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

So, Francis’ new FrancisDocument “The joy of something or other…” is taking a beating in the Catholic media and blogo-sphere. The usual suspects sycophants are trying their best to defend it and him, but to no avail.

Even the mainstream Catholic media is taking it to the woodshed. Here is the Catholic World Report and it’s brutal headline: Pope Francis “takes aim” in “Gaudete et Exsultate”—and misses? Ouch…

As to the opinion of your humble blogger, and as per yesterday’s post (see here), the “shelf life” of this puppy will be equal to that of un-homogenized milk once this sad bishopric of Rome is over. If for no other reasons than from it’s internal inconsistencies and contradictions.

The reason that expunging any and all internal contradictions (literal, logical, philosophical) is so critical to the “staying power” of any document, whether secular or sacred, is that an internal sense of consistency and harmony can provide a given document with an intrinsic universality (being True always, everywhere and for all) which on the individual level, translates into MEANINGFULNESS.

And if one wants to drill down into the reasoning behind reading a document of the sort that a Roman Pontiff or your lowly run-of-the-mill administrative ordinary of Rome would produce, one would have to admit that it would be foremost for the purpose to: extract MEANING.

It is this aspect of human existence, that your humble blogger alluded to in the post titled There’s Meaning And Then There’s FrancisMeaning… 

Which then raises the question, how does one “discern” whether a document, or more broadly a body of knowledge, contains any MEANING that can be considered to have a universal attribute. And the reason universality is being brought into this discussion here is that MEANING, just like our understanding of Price Theory (thanks to William of Ockham’s work), is a subjective choice.

So if anything that contains MEANING is imbued with a universal quality, then it will be meaningful ALWAYS, EVERYWHERE AND TO EVERYONE.

Here is an example of “universality” or lack there of, produced by Gallup Research this time around: (see here)

And here is a visual representation from Low Sunday, 2018:

So given these two pieces of sensory data, one can say that FrancisDoctrinePraxis  does not appear to possess any universal MEANINGFULNESS.

Actually, what one can deduce is that FrancisDoctrinePraxis has much less relative MEANINGFULNESS than did the post-conciliar NUChurch, as presented by the last two Roman Pontiffs.

Moving on to the most recent FrancisDocument, we get this below passage. It appears to be a Francis rationalization that addresses the above described situation.

A doctrine without mystery

41. When somebody has an answer for every question, it is a sign that they are not on the right road. They may well be false prophets, who use religion for their own purposes, to promote their own psychological or intellectual theories. God infinitely transcends us; he is full of surprises. We are not the ones to determine when and how we will encounter him; the exact times and places of that encounter are not up to us. Someone who wants everything to be clear and sure presumes to control God’s transcendence.

And here we see the reference to Francis’ alter-ego, i.e. our Bergoglian “god of surprises”. One manner in which this passage can be interpreted is that even the Bergoglian “god of surprises”, even if one assumes that he is not one and the same as Bergoglio, doesn’t like Francis.

If the “god of surprises” is Bergolio’s alter ego however, then this passage means that he is admitting to be an abject FAILURE.

In all honesty though, it’s much worse.

Francis most likely knows that the real Trinitarian God in Three Divine Persons, does not like him. He also knows that what he is doing will most likely FAIL. Just as has everything he touched in his life before. He even prepped his “Company” to the eventuality that he is just the latest iteration of Jim Jones and what he has planned for the One Holy Roman Catholic Church, is similar to what resulted in Jonestown.

Don’t believe me?

Here it is in his own words: (see here)

Q: What do you say (in the Company) to those who are getting older and see less people behind them?

FboR:Considering the decrease of youth and strength (of the Society of Jesus), one could enter into institutional desolation. No, you can not afford it. Desolation pulls you down, it’s a soggy blanket that pulls at you to see how you handle it, and takes you to bitterness, to disillusionment. I wonder if Xavier, in the face of the failure to see China without being able to enter it, was desolate. No, I imagine that he turned to the Lord, saying, “You do not want it, so bye, that’s okay.” He chose to follow the path proposed to him, and in that case it was death! … But that’s okay! Like Saverio (Xavier) at the gates of China, always look ahead … You know God! “

In other words, a FrancisChurch = Jonestown.

But just to not leave you dear readers off with a sour taste in your mouth, (excuse the pun) there are reports of a “Christian”… dare I say Catholic revival taking place and noticed by others, not just this lowly and humblest of bloggers.

In a video I put up a couple days ago, there is a good explanation of how one can “discern” whether the Third Person of the Holy Trinity could be at work. So I will leave off this post with the following transcript:

Calvinist Pastor: I had a small number of subscribers, mostly friends and family who were… you know, just did a few things.

And I’d been blogging for a while and I got interested in your stuff. And I’d been reading Neil Postman (…) and I though ‘ you know, there’s something to Peterson and Youtube’ and so I thought ‘well, I’ll just make a video about this. And then I just made a video. And then Google does its thing and then… I had 200 subscribers and (then) 500 subscribers and when it hit about 2000 subscribers, it was kind of unnerving and then I thought ‘this is strange’. I don’t want this messing up my life’. 

And then I started getting letters from people. And people started showing up at my church and I’m like… you know … ‘what am I going to do with all this?’. But then, you know, I thought about this and I said, I’ll do with this what I do with everything else. And a friend of mine in Southern California said: “you should start a meet up”.

So I thought ‘so I thought, yea that’s what I should do’.  So I put out a video and said ‘anyone who wants to meet up and talk about Jordan Peterson stuff, here’s the time and the date, we’ll show up at my church and we’ll talk’. 

And that had a good response. 

And what struck me about … I was interested in your video, was because I think in some ways, you’re trying to reconnect the world in terms of the… MEANING and MATTER, and I was interested in that. 

But then I saw really, how many people were saying things like: “well, I’ve been watching Jordan Peterson and I’m interested in Christianity and I think I want to go to Church and… and I thought ‘Now THIS is part of my job.’ This is what I do. I mean, pastors are kind of like sheep dogs. We corral people. 

Concluding, what we see above is that there is FrancisChurch, i.e. the latest iteration of Jonestown, and then there is the Catholic Church and the REAL dogma and praxis of FRESHNESS.

The Catholic Church can be seen renewing itself through a OBSERVABLE PROCESS. This process can begin with the sort of “encounters” described by the Calvinist Pastor as a result of watching Dr. Peterson’s videos.

The next phase can be OBSERVABLE in the videos produced on the Lizzie Answers Youtube page. Kind of like this here.

And this PROCESS culminates in places like this: