Tags
Cavalcade of the Three Kings, Chapel of the Holy Trinity, chastity belts, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Deconstructionism, Dr. Curt Doolittle, Father Anthony Cekada, Fox News, Francis Effect, FrancisChurch - In Liquidation, Frankfurt School, FSSP, Genderism, George Soros, Germany, Giardia lamblia, Gonorrhea, Great Cardinal, Havana, Hemorrhoids, heretical pope, Herpes simplex virus, hippies, HIV, Holy Year of Mercy, Human immunodeficiency virus, Human papilloma virus, Humanism, Isospora belli, Jacque Derrida, James O'Keefe, Jesuits, Jesus Christ, Joseph Ratzinger, Jozef Pilsudski, Keynes, Keynesian Economics, Kirill I, Krakow, Law of Unintended Consequences, messeging, Mexico City, Microsporidia, Miracle on the Vistula, Modernists, MSM, narratives, Nassim Taleb, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, Net Neutrality, new springtime, New York Times, Nigel Farage, Pagan Christians, pathological, Poland, Polish Bolshevik War 1920, Pontifical High Mass, Pope Pius VI, President Andrzej Duda, Project Veritas, r/K Selection Theory, Raymond Burke, Republic of Poland, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roman Curia, s "c"atholicZombie, s "theological structuring", s ABC News, s ABERRO AGENDA, s aberro-sex agenda, s AIDS, s Ambiguity, s Anal Cancer, s anorectal traum, s Archbishop of Warsaw- Praga, s Associated Press, s Austria, s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s Big Gender, s Bio-History, s Boris Johnson, s BREXIT, s Card. Muller, s Cardinal Burke, s Cardinal Kazimierz Nycz, s cardinal Walter Kasper, s Catholic Church, s Pope Francis, Saul Alinsky, sCatholic Church in Poland, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, St Thomas Aquinas, sustainability, Synod 2014, Synod of Filth, Syphilis25, Tags anal fissures, Tags Black Lives Matter, Team Bergoglio, The Remnant, The Scholasticum, theological deconstructionism, Thomism, Tradition, TransRational, Truth, Unjust ruler, Vatican II, Work of Human Hands, Zombie, ZombieBishop, ZombieChurch
In today’s post we jump over to a philosophical theme. In the below post, our friend Jonathan Newman from the Mises Institute provides the Zero Hedge readers, and by extension you dear reader, with a great overview of the current pseudo-rationalist cult known as SCIENTISM. (see here)
Just to frame the CONTEXT of what you will be reading below, one needs to understand where the SCIENTISM ideology/sect lies on an ideological continuum. So let’s define the continuum.
A good place to start is to define the extremes. I will use the classical philosophical markers, i.e. Aristotelian rationalists versus Platonist mystics. Furthermore, since we are dealing with ideologues, we are dealing with an “adaequatio realis mentis et vitae” mindset. Therefore, the extremes on this “bringing thought into line with life” continuum are in fact “pseudo” extremes, since they only exist in the ideologue’s minds. So below, I will depict this continuum and affix some ideological points onto it. Here goes:
YES?
So today, we allow Jonathan Newman to define the pseudo-rationalist extreme, i.e. scientism
Before we get to the post, can anyone take a guess where Francis, the bishop of Rome fits on this continuum?
Actually, he fits everywhere.
If you dear readers recall, Francis went through his Pentecostalism phase early in his bishopric of Rome, but “brother bishop” Tony Palmer passed on and he probably couldn’t come to a revenue sharing agreement for the “church” consolidation attempt. These days, he has focused on the Scientism extreme with his special “distinguished” guests that he is bringing into the Vatican. Folks like George Soros and his team of George Stiglitz, Jeffrey Sachs and Paul Ehrlich.
And the reason that Francis can fluidly traverse this post-modernist continuum is that he is a …. wait for it… a post-modernist. Once again, Dr. Jordan Peterson explains The Francis here:
And explains why Francis is not only a danger for your salvation, but also for your mental health here:
An now, the Mises Institute post on Scientism.
*****
Neil Ty – The Scientism Guy
Authored by Jonathan Newman via The Mises Institute,
Neil deGrasse Tyson has released a new video aimed at a what he sees as a growing anti-intellectualism problem in the United States.
It was released at the same time as the March for Science and many Earth Day demonstrations. He reflects on what he thinks made America great and what’s stalling progress today. Science used to be respected, but today, there is a growing crowd of science-deniers who threaten our “informed democracy.”
The real anti-intellectual move, however, is conflating science, the scientific method, and truth to be one and the same. Fundamentally, science is any human attempt at discovering truth. What is true exists independently from what humans believe to be true or how humans arrive at truth claims. The scientific method, the process of using repeated experiments in an attempt to validate or falsify the conclusions of previous experiments, is but one way humans attempt to discover truth.
The purpose of the video was to call out the obstinate, ignorant voters who deny what many regard as certain truths handed to them by a body of elite, trustworthy scientists. Yet Tyson and the marchers border on an equally dangerous view: scientism.
Scientism isn’t scientific
Scientism is the over-reliance on or over-application of the scientific method. Scientism has many forms, one of which is the use of empirical methods to do economic science, or the dismissal of claims not based on experiment results that question other claims that are based on experiment results. Mises dealt with scientism repeatedly, and closely guarded the boundary between economics and other sciences.
The scientific method is not universally appropriate. Consider an extreme case: if you measured a few right triangles and observed that the sides did not correspond to what the Pythagorean theorem says, would you toss the Pythagorean theorem, or would you reexamine your measurement method? Would you dismiss the logical geometric relation in favor of the scientific method?
The scientific method is particularly suited for the natural sciences. It’s hard to recommend a different method than experimentation and observation to answer questions about chemical reactions, astrophysics, quantum mechanics, and biology.
The scientific method is unnecessary or even ill-suited in other areas, however. Consider these questions, and what sort of approach is appropriate to answer them: What is 17 divided by 3? All else held equal, what are the effects of an increase in demand for blue jeans? Who should I invite to my party? What are the effects of expansionary monetary policy on employment, prices, incomes, production, consumption, and borrowing? How should I treat people?
Of course, Neil deGrasse Tyson wouldn’t recommend using the scientific method to answer all of these questions (hopefully), but the point is that empiricism and experimentation are limited in their appropriate applications. The scientific method does not have a monopoly on truth.
Always open to falsification
The scientific method has another large limitation: conclusions derived solely by experimentation are always susceptible to falsification by just one aberrant observation. For this reason and others, even wide consensus among scientists should be met with at least some skepticism before the heavy hand of the government gets involved.
In 1992, the government, backed by the scientific community, told you that you needed 6-11 daily servings of bread, cereal, rice, and/or pasta to maintain good nutrition (and that saturated and animal fats are to be avoided). Many government policies and public school food offerings were based on this recommendation, including, suspiciously, agricultural subsidies and import tariffs. But then, years later, new information revealed this to be terrible advice, after a big jump in diabetes diagnoses and obesity rates.
Or, consider the government’s attempts at alleviating malaria. The National Malaria Eradication Program sprayed DDT in 4,650,000 homes and overhead by aircraft. Later, it was realized that DDT is carcinogenic and the spraying had a severe effect on the environment and wildlife, birds in particular. Birds of prey like the bald eagle are not considered endangered species anymore, and the ban on DDT is considered a major factor in their recovery. Even this conclusion is in question, including whether or not DDT is carcinogenic for humans, but the point is that the government itself backtracked on its own science-based solution to a problem. It banned a chemical it once sprayed indiscriminately.
Since the climate is such an important issue for Tyson, consider also the claims and predictions of various scientists around 1970. Earth Day had just started, and scientists were predicting rather apocalyptic scenarios, similar to what we are hearing today from climate scientists. To be clear, just because these predictions turned out to be “spectacularly wrong”, it doesn’t necessarily mean that modern claims are wrong. But it might explain a lot about the modern layperson’s skepticism, as opposed to sheer stupidity as Tyson suggests.
Sites like retractionwatch.com document the increasingly frequent cases in which academic journals must retract published research because the peer review process was a sham or when other fraudulent activity comes to light. A recent entry reports that Springer had to retract 107 papers on cancer due to fake peer reviews. Surprisingly, retraction doesn’t always mean fewer citations, as this top 10 list of most highly cited retracted papers demonstrates.
Skepticism and science are good friends
These examples reveal another larger issue with Tyson’s argument. Tyson says, “every minute one is in denial, you are delaying the political solution.” The problem is that sometimes delays and denial are exactly what is needed. The scientific method requires time and attempts at falsification.
There is an inherent contradiction and arrogance in Tyson’s video. In one breath he is praising science and the way the scientific method works: “I get a result. A rival of mine double checks it, because they think I might be wrong.” But in the next breath, he declares to the doubter who also thinks some scientific conclusion might be wrong: “You don’t have that option! When you have an established, scientific emergent truth, it is true whether or not you believe in it.”
So the rival scientist is allowed to question the conclusions of other scientists because the conclusions might not be true, but nobody else is. We may not all be equipped with a laboratory, but we are all equipped with reason, experience, preferences, common sense (some more than others), gut instincts, some ideas about what is morally right and what is morally wrong, and our own areas of expertise. Surely these are not meaningless when it comes to judging the claims of a politically-connected technocratic elite and their policy recommendations.
Political connections bias science
Like the food pyramid, political interference in the scientific process led to terrible consequences in scheduling various drugs. Marijuana, which is now widely accepted to be virtually harmless, is still scheduled with heroin and ecstasy, and higher than cocaine and methamphetamines. Yet researchers and agencies produced enough of Tyson’s “emergent truths” (which we are not to doubt) over the years to keep it that way. The effects of this prohibition have been devastating, including a prison system bursting at the seams, militarized local police, violent organized crime (legal and illegal), and more deaths than marijuana itself could ever cause on its own.
Indeed, when the government does or funds research, it seems to always arrive at the conclusions which involve the government getting larger in size and scope. To question these expansions is to question the science, and to question the science is to mark oneself a stubborn idiot.
Tyson is trying to convince these stubborn idiots to learn some science. Only then, he says, will they become the informed citizens this democracy needs. But what if the skeptics aren’t stupid? What if their skepticism is due to the perceived track record of the scientific community over the years (especially when the government is in the mix)?
Most of what Tyson perceives as anti-intellectualism may not be a problem with people’s ability to think, but an inability to trust a politically-connected scientific community that has led them astray in the past. Besides, if he really thinks too many Americans are too stupid, then he ought to look no further than the public education system that produced this alleged mass of illiterate science-deniers.
Name-calling over debate
But I don’t think Tyson views the American electorate as 51% dumb and 49% smart. I think he knows that there are a few outliers with truly unscientific ideas and who will not be convinced of even the most obviously true scientific conclusions.
The implication in the video is that if you don’t go along with this one idea, you are just like those wacky outliers. Those who have a healthy skepticism of what the government and the intelligentsia claim are lumped together with the outliers as a rhetorical strategy.
In practice, however, even those who are on board with the science but disagree with the government solution to the problem, are also added to the same group of idiots.
It’s a rhetorical strategy that may not work for him. Having been in my fair share of debates, I know that insulting my opponents isn’t the best way to have them see things from my point of view. Suppose I come across a minimum wage proponent. Should I call them an ignorant economic-theory-denier, or should I just keep trying to convince them of the effects of minimum wage legislation? Should I treat them the same way I might treat somebody who holds to the completely debunked labor theory of value or somebody who thinks the economy is subject to the whims of lizard-people?
The end goal: bigger government
At the end of the video, Tyson’s real interest becomes apparent. He wants the government to battle with the climate, stick everybody with the same vaccinations, and teach every student a materialistic explanation for the origins of the universe and human and animal life.
Tyson implies that scientific conclusions give way to political solutions, when often what is best is to simply inform the people of some new “emergent truth” and allow individuals and firms to change their behavior in light of and to the extent that they buy in. Top-down, universally enforced “solutions” often cause more problems than they solve and don’t have the flexibility, effectiveness, or economic viability that they need.
In the beginning of the video, Tyson asks, “How did America rise up from a backwoods country to be one of the greatest nations the world has ever known?” I would argue that the impressive accomplishments of the United States are in spite of and not because of government intervention. The economic development of the United States is due to a wide range of factors, including an early adherence to relatively laissez-faire economic policy, the industrial revolution, only the occasional war instead of the state of perpetual war we find ourselves in today, a relatively individualistic culture, an “entrepreneurial spirit”, and abundant natural resources and farmable land.
Certainly scientific and technological innovations played a major role. But my questions for Neil deGrasse Tyson are these: what made those scientific and technological innovations possible? Do you want Americans to be more scientifically literate as an end or as a means to establishing a political agenda? Does the government really need to get involved for us to solve all of our problems? What harm is there in further experimentation and further attempts at convincing the population of your ideas before resorting to silencing the unconvinced by labeling them “science deniers”?
Telling people not to question their government or a politically-connected scientist-class is dangerous. It’s throwing the baby out with the bath water, and it seems to run against his own values. Indeed, Neil deGrasse Tyson is frequently featured on a popular YouTube channel called “Question Everything”. We should encourage a healthy skepticism, especially when the government is involved.
When it comes to political solutions to Tyson’s list of problems, it means scarce resources must be employed toward some goal. This puts him outside of his jurisdiction, natural science, and into my jurisdiction, economics. Dare I tell him to not question my conclusions?
Pingback: Ted Talk: While Trump Fumbles and Blusters; ObamaWorld Rolls-On In the False Figure of Francis – The Stumbling Block
S. Armaticus said:
I thought you’d like it. 🙂
LikeLike
Mark Thomas said:
S. Armaticus said…”So until a time when the proper church authority explains the current situation, I think it is unwise to make any definitive statements. As for Francis, I think we need to pray for him and his conversion to the ONE TRUE FAITH.”
Hello, S.A….
S.A., the True Church has made a definite statement in regard to the Vicar of Christ. The True Church has proclaimed that His Holiness Pope Francis is our one and only current Pope.
S.A., as to Pope Francis’ supposed need to convert to the One True Faith, again…you, I and each Catholic, via our “Amen” during the Divine Liturgy, commemorate Pope Francis as an orthodox Catholic who professes the One True Faith.
S.A., do you believe opposite to that which you proclaim before God? That is, when God’s holy priest prays the Roman Canon of the Mass, you assent to the following:
1. The Catholic Church teaches that Pope Francis is Her Pope.
2. Pope Francis is counted among orthodox believers who profess the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.
S.A., I ask the following sincerely: When you assist at Holy Mass, do you separate yourself from the Roman Canon? Otherwise, you assent to the offering of the Roman Canon, which includes the True Church’s proclamation that Pope Francis is the current orthodox Vicar of Christ.
S.A., you accept during Holy Mass the validity of the True Church’s commemoration of Pope Francis. That is why you say “Amen” to the prayers of the Roman Canon.
However, that is baffling as, via your blog, you then cast doubt upon the True Church’s declaration that Pope Francis is Her orthodox Pope.
S.A., I don’t understand the above. But I thank you for the privilege to communicate with you and participate on your blog. I know that you love God and His True Church.
S.A., please trust in Holy Mother Church’s proclamation that Pope Francis is Her Pope. God calls us to love and attach ourselves to His Holiness Pope Francis. God commands us to submit to Pope Francis. God has empowered Pope Francis to teach, govern, and sanctify the Holy People of God.
S.A., peace to you and your family.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
May each of us pray that God will protect His beloved child and peacemaker, His Holiness Pope Francis (and everybody with Pope Francis), during our Pope’s visit to Egypt.
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
HI:
Something that is known can’t then be unknown!
We know that the election of Bergoglio was “problematics” shall we say. Here is the chronology.
https://fromrome.wordpress.com/category/chronology-of-reports-on-team-bergoglio/
Now given that Bergoglio and the entirety of Team Bergoglio have most likely fell under excommunication latae sententiae under Universi Dominici Gregis 81 for their illegal vote canvasing prior to the last conclave, it needs to be kept in mind that his election is not as certain as you make it out to be.
Add to this the speech by Arbp. Gänswein from May of last year that I analyzed in the post titled Ockham’s Razor Finds: Benedict Still Pope, Francis Is False Pope, Universal Church in State of Necessity since 24 April, 2005, and we see certain patterns.
So end of day, I would take Francis’ advise in this legal aspect and not be Pharisaical and rigidly hold that Francis was licitly elected. I would also advise that since we do have a Holy Father, i.e. Pope Benedict, that we guide ourselves by his teaching office when confronted by any and all novelties emanating from the Francis.
As Card. Muller stated, even a pope can’t change Catholic doctrine.
So we keep and open mind, let the real Holy Spirit guide us and pray for the conversion of Francis.
Pax Christi,
S.A.
LikeLike
Mark Thomas said:
S.A., Pope Francis election was not problematic. Not even close. Pope Benedict XVI resigned as Pope. Holy Mother Church’s Cardinal Electors, empowered by God to elector Holy Mother Church’s Pope, elected Cardinal Bergoglio as Pope.
It is that simple. Problematic? No way. The True Church holds that Pope Francis is Her current Pope.
If you have the right (you don’t) to place yourself above God and His True Church via your refusal to recognize Jesus Christ’s Vicar, that is, His Holiness Pope Francis, then I have the right (I don’t) to determine, for example, that Pope Benedict XVI was not a true Pope.
In turn, the Catholic down the street has the right to determine that Pope Saint John Paul II was never Pope.
In short, each Catholic has the right (he or she does not) to say that they refuse to recognize this or that Pope.
That is the slippery slope down which dissent from the True Church leads.
There are “Catholics” who, following your lead to reject the True Church’s authority to proclaim who is Pope, insist that Pope Saint Pius X was the last “true” Pope.
There are “Catholics” who insist that it’s been centuries since we’ve had a “true” Pope.
Again, that is the insanity that is unleashed once we’ve placed ourselves above God and His True Church.
God did not empower you and I to determine whether this or that man is Pope. God has empowered only those whom He has called to elect a Pope, that is, his Cardinal Electors, to gather for Papal elections. From there, God empowered His Cardinal Electors to declare to the world that this or that man has been elected Pope.
The undeniable reality is that on March 13, 2013 A.D., the True Church declared that Pope Francis would serve as Her Pope. Therefore, as God has commanded, I will obey happily His Magisterium, which, in turn, teaches that His Holiness Pope Francis is her current Pope.
S.A., peace and good health be with you and your family.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
LikeLike
Mark Thomas said:
Hello, S.A.
S.A., my understanding is that you assist at Masses offered by the SSPX. Perhaps I am wrong in that impression.
But I thought that you’ve attached yourself to the SSPX. That is why I am surprised that you refuse to recognize that Pope Francis is Pope. The SSPX, of course, as they are Catholic, recognize His Holiness Pope Francis as the Vicar of Christ.
S.A., if I’m wrong about my impression that you assist at SSPX Masses, do you otherwise assist at Mass via a parish in your diocese? Or do you attended Mass offered by sedevacantists?
The reason I ask is that if you assist at a diocesan or SSPX Mass, then you, of course, proclaim via your “amen” during the Roman Canon/Eucharistic Prayer that Pope Francis is Pope.
Therefore, during Mass, you testify before God that you recognize Pope Francis as Pope.
However, if you attend a sedevacantist Mass, which would make sense as you reject the True Church’s teaching that Pope Francis is Her Pope, then you are consistent in that you refuse to assist at a Mass which commemorates Pope Francis as Pope of the True Church.
Thank you, S.A.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
HI Mark:
I never said Francis is not a pope. He is just one of two. And given there there is no such thing as two popes, or bi-popes, it naturally leads to confusion.
So my position is that a Church Council will eventually have to determine what in fact is the present situation.
Not sure why that would cause any confusion?
LikeLike
Mark Thomas said:
Hello, S.Armaticus.
S.A., I am confused as you said that you “never said Francis is not a pope.”
However, you posted the following via Ockham’s Razor Finds: Benedict Still Pope, Francis Is False Pope, Universal Church in State of Necessity since 24 April, 2005:
“Francis is a False Pope in that he was never able to ascend to the throne since Benedict, through the imposition of the State of Necessity, never relinquished the Petrine Office.”
Therefore:
1. Pope Francis cannot possible be a Pope as he is a “False Pope,” according to you. A “False Pope” is not a Pope. Correct?
2. Pope Francis cannot possibly be a Pope as “he was never able to ascend to the throne since Benedict…never relinquished the Petrine Office.” Correct?
S.A., there isn’t any question that you are far more intelligent than I. It is obvious via your blog that you possess a tremendous mind. But despite the fact that you are far more intelligent than I…I mean that…I don’t believe that you are consistent in that…
1. You insist that Pope Francis is one of two Popes.
2. However, you insist also that Pope Francis cannot possibly be a Pope as he is a “false” Pope (a “false” Pope is not a Pope)…
…Pope Francis cannot possibly be a Pope as, according to you, “he was never able to ascend to the throne since Benedict…never relinquished the Petrine Office.”
S.A., please correct me if I quoted you incorrectly via the “Ockham’s Razor” article that you referenced.
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
As Cardinal Pell stated, there have been 37 (or 42) false popes in the history of the church.
So I am with him.
LikeLike
Mark Thomas said:
S.A., to follow up please on my last comment, I remain confused as…please correct me if I’m wrong…
You do not assist at a sedevacantist Mass. Correct?
On the contrary, you assist at Mass that contains a commemoration (via the Roman Canon) of His Holiness Pope Francis. Correct?
Again, when you assist at Mass, you proclaim to God that you accept Pope Francis as the Catholic Church’s current Pope. Correct?
Via the Roman Canon, you say “Amen” to the commemoration of Pope Francis as an orthodox believer who holds the Catholic and Apostolic Faith. Correct?
S.A., that is why I remain confused as to your claim that Pope Francis is a “False Pope” who did not ascend to the Throne of Saint Peter.
On the one hand, you declare that Pope Francis is not Pope. On the other hand, you proclaim to God at Holy Mass that Pope Francis is the one and only Pope…and that he professes the orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Faith.
S.A., that is why I’m confused in regard to your argument that Pope Francis is a “False Pope”. How, according to you, can Pope Francis be a “false” Pope when, during Holy Mass, you testify before God that you believe that Pope Francis is an orthodox believer who serves as Pope of the True Church?
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
LikeLike
Mark Thomas said:
S. Armaticus said…”As Cardinal Pell stated, there have been 37 (or 42) false popes in the history of the church. So I am with him.”
As am I.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
With respect to Francis’ proper status, I would take his advice. No need to be more Catholic than Francis. And he is not that into formality. He even wanted Catholics to call him bishop of Rome. So he himself is creating doubt as to his proper status.
It’s weird, but it’s what it is…
LikeLike
Mark Thomas said:
S.A. said…”He even wanted Catholics to call him bishop of Rome. So he himself is creating doubt as to his proper status.”
S.A., His Holiness Pope Francis has not created a shred of doubt as to his identity as Pope. He has referred to himself as “Pope.”
He is Bishop of Rome. What is wrong with that description?
Last week in Egypt, Pope Francis referred to himself as Bishop of Rome.
He also last week in Egypt — on April 28, 2017 A.D. — referred to himself as “Pope of the Catholic Church.” Therefore, just three days ago, His Holiness Pope Francis announced that he is “Pope of the Catholic Church.”
Again, S.A., my understanding is that you assist at TLMs where you, during the Roman Canon, assent to the commemoration of Pope Francis as Pope.
S.A., you proclaim the following:
“Most merciful Father…we offer up to Thee, in the first place, for Thy Holy Catholic Church, that it may please Thee to grant her peace, to preserve, unite, and govern her throughout the world;
===========================================================
“…as also for Thy servant Francis our Pope, and N. . . . our Bishop, and for all orthodox believers and all who profess the Catholic and Apostolic faith.”
===========================================================
Therefore, S.A., when you assist at Holy Mass, you proclaim before God that you recognize Pope Francis as Pope and count him among the “orthodox believers.”
Pax.
Mark Thomas
LikeLike
Mark Thomas said:
“Once again, Dr. Jordan Peterson explains The Francis here: And explains why Francis is not only a danger for your salvation, but also for your mental health here:”
One is a false teacher who espouses the notion that His Holiness Pope Francis, whom God has empowered to teach, govern, and sanctify His Holy People, is a danger to my (our) salvation.
That is Satan talking.
Jesus Christ teaches that he who hears Pope Francis hears Our Lord and Savior. Jesus Christ compels us to obey Pope Francis.
The Holy People of God are commanded by God to attach themselves to Pope Francis. God commands us…commands us…to submit to His Holiness Pope Francis.
The True Church teaches that we are to love and obey the Vicar of Christ. God’s true flock is attached to Pope Francis. Anybody who attempts to weaken a Catholic’s attachment and submission to His Holiness Pope Francis advances Satan’s agenda.
In union with that which the True Church has taught always and everywhere, Pope Saint Pius X declared that “…whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.”
God commands us to turn to Pope Francis…to submit to Pope Francis. God commands us to be obedient children. Therefore, we must submit in holy, children-of-God fashion to Pope Francis.
Pope Francis does not endanger our salvation remotely. On the contrary, Deo gratias, and with God’s authority, His Holiness Pope Francis teaches, governs, and sanctifies us.
My dear brothers and sisters in the True Faith, we must not permit Satan to deceive us with the false notion that His Holiness Pope Francis endangers our salvation. Please do not listen to Satan.
Let us listen to and obey God. God commands us to submit to Pope Francis.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
“In the Apostolic See the Catholic Religion has always been preserved immaculate.”
— The Formula of Pope Saint Hormisdas, 529 A.D….and reiterated by the First Vatican Council.
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
Mark:
With all due respect, even Cardinal Pell admitted that there have been 37 false popes.
That’s just objective reality.
LikeLike
Mark Thomas said:
S.A., what does the fact that we’ve had 37 (or 42, according to certain lists…whatever) false Popes have to do with His Holiness Pope Francis? Pope Francis is the Pope of the True Church. He is the Vicar of Christ.
God commands us to submit to His Holiness Pope Francis.
======================================================
By the way, Cardinal Pell said the following:
“…the Pope is the successor of St. Peter as head of the Church and bishop of Rome…Peter was given the Keys of the Kingdom and the power to bind and loose.”
“Pope Francis is the 266th Pope and history has seen 37 false or anti-Popes.”
=======================================================
Okay.
Pope Francis is Pope.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
If you haven’t noticed, there are two popes at present. To be more specific, there is a pope and a bishop of Rome.
And I think that a future council or authoritative body will have to sort this mess out.
In the mean time, what I think all Catholics of good will need to do is pray for his conversion to the ONE TRUE FAITH.
LikeLike
Mark Thomas said:
Hello, S.Armaticus.
S.A., we have one Pope. We have His Holiness Pope Francis. He is the current Pope as recognized by the True Church. You, I, and each Catholic recognize and affirm that fact via the Divine Liturgy.
S.A., when you assist at the TLM, you testify via your assent during the Roman Canon that Pope Francis is the one and only Pope of the True Church.
You also profess during Holy Mass that His Holiness Pope Francis is an orthodox believer who professes the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.
S;A;, that is what you profess each time that you assist at Holy Mass. That is the Faith that I profess during Holy Mass.
S.A., the following is that which you and I hold and profess in regard to His Holiness Pope Francis (from the Roman Canon as prayed by God’s holy priests during Holy Mass):
“Most merciful Father, we humbly pray and beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ Thy Son, Our Lord, to accept and to bless these gifts, these presents, these holy unspotted Sacrifices, which we offer up to Thee, in the first place, for Thy Holy Catholic Church, that it may please Thee to grant her peace, to preserve, unite, and govern her throughout the world;
===========================================================
“…as also for Thy servant Francis our Pope, and N. . . . our Bishop, and for all orthodox believers and all who profess the Catholic and Apostolic faith.”
===========================================================
S.A., according to you, I, and each Catholic who assists at Holy Mass, we believe that Pope Francis is the Vicar of Christ who professes the orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Faith.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
Hi:
What you say can be true, but…
Objectively, we have two gentlemen inside the Sacred Vatican Walls who wear white.
Now we know that there can only be one Peter.
So until a time when the proper church authority explains the current situation, I think it is unwise to make any definitive statements.
As for Francis, I think we need to pray for him and his conversion to the ONE TRUE FAITH.
LikeLike
Michael E. Dowd said:
This raises the question: Why is it that nearly all government programs are counter-productive. Perhaps it is because the governments is more interested in control than solutions and also due to the absence of competition. Examples: Social Security and Medicare are helping bankrupt the country.
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
I think the “control” is a derived “characteristic” from the inefficiency and incompetence. And the incompetence is a function of the government operating as a monopoly.
In contrast, a firm does not have the resources to “control” their employees and customers, so if it is inefficient, it goes bankrupt.
Governments don’t go bankrupt.
Sad. 😦
LikeLike