Tags
#fakenarratives, #fakenews, 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, ZombieChurch
As we enter the second half of Advent, this humble blogger has some bad news for you dear and loyal readers. You probably don’t know this, but you suffer from something called “polylogism”.
Before your humble blogger offers an explanation, it needs to be stated FOR THE RECORD that this humble blogger has NOT TAKEN A POSITION on whether Francis is in fact the bishop of Rome of not.
To be perfectly honest, nobody would care about what I personally think about this matter.
Having said that, this humble blogger is emphatic however, that approaching the question of whether His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI’s “resignation” was valid or was not valid, be done in a scientific… bah CATHOLIC manner. And the Catholic manner is through using sensory data, logic and reason to determine what in fact is the OBJECTIVE REALITY of the issue.
Having said the above, it is with astonishment that this humble blogger reads a post in the preeminent Catholic website that is Rorate Caeli, which contains the following:
There seems to be a need for us to repeat something we’ve said often. We do not believe our years-long readers suffer from this syndrome, but there are more than a few people who seem confused, especially those whom Francis has recently driven toward tradition.
The obvious problem with the above passage is that negating the subjective opinion that Catholics who find problems with Pope Benedict’s “resignation”, suffer from a mental condition (We do not believe our years-long readers suffer from this syndrome), the implication is that they possibly could. Note, it is the editor of Rorate Caeli that “does not believe”.
FOR THE RECORD: This humble blogger can definitively state that these folks DO NOT SUFFER FROM A MENTAL CONDITION.
Which brings us to the following: What we are dealing with here is qutie possibly what is known as “polylogism”.
Polylogism is explained in the below republished post as follows: (see here)
According to (Karl) Marx, different classes of people had different structures in their minds. Thus, Marx declared the bourgeoisie to be mentally defective because they were inherently unable to comprehend Marx’s (allegedly) revelatory and progressive theories. Since they were, in a sense, insane, there was no valid reason for communists to “waste time” arguing with them.
Therefore, a situation, as was outlined in the post The Fatal Problem With A “Multi-Nodal” Papacy… where:
(…) it is visibly observable that there are two individuals who live inside the Sacred Vatican Walls. Further, Pope Benedict continues to wear the white tunic, continues to sign himself “Benedictus XVI, pope emeritus,” continues to live “in the enclosure of Saint Peter,” continues to have himself called “Holiness” and “Holy Father.” And finally, Pope Benedict claims that he and Francis, the bishop of Rome “share” the PONTIFICAL OFFICE, “One “Active” and One “Contemplative”. (See here)
… cannot be questioned, according to this polylogistic explanation.
Paraphrasing, you dear and loyal reader are mentally defective because you are inherently unable to comprehend the post-conciliar church’s (allegedly) revelatory and progressive theories that there can be two “popes”, one active and one contemplative sharing the Petrine Office at any given time.
Ontology and epistemology be damned!
Yet as we know through studying the history of the Soviet Union (and Communist China, Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, the City of Detroit, the protestant sects, the post-conciliar church, FrancisChurch, etc.), we know that OBJECTIVE REALITY will reassert itself.
Eventually!
Just as the LEX ARMATICUS posits.
Something worth contemplating…
******
Soviet Dissidents, America’s Academia, & The Weaponization Of Psychiatry
The New York Times obituary opened with a simple recitation of facts:
“Zhores A. Medvedev, the Soviet biologist, writer and dissident who was declared insane, confined to a mental institution and stripped of his citizenship in the 1970s after attacking a Stalinist pseudoscience, died … in London.”
Zhores Medvedev, his twin brother Roy (still alive at 93), the physicist Andrei Sakharov, and the Nobel Prize-winning novelist Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn were leading dissidents. They courageously put their lives on the line to smuggle manuscripts out of the Soviet Union. They wanted the wider world to learn the truth about the “the workers’ paradise” that so many Western intellectuals (some deluded, others having gone over to the dark side) praised.
A generation of Americans has been born since the Soviet Union, the USSR that President Ronald Reagan boldly labeled “the evil empire,” ceased to exist.
They have little to no concept of how ferociously the USSR’s communist tyranny suppressed dissent. As the Times obit of Dr. Medvedev illustrates, one Soviet technique of oppression was to declare that political dissidents were insane. They were then incarcerated in psychiatric hospitals where they were tormented and tortured. Some were used as human guinea pigs for dangerous experiments. (Shades of Hitler’s buddy, Dr. Mengele.) Some even succumbed to the not-so-tender ministrations of those “hospitals.”
I recall one particular example of the disgusting abuse of human beings in Soviet psychiatric hospitals. Vladimir Bukovsky, who will turn 76 later this month, spent a dozen years being shuffled between Soviet jails, labor camps, and psychiatric hospitals. One of the “therapies” administered in a psychiatric hospital was putting a cord into Bukovsky’s mouth, then threading it from his throat up through his nasal passages, and then drawing it out through one of his nostrils. (Maybe the cord went in the opposite direction; I’ve never been interested in memorizing torture techniques.) Alas, this communist “treatment” did not “cure” Bukovsky of his rational (NOT irrational) abhorrence of tyranny and brutality.
The warped thought process that led to the perversion and weaponization of psychiatry in the Soviet Union can be traced back to communist icon and thought leader Karl Marx. Marx propounded a spurious doctrine known as “polylogism” to justify stifling dissent. According to Marx, different classes of people had different structures in their minds. Thus, Marx declared the bourgeoisie to be mentally defective because they were inherently unable to comprehend Marx’s (allegedly) revelatory and progressive theories. Since they were, in a sense, insane, there was no valid reason for communists to “waste time” arguing with them. On the contrary, communists were justified in not only ignoring or suppressing bourgeois ideas, but in liquidating the entire bourgeois class.
The practice of categorizing one’s enemies as “insane” became a ready tool of suppression in the Soviet state founded by Lenin and developed under Stalin. The USSR’s infamous secret police energetically wielded quack psychiatry as a club with which to destroy political dissidents. If you want more information about how the Soviets kidnapped and misused psychiatry, here is a link to a document that describes what American agents of the USSR were taught about psycho-political techniques in the late 1930s. (The provenance of the booklet is murky, and Soviet apologists have long tried to discredit it, but in light of numerous psychiatric abuses known to have been committed with the approval of the USSR’s rulers, the content of the book is highly plausible.)
The incarceration of Zhores Medvedev in psychiatric hospitals in the 1970s was a monstrous injustice. His “crime” was having exposed the bizarre pseudoscience of Lysenkoism that Stalin had embraced in the 1950s. Lysenko’s quack theories led to deadly crop failures and widespread starvation. Nevertheless, Stalin backed him by executing scientists who dared to disagree with Lysenko. Millions of innocents lost their lives because “truth” in the Soviet Union wasn’t scientific, but political.
Another vivid example of the destructive consequences of politicizing truth is related in Solzhenitsyn’s exposé of Soviet labor camps, The Gulag Archipelago. Certain Soviet officials decided to increase the steel shipped to a certain area. When the planners issued orders for trains to carry double the steel to the designated destination, conscientious engineers informed them that it couldn’t be done. They pointed out that the existing train tracks could not support such great weights. The politicians had the engineers executed as “saboteurs” for opposing “the plan.” What followed was predictable: The loads were doubled, the tracks gave out, and the designated area ended up getting less steel, not more.
This episode shows where the true insanity was in the USSR. The central planners believed that constructing their ideal country was simply a matter of will.
Alas, reality doesn’t conform to the whims or will of any human being, but the arrogance of central planners remains stubbornly impervious to that inescapable fact of life. Instead, as the havoc wrought by Soviet central economic planners repeatedly demonstrated, the communist central planners refused to abandon their insufferable self-delusion and mystical belief in the power of their own will to alter reality. This was the true insanity, compounded by the error of persecuting competent scientists like Zhores Medvedev.
Sadly, the practice of branding political opponents as “insane” is not confined to the now-defunct Soviet state. In 1981, when I was completing my master’s thesis on Solzhenitsyn, I telephoned an American college professor of history to ask whether he recalled if Solzhenitsyn had been granted honorary U.S. citizenship. (He hadn’t. President Ford didn’t want to offend the Soviet leadership.) The reply to my question was this: “Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn belongs in an insane asylum.” The virus of Marx’s polylogism is, unfortunately, alive and well in American academia.
As for Zhores Medvedev, may he now rest in peace and receive his reward for his integrity and courage.
The Deus Ex Machina Blog 
I have a few questions for the doubters that Benedict is the only living true pope.
Would any one of you follow Francis to the Gates of Hell, whether behind his blackmagic Stang?
To a Black Mass?
To a renunciation of Christ on the ground He became the devil for us?
How about to a renunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary who supposedly called the Angel St. Gabriel “Liar!”
Would you follow Francis if he permitted an atheistic if not demonic rat like Ted McCarrick (or Don Mercedes Inzoli; or Fr. Grassi; or Coccopalmerio; Capella; or Capozzi) to rape your eleven-year-old son? Or sent him to your parish after knowing he raped seminarians and other folks’ eleven-year-old son?
Are you going to follow Francis and endorse his destruction of the traditional religious orders; his rout of the Catholic remnant of Malta; his destruction of dogma and attack on the priesthood and the other sacraments and his denial of the very doctrine of Sanctifying Grace in Amoralis Laetitia? And soon when he comes for the Old Mass, will you still stand with him?
Really?
And if not, you may ask yourself, Is Ann Barnardt really crazy? Or rather have our fem-bishops and men like Shaw, Skojec and Matt lost their nerve.
The lady deserves a medal if not a Pulitzer.
When a man says he may split the Church, he cannot possibly bepope. That’s a metaphysically and ontologically impossible act for a true pope.
As I’ve said…
It’s Francis or Fatima.
P. S. I reposted without the typos (I hope!). Scipio please feel free to remove comment 8. I had a medieval history prof out at Pomona College—the legendary Vincent Learnihan—who once said a typo may just earn you an F! No snowflakes in that class. Thanks.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Done.
LikeLike
Thx!
LikeLike
Pingback: Canon212 Update: “DefinitelyPope” Proponents Are Trying to Graft You Onto Something Evil – The Stumbling Block
The problem here is that the majority of faithful Catholics (especially the “professional” Catholic media “experts”) have invested their entire Catholic lives in the fundamental fallacy that the pope takes precedence over the objective reality of the Deposit of Faith: i.e. Sacred Scripture + Sacred Tradition.
And as such – the flawed man occupying the Chair of Peter can just magically revise history, doctrine, and objective reality itself at the mere whims of his own flawed thoughts. And so the hapless dimwitted laity in the pews just need to shutup, obey, pray, and of course – pay pay pay – like good little blind ignorant drones.
And most importantly, the majority of these “professional experts” are revealing that their real motives are not governed by the actual humility of real faith at all – but rather – their real motivation is good ole fashioned hubris. After all, it just doesn’t look good when the super-duper, highly intelligent, all-wise-and-knowing self-appointed “expert” turns out to be so fundamentally flawed in the most basic precepts of their “expertise”. But then, Our Lord made it quite clear that faithful Christians didn’t require the intellectual hubris of any experts for them to recognize the inherent evil of The False Teachers in sheep’s clothing:
“By their fruits – you WILL know them” He tells us.
And as always – Pride goeth before the fall. And no one falls faster, farther, or harder than the self-appointed smart-people with the intellectual expertise.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Does the money for Rorate Caeli come from Opus Dei numeraries, or superneraries, or from Regnum Christi or the Legionnaires of Christ? If it is one of these Catholic secret societies with their financial or administrative support keeping this sight going, then it is no wonder they would put up an article like this condemning any questioning of the validity of Francis’ papacy. They are infiltrators also, but of a conservative bent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“(…) it is visibly observable that there are two individuals who live inside the Sacred Vatican Walls. Further, Pope Benedict continues to wear the white tunic, continues to sign himself “Benedictus XVI, pope emeritus,” continues to live “in the enclosure of Saint Peter,” continues to have himself called “Holiness” and “Holy Father.” And finally, Pope Benedict claims that he and Francis, the bishop of Rome “share” the PONTIFICAL OFFICE, “One “Active” and One “Contemplative”. (See here)”
So far, the answers to the above are:
1) There is no set formula for the aftermath of Papal resignations, so Benedict can, in effect, do anything he wants, no matter how confusing (and the proponents of this argument admit this) it may be. All the above are flyspecks- the only thing that matters is that Benedict resigned, and his resignation was accepted by the hierarchy.
2) the Ganswein quote, which is the source of the bifurcated papal office idea, has been corrected to assert again that Benedict did resign and is not really the Pope. A case of “Ganswein mis-spoke” or “you must have misunderstood him”.
To their credit, many of the bloggers are not saying that the matter can’t be discussed, just that definitive statements on it cannot be made by those without the proper authority to do so., i.e. Ann Barnhardt, et al.
But yes, there is a distinct sense of “Shut up, he explained” across the Tradosphere.
LikeLike
Reply to your assertions:
1) “There is no set formula….” Well evidently you neither studied Canon Law nor read the Latin text of the only Canon which speaks and allows Papal Resignations, Canon 332 §2. Try it some time.
2) Never saw any report that Ganswein corrected what he said. in fact he asserts openly still in the online editions of his talk that Benedict shares the Papal Office and Ministery.
Those who cannot participate in the argument because they have neither studied canon law, theology, philosophy and LATIN should humbly refrain from calling names, calumniating those who debate this question. This is not to say shut up, but to say know when to speak according to your abilities. Not everyone has a capacity to judge this question, that is why we invite experts to join in the discussion and citing proofs and give reasons.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Exactly.
S’ster: “has been corrected.”
Passive voice. I always find the use of the passive interesting as it effectively hides the actor. No stated subject. Perhaps an oversight on your own part. So …
Who corrected Ganswein? Has he retracted his wild and wooly May 2016 speech at the Gregorian College?
Has Benedict corrected the active/contemplative “enlarged” papal office anywhere at anytime?
And have you not heard that Benedict read that speech in advance and said: “Complimenti!” I. e: I approve and endorse your interpretation of my action. This from a Roman source per Ann Barnhardt who is well connected w reliable Vatican sources.
LikeLike
The First Lie: The Foundation of Original Sin
http://catholicism.org/the-first-lie-the-foundation-of-original-sin.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m with you all the way, Michael Dowd! Ditto!
LikeLiked by 1 person
On Ann Barnhardt. I believe her theory about Benedict continuing to the true Pope and Francis a false Pope has great credibility–but not certainty. Anyway in a practical sense it is of little consequence as I have dismissed Pope Francis as someone to whom we owe obedience because he does not obey historical Catholic truth.
———————————————————————————————————
The folks who are truly crazy nowadays. are the academic, political, big business executive, big media and Catholic hierarchy who subscribe to the post-modern Godless view of the world where, for example, welfare seeking Muslims are welcomed into Europe where they proceed to kill folks with little consequence, where abortion is acceptable way of population control, where euthanasia is seen as solution to many problems, etc. Fortunately, some Europeans are waking up to this insanity.
LikeLiked by 6 people