EpicFailureFrancis: Sustainable, This Is Not…

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

Today your humble blogger is back from a short business trip and what does he find?

Jordan B. Peterson is still “all the rage”.

Below is a republication from William F. Buckley Jr.’s National Review that still, from time to time contains a good post.

Today’s subject matter deals with the Deus ex Machina thread about how Dr. Jordan B. Peterson can save the post-conciliar church from itself and maybe even help turn the Barque of St. Peter around. This is the proper CONTEXT for reading this post below.

The post by David French itself, is a very well written piece which touches on the dynamic between the secular and the sacred aspects of reality, while indicating the RECONCILIATION POINT where these two sides of what we call ONTOLOGICAL REALITY come together.

The author rightly places Dr. Peterson at the center of the RECONCILIATION POINT.

Furthermore, this material is quite timely since we are approaching another consistory where Francis will be creating 14 new FrancisCardinals. What Francis is doing is stacking the deck with hierarchs who he thinks will elect the “son of Francis” after he is no more.

Yet like in all successions, the outcomes can never be known, no matter how scripted the plan going into the conclave.

From our end, what we Faithful Catholics need to do is keep praying, fasting and….

SHOUTING FROM THE TOP OF OUR LUNGS the OBJECTIVE TRUTH that FRANCIS IS AN EPIC FAILURE.

And no better way can be had to demonstrate just how EPIC of a FAILURE Francis is, than by showing pictures of the General Audience attendances. Above is one from the 16th of May, 2018.

The OPTICS speak for themselves…

Last week Francis drew a couple of hundred, literally.

Sustainable, this is not!

And now, onto the National Review post (see original here)

Jordan Peterson Plays in the Left’s Cultural Sandbox

There’s room for a Christian counter-offensive in secular culture.

Rarely in my life have I read a more hostile or vicious takedown of a public figure than last week’s New York Times profile of Canadian author and psychologist Jordan Peterson. Rarely have I witnessed a more bizarre and bad-faith interview of a public figure than journalist Cathy Newman’s January interrogation of Peterson on Britain’s Channel 4 News. Few public figures inspire more vitriol and mockery on Twitter than, you guessed it, Jordan Peterson. And never before have I seen vitriol so out of proportion to the “threat” of the man’s underlying message.

I don’t claim to be an expert on everything the man’s said, but I read and reviewed his most recent book, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote for Chaos, and I’ve watched many of his most popular YouTube videos — and the contrast between the actual content of his message and the rage and mockery it elicits never fails to surprise me. Have we really reached the point where the basic argument that men and women are different, or that free men and women will often make different choices in large part because they are different, or that religion and ancient traditions can inform and guide our lives today, are now so toxic that their advocates must and should face a relentless campaign to drive them from the public square?

Or, given the obvious crisis that young men face — with rising rates of suicide and drug overdose, and diminishing educational outcomes — why the extraordinary hostility to a man who is reaching those same young men with a message of hard work, personal responsibility, honor, and integrity?

After all, if you’re a theologically conservative Christian or Jew — a person who is Biblically literate and strives to live according to Biblical morality — the flaw of the Peterson message is that it feels a bit basic. As I wrote in my review, “readers who are already grounded in a Biblical worldview will find some of the counsel extraordinarily elementary.”

But that’s the issue. If Peterson were writing to a Christian audience, he’d be one voice among many. An interesting and quirky voice, to be sure, but his core message about men and women would be conventional, not revelatory. Instead, however, Peterson stands out because he is playing in the Left’s cultural sandbox. He’s disrupting an emerging secular cultural monopoly with arguments about history, tradition, and the deep truths about human nature that the cultural radicals had long thought they’d banished to the fringe.

That’s the reason for the fury. That’s the reason for the rage. When Peterson walks into a secular university or a secular television studio and addresses a secular audience by referencing ancient theological arguments, the effect is not unlike inviting a genderqueer women’s-studies professor to a Baptist Sunday-school class. Some things (in some places) are just not said.

Then, when people actually respond to that message, the shock is even more seismic. It’s difficult to overstate the extent to which the Left has long been (and, crucially, felt) culturally ascendant in America’s secular spaces. The academy, pop culture, mainstream media, corporate America — all of these spaces have drunk deeply of the Left’s cultural Kool-Aid, especially when it comes to matters of sex and gender. The holdouts are in the church and synagogue, and their borders are shrinking under relentless cultural assault.

That’s the arc of history, you see, and the only place where its ultimate triumph was in doubt (or, more precisely, delayed) was in politics — and those setbacks were transient and temporary until the “coalition of the ascendant” could claim its rightful place at the pinnacle of political power.

The problem, however, was a failure to thrive. The new culture left too many young men behind. The new, fractured family claimed too many lives. When “deaths of despair” are so prevalent that the world’s wealthiest and most powerful nation now faces declining life expectancies, it’s hard to argue for the unqualified success of the modern leftist cultural project.

And so, as the secular Left pressed up against the church, it looked behind and saw the flames in its own camp. Peterson held the match, but the kindling was all around him. It’s not that men (and many women) failed to adjust to the new gender ideologies, it’s that the new gender ideologies too often fail to reckon with our deepest human longings and fail to recognize our fundamental human nature. As Peterson writes in 12 Rules, “We cannot invent our own values, because we cannot merely impose what we believe on our souls.”

No one should believe that Peterson is always right, or that his every utterance is profound, but he has served a truly invaluable cultural service. His success and — critically — his method, which relies as much on scripture as it does on psychology, should serve as a clarion call for Biblical Christians and Jews. There is no need for the defensive crouch. In the spiritual wasteland of secularized America, the harvest is plentiful, and ancient truth can indeed provide the seed for new beginnings.

Advertisements

It’s All About The Optics, Not The Definitions…

Tags

BREXIT, Catholic Church, Catholic Church in Poland, Cavalcade of the Three Kings, Chapel of the Holy Trinity, chastity belts, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Deconstructionism, Father Anthony Cekada, Fox News, Francis Effect, 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, Raymond Burke, 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 anorectal traum, s Archbishop of Warsaw- Praga, s Associated Press, s Austria, s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s Big Gender, s Boris Johnson, s Card. Muller, s Cardinal Burke, s Cardinal Kazimierz Nycz, s cardinal Walter Kasper, s Pope Francis, Saul Alinsky, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, St Thomas Aquinas, Stefan Molyneux, 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

I bet you could feed an entire Favela with the proceeds from the sale of that puppy.

In our last post (see here), we focused on a single word, namely “subsist” and how this word could be seen as the ROOT CAUSE of the demise and disintegration of the post-conciliar church.

Notice the causal relationship defined above?

So what proof was presented for this PROPOSITION?

The proof your humble blogger presented and will expound upon today, will be presented in the form of the quiz. So here goes…

Which of the following passages (Lumen gentium) is a correct?

(a) This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”.(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

(b) This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”.(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, is the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

Answers:

1) (a) only

2) (b) only

3) both (a) and (b)

Naturally, the answer cannot be 3). The reason being that there  a difference between passage (a) and (b), namely the word “is”.

Which leaves us with answer 1) and 2).

Next, one cannot argue that 1) and 2) are the same or essentially the same. The reason being is that by using the word “subsist”, by definition one is introducing two different entities.

Once again: 

This Church (founded by Our Lord) constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church… 

Notice in the passage in question above, that we are speaking about two different and distinct entities, one being “This Church” which “subsists” in the “Catholic Church”.

Yes?

The above should answer any remaining open questions as to why I approached this subject using Set Theory rather than a classical definition approach.

But before we go to the definition part of this post, let’s provide the answer to the question.

We know that 2) is correct.

And since we know that 2) is correct, we also must eliminate 1). The reason being that we know from the principles of logical thought that the law of identity (for A: A =  A) hold in this case. In other words, if the VII council fathers wanted to use the word “is”, they would have used the word “is”. Remember, “is” is the correct answer which makes:

This Church (founded by Our Lord) =  the Catholic Church.

Which brings me to the “definitions’ part of this post.

In a comment that appeared in my comment box, from another long time friend of this blog, Cold Standing. In his comment, Cold Standing writes:

In Vol. 1 of The Teaching of the Catholic Church edited by Canon G. D. Smith on p. 112, there is a discussion of the necessary marks for personality to be recognised. Condition 1. states:

“In the first place, subsistence or substantiality; a person is first and foremost a substance, that is, something which exists in itself(!), something which {…wait for it…} subsists, as for instance an apple, and not something which merely inheres in something else, like the colour of an apple. ”

It appears you have employed “subsist” throughout your post with the idea that subsist = inheres, which, using the authoritative teaching I quoted, it does not.

What Cold Standing writes above is technically correct. But only when we use an OBJECTIVE MEANING OF CATHOLIC TERMS and their COMMON USAGE.

Yet we know that the neo-Modernists are linguistic relativists. Actually, they are linguistic nihilists.

Don’t believe me?

For those who do not believe me, I would direct you to what I would consider the seminal work in this area, the John Lamont essay that appeared at the Rorate Caeli blog on the 1st of January 2015. The original post titled Attacks on Thomism can be found here. I highly suggest to go to the link and read this work. Aside, I would suggest reading this works once per week until it is indelibly engraved in ones mind. But I digress…

Concluding, knowing what we know about the neo-Modernist mindset and their modus operandi, we must recognize that we are not dealing with an honest, intellectual debate.

And as I was thinking about this post, I just so happen to stumble upon the latest Mike Cernovich video. In this video, Mike provides a great explanation for how to counter any neo-Modernists strategy. His method is through “branding” and “optics”.

I think he is onto something.

Now here is the video and you must watch it:

In the ecclesiastical sub-set of human activity, here is an example of how the neo-Modernists, through propagandists like Fr. van Hove, did exactly what Mike explains in his video, to the Dominican Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange O.P. and by extension to the Thomists. Here is how John Lamont explains this process: (emphasis added)

The weakness of the substantive accusations against Thomism was however no hindrance to the anti-Thomist campaign, for which these accusations were largely window dressing. The focus of this campaign, and the key to its success, was a propaganda effort. This effort concentrated effectively on the key goals of propaganda; vilifying the opponents whose destruction is sought, creating fear of these opponents, and exalting the courage, goodness and wisdom of all those who join in the attack on them. The vilification took the form of the epithets noted above – ‘arid’, ‘rationalist’, ‘sterile’, etc. – together with the accusation that Thomists denounced loyal Catholics as heretics, and brought about their punishment by ecclesiastical authority, in order to impose their own, flawed personal views. The fear was of the alleged malice and tyranny of Thomists, and of the alienation from the modern world that would supposedly result if their obsolete ideas were imposed or officially sanctioned by the Church. These negative themes directly led to the glorification of anyone who agreed with them and denounced Thomists and Thomism; such denunciation protected the innocent victims of false denunciations, resisted tyranny, and promoted a glorious embrace between the Church and the modern world.

So in the above, what we see is perfect example of that which we Catholics have been dealing with over the last 50 years, and it is the following: we have been dealing with what are essentially issues of BRANDING and OPTICS. 

A good case in point can be found here.

And one more thing. Let’s not get caught up with the definitions.

Optics: Francis Folk

Tags

Alsatians, Bergoglio, Catholic Church, EU Parliament, Francis church, heretical pope, Jean_Marie Guenois, messeging, Modernists, MSM, narratives, new springtime, optics, pathological, Pope at EU, Pope Francis, Pope in Strasbourg, Pope speaks at EU, Rorate Caeli blog, spirit of Vatican II, Synod 2014, Vatican II

More on the Francis visit to Strasbourg from Rorate Caeli (link here).

LET THIS SINK IN FOLKS

 

THIS IS REALITY

 

Optics: And No One Came.

Tags

Bergoglio, Catholic Church, Elitist, European Parliament, Francis church, heretical pope, messeging, Modernists, MSM, narratives, new springtime, optics, pathological, Pope Francis, Rorate Caeli blog, spirit of Vatican II, Strasbourg, Vatican, Vatican II

Post reproduced from the Rorate Caeli blog without comment.

 

Never before seen: empty streets

Tweet of the day, by the main religious correspondent of French daily Le Figaro, Jean-Marie Guénois:

“Never before seen: nobody, or almost nobody, in the streets of Strasbourg to welcome Pope Francis between the airport and the [European] Parliament…”

Optics: Silencing the Catholic Opposition

Tags

Adam Shaw, Benedict XVI, Bergoglio, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Kasper, Catholic, Catholic Church, Deus Ex Machina, Eponymous Flower blog, FNC, Fox News, Francis church, Great Cardinal, heretical pope, messeging, Modernists, MSM, narratives, new springtime, optics, pathological, Pope Francis, Raymond Burke, Religion, Rorate Caeli blog, spirit of Vatican II, Synod 2014, US Bishops' Conference, Vatican

Our old acquaintance from Fox News, Mr. Adam Shaw (see here) has another article about the bishop of Rome and the general situation within the conservative segments of the US Catholic Church (see here). The piece is titled:

Cardinal’s demotion helps Pope Francis quell ‘conservative backlash’– for now.

Now that is what I call a “balanced and fair” title to the present situation.

I highly recommend reading the article, but from the optics perspective, it is not a pretty picture that is being drawn of our cuddly, joyful, luv’able and humble pontiff. And our second favorite priest blogger is quoted by Mr. Shaw. But more about that later. Here are the key passages, in my humble opinion-of course, as they pertain to the optics of the Francis papacy: (with emphasis and [comments])

Pope Francis is drawing rock star raves for softening the Vatican’s image on such issues as homosexuality, capitalism and divorce, but his celebrated tolerance doesn’t seem to extend to dissenters within the church, whose conservative revolt came to a halt when the pontiff exiled their de facto leader to obscurity. [Exiling clerics is not good optics. Definitely in the COLD Christian category.]

… The most vocal critic was American Cardinal Raymond Burke, who described the Church under Francis as like “a ship without a rudder.” But as conservative bishops and lower-level clergy in the U.S. began to signal their agreement, Burke quickly found himself demoted from his powerful Vatican post to a purely ceremonial role. [Yes. Mr. Shaw should be commended for putting out a TRUE narrative into the public domain that lower level clergy are not happy also. The MSM narrative up to now is that it is a cabal of conservative clerics in Rome that are frustrating the will of THE church. Well, it looks like their are “lower level” clergy who signal their disagreement with Francis also.]

The move sent a chill through the ranks of American conservative bishops, nearly two dozen of whom declined comment when contacted by FoxNews.com, despite many having previously expressed strong doubts about the church’s leftward swerve under Francis, who assumed the papacy in 2013. [Oh my. In a pontificate that is open to dialogue, we have bishops afraid to talk. Like in the old Soviet Union…]

Not a pretty picture if you as me.

But this is the key paragraph:

Polls show the sentiment is generally widespread among the public, with most polls giving the Argentine high approval ratings. A Pew research poll published in March found that, although there was no discernible rise in either Mass attendance or in Americans who identify as Catholic, approximately two-thirds of the public view Pope Francis favorably.

Yes! Using an old expression, the passage seems to suggest that this pope is “all show, and no go”. And we see the same narrative building that was observed by Cardinal Brandmuller about the popularity around the pope being “superficial”(see here). In other words, it is not bringing people into the Church. Now this narrative is getting out to the general population, and this is key.

And why is this key? Because at the end of the day, and as I have stressed in not one previous post, the only things that matter, on both the natural and supernatural realm of reality, is the bodies in the pews, i.e. the Pew Sitters.  And we know why this mattes, now don’t we? But just in case we forget, or you are new to this blog, allow me to explain. The reason that only Pew Sitters matter is this:

– On a natural level, the Pew Sitter’s are the only source of funding for the Holy Roman Catholic Church that will allow its’ funding models to be sustainable (see here). This is as true today as it was 2000 years ago and will be 2000 years time from now.

– On a supernatural level, the Holy Roman Catholic Church is the ONLY MEANS OF SALVATION AVAILABLE TO MAN. The dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is as true today as it was in 1302 when Pope Boniface VIII proclaimed in the Bull Unam Sanctam the following:  “Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins… Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary to salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

And that is the objective reality of the matter.

But getting back to the article, the rest of the article does an outstanding job explaining the general situation, pointing to the Secret Synod as a watershed moment for the “conservatives”, informing that church leaders are refusing to comment (so much for being “open to dialogue”) and even citing our friends at Rorate Caeli as a source of information. Very impressive if you ask me.

Which brings me to Deus Ex Machina’s  second favorite priest, Father Z. Father Z is quoted thus:

“You might say that the Synod was a turning point for conservatives, the end of the honeymoon,”  The Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, a leading conservative American blogger and an influential voice in the U.S. church, told FoxNews.com.

This statement captures the essence of the “conservative” Catholic mindset. Up to the Secret Synod, explanations of what Francis really meant to say were everywhere. Now, these types of polemics are exclusively the domain of the left wing propagandist’s religious press and MSM.

But returning to the above comment, Fr. Z kindly puts up the text of the questions and answers that he provided to Mr. Shaw. They can be found here. Looks like he want to put the entire transcript of his interview out “for the record”. And this is a good idea in times like these.

On an aside, please remember to pray to Our Lady of the Clergy for an intercession for the priests identified in this passage (see here):

In the meantime, perhaps you good readers would be so kind as to ask Our Lady of the Clergy to intercede on behalf of a few priests whom I know who are seriously beset in these… trying times.

Optics: When realities collide!

Tags

Bruno Forte, Cardinal Baldisseri, Cardinal Kasper, Francesco Coccopalmerio, Italian Bishops' Conference, lost election, optics, Pope Francis, Synod 2014

Pope Benedict once made the observation that there were two different Vatican II councils, the actual one and the one that the media presented to the world.

It is this ‘spirit of the two V II councils’ that the Shameful Secret Synod ‘schemers’, led by leftists cd. Kasper, Balidisseri and bp. Forte tried to replicate. Even though objectively speaking, the schemer’s position was soundly defeated, and only Francis’s intervention was able to save the Forte produced Relatio post disceptationem from the trash heap of history, non the less, the schemers are not giving up. In fact, it is fair to say that the schemers are trying to “spin” a victory out of a resounding drubbing that they took at the actual Shameful Secret Synod of 2014.

The evidence of this “work in progress” is readily apparent to anyone who looks through the daily catholic media and blogosphere. To the casual observers, it would appear as if cd. Kasper’s “ warm smile, keen intellect and deep commitment to Christian unity, but also for a sense of realism, which does not negate respect for others but is clear about the limits of change possible in the Catholic Church…”(Link here) is everywhere.

And wherever the German cardinal appears, the blunt at times, but always warm, keen and deep message is the same, namely: (link here)

Cardinal Walter Kasper has said bluntly, and in direct opposition to the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), that the rules will shortly be changed to allow divorced and remarried Catholics to be admitted to Holy Communion.

And not only is this the “schemer’s” position, but this position will be a consensus position by the time the Shameful Secret Synod II rolls around in 2015, assures us cd. Kasper. But please dear reader, do not misunderstand the good cardinal. He is not saying that there was not a consensus for the Kasper position in the consensus position of the 2014 Synod. (link here)

The Ordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family, which will take place in October 2015 in connection with the Extraordinary Synod last October will bring a broad consensus “on all points”. The German Cardinal Walter Kasper is convinced of  the voice of approval for the remarried divorcees to communion. Of the same view is also the Italian Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, the President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts . The admirers of the late Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini and the German theologian, know each other well. Coccopalmerio has been a member since 2007 of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity .

Yes folks, the official message is “just wait til next year’s Synod, but please do not infer that there was anything wrong with this year Synod. Besides change is just around the corner, is inevitable and progress marches on. And to demonstrate this “existing/new consensus that exists and is building”, the good cardinal, with his brand spanking new Quasten Medal for Excellence in Scholarship and Leadership in Religious Studies from the Catholic University of America School of Theology and Religious Studies, has “frog marched” out a new member of TeamFrancis, one cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio. Yes folks, it’s more than just a “3 plus 1” man act, this “existing/new consensus”.

And while we are on the subject of this “existing/new consensus”, at a dinner hosted by the Cenacolo di Amici Francesco  (literally translated as the Friends of Francis), an organization that was formed to support the new bishop of Rome after the ascendancy of Francis to the throne of St. Peter (remind anyone of that unofficial network known as the “FOB’s” or “Friends of Bill”, as in Clinton), the good cardinals had this to say:

The Cardinals Walter Kasper and Francesco Coccopalmerio are certain:  a “broad consensus” will be found In the Synod of Bishops in 2015 on the family.

The two Cardinals took part yesterday at an event titled: “With Pope Francis on the Synodal Way of the Family. A Test of the Reform Papacy.” An event  for the “reformers”  themselves For the German Cardinal, Pope Francis  is an “intelligent conservative.”  Invited were the Cenacle of  Friends of Francis (Cenacolo di Amici Francesco), who appeared for the first time in public. The meeting took place in the Catholic Russian Ecumenical Centre in Rome (Centro Russia Ecumenica).

So far so good, but are these observations by the two cardinals grounded in objective reality” or only in the Kasperian “sense of realism” that subsists in the good cardinal’s imagination?

Insights into the objective reality underpinning the “existence or non existance” of the “existing/new consensus” might be inferred from the recent elections at the Italian Bishop’s conference. One of the “schemers”and author of the aberro-sexual passages, bp. Bruno ‘slippery as an eel’ Forte was nominated and ran for the “office of Vice President of the Italian Bishops’ Conference”. And as we know from a previous Deus Ex Machina post (link here), there was NO “existing/new consensus” and the bishop did not do to well.

Yesterday, a post at the Eponymous Flower blog appeared, which gives more insights into the vote and its’ implications. The EF blog has this to say (link here): [with comments and emphasis]

The Archbishop [ Forte] was not so very popular. Besides Forte, Bishop Meini of Fiesole ran for the office of  Vice President. For the more famous Forte, the “duel” should have been  a walk. [ … as in ‘walk in the park’, or a ‘cake walk’] Especially since it is known that he is in the favor of Pope Francis.  No bishop could seriously doubt that what Forte had written in the interim and final report of the Synod, was not approved by the Pope. Nevertheless, it was a different outcome. [Maybe the ‘god of surprises’ intervened?] In the first ballot no candidate reached the intended quorum. In the runoff election [, that] the more famous Forte was being sidelined was  abundantly clear. Only 60 votes were cast for the bustling Archbishop of Chieti-Vasto, but 140 for Bishop Mario Meini of Fiesole. Only 30 per cent for Forte, 70 percent for his challenger but are a smooth result.

And what is the significance of the above lost election. EF explains:

Had the Archbishop wanted to get the office of Vice President [-] and with the favor of the Pope to return as the successor of Cardinal Bagnasco’s  position, the attempt backfired. The electoral defeat makes his papal appointment as chairman of the Bishops’ Conference almost impossible . [ I can picture Francis wheeling out the DEM as I write this. 😉 ]

The result was bad enough for TeamFrancis. But the “up-stream” implication of the defeated Forte candidacy was a direct reflection on the bishop of Rome himself. EF goes on to write:

The president of the Italian Episcopal Conference is  the Pope himself, but he does not exercise this function [directly], but [through] a person of his confidence. The Office is still held by Archbishop Angelo Cardinal Bagnasco of Genoa, whom Benedict XVI appointed. However, the new strong man is Bishop Nunzio Galatino, whom Pope Francis [with the use of his handy DEM] unexpectedly appointed as the new Secretary-General on 23 December 2013. So far, the Secretary General was appointed on the proposal of the President. Cardinal Bagnasco found out about it from the media.

Oh my! If one were to objectively assess the meaning of the “Forte loss”, one could easily and honestly infer that the Italian Bishops’ Conference gave a direct rebuke to the bishop of Rome. Looks like TeamFrancis took one on the chin.

But just because TeamFrancis lost one, does it follow that there is no “existent/new consensus” out in the Catholic heartland, let alone in ultra-progressive circles close to the bishop of Rome? Does this lost election also imply that October [2015] will not bring a broad consensus “on all points”, and the narrative that TeamFrancis is pushing is not reality based? TeamFrancis members surely must be motivated for mobilizing the forces of progress that will push through this “existent/new consensus on all points” at the Secret Synod 2015?

For an insight into the answers to the above posed questions, let us return to the “Friends of Francis” function mentioned earlier, the function at which the new member of TeamFrancis, one cd. Francesco Coccopalmerio was introduced “for the first time”. Over at Fr. Z’s blog, this post appears (link here). In the linked post, Fr. Z translates a passage from the Italian La Nuova Bussola.

The below passage provides some “color” into the FOF function and the level of motivation behind the TeamFrancis efforts. I will reproduce in Italian and then run the main passage through google translate. La Nuova Bussola writes:

Dal blog Rossoporpora.org curato dal vaticanista Giuseppe Rusconi, veniamo a sapere dell’esistenza del “Cenacolo degli amici di Francesco”, intendendosi per Francesco l’attuale Papa. Si tratta di un gruppetto di giornalisti e intellettuali – che potremmo anche definire ultras – guidati dal vaticanista del GR1 Raffaele Luise e formatosi poco dopo l’elezione al pontificato di papa Bergoglio.

Di tutte le possibili interpretazioni che si danno del magistero di papa Francesco, quella del Cenacolo – e di Raffaele Luise – è sicuramente tra le più progressiste. Non a caso per la prima uscita pubblica tre sere fa a Roma, relatori principali sono stati l’immancabile cardinale Walter Kasper e il cardinale Francesco Coccopalmerio. Vista l’affluenza di pubblico alla serata, probabilmente con il nome Cenacolo si fa riferimento al numero di adesioni (non più di una ventina i presenti in tutto).

The google translation is as follows: [with emphasis]

From the blog Rossoporpora.org edited by the Vatican correspondent Joseph Ruskin, we learn of the existence of the “Cenacle of Friends of Francis”,  “Francis” being the current Pope Francis. It is a small group of journalists and intellectuals – who could be described as supporters – led by the Vatican correspondent of the GR1 Raffaele Luise and formed shortly after his election to the pontificate of Pope Bergoglio.

Of all the possible interpretations of the magisterium of Pope Francis, one of the Last Supper – Raffaele Luise is among the most progressive. No coincidence that at the first public event three nights ago in Rome, the keynote speakers were the inevitable Cardinal Walter Kasper and Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio. Given the number of guests at the event, probably “the Last Supper” could refer to the number of participants (no more than twenty present at all).

Got that? The first public event hosted by the Friends of Bill Francis or FoF’s, with the top architect and promoter of Francis’s “theology on the knees” and less than 20 people were present. And this includes the two cardinals and no doubt some FoF staff.  Also one has to ask if the restaurant staff were included in the “no more than twenty present in all”?

So there you have it. A perfect example of the “two V II councils Secret Synods” phenomenon in practice, where we see TeamFrancis with the assistance of the media creating one set of optics, but the reality on the ground being quite to the contrary.  And just as the old journalist adage states “believe nothing that you reads and only half of what you sees”, this is very wise and sound advice for anyone following church affairs these days.

H/t to MARCO who pointed out a couple of minor mistranslations from the Italian text.

---

---

Optics: Pope Bling

Tags

Bergoglio, Catholic Church, heretical pope, Modernists, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, optics, pathological, pope bling, Pope Francis, spirit of Vatican II, Vatican II

I bet you could feed an entire Favela with the proceeds from the sale of that puppy.