• Anatomy of the Destruction of the Sacred Liturgy
  • Deus ex Machina Clinical Evaluation of the Francis bishopric of Rome
  • Deus Ex Machina: Reading Francis through Antiphanes
  • Reconciling Faith and Reason
  • The Blog of a Wretched Sinner
  • The Catholic Voting Guide
  • The Soap Bubble Papacy™
  • They HATE Us!
  • Thomistic Proselytization : The Secularists Join The Battle.
  • What Is The LEX ARMATICUS
  • What’s In The BOX?
  • Why Thomism?

The Deus Ex Machina Blog

~ A blog dedicated to chronicling the "Restoration of all things in Christ"

The Deus Ex Machina Blog

Tag Archives: ABERRO AGENDA

Deposing A Heretical Pope

22 Sunday Nov 2015

Posted by S. Armaticus in Processes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

ABERRO AGENDA, aberro-sex agenda, AIDS, Ambiguity, Anal Cancer, anal fissures, Andrea Gagliarducci, anorectal traum, Big Gender, Card. Muller, Cardinal Burke, cardinal Walter Kasper, Catholic Church, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Eponymous Flower blog, Francis Effect, Genderism, Giardia lamblia, Giuseppe Nardi, Gonorrhea, Great Cardinal, Hemorrhoids, heretical pope, Herpes simplex virus, hippies, HIV, Human immunodeficiency virus, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Just Call Me Jorge blog, Law of Unintended Consequences, messeging, Microsporidia, Modernists, MSM, narratives, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, Pagan Christians, pathological, Raymond Burke, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roman Curia, s "theological structuring", s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s optics, s Pope Francis, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, sustainability, Synod 2014, Synod of Filth, Synod Walkout Petition, Syphilis25, Team Bergoglio, The Remnant, Thomism, Tradition, TransRational, Truth, Unjust ruler, Vatican II, Viral hepatitis types B & C

Heretical Pope

A re-post today from the Remnant website, written by Robert J. Siscoe on the 18th of November 2014. (see here)

The reason that I am reproducing this post below is that there are rumors coming from Rome that Francis might just want to start looking for a new residence. This post appeared on the Eponymous Flower blog yesterday. (see here) According to Manfred Ferrari, “a time bomb has exploded in the Vatican, whose existence was long known to insiders”. This “time bomb” development mentioned by Mr Ferrari relates to what we have dubbed the CIVIL WAR that Francis has been waging on the Curia. According to Mr. Ferrari, it would appear that the CIVIL WAR is coming to a head.

If what Mr. Ferrari writes is accurate, then the below re-posted article should come in handy in the days ahead. Therefore, I am republishing it…

FOR THE RECORD

Can the Church Depose an Heretical Pope?

“Indeed the Church has the right to separate herself from an heretical pope according to divine law. Consequently it has the right, by the same divine law, to use all means of themselves necessary for such separation…”

– John of St. Thomas

“The Church must render a judgment before the pope loses his office. Private judgment of the laity in this matter does not suffice.”

– Robert J. Siscoe

A recent article by Fr. James V. Schall S.J., which was re-posted as “the article of the week” on the popular Traditional Catholic website Rorate Caeli, has caused quite stir in some quarters. In the short article, which is titled On Heretical Popes, Fr. Schall briefly discusses the claims of heresy leveled against the post-Conciliar Popes, especially Pope Francis, and raises the question of whether a pope can fall into heresy, and, if so, how the Church would go about deposing him. The article was written in a very moderate tone, but the issues addressed were evidently too much for the extreme Left and their newly discovered Ultramontanism.

A writer at the ultra-liberal National Catholic Reporter reacted with outrage that Fr. Schall would dare mention such issues during the current Pontificate. He declared Fr. Schall’s article to be “irresponsible and inflammatory”, and suggested the only response to this “danger” is “to seek even harder to embrace Pope Francis and his effort to renew the Church.”

In light of recent events, even mainstream Catholics are beginning to openly ask if it is possible for a pope to be a heretic, and, if so, what means would the Church possess to remedy such a dangerous situation. For if Providence could permit a man to be raised to the Pontificate whose words and actions risked leading countless souls into sin and heresy, surely the Good God has likewise provided the Church with the means necessary to protect herself, and to remedy the dire situation. During the First Vatican Council, Bishop Zinelli, a Relator for the Deputation of the Faith (the body charged with explaining the meaning of the schemas to the Council Fathers), said the following about the hypothesis of an heretical Pope: “God does not fail in the things that are necessary; therefore, if He permits so great an evil, the means to remedy such a situation will not be lacking”. (1)

In this article, we will delve deep into the issues that were only touched upon by Fr. Schall. We will not only consider the possibility of a Pope falling into heresy, but, more importantly, the way in which an heretical Pope can be deposed. We will consider this complex and difficult question on both the speculative and practical level by consulting the theologians and canonists who have written on the subject over the centuries. We will employ the distinctions necessary to navigate through the minefield of possible errors that touch upon the issue of deposition, while carefully avoiding the heresy of Conciliarism.

Can a Pope fall into heresy?

We will begin by considering the two-fold question: can a pope fall into personal heresy internally, and can he profess heresy externally?

It is the common opinion amongst theologians that a Pope can fall into personal heresy, and even public and notorious heresy. Regarding this point, Fr. Paul Laymann, S. J. (d. 1635), who was considered “one of the greatest moralists and canonists of his time” (2) wrote the following:

“It is more probable that the Supreme Pontiff, as a person, might be able to fall into heresy, and even notorious heresy, by reason of which he would merit to be deposed by the Church, or rather declared to be separated from her.” (3)

In his famous book The Catholic Controversy, St. Francis de Sales wrote:

“Under the ancient Law, the High Priest did not wear the Rational except when he was vested with the pontifical robe and was entering before the Lord. Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was.” (4)

Pope Adrian VI († 1523) went further by saying “it is beyond question” that a Pope can err in matters of faith, and even “teach heresy”:  

“If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334).” (5)

While St. Bellarmine personally held to what he called the “pious opinion” of Albert Pighius, (6) namely, that a Pope could not fall into personal heresy, he conceded that “the common opinion is the contrary”. (7)

Pastor Aeternus

Several years ago a lengthy article was published (8), which interpreted Chapter IV of Vatican I’s Constitution, Pastor Aeternus, as teaching that a pope can not fall into personal heresy (cannot lose the virtue of faith). The author essentially argued that the First Vatican Council raised to the level of dogma the opinion of St. Bellarmine and Albert Pighius (who held that a pope cannot lose his personal faith), and that, consequently, the contrary opinion can no longer be defended.

Without getting into a detailed analysis of this author’s novel interpretation of Vatican I (which, as far as I know, is shared by no one), suffice it to say his private interpretation of Pastor Aeternus is in direct contradiction to the official interpretation of the document given during the Council.

In his famous four-hour speech, delivered during Vatican I, Bishop Vincent Gasser, the official Relator (spokesperson) for the Deputation of the Faith, stated that this is precisely not what the document intended to teach. During the speech, which provided the Church’s official interpretation of the document to the Council fathers, Bishop Gasser responded to what he called “a very serious objection raised in this podium, to the effect that we wish to elevate the extreme opinion of a certain school of theologians into a dogma of the Faith”. What was this extreme opinion? He goes on to explain:

“As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma. For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls ‘pious and probable’, was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy.” (9)

After quoting the text in which St. Bellarmine agrees with the opinion of Albert Pighius, Bishop Gasser concluded by saying: “it is evident that the doctrine in the proposed Chapter [of Pastor Aeternus] is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school…” (10)

Suffice it to say that the hypothesis of a pope falling into personal or even public heresy is not contrary to the teaching of Vatican I when interpreted according to the mind of the Church. This explains why the dogmatic manual of Msgr. Van Noort, which was published many decades after the Council, noted that “some competent theologians do concede that the pope when not speaking ex cathedra could fall into formal heresy.” (11) Clearly, neither Msgr. Van Noort, nor the other “competent theologians” he is referring to, considered this teaching to be at variance with Chapter IV of Pastor Aeternus.

Papal Infallibility

There is a great deal of confusion over the issue of papal infallibility, which prevents the pope from erring when defining doctrines for the universal Church. Many erroneously believe that the charism would prevent a person raised to the Pontificate from erring when speaking on matters of faith and morals. In reality, the charism of infallibility only prevents the pope from erring in limited circumstances. (12)

Infallibility is not to be confused with inspiration, which is a positive divine influence that moves and controls a human agent in what he says or writes; nor is it to be confused with Revelation, which is the communication of some truth by God through means which are beyond the ordinary course of nature.(13)  Infallibility pertains to safeguarding and explaining the truths already revealed by God, and contained within the deposit of faith (14), which was closed with the death of the last apostle. (15) Since infallibility is only a negative charism (gratia gratis data), it does not inspire a pope to teach what is true or even defend revealed truths, nor does it “make the pope’s will the ultimate standard of truth and goodness” (16), but simply prevents him from teaching error under certain limited conditions.

During Bishop Gasser’s address at Vatican I, he said:

“In no sense is pontifical infallibility absolute, because absolute infallibility belongs to God alone, Who is the first and essential truth, and Who is never able to deceive or be deceived. All other infallibility, as communicated for a specific purpose, has its limits and its conditions under which it is considered to be present. The same is valid in reference to the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. For this infallibility is bound by certain limits and conditions… “(17)

The conditions for Papal Infallibility were subsequently defined by Vatican I as follows: 

“We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.” (18)

Here we see that the divine assistance is present only when a pope, (a) using his supreme apostolic authority in the exercise of his office as teacher of all Christians (b) defines a doctrine, (c) concerning faith and morals, (d) to be held by the universal Church.  If any of these conditions are lacking, infallibility is not engaged and error is possible.  Therefore, when considering whether a Pope can teach errors regarding faith and morals, we must make three distinctions:

1)     A pope teaching as a private person.

2)     A pope teaching as pope on matters of faith or morals, but not intending to define a doctrine.

3)     A Pope, teaching as Pope, defining a doctrine of faith or morals, to be held by the universal Church.

It is only in the last instance that the charism of infallibility will prevent the Pope from erring. What this means is that, not only can a pope err when teaching as a private theologian, (19) he can also err in official papal documents (20), as long as he does not intend to define a doctrine to be held by the universal Church. (21)

In light of the foregoing, we can see that it is within the realm of possibility for Pope to lose the faith internally, and it is also possible for him to err in teaching the faith externally, provided he does not meet the four conditions set down by Vatican I. To insist on the contrary is to affirm what the Church herself has never taught.

Can an Heretical Pope Be Deposed?

The common opinion of theologians and canonists is that an heretical Pope can be deposed for the crime of heresy. The highly respected author, Arnaldo de Silveira, surveyed the writings of 136 theologians on this question (22), and found only one who taught the contrary. All other affirmed that if a Pope falls into heresy he can, and indeed should, be deposed. (23)

Fr. Francisco Suarez, whom Pope St. Pius V called Doctor Eximus et Pius (Excellent and Pious Doctor) (24), is considered one of the greatest theologians of the Society of Jesus. In his commentary on this point, he states that, according to Pope Clement I (who was ordained by Peter himself) “St. Peter taught that an heretical Pope should be deposed.” Suarez then explains why this is so:

“The reason is the following: It would be extremely harmful to the Church to have such a pastor and not be able to defend herself from such a grave danger; furthermore it would go against the dignity of the Church to oblige her to remain subject to a heretic Pontiff without being able to expel him from herself; for such as are the prince and the priest, so the people are accustomed to be (…) heresy ‘spreads like cancer,’ which is why heretics should be avoided as much as possible. This is, therefore, all the more so with regard to an heretical pastor; but how can such a danger be avoided, unless he ceases to be the pastor?” (25)

Cardinal Thomas Cajetan, the Master General of the Dominican order and the trusted adviser to Pope Clement VII, wrote the following in his extensive treatise on this subject:

“Three things have been established with certainty, namely, 1) that the pope, because he has become a heretic is not deposed ipso facto (26) by human or divine law; 2) that the pope has no superior on earth; and 3) that if he deviates from the faith, he must be deposed.” (27)

In the next quote, John of St. Thomas, who was considered one of the most learned men of his day (28) and one of the greatest Thomists the Church has produced, begins by saying the Church has the right to separate herself from an heretical Pope, and then logically concludes that the Church also possesses a right to the means necessary to accomplish such a separation. He wrote:

“Indeed the Church has the right to separate herself from an heretical pope according to divine law. Consequently it has the right, by the same divine law, to use all means of themselves necessary for such separation; and those that juridically correspond to the crime, are of themselves necessary.” (29)

Who Would Oversee the Deposition?

John of St. Thomas, Suarez, Cajetan, and others all teach that a general council alone would be the competent authority to oversee the matter of an heretical Pope.  John of St. Thomas explained why. He wrote: “since the matter at hand concerns the universal Church, it must be overseen by the tribunal that represents the universal Church, which is that of a general council”. (30) He cites three historical examples to confirm the point:

“This is indeed evident from the practice of the Church, for in the case [Pope] Marcellinus, who offered incense to idols, a synod was gathered together for the purpose of discussing this case, as is recorded in Cap. Hunc c, distinct. 11. And in the case of the schism in which there were three reputed pontiffs, the Council of Constance gathered for the purpose of settling that schism. And also in the case of Pope Symmachus, a council at Rome was gathered to treat those things which were presented to it. It is known, from the resources cited above, that the pontiffs, who, being accused of various crimes and wanting to excuse themselves of charges, did so in the presence of a council.” (31)

Suarez said it is “the common opinion of the doctors” that a general council would be responsible for overseeing the matter of a heretical pope. He began by saying: “I affirm: If he is a heretic and incorrigible, the Pope ceases to be Pope as soon as a declarative sentence of his crime is pronounced against him by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church.” Then one paragraph he adds:

“In the first place, who should pronounce such a sentence? Some say that it should be the Cardinals; and the Church could undoubtedly assign them this faculty, above all if it were established with the consent and decision of the Supreme Pontiffs, as was done for the election. But to this day we do not read anywhere that such a judgment has been confided to them. For this reason, it must be affirmed that, of itself, it belongs to all the Bishops of the Church. For since they are the ordinary pastors and the pillars of the Church, one should consider that such a case concerns them. And since by divine law there is no greater reason to affirm that the matter involves some Bishops more than others, and since, according to human law, nothing has been established in the matter, it must necessarily be held that the matter should be referred to all of them, and even to a general Council. This is the common opinion of the doctors. One can read Cardinal Albano expounding upon this point at length in De Cardinalibus, (q. 35, 1584 ed., vol. 13, p. 2).” (32)

Perfect and Imperfect Council

This brings up a question: How can the Church convene a general council to oversee such a situation, when a general council must be called and overseen by a Pope, either personally or through his legates? In answering this question, theologians make a distinction between a perfect council and an imperfect council.

A perfect council is one in which the body is united to its head, and therefore consists of the Bishops and the Pope. This is sometimes referred to as an absolutely perfect council. (33) Such a council has the authority to define doctrines and issue decrees that regulate the universal Church. (34)

An imperfect council is one that is convened “with those members who can be found when the Church is in a given condition.” (35) Cardinal Cajetan refers to an imperfect council as “a perfect council according to the present state of the Church”, and explained that such a council “can involve itself with the universal Church only up to a certain point”. (36) Unlike a perfect council, it cannot define doctrines or issue decrees that regulate the universal Church, but only possesses the authority to decide the matter that necessitated its convocation. Cajetan notes that there are only two cases that justify convoking an imperfect council. They are: “when there is a single heretical pope to be deposed, and when there are several doubtful supreme pontiffs”. (37) In such exceptional cases, a general council can be called without, or even against, the will of the Pope. Writes Cajetan:

“A perfect council according to the present state of the Church [i.e. an imperfect council] can be summoned without the pope and against his will, if, although asked, he himself does not wish to summon it; but it does not have the authority to regulate the universal Church, but only to provide for the issue then at stake. Although human cases vary in infinite ways … there are only two cases that have occurred or can ever occur, in which, I declare, such a council should be summoned. The first is when the pope must be deposed on account of heresy; for then, if he refused, although asked, the cardinals, the emperor, or the prelates can cause a council to be assembled, in which will not have for its scope the care of the universal Church, but only the power to depose the Pope. (…)

“The second is when one or more Popes suffer uncertainty with regard to their election, as seems to have arisen in the schism of Urban VI and others. Then, lest the Church be perplexed, those members of the Church who are available have the power to judge which is the true pope, if it can be known, and if it cannot be known, [it has] the power to provide that the electors agree on one or another of them.” (38)

The council of Constance is often cited as an example of an imperfect council. It was convened during The Great Western Schism, when there were three claimants to the papacy and sufficient uncertainty as to which of the three was the true Pope. The council ended the schism by deposing or accepting the resignation of the papal claimants, which then paved the way for the election of Cardinal Odo Colonna, who took the name Martin V. (39)

Another council that is often mentioned is the Council of Sinuesso, which was conveyed by the Bishops to oversee the matter of Pope Marcellinius (d. 304), who offered incense to idols. (40) Today such papal actions would likely be explained away (“10 Reasons Why Pope Marcellinius Didn’t Really Offer Incense to Idols”), or praised as a positive ecumenical gesture. In the time of the early Church, however, there was a different reaction: a council was called, and the Pope, through shame, deposed himself. But this tragic story had a happy ending. For the bishops were so edified by his public repentance that they re-elected him to the Papacy. Pope Marcellinius went on to die as a martyr for the Faith and is now a canonized saint. Here we see the good fruit that followed such a council. How different his end may have been had his scandalous actions been explained away or, worse still, defended and praised as a positive good.

Deposing a Heretical Pope

One of the difficult questions the theologians have had to sort out, is how a Pope “who is judged by no one” and who has no superior on earth, can be judged and deposed for heresy? How can a pope be declared a heretic, and then deposed for his heresy, without the Church judging him or claiming authority over him? Theologians have had to navigate through these difficult questions while carefully avoiding many errors, especially that of Conciliarism, which maintains that a general council is superior to the Pope.

Four Opinions

John of St. Thomas discusses at length the four opinions enunciated by Cardinal Cajetan (41) regarding this question.   Of these four opinions, there are two extreme opinions and two middle opinions.

The two extreme opinions are: That a Pope who commits the sin of heresy falls from the pontificate ipso facto without human judgment. The second holds that the Pope has a superior over him on earth, and therefore can be judged and deposed. Both of these opinions are shown to be false and therefore rejected. (42)

Within the two extreme opinions, there are two middle opinions: The first maintains that a Pope does not have a superior on earth unless he has fallen into heresy, in which case the Church would be superior to the Pope. This is a variant of Conciliarism and is therefore rejected. This leaves the second middle opinion which holds that the Pope has no superior on earth, even in the case of heresy, but that the Church does possess a ministerial power when it comes to deposing a heretical Pope. This opinion avoids the error of Conciliarism by affirming that the Church has no authority over a Pope, nor does the Church herself depose the pope, but only performs the ministerial function required for the deposition. The ministerial function consists of those acts which are necessary to establish that the Pope is indeed a heretic, which is then followed by a public declaratory sentence of the crime. It is God himself, however, who causes the man to fall from the Pontificate, but not without the Church herself performing the ministerial functions necessary to establish the crime.

Establishing the Crime

Heresy consists of two elements, namely, the matter (which exists in the intellect) and the form (which exists in the will).

The Matter: The material aspect of heresy is a belief, or proposition, contrary to what Catholics must believe with Divine and Catholic Faith. Doctrines that must be believed with Divine and Catholic Faith are truths that have been revealed by God (contained in Scripture or Tradition), and which have been definitively proposed as such by the Church, either by a solemn pronouncement, or by virtue of Her Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. (43) Two points are to be noted in this explanation: To qualify as heresy on the material level, the doctrine denied must be 1) a revealed truth, and 2) it must have been definitively proposed as such by the Church. (44) Not all errors are qualified objectively as heresy.

The Form: The formal aspect of heresy is pertinacity, which is the willful (conscious and stubborn) adhesion to a proposition (teaching) that is at variance with what must be believed with Divine and Catholic Faith. Simply put, pertinacity exists when a person knowingly rejects an article of Faith, or willfully embraces a condemned heresy. Without pertinacity in the will, the subjective element of heresy does not exist, and consequently the person in question would not be a heretic in the true sense of the word.

Judging Heresy

The Matter: While the Church does not possess the authority to judge a Pope, it does possess the competency and the right to judge whether or not a proposition professed by a Pope is materially heretical. This is an objective judgment, and therefore makes no difference if the proposition was professed by a pope or a non-pope.   If any person (Pope or not) was to proclaim, for example, that “the old Covenant was never revoked by God” (45), or that “the resurrection of the body does not mean the resurrection of the actual physical body, but only the resurrection of the person”, the Church, or any Catholic who knows his Faith for that matter, can judge the statement to be heretical. Such a “judgment” would not constitute an inappropriate judgment of the person, since it is only an objective judgment of the proposition itself. Therefore, a council can certainly judge whether or not the material aspect of a teaching professed by a pope is heretical, but this objective judgment does not yet determine if the Pope himself is a heretic, since the second element, pertinacity, must also be established.

The Form: Establishing pertinacity is more difficult since it involves something that exists within the internal forum (the realm of conscience). If a person suspected of heresy does not openly admit that he rejects a Catholic dogma, pertinacity must be “drawn out” for it to be established with sufficient certainty.

A Warning

A public warning serves as the most effective means for establishing pertinacity. For this reason, canon law requires that a warning be given before a prelate loses his office for the crime of heresy. (Canon 2314.2, 1917 Code) This aspect of canon law is founded on divine law (Titus 3:10) and is considered so necessary that even one who publicly defects from the faith (Canon 188.4, 1917 Code) must be warned before losing his office. (46) In addition to the canonical warning, in most cases the loss of office also requires a declaratory sentence of the crime. (47)

The warning determines, with a sufficient degree of certitude, whether or not the person who has professed heresy is pertinacious, rather than merely mistaken, or perhaps only guilty of a regrettable statement made out of human weakness, which might be a sin, but not necessarily the sin of heresy. Since pertinacity is itself a necessary element of heresy, it does not suffice that its presence be presumed; it must be confirmed. The warning accomplishes this by removing any chance of innocent ignorance, and/or providing the suspect with a chance to affirm what was denied in a moment of weakness.

Canon Law

In Canon law, there are two distinct penalties for the crime of heresy. One is a censure and the other is a vindictive penalty.

The censure of excommunication is incurred automatically by one who knowingly commits any offense that carries the penalty (such as internally denying a dogma within his heart). Such excommunications can be public or occult (secret) (48), and require no warning or declaration, per se. However, when the public good demands it, a declaration must be issued for a person to be considered to have incurred the excommunication in the external forum. (49) And, as the canonists teach, when the person in question is a cleric, the public good does demand it. (50) Therefore, while a cleric may have secretly incurred excommunication in the internal forum, he is not considered to have incurred the censure of excommunication in the external forum, without a declaration by the Church.

But what is important to note is that the censure of excommunication does not result in the loss of office for a cleric. The loss of office is a vindictive penalty, and vindictive penalties always require a warning (usually two). (51) In fact, as mentioned above, even in the case of a more severe vindictive penalty, which is incurred by a cleric who publicly defects from the faith (canon 188.4) by joining a false religion, either formally (sectae acatholicae nomen dare) or informally (publice adhaerere), a canonical warning is required before the office is rendered vacant. (52)

In his commentary on the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Fr. Augustine explains this point. Referring to a cleric who joins a false religion, he wrote:

“A cleric must, besides, be degraded if, after having been duly warned, he persists in being a member of such a society. All the offices he may hold become vacant, ipso facto, without any further declaration. This is tacit resignation recognized by law (Canon 188.4) and therefore the vacancy is one de facto et iure [by fact and by law].” (53)

We can see that even in the extreme case of a cleric who publicly joined a false sect, even though a declaration is not required, a warning is necessary before his office is rendered vacant. This shows how necessary the Church considers a warning to be in establishing pertinacity.

 

Warning a Pope

We have seen that a canonical warning is required for a cleric to lose his office due to the crime of heresy. This aspect of canon law is derived from divine law, which teaches that a heretic should only be avoided, “after one or two warnings” (Titus 3:10). Since this precept of divine law does not permit of an exception, it applies equally to a heretical Pope. If a Pope were to remain hardened in heresy after being duly warning by the proper authorities, he would thereby manifest his pertinacity, and reveal that, of his own will, he had rejected the Faith.

This point was explained at length by the eminent 18th Century Italian theologian, Fr. Pietri Ballerini (who was an adherent of Bellarmine’s famous Fifth Opinion). In the following quotation, Fr. Ballerini begins by responding to the question of who would be responsible for warning a Pope, and then explains the effects that such a warning would produce:

“Is it not true that, confronted with such a danger to the faith [a Pope teaching heresy], any subject can, by fraternal correction, warn their superior, resist him to his face, refute him and, if necessary, summon him and press him to repent? The Cardinals, who are his counselors, can do this; or the Roman Clergy, or the Roman Synod, if, being met, they judge this opportune. For any person, even a private person, the words of Saint Paul to Titus hold: ‘Avoid the heretic, after a first and second correction, knowing that such a man is perverted and sins, since he is condemned by his own judgment’ (Tit. 3, 10-11). For the person, who, admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or defined dogma – not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity – this person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such a way that now no declaration or sentence of anyone whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church. Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, would remain himself hardened in heresy and openly turn himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul. So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him. Thus, the sentence which he had pronounced against himself would be made known to all the Church, making clear that by his own will he had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church, and that in a certain way he had abdicated the Pontificate…” (54)

By remaining hardened in heresy after a public and solemn warning, the pope would pronounce sentence against himself, thereby revealing to all that he had rejected the faith he was duty bound to defend.

Objection Answered

At this point, an objection needs to be addressed. Some have claimed that a Pope who professes a heresy cannot be warned. They say that a warning requires a judgment, and since “the first See is judged by no one”, no one is permitted to warn a pope. They further maintain that a warning must come from a superior, and since the Pope has no superior on earth, it follows that he cannot be warned.

Both of these objections fail to consider that a warning can be either an act of justice (which is proper to a superior), or a work of mercy and therefore an act of charity. As an act of charity, an inferior can certainly warn, or fraternally correct, a superior, “provided,” wrote St. Thomas, “there be something in the person that requires correction.” (55)

In the paragraph immediately following the long quotation above, Fr. Ballerini made this very point when he wrote: “whatever would be done against him [a heretical Pope] before the declaration of his contumacy and heresy, in order to call him to reason, would constitute an obligation of charity, not of jurisdiction.”

Scripture itself provides an example of an inferior warning a superior, who, in this case, just happened to be the Pope. In Galatians, Chapter 2, we read that St. Paul withstood St. Peter to his face “because he was to be blamed” (Galatians 2:11). As noted above, we are permitted to fraternally correct a superior, but as St. Thomas explains, “to withstand anyone in public exceeds the mode of a fraternal correction”. Yet God willed that this event be recorded in Scriptures for our instruction. And what can we learn from this? St. Thomas explained that this act of St. Paul, which normally would have exceeded what was permitted, was justified because of an imminent danger to the faith. He wrote:

“It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger and scandal concerning the faith.” (56)

He then quotes St. Augustine who said, “Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects.” Clearly, if a subject is permitted to fraternally correct a superior (which is what the warning would constitute), and if St. Paul was justified in going further by withstanding St. Peter to his face because of an imminent danger to the faith, a council is certainly able to issue a public warning to one of St. Peter’s successors if he is endangering the faith by his words or actions.

In his Commentary on the Book of Galatians, St. Thomas made a necessary distinction regarding this point, as well as an important observation. He wrote:

“[T]he Apostle opposed Peter in the exercise of authority, not in his authority of ruling. Therefore from the foregoing we have an example: for prelates, an example of humility, that they not disdain corrections from those who are lower and subject to them; while subjects have an example of zeal and freedom, that they fear not to correct their prelates, particularly if their crime is public and verges upon danger to the multitude.” (57)

Declaratory Sentence

Once the pope’s pertinacity has been sufficiently established, the Church issues a declaratory sentence (declarativam sententiam) of the crime of heresy, which declares that the Pope has openly professed heresy (matter) and has shown himself to be incorrigible (form).

John of St. Thomas explains that this declaration must come from a general council. He wrote: “regarding the deposition of the pope with respect to the declaration of the crime [it] in no way pertains to the cardinals but to a general council.” (58)

It should also be noted, as Fr. Wernz S.J. observed, that the declaratory sentence of the crime “does not have the effect of judging a heretical pope, but of demonstrating that he has already been judged.” (59)

This calls to mind the earlier quotation from Fr. Ballerini, who said that a pope who openly remains hardened in heresy after a public and solemn warning, thereby pronounces sentences against himself, by showing that, of his own will, he has turned away from the Faith. The declaration simply confirms, with a sufficient degree of certitude, what the Pope himself had already demonstrated. Pope Innocent III made a similar point, which highlights a distinction made by the theologians between judging the Pope and declaring him judged. Commenting on the verse “if the salt lose its savor, it is good for nothing,” Pope Innocent wrote:

“[T]he Roman Pontiff … should not mistakenly flatter himself about his power, nor rashly glory in his eminence or honor, for the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. I say ‘less’ because he can be judged by men, or rather shown to be judged, if he clearly loses his savor to heresy, since he ‘who does not believe is already judged’ (John 3:18)…” (60)

The Effect of the Warning and Declaration

A point that is debated by the theologians is exactly when, and precisely how, the Pope falls from the pontificate. Does it take place immediately after the Pope’s pertinacity has been manifest to the authorities who issued the warning, or does it occur when the Church issues the declaratory sentence of the crime?   John of St. Thomas’ explanation of this point is the most erudite I have found. This brilliant professor of Scholastic theology and philosophy, who is recognized as one of the foremost Thomists the Church has known – possibly second only to St. Thomas himself – addresses each point with the precision of a true Thomist, while carefully avoiding the error of Conciliarism. What follows is a summary of his teaching on the effects of the warning and public declaration and how these relate to the loss of office.

As we have already noted, the warning establishes whether the Pope is indeed pertinacious. Once pertinacity is manifest, the Church issues a declaratory sentence of the crime and informs the faithful that, according to divine law, he is to be avoided. Now, since a person cannot effectively govern the Church as its head while simultaneously being avoided by those he is to govern, the Pope is effectively rendered impotent by this declaration. John of St. Thomas explains it this way:

“The Church is able to declare the crime of a Pontiff and, according to divine law, propose him to the faithful as a heretic that must be avoided. The Pontiff, however, by the fact of having to be avoided, is necessarily rendered impotent by the force of such a declaration, since a Pope who is to be avoided is unable to influence the Church as its head.” (61)

Being incapable of effectively ruling the Church as a result of the declaratory sentence, which necessitates that he be avoided by the Faithful, God himself severs the bond that unites the man to the office, and he falls, ipso facto, from the Pontificate – even before being formally declared deprived of the Pontificate by the Church.

John of St. Thomas goes on to explain that the Church plays a ministerial part in the deposition, rather than an authoritative part, since the Church has no authority over a Pontiff – even in the case of heresy. He employs the Thomistic concepts of form and matter to explain how the union between the man and the pontificate is dissolved. A distinction is made between the man (the matter), the Pontificate (the form), and the bond that unites the two. He explains that the Church plays a ministerial part in the deposition of a Pope, just as she plays a ministerial part in the election. During the election of a Pope, the Church designates the man (the matter), who is to receive the pontificate (the form) immediately from God. Something similar happens when a Pope loses his office due to heresy. Since “the Pope is constituted Pope by the power of jurisdiction alone” (62) (which he is unable to effectively exercise if he must be avoided) when the Church issues the declaratory sentence and presents him to the faithful as one that must be avoided, the Church thereby introduces a disposition into the matter (the man) that renders him incapable of sustaining the form (the Pontificate).   God responds to this legitimate act of the Church (which it has a right do to in accord with divine law) by withdrawing the form from the matter, thereby causing the man to fall from the Pontificate.

John of St. Thomas delves deeper into this point by clarifying that the Church acts directly on the matter (the man), but only indirectly on the form (the Pontificate). He describes this point using the analogy of procreation and death. He explains that just as the generative act of man does not produce the form (the soul), neither does that which corrupts and destroys the matter (disease, etc.) directly touch the form (the soul) – nor does the corrupting element directly cause the separation of the form from the matter (but only renders the matter incapable of sustaining the form) – so, too, is it with the election and deposition of a Pope.

During the election, the Church merely designates the man (matter) who is to receive the form (Pontificate). God responds to this legitimate act of the Church by joining the man to the Pontificate. In like manner, when it comes to deposing a heretical Pope, the Church first declares the man a heretic and then commands the faithful, by a juridical act, that he must be avoided. While the Church has no jurisdiction or authority over the Pope, it does possess jurisdiction over the faithful, and therefore can issue commands that they are obliged to obey. Now, since divine law teaches that a heretic must be avoided after one or two warnings, the Church has the divine right to command that a pope, who has remained hardened in heresy after a public warning, must be avoided. Since one who is being avoided cannot effectively rule the Church, God responds to this declaration of the Church by severing the bond that unites the form to the matter, thereby causing the man to fall from the Pontificate.

The ministerial function of the Church, then, is to establish the crime and issue the declaratory sentence, while simultaneously commanding the faithful that the man must be avoided. The Church’s authority, in this respect, is not one of subjection (with the Pope being subject to the Church), but one of separation (63), according to which the Church separates itself from the Pope. Cardinal Cajetan explains:

“In short, nowhere do I find superiority and inferiority from divine law in the case of heresy, but only separation [‘Withdraw yourselves’ – 2 Thess. 3:6, ‘Receive him not’ – 2 John 1:10, ‘Avoid’ – Tit. 3:10]. Now it is obvious that the Church can separate itself from the pope only by the ministerial power whereby it can elect him. Therefore, the fact that it is laid down by divine law that a heretic should be avoided and banished from the Church, does not create a need for a power which is greater than a ministerial one.   Such power is sufficient; and it is known to reside in the Church.” (64)

Now, since the juridical act commanding the faithful to avoid the man relates essentially to the loss of office (since a Pope who must be avoided cannot effectively rule the Church), it is evident why the declaration must come from the proper authorities. For if such a command came from one with no authority, it would not bind, and consequently none would be obliged to avoid the man. Regarding this point, John of St. Thomas wrote:

“For the pope’s heresy cannot be public to all of the faithful except by an indictment brought by others. But the indictment of an individual does not bind, since it is not juridical, and consequently none would be obliged to accept it and avoid him. Therefore, it is necessary that, just as the Church designates the man and proposes him to the faithful as being elected Pope, thus also the Church declares him a heretic and proposes him as one to be avoided.” (65)

Since the warning is necessary to demonstrate pertinacity, which must be established before the declaratory sentence is issued, we can also see why John of St. Thomas would say that, before being warned, the heretical pope remains pope. On this point, he wrote:

T”he pope insofar as he is externally a heretic, if he is prepared to be corrected, cannot be deposed (as we have said above), and the Church, by divine law, cannot declare him deposed, as it cannot yet avoid him, since, according to the Apostle, ‘a man who is a heretic is to be avoided, after the first and second warning’. Therefore, before the first and second warning, he is not to be avoided by the Church… Therefore, it is false to say that a Pontiff is deposed by the very fact that he is externally a heretic: truly, he is able to be so publicly as long as he has not yet been warned by the Church….” (66)

Having fallen from the pontificate due to his heresy being publicly declared to all, the former pope “can then be judged and punished by the Church”, as Bellarmine himself taught. (67) At this point, a second declaration is issued stating that the See is Vacant, so that the Cardinals can proceed to the election of a new Pope.

Declaration of Deprivation

We now reach the final phase in the process: the declaration of deprivation. It must be observed that this final declaration is separate and distinct from the declaratory sentence of the crime. John of St. Thomas is quite clear on this point. He said the deposition “facienda est post declarativam criminis sententiam” – “is to be made after a declaratory sentence of the crime”. (68)

Before the punishment can be handed down, the crime must first be established. The distinction between 1) establishing the crime and issuing the declaratory sentence, and 2) the punitive phase in which the punishment is handed down, is analogous to what we see in our secular legal system, in which the two distinct phases usually require a separate legal proceeding. Even if the manifestly heretical Pope is deprived ipso facto of the Pontificate by God (which is the position of all the authorities we have cited), there is still the human aspect of the punishment that must follow the declaratory sentence of the crime. The following are the three phases:

1)     The criminal phase, wherein the crime is established;

2)     The divine punishment, by which the pope falls from the pontificate;

3)     The human punishment (public excommunication).

We can see all three of these phases in the following quotation from Suarez:

“Therefore on deposing a heretical Pope, the Church would not act as superior to him, but juridically and by the consent of Christ she would declare him a heretic [declaratory sentence] and therefore unworthy of Pontifical honors; he would then ipso facto and immediately be deposed by Christ [divine punishment], and once deposed he would become inferior and would be able to be punished. [human punishment]” (69)

Above, we see: 1) The declaratory sentence, which, according to the explanation of John of St. Thomas, would include a juridical act commanding the faithful that he must be avoided (note: the object of the juridical act is the faithful, not the pope). 2) The divine punishment, which is the ipso facto loss of the Pontificate (severing the bond that unites the form to the matter). 3) Since the former pope has fallen from the Pontificate, the Church can inflict human punishment, which is public excommunication along with a declaration that the See is vacant.

John of St. Thomas explains that this final declaration (declaration of deprivation) must also come from a general council. He wrote:

“[I]t is also commonly agreed that the power of treating the cases of popes, and those things that pertain to their deposition, has not been entrusted to the cardinals; therefore, the deposition belongs to the Church, whose authority is represented by a general council.” (70)

J.M. Herve’s Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae teaches the same.

“Given that, as a private person, the Pontiff could indeed become a public, notorious, and obstinate heretic… only a Council would have the right to declare his see vacant so that the usual electors could safely proceed to an election.” (71)

Two Opinions

There are two opinions regarding this final declaration. One opinion maintains that a heretical Pope is jure divino removable. The other opinion is that the final declaration merely confirms what has already occurred, by declaring that the Pope has deprived himself of the Pontificate. In the first case, the Church causes the deposition; in the second case it merely confirms that the pope has deposed himself.

Regarding the first opinion, it is difficult to see how it does not fall into the error of Conciliarism, since deposition is an act that belongs properly to a superior. (72) Hence, if the Church directly caused the deposition of the Pope, it would be acting as his superior, which it cannot do. For this reason, the more common opinion is that the heretical Pontiff ceases to be Pope ipso facto once his heresy has been manifest and declared to the faithful.

But whether the Church itself deposes the pope (first opinion), or if he is deprived of the pontificate immediately by God (second opinion), is merely an academic question pertaining to the speculative order, since, on the practical level, both opinions agree that the man must at least have been declared guilty by the Church (declaratory sentence), before he can be declare deprived of the pontificate (declaration of deprivation).

This point was explained by Fr. Sebastian B. Smith, professor of Canon Law. In his classic work, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (1881), which was meticulously reviewed by two canonists in Rome, we read the following:

“Question: Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate?

“Answer: There are two opinions: one holds that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church – i.e., by an ecumenical council or the College of Cardinals.” (73)

The “two opinions” pertain to the declaration of deprivation (the second declaration). But, as Fr. Smith noted above, regardless of which opinion one holds, both opinions agree that the Pope must have been declared guilty by the Church. This is a point that Sedevacantists have missed.

Sedevacantist Errors

In trying to make sense of the current crisis in the Church, some have read the writings of theologians who teach that a manifestly heretical Pope is ipso facto deposed, and have then drawn the false conclusion that if they themselves personally judge the pope to be a heretic, it must mean he is not the pope. They then write articles instructing other member of the laity how they, too, can judge that the Pope is a heretic, in the hope that they will also conclude that the he is not a true pope. What such people have failed to realize is that the theologians who discuss the ipso facto deposition of a pope for heresy, are only referring to the speculative opinion of how the Pope loses his office (one of the “two opinions” mentioned above), which does not eliminate the necessity of the Church performing the ministerial functions necessary to establish the crime. In other words, the Church must render a judgment before the pope loses his office. Private judgment of the laity in this matter does not suffice. John of St. Thomas addressed this point directly. He explained that a pope who is a manifest heretic according to private judgment remains pope. He wrote:

“So long as it has not been declared to us juridically that he is an infidel or heretic, be he ever so manifestly heretical according to private judgment, he remains, as far as we are concerned, a member of the Church and consequently its head. Judgment is required by the Church. It is only then that he ceases to be Pope as far as we are concerned” (John of St. Thomas). (74)

Prior to the necessary judgment and declaration(s) by the Church, a heretical Pope remains a valid pope. The visibility of the Church (both formally and materially) is too necessary for the contrary to be the case.

Fr. Paul Layman S.J. (d.1635), who is considered one of the greatest canonists of the Counter-Reformation era, as it is sometimes called, explained that even in the case of a pope who was a notorious heretic, as long as he was being tolerated by the Church, would remain a true and valid pope. Writes Fr. Laymann:

“It is more probable that the Supreme Pontiff, as a person, might be able to fall into heresy, and even notorious heresy, by reason of which he would merit to be deposed by the Church, or rather to be declared as separated from her. (…) Observe, however, that, though we affirm that the Supreme Pontiff, as a private person, might be able to become a heretic and therefore cease to be a true member of the Church, (…) still, while he was tolerated by the Church, and publicly recognized as the universal pastor, he would really enjoy the pontifical power, in such a way that all of his decrees would have no less force and authority than they would if he were truly faithful.” (75)

Popes Alexander VI, John XXII, and Honorius I, were all accused of heresy by their contemporaries, yet none was declared deprived of the Pontificate while still living. Consequently, they have always been considered true Popes by the Church, even though Pope Honorius, after his death, was “expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized” (76) for heresy, by the Third Council of Constantinople. For this reason, the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia said: “It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic…” (77) Yet not even Pope Honorius is considered by the Church to have lost the Pontificate while living.

St. Bellarmine himself explained that a heretical bishop must be deposed by the proper authorities. After explaining how a false prophet (meaning heretical pastor) can be spotted, he wrote:

“…if the pastor is a bishop, they [the faithful] cannot depose him and put another in his place. For Our Lord and the Apostles only lay down that false prophets are not to be listened to by the people, and not that they depose them. And it is certain that the practice of the Church has always been that heretical bishops be deposed by bishop’s councils, or by the Sovereign Pontiff.” (78)

Here we see the true thinking of Bellarmine on this point. He explains that a heretical bishop can be spotted by the faithful (who should not listen to him), but he can only be deposed by the proper authorities. If this is true for ordinary bishops, how much more necessary is it when the bishop is the Supreme Pontiff?

Sedevacantists will likely object by saying, since a pope cannot be judged by a council, Bellarmine could not have meant that a council would depose a heretical Pope. They will then insist that this is why Bellarmine taught that a heretical pope loses his office automatically. But this is clearly not the case, since Bellarmine himself defended the opinion that a heretical Pope can be judged by a council. He wrote:

“Firstly, that a heretical Pope can be judged is expressly held in Can. Si Papa dist. 40, and by Innocent III (Serm. II de Consec. Pontif.)  Furthermore, in the 8th Council, (act. 7) the acts of the Roman Council under Pope Hadrian are recited, in which one finds that Pope Honorius appears to be justly anathematized, because he had been convicted of heresy, which is the only case in which inferiors are permitted to judge superiors.” (79)

He goes on to explain that even if Pope Hadrian mistakenly condemned Honorius (which is what Bellarmine personally thought), “nevertheless” wrote Bellarmine, “we cannot deny, in fact, that Hadrian, and with him the Roman Council, nay more the whole 8th General council judged that, in the case of heresy a Roman Pontiff can be judged.” (80)

Without examining the cases mention by Bellarmine, it is quite clear that he held to the opinion that a heretical Pope can be judged by a council. Now, since he explicitly stated that “heretical bishops” must be deposed by a council, the same would obviously apply to a heretical bishop of Rome. Hence, his statement that a manifestly heretical pope loses his office ipso facto does not preclude the Church performing the ministerial functions necessary to establish the crime.

Bellarmine’s thinking regarding this matter is perfectly consistent with the mind of the Church, as we see expressed in Canon 10 of the Fourth Council of Constantinople. In response to the schism of Photius, the Council attached the grave penalty of excommunication to any layman or monk who, in the future, separated himself from his patriarch (the Pope is Patriarch of the West) before a careful inquiry and judgment by a synod.

“As divine scripture clearly proclaims, ‘Do not find fault before you investigate, and understand first and then find fault’. And does our law judge a person without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does? Consequently this holy and universal synod justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful inquiry and judgment in synod, even if he alleges that he knows of some crime perpetrated by his patriarch, and he must not refuse to include his patriarch’s name during the divine mysteries or offices. (…) If anyone shall be found defying this holy synod, he is to be debarred from all priestly functions and status if he is a bishop or cleric; if a monk or lay person, he must be excluded from all communion and meetings of the church [i.e. excommunicated] until he is converted by repentance and reconciled”.

The errors of Sedevacantism will be thoroughly addressed in an upcoming book, which should be out in the Spring of 2015.

Conclusion

In light of what the theologians and canonists have taught throughout the centuries, it is clear that the Church does possess a remedy by which she can rid herself of an heretical Pope. Therefore, faced with such an incalculably grave threat, the Church is not forced to wait for the “biological solution” to solve the problem.

Footnotes:

1)     Conc. Vatic., Mansi 52, 110
2)     Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, Vol. IX (Fr. Paul Laymann), p 95
3)     Laymann, Theol. Mor., Lib II, tract I, cap, VII, p 153
4)     St. Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversy (TAN Books) p 305-306
5)     Quaest. in IV Sent. Quote in: “L’Infaillibilité du pape et le Syllabus”, (Besançon: Jacquin; Paris: P. Lethielleux, 1904).
6)     Hierarch. Eccles., lib. 4, cap. 8,
7)     De Romano Pontifice, lib II, cap. 30
8)     The Sifting: The Never-Failing Faith of Peter, by James Larson
9)     The Gift of Infallibility (Ignatius Press, San Francisco) p 58 – 59
10)  Ibid.
11)  Christ’s Church, Van Noort (Newman Press, Westminster, Maryland, 1961), p 294
12)  see Papal Infallibility and Its Limitations, by R. Siscoe, The Remnant, (online)
13)  Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913 Vol XIII (Revelation), p 1 
14)  Christ’s Church, Van Noort, Idem, p 120
15)  Lamentabili Sane, #21, 1907, Pius X
16)  Christ’s Church, Van Noort, Idem, p 290
17)  The Gift of Infallibility, Idem,p 49
18)  Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, Chapter IV
19)  Christ’s Church, Van Noort, Idem, p 292-293
20)  Ibid
21)  cf. De Silveira, ‘La Nouvelle Messe de Paul VI: Qu’en penser’, p 188-194
22)  ‘La Nouvelle Messe de Paul VI: Qu’en penser’
23)  The term “deposed” is here being used to express both of the “two opinions’ discussed later in this article – see explanation in Journet, L’Eglise…, vol. 1, p 626
24)  Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913 (Francisco Suarez)
25)  De Fide, Disp. 10, Sect 6, n. 10, p 317
26)  It should be noted that the Cardinal is not referring to public and notorious heresy in point #1, but to the sin of heresy that remains hidden within the internal forum. This is clear from a previous comment in which he said: “We are dealing, however, with a purely internal heretic”.
27)  De Comparatione Cuctoritatis Papae et Conciliin, by Cardinal Cajetan, English Translation in Conciliarism & Papalism, by Burns & Izbicki (Cambridge University Press, New York, NY 1997) p 82
28)  Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol VIII (John S.T.), 1910, p 479
29)  Cursus Theologici II-II De Auctoritate Summi Pontificis, Disp II, Art. III, De Depositione Papae. All quotations used in this article are found on pages 137-140.
30)  Ibid.
31)  Ibid.
32)  De Fide, Disp. 10, Sect 6, n. 10, p 317-18
33)  Conciliarism & Papalism, Idem, p 67
34)  Ibid. p 67
35)  Ibid. p 66-67
36)  Ibid. p 68
37)  Ibid. p 68
38)  Ibid. p 70
39)  Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913,Vol IV, p 290
40)  Roman Breviary, April 5
41)  Conciliarism & Papalism, Idem, p 83
42)  Ibid pp 73-83
43)  See Was Vatican II Infallible, Part I and II, R. Siscoe, Catholic Family News, June and July 2014
44)  Sources of Revelation, Van Noort (Newman Press, Westminster, Maryland, 1961), pp 220-221
45)  Cf. Council of Florence, Cantata Domino, Denz. 712; and Mystici Corporis Christi, Pius XII, #29 – 30)
46)  A Commentary of Canon Law, Rev. Augustine, OSB, DD, Professor of Canon Law, Vol VIII, bk 4, (Herder Book Co, 1922), p 280
47)  Ibid. pg 278
48)  Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, Vol V (on Excommunication), p 680
49)  A Commentary of Canon Law, Idem, p 278
50)  Ibid. p 278
51)  Ibid. p 279
52)  Ibid. p 279-280
53)  Ibid. p 280
54)  De Potestate Ecclesiastica, Ballerini (Monasterii Westphalorum, Deiters 1847) ch 6, sec 2, p 124-25
55)  II-II Q 33, A 4
56)  II-II Q 33 A 4, obj. 2
57)  Super Epistulas S. Pauli, Ad Galatas, 2: 11-14 (Taurini/Romae: Marietti, 1953) nn 77.
58)  Cursus Theologici, Idem
59)  Ius Decretalium (1913) II.615
60)  Between God and Man: Sermons of Pope Innocent III (Sermon IV) p 48-49
61)  Cursus Theologici, Idem
62)  Conciliarism & Papalism, p 76
63)  Ibid. p 83
64)  Ibid. p 84
65)  Cursus Theologici, Idem
66)  Ibid.
67)  De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap.
68)  Cursus Theologici, Idem, p 137
69)  De Fide, Disp. 10, Sect 6, n. 10, p 317
70)  Cursus Theologici, Idem
71)  Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae, Hervé (1943) I.501.
72)  Conciliarism & Papalism, Idem, p 82-82
73)  Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, Rev. SB Smith DD (Benzinger Br., New York, 1881), 3 rd ed., p 210)
74)  Cursus Theologici, Idem
75)  Laymann, Theol. Mor., Lib II, tract I, cap, VII, p 153
76)  Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, P. Schaff, Series II, Vol 14, p 343
77)  Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. VII, p 455
78)  De Membris Ecclesiae, Lib. I De Clerics, cap. 7. (Opera Omnia, Paris: Vives, 1870) p 428-429
79)  De Romano Pontifice, Bk II, Chapter 30
80)  Ibid.

Coming To A Fork In The Road, And Taking It

19 Thursday Nov 2015

Posted by S. Armaticus in Synod of Bishops'

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

ABERRO AGENDA, aberro-sex agenda, AIDS, Ambiguity, Anal Cancer, anal fissures, Andrea Gagliarducci, anorectal traum, Big Gender, Card. Muller, Card. Tagle, Cardinal Burke, cardinal Walter Kasper, Catholic Church, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Eponymous Flower blog, Francis Effect, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Genderism, Giardia lamblia, Giuseppe Nardi, Gonorrhea, Great Cardinal, Hemorrhoids, heretical pope, Herpes simplex virus, hippies, HIV, Human immunodeficiency virus, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Just Call Me Jorge blog, Law of Unintended Consequences, Markus Günther, messeging, Microsporidia, Modernists, MondayVatican blog, MSM, narratives, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, Pagan Christians, pathological, Raymond Burke, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roberto de Mattei, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli blog, s "theological structuring", s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s optics, s Pope Francis, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, sustainability, Synod 2014, Synod of Filth, Synod Walkout Petition, Syphilis25, Team Bergoglio, The Radical Catholic blog, Thomism, Tradition, TransRational, Truth, United Nations, Unjust ruler, Vatican II, Viral hepatitis types B & C

 

Yogi Fork

Today we pick back up with our running post bi-Synod analysis.  Just a reminder, we are presently analyzing the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS who are composed of the German Bishops’ Conference leadership and supplemented by Western European clerics from Austria, France, Switzerland and Belgium. The designated head of this group, appears to be Card. Kasper.

In the post titled The Vatican’s Suicide Bomber Problem (see here), we explained how the German HERETICAL CLERICALISTS brought the Catholic Church and FRANCIS to the point of SCHISM, only to cut a deal with the help of Bendict and then walked back FRANCIS “from the edge” at the last-minute. In two follow-up posts titled You Can Observe A Lot Just By Watching (see here) and Making Too Many Wrong Mistakes (see here), we established that the ROOT CAUSE of the actions undertaken by the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS at the bi-Synod were NOT on account of any pressure from “special interest” groups or from the dire situation in the German Catholic Church with respect to empty churches, nor the rapidly dwindling church tax (KIRCHENSTEUER) payee pool.

We made these conclusions based on the following two INDEPENDENT pieces of EVIDENCE. The first comes from Giuseppe Nardi and it is as follows: ([comments] and emphasis added)

That has not come about [Failed Synod] because of any of the spokesmen, neither Cardinal Kasper nor Cardinal Müller wanted it to happen and were searching frantically for a compromise formula that was somehow acceptable. Cardinal Schönborn mediated with skill. The diplomatic multiplication table was given him in the cradle. So it is surprising that nevertheless, a third of the Synod has refused the decisive compromise to the divorced and remarried, suggesting organized resistance. Organized so that it eluded the European diplomat’s parquet. The great commitment of Kasperians in their search for compromise  shows who was  worried about the failure of the Synod or at least feared it more. It also shows that a significant part of Kasperians are progressive in protection of the papacy, but there are not real modernist hardliners. They have neatly hidden their stances in previous pontificates  and only now dare to have the knowledge or the hope of the Pope at their side, for entrance to royal circles. (see here)

Our second INDEPENDENT observation comes from Steve Skojac from the One Peter Five blog, who relays the following information from his Vatican sources:

He [Francis] appears to think he has his finger on the pulse of the Church, and is therefore surprised, even”rattled” when his agenda faces real opposition. Several progressive cardinals are said to have advised Pope Francis not to push the issue [Communion for public sinners] too hard. Surprising names. Marx. Daneels. Schönborn. Those whom one would think would be among the most aggressive proponents of the push for communion to the unrepentant. (see here)

What we have in the text above is nothing short of PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE supporting our assumptions that the HERETICAL CLERICALIST”S TRUE AGENDA is NOT based on an ASSUMPTION that Rome needs to CHANGE Catholic moral teaching relating to Communion for public sinners as a remedy for their empty churches and their deteriorating pool of KIRCHENSTEUER payees.

The reason why this is the case is that:

IF the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS really thought that it is the lack of Communion for public sinners that was the ROOT CAUSE for the collapse of their German (Western European) ecclesiastical structures,

THEN they would be pushing Francis to force through this change.

Yet, the actions of the HERETICAL CLERICALIST’S were exactly the opposite to those that one would expect if they in fact were functioning under the ASSUMPTION of a causal relationship between a) Catholic moral teaching and b) their financial problems.

This is a very important point that I can not stress enough!

The implication of the above point is that the financial issues of the Western European churches DID NOT serve as a ROOT CAUSE for the HERECITCAL CLERICALIST’S TRUE AGENDA.

Furthermore, we can also see that the AGENDA of the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS was different from the HIDDEN AGENDA of the bi-Synod, i.e. the AGENDA of FRANCIS and his SECRETARIAT.

Same reasoning holds in this case.

IF the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS thought that introducing GENDER IDEOLOGY into Catholic moral doctrine and ecclesiastical law would help them with either their dwindling KIRCHENSTEUER payee pool or their relations with the “special interest” groups who are prodding them to implement change, (as the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS claimed when they changed the Church Labor Law),

THEN they would be backing the Communion for public sinners as a first step to open the door for the acceptance and promotion of the INTRINSICALLY DISORDERED lapsed “c”atholics.

Given the above, it must be the case that the ROOT CAUSE for why the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS brought the Church to the brink of SCHISM only to stop FRANCIS at the last-minute, must lie somewhere else.

So what do we know about the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS that could give us a clue about their TRUE AGENDA?

What we know is that is was at the behest of this group that FRANCIS called the bi-Synod in the first place. We also know that the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS STRATEGY was for the bi-Synod to play itself out on “theological” issues. We even observed that it was odd that Card. Kasper was the lead player for the Germans at the bi-Synod since it is Card. Marx who is the most influential man both in the German Church (President of German Bishops’ Conference – with control over the KIRCHENSTEUER funding) and in Rome, where he is a member of the C9 group advising FRANCIS. Confirmation for this fact comes from Andrea Gagliarducci who noticed: (see here)

It is noteworthy that Cardinal Reinhard Marx, Archbishop of Munich-Freising, a prime engineer of Vatican reforms and one of the main players in this season of the Church, has recently insisted that the Church should learn from Luther. 

Therefore, it would appear that it is in the area of German “theology” where the trail leads to IDENTIFYING the ROOT CAUSE of the German HERETICAL CLERICALIST’S actions. And by IDENTIFYING the ROOT CAUSE of their actions, we should be able to define the TRUE AGENDA

Our jump off point for today is two independent observations from two unrelated sources which ARE CONTRADICTORY. The first observation comes from Mr. George Weigel who writes the following:

In 1994, an anthology of “replies” to the encyclical Veritatis Splendor from German Catholic theologians included the striking claim that these thinkers had a special responsibility to call John Paul II to task for what he had taught in The Splendour of Truth.

This is indeed a “striking claim” since we know from our post titled Theological Structuring? Francis Don’t Need No Stinking Theological Structuring! (see here) that this claim questioned what is commonly referred to as the pope’s teaching office. Once again, here is how Fr. Benoît-Dominique de La Soujeole, OP, a Dominican of the Province of Toulouse, France. Since 1992 he has been a member of the editorial board of authoritative journal La Revue thomiste de philosophie e de théologie. Since 1999 he has held the title of Professor of dogmatic theology (Church and sacraments) at the Faculty of Theology of the University of Fribourg (Switzerland), where he is also Prior of the Dominican monastery of St. Albertus Magnus, commented on just this fact at the VASSALLO MALTA blog: (see here)

[Question] Individual Pope figures aside, can the Successor of Peter’s ministry be considered theologically “lacking” and in need of a certain “theological structuring” by individuals other than the Pope?

[Fr. Benoît-Dominique de La Soujeole, OP] Certainly not! The Pope has everything it takes to enounce the faith of the Church. The Congregation De doctrina fidei helps the Pope in the preparation and implementation phases but the “crux” consists in enouncing the faith of the Church and this is the Pope’s very own and personal ministry. By “structuring”, Cardinal Müller may have meant this, above all preparatory, work.

Now that we have a firm understanding of the issue at hand, let us look further at why the German theologians thought that they have this “special responsibility” to take the sitting pontiff “to task” for the “for what he had taught in The Splendour of Truth” . Here is George Weigel explains the genesis of this supposed “special responsibility”:

Because German theology held a privileged place within the Catholic theological world; the Pope had, so to speak, dissed the great strides German thinkers had made in moral theology; and it was the Germans’ duty to let the world know about that.

Running long today, I will leave off at this “fork in the road”.

What is apparent from the above is that the novelty of the “theological structuring” functionality that Card. Muller “created” at the CDF has a much longer history than we first thought back in April. What Mr. Weigel suggests is that the German “theologians” have usurped part of the papal teaching office as early as 1994. And it is this “special responsibility”, never before heard of in the annals of Church history, where our ROOT CAUSES trail is leading.

We will continue with this lead in our next post.

Commenting on this situation, one can say that at Vatican II, the German “theologians” came to a fork in the theological road, and they took it.

The “New” Evangelization- Deja-Vu All Over Again?

16 Monday Nov 2015

Posted by S. Armaticus in Of Interest

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

ABERRO AGENDA, aberro-sex agenda, AIDS, Ambiguity, Anal Cancer, anal fissures, Andrea Gagliarducci, anorectal traum, Big Gender, Card. Muller, Card. Tagle, Cardinal Burke, cardinal Walter Kasper, Catholic Church, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Eponymous Flower blog, Francis Effect, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Genderism, Giardia lamblia, Giuseppe Nardi, Gonorrhea, Great Cardinal, Hemorrhoids, heretical pope, Herpes simplex virus, hippies, HIV, Human immunodeficiency virus, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Just Call Me Jorge blog, Law of Unintended Consequences, Markus Günther, messeging, Microsporidia, Modernists, MondayVatican blog, MSM, narratives, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, Pagan Christians, pathological, Raymond Burke, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roberto de Mattei, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli blog, s "theological structuring", s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s optics, s Pope Francis, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, sustainability, Synod 2014, Synod of Filth, Synod Walkout Petition, Syphilis25, Team Bergoglio, The Radical Catholic blog, Thomism, Tradition, TransRational, Truth, United Nations, Unjust ruler, Vatican II, Viral hepatitis types B & C

Yogi Deja Vu

Busy day at the office today, so I am re-producing an article from the Business Insider that is a bit dated.  Feb 12, 2012 to be exact. Yet the subject matter is even more relevant now than it was back then.

The reason that I am re-posting this article now is due to a recurring observation. Of late, I find more articles and posts in blogs and periodicals dedicated to economics and especially to financial markets that are Scholastic in nature. These posts have a very strong central theme, whether implicit or explicit as the one below, that Catholicism is grounded in ABSOLUTE TRUTHS. These TRUTHS are either ignored or suppressed by contemporary “culture”, yet they are so strong and… universal, that they appear when any serious objective analysis is performed.

Concluding, what the above implies is that there is a “population” of analysts and researchers who appear to be familiar with what can be called “methodological Scholasticism”. They most likely are not cognizant of this fact since it goes under a different name, i.e. scientific method. For those who are cognizant of what it is in fact they are dealing with, they try to explain it away as an oddity (outlier). Yet for those who have some background in the subject, combined with a modicum of intellectual honesty, they are able to identify it for what it is and by name. The below post is an excellent example.

Concluding, it seems to your humble blogger that it is this “avenue” that appears to have “opened up” into the scientific and research community, which is ripe for any evangelization efforts. And it is through Scholasticism that this population can be reached.

It’s like the beginning of the 6th century Anno Domini all over again. (see here)

I will leave you with this thought.

The below is the Business Insider (see original here) which I am re-publishing…

FOR THE RECORD

Time To Admit It: The Church Has Always Been Right On Birth Control

  • Michael Brendan Dougherty and Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry

Painting the Catholic Church as “out of touch” is like shooting fish in a barrel, what with the funny hats and gilded churches. And nothing makes it easier than the Church’s stance against contraception.

Many people, (including our editor) are wondering why the Catholic Church doesn’t just ditch this requirement. They note that most Catholics ignore it, and that most everyone else finds it divisive, or “out-dated.” C’mon! It’s the 21st century, they say! Don’t they SEE that it’s STUPID, they scream.

Here’s the thing, though: the Catholic Church is the world’s biggest and oldest organization. It has buried all of the greatest empires known to man, from the Romans to the Soviets. It has establishments literally all over the world, touching every area of human endeavor. It’s given us some of the world’s greatest thinkers, from Saint Augustine on down to René Girard. When it does things, it usually has a good reason. Everyone has a right to disagree, but it’s not that they’re a bunch of crazy old white dudes who are stuck in the Middle Ages.

So, what’s going on?

The Church teaches that love, marriage, sex, and procreation are all things that belong together. That’s it. But it’s pretty important. And though the Church has been teaching this for 2,000 years, it’s probably never been as salient as today.
Today’s injunctions against birth control were re-affirmed in a 1968 document by Pope Paul VI called Humanae Vitae. He warned of four results if the widespread use of contraceptives was accepted:

1. General lowering of moral standards
2. A rise in infidelity, and illegitimacy
3. The reduction of women to objects used to satisfy men.
4. Government coercion in reproductive matters.

Does that sound familiar?

Because it sure sounds like what’s been happening for the past 40 years.

As George Akerloff wrote in Slate over a decade ago,

By making the birth of the child the physical choice of the mother, the sexual revolution has made marriage and child support a social choice of the father.

Instead of two parents being responsible for the children they conceive, an expectation that was held up by social norms and by the law, we now take it for granted that neither parent is necessarily responsible for their children. Men are now considered to be fulfilling their duties merely by paying court-ordered child-support. That’s a pretty dramatic lowering of standards for “fatherhood.”

How else are we doing since this great sexual revolution? Kim Kardashian’s marriage lasted 72 days. Illegitimacy: way up. In 1960, 5.3% of all births in America were to unmarried women. By 2010, it was 40.8% [PDF]. In 1960 married families made up almost three-quarters of all households; but by the census of 2010 they accounted for just 48 percent of them. Cohabitation has increased tenfold since 1960.

And if you don’t think women are being reduced to objects to satisfy men, welcome to the internet, how long have you been here? Government coercion: just look to China (or America, where a government rule on contraception coverage is the reason why we’re talking about this right now).

Is this all due to the Pill? Of course not. But the idea that widely-available contraception hasn’t led to dramatic societal change, or that this change has been exclusively to the good, is a much sillier notion than anything the Catholic Church teaches.

So is the notion that it’s just OBVIOUSLY SILLY to get your moral cues from a venerable faith (as opposed to what? Britney Spears?).

But let’s turn to another aspect of this. The reason our editor thinks Catholics shouldn’t be fruitful and multiply doesn’t hold up, either. The world’s population, he writes, is on an “unsustainable” growth path.

The Population Bureau of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations sees (PDF, h/t Pax Dickinson) the rate of population growth slowing over the next decades and stabilizing around 9 billion in 2050…and holding there until 2300. (And note that the UN, which promotes birth control and abortions around the world, isn’t exactly in the be-fruitful-and-multiply camp.)

More broadly, the Malthusian view of population growth has been resilient despite having been proven wrong time and time again and causing lots of unnecessary human suffering. For example, China is headed for a demographic crunch and social dislocation due to its misguided one-child policy.

Human progress is people. Everything that makes life better, from democracy to the economy to the internet to penicillin was either discovered and built by people. More people means more progress. The inventor of the cure for cancer might be someone’s fourth child that they decided not to have.

So, just to sum up:

• It’s a good idea for people to be fruitful and multiply; and

• Regardless of how you feel about the Church’s stance on birth control, it’s proven pretty prophetic.

DON’T MISS: OBAMA’S WAR ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: An Explainer →

Finding A Cure For The Mental Illness Of Progressive Leftism, In Our Lifetime.

14 Saturday Nov 2015

Posted by S. Armaticus in Of Interest

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

ABERRO AGENDA, aberro-sex agenda, AIDS, Ambiguity, Anal Cancer, anal fissures, Andrea Gagliarducci, anorectal traum, Big Gender, Card. Muller, Card. Tagle, Cardinal Burke, cardinal Walter Kasper, Catholic Church, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Eponymous Flower blog, Francis Effect, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Genderism, Giardia lamblia, Giuseppe Nardi, Gonorrhea, Great Cardinal, Hemorrhoids, heretical pope, Herpes simplex virus, hippies, HIV, Human immunodeficiency virus, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Just Call Me Jorge blog, Law of Unintended Consequences, Markus Günther, messeging, Microsporidia, Modernists, MondayVatican blog, MSM, narratives, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, Pagan Christians, pathological, Raymond Burke, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roberto de Mattei, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli blog, s "theological structuring", s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s optics, s Pope Francis, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, sustainability, Synod 2014, Synod of Filth, Synod Walkout Petition, Syphilis25, Team Bergoglio, The Radical Catholic blog, Thomism, Tradition, TransRational, Truth, United Nations, Unjust ruler, Vatican II, Viral hepatitis types B & C

Drudge I

Back home after a week on the road and just saw the news coming out of Paris.

My first thoughts and prayers go out to the victims.

Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine,

et lux perpetua luceat eis.

Requiescant in pace. Amen.

As to making sense out of this senseless tragedy, I would just point out that we really should not blame the Muslims.

We, as intelligent and enlightened human beings can read and discern objective information. Therefore, we know what is written in the Koran and therefore know what we can expect from its adherents.

Next issue, we know from our study of history, how the interaction of our Western Civilization and that of the Mohammedan’s has played out. We have a 1400 year historical record of this at our disposal. No surprises there.

Furthermore, we can observe a constant and recurring theme in the study of our history as it relates to our encounter with Islam. That theme is one of conquest. To observe this historical pattern, all that is really necessary is a modicum of common sense, with the engagement of our intelligence in this process not really all that necessary. Our common sense should give us the ability to think critically and construct a response that is both measured and effective.

The objective observation that a measured, yet effective response has not been implemented can only lead one to assume that those individuals who have attained leadership positions, have lost the ability to process information not only critically, but rationally as well.

The inability to think critically, let alone rationally at a certain stage comes under the general definition of what constitutes a  MENTAL ILLNESS. Mental illness, by definition refers to a wide range of mental health conditions — disorders that affect your mood, thinking and behavior. And presently, we have reached that stage.

It is these individuals, who suffer from one specific form of mental illness, namely “progressive leftism”, an affliction which does not allow them to either think rationally let alone critically, are by far the greatest threat to the survival to not only Western Civilization, but more importantly, our way of life.

It is these individuals who have “found” themselves in key governmental decision-making positions, with the help of other individuals through facilitating support, read financial and media, who bear the direct responsibility for the bloody tragedy that transpired in Paris last evening.

A secondary responsibility is borne by the individuals who enabled them to obtain these positions of authority on the back of irrational and wholly unrealistic promises made and undertakings given. These individuals likewise allowed for this tragedy to transpire last evening.

So where does that leave us?

The question that everyone needs to ask himself today is this: what part of this tragedy was caused by ME?

It will only be when WE understand that this tragedy is the sole result of quia peccavi nimis cogitatione, verbo et opere, which enabled these other individuals who, being afflicted with at least this one specific mental health illness to attain these positions of authority, then the largest part of the battle to reestablish order, not to mention sanity will have been won.

At this point, when it comes to pass, all that will be left is a mop up operations. And this mop up operation will entail nothing more than…

finding a cure for the mental illness that is progressive leftism, in our lifetime.

In other words:

CATHOLICISM

Making Too Many Wrong Mistakes

13 Friday Nov 2015

Posted by S. Armaticus in Synod of Filth

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

ABERRO AGENDA, aberro-sex agenda, AIDS, Ambiguity, Anal Cancer, anal fissures, Andrea Gagliarducci, anorectal traum, Big Gender, Card. Muller, Card. Tagle, Cardinal Burke, cardinal Walter Kasper, Catholic Church, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Eponymous Flower blog, Francis Effect, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Genderism, Giardia lamblia, Giuseppe Nardi, Gonorrhea, Great Cardinal, Hemorrhoids, heretical pope, Herpes simplex virus, hippies, HIV, Human immunodeficiency virus, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Just Call Me Jorge blog, Law of Unintended Consequences, Markus Günther, messeging, Microsporidia, Modernists, MondayVatican blog, MSM, narratives, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, Pagan Christians, pathological, Raymond Burke, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roberto de Mattei, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli blog, s "theological structuring", s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s optics, s Pope Francis, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, sustainability, Synod 2014, Synod of Filth, Synod Walkout Petition, Syphilis25, Team Bergoglio, The Radical Catholic blog, Thomism, Tradition, TransRational, Truth, United Nations, Unjust ruler, Vatican II, Viral hepatitis types B & C, Yogi Berra

Yogism Wrong Mistakes

Today we pick up where we left off in our last post titled You Can Observe A Lot Just By Watching (see here). The subject matter of that post was in effect, trying to IDENTIFY the financial considerations which could be behind the HIDDEN AGENDA of the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS. So seeing as how we didn’t find this EVIDENCE yesterday, today we are back looking for the “money trail”.

In the previous post, we tried to tie in two, what one would assume to be intrinsically related issues, i.e. “HEALING THE WOUNDS” of the CONTEMPORARY FAMILY and ARRESTING AND REVERSING the trend of “c”atholics leaving the Church. Our simple assumption was that if they are not in the Church, they:

1) can’t have their “wounds healed”,

and

2) can’t help cover the operating costs of the church, i.e. the “money trail“.

Given the above, and giving the bi-Synod organizers the benefit of the doubt that in fact the bi-Synod was about helping the CONTEMPORARY FAMILY and not just about a “a small portion of believers”, we observed that there MUST BE an ELEMENT in the bi-Synod AGENDA that will “attract” these CONTEMPORARY FAMILIES BACK to the Catholic Church. At minimum, to help with the finances. Yet this, what would appear on the surface to be a CRITICAL ELEMENT, was missing from the discussions.

Today we will take a closer look at this last issue, i.e. that the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS did NOT take FORMAL financial considerations into account in the bi-Synod AGENDA. The EVIDENCE for this assertion was the observation that it seemed strange that the bi-Synod, which was called to deal with problems faced by the “CONTEMPORARY” FAMILY would devolve into a synod whose main aim is to deal with the “problem of divorced and remarried who want to receive Communion, which relates to a small portion of believers”.

To explain this irrational (TRANSRATIONAL) observation, using the FIELD HOSPITAL metaphor, of how to heal someone in a FIELD HOSPITAL if that someone doesn’t come to the FIELD HOSPITAL, we once again employ our favorite HERETIC of days gone by, the Franciscan William of Ockham who observed that: numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.

With all things being equal, since the simplest explanation tends to be the right one, the obvious answer to the above conundrum appears to be the following: the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS don’t need to “attract” the CONTEMPORARY FAMILY back into the FIELD HOSPITAL.

Therefore, IF the AGENDA of the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS was NOT designed to “attract” the CONTEMPORARY FAMILY back into the FIELD HOSPITAL, THEN their stated AGENDA of HEALING the WOUNDS is NOT OBJECTIVELY TRUE.

This would imply that the second half or our assumption, i.e. the parallel issue of “attracting” the CONTEMPORARY FAMILY back to the FIELD HOSPITAL, so that the CONTEMPORARY FAMILY can help offset some of the expenses of operating that FIELD HOSPITAL, which would then support  the contributions made pursuant to Canon 1271 of the Code of Canon Law, must be at the ROOT of the HERETICAL CLERICALIST’S AGENDA. In other words, a HIDDEN AGENDA.

Therefore, if the above is in fact the case, the most likely place to start looking for an answer is by looking at the FUNDING MODEL of the German Catholic Church. By looking at the construction of the FUNDING MODEL, we might be able to identify one of the ROOT CAUSES driving the HERETICAL CLERICALIST’S HIDDEN AGENDAS.

Under a NORMAL CATHOLIC CHURCH FUNDING MODEL, where the Faithful support the Church institutions through ALMS GIVING (acts of charity) made during Mass, the Church needs the Faithful to come to Mass in order to collect the ALMS, which then go to pay the bills. However, the most important aspect of the Faithful attending Mass is that it is both a precept of the Church and Church law that Catholics must worship God on Sunday and Holy Days of Obligation by participating in the Holy Mass (see here). By participating at Holy Mass, for our purposes here, the Faithful come into contact with the MOST PERFECT form of prayer, which de facto must be the best REMEDY for the HEALING OF THE WOUNDS OF THE CONTEMPORARY FAMILY.

For argument’s sake, let’s say that the confirmation of this last STATEMENT is the near obsession of the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS with giving Communion to public sinners. Actually, to ALL SINNERS is probably more accurate!

As to the process itself, the above can be described as a POSITIVE FEEDBACK LOOP, or a process that “enhances or amplifies an effect by it having an influence on the process which gave rise to it”. (see here) What this means is that the more lapsed “c”atholics that can be drawn back to the Holy Mass in order to be “healed”, the more ALMS will be given to offset the operating costs of the institution that is the Church. When successfully “healed”, these returned “c”atholics will in turn motivate other lapsed “c”atholics to return to the Church and through this effect, the “healing”/ALMS giving dynamic gets amplified. On an aside, this mechanism has been very successful for 2000 years making the Catholic Church the OLDEST CONTINUOUSLY FUNCTIONING INSTITUTION IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF MAN. But I digress…

In the German Catholic Church FUNDING MODEL, one based on the KIRCHENSTEUER, or a church tax, this POSITIVE FEEDBACK LOOP breaks down. To be more precise, the relationship between the institutional Church and the attendance of the Faithful at Mass is broken, if not nonexistent. The reason is due to faulty design of the FUNDING MODEL itself. Allow me to explain.

The manner in which the German Church is funded, 70+% of revenue comes through a government collection scheme. The KIRCHENSTEUER itself is a withholding tax on paid income that the employers of the Faithful withhold monthly and pay directly to the German state revenue authorities, who then disburse it to the church. The church tax is only paid by members of the respective church. People who are not members of a church tax-collecting denomination do not have to pay it.

Tax itself is a small part of the overall tax bill. “In the example where a single person earning 50,000 euros may pay an average income-tax of 20%, thus 10,000 euros. The church tax is then an additional 8% (or 9%) of that 10,000 euros (800 or 900 euros) for a total of 10,800 or 10,900 euros in taxes”. (see here) Therefore, the actual KIRCHENSTEUER tax amounts to a €66 (€75) increase in withholding on the monthly income of the payee. Yet when taken as a whole, the take for the German Catholic Church is quite large. In 2013 net income from the KIRCHENSTEUER amounted to €5.5b (see here) and in 2014 it was over €5.6b. (see here and here)

Therefore, what we see from the above is that this KIRCHENSTEUER FUNDING MODEL effectively breaks down the NEED of the Faithful to go to Mass and give ALMS (funding) and the actual funding mechanism itself. What is CRITICAL under the KIRCHENSTEUER FUNDING MODEL is that the Faithful stay in the Church tax payee pool, regardless of whether they go to Mass or not. It is this divergence of INTERESTS, between the INTEREST’S of the Faithful (spiritual need to attend Mass) and the INTEREST’S of the German ecclesiastical authorities (materialistic need to keep people in the church tax pool), that is behind the “tide of apostasy”  observed in the German (Western European) Church. This is also the ROOT CAUSE of such incidents as bishops threatening excommunications for withdrawing from the KIRCHENSTEUER tax pool. (see here) More on this in a follow-up post.

For the purposes of today’s subject matter, what is critical to understand is that the institutional Church in Germany, i.e. HERETICAL CLERICALISTS does not need the Faithful in the pews in order to fund itself. The adoption of this faulty KIRCHENSTEUER FUNDING MODEL has broken down the PROPER Faithful/Church relationship. One area where this knock-on effect can be seen is in the empty churches. By breaking the bond between church funding and Mass attendance, the church authorities have lost contact with the Faithful and the Faithful lost contact with the church. This in turn has led to the “de-catechisation” of the German catholics while at the same time allowed the church authorities to neglect this “de-catechisation” of the German catholics problem, since it doesn’t have a direct impact on the Church’s revenue stream.

Another knock-on effect of the KIRCHENSTEUER on the German Episcopate can be observed in the German Episcopate’s actions when trying to address this empty churches issue.  What is obvious to all, is that the German Episcopate does not really know what the average German catholic is thinking since they have no contact with him. Therefore, the Episcopate is forced to rely on IMPERFECT INFORMATION (CORRUPTED) provided by “small groups” which are active within the Church, groups that for the most part have vested interests in particular agendas. These small but vocal “special interest” groups then CROWD OUT the average, normal “c”atholics. A good case in point is the multiple groups that have sprung up “around” the Church to promote the HOMO AGENDA, an agenda which appears to dominate the German, Austrian, Belgian and Swiss churches, while at the same time only affects a minuscule proportion of the Catholic and “c”atholic population.

Confirmation of the above CROWDING OUT effect, first from the physical churches (Mass attendance) and subsequently from the KIRCHENSTEUER payee pool, can be discerned from the recent Mathias von Gersdorf post were he writes: (see here)

A lot of people separate from their church probably not because they became atheists or non-religious people. They do not want to be simply associated with a particular church, to who they make monthly pay. They reject the rigid form of financing. They want to decide for themselves where and when they give money, “- says von Gersdorff. “Without a doubt, there are also many conservative Christians who do not want to pay church tax and leave the Church. Just as liberals want to decide themselves who they financially support “- we read further.

What the above implies is that even with a small monthly withholding, the Faithful who are separating from the Church are still going through the trouble to “formally declare their wish to leave the community to the state (not religious) authorities. With such a declaration, the obligation to pay church taxes ends. Some communities refuse to administer marriages and burials of (former) members who had declared to leave it”. While others are threatened with excommunication, might as well add.

So what we see is that the KIRCHENSTEUER has introduced a NEGATIVE FEEDBACK LOOP in place of the 2000 year old POSITIVE FEEDBACK LOOP that has served the Catholic Church very well and has made it the oldest formal organization in HUMAN HISTORY.

Let’s think about this for a second or two, shall we?

Other knock-on effects of this badly flawed German KIRCHENSTEUER FUNDING MODEL are not only the whimsical accommodation to special interest groups, but also to politicians. Since the Church depends on the state to collect the KIRCHENSTEUER, the German Episcopate is dependent on the politicians to render these services. In case they would want to collect the church tax themselves, they would still be dependent on the tax authorities to reveal taxation data of their members in order to calculate the contributions and prepayments owed. If the state would cut off the German Episcopate from this taxpayer data, the German Church and the second largest employer in German would collapse in a matter of months.

Concluding, what we observe in the above analysis is an explanation for several aspects of the HERETICAL CLERICALIST’S behavior at the bi-Synod.

First, the HERETICAL CLERICALIST’S need to focus on small, yet vocal “special interest” groups can be explained   by the fact that these groups are not only vocal, but politically active likewise. This is the case with respect to the HOMO LOBBY. Given that this blog has established as far back as the 18th of December 2014 (see here) that the HIDDEN AGENDA behind the calling of the bi-Synod was introduction of GENDER IDEOLOGY into Catholic moral doctrine and ecclesiastical law, the above analysis is just another piece of evidence supporting this HYPOTHESIS.

With respect to our observation that it would appear as if the CRITICAL ELEMENT of “attracting” the CONTEMPORARY FAMILY back to the Church in order to have their “wounds healed” is missing, the above analysis explains this quite well. By putting in place a FUNDING MODEL which divorces ALMS giving at Mass from the operational funding of the Church, the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS do not need to focus on the perennial problem of lack of attendance at Mass and empty churches.

With respect to our identification of the “money trail”, our analysis can clearly identify IT by taking into account the badly designed KIRCHENSTEUER FUNDING MODEL. We can clearly observe that it was the pandering to certain “special interest” group, i.e. the HOMO LOBBY which led to the calling of the bi-Synod process. This HOMO LOBBY was able to exert  this pressure on the German Episcopate and in turn, the German Bishops’ Conference and in turn, the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS and in turn, the CONTROL GROUP for two specific reasons, namely HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY thrown into their lobbying effort and the SUPPORT of a large part of the GERMAN POLITICAL CLASS, that can in turn exert pressure on the German Bishops through the latter’s dependence on the former for their funding needs.

And by extension, for their very survival.

And it is through continuously repeating these “wrong mistakes” that the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS from the German Bishops’ Conference brought the entire Roman Church to the brink of SCHISM at the culmination of the bi-Synod process.

Now all that is left is to see if Francis crosses this Rubicon.

 

 

 

You Can Observe A Lot Just By Watching

10 Tuesday Nov 2015

Posted by S. Armaticus in Synod of Bishops', Synod of Filth

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

ABERRO AGENDA, aberro-sex agenda, AIDS, Ambiguity, Anal Cancer, anal fissures, Andrea Gagliarducci, anorectal traum, Big Gender, Card. Muller, Card. Tagle, Cardinal Burke, cardinal Walter Kasper, Catholic Church, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Eponymous Flower blog, Francis Effect, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Genderism, Giardia lamblia, Giuseppe Nardi, Gonorrhea, Great Cardinal, Hemorrhoids, heretical pope, Herpes simplex virus, hippies, HIV, Human immunodeficiency virus, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Just Call Me Jorge blog, Law of Unintended Consequences, Markus Günther, messeging, Microsporidia, Modernists, MondayVatican blog, MSM, narratives, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, Pagan Christians, pathological, Raymond Burke, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roberto de Mattei, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli blog, s "theological structuring", s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s optics, s Pope Francis, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, sustainability, Synod 2014, Synod of Filth, Synod Walkout Petition, Syphilis25, Team Bergoglio, The Radical Catholic blog, Thomism, Tradition, TransRational, Truth, United Nations, Unjust ruler, Vatican II, Viral hepatitis types B & C, Yogi Berra

Logic Yogi Berra

Today we will talk about money. And “observe a lot by watching”. Here I would just like to mention that one of the selection criteria used in the assessing the soundness of HYPOTHESES in the Deus Ex Machina blog’s Peirce/Ockham pragmatic paradigm methodology (see here) is actually borrowed from the US Federal Bureau of Investigation. When the FBI analyze criminal racketeers i.e. for our purposes think “mafia club” or Team Bergoglio, the initial investigation begins with an analysis of the “money trail”. In our methodology, we translate this as following our Golden Rule, i.e.

He who has the Gold, makes the Rules.

But before we get to the meat of the matter and since at the end of the day, we are speaking about Vatican finances, I would just like to draw your attention to this yesterday’s Monday Vatican post (see here). As my regular readers know, Andrea Gagliarducci, the proprietor of the blog is a very good source of not only information (data points) but likewise what one can term “color” commentary. Since Mr Gagliarducci is a Vaticanista, with sources who represent various interests behind the Sacred Vatican Walls he has to write in a…. shall we say… a rather “enigmatic” style. In order to properly read Mr. Gagliarducci, one needs to be able to read between the lines, otherwise one will not fully appreciate the value of the information (data points) and “color” commentary that is being presented. Therefore, when reading his post titled Vatileaks: the Italian connection, what one should pay attention to is the following information “flow” (data points):

Benedict initiated the CLEAN-UP of Vatican finances=> CLEAN-UP entailed removing CORRUPT CLERICS from CURIA => Francis inherited this CLEAN-UP from Benedict => Francis let SAME CORRUPT CLERICS back into the Curia=> presently, the CORRUPT CLERICS that Francis let back into the Curia are WAGING A WAR on Card. Pell who is responsible for Vatican finances => the reason why Francis let those CORRUPT CLERICS back in is that they were the ONES RESPONSIBLE FOR GETTING FRANCIS ELECTED.

Now please go back and reread the post and remember: “You can observe a lot by watching”.

And now back to the Golden Rule.

The key data points that one should extract from the Gagliarducci text is the following: Francis doesn’t really care about Vatican finances per se, implying that financial considerations are not a large component of the FRANCIS’ TRUE AGENDA.

As to the CONTROL GROUP of the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS and how they conform to the Golden Rule test, we will analyze below. The logical place to start is to recap what we have established thus far in our prior two posts. What we have established is the following:

      • Change in doctrine w/r/t INTRINSICALLY DISORDERED sexual behaviour was HIDDEN AGENDA of bi-Synod,
      • Three identified special interests promoting HIDDEN AGENDA were identified : HOMO LOBBY, HERETICAL CLERICALISTS, SECRETARIAT (Francis)
      • The HIDDEN AGENDA was an END in itself for the HOMO LOBBY,
      • The HIDDEN AGENDA was a MEANS TO AN END for the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS,
      • The HIDDEN AGENDA was a MEANS TO AN END for SECRETARIAT (FRANCIS)
      • The HIDDEN AGENDA had a higher priority (more important to force through) for SECRETARIAT than for the CLERICAL HERETICS.

So today, we will test to see the manner in which the HIDDEN AGENDA of the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS is driven by financial considerations, i.e. our GOLDEN RULE.

The natural place to start is with the observation (HYPOTHESIS) that the largest problem by far that is faced by the German Catholic Church and by extension, the CLERICAL HERETICS and then by extension the CONTROL GROUP who controls the German Episcopate is the wholesale disintegration of the German Church membership. (see here) The DISINTEGRATION of the German Church membership directly affects the revenue collected under the KIRCHENSTEUER. Since the KIRCHENSTEUER is the primary source of funding for the Catholic Church, it is only logical that the PRIORITY of the German Episcopate, i.e. CONTROL GROUP would be to take actions to not only stop this DEGENERATIVE PROCESS but try to reverse this DELETERIOUS TREND.

That which is written above, is an OBJECTIVELY TRUE statement of reality.

Furthermore and to be more precise, the DISINTEGRATION of Church membership has a causal relationship (positive correlation) with the KIRCHENSTEUER tax base. In other words, the lower the Church membership, the lower the proceeds from the KIRCHENSTEUER. The DISINTEGRATION of the KIRCHENSTEUER tax base is in large part the result of the DISINTEGRATION of the FAMILY, which is the FUNDAMENTAL BUILDING BLOCK of the German Catholic Church, the Universal Catholic Church and society in general.

Therefore, a bi-Synod that was called at the initiative of the German Episcopate, which was called to deal with the situation faced by the “CONTEMPORARY FAMILY”, MUST BE UNDERSTOOD TO HAVE an IMPLICIT AGENDA to bring the lapsed “c”atholics back into the pews and by extension into the Kirchensteuer payee pool.

Therefore, in order to address the problem of the “CONTEMPORARY FAMILY”, the bi-Synod would de facto need to address the parallel problem of the lapsed “c”atholics leaving the Church. Addressing simultaneously these two most pressing concerns, one can state these as follows:

Bring the “CONTEMPORARY FAMILY” into the Francis FIELD HOSPITAL to administer to its “wounds”

and

Arrest if not reverse the debilitating trend of “c”atholics leaving that same FIELD HOSPITAL that is at the ROOT of the FIELD HOSPITAL’S financial problems.

Logical, yes?

As to the fact behind why the German Episcopate asked Francis to call the bi-Synod, here is what we know about why the bi-Synod was called in the first place. On the MondayVatican blog from the 10th of March 2014, right after the consistory, the following passage appears: (emphasis added)

Cardinal Walter Kasper has called for a «Council-like solution» to the issue in his presentation during the consistory on the family. This «Council-like solution» is a reference to the approach taken by the Second Vatican Council to issues like religious freedom and ecumenism. i.e., not to change the tradition, but to create new openings. The issue now is that of a change of paradigm regarding the doctrine for the divorced and remarried. (see here)

Further on, in the same post we read:

… Ultimately, Kasper recognized that the problem of divorced and remarried who want to receive communion relates to a small portion of believers. And the theme of the divorced and remarried is addressed only in the fifth section of the speech. But it is nevertheless the real focus. And the text reaches this focal point through a series of opaque, almost misleading, statements.

From the above, it is evident that our initial statement, namely:

Therefore, a bi-Synod that was called at the initiative of the German Episcopate, which was called to deal with the situation faced by the “CONTEMPORARY FAMILY”, MUST BE UNDERSTOOD TO HAVE an IMPLICIT AGENDA to bring back the lapsed “c”atholics back into the pews and by extension into the KIRCHENSTEUER payee pool.

The above IS NOT AN OBJECTIVELY TRUE STATEMENT.

From the EVIDENCE above, one can infer that the TRUE AGENDA of the bi-Synod process, as seen by the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS had very little, if anything to do with “attracting” the lapsed “c”atholics back into the FIELD HOSPITAL to either administer to their WOUNDS or to SHORE UP that FIELD HOSPITAL’S KIRCHENSTEUER tax base.

On a more general note, what is most striking about the above observation is that one could say that the DISINTEGRATION of Catholic Church as an institution, caused by the DISINTEGRATION of the FAMILY is a wider phenomenon. This is also the case in the other parts of the developed world (i.e. the US, UK, Canada and Australia) and large parts of the third world, (i.e. Central and South America) that possess (or possessed) large Catholic populations. The DISINTEGRATION of the world-wide Catholic population directly impacts not only the REVENUE BASE of the national churches but also directly impact the universal church. The proceeds from this source of income is what then pass through to the Vatican and are known as contributions made pursuant to Canon 1271 of the Code of Canon Law.(see here)

Therefore, it is with utter amazement that Francis would call a bi-Synod of the Catholic Church, fly in 300 delegates to Rome from all over the world, TWICE and not have this CRITICAL issue addressed in the bi-Synod’s AGENDA.

Concluding, one is left with the following observation.

IF calling the bi-Synod to address a “small portion of believers” that constitute the “divorced and remarried” is intended to address the issue of the problems faced by the “CONTEMPORARY FAMILY”,

THEN the calling of this bi-Synod IN NO WAY can be viewed as a gathering whose aim was to address issues faced by the “CONTEMPORARY FAMILY”.

The opposite side of this argument is the following: if Francis IN FACT called the bi-Synod to address the issues faced by the “CONTEMPORARY FAMILY“, then the bi-Synod would by default have to address the issue ARRESTING AND REVERSING the trend of “c”atholics leaving the Church, which would by default address the issue of the DISINTEGRATION of the Universal Church’s REVENUE BASE.

Using figurative language, one can say the following: IF they don’t come to your FIELD HOSPITAL, THEN the FIELD HOSPITAL can’t help them.

Therefore, it is plainly evident that financial considerations constituted AT MOST a negligible role in the TRUE AGENDA behind the calling for the bi-Synod on the part of the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS.

As for the ASSUMPTION to our HYPOTHESIS that financial considerations played a role behind the calling of the bi-Synod’s by Francis at the behest of the German Episcopate, one can say that Ockham’s razor claims another victim.

Exploding Bombs with Francis’ Fingerprints All Over Them

04 Wednesday Nov 2015

Posted by S. Armaticus in Synod of Filth

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

ABERRO AGENDA, aberro-sex agenda, AIDS, Ambiguity, Anal Cancer, anal fissures, Andrea Gagliarducci, anorectal traum, Big Gender, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Bishop Bernard Fellay, Card. Muller, Card. Tagle, Cardinal Burke, cardinal Walter Kasper, Catholic Church, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Eponymous Flower blog, Francis Effect, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Genderism, Gianluigi Nuzzi, Giardia lamblia, Giuseppe Nardi, Gonorrhea, Great Cardinal, Hemorrhoids, heretical pope, Herpes simplex virus, hippies, HIV, Human immunodeficiency virus, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Just Call Me Jorge blog, Law of Unintended Consequences, Markus Günther, messeging, Microsporidia, Modernists, MondayVatican blog, MSM, narratives, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, Pagan Christians, pathological, Raymond Burke, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roberto de Mattei, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli blog, s "theological structuring", s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s optics, s Pope Francis, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, sustainability, Synod 2014, Synod of Filth, Synod Walkout Petition, Syphilis25, Team Bergoglio, The Radical Catholic blog, Thomism, Tradition, TransRational, Truth, United Nations, Unjust ruler, Vatican II, Viral hepatitis types B & C

Francesca

Yesterday we left off our running analysis of the bi-Synods providing a “most likely” explanation for why Francis (through the Secretariatt) submitted the Instrumentum Laboris as the proposed Final Relatio to be voted on by the Synod Fathers, knowing that it would be defeated.

Here is how we summarized the situation in the Synod Hall on the morning of the 22nd of October 2015:

Francis’ actions of submitting the Instrumentum Laboris in the last-minute, in Italian only to the Synod Fathers, must be viewed as follows:

FRANCIS, was attempting to provoke the Synod Fathers into rejecting his proposed FINAL RELATIO, intended on provoking a FAILED SYNOD and create an environment which would lead to a SCHISM.

The OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE and our ANALYSIS demonstrated that the MOST LIKELY reason behind Francis’ attempt to engineer a FAILED SYNOD was to implement a plan first set out by the Heretical Clericalist Karl Rahner S.J. which called for a dismantling of the Europeanized and Romanized Catholic Church and replacing it with a “WORLD CHURCH”.

In other words, what Francis intends is the DISMANTLE the CHURCH AS OUR LORD FOUNDED IT, i.e. hierarchical and centered in Rome and replace it with a decentralized “WORLD CHURCH” which has dicastories in Rome, Bogota and some undisclosed German city. And the basis for this game plan is that it would be in keeping with “the meaning of Vatican II and aggiornamento”.

This written above sounds pretty bizarre, yet the OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, when run through our Peirce/Ockham pragmatic methodology (see here) suggests that it is the HYPOTHESIS best meets the “numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate” test.

Given that our MODEL has produced a HYPOTHESIS that on the surface appears to be RADICAL, today we will see if we can identify another observation, unrelated to and independent of what transpired during the bi-Synodal, which can confirm what we have set out above.

And it just so happens that we have another EVENT unfolding presently in Rome which we can run through our MODEL and see if it produces any corroborating evidence. This EVENT is the scheduled release of two books. Here is how this release is being billed by Reuters: (see here)

Two new books by Italian journalists depict a Vatican plagued by mismanagement, greed, cronyism and corruption and where Pope Francis still faces stiff resistance from the old guard to his reform agenda.

When reading the above, one is struck by the phrase “Pope Francis still faces stiff resistance from the old guard”. The reason that this phrase doesn’t make sense is that the entire Francis papacy is “engineered” to bring back the “old guard”, or rather the “guard” that Benedict replaced with the “new guard”. Given this intro, it is time to put on our investigate journalist hats and try to determine as to what are the OBJECTIVE FACTS.

Starting with the fact that one of the books is written by none other than Gianluigi Nuzzi, a name that we are familiar with since he is the journalist that broke the original Vatican Leaks scandal that started the ball rolling with respect to the Benedict abdication, we can try to see if there is any information relating to any of the individuals that were his sources at the time. And lo and behold, one of this self admitted sources, one Francesca Chaouqui has been in the news lately.

Turns out that  Francesca Chaouqui and Monsignor Lucio Angel Vallejo Balda were arrested over the weekend by the Vatican for disclosing confidential information.

Given the above, we have another “fog of war lifting” moment, and we have a clearer picture of what is in fact transpiring. So first we set out some background.

The logical place to start is at the end of the 2005 Conclave that elected Benedict XVI to the See of St. Peter. The distant runner-up was one Jorge Bergoglio, Archbishop of Buenos Aires. Now Archbishop Bergoglio appeared to not be a good loser, since after this conclave, it is reported that he set up an information network (i.e. spies) who were keeping him in the loop as to what was transpiring inside the Sacred Vatican Walls on a regular basis. Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio had first hand information as to the who, what and where of the VatiLeaks scandal as it was playing itself out. ( I will post the link to the source as soon as I find it)

Fast forward to the 2013 Conclave that elected Francis, one of the first things Francis began doing is putting his people into “sensitive” positions at the various dicastories. Among some to the appointments were individual such as our friend Archbishop José Rodríguez “Call me Pepe” Carballo as the Secretary of the Congregation of the Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. (see here) At the Congregation of Divine Worship, Francis replace the entire Ratzingerian staff before he appointed Cardinal Sarah as the Prefect. (see here)

And the situation was very similar with the second-in-command at the Prefecture for the Economic Affairs of the Holy See, where Monsignor Lucio Angel Vallejo Balda’s career was starting to “leapfrog” over his direct superior, Cardinal Giuseppe Versaldi, who – among other things – bears the disadvantage of being part of the declining team of cardinal secretary of state Tarcisio Bertone, after Francis ascended to the papacy.

To understand the inordinate amount of confidence that Francis had in Msgr. Vallejo Balda, here is the relevent text from Sandro Magister: (emphasis added)

And the proof is in the dominant role that the papal chirograph instituting the commission assigns to Monsignor Vallejo Balda: not only that of its secretary, but also that of “coordinator who has powers of delegation and acts in the name and on behalf of the commission in the collection of documents, data, and information necessary to the performance of its institutional functions.”

One can even infer that the pope has also entrusted to Vallejo Balda the task of selecting and recruiting the members of the commission. This can be deduced from the letter with which he announced the appointment to each of them: from the way in which he annotated their resumes, referring (in rather jumbled Italian) to his personal meetings with one or the other.

Folks, we are not dealing here with a cleric who made a good first impression on a new pontiff, a new pontiff who had moved from Buenos Aires 5 months earlier and is trying to figure out who is who.

As to one of the tasks that Francis entrusted to Vallejo Balda was “the selecting and recruiting of members of the commission”, and one of Vallejo Balda’s appointments was none other than the notorious Francesca Immacolata Chaouqui.

Here is how Magister describes Mrs.Chaouqui.

The Vatican secretariat of state had accurate information about her a number of months before her appointment, last July 18, as a member of the commission for the reorganization of the financial-administrative offices of the Holy See, with the ability to access all of the most confidential documents.

What was known at this time was as follows:

One would have gathered from this, among other things, that Francesca Chaouqui has a direct connection with Gianluigi Nuzzi, the journalist who received and published the documents stolen from Benedict XVI by his unfaithful butler, and is an assiduous informer of the website dagospia.com, the source most widely followed in Italy for gossip and slander on the Vatican.

And as Magister writes, suppose Francis didn’t know who Francesca Immacolata Chaouqui was, who convinced Francis of her appiontment? Magister writes:

The most likely hypothesis leads back to Monsignor Lucio Ángel Vallejo Balda, secretary of the prefecture for the economic affairs of the Holy See and since July 18 also secretary and factotum of the newly created commission of which Francesca Chaouqui is a member.

Given the above, what we see is Francis, acting through a very trusted cleric who is the Secretary of Prefecture of the Economy, creating a commission and appointing a notorious individual who is known to leak classified information to anti-Catholic media, simultaneously giving the known leaker access “with the ability to access all of the most confidential documents.”

Fast forward to February 2014, it was announced that Francis gave the portfolio of the newly created Secretariat for the Economy to Cardinal Pell. (see here) The newly created Secretariat of the Economy inherits the Prefecture of the Economy along with its second in command, the Secretary of the Prefecture of the Economy and Francis confidant Monsignor Lucio Angel Vallejo Balda.

Fast forward to today, by a stroke of coincidence, maybe even with a little nudge from our local “god of surprises”, the journalist whose source was the Vallejo Balda appointed  Francesca Chaouqui, Gianluigi Nuzzi is set to release a book based on information on which he was sitting on for two years.

So what are we left with?

What we are left with is a classical “ticking bomb” with Cardinal Pell, Francis arch nemesis sitting on top of the whole SHA-BANG.

Concluding this post, question:

Will anyone be surprised that the narrative of these two books that will be release later today, will have a good Francis, bishop of Rome and the church of the poor,  fighting the good fight against the “old guard” who are trying to destabilize this pontificate so they can keep their power, privilege and standard of living that they are accustomed to?

OK It was a rhetorical question.

Summa summarum. How does our Peirce/Ockham MODEL explain the above, given that the threshold of testing any HYPOTHESIS is that with all things being equal, the simplest explanations tend to be the right ones?

The answer is actually easy to discern. Our OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS indicates that Francis, trying to dismantle the Church as OUR LORD founded it, and bring in a WORLD CHURCH in line with the “new springtime of the spirit of Vatican II”, i.e. the Aggiornomento is putting in place the infamous “Vatican II ticking bombs”, whose purpose is to destabilize the foundational elements of the Catholic Faith, in accordance with the game plan set out by the HERETICAL CLERICALIST Karl Rahner S.J. (see here)

We have identified and analyzed this mechanism at work at the bi-Synods. (see here and here and here) We have also provided anecdotal evidence from clerics on the peripheries in our post The Cruelest “god” of All. (see here) We now see this mechanism at work in the Nuzzi book and the Balda and Chaouqui arrests.

What we also see is the sloppiness of Francis’ scheming. During the Stealth Sex Synod™ of 2015, whereby with the compromise reached between the Heretical Clericalists and the Catholic Synod Fathers, Francis (Secretariat) was forced to show his intent, i.e. either force through the unacceptable Instrumentum Laboris as the Final Relatio or possible SCHISM. Now in this present situation, we  note that the Francis appointment of the notorious Chaouqui who was known to leak information to the journalist Nuzzi, and over the protests of clerics from the Vatican Secretariat of State, (see here) Francis has again LEFT HIS FINGERPRINTS all over the “ticking bomb” that will be exploded later today.

However, it would appear that the Law of Unintended Consequences, if not the real “God of surprises” might have intervened and something must have gone horribly wrong. Over the past weekend, news broke that Francesca Chaouqui and Monsignor Lucio Angel Vallejo Balda were arrested on suspicion of leaking confidential documents. This would indicate that people at the Secretariat of the Economy were watching these two Friends of Francis and called in the Swiss Guard at the appropriate time. Knowing that these two are Francis’ associates, this action was nothing short of the Curia sending a message to Francis. But more on this in a future post.

Back to our subject matter at hand and our running analysis, the significance of the above is that it provides us with another supporting piece of EVIDENCE regarding Francis’ attempt at the destruction of the Church, EVIDENCE that is independent and unrelated to the evidence obtained from analyzing the bi-Synods.

Stay tuned sports fans. It’s getting interesting…

The Vatican’s Suicide Bomber Problem

03 Tuesday Nov 2015

Posted by S. Armaticus in Synod of Filth

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

ABERRO AGENDA, aberro-sex agenda, AIDS, Ambiguity, Anal Cancer, anal fissures, Andrea Gagliarducci, anorectal traum, Big Gender, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Bishop Bernard Fellay, Card. Muller, Card. Tagle, Cardinal Burke, cardinal Walter Kasper, Catholic Church, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Eponymous Flower blog, Francis Effect, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Genderism, Giardia lamblia, Giuseppe Nardi, Gonorrhea, Great Cardinal, Hemorrhoids, heretical pope, Herpes simplex virus, hippies, HIV, Human immunodeficiency virus, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Just Call Me Jorge blog, Law of Unintended Consequences, Markus Günther, messeging, Microsporidia, Modernists, MondayVatican blog, MSM, narratives, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, Pagan Christians, pathological, Raymond Burke, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roberto de Mattei, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli blog, s "theological structuring", s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s optics, s Pope Francis, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, sustainability, Synod 2014, Synod of Filth, Synod Walkout Petition, Syphilis25, Team Bergoglio, The Radical Catholic blog, Thomism, Tradition, TransRational, Truth, United Nations, Unjust ruler, Vatican II, Viral hepatitis types B & C

Suicide Bombers
Yesterday we left off our analysis of the Heretical Clericalist group that is one of the TRIPARTITE represented at the bi-Synods. We focuses on the designated leader and key decision maker, Cardinal Walter Kasper and tried to gauge his personal TRUE AGENDA in the promotion of the GENDER IDEOPLOGY onto Catholic moral doctrine and ecclesiastical law by the German Bishops’ Conference leadership.

To quickly summarize what we ascertained, it is this:

Since the entire SYNOD CRISIS that came to light on the 22nd of October was in fact “resolved” within the Circulus Germanicus, and that three of the four main players were German theologians, with the fourth being a German (Ost-deutsche) diplomat, we posited that at its root, this bi-synod process was nothing more than a “theological” disagreement between two German theological schools of thought. Both schools are grounded in the Nouvelle Théologie neo-Modernists school branch developed by the Heretical Clericalist Karl Rahner S.J.

Here is how we described Cd. Kaspers role in this affair: (emphasis added)

Which brings us back to Cardinal Kasper. What we see is in essence a figure who spent his whole life promoting a theological/philosophical school of thought that time had passed by. He knows that Rahnerism has passed its due date, which is why he is so terrified of a Schism. In other words, he wants to hedge his bets, unlike that other Modernist dimwhit in white. But I digress… Instead of moving on with the zeitgemäß of the times, Kasper is trying to keep the Rahnerist hope alive. And he is doing it with sheer will.

This is where we pick up today.

The present day theological debate which is at the root of the bi-Synod and specifically the SYNOD CRISIS is in essence one between the hard-line Rahnerists and what can be termed a reformed Rahnerist fellow traveler. The hard-line Rahnerist, Cardinal Kasper is the contemporary “keeper of the IDEOLOGICAL Rahnerist flame”. Benedict XVI in turn, is the former Rahner contemporary (see here) whose criticism of Rahnerism and the Second Vatican Council over the years, has earned him an irrational hatred from the Rahnerist hardliners in general and from the hotbed of contemporary Rahnerism, which is the German Bishops’ Conference.

On an aside, we have dealt with Rahner and the Rahnerist network in two posts titled Dei Power Ball (see here) and The Network (see here).

Back to the subject at hand. To illustrate the emotional investment that the Rahnerists who control the German Bishops’ Conference have in hating Benedict, a story related by Michael Davies helps explain:

MD: Yes. He [Kasper] and his fellow German, Lehmann, were made Cardinals. You see there is no chance of Cardinal Ratzinger being made Pope. The job of Kasper and Lehmann is to go to the conclave and stop anyone Ratzinger supports from being made Pope. (see here)

Which brings us to the issue of how Rahner figures into the big picture with respect to the present decisions made by both the Heretical Clericalists and the Secretariat.

If you recall dear reader, from our post titled The Real Jorge Bergoglio? (see here), we noted the following passage pertaining to the situation at the Argentinian seminaries during the time that the young Mr Jorge Bergoglio was in attendance:

Take Bergoglio, for example. His studies amount to nothing substantial. The Jesuits over here have no professors worthy of the name, the subjects were tossed about in an un-scholarly manner, the philosophy would never be properly taught (and, it would only be crassly digested Suárez in the best of cases). The theology seats had been all but captured by badly trained Jesuits who were prone to repeat the last of Teilhard’s work, or Rahner’s, when not divulging the Liberation Theology’s tenets (the Nouvelle Theologie never made it over here, few people could read French or German, and St. Thomas was all but perfectly ignored).

Given the above, one would not be taking a large leap by inferring that the young Bergoglio was not only introduced to Rahner, but likewise overexposed to the German Heretical Clericalist’s work. Remember, there is a lot of it out there.

So let us see if we can find any evidence that connects Francis and the Rahnerists.

First connection comes from the Kasper groups lineage. From our The Network post, the following is written:

Fifty years after Vatican II, Rahner’s shadow is hovering once again over the Catholic Church, making his voice heard in the pro-homosexual positions of some of his followers, younger than Lehmann and Kasper, like Cardinal Archbishop of Munich, Reinhard Marx and Archbishop of Chieti, Bruno Forte.

Furthermore, we have been able to gain an insight into the mindset of Francis from one of his closest co-workers and his personal ghost writer, the Titular Bishop of Tiberunia, Archbishop Victor Manuel “the kissing expert” Fernandez. We profiled the Archbishop in our post titled The Loose Canon, where he gave the following answer to the question of whether Francis can live away from the Vatican: (see here – emphasis added)

Would it be possible to have a pope without Vatican or away from the Vatican?

“The Roman Curia is not an essential structure. The pope could even go and live away from Rome, have a dicastery in Rome and another one in Bogota, and perhaps link-up by teleconference with liturgical experts that live in Germany. Gathered around the pope, in a theological sense, is the College of Bishops in order to serve the people.”

I did not appreciate the “fuller” implications of this answer during that time. But when I started to look at the decision tree diagram, and looking for evidence to support the HYPOTHESIS that Francis is in fact “trying to blow up the Vatican”, i.e. trying to destroy the Church as Our Lord founded it, this piece of the puzzle came into place.

The notion that Francis can “live away from Rome” and teleconference with theology experts “liturgical experts that live in Germany” is pure and unadulterated Rahnerism.

Allow me to explain.

One of Rahner’s much cited theories is about the development of the post-conciliar Church. In this respect, Rahner is definitely in the Bologna School camp and a forefather of the “hermeneutic of discontinuity” paradigm. Here is now he sees the post-conciliar Church developing: (see here – emphasis added)

In addition to the lingering effects of his work during Vatican II on the post-conciliar Church, Rahner would continue to make contributions to the Church through his ideas and writings. In 1979 Rahner wrote an essay in which he discussed the lasting effects of Vatican II and its newly recognized role as a world church. In his essay Rahner divided church history into three periods. The first period was “that short period of Jewish Christianity (A.D. 30-49) when Christianity was proclaimed within one culture only: Israel” (McCarthy, 64). The second period was a period in which the gospel “was proclaimed not in Jewish culture but in the Roman-Hellenistic culture in European and, eventually North American culture and civilization. Christianity and western culture were goods exported to the cultures of Africa, Latin America, India, and the Orient” (McCarthy, 64). Finally, the third period emerged with the beginning of Vatican II when the “church appeared for the first time as a world church in a fully official way. The church had found ways to formulate and incarnate the gospel within the traditions and customs of each culture” (McCarthy, 64).

And then here is how this summary of this seminal Rahner essay ends:

Rahner said that the signs of this change were obvious. He pointed out that the council had “brought together indigenous representatives of all the world’s countries and cultures; it advocated the vernacular in the liturgy; it highlighted the authority of bishops in their dioceses; it recognized the autonomy and independence of regional or national churches; it expressed an opening to the world and historical consciousness; it made the first truly positive statements about other religions; and it produced the document on religious liberty” (McCarthy, 64-65). Rahner concluded his essay, however, with a warning. Despite the changes that had already been brought about in the Church, Rahner believed that the church still had many steps to take in becoming de-Europeanized and de-Romanized. He felt that if the Church did not take these steps “it would remain a western church and, in the final analysis, betray the meaning of Vatican II and aggiornamento” (McCarthy, 65).

Concluding, what we see is in the above text is in essence a road map of the Francis pontificate. Just in this one paragraph, we see the mainstays of what we call the Buenos Aires School, i.e. finding “ways to formulate and incarnate the gospel within the traditions and customs of each culture”; bringing “together indigenous representatives of all the world’s countries and cultures”; “advocated the vernacular in the liturgy; highlighted the authority of bishops in their dioceses; recognized the autonomy and independence of regional or national churches; expressed an opening to the world; historical consciousness and positive statements about other religions” and right down to the “pro-homosexual positions of some of his followers, younger than Lehmann and Kasper, like Cardinal Archbishop of Munich, Reinhard Marx and Archbishop of Chieti, Bruno Forte”.

Sound familiar?

But that is not the scary part. The scary part is this:

Rahner believed that the church still had many steps to take in becoming de-Europeanized and de-Romanized. He felt that if the Church did not take these steps “it would remain a western church and, in the final analysis, betray the meaning of Vatican II and aggiornamento”

And if there is one thread that runs consistently and constantly through the Francis pontificate, it is the de-Romanisizing and de-Europeanizing of the Roman Catholic Church.

But what is even scarier, is this: if the decision tree diagram and analysis in our present post titled Kasper’s Triumph Of The Will is correct, the implications are as follows:

while the hardline Rahnerist went and cut a deal with the Catholic Synod Fathers and Cardinal Muller in order to NOT PRECIPITATE A SCHISM,

Francis’ actions of submitting the Instrumentum Laboris in the last-minute, in Italian only to the Synod Fathers, must be viewed as follows:

FRANCIS, was attempting to provoke the Synod Fathers into rejecting his proposed FINAL RELATIO, intended on provoking a FAILED SYNOD and create an environment which would lead to a SCHISM.

In other words…

we have a SUICIDE BOMBER Problem in the VATICAN!

Next Bishop Resists – Bishop Athanatius Schneider

03 Tuesday Nov 2015

Posted by S. Armaticus in Synod of Bishops'

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

ABERRO AGENDA, aberro-sex agenda, AIDS, Ambiguity, Anal Cancer, anal fissures, Andrea Gagliarducci, anorectal traum, Big Gender, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Bishop Bernard Fellay, Card. Muller, Card. Tagle, Cardinal Burke, cardinal Walter Kasper, Catholic Church, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Eponymous Flower blog, Francis Effect, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Genderism, Giardia lamblia, Giuseppe Nardi, Gonorrhea, Great Cardinal, Hemorrhoids, heretical pope, Herpes simplex virus, hippies, HIV, Human immunodeficiency virus, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Just Call Me Jorge blog, Law of Unintended Consequences, Markus Günther, messeging, Microsporidia, Modernists, MondayVatican blog, MSM, narratives, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, Pagan Christians, pathological, Raymond Burke, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roberto de Mattei, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli blog, s "theological structuring", s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s optics, s Pope Francis, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, sustainability, Synod 2014, Synod of Filth, Synod Walkout Petition, Syphilis25, Team Bergoglio, The Radical Catholic blog, Thomism, Tradition, TransRational, Truth, United Nations, Unjust ruler, Vatican II, Viral hepatitis types B & C

Bishop Schneider

Today we take a short break from our running analysis of the two Eponymous Flower post (see here and here) that we have been “un-packing” since the first one appeared. The reason is due to a recent EXCLUSIVE letter that the very excellent blog Rorate Caeli received from Bishop Athanasius Schneider pertaining to the Synod of Bishops that just concluded. (see original here)

The reason that I am reproducing this text, which reaffirms Catholic doctrine, is that it is the second text that has appeared recently, after the letter to the Pope by Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X. (see here) The significance of the Bp. Schneider text is that it comes from bishop in good standing with the Novus Ordo sect that is presently occupying the Vatican.

Furthermore, it clearly states that Catholic doctrine has not changed, while pointing to the problematic sections which were written with what the Deus Ex Machina blog termed: the “hermeneutic of ambiguity”.  By introducing this “hermeneutic of ambiguity” into the Final Relatio, the end effect that is sought is to create chaos by pitting one bishop against another bishop. Using the ambiguous language, the Heretical Clericalsists will try to brow beat the Faithful Catholic Bishops to not JUDGE them, since they now will claim that that which they have been doing all along, they are doing it licitly now.

Therefore, the significance of the Bishop Schneider letter is in fact a warning to any bishop who attempts to use the Final Relatio as an excuse to perform ministerial acts which by definition remain ILLICIT, but are likewise HERETICAL.

Here is the text which I am re-producing…

FOR THE RECORD

 

RORATE EXCLUSIVE: Bishop Athanasius Schneider reaction to Synod

Door to communion for divorced & remarried officially kicked open

His Excellency Bishop Athanasius Schneider, one of the most visible prelates working on the restoration of the traditional Latin Mass and faith, has penned a nearly 5,000-word response to the Synod exclusively for our readers. Anyone may reproduce or link to this article, but all must reference Rorate Caeli as the source. 

We want to express our heartfelt gratitude to His Excellency for taking the time to analyze and express his views on one of the most critical events in Church history — one that he too sees as a “back door” to Holy Communion for adulterers, a rejection of Christ’s teaching and a Final Report full of “time bombs.”

The the coming days, we will also publish an interview with His Excellency, on a wide range of topics. For now, we bring you this important work, exclusively for our readers. 

A back door to a neo-mosaic practice in the Final Report of the Synod

The XIV General Assembly of the Synod of the Bishops (October 4 – 25, 2015), which was dedicated to the theme of “The Vocation and Mission of the Family in the Church and Contemporary World”, issued a Final Report with some pastoral proposals submitted to the discernment of the Pope. The document itself is only of an advisory nature and does not possess a formal magisterial value.

Yet during the Synod, there appeared those real new disciples of Moses and the new Pharisees, who in the numbers 84-86 of the Final Report opened a back door or looming time bombs for the admittance of divorced and remarried to Holy Communion. At the same time those bishops who intrepidly defended “the Church’s own fidelity to Christ and to His truth” (Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation, Familiaris Consortio, 84) were in some media reports unjustly labeled as Pharisees.

The new disciples of Moses and the new Pharisees during the last two Assemblies of the Synod (2014 and 2014) masked their practical deny of the indissolubility of marriage and of a suspension of the Sixth Commandment on a case-by-case basis under the guise of the concept of mercy, using expressions such as: “way of discernment,” “accompaniment”, “orientations of the bishop,” “dialogue with the priest,” “forum internum,” “a more fuller integration into the life of the Church,” a possible suppression of imputability regarding the cohabitation in irregular unions (cf. Final Report, nn. 84-86).

This text section in the Final Report contains indeed a trace of a neo-mosaic practice of divorce, even though the redactors skillfully and, in a cunning manner, avoided any direct change of the doctrine of the Church. Therefore, all parties, both the promotors of the so-called “Kasper agenda” and their opponents, are apparently satisfied stating: “All is OK. The Synod did not change the doctrine.” Yet, such a perception is quite naive, because it ignores the back door and the pending time bombs in the abovementioned text section which becomes manifest by a careful examination of the text by its internal interpretive criteria. 

Even when speaking of a “way of discernment” there is talk of “repentance” (Final Report, n. 85), there remains nevertheless a great deal of ambiguity. In fact, according to the reiterated affirmations of Cardinal Kasper and like-minded churchmen, such a repentance concerns the past sins against the spouse of the first valid marriage and the repentance of the divorced indeed may not refer to the acts of their marital cohabitation with the new civilly married partner.

The assurance of the text in the numbers 85 and 86 of the Final Report that such a discernment has to be made according to the teaching of the Church and in a correct judgement remains nevertheless ambiguous. Indeed, Cardinal Kasper and like-minded clerics emphatically and repeatedly assured that the admittance of the divorced and civilly remarried to Holy Communion will not touch the dogma of the indissolubility and of the sacramentality of marriage, and that a judgement in the conscience in that case has to be considered as being correct even when the divorced and remarried continue to cohabitate in a marital manner, and that they should not be required to live in complete continence as brother and sister.

In quoting the famous number 84 of the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio of Pope John Paul II in number 85 of the Final Report, the redactors censured the text, cutting out the following decisive formulation: “The way to the Eucharist can only be granted to those who take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples”.

This practice of the Church is based on Divine Revelation of the Word of God: Written and transmitted through Tradition. This practice of the Church is an expression of the uninterrupted Tradition since the Apostles and, thus, remains unchangeable for all times. Already Saint Augustine affirmed: “Who dismisses his adulterous wife and marries another woman, whereas his first wife still lives, remains perpetually in the state of adultery. Such a man does not any efficacious penance while he refuses to abandon the new wife. If he is a catechumen, he cannot be admitted to baptism, because his will remains rooted in the evil. If he is a (baptized) penitent, he cannot receive the (ecclesiastical) reconciliation as long as he does not break with his bad attitude” (De adulterinis coniugiis, 2, 16). In fact, the above intentional censorship of the teaching of Familaris Consortio in n. 85 of the Final Report, represents for any sane hermeneutics the very interpretation key for the understanding of the text section on divorced and remarried (numbers 84-86).

In our days exists a permanent and omnipresent ideological pressure on behalf of the mass media, which are compliant with the unique thought imposed by the anti-Christian world powers, with the aim to abolish the truth of the indissolubility of the marriage – trivializing the sacred character of this Divine institution by spreading an anti-culture of divorce and concubinage. Already 50 years ago, the Second Vatican Council stated that the modern times are infected with the plague of the divorce (cf. Gaudium et spes, 47). The same Council warns that the Christian marriage as Christ’s sacrament should “never be profaned by adultery or divorce” (Gaudium et spes, 49).

The profanation of the “great sacrament” (Eph 5, 32) of the marriage by adultery and divorce has assumed massive proportions at an alarming rate not only in the civil society but also among Catholics. When Catholics by means of divorce and adultery theoretically and as well as practically repudiate the will of God expressed in the Sixth Commandment, they put themselves in a spiritually serious danger of losing their eternal salvation.

The most merciful act on behalf of the Shepherds of the Church would be to draw the attention to this danger by means of a clear – and at the same time loving – admonition about the necessarily full acceptance of the Sixth Commandment of God. They have to call the things by their right name exhorting: “divorce is divorce,” “adultery is adultery” and “who commits consciously and freely grave sins against the Commandments of God – and in this case against the Sixth Commandment – and dies unrepentantly will receive eternal condemnation being excluded forever from the kingdom of God.”

Such an admonition and exhortation is the very work of the Holy Spirit as Christ taught: “He will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment” (John 16: 8). Explaining the work of the Holy Spirit in “convincing sin,” Pope John Paul II said: “Every sin wherever and whenever committed has a reference to the Cross of Christ-and therefore indirectly also to the sin of those who “have not believed in him,” and who condemned Jesus Christ to death on the Cross” (Encyclical Dominum et Vivificantem, 29). Those who conduct a married life with a partner, who is not their legitimate spouse, as it is the case with divorced and civilly remarried, reject the will of God. To convince such persons concerning this sin is a work moved by the Holy Spirit and commanded by Jesus Christ and thus an eminently pastoral and merciful work.

The Final Report of the Synod unfortunately omits to convince the divorced and remarried concerning their concrete sin. On the contrary, under the pretext of mercy and a false pastorality, those Synod Fathers who supported the formulations in the numbers 84-86 of the Report tried to cover up the spiritually dangerous state of the divorced and remarried.

De facto, they say to them that their sin of adultery is not a sin, and is definitely not adultery or at least is not a grave sin and that there is no spiritual danger in their state of life. Such a behavior of these Shepherds is directly contrary to the work of the Holy Spirit and is therefore anti-pastoral and a work of the false prophets to whom one could apply the following words of the Holy Scripture: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter” (Is 5:20) and: “Your prophets have seen for you false and deceptive visions; they have not exposed your iniquity to restore your fortunes, but have seen for you oracles that are false and misleading” (Lam 2: 14). To such bishops the Apostle Paul without any doubt would say today these words: “Such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ” (2 Cor 11:13).

The text of the Final Report of the Synod not only omits to convince unambiguously divorced and civilly remarried persons concerning the adulterous and thus gravely sinful character of their life style. It justifies indirectly such a lifestyle by means of assigning this question ultimately in the area of the individual conscience and by means of an improper applying of the moral principle of imputability to the case of cohabitation of the divorced and remarried. In fact, the applying of the principle of imputability to a stable, permanent and public life in adultery is improper and deceptive.

The diminution of the subjective responsibility is given only in the case when the partners have the firm intention to live in complete continence and make sincere efforts therein. As long as the partners intentionally persist to continue a sinful life, there can be no suspension of imputability. The Final Report gives the impression to intimate that a public life style in adultery – as it is the case of civilly remarried – is not violating the indissoluble sacramental bond of a marriage or that it does not represents a mortal or grave sin and that this issue is furthermore a matter of private conscience. Hereby one can state a closer drift towards the Protestant principle of subjective judgement on matters of faith and discipline and intellectual closeness to the erroneous theory of “fundamental option,” a theory already condemned by the Magisterium (cf. Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 65-70).

The Shepherds of the Church should not in the slightest manner promote a culture of divorce amongst the faithful. Even the smallest hint of yielding to the practice or to the culture of divorce should be avoided. The Church as a whole should give a convincing and strong witness to the indissolubility of the marriage. Pope John Paul II said that divorce “is an evil that, like the others, is affecting more and more Catholics as well, the problem must be faced with resolution and without delay” (Familiaris Consortio, 84). 

The Church has to help the divorced and remarried with love and patience to recognize their own sinfulness and to help them to convert with one’s whole heart to God and to the obedience to His holy will, which is expressed in the Sixth Commandment. As long as they continue giving a public anti-witness to the indissolubility of marriage and contributing to a culture of divorce, the divorced and remarried cannot exercise those liturgical, catechetical and institutional ministries in the Church, which demand by their own nature a public life in accordance with the Commandments of God.

It is obvious that public violators for instance of the Fifth and Seventh Commandments, such as owners of an abortion clinic or collaborators of a corruption network, not only cannot receive Holy Communion but, evidently, cannot be admitted to public liturgical and catechetical services. In an analogous manner, public violators of the Sixth Commandment, such as divorced and remarried, cannot be admitted to the office of lectors, godparents or catechists. Of course, one must distinguish the gravity of the evil caused by the life style of public promotors of abortion and corruption from the adulterous life of divorced people. One cannot put them on the same footing. The advocacy for the admission of divorced and remarried to the task of godparents and catechists aims ultimately not the true spiritual good of the children, but turns out to be an istrumentalization of a specific ideological agenda. This is a dishonesty and a mockery of the institute of godparents or catechists who by means of a public promise took on the task of educators of the faith.

In the case of godparents or catechists who are divorced and remarried, their life continuously contradicts their words, and so they have to face the admonition of the Holy Spirit through the mouth of the Apostle Saint James: “But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves” (James 1: 22).   Unfortunately, the Final Report in n. 84 pleads for an admittance of the divorced and remarried to liturgical, pastoral and educational offices. Such a proposal represents an indirect support to the culture of divorce and a practical denial of an objectively sinful lifestyle. Pope John Paul II on the contrary indicated only the following possibilities of participating in the life of the Church, which for their part aim a true conversion: “They should be encouraged to listen to the word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts in favor of justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God’s grace” (Familiaris Consortio, 84).

There should remain a salutary area of exclusion (non-admittance to the Sacraments and to the public liturgical and catechetical offices) in order to remind the divorced their real serious and dangerous spiritual state and, at the same time, to promote in their souls the attitude of humility, obedience and of longing for the authentic conversion. Humility means courage for truth, and only to those who humbly subject themselves to God, will receive His graces.

The faithful, who have not yet the readiness and the will to stop with the adulterous life, should be spiritually helped. Their spiritual state is similar to a kind of “catechumenate” regarding the sacrament of Penance. They can receive the sacrament of Penance, which was called in the Tradition of the Church “the second baptism” or “the second penance,” only if they sincerely break with the habit of the adulterous cohabitation and avoid public scandal in an analogous manner as do the catechumens, the candidates to the Baptism. The Final Report omits to call the divorced and remarried to the humble recognition of their objective sinful state, because it omits to encourage them to accept with the spirit of faith the non-admittance to the Sacraments and to the public liturgical and catechetical offices. Without such a realistic and humble recognition of their own real spiritual state, there is no effective progress towards the authentic Christian conversion, which in the case of the divorced and remarried consists in a life of complete continence, ceasing to sin against the sanctity of the sacrament of marriage and to disobey publicly the Sixth Commandment of God.

The Shepherds of the Church and especially the public texts of the Magisterium have to speak in an utmost clear manner, since this is the essential characteristic of the task of the official teaching. Christ demanded from all His disciples to speak in an extremely clear manner: “Let what you say be ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil” (Math 5: 37). This is valid all the more when the Shepherds of the Church preach or when the Magisterium speaks in a document.

In the text section of the numbers 84-86 the Final Report represents, unfortunately, a serious departure from this Divine command. Indeed in the mentioned passages the text does not plead directly in favor for the legitimacy of the admittance of the divorce and remarried to Holy Communion, the text even avoids the expression “Holy Communion” or “Sacraments.” Instead, the text by means of obfuscating tactics, uses ambiguous expressions like “a more full participation in the life of the Church” and “discernment and integration.”  

By such obfuscating tactics the Final Report in fact put time bombs and a back door for the admittance of the divorced and remarried to Holy Communion, causing by this a profanation of the two great sacraments of Marriage and Eucharist, and contributing at least indirectly to the culture of divorce – to the spreading of the “plague of divorce” (Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes, 47).

When reading carefully the ambiguous text of the text section “Discernment and integration” in the Final Report, one has the impression of a highly skillful, elaborated ambiguity. One is reminded of the following words of Saint Irenaeus in his “Adversus haereses”: “He who retains unchangeable in his heart the rule of the truth which he received by means of baptism, will doubtless recognize the names, the expressions, and the parables taken from the Scriptures, but will by no means acknowledge the blasphemous use which these men make of them. For, though he will acknowledge the gems, he will certainly not receive the fox instead of the likeness of the king.  But since what may prove a finishing-stroke to this exhibition is wanting, so that any one, on following out their farce to the end, may then at once append an argument which shall overthrow it, we have judged it well to point out, first of all, in what respects the very fathers of this fable differ among themselves, as if they were inspired by different spirits of error. For this very fact forms a proof from the outset that the truth proclaimed by the Church is immoveable, and that the theories of these men are but a tissue of falsehoods.” (I, 9, 4-5).

The Final Report seems to leave the solution of the question of the admittance of the divorced and remarried to Holy Communion to local Church authorities: “accompaniment of the priests” and “orientations of the bishop.” Such a matter is however connected essentially with the deposit of faith i.e. with the revealed word of God. The non-admittance of divorced who are living in a public state of adultery belongs to the unchangeable truth of the law of the Catholic faith and consequently also of the law of Catholic liturgical practice.

The Final Report seems to inaugurate a doctrinal and disciplinary cacophony in the Catholic Church, which contradicts the very essence of being Catholic. One has to be reminded of the words of Saint Irenaeus, about the authentic shape of the Catholic Church in all times and in all places: “The Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes the points of doctrine just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world (Italy). But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.” (Adversus haereses, I, 10, 2).

The Final Report in the section on the divorced and remarried carefully avoids confessing the unchangeable principle of the entire Catholic tradition, that those who live in an invalid marital union can be admitted to Holy Communion only under the condition that their promise to live in complete continence and avoid public scandal. John Paul II and Benedict XVI confirmed strongly this Catholic principle. The deliberate avoidance of mentioning and reaffirming this principle in the text of the Final Report can be compared with the systematic avoidance of the expression “homoousios” on behalf of the opponents of the dogma of the Council of Nicea in the fourth century – the formal Arians and the so-called Semi-Arians – , who invented continuously other expressions in order not to confess directly the consubstantiality of the Son of God with God the Father.

Such a declination from an open Catholic confession on behalf of the majority of the episcopate in the fourth century caused a feverish ecclesiastical activity with continuous synodal meetings and a proliferation of new doctrinal formula with the common denominator of avoiding terminological clarity i.e. the expression “homoousios.” Likewise, in our days the two last Synods on Family avoided naming and confessing clearly the principle of the entire Catholic tradition, that those who live in an invalid marital union can be admitted to Holy Communion only under the condition that their promise to live in complete continence and avoid public scandal.

This fact is proven also by the immediate unequivocal reaction of the secular media and by the reaction of the main advocators of the new un-Catholic practice to admit divorced and remarried to Holy Communion while maintaining a life of public adultery. Cardinal Kasper, Cardinal Nichols and Archbishop Forte, for instance, publicly affirmed that, according to the Final Report, one can assume that a door in some way has been opened to Communion for the divorced and remarried. There exists as well a considerable number of bishops, priests and laity who rejoice because of the so-called “opened door” they found in the Final Report. Instead of guiding the faithful with a clear and an utmost unambiguous teaching, the Final Report caused a situation of obscuration, confusion, subjectivity (the judgement of the conscience of the divorced and forum internum) and an un-Catholic doctrinal and disciplinary particularism in a matter which is essentially connected to the deposit of faith transmitted by the Apostles.

Those who in our days strongly defend the sanctity of the sacraments of Marriage and Eucharist are labeled as Pharisees. Yet, since the logical principle of non-contradiction is valid and common sense still functions, the contrary is true.

The obfuscators of the Divine truth in the Final Report are more like Pharisees. For in order to reconcile a life in adultery with the reception of Holy Communion, they skillfully invented new letters, a new law of “discernment and integration,” introducing new human traditions against the crystalline commandment of God. To the advocators of the so-called “Kasper agenda” are addressed these words of the Incarnated Truth: “You made void the word of God by introducing your own tradition” (Mark 7: 13). Those who during 2,000 years spoke relentlessly and with an utmost clarity about the immutability of the Divine truth, often at the cost of their own life, would be labelled in our days as Pharisees as well; so Saint John the Baptist, Saint Paul, Saint Irenaeus, Saint Athanasius, Saint Basil, Saint Thomas More, Saint John Fisher, Saint Pius X, just to mention the most glowing examples.

The real result of the Synod in the perception of the faithful and of the secular public opinion was that there has been practically only one focus on the question of the admittance of the divorced to Holy Communion. One can affirm that the Synod in a certain sense turned out to be in the eyes of public opinion a Synod of adultery, not the Synod of family. Indeed, all the beautiful affirmations of the Final Report on marriage and family are eclipsed by the ambiguous affirmations in the text section on the divorced and remarried, a topic which was already confirmed and decided by the Magisterium of the last Roman Pontiffs in faithful conformity with the bi-millennial teaching and practice of the Church. It is therefore a real shame that Catholic bishops, the successors of the Apostles, used synodal assemblies in order to make an attempt on the constant and unchangeable practice of the Church regarding the indissolubility of the marriage, i.e. the non-admittance of the divorced who live in an adulterous union to the Sacraments.

In his letter to Pope Damasus, Saint Basil drew a realistic picture of the doctrinal confusion caused by those churchmen who sought an empty compromise, and an adaptation to the spirit of the world in his time: “Traditions are set at nought; the devices of innovators are in vogue in the Churches; now men are rather contrivers of cunning systems than theologians; the wisdom of this world wins the highest prizes and has rejected the glory of the cross. The elders lament when they compare the present with the past. The younger are yet more to be compassionated, for they do not know of what they have been deprived” (Ep. 90, 2).

In a letter to Pope Damasus and to the Occidental Bishops, Saint Basil describes as follows the confused situation inside the Church: “The laws of the Church are in confusion.  The ambition of men, who have no fear of God, rushes into high posts, and exalted office is now publicly known as the prize of impiety.  The result is, that the worse a man blasphemes, the fitter the people think him to be a bishop.  Clerical dignity is a thing of the past. There is no precise knowledge of canons.  There is complete immunity in sinning; for when men have been placed in office by the favour of men, they are obliged to return the favour by continually showing indulgence to offenders. Just judgment is a thing of the past; and everyone walks according to his heart’s desire. Men in authority are afraid to speak, for those who have reached power by human interest are the slaves of those to whom they owe their advancement. And now the very vindication of orthodoxy is looked upon in some quarters as an opportunity for mutual attack; and men conceal their private ill-will and pretend that their hostility is all for the sake of the truth. All the while unbelievers laugh; men of weak faith are shaken; faith is uncertain; souls are drenched in ignorance, because adulterators of the word imitate the truth. The better ones of the laity shun the churches as schools of impiety and lift their hands in the deserts with sighs and tears to their Lord in heaven. The faith of the Fathers we have received; that faith we know is stamped with the marks of the Apostles; to that faith we assent, as well as to all that in the past was canonically and lawfully promulgated.” (Ep. 92, 2).

Each period of confusion during the history of the Church is at the same time a possibility to receive many graces of strength and courage and a chance to demonstrate one’s love for Christ the Incarnated Truth. To Him each baptized and each priest and bishop promised inviolable fidelity, everyone according to his own state: through the baptismal vows, through the priestly promises, through the solemn promise in the episcopal ordination. Indeed, every candidate to the episcopacy promised: “I will keep pure and integral the deposit of faith according the tradition which was always and everywhere preserved in the Church.” The ambiguity found in the section on divorced and remarried of the Final Report contradicts the abovementioned solemn episcopal vow. Notwithstanding this, everyone in the Church – from the simple faithful to the holders of the Magisterium – should say:

“Non possumus!” I will not accept an obfuscated speech nor a skilfully masked back door to a profanation of the Sacrament of Marriage and Eucharist. Likewise, I will not accept a mockery of the Sixth Commandment of God. I prefer to be ridiculed and persecuted rather than to accept ambiguous texts and insincere methods. I prefer the crystalline “image of Christ the Truth, rather than the image of the fox ornamented with gemstones” (Saint Irenaeus), for “I know whom I have believed”, “Scio, Cui credidi!” (2 Tim 1: 12).

November 2nd, 2015

+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana

Kasper’s Triumph Of The Will

02 Monday Nov 2015

Posted by S. Armaticus in Synod of Filth

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

ABERRO AGENDA, aberro-sex agenda, AIDS, Ambiguity, Anal Cancer, anal fissures, Andrea Gagliarducci, anorectal traum, Big Gender, Card. Muller, Card. Tagle, Cardinal Burke, cardinal Walter Kasper, Catholic Church, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Eponymous Flower blog, Francis Effect, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Genderism, Giardia lamblia, Giuseppe Nardi, Gonorrhea, Great Cardinal, Hemorrhoids, heretical pope, Herpes simplex virus, hippies, HIV, Human immunodeficiency virus, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Just Call Me Jorge blog, Law of Unintended Consequences, Markus Günther, messeging, Microsporidia, Modernists, MondayVatican blog, MSM, narratives, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, Pagan Christians, pathological, Raymond Burke, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roberto de Mattei, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli blog, s "theological structuring", s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s optics, s Pope Francis, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, sustainability, Synod 2014, Synod of Filth, Synod Walkout Petition, Syphilis25, Team Bergoglio, The Radical Catholic blog, Thomism, Tradition, TransRational, Truth, United Nations, Unjust ruler, Vatican II, Viral hepatitis types B & C

We left off our last post on the morning of the 22nd of October 2015, in the Synod Hall where Cardinal Walter Kasper just received the proposed Final Relatio from the Synod Secretariat and realized that it was nothing more than the Instrumentum Laboris that the Secretariat had produced sometime in May of 2015. This event no doubt created a situation for Card. Kasper that we described as his very own Henry Hill moment, i.e. where “everything went sideways in a split second, and he suddenly and with extreme clarity realized that he didn’t understand anything at all except that he’s sitting at a table with a maniac.”

Today we will look at the evidence that allows us to make the above assertion.

This decisions that Cd. Walter Kasper and the Heretical Clericalists made, along with the facts presented by Giussepe Nardi, allows the careful observer to draw conclusions that will shine the light of day onto the TRUE AGENDA driving the Heretical Clericalists and the entire bi-synod process, since it was at the behest of Card. Kasper that Francis called this bi-Synod of Bishops in the first place.

So as usual, first background and facts.

On the MondayVatican blog from the 10th of March 2014, right after the consistory, the following passage appears: (emphasis added)

Cardinal Walter Kasper has called for a «Council-like solution» to the issue in his presentation during the consistory on the family. This «Council-like solution» is a reference to the approach taken by the Second Vatican Council to issues like religious freedom and ecumenism. i.e., not to change the tradition, but to create new openings. The issue now is that of a change of paradigm regarding the doctrine for the divorced and remarried. (see here)

We know from our analysis that this was not the TRUE AGENDA of the bi-Synod, but just to drive the point home, here is Andre Gagliarducci again:

… Ultimately, Kasper recognized that the problem of divorced and remarried who want to receive communion relates to a small portion of believers. And the theme of the divorced and remarried is addressed only in the fifth section of the speech. But it is nevertheless the real focus. And the text reaches this focal point through a series of opaque, almost misleading, statements.

Note bene: where we find contradictory claims, i.e. that Communion for public sinners will “re-fill” the empty German church pews, yet the public sinners represent a “small portion of believers” and this irrational (TRANSRATIONAL) position is supported with a series of opaque, almost misleading, statements, we can assume that we have a HIDDEN AGENDA at work.

So what could the TRUE AGENDA be for Card. Kasper and the German Bishops’ Conference?

This is the subject of the below post.

Initially the Pierce/Ockham pragmatic methodology (see here) pointed to the introduction of GENDER IDEOLOGY into Catholic moral doctrine and ecclesiastical law. This HYPOTHESIS was based on two premises: the first is the inordinate amount of money that the GENDER LOBBY is spending to promote GENDER IDEOLOGY globally, and second is the complete and utter obsession with what is commonly refered to as the “spirit of the times”, or zeitgemäß (which can mean “modern,” “suitable,” or even “appropriate,” and often carries all of these shades when applied to the Church) of this clique of GERMAN HERETICAL CLERICALISTS. Summing up, by promoting GENDER IDEOLOGY, the German Heretical Clericalists not only tap into GENDER LOBBY funding but also get “seats at the various GLOBALIST tables”. So it is not surprising that this GENDER AGENDA is now being explicitly promoted by not only the German Bishops’ Conference but by Francis himself.

However, it appears from the information in the Eponymous Flower posts (see here and here) that there is an even DEEPER HIDDEN AGENDA at work, one that is driving Kasper, “Bling” Marx and Co.  and might go a long way to explain the TRANSRATIONAL decisions that this group made between the 22nd and 24th of October 2015. On an aside, it is the observation of these actions that caused your humble blogger his Henry Hill moment.

For clarity’s sake, I will use a decision tree diagram to provide a visual representation of this interesting phenomenon. This decision tree diagram sets out the respective players of the TRIPARTITE and their respective decisions.

Decision TreeWhat is important to observe from the above is the following:

  1. Up until the 22nd of October 2015, the positions (AGENDAS) of the Secretariat (Francis) and the Heretical Clericalists (Kasper) were aligned.
  2. These two groups broke rank after the 22nd of October 2015.
  3. The most likely reason why these two groups broke ranks was because the Secretariat gave the Synod Fathers a proposed Final Relatio that was known to be unacceptable to the Synod Fathers.
  4. If the Secretariat’s Final Relatio was brought up for a vote, the Synod Fathers would have publicly rejected this document.
  5. The rejection of the Final Relatio would have caused a FAILED PAPACY.
  6. A FAILED PAPACY would have had unforeseeable consequences.
  7. One consequence which all sides agree on and anticipated if the situation in point 6. would have transpired, is a schism within the Catholic Church.
  8. The Secretariat (Francis) did not place a large weight on whether their actions cause a schism.
  9. The Heretical Clericalists (Kasper) placed a great weight on whether their actions cause a schism, and were willing to compromise in order to avoid the schism.

Therefore, from the decision tree diagram above, it is quite evident that it is the issue of Schism where Francis and the Germans part company.

So the question is why are the German’s so terrified of creating a Schism, a Schism with which they threaten the Catholic Church on a regular basis? (see here) Please recall that this “new opening” is supposed being orchestrated in order to bring in the “new VII springtime” that will fill the pews and set up the Marxist (as in Reinhard “Bling”) “great age of Christendom which lies not behind us, but before us!”

So in this case, it would be reasonable to expect that the Heretical Clericalists would make good on their “Germany is not a branch of Rome” threat and allow the “new springtime of the spirit of Vatican II” to usher in this new age of “Christendom which lies not behind us, but before us!”

But yet, the actions of the German Heretical Clericalists are quite different then those that one would expect based on the positions that which they publicly expose. So why is that?

First of all, we see that the entire Synod Crisis that developed on the 22nd of October 2015 had its epicenter in the Circulus Germanicus. To be more precise, the entire CRISIS played itself out inside the Circulus Germanicus. Both protagonists, the diplomat and the authority figure who resolved (allegedly) the CRISIS were German.

The second important feature of this CRISIS is that it played itself out on the “theological” stage. What is interesting to note is that by designating Kasper as the head of the Heretical Clericalists (not a lead player from the German Episcopate), we begin to see the “theological” stage where three of the four main characters are German theologians, i.e. Cd. Muller, Cd. Kasper and Benedict XVI, while the emissary who reconciles the warring factions also being German i.e. Cd. Shonborn.

So from the above facts, we are beginning to see a clearer picture of what in fact played out. What we see is an IDEOLOGUE, i.e. Card. Kasper who is a representative of an IDEOLOGICAL School. Let’s call this the Rahnerist Nouvelle Théologie School. Kasper’s lifes work can be seen as nothing more than to promote this IDEOLOGICAL school. This IDEOLOGICAL school in turn is needed by the neo-Modernist German bishops since it gives them a philisophical base on which they can function. The reason that the German Heretical Clericalists need Rahnerism is that its “something” (if only because there is so much of it) that gives the German Clericalists a basis in which to justify their actions. But the problem with Rahnerism, just like with the wider neo-Modernist movement is as follows: (see here)

The key to the neomodernist capture of power is however also the reason for their failure to sustain a religious culture. Neomodernism is not like Protestantism, which contains ideas with a positive content as well as being a rejection of Catholicism. These ideas – justification by faith, and the like – are not correct, but they say something substantial, and have an appeal that can give rise to an important movement. Neomodernism, however, on a religious level is a purely negative thesis. As a result it has no attractive force of its own, and ecclesiastical structures that fall into its grip eventually die away – a process now visible all over the world..

And the dying German Catholic Church is visible for all to see!

So taking all this into account, what most likely played out in those fateful days of 22nd to 24nd of October 2015 is that Cd. Shonborn came to Benedict XVI, at the behest of Card. Kasper with a plea. The plea most likely had to do with Benedict XVI, as the preeminent theologian and philosopher of our age, to provide the Circulus Germanicus the proper “Modernist Magic Words” that would “difuse the Kasper bomb”. The solution needed was on the one hand, to allow cd. Muller and the Catholic Synod Fathers the language that would not change doctrine, while allowing Kasper and the Heretical Clericalists the language to save face.

But Benedict XVI’s motivation was not to help out his fellow countrymen who created this two-year nightmare that spun out of control. Benedict’s motivation most likely revolved around saving the institution of the papacy. And with a lunatic like Francis, one which ascended to the throne due to an unwise decision by Benedict, it was the least that he could do in this situation.

Which brings us back to Cardinal Kasper. What we see is in essence a figure who spent his whole life promoting a theological/philosophical school of thought that time had passed by. He knows that Rahnerism has passed its due date, which is why he is so terrified of a Schism. In other words, he wants to hedge his bets, unlike that other Modernist dimwhit in white. But I digress… Instead of moving on with the zeitgemäß of the times, Kasper is trying to keep the Rahnerist hope alive. And he is doing it with sheer will.

In fact, if due to his insistance on calling this bi-Synod, Kasper gets Francis, who came into contact with Rahnerism while at the seminary (see here), to act out that which Rahner espoused, it will be because of one thing and one thing only…

Kasper’s Triumph of the Will!

I will end here for today.

← Older posts

Miserere nobis

Follow The Deus Ex Machina Blog on WordPress.com

Closing Our Wallets on the Lavender Mafia

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

Patron of the S. Armaticus Blog

"Tradidi quod et accepi"

Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagatis

Who Is Francis?

These aren't your grandfather's Modernists!

Post-Modernist FrancisTheology Explained.

Return To Tradition

Returning To Reason and Faith

What Francis Defines As His Magisterium

"Look, I wrote an encyclical, true enough, it was a big job, and an Apostolic Exhortation, I´m permanently making statements, giving homilies; that´s teaching."

Francis

La Nación
7 December 2014
Via La Nación's own English translation

HERETIC Defined

HERETIC [n. her-i-tik; adj. her-i-tik, huh-ret-ik] noun 1. a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church. 2. Roman Catholic Church. a baptized Roman Catholic who willfully and persistently rejects any article of faith. 3. anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle. adjective 4. heretical.

The Old Proselytization

Brought to you by a couple of secularists.

What is MERCY

Where Dr. Peterson explains the biology behind Canon 1955

Best Catholic Apologetics Video, Evah!!!!!

Worth the watch!

Fundamentals of Civilized Thought

The Case For A Classical Catholic Education!

New Seminary Project

Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

Walter Cardinal Brandmuller On The Real Francis Effect

"It is superficial. Were this a religious movement, the churches would be full"

Society of St. Pius X

Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate Ecclesia Dei Dossier

Pope John Paul II with Franciscans of the Immaculate (FFI)

Blog Stats

  • 838,602 hits

Canon 212

First Stop for Catholic News

The Mutual Enrichment Blog

Must read

The Remnant

Catholic Must Read

Gloria TV

Daily dose of Catholicism!

Zero Hedge

Great source of secular, small c, catholic news. * Warning - explicit language and images used.

Free Domain REAL NEWS

Daily Dose Of Reality from Stefan Molyneux

The Conservative Treehouse

Good Site For Political Coverage

The Comprehensive OBAMAGATE Timeline

Catholics 4 Trump

If you didn't vote for The Donald, you could go to hell! So go to CONFESION!

Blogs I Follow

  • The Stumbling Block
  • non veni pacem
  • RadTrad Thomist
  • liturgy guy
  • EOTT LLC
  • Restore-DC-Catholicism
  • What's Up With Francis-Church?
  • Ite ad Thomam Institute
  • The Orthosphere
  • LES FEMMES - THE TRUTH
  • OnePeterFive
  • Musings of a Michigan-Man
  • The Deus Ex Machina Blog
  • Barnhardt
  • newsitedenz.wordpress.com/
  • ST. CORBINIAN'S BEAR
  • LifeSite
  • Mahound's Paradise
  • PCH24.pl
  • DarwinCatholic
  • THE TENTH CRUSADE
  • UnaCum.pl
  • The New Emangelization
  • Team Orthodoxy
  • Catholic Collar And Tie
  • The Radical Catholic
  • American Thinker
  • The American Catholic
  • Creative Minority Report
  • Damsel of the Faith
  • Traditional Catholic Priest
  • A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics
  • New Liturgical Movement
  • That The Bones You Have Crushed May Thrill
  • Pewsitter News
  • Fr. Z's Blog - What Does The Prayer Really Say?
  • Fr Ray Blake's Blog
  • AKA Catholic
  • Mundabor's Blog
  • Orbis Catholicus Secundus
  • Unam Sanctam Catholicam
  • Vox Cantoris
  • Musings of a Pertinacious Papist
  • LMS Chairman
  • Lamentably Sane
  • The Eponymous Flower
  • RORATE CÆLI

Ite Ad Thomam

Why Thomism?

Pope Francis Little Book of Insults

THE MAGISTERIUM OF FRANCIS

The INTERACTIVE Francis “magisterium”.

A Special Message For Conservative Catholics From The Bishop of Rome!

The Denzinger-Bergoglio

What's the Canon Law Equivalent for: "Indictment"?

Logical Fallacies – The List

See how many you can spot?

The Scholasticum

Please click on image for details.

“Sovereign” Military Order of Malta

The Lepanto Institute

Must read.

International Una Voce Federation

Global Mass Directory

Love the Mass, Learn the Mass, Pray the Mass

Follow me on Twitter

My Tweets

Douay-Rheims Bible w/ Challoner Notes

Catholic Bible

Side by side

Today’s Mass: Missale Romanum

Today’s Office: Breviarium Romanum

Baltimore Catachism 1 2 & 3

Catholic Heirarchy

Archives

Categories

  • Collegiality
  • Context
  • Ecumenism
  • Funding
  • Guest Post
  • Messaging
  • Narratives
  • New Springtime
  • Normalization Process™
  • Of Interest
  • Optics
  • Players
  • Prep Fire
  • Processes
  • Restoration
  • Secret Synod
  • Spirit of V II
  • SSPX
  • Statistics
  • Synod of Bishops'
  • Synod of Filth
  • Terminations
  • Uncategorized
  • Unfurling Colors

Deus Ex Machina Facebook Page

Deus Ex Machina Facebook Page

The Josiahs

Catholic Political Thought

RECOMMENDED BROWSER

Click above for why we recommend Brendan Eich's web-browser.

Blog at WordPress.com.

The Stumbling Block

A blog dedicated to chronicling the "Restoration of all things in Christ"

non veni pacem

The Splendor of Truth

RadTrad Thomist

A blog dedicated to chronicling the "Restoration of all things in Christ"

liturgy guy

Life, Liturgy and the Pursuit of Holiness

EOTT LLC

A blog dedicated to chronicling the "Restoration of all things in Christ"

Restore-DC-Catholicism

A blog dedicated to chronicling the "Restoration of all things in Christ"

What's Up With Francis-Church?

A blog dedicated to chronicling the "Restoration of all things in Christ"

Ite ad Thomam Institute

A blog dedicated to chronicling the "Restoration of all things in Christ"

The Orthosphere

Wherever an altar is found, there civilization exists - Joseph de Maistre

LES FEMMES - THE TRUTH

A blog dedicated to chronicling the "Restoration of all things in Christ"

OnePeterFive

Musings of a Michigan-Man

Observations on the great questions of life, however small they might be

The Deus Ex Machina Blog

A blog dedicated to chronicling the "Restoration of all things in Christ"

Barnhardt

A blog dedicated to chronicling the "Restoration of all things in Christ"

newsitedenz.wordpress.com/

Surprising contributions by Francis to the Magisterium...

ST. CORBINIAN'S BEAR

A blog dedicated to chronicling the "Restoration of all things in Christ"

LifeSite

A blog dedicated to chronicling the "Restoration of all things in Christ"

Mahound's Paradise

A blog dedicated to chronicling the "Restoration of all things in Christ"

PCH24.pl

Prawa Strona Internetu. Informacje z życia Kościoła i prawicowa publicystyka

DarwinCatholic

A blog dedicated to chronicling the "Restoration of all things in Christ"

THE TENTH CRUSADE

A blog dedicated to chronicling the "Restoration of all things in Christ"

UnaCum.pl

A blog dedicated to chronicling the "Restoration of all things in Christ"

The New Emangelization

A blog dedicated to chronicling the "Restoration of all things in Christ"

Team Orthodoxy

Catholic Collar And Tie

A blog dedicated to chronicling the "Restoration of all things in Christ"

The Radical Catholic

A blog dedicated to chronicling the "Restoration of all things in Christ"

American Thinker

A blog dedicated to chronicling the "Restoration of all things in Christ"

The American Catholic

Politics & Culture from a Catholic Perspective

Creative Minority Report

A blog dedicated to chronicling the "Restoration of all things in Christ"

Damsel of the Faith

Spiritual Daughter of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Faithful to Eternal Rome. Fighting with the spirit of St. Joan of Arc for the True Faith.

Traditional Catholic Priest

A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics

New Liturgical Movement

A blog dedicated to chronicling the "Restoration of all things in Christ"

That The Bones You Have Crushed May Thrill

A blog dedicated to chronicling the "Restoration of all things in Christ"

Pewsitter News

A blog dedicated to chronicling the "Restoration of all things in Christ"

Fr. Z's Blog - What Does The Prayer Really Say?

Fr Ray Blake's Blog

A blog dedicated to chronicling the "Restoration of all things in Christ"

AKA Catholic

A blog dedicated to chronicling the "Restoration of all things in Christ"

Mundabor's Blog

Tradidi quod et accepi: Catholicism without Compromise

Orbis Catholicus Secundus

A blog dedicated to chronicling the "Restoration of all things in Christ"

Unam Sanctam Catholicam

A blog dedicated to chronicling the "Restoration of all things in Christ"

Vox Cantoris

A blog dedicated to chronicling the "Restoration of all things in Christ"

Musings of a Pertinacious Papist

A blog dedicated to chronicling the "Restoration of all things in Christ"

LMS Chairman

A blog dedicated to chronicling the "Restoration of all things in Christ"

Lamentably Sane

A blog dedicated to chronicling the "Restoration of all things in Christ"

The Eponymous Flower

A blog dedicated to chronicling the "Restoration of all things in Christ"

RORATE CÆLI

A blog dedicated to chronicling the "Restoration of all things in Christ"

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • The Deus Ex Machina Blog
    • Join 2,241 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • The Deus Ex Machina Blog
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...