Every now and then, this blog is graced with very good comments on posts that really hit the proverbial nail on the head. It is in this spirit that I re-produce one such comment, with my answers. The commentor is indignusfamulus, a very dear and old friend of this blog, and co commentor when I was taking up space on Louie Verrecchio’s Harvesting the Fruits blog comment box.
Here is the comment [with my answers and emphasis]:
We get the connections. [ Good since I have been belaboring this point for quite a while now. But it is very important to understand the True Agenda to understand the proper situation and the probable next moves of the adversary.] Despite the authority every Pope officially gets from God, his ability to carry out his plans, depends primarily on recognition of that authority as legitimate by his subordinates, which in turn would require their obedient cooperation. [Had exactly this conversation with a friend who was over last evening. He b/t/w is a priest, of the N.O. variety.]Where there is serious doubt about the validity of his election, there is a justifiable cause to withhold those, especially concerning major reforms. [Yes. But there is more to it than that…] And the Synod was visible confirmation that high-ranking officials were willing to stand up to him, and their numbers were growing. [If we were using logical terms, I see the initial standing up to Francis at the Synod and after as the “major premise” and the acting on the Ivereigh allegation as the “minor premise”. This is the proper way a Catholic prelate should behave. It shows that there is an “intent” to protect the dogma (Faith) first and foremost, and the Ivereigh allegations were the pretext to say “basta”. This shows that after 50 years of deprivation, there is a strong “sensus ecclesiae” in a rather large number of high level prelates. You can’t imagine the sense of relief I had when I stumbled upon this.]
So next we wonder whether this apparent withholding of cooperation is due to their own internal corruption [No, I don’t think so], and finding a convenient excuse in the public controversy [No agian]; or due to some lingering loyalty to the Church–not wanting to see it harmed by a usurper, and a non-Italian from South America at that? [It has nothing to do with “chauvinistic”loyalties, and everything to do you these people’s Catholicity].
What makes it hard to answer, is that we were never let in on all the contents of the investigation Pope Benedict conducted after the Vati-Leaks, except for a few headline items about the “gay lobby” and money laundering /banking scandals, which didn’t identify more than a few individuals. [The problem with relinquishing power is that it creates a vacuum. And no matter how intelligent you are, only God knows what is in the future. And that goes for Benedict likewise] His resignation based on being too weak to do the job, implies it was overwhelming, but the in-house problems were only part of his duties. [Yes, but if you look deeper into this situation, what you see is that these revolting prelates have an “esprit de corps” about them. This was instilled in them by a good example. And it was Benedict that no doubt is the inspiration and example behind their actions. It might be just this, that will be seen as Benedict’s legacy. He took a demoralized clerical class post JP II and gave them the spirit to fight. Let’s face it, he commanded respect. Also says a lot about the selection of bishops under JPII. No matter how many muppets were forced on him by the various bishops’ conferences, many good ones got promoted. So I am giving credit where credit is due.] So maybe Francis was expected to cooperate with them, and turned on them instead, and now he’s being shown where the power lies? [ Part of the reason that they are not cooperating is that they see he is a populist. They see the crowds who are coming to St. Peter’s. These crowds are smaller and less enthusiastic. I think the Brussels trip, where no one showed up only confirmed their suspicions. If you recall, card. Brandmuller said that Francis’ popularity was superficial less then 6 months after the conclaver. They know.]
We witnessed something similar over the last 40 years, as Pope after Pope failed to deal with enough dissenters among the clergy to stem the tide of revolutionaries that flooded into rectories, schools, universities, convents etc. [This is very true. What I will say though, is that the forces of evil where very well organized in the late ’60’s and early ’70. And it was the blind obedience, to which you alluded earlier that was the radicals secret weapon.] But in those situations his authenticity of office was not in doubt, so that excuse wasn’t available. They obviously refused obedience in an attempt to gather enough support to change the Church– knowing their sheer numbers couldn’t be easily stopped. [ If you look at Paul VI, he was not a leader, and to be perfectly honest, he was one of them. He allowed it all to happen under his very nose. It was intentional, if you ask me.] They succeeded due to all the confusion and lack of good catechesis, keeping most of the remaining laity who were “aware” and willing to battle them, in small enough numbers to control with via bad shepherds. [ No, their weapon was blind obedience. The catechesis was ruined later, just like the uprooting of Thomism from the seminaries. They performed a Sherman’s march to the sea on the Barque of St. Peter] This is different, being so hidden and internal. [ 50 years of abject failure does provide an eye opening experience. Shows one where the TRUE FAITH really lies.]
P.S. Please keep in mind, we don’t expect you to answer all our questions here, as you indicated more to come in the next post. Patience…patience. is a virtue [ But I did anyways. Excellent comment. Keep them coming….]