Fake News – The Need For A “Day After” Pill! (w/Update)

Tags

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

Folks, you can’t make this stuff up!

As my loyal readers can no doubt confirm, during the presidential campaign this past November, your humble blogger spent a lot of time on the subject of “FAKE NEWS”.

We identified this phenomenon (see here) and explained how it fits into the wider scheme of things (see here). We even pointed out how Fake News, known as “Coprophagia” in FrancisChurch, has seeped (no pun intended) its way into the ECCLESIASTICAL sub-set of human endeavor. (see here)

But nowhere in my wildest dreams could I have ever anticipated how big FAKE NEWS was to become with the advent of the Trump Presidency. Furthermore, I could not have imagined how overtly and crassly the FAKE NEWS LEGACY MEDIA would deploy this “tool of the trade” in the WAR FOR YOUR MIND that they launched against The Donald.

So just like the old saying goes, the one about “real life being stranger than fiction”, I bring you, what can be described as the FAKE NEW’S DAY AFTER!

And from the looks of things, it would appear as if the NYT could sure use a “fake news day after pill”!

Via the Zero Hedge website (see here)…

*****

The NY Times Explains Why There Is So Much “Confusion” About Its “Trump Wiretapping” Story

In the aftermath of the Trump accusation that Obama wiretapped his phone during the election, an allegation which the flagbearers of the “truthful” (according to their various advertising campaigns) anti-Trump media wave, namely the Washington Post and the New York Times have vehemently denied, an unexpected victim has emerged over the past few days: the New York Times itself.

The reason is that while the NYT has repeatedly criticized and denied Trump’s allegation, it itself had written an article on January 19 titled, in the print version, “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides’, and online “Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates“, by reporters Michael Schmidt and Michael Shear, which paradoxically corroborated much, if not all of what Trump himself said, and quotes the usual anonymous source who said that “wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House” as part of an investigation into “the business dealings that some of the president-elect’s past and present advisers have had with Russia.”

So with various conservative blogs taking the NYT to task over this seeming contradiction, and even the WaPo’s own fact-checker seemingly confused…

… today the NYT’s public editor, Liz Spayd felt compelled to address its January 19 article which, implicitly, substantiated much of Trump’s allegation, and to explain why that’s not the case.

She starts by saying that “Trump’s assertions, however overinflated, nonetheless echo certain aspects of The New York Times’s reporting from recent weeks. That, in turn, has allowed his administration to assert that the basis for his claims rests, in part, on reporting by The Times.”

On the surface, there are similarities. Both The Times and Trump have referred to wiretaps. Both have referenced White House knowledge of the investigations. And both have described efforts by officials from the Obama administration to involve itself in the continuing investigations of Trump and Russia.

Maybe Trump is not a completely raving lunatic after all. So where are the differences:

For one, as The Times (and others) has made clear, these investigations have been conducted by the F.B.I., intelligence agencies and Congress, not by Obama himself. The Times has also said Obama administration officials sought to spread intelligence about a possible link between Trump and Russia to ensure a trail of evidence for investigators, but it said Obama himself was not involved. And no Times reporter has claimed that any warrants have been issued to spy on Trump or his associates.

And there it is again: several months after we thought we would never again hear the old “Obama had no idea what was going on excuse”, it strikes yet again, only this time we find it very difficult to believe that Obama, who expanded the distributions of confidential NSA data to multiple offices just weeks before his final day in office, had no clue that Trump was being wiretapped.

There’s more, and this is where things get delightfully Orwellian, because as Spayd “explains”, the confusion is really just a function of readers being confused because, well, it’s complicated:

Distinguishing between Trump’s assertions and The Times’s reporting is essential. Yet readers at this juncture may be understandably confused on what is true and not in one of the most important ongoing news stories in the country.

More details about this pervasive “confusion” fanned by none other than the NYT itself:

Several readers have written in this week saying they’re having a hard time squaring The Times’s own past reports of wiretapping with the paper’s assertions that there is no firm evidence that any warrants for wiretaps have been issued. Readers also expressed confusion with The Times’s assertion that it would be illegal for a White House to receive information about such investigations, when its own wiretapping story in January said the Trump White House was given some information from intercepted communications.

“For months now the NY Times and many other mainstream news sources has been running stories based on anonymous leaks saying that a massive investigation was going on into Trump and company’s Russian dealings based on wiretaps and intel intercepts,” wrote John Penley of Asheville, N.C. “Now Obama officials are saying this all never happened so my question is this: Why have the NY Times and others been saying it has for months now basing their stories on anonymous leaks?”

So to eliminate the confusion, here is the NYT’s explanation of how the wiretapping of Trump and/or his associates, which eventually made its way to the White House – as per the NYT – didn’t really happen.

I reached out to editors in the Washington bureau to seek their help in clarifying the difference between Clapper’s — and The Times’s — assertions that no warrants had been issued, and the reference to wiretapping in the January story.

Elisabeth Bumiller, the bureau chief, said the January story was referring to information picked up from wiretaps and other intelligence collected overseas, a process that requires no warrants.

Still confused? Don’t worry: the NYT even has a Q&A to help you out of your cognitive dissonance predicament”:

There’s a lot to parse. And doing so, in a way that is clear to readers, is not easy when the subject matter is complicated and the information that reporters receive comes under strict terms of how it can be used. One reporter, Charlie Savage, produced a helpful Q. and A. explaining the law around wiretaps and key terms. But it didn’t try to show how Trump’s claims line up against The Times’s past reporting.

Sarcasm aside, what the NYT’s long-winded explanation boils down to is that Trump’s inner circle was wiretapped, but the difference is whether Obama knew about it or not. And if anyone harbors any gullible thoughts that the president who lied to the public about his knowledge of Hillary’s email server – arguably the biggest fiasco of her presidential campaign – but is telling the truth when he says that he has no idea whatsoever that someone, somewhere was in fact wiretapping Trump as the NYT reports, then we wish you all the best as you click away on all the other NYT “Q&A”s to help you in your misery.

UPDATE 00:30 10 March 2017

Straight out of Orwell’s 1984… (see here)

… but it gets better…

Fix Is In: House Committee on ‘Russian Hacking’ Includes Only DNC-Hired Tech Experts (see here)

A list of witnesses scheduled to appear at a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Open Hearing on “Russian Active Measures” contains a glaring problem: the only technical experts scheduled to testify are from CrowdStrike. CrowdStrike is a firm hired by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and has become the primary source of the narrative about “Russian hacking” of the 2016 election and has acted as a mouthpiece for the Democrats since last June.

And these are the Republicrats Republicans who are doing this!

For the real news on this wiretapping issue, I bring you Stefan Molyneux:

Latest News About Rome-SSPX Recognition Talks…

Tags

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

As a service to my loyal readers, and since I do follow the “recognition” process between Rome and the SSPX quite closely, I am republishing for the record the latest information to appear on the SSPX US District website. (see here)

****

FOR THE RECORD:

Bp. Fellay Discusses Prelature Rumors

In a sermon given in Poland last Friday, Bishop Bernard Fellay commented on the situation between the SSPX and Rome and recent rumors.

Rome: A City of Rumor

Bishop Fellay addressed the rumor that the SSPX is purchasing property in Rome in order to relocate from its headquarters in Menzingen. This is fake news, as we earlier reported:
 

There have been plans for a purchase in Rome, there are some now and there will be others, as long as a firm acquisition has not been finalized. On the other hand, to respond to the ‘revelations’ in the press, there is no plan to purchase a building complex at Santa Maria Immacolata all’Esquilino, as Matteo Matzuzzi writes.”

Bishop Fellay confirmed that the SSPX intends to buy a church in Rome, but the sale of the building the SSPX is interested in, belonging to a Community of Sisters, depends on the Congregation for the Religious.

A Personal Prelature
 

Bishop Fellay then commented on a project of Personal Prelature which had been offered to the SSPX in the summer of 2015. As he already said on January 26, 2016, such a canonical structure fits the needs and the actual apostolate and presence of the Society all over the world. He revealed that the written proposal given to the SSPX foresees that prelate should be a bishop. How would the prelate be designated? The Pope would choose amongst the three names presented by the SSPX through its own elections. It is also foreseen, said Bishop Fellay, that other auxiliary bishops would be given to the Society.
 

Everything that exists now will be recognized all over the world. And the faithful also! They will be in this Prelature with the right to receive the sacraments and teachings from the Society’s priests. It will be also possible to receive religious congregations, as it is in a diocese: Capuchins, Benedictines, Carmelites, and others. This prelature is a Catholic structure which is not under the [authority of the local] bishops. It is autonomous.”

Doctrinal Steps Needed
 

For Bishop Fellay, however, there is a development even more important and interesting than this project of canonical structure: a change happening inside the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The SSPX could maintain its objections to religious liberty, ecumenism, and the New Mass. These outgrowths from the Council are not considered as binding anymore or as conditions to be recognized as Catholic. 

Bishop Fellay alludes here to the declarations of Archbishop Pozzo about the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council which is not anymore—according to Pozzo—required to be Catholic. The same has been repeated by those bishops (See: Cardinal Brandmüller and Bishop Schneider’s visits) who visited the SSPX seminaries in 2015 according to the plan agreed on in the 2014 meeting with the Cardinal Muller.

According to Bishop Fellay, “in the discussions we had with the bishops sent by Rome, they have told us ‘these questions are open questions.’”

Chaos and Reaction

Why did Rome change? Bishop Fellay offered his opinion that it is due to the gravity of the situation in the Church; the real chaos that is now running loose within her. Bishop Fellay illustrated it by reporting the comments of Cardinal Muller asking the SSPX to join his fight against the modernists. Meanwhile, the Congregation for the Religious still considers the SSPX as schismatic and yet Pope Francis says that the SSPX is Catholic.
 

There is much contradiction, there is a battle between the bishops, among the cardinals, this is a new situation…Rome is no longer one, it is divided. And in such a way that some see that things have gone too far. And they say ‘you have to do something, you have to resist.’”

Bishop Fellay mentions also the support and letters he received from Bishops. He had made the same comments to Dici earlier this year.

As for the other bishops, “there are others who speak, who resist, we are not alone.” According to Bishop Fellay “a whole work of renewal of the Church [that] has begun.”

At the same time, Bishop Fellay is not blind:
 

It does not mean that we go forward, we must go with great prudence and also secure our future to be able to prevent any possibility of trap. Therefore we are not running in this situation.”

Pope Francis and the SSPX

Of course Bishop Fellay mentions also the paradoxical interest Pope Francis has for the SSPX.
 

 A pope who does not care for doctrine, who looks at the people, and who has known us in Argentina. And he appreciated our work in Argentina. And that’s why he sees us with a good disposition while in the same time he is against conservatism. This is like a contradiction. But I have been able to verify several times that he really does things personally for us.”

Concluding, Bp. Fellay says he does not know if or when a recognition of the Society will happen:
 

So whether or not we are going to get an upcoming recognition, I do not know, I do not think so, but the pope can make a surprise. It seems impossible, as he already did it several times. Then we must continue to pray much, to ask our Protectress, the Blessed Virgin Mary to continue to lead us.”

Francis Is In Fact A Genuine Post-Modernist!

Tags

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

Today we begin with some great news… on a personal front!

Before I get into my good news, a short preface is in order. As my long time readers know, your humble blogger has been “noticing” a trend that manifests itself, among the Catholics, as a return to Catholicism. The Catholicism that existed before the Second Vatican Council.

We have  identified the source of this trend as a need to revert back to a more OBJECTIVE philosophical framework for those reverting individuals, for their “belief system”. The seminal work that explains this phenomenon, which can be termed as the “shortcomings of negative theologies”, was written by Dr. John Lamont, which can be read here.

Yet what I was missing, that is until a couple of months ago, was the wider context in which this trend was transpiring. A couple of months ago, I came across a post by Fr. Z, which introduced me to Stefan Molyneux and Dr. Duke Pesta and then I got a comment from a long time reader, Cold Standing that introduced me to Dr. Jordan Peterson. Needless to say, these discoveries provided the wider context for what we call the “Restoration of all things in Christ”. And as my readers are all too aware, I have been linking to these individuals on a regular basis.

Now to the first good news. I happen to notice another Catholic blogger beginning to link to these individuals. That blogger is Tantumblogo at the Dallas Area Catholics blog. Here and here are a couple of his recent posts. And needless to say, this is a great development.

On an aside, wouldn’t is be lovely if the Dominican could get involved? But I digress…

Given the above, and speaking of the Dominicans, what we are in fact observing is a reversion to what I will call Scholastic Rationalism. Here is a good definition:

The Rationalism of Scholasticism consists in the conviction that reason is to be used in the elucidation of spiritual truth and in defense of the dogmas of Faith. It is opposed to mysticism, which distrusted reason and placed emphasis on intuition and contemplation. In this milder meaning of the term, all the Scholastics were convinced Rationalists, (…)

And if you dear reader listen closely to what individuals like Messers Molyneus, Pesta and Peterson are expounding, you will notice a very distinctive rationalist framework, in the Scholastic tradition. Now, it’s not Catholicism per se, but it definitely is on the cusp of where natural religion ends and the supernatural Faith begins!

To support the above contention, I have linked to one of the latest Dr. Peterson videos. In this video (good part starts at about the 18:00 mark), Dr. Peterson explains his theory that the present “political correctness” is more a product of the French post-modernists as opposed to the German Critical Theory Frankfurt School. For our purposes, what is important to keep in mind is that both of these “intrinsically disordered’ ideologies are Marxist at their ROOT. What is of interest though, is the metaphysical discussion. I recommend it highly.

Ending, I will draw your attention to a post that appeared on the Zero Hedge website here written by Kurt Schlichter. Notice that what Mr. Schlichter considers to be “lies” might be considered by our post-modernists are just “their truth”.

Think of Francis, the bishop of Rome in this Jordan Peterson/Kurt Schlichter framework. It would appear as if he went past the neo-Modernists and is in fact a genuine “post-modernist”!

*****

Schlichter Warns “Watch The Liberals – All They Have Left Is Lies”

Via Kurt Schlichter of Townhall.com,

Suddenly the Democrats are coming out against their classic moves like cavorting with Russians to hack American elections and perjury (like you need a link), so who knows which of their foundational principles they will pull a 180 on and betray next: Climate scams? Free money for deadbeats? Jane Fonda?

But they don’t really mean it – hell, without perjury they could never testify to anything. If you want to know what the liberals are up to, just listen to the lies they are telling about conservatives. They used to be able to get away with it too, but thanks to the interwebs Al Gore invented between buffet deep dives and sweaty masseuse gropes, the political playing field for liberal liars is now covered in rakes.

Lying is what they do because that’s all they have left on the left. They have no foundational principles except power. Their entire ideology is transactional – it’s not based on ideas but on payoffs to Democrat sub-sets. Here’s some dough for the baby crunching industry! We’ll hassle some Christian bakers for the SJWs! Let’s put a bunch of cis-het males of pallor who don’t even listen to NPR out of work in West Tennetucky, or wherever they grow coal, to delight our global warming cultist pals!

But today the Democrats hold no levers of power, and they can’t dispense goodies anymore. All they can do now is howl, whine, and lie, and try to mobilize the parasites burrowed into the federal bureaucracy to undercut the will of normal Americans. They do this by falsely accusing us and those who represent us of doing exactly what they are doing and what they intend to do once Trump is ousted. Their goal is to seize power again and permanently disenfranchise us – and they are happy to take the risk of literally ripping the country apart.

The media is, of course, a willing and eager accomplice in this coordinated campaign of deception and slander. Notice how no one in the mainstream media pointed out how the Sessions perjury lie conveniently appeared simultaneously across the entire media just when the Democrats desperately needed to shift the narrative from their utter humiliation by Trump’s terrific joint address? The media hacks never mentioned it because they were part of it, the beat-boy skeletons to the David S. Pumpkins of progressivism. The left and its media’s problem, however, is that the new information reality means that they can start a controversy, but they can’t control it.

Here’s the utterly predictable pattern. Spazzy Dems freak out about some imagined atrocity by a conservative then, within a few hours, it becomes clear that the alleged offender did nothing wrong while conservatives scour the web and start showing how Democrat hacks are on record doing exactly the same thing times a zillion. That’s the key – the media can no longer guide the lie to destroy the target.

The internet lets us have a say – and to grab the wheel.Oh no, Jeff Sessions talked to a Russian then didn’t bring it up when not asked about it! Oh, we Democrats would never do that … except, thanks to us conservatives (and a President who’s willing to punch back twice as hard), here come the photos of Schumer and Ivan sharing a cup of Joe Stalin and here’s Pelosi’s partying with some Russkies after denying it and then the State Department turns out to have arranged it and FOR THE LOVE OF GAIA SOMEBODY SHUT DOWN THAT INTERNET MACHINE BECAUSE IT NEVER FORGETS!

Frankly, I don’t think Sessions should have dignified their nonsense by recusing himself. I think he should have strolled out before the cameras and said, “Hey Chuckie, I got a big, fat recusal for ya right here!”

We all kind of knew how the “Trump inspires anti-Semitic threats” meme was going to end up. Swedenpalooza was just a couple fake controversies ago and we all know how that went. Trump observes “Look at Sweden’s immigrant problem,” then the liberal media comes back with “Lies! Sweden is a herring-infused paradise of love and sharing!” at which point Sweden promptly gets on lit fire by Muslim refugees. All that’s missing was a woke, gender-fluid Viking wearing a “Flyktingar Välkommen” t-shirt blowing on a sad trombone.

Then Jewish Community Centers started getting threats and, of course, it had to be Trump supporters because fanatically pro-Israel people always threaten Jews or something. Facts, shmacts – the bogus narrative must be preserved! So Trump condemns this scummery, but also notes, “Sometimes it’s the reverse, to make people — or to make others — look bad.” Of course, the fake news media went nuts, because no hate crime has ever been a hoax except for almost all of them, so we conservatives settled down with our tea and waited for the ending we totally saw coming. And, of course – of course – as every non-Fredoriffic conservative predicted, the FBI busted the slug responsible for a bunch of the threats and it turned out to be …. wait for it!

Let’s see. Was it the conservative Trump supporter? Did he have a MAGA hat? Just like the media and the liberals would have you believe? Oh come on, we all knew it. Say it with me: “Leftist member of the media.”

Um, awkward! Hey, look on the bright side. At least this particular leftist member of the media didn’t murder anyone.

And, of course, there is the Trump the Authoritarian/Trump the New Hitler meme. Except Trump’s apparently not very good at authoritarianism, since no one seems to be being oppressed. He has a lot of policy ideas, which he openly explained to the American people in his speech, and which he will submit to Congress to be debated and voted upon before being enacted. That seems to correspond pretty closely to how I learned a bill becomes a law on Schoolhouse Rock.

Well, maybe his enforcing the duly enacted laws passed by Congress to deport illegal aliens counts as authoritarian Hitler stuff, except it seems odd that a leader who is doing what the people’s representatives passed into law instead of unilaterally deciding on his own not to do what the people’s representatives voted to do, and thereby effectively ruling by decree, is a hitlery authoritarian.

Obama unilaterally changed the immigration law by simply not enforcing it. That seems pretty undemocratic. He also seems to have tapped the communications of his political opponents and left some sleepers in the government dedicated to bringing down the new administration. Maybe I’m being fussy, but those seem super-undemocratic. Naturally, the mainstream media finds this all less disturbing than Kellyanne Conway’s Oval Office footwear.

Watch the liberals. Listen to what they say, because their lies and their slanders are a road map to their plans for the future. Straightforward from here, given the chance, they absolutely intend to impose the kind of quasi-fascist rule they falsely accuse Trump of contemplating. But their problem is that we now recognize their lies, and we see their endgame, and the collapse of the media gatekeepers means they can no longer keep us blind and isolated. So when they lie, we are going to throw their hypocrisy right back in their withered, pruny faces and there’s nothing they can do to shut us up. Sorry, you lying sacks of socialism, we’re not about to let you rip our country apart.

Desperation Makes For Strange Bedfellows

Tags

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

Then Jesus was led by the spirit into the desert, to be tempted by the devil. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterwards he was hungry. And the tempter coming said to him: If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. Who answered and said: It is written, Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God. Then the devil took him up into the holy city, and set him upon the pinnacle of the temple,

 And said to him: If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down, for it is written: That he hath given his angels charge over thee, and in their hands shall they bear thee up, lest perhaps thou dash thy foot against a stone. Jesus said to him: It is written again: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Again the devil took him up into a very high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them, And said to him: All these will I give thee, if falling down thou wilt adore me. Then Jesus saith to him: Begone, Satan: for it is written, The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and him only shalt thou serve. (Matt 4:1-11)

Desperation sure does make for strange bedfellows!

Yesterday, we learned that Francis, the bishop of Rome might be looking for a new employment opportunity.  

So along come reports that his services might just be needed at another European institution. The story appeared in the UK’s Daily Express under the title: Divine intervention! EU leaders will turn to the POPE over plans to revive struggling bloc.

Which raises the question, why Francis?

The answer just presented itself over at the Zero Hedge website. In a post titled Juncker Has Meltdown While Debating Future Of EU: “Shit! What Do You Want Us To Do?”

Well, what appears to be an answer to this last question, Juncker reached out to Francis.

Here is the CONTEXT

In a speech to the European Parliament, Mr. Juncker, the head of the European Commission (ruling board) explained what his thinking is, an explanation which gives us an insight as to why Francis could be the ideal individual suited to Mr. Junker’s needs. Here is the passage:

“There are many traditionalists, many conservatives, who cannot accept changing a method and my method has been criticised.

So it would appear that Mr. Juncker has the same problem as has Francis, bishop of Rome, namely traditionalists and conservatives.

Here is how Mr. Junker explains his specific problem:

“What I will say to those who think that the Commission has chosen poorly, is that in Europe you can’t have enough innovation.

Hmmmm…

So who else is a big promoter of “innovation”?

Cutting to the chase, what we see is aligned interest between the “direction” in which Jr. Juncker’s wants to take his institution and the one in which Francis, the bishop of Rome wants to take his institution.

What is striking about these two individuals is that the “directions” in which they want to take their respective institutions, are not grounded in anything that can be describe as being OBJECTIVELY TRUE.

How do we know this?

From Francis’ side, he is presently just making “stuff” up (cough, cough …personal teaching office) as he goes along.  It’s so bad, that Francis has recently even lost Phil Lawler! Yet, as an absolute monarch, Francis can afford this luxury.

Juncker on the other hand, does not have the luxury of being an absolute monarch. Therefore, Juncker must rely on what is known as SOPHISTRY, to keep his institution afloat. NB: Please view the video at the top of this post for a good discussion on the subject of SOPHISTRY.

So one sophist strategy that Mr. Juncker has employed is to allow multiple “scenarios” to be presented, yet having a preference for one of these scenarios.

So why is Mr. Juncker even allowing different scenarios to be presented? The risk is that the member states of the European Union might actually adapt one of the alternative scenarios, or come up with their very own, one that could put Mr. Juncker out of a job.

Hold that thought for the moment…

So how is Mr. Juncker hedging his bet, so that he is not left jobless at the end of this process?

Naturally, and according to the Daily Express article, he is trying to employ one of the oldest logical fallacies known to man, namely the ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY. And who is the AUTHORITY that will be anchoring Juncker’s argument? Well, none other than Francis, the bishop of Rome.

Here is that passage that leads us through this “thought” PROCESS:

EUROPEAN leaders are set to hold an historic meeting with the Pope later this month when they head to Rome to unveil their make-or-break plans to revive the struggling EU.

Brussels chiefs are hoping the Pontiff can provide them with the “leadership” they are lacking to help solve the debilitating crises tearing the bloc apart.

So what’s the thinking behind Francis being introduced into this discussion?

One pro-EU think-tank official said that, with Barack Obama gone from the White House, the head of the Catholic Church was the “only moral authority” European politicians had left to follow. 

Where have we heard that before? Why yes, here.

But there are critics:

The news that the EU’s most powerful men and women are seeking divine intervention from the Pope may raise eyebrows amongst critics who feel they have no answers to the bloc’s growing problems.

Once again, desperation makes for strange bedfellows!

Moving on…

Later today Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker is set to unveil an historic white paper laying out five “pathways to unity” for the future of the project in a desperate attempt to turn its fortunes around. 

And why is Juncker laying out five “pathways to unity”?

For the answer to this question, we move back to the Zero Hedge post where the thinking behind this is laid out:

“So we are putting forward on this occasion a number of different scenarios. Not all of them have met with approval, I’m sure that you will understand that amongst the scenarios put forward there is one that I would like more than the other four.

“But if we were simply to put that forward then there wouldn’t be any discussion and voices would be raised against us saying that we had stifled the debate and saying that we had not listened to the voices of our citizens.”

On an aside, the explanation did not go over too well, which led to this gem of a quote:

Finally losing his temper at the Catch-22 situation, he then raged

“But sh*t, I would say sh*t if we weren’t in the EU parliament. What do you want us to do?”

Again moving on…

So given the above, Mr. Juncker has appealed to a “higher power”…

And now diplomats have told EurActiv that EU leaders will discuss the plans with Pope Francis in Rome ahead of holding their own heated debate on which “pathway” to choose. 

The options are expected to range from scaling back Brussels’ duties, whilst not necessarily handing more powers back to member states, right through to the creation of a European superstate. 

But Juncker’s problem was caused by BREXIT which returned powers back to the member state.

Sow how’s that gonna work?

A rhetorical question…

But at the end of the process, if no powers returned to member states, Juncker is still needed, therefore he keeps his job.

So just to review, Mr. Juncker has a problem. He has a “favored” solution to the current Euroland crisis, he is being forced to make alternative proposal for purely optic reasons, those choices do not allow for any real change, i.e. options are expected to range from scaling back Brussels’ duties, whilst not necessarily handing more powers back to member states, so he needs to find a manner in which to fool get the 28 countries to agree on a “scenario” that does not include any real change.

In other words, Mr. Juncker needs a SOPHIST solution by which he can force his solution past the 28 member states.

So where does one find a casuist SOPHIST when he needs one?

Enter Mr. Joseph Muscat, the prime minister of Malta. Malta… where have we come across that country lately? Oh yes, here. But I digress… Here is that passage:

Earlier this week Joseph Muscat, the prime minister of Malta which currently holds the rotating EU presidency, raised the prospect of consulting the Pope on which path to follow. (see here)

He told delegates at a conference in Valetta that the Pontiff could “provide leadership that politicians miss” as the bloc grapples with crises as varied as migration, terrorism, economic instability and Brexit. 

He added: “I do think he [Pope Francis] is the ultimate world leader that within the circumstances has the skills and the vision to say things that transcend the obvious and banalities we all say in politics.” 

For those who do not follow Malta politics, Mr. Muscat is a communist leftist, so there is an outside chance that he could in fact think the above, i.e. that Francis is less banal than he. But I digress…

And why would Messers Juncker and Muscat think that Francis, the bishop of Rome can help?

The Pontiff has previously made what have been interpreted by many as pro-EU remarks in speeches, and even addressed MEPs in the parliament in an historic speech in 2014.

Just as a reminder, the 2014 speech in which Francis did not mention Jesus once.  (see here)

Concluding, even though Francis has criticized the European Union on several occasions, the core of the FrancisMercyGospel is perfectly aligned with the likes of Mr. Juncker and Mr. Muscat and the agenda of the leadership of the European Union. Not to mention the UN’s Agenda 21

The other common characteristic that all of these folks share is that they are promoting an agenda based purely on SOPHISTRY. As we see from the text above, Mr. Juncker makes no rational arguments based on facts or evidence. His appeal is purely emotional, and from a position of FEAR.

And once the argument from emotion becomes ineffective, he agrees to bring in a prop, a Deus Ex Machina: i.e. Francis in a desperate attempt at deploying the argument from authority.

The only mistake that Mr. Juncker might have made is the following: he still thinks Francis has some degree of authority.

As for Francis, all one can say is, When The Salvation Of Souls Just Ain’t Enough…, the Holy Gospel according to Matthew just doesn’t pack the same punch.

And we have come full circle!

As The Donald would say: Sad!

 

The SSPX Speaks!

Tags

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

menzingenThe official reply to the speculation coming out of the FrancisVatican appeared on the DICI.org website. (see here)

I re-produce it in full.

*****

Society of Saint Pius X: Menzingen in Rome?

In an article that appeared in the February 24 issue of Il Foglio and was reprinted by the news agency cath.ch on February 25, the Italian journalist Matteo Matzuzzi announced the imminent purchase by the Society of Saint Pius X of a building complex including a church in the neo-Gothic style, Santa Maria Immacolata all’Esquilino, in Rome. In his telling, this purchase is the sign of an agreement with the Holy See, which is not very far off either. He deduced from this that the General House will soon be transferred from Menzingen to Rome. Based on these “revelations”, Matteo Matzuzzi writes: “The Pope is said to have intervened directly to speed the whole process, via Abp. Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. Bp. Bernard Fellay (Superior of the SSPX), Bp. Alfonso de Galarreta and the Assistant General Father Alain Nély are said to have stayed from January 17-20 at the Casa Santa Marta. The Superior of the Sisters of the Society also attended the talks. Father Nély is the person in charge of finalizing the purchase of the complex.”

It is true that the Society of Saint Pius X is Catholic, and therefore Roman, and that its founder, Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, always wanted there to be a foundation in Rome. This is why one of its first houses was the one in Albano, not far from the Eternal City. It is also true that, in the relations that he had with the Roman authorities, Abp. Lefebvre—as a worthy son of the Rev. Fr. Henri Le Floch, C.S.Sp. (1862-1950), rector of the French Seminary in Rome—always proclaimed his romanità. This prompted him to write to Cardinal Edouard Gagnon, then envoy of Pope John Paul II, on November 21, 1987: “We willingly agree to be recognized by the Pope as we are and to have a headquarters in the Eternal City, to offer our collaboration toward the renewal of the Church; we never wanted to break with the Successor of Peter, or to consider the Holy See vacant, despite the trials that this has earned us.”

From a very practical perspective, the Society of Saint Pius X has been trying for many years to acquire a chapel in Rome to replace the one that it owns, which is unfortunately too small. If this chapel, or rather this church, had adjoining buildings, it could provide lodgings for priests who are passing through. But there was never any discussion about relocating the General House.

For these doctrinal and practical reasons, there have been plans for a purchase in Rome, there are some now and there will be others, as long as a firm acquisition has not been finalized. On the other hand, to respond to the “revelations” in the press, there is no plan to purchase a building complex at Santa Maria Immacolata all’Esquilino, as Matteo Matzuzzi writes. Neither Bp. Fellay nor Bp. de Galarreta nor Fr. Nély stayed at the Casa Santa Marta; they were not even in Rome from January 17 to 20. Of course Fr. Nély must travel frequently in Italy, because he is serving as interim replacement of the District Superior, but from January 17 to 20 he was in Menzingen. Not having the gift of bilocation, and most importantly not being Econome General, he is not in charge of finalizing any plan to purchase property. As for the Superior General of the Sisters of the Society, she visited the community of nuns in Albano in February, where she took part in no real estate negotiations.

Moreover on February 27 the Vaticanist for La Stampa, Andrea Tornielli, who has information from the best Roman sources, wrote: “Various rumors have spread in recent days about the possibility that the Society may buy a building with an adjacent church, in order to transfer its headquarters to Rome, and they spoke about the complex of Santa Maria Immacolata all’Esquilino, not far from the Lateran.

“The complex is made up of a neo-Gothic church built in the early 20th century for the Brothers of Charity and a building that has already been used in the past as an elementary and secondary school, which now belongs to a religious order. It was said that Francis and the Ecclesia Dei Commission facilitated the purchase. In fact, this was not the case: The Ecclesia Dei Commission was in no way involved, nor was the Vicariate of Rome.” Duly noted!

(Sources: IlFoglio/cath.ch/Stampa – DICI no. 350 dated March 3, 2017)

The Francis Bishopric Of Rome Musical Tribute…

Tags

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

As the news of the unhappiness, if not outright cognitive dissonance of the Gallen Mafia and Team Bergoglio spreads, I’ve decided to lighten up the atmosphere a bit.

For those who might not have heard, an article appeared in the London Times that the above mentioned cabal(s) is/are not happy with the Hope’nChange that they schemed for and succeeded in enthroning at the last conclave.

So today, I will produce a post that is a tribute, and more important a testimonial to the “success” of these “geniuses” which goes by the name of “Francis”.

My tribute will draw on the work of an artist that I consider to the foremost bard of the Francis bishopric of Rome era. That artist is one Laurence England, the proprietor of the blog That the bones you have crushed may thrill. NB: for a Full list of the videos produced by Mr. England, you can find it HERE.

This post will be a compilation of Mr. England’s “greatest hits”, sequenced to capture the essence of what is the Francis bishopric of Rome.

So here goes…

A good place to start the tribute would be with the video titled Close to you, which starts with the most poignant, if not outright haunting lyrics, namely: Why do Germans, suddenly appear… Every time, you are near? 

Needless to say, “He who pays the piper calls the tune!”

Yet, Francis wanted to do it his way…

so he installs himself at the Hotel Sanctae Martae…

and it began…

yet the sailing is not smooth…

and Francis overreaches…

and he pulls in the Maltese vassals of the German Bishops’ Conferences who “traded their immortal souls for a chicken bhuna”…

but the resistance appears…

so in proper Saul (Alinsky) style, Francis identifies, personifies and isolates his target…

yet, the overreach was a bit too brutal and elicited an unexpected reaction from friend and foe, which leaves Francis…

The End.  To be continued…

… until the bitter end.

 

Francis Enablers Throwing In The Towel?

Tags

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

francis-outAs my loyal reader are aware, I have been picking up signals (DATA POINTS) that suggest Francis’ bishopric of Rome is coming to an end for about a year now.

In an earlier post, I cited a Life Site News post that suggested that the Francis enablers, i.e. The Gallen Mafia and Team Bergoglio, gave Francis a limited amount of time to “change” the post-conciliar church.

Now an article appears in the London Times, via the EWTN British website with the following headline:

The lede is as follows:

The London Times newspaper is reporting that a group of cardinals who supported Pope Francis now want him to resign and be replaced by Cardinal Pietro Parolin because they fear his reforms will cause a schism “more disastrous” than the Reformation. The Times article draws on a report by the Vatican expert Antonio Socci, a prominent Italian Catholic journalist.

From my point of view, I think this is legitimate information. The major cause behind the Gallen Mafia purported throwing Francis under the bus can be put down as follows:

The cardinals are worried that the church could be shattered as an institution. There are many indirect ways in which the pressure might be exerted.

What is behind this apprehension (ROOT CAUSE) is that Francis is not attracting the pew sitters that these old, leftist, delusional heretics thought that Francis could attract. Case in point, the numbers in Brazil in the last two years are staggering. NINE MILLION lost souls wallets  lost in TWO years. 

NB: Did someone get a “whisper figure” for the German Kirchensteuer payer pool for 2016?

As for a deeper analysis, I am linking to the following video interview given to Michael Voris by Father Dariusz Oko (see here). For those who are not familiar with Fr. Oko’s work, he basically chronicles and documents the operations of the HOMO MAFIA inside the post-conciliar church. In the video, he does a first rate job of explaining the modus operandi of the homo-mafia. A must view…

So connecting the lines, lost pew sitters leads to a lost collection plate take, leads to a drop of living standards for the HOMO MAFIA, leads to FrancisChurch in Liquidation.

It’s just that simple folks.

Remember, ideology follows self-interest…

and even neo-Modernists need to eat!

Regularization And The SSPX: EYES WIDE OPEN!

Tags

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

francis-fallingToday we do a post that should serve as a “taking the pulse post”, of the situation behind the Sacred Vatican Walls. It comes via the Life Site News website, written by Pete Baklinski titled:

They gave Pope Francis four years to ‘make the Church over again.’ Here’s how he’s tried.  (see entire post here)

This post is one that should be read in its entirety and maybe even more than twice. The significance of this post is that it lays out the nefarious situation that existed during and after the Benedict XVI abdication.

I have reproduced only a small fraction of this post below. The reason why I did this is for a couple of reasons.

The first is to present the part that can gauge the “lay of the land” behind the Sacred Vatican Walls. I try to do this at every opportunity that presents itself and I think this passage quite accurately describes it: (emphasis added)

Many here (Vatican staff), knowing that the regime is totalitarian are also simply waiting for it to pass, to end, as they usually do eventually, since only God is absolute. They might seem to support it, by staying silent. But, in fact, many are either afraid or indifferent. All are waiting for it to end, since nobody likes to live in fear,” the source added.

NB: Please recall that in environments that are fundamentally “emotion based”, such as the post-conciliar church, two overriding emotions dominate: fear and desire. So a reference to the emotion of “fear” in this instance cannot be overemphasized.

The second reason for why I am bringing this to your attention is that if the above is an accurate assessment of the situation behind the Sacred Vatican Walls, then the question that needs to be asked is: who among the cardinal electors will be willing to elect the “son of Francis” at the next conclave?

A rhetorical question if there ever was one…

This is very important to understand, since the question that I posed above, I pose in light of comments being made by the FrancisSycophant Cardinal Coccopalmerio  (most likely driven by a “desire” to please Francis) regarding the true nature of the Sacred Priesthood. His TRANSRATIONAL and illogical response was as follows: (see here)

I was saying we have to reflect on questions. We say, everything is valid; nothing is valid. Maybe we have to reflect on this concept of validity or invalidity. (…) The same thing can be said, or something similar, of the validity or invalidity of ordination. I said let’s think about it. It’s a hypothesis. Maybe there is something, or maybe there’s nothing — a study, a reflection.

The significance of this subject matter being thrown out at this point is important for a further two reasons. From the attached post, it would appear that Francis is under pressure to perform. But more significantly, it would appear as if Francis and his cabal are fighting a palace revolt. The palace revolt can be detected from information coming out regarding THE crucial issue that will be the overriding one at the next conclave, i.e. VOCATIONS.

This above would suggest that the next conclave will be one that can be described as a reversion to the mean, i.e. the NORMATILZATION PROCESS™.

And finally, if post-conciliar Rome indeed recognizes the SSPX, it is fair to say that both the people behind the Sacred Vatican Walls, those whose hidden agenda (fear driven) is most likely much, much different that that of TeamFrancis (desire driven), and the SSPX could have found a mutual issue on which their interest align. And that could be on the VOCATIONS issue.

This might be the reason why Abp. Pozzo suggested that the SSPX open a seminary in Rome and why the SSPX is getting help in purchasing a large complex on the Esquiline Hill. For those who are not aware, the SSPX already has a large complex in Albano Italy, that serves as the Italian HQ. Albano is about 30 miles outside of Rome.  Here is a photo:

sspx-albano

Fraternita San Pio X, Via Trilussa 45, 00041 Albano Laziale, Roma

So it could be argued that purchasing another large complex in Rome proper, is not something that the SSPX would be considering on its own. On the surface, sounds like a deal too good to pass up. But I could be wrong on this.

Regardless of the correctness of the above observation, it would appear that if there is a recognition of the SSPX by post-conciliar Rome, it will be one where the respective parties will be coming to this regularization process with their EYES WIDE OPEN.

*****

Pope as ‘Pied Piper of Hamelin’

In his October 2013 speech to the Catholic students of Villanova University, Cardinal McCarrick ended his panegyric of Pope Francis by comparing him to the “Pied Piper of Hamelin.”

“He will walk across the stage of the world and people will follow him. They will find in him like they found in the Pied Piper of Hamelin, they will find in him a certain charism, that reminds them that this is what God’s love is all about. And this is what Francis is all about,” he said.

McCarrick surely didn’t realize how disturbing the comparison was. According to the children’s tale, when the town’s families refused to pay the piper for ridding them of a rat infestation, he took his revenge by using his pipe on their children. Enchanting them with his charism and delightful tunes the piper led them away into a secret mountain cave and they were never seen again.

If, as McCarrick said, Bergoglio is the Pied Piper, perhaps fewer would have followed his tune if they had known where it would lead them.

But one Argentinian journalist who knew Bergoglio well warned the world on the day of his election what kind of tune the new pontiff piper was about to play. These words posted online at Rorate Caeli on March 13, 2013, the day of the election of Pope Francis, are so on the mark one might suspect that the journalist had somehow managed to time travel four years ahead from that date to today so as to accurately depict what was about to unfold.

The day Bergoglio was elected, Argentinian journalist Marcelo González of Panorama Católico Internacional wrote that he was “terrified” for the future of the Catholic Church. It is worth quoting the post in its entirety:

Of all the unthinkable candidates, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is perhaps the worst. Not because he openly professes doctrines against the faith and morals, but because, judging from his work as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, faith and morals seem to have been irrelevant to him.

A sworn enemy of the Traditional Mass, he has only allowed imitations of it in the hands of declared enemies of the ancient liturgy. He has persecuted every single priest who made an effort to wear a cassock, preach with firmness, or that was simply interested in Summorum Pontificum.

Famous for his inconsistency (at times, for the unintelligibility of his addresses and homilies), accustomed to the use of coarse, demagogical, and ambiguous expressions, it cannot be said that his magisterium is heterodox, but rather non-existent for how confusing it is.

His entourage in the Buenos Aires Curia, with the exception of a few clerics, has not been characterized by the virtue of their actions. Several are under grave suspicion of moral misbehavior.

He has not missed any occasion for holding acts in which he lent his Cathedral to Protestants, Muslims, Jews, and even to partisan groups in the name of an impossible and unnecessary inter-religious dialogue. He is famous for his meetings with Protestants in the Luna Park arena where, together with preacher of the Pontifical House, Raniero Cantalamessa, he was “blessed” by Protestant ministers, in a common act of worship in which he, in practice, accepted the validity of the “powers” of the TV-pastors.

This election is incomprehensible: he is not a polyglot, he has no Curial experience, he does not shine for his sanctity, he is loose in doctrine and liturgy, he has not fought against abortion and only very weakly against homosexual “marriage” [approved with practically no opposition from the episcopate], he has no manners to honor the Pontifical Throne.

He has never fought for anything else than to remain in positions of power.

It really cannot be what Benedict wanted for the Church. And he does not seem to have any of the conditions required to continue his work.

May God help His Church. One can never dismiss, as humanly hard as it may seem, the possibility of a conversion… and, nonetheless, the future terrifies us.

Trial, the Church’s path to glory

Like Cardinals McCarrick and Murphy-O’Connor, González knew that Bergoglio had the capacity to “make the Church over again” in ways that would leave her practically unrecognizable.

A source who works in a Vatican dicastery told LifeSiteNews earlier this month that the changes in the Vatican under Francis have created a climate of fear inside its walls.

“The impression for many here is that this is a totalitarian kind of regime, with no Catholic agenda or values at heart. It’s one that follows the major modernist spins and is politically-minded through-and-through. It’s totalitarian in the sense that it usually shows no real regard for due process, for law, and for reason itself, only for will and arbitrary trampling of whatever lawful obstacles face them,” the source said.

“Many here, knowing that the regime is totalitarian are also simply waiting for it to pass, to end, as they usually do eventually, since only God is absolute. They might seem to support it, by staying silent. But, in fact, many are either afraid or indifferent. All are waiting for it to end, since nobody likes to live in fear,” the source added.

God Writes Straight With Crooked Lines…

Tags

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

Today I re-post an interview given by His Excellency Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana, that appeared on the website of the US District of the Society of St. Pius X. I would also like my readers to take a moment after reading each passage that contains a quote from the good Bishop and think about what he said.

To be more specific, two issues. First think about the position that the good Bishop is taking and how it relates to what can be considered the typical post-conciliar church response. And second, think about what kind of repercussions would have befallen the Bishop if he had taken those same position during the reign of say… John Paul “the great”.

And lastly one more observation. I have been “taking the pulse” of this “regularization” discussion on the other Catholic blogs. What strikes me is that the main proponents of the SSPX NOT ACCEPTING Modernist Rome’s offer comes from individuals who would have never (until recently I assume) even considered attending a SSPX chapel, let alone receiving Sacraments from a SSPX priest.

Now please don’t misunderstand my position. I am not judging criticizing these folks. I would like to pay them a complement, in that they now realize how important the work of the Great Archbishop Lefebvre and his successors is, and how important it is to the Universal Church. And not to mention this too forcefully, but it just might be that the importance of the work of the SSPX is due to the fact that it might just impact the ability to survive, for their favored communities.

Yes Virginia, without the SSPX, there would be no Restoration in the post-conciliar church at large. And if the SSPX accepts, Francis might just want to suppress the entire Restoration like he snuffed out the FFI and the “Sovereign” Military Order of Malta. And it also might just be that the Restoration is predicated on the SSPX and nothing more.

But yet, we know that God writes straight with crooked lines…

See original HERE.

*****

Bishop Schneider on SSPX – Vatican Relations

The bishop, a familiar face to traditional Catholics from among the world’s diocesan bishops, was interviewed on topics related to Rome and the SSPX. Our analysis and comments follow.

On February 16th, the traditional Catholic blog Rorate Coeli, in conjunction with its sister website Adelante la Fe, released this interview with His Excellency Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana. Conducted by Adelante’s Mauricio Ponce, the interview dives into several topics of importance in the Catholic Church today, but begins with an in-depth discussion of any possible agreement between the Society of St. Pius X and Rome in the future.

We are grateful to Bishop Schneider for pleading in favor of the SSPX and defending with clarity so many points of the faith and the morals of the Church. We appreciate in particular his statements on Luther, giving communion to the divorced-and-remarried, and the duty of resisting error, even when it emanates from the Supreme Pontiff.
Mirroring the Society, the Bishop points out reasons to have optimism, as well as reasons for concern for the structure of an agreement. We provide our analysis and our response to his points in the commentary below.

See the Interview

Regularization
 

About the regularization of the SSPX, Bishop Schneider starts by saying that one should not talk about an “agreement” which supposes differences about the Faith, but only of a canonical recognition from the Holy See because “in this case, there is no differences in the Catholic Faith.”

Bishop Schneider knows the Society well from having visited two of its seminaries in the past. We are honored by his strong testimony about the Society who “bears very evident, visible and spiritual fruit in edifying the Catholic Faith, in transmitting the integrity of Catholic Faith and liturgy and Christian life, as it was practiced during several centuries[.]”

Recognition of the Holy See

…which is, for every Catholic community, a requirement, an indispensable one to be Catholic, to have also a canonical, a visible connection to the Chair of Peter, to the Vicar of Christ. This is a basic requirement for every Catholic work in the Church.”

Bishop Schneider argues that a “canonical connection” with the See of St. Peter is a requirement for being Catholic and that a canonical mission is required to have an apostolate. If he means legitimate submission to the Holy Father, we agree! The Society has never refused any legitimate submission to the Pope, nor have they severed the bonds of the liturgy and the profession of the Faith. If the canonical situation became irregular, — and the canonical mission is missing today — it was not the fault of the SSPX but because, as Bishop Schneider himself argues, Rome unjustly deprived the SSPX of it. Archbishop Lefebvre always claimed that the canonical sanctions were invalid because unjust; he was refused an appeal. Bishop Schneider considers (see below) the case in a hypothetical future where the SSPX — then canonically regularized — might have to return to canonical irregularity if pressured by Rome to abandon an essential point of what it stands for. It is then possible to be Catholic despite an apparent rupture of canonical norms! The Society has always relied on the supplied jurisdiction the Church provides in such emergency situations so that the faithful are not deprived of the grace of the sacraments.

A Matter of Justice?

The SSPX had initially the recognition of the Church as Archbishop Lefebvre founded them in 1970 but unfortunately, this recognition was taken away in 1975. Archbishop Lefebvre made an appeal against this suppression -to my opinion unjust- and his appeal was rejected.

For the Holy See to grant them now again the canonical recognition, it would be in some way the acceptance of the appeal that Archbishop Lefebvre made in 1975.” 

Bishop Schneider states that canonical recognition would be a way for the Holy See to finally take account of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s appeal against the unjust suppression of the SSPX in 1975. This is a very elegant way to present the solution. And it is true. However Bishop Schneider does not ignore that the reason for this unjust suppression and persecution of the Society since then (and of traditional Catholicism as a whole) has its precise origins in disagreements on the Faith, “because of this deep crisis of Faith inside the Church,” as he puts it, and its most sacred expression: the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

That is the reason why Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX, following Archbishop Lefebvre, demands the SSPX to be recognized “as we are.” He also maintains that we must be able to continue our public rejection of, and fight against, the errors which poisoned the Church, including her liturgy, for more than 50 years.

As Bishop Fellay said during his last interview at Radio Courtoisie:

The problem is, once again, this battle of ideas. Is a Church that for 40 years has imposed a way of thinking, this modernist way of thinking against which we fight, against which, or because of which we were even declared schismatic and everything else, outside of the Church; is this Church ready, yes or no, to let us continue on our path?”

Approval of Diocesan Bishops

It is a general law of the Church, …a common practice of the church.
… It is not -to my opinion- a problematic issue…”

One issue addressed by Bishop Schneider concerns the status of Society chapels should regularization be granted. As he notes, the traditional practice of the Church is that the local bishop must approve in advance all places of worship within his canonical jurisdiction. This is a cause of concern insofar as many bishops remain opposed to the SSPX and Tradition. However, Bishop Schneider maintains that, based on his understanding, if the Society were offered a Personal Prelature, its current chapels could remain without approval from the local ordinary. Permission would only need to be sought for future establishments. In Bishop Schneider’s opinion, this is not problematic insofar as the SSPX already has more work than it can currently handle and that there are already plenty of bishops in the world who would gladly accept the Society into their respective dioceses.

Bishop Fellay, commenting on the possibility of Personal Prelature, said on January 26: “The problem is not a canonical structure which would not be acceptable.” On the contrary, even though “there are details that need improving…[and] matters that still need to be discussed,” the Personal Prelature “is adequate and suits our needs.” Further, while we agree with Bishop Schneider that the Church cannot be approached as a mere human institution, but rather must be seen as a supernatural entity, Bishop Fellay continues to insist that the Society be given guarantees that it will not be required to profess the errors of the Second Vatican Council and, indeed, still have the freedom to fight them. Here are his words:

We have told Rome, very clearly, that, just as Archbishop Lefebvre used to say in his day, we have a sine qua non condition: if this condition is not met, then we will not move. And this condition is for us to be able to remain as we are, to keep all the principles that have kept us alive, that have kept us Catholic.”

What Does the Holy Father Want?
 

Another point of concern are the intentions of Pope Francis. Given the Pope’s intervention into the affairs of the Franciscans of the Immaculate (an order that often celebrated the Tridentine Mass), why would he be so eager to extend a hand of friendship to the SSPX? On this point Bishop Schneider cautions against prejudging the intentions of the Holy Father while also conceding that “the [present] circumstances” in the Church “can induce us to presume that [the Pope’s] intention would not be good.” And if the Holy See were to pressure the Society to change or be abolished, here is what Bishop Schneider has to say.

It would be on them [the priests] to resist and to preserve their identity….[I]t is a hypothetical case: we cannot preview the future…, [but] in this very extreme situation when in some future or years after the erection of the Prelature, the Holy See would ask to change something against their identity. They [would] have to resist [and say:] ‘This is unjust, it goes against our intention when we accept the Prelature, it would destroy our charism.’…Then they [would] have to say…with all respect to the Holy See, ‘You can take away the Prelature, we do not need it; the most important is to preserve our identity for the benefit of the Church, not of us but of the Church.’ This is a hypothetical case they have to renounce the Prelature and continue as they are. Therefore they have nothing to lose. It is upon them to preserve their identity.”

It would seem that Bishop Schneider agrees that what the SSPX has done for more than 40 years, namely, preserve Catholic Tradition against unjust accusations and actions from the Holy See, is legitimate. And, just as importantly, he appears to recognize that Archbishop Lefebvre’s fight against the suppression of the SSPX was just.

Vatican II – A Pastoral CounciL

The [Second Vatican] Council was stated by Popes John XXIII and Paul VI primarily and repeatedly a pastoral council, not a doctrinal nor dogmatic one. It was the intention of the Church not to give with the documents a definitive teaching. When there is not definitive teaching, there can be still some development on these issues or some corrections.”

As for the Second Vatican Council and the errors and ambiguities present in some of its texts, Bishop Schneider insists on the fact that Vatican II is only pastoral and that these points of controversy cannot be imposed; they remain open for discussion. He offers as an example the matter of the sacrament of the priesthood which was first presented by the Ecumenical Council of Florence, but was only infallibly defined by Pius XII contrary to the original thesis presented at Florence.

We rejoice to see Bishop Schneider insisting on this fundamental point of the “pastorality” of the Council as well as denouncing the excessive “papolatry” which has exacerbated the crisis for more than half a century. Nevertheless, one must also recognize that the propositions of this “pastoral” Council have been pushed on the faithful as dogmas. The objections of the Society against the Council are not about doctrines which had never been clarified by the Church, but rather about errors already clearly and infallibly condemned by the Magisterium of the Church [see: “A New Magisterium”]. So long as these errors continue to be promoted by the Church’s hierarchy and priests, the Society must continue to fight, regardless of its canonical status or structure.

See the Interview

Source: Rorate Coeli / Adelante la Fe

Just The Figures, Ma’am… (w/Update)

Tags

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

francis-sad-i

Who remembers “bar-hopping” in their younger, wilder days?

Say no more.

Today, your humble blogger will do a variation of this cultural phenomenon and go “blog-hopping”.

The reason we are blog-hopping today is to make a point. The point that I want to make is that over the life of this blog, your humble blogger has learned one very important lesson. And that lesson is that Catholicism is not limited to the ecclesiastical sub-set of the et Invisibilium.

So today, we start with the ecclesiastical, move on to law enforcement and end up at government budgetary policy. The most important take-away from this blog-hop is to see how the dots are connected.

So let’s start…

First, the ecclesiastical. Below is a post from the blog Dad29. It would appear that Archbishop Listecki, the ordinary of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee is acting out of character. To be more precise, it would appear as if Abp. Listecki is addressing a “problem” that doesn’t exist. NB: See what happens when you suppress Thomism? But I digress… I have added emphasis to the relevant passage: (see original here)

Abp. of Milwaukee No Fan of “The Wall”

Abp. Jerome Listecki sent a “must-be-published” letter to parishes.  It’s rather anodyne.

In the letter he considers The Donald’s actions vis-a-vis refugees from the Middle East and illegal immigrants from Mexico.

The Archbishop “would invite the President to prayerfully reconsider any attempt at a permanent refugee ban.”

Odd.  So far as we know, the President has not brought up a “permanent” refugee ban.

Oh, well.

Abp. Listecki moves on.

“I would also respectfully ask the President whether the construction of a wall on the US and Mexican border is the most appropriate way to achieve the security sought by a democratic society.”

Well, I can’t say that I am now (nor ever was) a “wall-freak.”  But every time we hear about more opioid deaths, (with most of that heroin coming over the southern border) a wall becomes more attractive.

It appears that the Archbishop was pushed–hard–to make some sort of statement.  Well, he did.  Think that will be enough for the Voces de la Frontera crowd?  (Hint:  nope.)

So it would appear as if Abp. Listecki knows something that the rest of us do not, or that he is trying to preempt a future immigration policy directive.

Or it might be that Abp. Lisecki is aware of the following, as presented on the Washington Times blog (all newspapers are in essence blogs these days…) (see here)

Illegal immigration dropped 27 percent in January: Reports

Numbers made it worst January in records dating back to 2012

Illegal immigration across the southwest border plummeted in January, compared to December, as the flow of both illegal immigrant families and children traveling alone dried up, according to numbers released by Customs and Border Protection on Monday.

The numbers are still high compared to past years — indeed, it’s the worst January in records dating back to 2012.

But total apprehensions of migrants trying to sneak across the border fell 27 percent on a month-to-month basis, to 31,575. And the number of inadmissible migrants who showed up at the southwest’s ports of entry fell 28 percent, to 10,899.

Apprehensions are deemed an indicator of the overall flow: The more people caught, the more are believed to be getting through.

The flow always decreases in the deep months of the winter, before picking up again in the spring. Last year Border Patrol apprehensions dropped 36 percent from December to January.

“Overall total migration remained at elevated levels, primarily due to family units and unaccompanied children from Central America, Haitian nationals migrating from Brazil, and Cuban nationals,” CBP said in releasing the numbers.

“CBP continues to maintain a strong security posture through background checks of all individuals encountered and ensures that each person is processed in accordance with U.S. immigration laws and DHS policy,” the agency said.

The number of Cubans showing up to demand entry fell from nearly 5,000 in December to just 1,572 in January, as President Obama’s new Cuban policy kicked in Jan. 12. Under that policy, those who are caught on U.S. soil are no longer entitled to special treatment.

But the number of Haitians demanding entry ticked up in January, suggesting a renewed flow from that nationality. Tens of thousands of Haitians fled their island country over the last decade, heading to South America. But over the last year they’ve started trying to gain a foothold in the U.S., enticed by what they saw as lax enforcement policies.

So what we can infer from the two above posts is that Abp. Listecki has noticed a (statistically) significant drop in illegal immigrants that are presenting themselves at the diocesan facilities that process and support such individuals.

Now we know that this is a reasonable inference to make due to the work of Elizabeth Yore, pertaining to the government funding received by the various “religious” organizations for trafficking in helping out these illegal immigrants. Actually, we have produced several post on just this subject matter. As a matter of fact, the last one was titled Defunding The NGO “FrancisChurch USA” Begins!.

And just to support the above contention that the defunding of the FrancisChurch USA NGO is proceeding as we speak, we get this post from The Gateway Pundit blog. In the post titled… we read the following:

Amazing! Trump Cuts US Debt by $12 Billion In His First Month – UPDATE: Trump Tweets Our Numbers

On January 20th, the day of the Trump Inauguration, the US Debt stood at $19,947 billion.  On February 21st, a month later, the US Debt load stood at $19,935 billion.  Trump cut the US Debt burden by $12 billion and 0.1% in his first month in office!

trump-budget-month-i-i

On January 20, 2017, the US debt was $19,947 billion.
On February 21, 2017, the US debt was $19,935 billion.

By comparison, under President Obama, the US Debt burden increased by more than $200 billion in his first month in office.  Obama increased the US Debt by 2% in his first month and signed the trillion dollar ‘Stimulus’ bill which is widely considered a colossal failure and waste of US tax dollars as well.  The failed ‘Stimulus’ did not kick in till later in Obama’s first year leading to Obama’s first year deficit of $1.4 trillion.  Overall Obama doubled the US Debt during his Presidency and set records for highest deficits and the largest debt increase by any President ever.

trump-budget-month-i-ii

With Trump the stock market is up and debt is down – Winning, Winning, Winning! 

Update: President Trump Tweeted the Numbers from our Post Saturday morning:

trump-budget-month-i-iii

And The Donald is just getting started.

Which should suggest to the competent ordinaries in these here United States of America that it just might be time to develop a ECCLESIASTICAL FUNDING MODEL!

Maybe a funding model used by these folks here

But that just could be me…

UPDATE 12:55 28 February 2017

Oh my! 37% Cut for State Department. Mostly coming from Foreign Aid.

And that comes on the back of proposed “deep” cuts in the EPA and the Department of Education.

And we  still haven’t gotten to the “unofficial” State of the Union Address.

Story here

Pray and fast for President Trump. God is definitively working through this wretched sinner.

NB: And just so that we are all clear here, remember folks: when the government suppresses God, it becomes god. Which is why The Donald is in fact doing God’s work.