• 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-sex agenda

The Mercy Killing Of A Pontificate

09 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by S. Armaticus in Of Interest

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

aberro-sex agenda, AIDS, Ambiguity, Anal Cancer, anal fissures, 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, 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 ABERRO AGENDA, 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

Mercy

Yesterday I came across a petition asking Francis, the bishop of Rome to resign.

Seeing as how Francis has not found a leftist campaign issue that he has not liked… or promoted, I think that the folks over at the Remnant are ahead of the curve on this one. I would consider it an act of a MERCY KILLING ( the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding medical measures from a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, disease or condition.) of this pontificate.

I think it is a great idea, since I think it is much more humane to kill a pontificate than a human being. But that’s just me.

So just in case you, dear reader have not come across this petition, please consider its contents and signing it. You can find the full version of the original here and I am posting it…

FOR THE RECORD

An Urgent Appeal to Pope Francis to Either Change Course or Renounce the Petrine Office 

December 8, 2015

Feast of the Immaculate Conception

Your Holiness:

Pope Celestine V (r. 1294), recognizing his incapacity for the office to which he had so unexpectedly been elected as the hermit Peter of Morrone, and seeing the grave harm his bad governance had caused, resigned the papacy after a reign of only five months. He was canonized in 1313 by Pope Clement V. Pope Boniface VIII, removing any doubt about the validity of such an extraordinary papal act, confirmed in perpetuity (ad perpetuam rei memoriam) that “the Roman Pontiff may freely resign.”

A growing number of Catholics, including cardinals and bishops, are coming to recognize that your pontificate, also the result of an unexpected election, is likewise causing grave harm to the Church. It has become impossible to deny that you lack either the capacity or the will to do what your predecessor rightly observed a pope must do: “constantly bind himself and the Church to obedience to God’s Word, in the face of every attempt to adapt it or water it down, and every form of opportunism.”

Quite the contrary, as shown in the annexed libellus, you have given many indications of an alarming hostility to the Church’s traditional teaching, discipline and customs, and the faithful who try to defend them, while being preoccupied with social and political questions beyond the competence of the Roman Pontiff. Consequently, the Church’s enemies continually delight in your pontificate, exalting you above all your predecessors. This appalling situation has no parallel in Church history.

Last year, speaking of Pope Benedict’s resignation, Your Holiness declared that if you felt incapable of exercising the papacy “I would do the same.” On the first anniversary of Benedict’s resignation, you called upon the faithful to “join me in prayer for His Holiness Benedict XVI, a man of great courage and humility.”

With no little trepidation, being under the gaze of the One who will judge us all on the Last Day, we your subjects respectfully petition Your Holiness to change course for the good of the Church and the welfare of souls. Failing this, would it not be better for Your Holiness to renounce the Petrine office than to preside over what threatens to be a catastrophic compromise of the Church’s integrity?

In this regard we make our own the words of Saint Catherine of Siena, Doctor of the Church, in her famous letter to Pope Gregory XI, urging him to steer the Church aright during one of her greatest crises: “Since He has given you authority and you have assumed it, you should use your virtue and power: and if you are not willing to use it, it would be better for you to resign what you have assumed…”

Mary, Help of Christians, pray for us!

Your subjects in Christ,
Christopher A. Ferrara
Michael J. Matt
Dr. John Rao
Professor Brian McCall
Elizabeth Yore
Timothy J. Cullen
Chris Jackson
Michael Lofton
Father Celatus
Connie Bagnoli
Susan Claire Potts
Robert Siscoe
John Salza, Esq.
Vincent Chiarello
John Vennari

The Natural Order of Things

08 Tuesday Dec 2015

Posted by S. Armaticus in Context

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

aberro-sex agenda, AIDS, Ambiguity, Anal Cancer, anal fissures, 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, 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 ABERRO AGENDA, 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

Wiemer Republic Money

Today we return to Politics, Economics, Greece and our Visibilium Omnium, et Invisibilium theme. In our post of a similar title, (see here) we observed that at the end of the day, there exists a NATURAL ORDER OF THINGS, or as we say, NATURAL LAW. This natural law governs all of… well,… God’s creation. Given the above, we can observe the NATURAL ORDER OF THINGS not only in Catholic theology and moral doctrine, but likewise in areas as diverse as politics, economics and even social policy.

An example of the above, can be observed in the political landscape on the old continent that is presently playing itself out. Two elections have come to pass recently, one in Poland and one in France.

Starting with the latter, the election is only the first round, with the run off election scheduled for this Sunday, (see here) but it looks like the Front National (FN), a political party that is strongly backed by the French Catholic vote, has pulled off stunning win against its rivals from the mainstream establishment. Your humble blogger did a couple of posts recently about just this Restoration phenomenon recently (see here and here). One of the leaders of the Front National is Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, the 26-year-old granddaughter of Jean Marie Le Pen, the FN founder and a Catholic. As in traditional Catholic. (see here) And as one would expect, after the results of the first round of voting, all hell is breaking loose among the “humanist” sector.

The other significant, and more important election was held in Poland on the 25th of October of this year, and Law and Justice Party (L&J) won that election. After their candidate, Andrzej Duda defeated the post-communist candidate in the May presidential elections, the L&J party captured a stunning victory in October, becoming the first party to win an outright election in Poland since the Soviet Communist regime fell in 1989/1991. The L&J Party is also deeply rooted in conservative Catholicism, of the JP II variety at present. (see here)

One of the first declared initiatives of the L&J Party is to pass a law by the end of the 1st Quarter 2016, under which each family will receive a stipend of 500 PLN ($120) for the second child and each subsequent child there after. Needless to say, in the economic reality that subsists in Poland presently, this stipend will be a game changer. And as one would expect, this game changer has not gone down well with the “humanist” sector either. Actually, all hell broke loose on account of this initiative and the necessary L&J’s moves to be able to implement it.

These two above mentioned elections share many similar attributes. Catholicism being but one of them. What these two political parties also share is the conviction that what is needed in both countries is a national currency, in order to be able to implement and carry out much-needed reforms. And naturally, these intended reforms are designed to comply with the NATURAL ORDER OF THINGS.

With respect to the situation in France, the leader of the French National Front, Marine Le Pen has declared that the first initiative of any new NF government will be a referendum about leaving the Euro currency and returning to the French Franc. Whereas in Poland, which never abandoned its national currency, the Polish Zloty, the new government has dropped “Euro entry” responsibilities from the job title of the new Vice Finance Minister. This act is of significance in that it signals that the Poles will not be entertaining any Euro entry thoughts for the foreseeable futures.

And just to reinforce the significance of these two events, allow me to say this once again: the HUMANIST INTERNATIONAL is not happy.

What they are not happy about is that RATIONAL politicians are being elected by sizeable majorities who have completely ignored the mainstream narratives promoted by the establishment media. Furthermore, they are also not happy that the resistance is coming from the Catholic voters.

And this is a good thing in and of itself.

Therefore, I have decided to republish the below post from Jeff Thomas of the InternationalMan blog via the ZeroHedge website (see here), in order to provide you dear reader with a reference text about the importance of national currencies and RATIONAL economic and monetary policies. But in the larger scheme of things, what is important to understand is that there is a NATURAL ORDER OF THINGS that exits and any non RATIONAL ideology that strays too far from this ORDER, must be prepared to suffer consequences.

And those consequences are not pleasant.

FOR THE RECORD

Weimar Greece – The Effects Of A Currency Collapse

Cash is a scarce commodity in Greece.

In June, Greek banks declared a surprise limitation on how much could be withdrawn from an account. At present, the government still limits the cash withdrawals of Greeks.

And, of course, this is just the most recent in a series of events that make up the cash squeeze. In response, Greeks have done what all people do when they cannot get enough currency – they improvise.

Several alternate systems for payment of goods and services have cropped up in Greece since 2010. One is TEM, which allows people to gain monetary credit on an internet site, which may then be used to pay others. Another system is the Athens Time Bank, which logs time units, allowing individuals to pay each other with their time. The services provided can be anything from language lessons to medical consultation. Other systems are popping up, as Greeks seek out any method of payment other than the euro, since they’re closed off from their own savings at the banks. As can be expected, barter is becoming more commonplace.

Greece is right where Weimar Germany was in late 1922. The 1919 Treaty of Versailles required Germany to pay reparations for WWI. At the time, Germany, having lost the war, was already on the ropes economically. The conditions of the treaty amounted to an unpayable level of debt. As it became apparent that it was impossible to pay, the allies squeezed harder. Economic conditions in Germany worsened dramatically, not unlike Greece today, and for the same reason.Germans did their best to sidestep the economic squeeze. As the cost of goods and services was rapidly rising (on a daily basis), Germans learned that it was best to spend Reichsmarks as quickly as possible on virtually anything that was holding its value better than banknotes.

Interestingly, in 1922, virtually no one felt that currency was the problem. German politicians blamed the allies, particularly the French, for demanding that Germany live up to the treaty they had signed. Bankers often blamed foreign currencies for rising against the mark. And the people of Germany generally placed the blame on the most immediate symptom – that costs were rising more quickly than wages. Although they were pleased when their own wages went up, they wanted the prices of commodities to remain the same. They therefore blamed the merchants (particularly the many Jewish merchants) for raising the prices of their goods every time wages increased. They blamed this on Jewish greed, failing to understand that, every time wages increased, the cost of production increased and that increase was passed to the merchants.

In 1922, as in 2015, virtually everyone failed to recognise that monetary movement is circular in nature, not linear. All payments, for all goods and services, impact each other, in a domino effect.

The provision of goods and services is the lifeblood of any economy. Those who offer them and those who pay for them create wealth by doing so. This is the natural order of economics. However, if currency is artificially pumped into an economic system, either through the printing of bank notes, as in Germany in 1922, or the provision of bailouts, as in Greece in 2015, no goods have been created, no services have been performed. The injection of currency fails to improve the economy; it makes the situation worse. At some point, the money tap must be shut off, and, when it is, a crash takes place. The severity of the crash is directly proportional to the degree of currency injection.

So, as long as we’re comparing parallel events, what else happened back then? Well, one interesting development was that, although most everyone in Germany was experiencing a steady decrease in their standard of living, farmers seemed to be holding their own. This, of course, was because they remained productive. They created essential goods for sale to others, so they maintained their living standards. In the autumn of 1922, most Bavarians could not afford to attend Oktoberfest, but the beer halls did an acceptable business with the farmers who came to town for the celebration. They were deeply resented by city dwellers for being able to afford beer that they themselves could not afford.

Such was the resentment that the prime minister of Bavaria submitted a bill to the Reichsrat to make gluttony a public offense.

In 1923, as the Weimar inflation grew to the point that city dwellers were starving, many of them went out to the country to steal the produce the farmers had worked to grow. Resentment was so high against the farmers that many raiders killed the farmers out of hatred. Further, since they couldn’t take the farmers’ cattle back to the city with them, they slaughtered them in the fields, out of spite. Of course, by destroying the source of the food, they assured that they would receive even less in future. Many starved.

As stated by British Author Adam Fergusson in When Money Dies:

It brought out the worst in everybody… It caused fear and insecurity among those who had already known too much of both. It fostered xenophobia. It promoted contempt for government and the subversion of law and order.

As stated at the time by Sir Basil Blackett, controller of finance of the British Treasury, “Each class in Germany thinks that the burden of taxation should fall on some other class.” (Does any of this sound familiar?)

If Greece in 2015 mirrors Germany in 1922, then we might expect Greece in 2016 to come to resemble Germany in 1923.

But how about the rest of us? We’re not in the state that Greece is in – at least not yet. But the EU as a whole, and the U.S., Canada, and many other “First World” countries, are following the same destructive economic path. (They just aren’t quite as far along as Weimar Germany, 1923.)

So, we might be interested to know what came next in Germany.

Demands increased by the public for a mandatory redistribution of wealth.

This has become a common cry, particularly in the U.S., where a presidential election will take place in a year and some candidates are fanning the flames on this issue.

Movement of currency had to notified, then authorised.

Currency controls are being implemented, one after the other, to limit the people’s ability to move their own money. Most threatening is a plan to eliminate cash, so that money cannot be transferred without the permission of the banks.Importation was regulated.

Politicians in the EU and U.S. are speaking increasingly of the need for protective tariffs.

Political leaders have, for decades been squeezing the economy for all they can get and, as they’ve reached the point of diminishing returns, they’ve done what politicians always do, increase debt in order to prolong and increase their intake of wealth.

This can be likened to a farmer who, wanting more milk than a cow can produce, milks it dry, then, refusing to admit his folly, starts draining the cow of its blood. He may say to both himself and others that the increasing need may be satisfied by increasing the removal of blood and, on a temporary basis, this will allow him to continue making use of the cow. However, once he has done so, it is a certainty that, at some point very soon, the cow will collapse.

This was the case in Germany in 1923…and is the case in much of the world now.

Benedict: Miss Me Yet?

04 Friday Dec 2015

Posted by S. Armaticus in Of Interest

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

aberro-sex agenda, AIDS, Ambiguity, Anal Cancer, anal fissures, anorectal traum, Big Gender, Card. Muller, Cardinal Burke, cardinal Walter Kasper, Catholic Church, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Eponymous Flower blog, Francis Effect, French Revolution, Genderism, Giardia lamblia, Giussepe Nardi, Gonorrhea, Great Cardinal, Hemorrhoids, heretical pope, Herpes simplex virus, hippies, HIV, Human immunodeficiency virus, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, 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 ABERRO AGENDA, 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 More stats

Francis Dowager Countess Not Amused

It’s been a bit busy so I haven’t had time to post lately. However, this below post came across my screen and I am reposting it below. You, dear reader can consider it the followup to the following post (see here).

The post contains very important information, however what makes it even more “interesting” is its signaling effect. It would appear, that Francis is directly attacking Benedict XVI, claiming that the “corruption” in the Vatican that Francis claims that he and the C9 are cleaning up, was due to the Benedict pontificate. Could be a bad translation, but the intent is self-evident.

If this is the case and it most likely is, than what we are dealing with is an escalation of the CIVIL WAR inside the Sacred Vatican Walls. It is highly probable that the Curia is moving against Francis, and Francis is striking out and attacking the one person who he thinks is the main threat. In other words, he fears that with a pope emeritus around, he could be deposed much easier than if he had no rival living across the garden. Furthermore, Francis must see Benedict as a threat since with Francis deposed and a reinstated Benedict, history could would read the deposal of Francis as the deposal of a FALSE POPE.

Please recall, that according to the Bologna Buenos Aires Theology School, whatever Francis says is holy and binding in the future. Provided that he is not declared a FALSE POPE. (see here)

I will leave here, but keep this in mind going forward.

Please read the post below with emphasis and [comments] and am republishing this post… (see original here)

FOR THE RECORD

Pope Francis Blames Benedict for Corruption Passes Buck on Chaoqui

Edit: there are suggestions that Francesca Chaoqui is a member of the Italian Secret Police, but it’s impossible to believe that Pope Francis didn’t know more about her when she was brought on board, than he suggests in his interview. [Of course Francis knew. According to Sandro Magister (here and here), Francis insisted on hiring her against the advise of many senior clerics]  She was a high profile appointment obviously conceived to present a more open, inclusive Vatican.  It’s difficult to discern what he’s saying, but it also looks like he’s accusing Pope Benedict of the corruption he’s pretending to fight with the C9, made up mostly of some of the most liberal and princely Cardinals of the Church.  It’s hard to call most of them Catholic [It was Benedict who started the reforms to clean up the corruption. Andrea Gagliarducci on his MondayVatican blog has done a great job of documenting the reforms that BXVI initiated and Francis inherited. (see one example here)].

(Paris) The Vatileaks 2 scandal is substantiated in a lawsuit by the Vatican court. Therein, none of the   details are spared that  make for all the ingredients of the perfect Sex, Crime and VaticanStory. That the bustling Francesca Chaouqui should betray her Vatican mentor, Msgr. Lucio Angel Vallejo Balda, since the police of the Vatican  showed up, makes them even more interesting to the media and even more embarrassing for the Vatican. Her appointment shall be directly attributed to Pope Francis on the recommendation of Msgr Vallejo Balda

When questioned by journalists,  Pope Francis  gave reply on the return journey from Africa regarding Vatileaks 2. His full answers:

Question: There is much talk about Vatileaks. Without going into details about the process, which takes place just: How important is the free and secular press in uncovering the corruption.

Pope Francis: The Free Press, the secular and ecclesiastical, but professional in any case: The professionalism of the press may be secular or religious. It is important that it has professionals and that the messages are not tampered with. For me it is important because the accusation of injustice and corruption is a good work. The professional press have to say anything, but without falling into the three most common sins: disinformation, which is to tell only half the story, and the rest not; defamation, if the non-professional public spotted the people; and the defamation that has things to say, which takes the reputation of a person. These are the three flaws that threaten the professionalism of the press. We need professionalism. And when it comes to corruption, it’s good things to say: “Corruption exists here, here and here.” And if a truly professional journalist was wrong, he apologizes.

Question: We could get into the COSEA appointing Monsignor Lucio Angel Vallejo Balda and Francesca Chaouqui.?Think of having made a mistake?

Pope Francis: I think that was a mistake. Vallejo joined because of the role he had and did have up until now: he was secretary of the Prefecture for the Economic Affairs of the Holy See. How did she get in: I am not sure, [Francis caught telling outright lie. But he is the king pope.] but I think I am right in saying that it was he [Ed. note: Vallejo Balda]who said she was someone who was well acquainted with the world of business relations. [Here is how Magister “charitably” described the Chaouqui hiring: “More than two months have passed since the unhappy appointment of Monsignor Battista Ricca as “prelate” of the Institute for Works of Religion and more than a month since that, no less unhappy, of Francesca Immacolata Chaouqui (see photo) as a member of the commission for the reorganization of the financial-administrative Vatican offices. Both of these appointments (Ed. note: Ricca and Chaouqui) were made by Pope Francis, the first through his own highly personal decision. And for both of them, immediately afterward, there came to light grave counter-indications about which the pope was initially in the dark. And yet, in late August, no correction of course appears to be in sight.” (see here)] They worked and when the work was complete, COSEA’s members kept some positions in the Vatican. Mrs. Chaouqui did not stay in the Vatican: some say she was angry about this. [Interesting that Francis would know about Chaouqui’s “anger”. Why would Francis even possess personal information regarding someone who he claims he is not sure how that person “got in”?] The judges will tell us what her real intentions were, how they did it. It did not come as a surprise to me, I didn’t lose any sleep over it because they showed everyone the work begun with the commission of nine cardinals, [Once again, Andrea Gagliarducci has documented the that the reform “works that begun with the C9 actually was begun by Benedict. And according to Gagliarducci, it was Francis who let the “corruption” back into the Vatican] to root out corruption and the things that are wrong. There’s one thing I want to say, not about Vallejo and Chaouqui. Thirteen days before John Paul II’s death, during the via Crucis, the then Cardinal Ratzinger, talked about the filth in the Church. He denounced the first one. Then John Paul II died and Ratzinger, who was a dean on the “pro eligendo Pontefice” Mass, talked about the same thing. We elected him because of his openness about things. It is since that time that there has been corruption in the air in the Vatican. [Can’t wait to see how Gagliarducci treats this last passage in next weeks MondayVatican. Stay tuned sports fans!] Regarding the trial: I have not read the charges in full. I would have liked the whole thing to have been over and done with before the Jubilee but I don’t think that’s possible because I want all the defence lawyers to have time to do their job and the freedom of defence.”

Question: How will you proceed, to prevent the recurrence of these things?

Pope Francis: I thank God that there is no longer Lucrezia Borgia! [laughs] But I do not know, with the Cardinals, to do away with the Commission. Not true? Thank you.

Text: Giuseppe Nardi/Vatican Reports translation
Image: Mil

French Restoration – Numbers Don’t Lie

27 Friday Nov 2015

Posted by S. Armaticus in Restoration

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

aberro-sex agenda, AIDS, Ambiguity, Anal Cancer, anal fissures, anorectal traum, Big Gender, Card. Muller, Cardinal Burke, cardinal Walter Kasper, Catholic Church, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Eponymous Flower blog, Francis Effect, French Revolution, Genderism, Giardia lamblia, Giussepe Nardi, Gonorrhea, Great Cardinal, Hemorrhoids, heretical pope, Herpes simplex virus, hippies, HIV, Human immunodeficiency virus, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, 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 ABERRO AGENDA, 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

France Great Terror

More GREAT NEWS coming out of France.

Archbishop Lefebvre, ora pro nobis!

I am posting the Eponymous Flower article (see original here) below…

FOR THE RECORD

 .

The Traditional Mass is Changing the Face of the French Clergy

Paris: The face of the French clergy is changing at a fast pace, and that in two respects. The number of priestly vocations is at the lowest level. Simultaneously, a change from the new to the old rite is taking place.

Decline in Diocesan Priestly Vocations by 84 Percent

In 1966, the year after the end of the Second Vatican Council, there were 4,536 diocesan seminarians in France.  Within ten years the number fell, under the influence of Pope Paul VI and in the Post-Conciliar period to 1297 in 1975. A  decline of almost three-quarters could be described as a fast collapse.  Under Pope John Paul II,  the slump was halted 20 years later, in 1996, the number was still 1,103 seminarians at approximately the same level.

The last part of his pontificate was followed by a new nosedive: In 2005, the number of seminarians was 784. That was only 17 percent when compared to 1966, or in other words, a decrease of 83 percent.

2011 has reached the lowest point since the French Revolution. Only 710 seminarians were preparing for the secular priesthood. Parallel to this decline, the proportion of seminarians of the tradition is growing.

Proportion of Priests of Tradition Climbs

An assessment of the priestly ordinations in the last five years illustrates this development. It consists of the numbers of those  ordained  in the Ordinary form compared to those  consecrated in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. The list refers only to secular priests. Keeping in mind the priests of the Ecclesia Dei  communities and the Society of St. Pius X.

2010: 86 percent of the ordinations in the Ordinary, 14 percent in the Extraordinary
Form, 

2011: 86 percent of the ordinations in the Ordinary, 14 percent in the Extraordinary Form

2012: 83 percent of the ordinations in the Ordinary, 17 percent in the Extraordinary Form

2013: 88 percent of ordinations in the Ordinary, 12 percent in the Extraordinary Form

2014: 82 percent of the ordinations in the Ordinary, 18 percent in the Extraordinary Form

2015: 77 percent of the ordinations in the Ordinary, 23 percent in the extraordinary form

The Drama of the Decline and the Hope for a New future

The juxtaposition of consecration years in absolute terms shows the development and the drama:

2010: 96 ordinations in the Ordinary form, 16 in the Extraordinary
Form, 

2011: 109 ordinations in the ordinary form, 18 in the Extraordinary Form

2012: 97 ordinations in the ordinary form, 20 in the Extraordinary Form

2013: 92 ordinations in the ordinary form , 12 in the Extraordinary Form

2014: 88 ordinations in the ordinary form, 18 in the Extraordinary Form

2015: 68 ordinations in the ordinary form, 20 in the extraordinary form

Over the past six years, 545 diocesan priests were ordained for the new rite in France and 107 for the Traditional Rite.  Not included in the list are religious priests. It also doesn’t include those ordained in the traditional rite, like the Benedictines of Le Barroux or the Frenchmen who were ordained for the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest. Also not considered is the phenomenon spreading in France of biritually trained priests, or the phenomenon of young diocesan priests of the new rite, who are also interested in the traditional rite and tradition.

Communities and Parishes of the Traditional Rite are a Breeding Ground for Vocations

The personal parishes and communities of tradition have proven to be the most fertile ground for priestly vocations.Compared to their small number and size,  their share of vocations is enormous. The traditional  blogger Cordialiter published a conversation with a young Italian who encountered the traditional form of the Roman Rite in Austria and now lives with his family in France. The traditional community to which he belongs in France is 25 years old.  During this time 17 priestly vocations have emerged from it. “The majority have joined French orders of the tradition, the Benedictines of Le Barroux, Fontgombault, the Canons Regular of Lagrasse, the Servi Jesu et Mariae etc.”

Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: Mil

Dispatches From The Restoration Front

24 Tuesday Nov 2015

Posted by S. Armaticus in Restoration

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

aberro-sex agenda, AIDS, Ambiguity, Anal Cancer, anal fissures, 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, 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 ABERRO AGENDA, 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

Prayers before Mass

Today’s post will veer off a bit from the bi-Synod analysis theme and revert back to the stated mission statement of this blog, namely the chronicling of the Restoration of all things in Christ. There have been some notable developments with respect to the advance of Catholicism regardless of the reactionary 1960’s mindset that dominates a certain cabal in Modernist Rome these days. The below is a short compendium of what is happening on the Restoration front.

First we start in the great North West of…..jolly ole England. Dr. Jonathon Shaw, writing in the Rorate Caeli blog informs its readers that the Fraternal Society of St. Peter was given a church in the town of Warrington. Here is how Dr Shaw describes the relevance of this latest “friendly takeover” of this beautiful church from the Novus Ordo sect: (see here) (emphasis added)

This is part of a wider phenomenon in this part of England, where the Catholic population was traditionally the highest, thanks to the resistance of local Catholics to the Reformation, and after 1840 to Irish immigration. St Mary’s forms the third of a triangle of impressive, but potentially redundant, churches, which have been given to the care of the Traditional Institutes: two, SS Peter & Paul and St Philomena, at the north end of the Diocese of Shrewsbury, and St Walburge’s, Preston, in the Diocese of Lancaster, to the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, and now St Mary’s, in Liverpool Archdiocese, to the FSSP.

Two other northern dioceses, Salford and Middlesbrough, have recently established communities of the Oratorians of St Philip Neri, both of which celebrate Sunday Masses in the Vetus Ordo. Like the ICKSP and the FSSP, the Oratorians are now looking after fine historic churches.

Elsewhere in the country, the Fraternity of St Peter has a canonically erected house in Portsmouth Diocese, where they share a church, and an official ‘chaplaincy’ in the Diocese of Northampton.

And the significance of this is:

The significance of these developments is in part that, unlike the secular clergy, the Traditional Mass will not routinely disappear from these locations when a priest is moved, retires, or dies. It is a step of major symbolic significance, in which the local bishop is necessarily fully involved.

A further significance, if I may interject here is that a pattern is becoming evident in these moves. We have noticed a similar phenomenon with the Dome of Home (SS Peter & Paul and St Philomena) “friendly takeover” in New Brighton (see here). This phenomenon can be summed up as follows:

If you are an ordinary and have a dilapidated structure that is large, such as a 100-year-old church, give it to a traditional order.

The inferences that could be drawn from the above observation (HYPOTHESIS) is much, much, much more than that a proper Catholic order will be able to appreciate the aesthetical pleasantries of the venue, but rather that a proper Catholic order will be able to draw the requisite Faithful that will be able to not only support the venue, but will make it an economically sustainable proposition.

Next we hop over to Switzerland, in the heart of the Novus Ordo sect’s rebellion against Catholicism and find out that a “few more bricks” have been laid. News comes in the form a group of students at the University of Fribourg. These students requested a “Novus Ordo” rite, however… The difference is that this “Novus Ordo” rite is characterized by: (see here)

The main particularities are the offering of the Sacrifice in Latin, with the Gregorian chant, ad orientem, and with the traditional way to receive the Holy Eucharist.

Now this is in no way an ideal situation, in that to Restore all things to Christ, the Novus Ordo rite must be EXTINGUISHED like the evil soul in the Bergoglian/Kasperian “theology done on the knees”, but then again, the “particularities” of this Novus Ordo “celebration” aren’t exactly what Bugnini and Paul VI had in mind either. So I guess we will just have to allow “graduality” to do its thing.

On an aside, I am relating this story since it was on account of a request of several seminarians made of Archbishop Lefebvre, to advise them as to a seminary where they could complete their priestly formation, that the SSPX was founded. Archbishop Lefebvre directed these seminarians to the University of Fribourg. It was on account of these students that the first SSPX seminary was opened in Fribourg Switzerland in 1969. This seminary moved to Econe in 1971, and the rest, like they say, is history.

And since we are on the subject of pre-extinguished Novus Ordo rites and seminarians, from the St. Charles Borromeo Seminary in Philadelphia comes news via the Musings of a Pertinacious Papist blog (see here), that present day seminarians have requested the offering of an Immemorial Mass of All Ages and what’s more important, the rector approved. So here we have another example that in the US seminaries, the trend back to Catholicism is alive and well, producing those future priests that Francis keeps warning us about.

On an aside, here is great post from dear friends of this blog at the Eyewitness blog about just this subject. (see here)

One more thing with respect to the post at the Musings blog and that is the following:

Prayer Pilgrimages will be holding its annual bus tour of historic churches in Chicago on Monday-Tuesday, December 28-29. Fr. Joe Tuskiewicz will be the celebrant of two High Masses in the Extraordinary Form to be held at the perennially popular St. Mary of the Angels [pictured] and St. John Cantius Churches.

The reason that I mention this particular announcement is due to the contained information that the Immemorial Mass of All Ages will be offered at St. Mary of the Angels Church. I mention this since as a young boy, an organization that I belonged to had Masses offered at St Mary’s at the start of each school year. I still vividly recall the ladies donning their mantilla’s as they were entering the church as if it was a week ago. Excuse the digression….

Next, we hop back across the big pond to the Church’s Eldest Daughter, i.e. France. Over at Fr. Z.’s blog (see here), we find a post with a link to a story written by Sam Gregg at the Catholic World Report. According to Mr. Gregg, the following is the case in France:

While Mass-attendance rates have steeply declined over the last 30 years, today France is witnessing the rise of an increasingly self-confident—and dynamically orthodox—Catholicism.

What’s more:

On October 30, readers of France’s main center-right newspaper, Le Figaro, woke up to the headline “La révolution silencieuse des catholiques de France.” What followed was a description of how those whom Le Figaro calls France’s néocatholiques have come to the forefront of the nation’s political, cultural, and economic debates. Significantly, the new Catholics’ idea of dialogue isn’t about listening to secular intellectuals and responding by nodding sagely and not saying anything that might offend others. Instead, younger observant Catholics have moved beyond—way, way beyond—what was called the “Catholicism of openness” that dominated post-Vatican II French Catholic life. While the néocatholiques are happy to listen, they also want to debate and even critique reigning secular orthodoxies. For them, discussion isn’t a one-way street. This is a generation of French Catholics who are, as Le Figaro put it, “afraid of nothing.”

When you have the TRUTH on your side, why should you be afraid? But I digress…

Please read the entire article.

As to the article itself, I will allow this article to stand on its own merit, however I would strongly disagree with two minor premises of the post. One is the legacy of Lustiger as some sort of at “revivalist” figure. He wasn’t. The most appropriate analogy that would fit Card. Lustiger was the “cleanest of the dirty shirts” of the French Episcopate of his age. The second minor premise that I would strongly disagree with is the glancing treatment of the impact that the SSPX has had on saving the part of the French Church that survives today. As to the rest of the Franch Catholic Church, please see here. Therefore, the role of Archbishop Lefebvre cannot be understated and Mr Gregg does.

Summa summarum, the Gregg article is a must read, if for no other reason than as a pick me up in these closing days of Francis’ pontificate (see here).

As to OBJECTIVE REALITY on the ground in France, we go over to the Eponymous Flower blog (see here). Here is how the post bi-Synod atmosphere in Novus Ordo land looks:

The ambiguity of the Synod Final Report is showing its real impact in France. The French Bishops’ Conference seem to have been “overthrown with utter confusion” by the Relatio finalis on the subject of remarried divorcees. says CorrispondenzaRomana.

Please read the rest of the article and JUDGE for yourself what the REALITY on the ground is inside the Catholic Church of France and it is:

This is “a perspective of utter capitulation. The spirit of the synod is already blowing strong in the Church of France.

And seeing as how we are on a French/student/seminarian theme today, Fr. Z has another post about the situation at Notre Dame. The one in South Bend Indiana this time.

In his post titled Notre Dame U. v. Fr. Miscamble, NDCatholic.com (see here), we find out that the heretics that occupy this American seat of higher learning, have shut down Fr. Miscable’s involvement with the NDCatholic.com blog. This blog provided information about faculty profiles in order to help students navigate their way through the minefield of the post-conciliar gibberish known as a “c”atholic university education.

What I would like to draw your attention to is the fact that alumni are becoming involved in turning the Barque of St. Peter around. This is a very positive development. The reason for the significance of this development is that we know what the most important aspect of the post-conciliar church is and it is DOSH (that’s money for you non-UK types).

And who has the money?

Why the alumni do.

So what we have here is very positive dynamic being introduced, namely one that pits the faculty against the money. So in this particular case, the money might have lost this first skirmish, but guess who will win this war?

And on that happy note, I will leave off for today.

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.

 

 

 

← 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

  • 839,867 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.

Create a free website or 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...