Tags
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, Refugee Resettlement Watch blog, 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 Ann Corcoran, 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 Chapel of the Holy Trinity, 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, ZombieChurc
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…
Richard Malcolm said:
If there remains a “Catholic Church” in opposition to “FrancisChurch,” one wonders how large it really is. Its boundaries may be somewhat indistinct, given the confusion at work. But on all evidence, on suspects it is rather small – not so small as the SSPX, but not more than a tithe. And how many would carry that logic over if a formal schism developed, should events force one? 5%? 10%? Surely not more than that. A certain number of clergy might be left uncomfortable by FrancisChurch, but psychological conformism would carry the day for many, I’m afraid (See Joseph Shaw’s excellent series on this question over the past few weeks.)
In Western countries, it’s a small enough number that many in Francis’s circle would likely *welcome* such a schism – as they surely did Lefebvre’s actions in 1988 – since the numbers remain small enough that they would keep control of the assets, which as you rightly note is quite essential to them. (The same drama played itself out in the Anglican communion over the past few decades.)
I think what makes them hesitate, however, is that they might lose much of Africa, Eastern Europe, and other parts of the developing world in such a break.
LikeLike
Laid back said:
I am a retired editor, and very familiar with the oddities that auro correct introduces behind the writer’s back. If you edit every word before you hit “send” or whatever, you may catch and correct the autocorrect errors. But it’s easier to hit “send,” and then notice people catching you out, as Mark did. I have “corrected “ in my head, knowing what the writer (S. Armaticus) intended. So I wouldn’t have written this noteat all, except that Mark needs to relax a little.
LikeLike
Pingback: Canon212 Update: The Depravity Has Crept All the Way Into the Creche – The Stumbling Block
Cold Standing said:
A Luther arises and says things that are wrong, yet he is successful.
A Descartes arises and says things that are wrong, yet he is successful.
A Marx arises and says things that are wrong, yet he is successful.
A Francis arises and says things that are wrong, and yet he is successful.
How can someone be wrong and successful at the same time?
What explains this phenomenon?
Why have the authorities been powerless to stop them?
You don’t know the answer and until you do your analysis will continue to be a failure.
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
It’s the parasite/host relationship. The parasites (those that are wrong) live until they kill the host (Catholicism)…
LikeLike
Cold Standing said:
That certainly isn’t a very charitable characterization of your fellow man. Indeed it is a false analogy because those whom you label parasites are in the majority and they are not living off of a body/society, by your reconning the Catholic Church, that they need to perpetuate their existence. Even the supposed churchmen don’t pay attention to Church teaching.
Why?
If they do not draw on Church teaching, this is obvious, and they are teachers, what teaching do they draw on?
If you can’t identify the teaching they draw on, how can you be so sure you don’t draw from the same well?
You say there is a restoration, but it is in question as to hat is actually being restored. What is actually being restored?
The traditional liturgy? Okay, but to what order?
It really looks like you don’t want to address the issue. See your pat answers.
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
You need to look at Catholicism in a much wider scope. Western Civilization is Catholicism. So my observation is quite accurate.
As to a pejorative interpretation of my analogy, none was either intended or existent.
So it is not I that is being uncharitable…
LikeLike
Cold Standing said:
I wound take umbrage with someone calling me a parasite. You just called a very large group of people parasites, yet I am the one being uncharitable. Sorry, but no. And it isn’t me that is having the frame of reference problem. Catholicism is Christendom which is not geographically specific, rather universal. This has not been the organizing principle of social orders found in the geographical region called the West for quite some time.
At any rate, you are still dodging the question by trying to make this about me. I am not attacking you, rather I am pointing out that you have failed to grasp an important point. One that has devastating consequences for your several years long writing project, so I can see how you would be reluctant to go there.
Nevertheless, you either want the truth or you don’t. I have posted several questions that you have failed to engage with. It is a free country, eh? Don’t answer them if you don’t like. But there in is the truth of the situation.
Is Sarmaticus’ new motto going to be “I don’t go there”? Say it isn’t so.
LikeLike
Richard Malcolm said:
“…you have failed to grasp an important point.”
And what is that point?
LikeLike
Richard Malcolm said:
“If they do not draw on Church teaching, this is obvious, and they are teachers, what teaching do they draw on?”
Secular premises, almost invariably.
LikeLike
Cold Standing said:
What does the list of premises under the heading “secular” consist of? Then please present your analysis as to why they, the teachers Catholics are obligated to submit to, have elected to draw from these rather than the sources historically drawn upon.
If, that is, it pleases you to do so. Participation is by free will act.
LikeLike
Wanda said:
I don’t consider Luther, Descartes, Marx or Francis to be “successful” in any sense. They were able to achieve what they did owing to Original Sin; concupiscence. The movements that these people spawned were destructive to the moral and/or Catholic order. Why has no one in authority been able to stop them? They have either joined them or are too weak and corrupt themselves to put up any defense. Besides, this is not a numbers game but a Faith game; he who perseveres to the end will be saved.
No good will come of Francis (as you call him) apparently trying to destroy the Catholic Church. Others have tried and failed as it is a Divine Institution. They may steal all the assets and occupy the buildings but there will always be Catholics who hold the unchanging Faith.
LikeLike
Ritter der Immaculata said:
You guys I’m kinda scared he might be the ONE, the actual precursor prophet of the anti-Christ.
LikeLiked by 1 person
S. Armaticus said:
He is make one HELL of an effort, isn’t he?
LikeLike
louiseyvette said:
It’s not the right time, imo.
LikeLike
barbarajensen said:
I like the reference to the ‘overriding tenet’ that the the Church is ordered to ‘the salvation of souls.’. This tenet is being overridden by those prelates enslaved by political correctness and other earth-bound motives. As these frightened men remain silen when they should seek out against Bergoglio’s flagrant heresies, souls are– second-by second– being misinformed about the requirements of following Jesus. However, it helps to read about the tenet that one senses deep in ones soul. I will keep praying for us all.
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
Yes.
The MISSION of the Church is the salvation of souls. Nothing more…
The reason that it is being ignored by such a large cross section of the current clergy can only mean that they have lost the Faith.
Harsh, but fair…
LikeLike
Mark said:
BTW, that is explicitly stated in the 1983 CCL at Canon 1752:
“… canonical equity is to be observed, and the salvation of souls, which must always be the supreme law in the Church, is to be kept before one’s eyes.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark said:
Nevertheless, congratulations are in order. You were so focused on the topic that you forgot to say “dear reader” or “but I digress” (when you’re not actually digressing) even once. Please keep it up.
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
🙂
LikeLike
Mark said:
Very nice post today. However …
“the OVERRIDING TENANT of our FAITH”
A “tenant” is one who hold property by a claim of right or title.
What you mean–I presume–is “tenet,” “a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true; especially: one held in common”
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
Yes Mark. My auto correct crashed…
LikeLike
Mark said:
Never rely on auto correct. My point is that you provide a lot of thoughtful ideas here–so why allow annoying stylistic idiosyncracies borrowed from others to get in your way, and in the way of readers? Give it all a miss and be your real self.
LikeLiked by 1 person