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

Never, ever, EVER thought that this humble blogger would write a sentence, let alone a post title on a blog dedicated to the Restoration of all things in Christ, like the one at the top of this one.


As the US FrancisBishops Conference’s conference has come to a FrancisEnd, the Dictator of Rome orders the US Bishops, Cardinals, FrancisCardinals and FrancisBishops NOT to put in place any transparent, laity led, honest review of the current CRISIS brought about by the INTRINSICALLY DISORDERED “clericalists”.

Needless to say, a lot of people are upset.

So today, this humble blogger will take a stab at why these “upset people” are in fact UPSET!

But before we get to that subject matter, this humble blogger needs to make a digression and posit the following claim:


… and the Modernists killed it.

The reason for making the above claim, is that it needs to be understood. The reason why it needs to be understood is that without this specific understanding, one cannot properly diagnose the current problem plaguing the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

So we begin with a definition (see here)

Postmodernism is a broad movement that developed in the mid- to late-20th century across philosophy, the arts, architecture, and criticism and that marked a departure from modernism.[1][2][3] The term has also more generally been applied to the historical era following modernity and the tendencies of this era.[4] (In this context, “modern” is not used in the sense of “contemporary”, but merely as a name for a specific period in history.)

While encompassing a wide variety of approaches, postmodernism is generally defined by an attitude of skepticism, irony, or rejection toward the meta-narratives and ideologies of modernism, often calling into question various assumptions of Enlightenment rationality.[5] Consequently, common targets of postmodern critique include universalist notions of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, language, and social progress.[5] Postmodern thinkers frequently call attention to the contingent or socially-conditioned nature of knowledge claims and value systems, situating them as products of particular political, historical, or cultural discourses and hierarchies.[5] Accordingly, postmodern thought is broadly characterized by tendencies to self-referentiality, epistemological and moral relativism, pluralism, subjectivism, and irreverence.[5]

So why is your humble blogger making the above point AGAIN?

Because if there is any system of categorization that can contain the various speeches, newspaper interviews, musings at the Domus Sanctae Marthae and off-the cuff remarks generated by the bishop of Rome, i.e. the magisterium of Francis, it is post-Modernism.

Which means the following: if we continuously misdiagnose Francis as a Modernist, what we are doing is superimposing on the Francis and his FrancisMagisterium, the FALSE CLAIM of universalist notions of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, language, and social progress.

And this is regardless of whether we agree with their Modernist versions or not.

The reason that Catholics can debate the concept of Modernism in the first place, is that Modenism shares a rational, logical, empirical cognitive framework with Catholicism. What we agree with and disagree with, are the specifics within that framework, while not questioning the framework itself.

With Francis and his post-Modernists, there is no framework.

In fact, Francis and the FrancisMagisterium is not only a critique of, but the antithesis to the qualities that we falsely ascribe to “Francis the MODERNIST”, while in reality, Francis is the exact opposite of a MODERNIST.

Therefore any discussions, or even arguments that we have with Francis, don’t affect either him nor do they affect his actions. Figuratively speaking, it’s like talking to a wall. And that’s because Francis and his FrancisMagisterium is in fact STRUCTURE-LESS, i.e. characterizes by self-referentiality, epistemological and moral relativism, pluralism, subjectivism, and irreverence.

The reason that this humble blogger eliminated the descriptor “pluralism” from the above list is that Francis, the Dictator of Rome doesn’t have a pluralist bone in his body.

And post-Modernism doesn’t demand that he have one either!

Now given the above, and taking Dr. Jordan B. Peterson’s critique of post-Modernism into account, namely that post-Modernism, due to its claim that  all hierarchies of values are “equal”, can’t define (establish) a hierarchy of values that can sustain it.

Therefore, to gain and sustain itself in power, it reverts to its ideological foundational doctrine: MARXISM.

And this is the TRUE PHILOSOPHICAL CRITICISM of Francis and his FrancisChurch.

Which brings us to the original question: What is it in FACT that has the “upset people” so UPSET?

And as you can rightly suspect, what has the “upset people” so UPSET is the FORMLESSNESS of FrancisChurch’s post-Modernism.

Just to provide one example: FrancisCardinal Cupich and the “clericalists”. The word has a specific phonetic sound, a sound that is suggestive of something to the imagination of the listener, but in reality has no OBJECTIVE MEANING and is in no manner tied down by any sort of COMMON USAGE.

In other words, “clericalist” used by FrancisChurch can mean anything.


Have a nice weekend…