Tags

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


More CLARITY appearing today in the Catholic press. Today’s CLARITY actually pertains to what appears to be the CENTRAL issue in the Institutional Church currently, namely SCHISM. What this blogger has been OBSERVING is the INTENTIONAL creation of a situation which will end in SCHISM.

Just to chronicle the timeline of this FRANCISSCHISM movement, the first hint by Francis of the “S” word comes from a Der Spiegel article from the 23 of December, 2016. In that article, the following appears: (see here)

In a very small circle, Pope Francis is said to have self-critically further explained himself as follows: “It is not to be excluded that I will enter history as the one who split the Catholic Church.

The significance of this citation is that it provides EVIDENCE that Francis is cognizant of the consequences of his actions.

Given that Francis is cognizant of the consequences of his actions, we can then INFER  that there is a “higher” issue at stake than the UNITY of the post-conciliar church.

Hold that thought…

Today we also get the following fog-lifting coming from Roberto de Mattei. On the OnePeterFive blog (see here), we can read the following passage: (emphasis added)

MH: Do you see a formal schism coming, and what would it practically look like? Who would be the creator of that schism, and what would it mean for simple lay people? 

RDM: A schism is an internal division of the Church, such as happened in Europe for forty years between 1378 and 1417, when it seemed that one could not identify with absolute certainty where the [legitimate] authority of the Church was to be found. This tearing apart known as the “Great Western Schism” was not a matter of heresy. Generally however, heresy follows schism, as occurred in England at the time of Henry VIII. Today we find ourselves in an unprecedented situation in which heresy, which in itself is more grave than schism, precedes it rather than following it. There is not yet a formal schism, but there is heresy in the Church. It is the heretics who are promoting schism in the Church, certainly not faithful Catholics. And the faithful Catholics who want to separate themselves from heresy certainly cannot be defined as schismatics.

So what we see here is the analogous situation in which Archbishop Lefebvre found himself in 1988 before the Episcopal Consecrations. He could not be “schismatic” since he accepted the entirety of the Universal Magisterium. It was not he who was separating himself from the Roman Catholic Church.

I hope this is clear to all my readers!

But just in case it is not…

What was at issue was Canon 953 which does not allow for a bishop to confer episcopal consecration on anyone without a papal mandate.

Yet: (see here)

However, Canon Law is far from judging things only according to their exterior aspects. Not to take into account the particular circumstances and the subjective disposition of the persons in question would also be in contradiction with the Church’s current notion of justice. In the case of an episcopal consecration without papal mandate, the threatened sanction, according to the terms of Canon 1382, is very clearly an ipso facto sanction as stated above. Therefore, in this case one must apply the principle:

An ipso facto sanction does not apply if there exists an attenuating circumstance as laid down by law.

There is thus need to consider attentively the rules of Canons 1323 and 1324 of the CIC 1983, which correspond to Canons 2205 (N.2,3) of the CIC 1917. These canons deal with the case of an act to which a sanction is normally attached, but which was done only in order to avoid a grave inconvenience or to provide for a necessity. Here is a quote from Canon 1323, N. 4 (CIC 1983): “No penalty is incurred by a person forced by a necessity to act against the law.” The former Code (Canon 2205, N.2) speaks in the same sense. (For the restrictions in both cases, see VII to IX here below.)

So what we see here is the RE-ASSERTION of the OVERRIDING TENET of our FAITH, and that is that the Church is ORDERED TO THE SALVATION OF SOULS.

All else is secondary.

So why am I bringing this up?

Well, two reasons.

The first is to demonstrate how the Holy Spirit, working through Archbishop Lefebvre has “blazed the trail”, so to speak for getting out of this Modernist/neo-Modernist/post-Modernist induced CRISIS that is ravaging the CHURCH presently.

Secondly, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, what we see above is that even in such a dire  situation such as that in which Archbishop Lefebvre has found himself in June of 1988, the Church Canon Law ALWAYS provides a mechanism through which the OVERRIDING TENET of our FAITH can REASSERT itself.

To be more specific, when we see the YUGE strides that the Restoration of the Liturgy is presently making in the Universal Church, we always need to remember that in 1970, there was only one retired Archbishop and a hand-full of seminarians. It is this group of Faithful Catholics that found the mechanism through which the Holy Spirit RE-ASSERTED the OVERRIDING TENET of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, allowing for the present Restoration to take place.

Which allows us to make another INFERENCE.

Given that the ONE TRUE FAITH is reasserting itself at present, as can be visibly seen through the Restoration of the Liturgy, it cannot be assumed that this PHENOMENON is lost on FrancisChurch.

Furthermore, given that FrancisChurch is desperate to reign in the Restoration, it can then further be INFERRED that Francis and TeamFrancis see the Restoration as an existential threat to the FrancisChurch itself.

Therefore, if we are working from a CORRECT premise, one can then infer that the separation of the Catholic Church from the FrancisChurch would be the LEAST WORST solution for FrancisChurch maintaining CONTROL over the bank accounts and tangible assets of the INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH.

Or to put it more bluntly, on the cost side, FrancisChurch looses a few pew sitters, but keeps the assets that will provide for them the state of existence to which they have grown accustomed. (see here)

On the benefits side, FrancisChurch gets rid of the Restoration and drives out the faithful priests, those priest that will eventually relegate not only FrancisChurch but the entire “springtime of the spirit of VII” to the trash-heap of history.

Concluding, given this FRAMING, we now have a proper CONTEXT for understanding the following passage:

MH: You seem to suggest that the Pope may be promoting schism and heresy in the Church. What would be the consequences of this most grave situation? Would not the Pope lose his authority as Pope? 

RDM: One cannot sum up such an important and complex problem in a few words. On this point it is necessary to have a theological debate, on which topic one may refer to the volume True or False Pope by Robert J. Sisco and John Salza, to the writings of Abbott Jean-Michel Gleize in [the French journal] Courrier de Rome and above all to the study of Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira, Ipotesi teologica di un Papa eretico [Theological hypotheses about a heretic Pope], the Italian edition of which I edited in 2016 and also the next edition in English. The author, whose basic position I share, develops the thesis of the medieval decretists, of St. Robert Bellarmine, and of modern theologians like Pietro Ballerini, according to whom, while there is a basic incompatibility between [holding] heresy and [holding] papal authority, the Pope does not lose his office until his heresy becomes apparent to the entire Church. 

So what Roberto de Mattei is in ESSENCE saying is that Francis and the rest of FrancisChurch are in a race against time.

And time is running out for FrancisChurch…

Advertisements