our judgements, is very annoying for some. But the Pope had a note published in the “Acta Apostolicae Sedis” as “authentic magisterium”. Only the Pope can make such a decision and Francis did so. Therefore, there is no confusion. We already know what the Pope is calling for. Another thing is what you like or not like, whether you think this looks good or not. Therefore, one must not say, “It’s confusing”, rather, “I do not like this”. Or better, “I prefer a Church with more restricted norms.  

 The various reforms of the Roman Curia bodies are still on their way. How important are structural reforms?   

These reforms are very important, but they are also the most “reversible”. Another Pope can come and create a huge Curia. In addition, the people who will be in these bodies will be decisive. But I believe that Francis was able to “de-idealize” the Vatican Curia – as well and forever, which should be seen only as an organization at service of the Pope, that does not replace the Pope or the bishops.


Can you tell us how the Pope lives the events linked to the scandals of child abuse committed by the clergy? The rules to combat this phenomenon exist, are there chances to change the mentality as well?   

 I know that he suffers a lot for this issue, because in this case the deep sense of priestly ministry, namely to “take care”, is destroyed. In Spanish this sense is emphasized, because the priest is called to “care”. The “care” characterizes priesthood and is very dear to Francis. I believe that the mentality is changing in this direction, although sometimes the processes need their time to avoid injustice. 

Capital “T” Truth – The Transition Point from Science To Theology?


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

We are living in historic times!

Over the last 18 months, your humble blogger has been using various videos produced by Dr. Jordan Peterson to help explain the numerous EVENTS, OCCURRENCES and other various PHENOMENA that one can readily observe in the Visibislium Omnium, et Invisibilium. Another brilliant lecture and Q&A session is embedded above for your viewing pleasure. A must watch…

Update: A great summary can be found on the Life Site News website HERE.

The PHENOMENON that has grown up around Dr. Jordan Peterson has been quite amazing. He went from an obscure clinical psychologist teaching at the University of Toronto to one of the most sought after, if not the most sought after public speakers at the time of this writing. (see here)

One aspect that makes this PHENOMENON of particular interest to us Catholics, is that the underlying theme of Dr. Peterson’s research and subject matter of most of his lectures is Catholic at its very ROOT. Your humble blogger has been laying out this  case in various recent posts.

The reason that the Catholic aspect of Dr. Peterson’s work is being brought to your attention dear reader, is that another article appeared about Dr. Jordan Peterson, this time on the First Things website. In the article titled Jordan Peterson, Unlikely Guruits author, one  Matthew Schmitz makes the following observation:

“Jordan Peterson is a success because so many other men are failing.”

Now the above observation can be true, and partially is true, yet in the humble opinion of your even more humble blogger, this misses the entire point. Actually, it reduces the Peterson PHENOMENON to a caricature, which then can be easily explained away and eventually dismissed.

Specifically, what bothers this blogger is that this statement implies that if “men” stop “failing”, then the message that Jordan Peterson expounds, since it is local to this time and place, will lose its validity, and by extension Peterson’s “success” will cease.

But just in case this Peterson PHENOMENON  doesn’t have a Pyrrhic nature, escapes into the wider public domain and begins spreading into the Catholic world, a development which appears to be threatening to certain members of this part of society and their status quo, attacks by various establishment actors have commenced.

Over at the Catholic Herald, in a post titled What is a Catholic to make of Jordan Peterson?its author Brandon McGinley presents this argument:

While Peterson’s political views have dominated the media narrative about him, his meandering explorations of Christian theology remain among his most popular lectures. These two areas of inquiry cannot be separated, though: Peterson’s idiosyncratic but sympathetic views on Christianity appear to be outgrowths of his ultimately incoherent views about human societies, blending brash political incorrectness with a love of tradition and an enthusiasm for individualism. For modern Christians frustrated by their loss of standing in liberal societies, this makes Peterson, like a stiff cocktail, potent, delicious, and, if enjoyed carelessly or in the wrong context, dangerous.

Notice the lightness of this text and the “argument” reducing the product of a magnum opus of a 40 year career of science and research by Dr. Peterson, to nothing more than pleasant chatter at a social function. Yet also notice the author’s inadvertent confirmation of the “dangerous” nature of Peterson’s message.

All in all, what the above tells us, as per the SIGNALLING EFFECT, is that these post-conciliar “spirit of the new springtime of VII” sectarians lack the competence and intellectual honesty to face the REALITY in which they have found themselves. Their helplessness is manifesting itself in the typical passive aggressive lashing out at both their real and imagined enemies. But what they are in fact reacting to is their implicit sensing that the Peterson PHENOMENON brings them ever closer to their Final Rendezvous With Destiny and With Death.

And why can one be certain as to the correctness of the above observations?

Well, we can use sensory data to support our contention. We see that Dr. Peterson has tapped into an innate and very deep conscious need of individuals to understand what constitutes capital “T” Truth. One reason, and a very practical reason why these individuals have this need is that it allows them to understand what is happening around them in their daily lives.

What also appears to be the case is that this above identified need for the acquisition of capital “T” Truth extends into the individual’s spiritual needs, i.e. into the  ECCLESIASTICAL sub-set of the Visibilium Omnium.

And to demonstrate this above point, no better proof can be had than in a post over at the Life Site News website. Here is how it reads: (see source here)

Livestream of Cardinal Sarah speaking in Toronto Monday at 7 p.m. EST

March 10, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) — The University of Toronto’s St. Michael’s College is hosting Vespers and a talk by Cardinal Robert Sarah on Monday March 12 from 7 to 9 p.m., Eastern Standard Time. Cardinal Sarah is the Prefect of the Catholic Church’s Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. He is also the author of the two popular books, God or Nothing and The Power of Silence.

The demand for tickets to the event has been so high that the venue has been moved off the University of Toronto campus and to the downtown St. Michael’s cathedral which can hold a much larger number of people.

The event may be viewed live on Monday at either

Facebook LIVE:


the cathedral Livestream:

The talk will also be available afterwards at the same two Internet addresses.

What we are in fact seeing in the post above is the identical PHENOMENON to that of Dr. Peterson’s. To be more precise, what we are seeing is the transition point at which capital “T” science becomes capital “T” theology.

Where Dr. Peterson leaves off, Cardinal Sarah picks up.

And this is the correct answer to the criticism presented in the Catholic Herald and First Things posts.


Concluding, the only manner in which one can explain this Card. Sarah PHENOMENON is that the good Cardinal has also tapped into this innate and very deep conscious need of individuals to understand what constitutes capital “T” Truth. And this need is manifesting itself in the same manner, with packed venues for the lectures of Cardinal Sarah.

Which brings one to a practical consideration. Given that the current occupant of the bishopric of Rome is having a hard time “attracting” followers, not to mention repelling the Faithful Catholics, and given that the loss of adherents is a death-knell for any IDEOLOGY, social movement or even RELIGION, then the attractivistic powers of the Cardinal Sarah’s message should be of interest to certain centers of influence within the Sacred Vatican Walls.

Far be it for this blogger to make claims about the working of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, but…

Leaving off this post, I would just like to present this idea for the review of you dear readers:



The Catholic Proselytization – “And in those days cometh John the Baptist preaching in the desert of Judea”…


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

And in those days cometh John the Baptist preaching in the desert of Judea. [2] And saying: Do penance: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. [3] For this is he that was spoken of by Isaias the prophet, saying: A voice of one crying in the desert, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight his paths. [4] And the same John had his garment of camels’ hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins: and his meat was locusts and wild honey. [5] Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the country about Jordan: (Matthew 3: 1-5)


And now for some news from the practitioners of “those forms of spirituality that reduce the faith to a ghetto culture!”  and the sect of the “religion of the encounter”…

Update –  from comment box.

Chris Benischek said:

Indeed what a contrast Dr Peterson provides to FrancisChurch. Brilliant comparison SA.

The contrast is stark at many levels. First, meaning. See review below on Peterson’s main boon.

Second, joy. Contrast the frowning sourpuss Pinto currently indoctrinating and propagandizing Catholic clergy in Texas with Peterson’s breezy air. Whereas whatever his merits he actually conveys that he actually cares about people, warts and all. He has love. Christian charity. Simple kindness. All glaringly absent in the Francis Court.

Finally, Enthusiasm; look at the popular response. Hence your second video. Then, see: At the FrancisVatican™: it’s a ghost-town. Great picture: no one gives a hoot about what the anti-Pope is selling. The sheep know the true shepherd and shun the false. I wouldn’t let my kids within a country-mile of Francis and his homosexualist minions. Whereas in Melbourne two nights ago–Dr Peterson on tour amidst sold-out venues–the lines after his talk were 25 people wide. Wide. Not long. Enough to make even an anti-Pope weep.

“Peterson was going to be signing. Buy a book and you’d get a chance to meet him, and didn’t that provide a moment to make a local author weep: the queue was 25 wide — that’s wide, not deep — and it snaked through the foyer and right up the staircase, and why wouldn’t it?”

–from The Australian @ https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/jordan-peterson-finds-fellow-travellers-in-the-search-for-meaning/news-story/f868cc3a113ed1b11be48c0813716494


The Post-conciliar Church‘s Guerrilla War Over Physical Assets…


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


Every now and then REALITY breaks through, even in the most IDEOLOGICALLY self contained environments. And the #fakenarrative crashes and burns. Here is one just such case and HERE is the back-story:

Yes indeed!

“… and there’s no way around that, that is the REALITY here.”

Given that our discussion has centered around OBJECTIVE REALITY, it might be a good time to check into a SUBJECT MATTER that we last raised in the post titled More Fog Lifting – FrancisPlan Becoming Clearer And Clearer… The reason for today’s thread is that new information has appeared in the public domain that are relevant to this issue.

Just as a reminder, the above mentioned post raised the issue of whether Francis, the bishop of Rome is intentionally trying to create a split in the Catholic Church in order to finally gain control over the Institutions tangible assets and cash in the bank accounts.

Here is how this issue was summarized in that post:

Quickly summarizing what is most likely the lay of the land on this 11th day of July Anno Domini 2017, is that we have Francis, the bishop of Rome trying to engineer a schism in the Catholic Church.

Actually, he is trying to formalize the already existing schism.

He is creating a situation within the post-conciliar church that no Faithful Catholic or cleric can accept.

This is intended to drive the Catholics out of the post-conciliar church, thereby leaving all the physical assets and cash for the FrancisChurch and at the FrancisChurch’s disposal.

As for the future funding needs, FrancisChurch will now rely on donations from international foundations and the Non Governmental Organizations. Lot of money to be had, and you don’t have to bother with the pesky “Catholic fanatics”.

And finally, this is how Jorge Bergoglio, the bishop of Rome intends on having his changes make “a deep impact”. Just like his ghostwriter, one Victor “heel me with you lips” Fernandez explained a couple of years ago. (see here)

Since this post appeared, we have the following information that appeared in a J.Royale tweet:

So as we see from the above, Francis needs for his bishopric of Rome to last until 2019 so that he can have a College of Cardinals where a majority will be appointed by him.

But there obviously is a problem. And that problem is that Francis, no matter how strong his mind reading capabilities might be, can’t foresee how to Cardinals will vote at the next conclave.

And just to remind you dear reader, Francis intends for his “changes” to be permanent.

So it would appear that Francis and his Team are ramping up the campaign to FORCE the Ordinaries in the Universal Church to serial adulterers. This appears to be a litmus test in order to separate the Catholics from the heretics. To be more precise, it is a litmus test to show who actually believes in the REAL PRESENCE.

Yet, Francis doesn’t have the ability to gauge “get into the minds” of the Cardinals to see if they believe in the REAL PRESENCE. It would appear that most of the smarter ones are ignoring the issue hoping that it will soon go away.

Those forced to make a decision, appear to either be for REAL PRESENCE, i.e. Archbishop Chaput or are trying to get around the issue, like Cardinal Wuerl.

What’s more important is that there are Cardinals who could be paying lip service to giving Holy Communion to serial adulterers, but at a Conclave would be ready to return to the REAL PRESENCE Holy Communion.

Heck, we see that it could be that the entire Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Plenaria might be ready to ditch Vatican II altogether and return to Tradition. (see here)

The crowds in St. Peter’s Square are dreadful.

Now we also have reports of converts to Catholicism coming to the ONE TRUE FAITH because they realized that the Catholic Church is the only Church in which they have access to the REAL PRESENCE.

Converts that FrancisChurch is not happy with!

And now we see the REAL PRESENCE issue playing itself out in the “Holy Communion in the hand” controversy around Cardinal Sarah. This comes on the back of the Ad Orientem “suggestion”. And it would appear that the Cardinal Sarah positions are winning out:

Now, please keep in mind that Cardinal Sarah has won the debate just because he has brought it up!

Furthermore, if Cardinal Sarah can get the Ordinaries to scale back, if not outright eliminate Holy Communion in the hand, then what chance does Francis and the German Hegelian Relativists impersonating “Catholic Bishops” have of making Holy Communion for serial adulterers permanent?

ZERO, would be my answer.

Yet, if one was to think that the real issue is the REAL PRESENCE, one might be incorrectly reading the OBJECTIVE REALITY behind the Sacred Vatican Walls.

Enter the FrancisCardinal Cupich…

Here is that piece of information:

So what the FrancisCardinal is explicitly saying is for Francis to expunge the Faithful Catholics from the Church.

So much for “Christian Unity”, ECUMENISM, etc, aye?

And the reason why the masks are dropping is because of stories like this here:

On the other side of the barricade, we have Cardinals rebelling against the Francis Theology of Death™:

Concluding, what we are seeing is a pure and simple post-Modernist Marxist power-play on the part of the FrancisChurch, trying to solidify the control that they have captured over the Vatican assets because of the Francis election to the bishopric of Rome.

We are witness to weekly revelations about purely temporal scandals involving deviant sexual behavior, narcotics use among the Vatican clergy, theft and fraud among the people in Francis’ immediate circle, reports of multi-million dollar investment scams by these same people, just to mention a few. And these revelations are originating from inside the Vatican.

The #fakenews media is reporting on what now appears to be a regular basis, therefore the SoapBubblePapacy™ appears to be being intentionally deflated.

Therefore a case can be made that one of the political power centers within the post-conciliar Vatican’s Sacred Walls is trying to get rid of Francis.

And Francis is trying to fight back by eliminating the competition, as per FrancisCardinal Cupich’s suggestion.

And even though the visible issue might appear to be the REAL PRESENCE, looking a bit deeper, it is clear that this has nothing to do with religion, the supernatural, theology or anything having to do with the Faith.

What in fact is happening is that the post-conciliar church is trying to wrest control of the Vatican away from FrancisChurch and TeamFrancis.

Folks, we are in a guerrilla war over physical resources.


Young (At Heart) FrancisChurch Reaching Tipping Point…


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

Over the last couple of days, your humble blogger has been posting on the subject of #FAKE NARRATIVES. And just as a quick refresher, fake narratives based on #fakenews create a VIRTUAL REALITY that is then used in a GASLIGHTING PROCESS to convince the gullible viewer that what he is seeing is in fact real.

The problem with virtual realities is that they are not sustainable. The reason being that they do not conform to OBJECTIVE REALITY. And as has been pointed out time and again, eventually… 2+2 must equal 4.

The PROCESS by which the various virtual realities meet objective reality is through what we have labeled as the CONVERGENCE PROCESS.

So over the last few days, we have been identifying some of the CONVERGENCE PROCESSES that are playing themselves out in real time. One is what is known as the OBAMAGATE where the VIRTUAL REALITY is being played out by Special Council Mueller while the OBJECTIVE REALITY is being defined by the three Congressional Committees and the Inspector General.

Another CONVERGENCE PROCESS has played itself out this past Sunday in Italy where the VIRTUAL REALITY had the populist 5 Star Movement locked in a tie with the major post-Communist Leftist party, namely the Partito Democratico (PD) at roughly 28% of the vote respectively. And when this VIRTUAL REALITY was reconciled with OBJECTIVE REALITY, namely the Italian voters, it turned out that 5 Star Movement had 32% while the PD didn’t even get 19% of the vote. Needless to say, this threw the entire post election government forming process into a unknown scenario since the most votes were, unexpectedly received by the Center Right coalition represented by Matteo Salvini, Giorgia Meloni and Silvio Berlusconi.

And finally, another instance in which this CONVERGENCE PROCESS is presently playing itself out, and one first identified many, many months ago by your humble blogger is what can be called the Jordan Peterson PHENOMENON. Since November and December of 2016, this blog has observed and chronicled the intrinsic Catholic nature of the subject matter of the clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson’s lectures and various talks. Dr. Peterson’s work can be viewed as the OBJECTIVE REALITY that he is attempting to discern while the post-conciliar FrancisTheology of Death ™ would be the VIRTUAL REALITY that is heading head long into a collision with OBJECTIVE REALITY. The support for the above HYPOTHESIS would be that this intrinsic Catholic nature of Dr. Peterson’s work is now being recognized by individuals and publications who specialize in the theological and ecclesiastical sub-set of the Visibilium Omnium.  (see here, here and here just to mention three)

So today your humble blogger transitions to the ECCLESIASTICAL side of the Visibilium Omnium and shine the disinfecting sunlight onto the above identified VIRTUAL REALITY.

Over at Father Z’s blog we find a post titled Pew Research Center looks at Pope Francis’ numbers 5 years into his pontificate. Drilling into the source document of this post, namely the Pew Research poll, we find the following table:

So all in all, Francis is relatively “popular”, i.e. more popular than Pope Benedict XVI but less popular than Pope JPII “the great”.

Yet we know from our sensory data, i.e. observations from the crowd sizes at the FrancisEvents at St. Peter’s Square, that the crowd size estimates taken by the Vatican officials are running at less than 30% of those crowds that were present for similar events under the previous two Pontiff’s.

So it would appear that there is a disconnect.

Further, in that same research post, we get the following graphs:

The above graph could be understood to represent what could be called the “internal” components of the research results. And these internals are showing the following:

  1. During the period from 2014 to 2018, the percentage of US Catholics who have a Favorable opinion of Francis decreased from 85% to 84%, while those US Catholics who have an Unfavorable opinion of Francis increased from 4% to 9%.
  2. During the period from 2015 to 2018, the percentage of US Catholics who say Compassionate ( 94% to 94%) and Humble (91% and 91%) describes Francis did not change.
  3. During the period from 2015 to 2018, the percentage of US Catholics who held the position that Francis is a Major change for the better dropped from 69% to 58%, while those who say that Francis is a Major change for the worse increased from 3% to 7%. (Those claiming that Francis is Not a major change also increased from 17% to 26%.)

So those are the raw data points. But when looking at these numbers on a percentage change basis, we are a witness to quite an important PHENOMENON. Here is the table with the percentage change figures:

Several observations about the above percentage change table.

First, over the time period measured, the general satisfaction with Francis’ tenure at  the bishopric of Rome can be characterized by strong evidence of “dissatisfaction”.

Among those who were “favorably disposed” toward Francis in 2014, we see a slight decrease of this favorability ratings (-1%) and a larger drop in the opinion that Francis is a “change agent for the better (-16%).

Among those who presently view Francis’ reign as unfavorable, that number more than doubled (+125%) and those who saw Francis as a “change agent for the worse”, well this group increased by the most (+133%).

The second observation is with respect to the absolute values represented in this poll. If we return to our post titled What Terrifies FrancisChurch, Whether They Know It Or Not… (w/Update), the following passage appears:

“When the number of committed opinion holders is below 10 percent, there is no visible progress in the spread of ideas. It would literally take the amount of time comparable to the age of the universe for this size group to reach the majority,” said SCNARC Director Boleslaw Szymanski, the Claire and Roland Schmitt Distinguished Professor at Rensselaer. “Once that number grows above 10 percent, the idea spreads like flame.”

So if we were to assume that those respondents to the Pew Research poll who hold an unfavorable opinion of Francis (9%) and who think that his bishopric of Rome is a major change for the worse (7%) are those who can be classified as “committed opinion holders”, then what we are seeing is the approach to that 10% tipping point that the researchers from the SCNARC identified. 

Concluding, it is unfortunate that we have no data about what proportion of those 9% of the respondents who hold an unfavorable opinion of Francis or those 7% of respondents who think that this bishopric of Rome is a major change for the worse, can be classified as “committed opinion holders”.

However, we can observe the reaction by the decision makers behind the Sacred Vatican Walls to any developments that arise from within this “dissatisfied opinion holders” subset of the Faithful. Here are just three recent examples:

The Escalating War Against Orthodox Catholicism

Buzzfeed Does A Hit Piece on Father Z

For conservatives, sowing confusion

Therefore, what can be observed is that the threat of Tradition to the status quo, post-conciliar FrancisChurch is being treated so seriously, that the powers that be have reached out to the mainstream #fakenews, corporate owned media to try and shore up their #FAKENARRATIVE.

Yet, these desperate actions also contain an embedded SIGNALING EFFECT. What is being signaled is a demonstrable  weakness of the post-conciliar position. An example of this is a very powerful cardinal instructing the Faithful not to call him, TeamFrancis and Francis himself HERETICS.

A further sign of the weakness is the overt threats that appear almost daily. Here is one of the latest ones, a threat that Francis is getting ready to change the Traditional Calander and Lectionary to destroy the Traditional Latin Rite.

And then there are the young…

And finally, this:

So all in all, looks like the “young (at heart)” FrancisChurch is rapidly heading toward its tipping point…

Wonder if the Cardinals are watching?