In yesterday’s post titled “Tłuste Lata” For Catholicism in Poland (see here) we chronicled the advance that Catholicism is making in the Polish Church. The advance can be seen in the growing numbers of men who are presently studying for the priesthood in Catholic seminaries.
Today, we turn our focus to the Catholic Church’s FIRST RELIGIOUS SOCIETY AMONG EQUALS, the Fraternal Priestly Society of St. Pius X. On the SSPX’s US website, (see here) via the DICI website, we are informed that a total of 53 new entrants have commenced their first year of study at SSPX seminaries. Furthermore, another 49 men have entered the pre-seminary phase who will take courses in the humanities before beginning their specialized seminary studies.
To provide context, since context is everything, I would like to draw your attention to the situation at the Seminary of Our Lady Co-Redemptrix in La Reja Argentina. La Reja is approximately 30 miles west of Buenos Aires. (seehere) Just this year, 9 new entrants will begin their first year of spirituality and a further 14 will begin the pre-seminary phase. That is a total of 23 men just this year. When added to the 30+ seminarians (will confirm once I have exact figure but there are 49 seminarians in La Reja and Goulburn collectively), the total comes out to no less than 53.
While at the same time, over at the diocesan seminary of Buenos Aires, the number of seminarians is less than 30. (Once again, see here) And for further context, here is a comment from a friend of this blog, Mr Richard Malcomb who writes:
“Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio in his last year as the Archbishop of Buenos Aires had in his seminary a grand total of 28 seminarians.” …which was a two thirds dropoff from what he inherited in 1997.
Before I go to the post, I would just like to remind all my readers that the SSPX’s Seminary Project in Virginia is underway. (see here) Last time we checked in, the slate roof was being installed. (see here) If you would be so kind as to venture over to their website and even kinder and contribute to this noble cause, your humble blogger would be most grateful.
On an aside, at this rate, it would appear that this new seminary will be needed just to handle the overflow from St. Thomas Aquinas Seminiary in Winona.
Deo Gratias!
Archbishop Lefebvre, ora pro nobis!
And now, I am reproducing the post below…
FOR THE RECORD
From DICI we offer this joyful news about this academic year’s number of entrants to the SSPX’s seminaries, as well as the total of postulants to the brotherhood.
The Society of St. Pius X is admitting a total of 53 young men to their first year of spirituality in its different seminaries for the current academic year 2015-2016.
In the Northern Hemisphere, the Seminary of the Holy Cure of Ars in Flavigny (France) is welcoming 14 new seminarians (4 Frenchmen, 4 Swiss, 2 Gabonese, 2 Italian, 1 Nigerian and 1 Pole) and 2 postulant brothers (1 French and 1 Canadian), as well as a pre-seminarian.
Sacred Heart Seminary in Zaitzkofen (Germany) is welcoming 10 new seminarians (2 Germans, 2 Czechs, 1 Austrian, 1 Frenchman, 1 Lithuanian, 1 Pole, 1 Russian and 1 South African).
St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, Minnesota (U.S.A.) is welcoming 12 new seminarians and 5 postulant brothers (all Americans), as well as 30 pre-seminarians who will take courses in the humanities before beginning their specialized seminary studies. [Read at STAS.ORG: 35 new vocations]
In the Southern Hemisphere the beginning of the new academic year in March 2015 saw the arrival at the Seminary of Our Lady Co-Redemptrix in La Reja (Argentina) of 9 new seminarians (5 Argentines, 2 Brazilians, 1 Chilean and 1 Guatemalan) and 3 postulant brothers (1 American, 1 Brazilian and 1 Dominican), and of 14 pre-seminarians as well.
At Holy Cross Seminary in Goulburn (Australia), 8 new seminarians had entered as first-year students (2 Australians, 2 Filipinos, 1 American, 1 Indian, 1 Kenyan, and 1 Ugandan), as well as one postulant brother and 4 pre-seminarians.
That makes for this calendar year 2015 a total of 53 first-year seminarians and 10 entering as postulants to become brothers. There were 51 new seminarians in 2014, 43 in 2013, 50 in 2012, 57 in 2011, and 48 in 2010.
I interrupt the chronicling of the Synod of Filth to bring some good news. Below is a translation of two posts, one from the SSPX Polish website and the other from the UnaCum.pl post (Polish Una Voce) pertaining to seminarians studying in SSPX and Ecclesia Dei Seminaries.
As you can see dear reader, the Poles are experiencing “Tłuste Lata”, which translates roughly into a “Years of plenty”.
First, the SSPX since they have pride of place and are first among equals on your humble blogger’s even humbler blog. On the back of the 39 seminarians that took their cassocks at the SSPX’s seminaries that we chronicled in the post titled Vaches Grasses (see here) and had to quickly update it, which we did with the post titled Make That 39!, (see here) all in February of this year. Well the new year has started and it promises to be another “Tłuste Lato”. We have a further 10 taking their cassock at the SSPX’s Zaitzkfen International Seminary alone, being reported by the SSPX’s Polish website. Here is the translated post: (original see here)
This year, to the international seminary belonging to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, the Sacred Heart of Jesus in Zaitzkofen Bavaria, knocked the next ten young men who want to study and take formation to serve the Church as priests. Candidates for the priesthood come from eight countries: among them two Germans and two Czechs and one candidate from Austria, France, Lithuanian, Poland, South Africa and Russia – the latter does not appear in the photo, because it is still waiting for a visa to enter the EU .
And from co-religionists and brothers in Christ, fighting the good fight inside the pro-conciliar church structures, over at at the UnaCum.pl website the following can be read: (original see here)
Poles in traditional seminars UnaCum.pl
As every year, we publish the joyous news about Poles who are preparing for the priesthood in the priestly pontifical institutes of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. These seminarians are asking for prayers, for their priestly vocations.
In the European seminary of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) in Wigratzbad in Bavaria, studying theology are Mr James who comes from the Diocese of Torun and Mr Michael who is from the Archdiocese of Warsaw. Studying philosophy in Bavaria are two Poles: Mr Peter of the Archdiocese of Lodz and Mr Wojciech from the diocese of Bielsko-Zywiec. In the US seminary of the FSSP in Denton studying theology is Mr Krzysztof who comes from the diocese of Bielsko – Zywiec.
The seminary of the Institute of the Good Shepherd (IBP) in Courtalain in France, the following individuals are preparing for the priesthood: Mr Wojciech from the Diocese of Torun, Mr Michael of the Archdiocese of Warsaw, Mr. Rafal from the Diocese of Radom, Mr. Peter of the Archdiocese of Gniezno, Mr.. Przemysław from the Archdiocese Warsaw and Mr.George of the Archdiocese of Warsaw.
On 1 November 2012, the Superior of Institute of St. Philip Neri (ISPN), headquartered in Berlin, the Academy was established by Card. Baronius. The Academy educates future priests for the Institute, but the classes are open to all. The course of studies at the Academy last 6 years and is consistent with the Roman guidelines for training priests in philosophy and theology. In this academic year, continuing his studies at the Academy is Mr. Martin who is from the Diocese of Rzeszow.
Sancte Gabriel Possenti, ora pro eis!
And just to give you a point of reference as to how big this news is, please recall that Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio in his last year as the Archbishop of Buenos Aires had in his seminary a grand total of 28 seminarians. (see here)
A big DEO GRATIAS and please keep these young men, all the other young men who are attending traditional seminaries as well as seminaries that teach traditional Catholicism in your prayers.
This post was originally titled The Feast of the Most Holy Name of Mary, whose feast day is today. I have changed its title however, to give it a historical perspective. Even though the title is “lighter”, it does not distract from the intended context, triumphalist by its very nature.
Here is the original post:
Today, the 12th of September is the Feast of the Most Holy Name of Mary. It has been a universal Roman Rite feast since 1684, when Pope Innocent XI included it in the General Roman Calendar to commemorate the victory at the Battle of Vienna in 1683.
As to what is at stake, I link to a Fr. Z post that lays it out quite neatly in his post titled The final target of the Third Hijra: Rome and the Catholic Church. (see here)
Today more than ever, we need to go to Church, pray and do penance. Please also keep the Hungarians, the Poles and the Czech in your prayers. They are on the front lines and heroically resisting against much larger and better funded forces, both internal and external, of heretics, heathens and infidels.
Background of the Feast of the Most Holy Name of Mary from Wikipedia: (see here)
Before the Battle of Vienna in 1683, John III Sobieski had placed his troops under the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary. In the following year, to celebrate the victory, Pope Innocent XI added the feast to the General Roman Calendar, assigning to it the Sunday within the octave of the Nativity of Mary.
The reform of Pope Pius X in 1911 restored to prominence the celebration of Sundays in their own right, after they had been often replaced by celebrations of the saints. The celebration of the Holy Name of Mary was therefore moved to 12 September.[7] Later in the same century, the feast was removed from the General Roman Calendar in 1969 in the reform of the Calendar by Pope Paul VI, as something of a duplication of the 8 September feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary,[8] but it did not cease to be a recognized feast of the Roman Rite, being mentioned in the Roman Martyrology on 12 September. In 2002 Pope John Paul II restored the celebration to the General Roman Calendar.[
On a lighter side:
The Croissant:
The day was commemorated in Vienna by creating a new kind of pastry, known now as the croissant, shaping it in the form of a half-moon from the crest on the Turkish flag. It was eaten along with coffee which was part of the booty from the Turks.
Legend has it that soldiers of the Polish-Habsburg army, while liberating Vienna from the second Turkish siege in 1683, found a number of sacks with strange beans that they initially thought were camel feed and wanted to burn. The Polish king Jan III Sobieski granted the sacks to one of his officers named Jerzy Franciszek Kulczycki, who started the first coffee house. This story was published by the Catholic Priest Gottfried Uhlich in 1783 in his History of the second Turkish Siege, and he took some liberties. In reality, Kolschitzky’s coffee house missed being the first by more than a year. A more factual account has been reported by Karl Teply.[5]
After some experimentation, the legend goes on, Kolschitzky added some sugar and milk, and the Viennese coffee tradition was born. This achievement has been recognized in many modern Viennese coffeehouses by hanging a picture of Kulczycki in the window.[6] Another account is that Kulczycki, having spent two years in Ottoman captivity, knew perfectly well what coffee really is and tricked his superiors into granting him the beans that were considered worthless.[7]
So the next time anyone tries to convince you that a Polish breakfast has to do with cold cuts, please…please by all means correct them!
Today we follow-up with some running analysis that tries to explain the recent actions of Francis with respect to his confirming that the SSPX have supplied jurisdiction through a “state of necessity” for the salvation of souls that exists in the Universal Church. For those who have not been over to the Harvesting the Fruits blog, here are the two post that explain the significance of this unilateral decision by Francis: see here and here.
The question that was then posed is why? In my humble opinion, I think Francis’ actions are directly linked to the upcoming synod, and I will try to explain why.
But before I start with today’s subject matter, I would just like to point your attention to a recurrent theme of this blog, namely that the upcoming Stealth Sex Synod has a TRUE AGENDA and that TRUE AGENDA is about two words and only two words, i.e. INTRINSIC DISORDER. The sole aim of the Stealth Sex Synod™, i.e. the TRUE AGENDA is simply to expunge these two words from the Catholic Catechism and Code of Canon Law. The issue of “the family”, communion for divorced and remarried, concubinage and all other tangential issues are just fig leafs to make it look like the Synod is tackling issues that encompass a large section of the Catholic population, while in fact what they are after only affects 1% of this population, if even that. I have published on this topic numerous posts, one of which is titled So It Was The Homo Agenda All Along. (see here)
The reason that I am bringing this up now is that this blogger has obtain confirmation as to the accuracy of the above mentioned analysis. It comes by way of Fr. Z and his post titled Smoking Gun Book™ about last year’s chaotic Synod. The relevent passage is here: (see here)
BTW… I don’t think that Communion for the divorced and remarried is going to get anywhere. I don’t think that that was the true agenda from the start.There is some discussion of a certain lobby at work. But I digress….
This above position is exactly what our Peirce/Ockham pragmatic methodology (see here) indicated as far back as the 18th of December 2014 which we first presented in our post titled the Synod of the Three Paragraphs (see here).
Numquam Ponenda est Pluralitas Sine Necessitate, indeed!
So now that we have added to our street cred thanks to Fr. Z, lets looks closer at the supplied jurisdiction issue and explain what it is most likely about.
Before I get into the detail, I would like to point your attention to the Sandro Magister post titled Father Lombardi, the Mouth of Truth (see here) As Magister points out, Francis has created a “parallel curia” around him who give him advice and make decisions outside of the formal Curia structure. They even schedule meetings and audiences without telling poor Fr. Lombardi. Understanding this situation will help understand the supplied jurisdiction issue.
Now that we understand the situation inside the Sacred Vatican Walls, i.e. chaos, we can assess the proper context of what Francis did and motives behind his actions.
With respect to what Francis did, or rather the form in which he did it, he no doubt received advice on a “political” level, without checking what the canonical consequences of his actions would imply. On an aside, this is the reason why a pope has a Curia, to make sure that that which he “produces” does not have any unintended consequences.
Now to Francis’ specific action. The way in which one needs to look at what Francis did is by looking what was done in a similar situation by BXVI. An analogous situation was the lifting of the excommunication of the SSPX bishops. This was done in the form of a DECREE REMITTING THE EXCOMMUNICATION “LATAE SENTENTIAE” OF THE BISHOPS OF THE SOCIETY OF ST PIUS X (see here) through the Congregation for Bishops. This was an official Vatican document in which BXVI exercised his legitimate power to lift canonical penalties that are reserved to the Holy See. This was the basis of this decision.
Now with respect to Francis. Francis acted unilaterally. As per Louie’s brilliant analysis in the post linked to above, what Francis did was outside the normal channel for such decisions. In other words, the Curia (CDF in this case) was most certainly not informed. If you look at the paragraph that Louie Verrecchio posted where Francis “confirms” that the SSPX has “supplied jurisdiction”, we see no explicit canonical basis on which Francis makes his decision. But just because Francis does not reference a canonical basis, does not mean that one does not exist. In this case, the canonical basis is assumed. And since Francis uses the same “phraseology” that the SSPX (their canonists) use when explaining their supplied jurisdiction, it confirms that Francis confirms that their position is an OBJECTIVELY CORRECT position.
And the ONLY way that they could have obtained the supplied jurisdiction (have an OBJECTIVELY CORRECT position) is through “extraordinary supplied jurisdiction” granted the Catholic Church under a “state of necessity” for the salvation of souls that exists in the Universal Church. (see here)
Or to look at it another way, if Francis confirms that the SSPX have “supplied jurisdiction” at any time after the excommunication in 1988, then it is only logical that they have always had it and simultaneously confirms that they obtained it through the “state of necessity”.
They could not have gotten it any other way!
Now as to Francis’ motives. I think that the SSPX are only pawn in this situation. The object of Francis’ actions is most likely Card. Muller. Since he has created for himself the function of “theological structurer”, Francis was blocked from using a formal mechanism (a la papal decree) since it would not get past the CDF. On an aside, card. Muller is the arch-nemesis of the SSPX in the Curia, so even a hint of what Francis was up to would have created a shit storm.
So Francis needed a sneaky mechanism to go around the “system” and he accomplished it through a simple letter to an archbishop. He found a “clever solution”, but it turns out that the solution was “too clever by half”. It created a whole host of unintended consequences that his theologically challenged pseudo-canonists from his parallel curia did not even fathom. For an example of one of these geniuses, please follow this link: see here.
So now to the motivation. What Francis was trying to do in my humble opinion was to demonstrate how “wide and large” is the scope of his concept of mercy. This was no doubt done to create friction among the orthodox/Catholic bishops at the upcoming synod. It pits Card. Muller (anti-SSPX) against card. Brandmuller and Archbishop Schneider (pro-SSPX). And there are a lot of bishops who support the SSPX secretly, so this was done to give them an olive branch. As to this most likely motivation, Mundabor has an excellent post on just this with a similar take. Please follow the link here.
And on a related note, the other thing that Francis is doing is changing the rules at the upcoming synod to a simple majority vote (no longer 2/3). I will put up the relevent link in due course here and will address this subject matter in an upcoming post.
So summa summarum, the most likely explanation for the “generous” act of Francis was driven by the TRUE AGENDA of the upcoming Stealth Sex Synod™ that will begin in 32 days from today.
The most likely situation is that Francis has made “undertakings” to “a certain bishops’ conference that is in fact a front for a certain lobby” (see here) and now he needs to perform. He has a problem with the synod bishops that the episcopal conferences are sending over since they are overwhelmingly of the orthodox/Catholic variety. The heterodox forces are vastly outnumbered, but cash rich. And if there is anything that we have learned about post-conciliar modernists, it is always a case of following the money. But since these cash rich conferences have not had too much luck in buying off the orthodox bishops, such as the Poles or the Africans, Francis needs to throw them a life line.
In order to help the Kasperian/Bergoglian “theology done on the knees”, whose TRUE AGENDA is nothing more than to expunge the two words INTRINSICALLY DISORDERED from the Catholic Catechism and Code of Canon Law, Francis implemented a “as wide as possible scope” of FrancisMercy. Since this FrancisMercy up to now was only shown to serial adulterers, individuals living in concubinage and sexual deviants, Francis felt that he needed to throw a bone to orthodox/Catholics. You know the ones (see here).
So he went about in his usual sloppy manner as per text above. The motivation was no doubt to create strife among the conservatives and neo-conservatives in order break up their unity at the upcoming Synod. Remember, disunity among the conservatives is good for Francis and Kasper.
Divide et Impera!
But the omnipresent sloppiness of this papacy in general and of Francis’ action with respect to this issue, created unintended consequences. The main unintended consequence is that the leader of the forces of modernist Rome inadvertently confirmed the validity of the position of Archbishop Lefebvre and the correctness of the CANONICAL position under which the SSPX functions inside of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
On a higher level, one can say that the law of non-contradiction has finally caught up with the neo-modernists.
And all one can say at this point is: chalk one up for the God of surprises!
As your humble blogger slowly returns from the family holiday, it is hard to identify what to write about since the last week or so has been quite interesting. But since the latest news pertains to absolution for the sin/crime of abortion and the SSPX faculties to hear confession/absolve sin, I will attempt to put this into perspective. I would also like to mention that the first sitting of the Stealth Sex Synod of 2015 is on October 5th, which is just 33 days from today.
Now back to the issue at hand.
When looking at a headline like the following:
Pope Expands Priests’ Faculties to Forgive Abortion for Jubilee Year, Addresses SSPX Confessions
which can be read on the ZENIT website (see here), the natural question that one asks is how these two issues are related. To the casual observer and not only, the answer appears illusive. But if one keeps in mind that we are 33 days away from the Stealth Sex Synod of 2015 and the strategy for trying to get the Kasperian/Bergoglian “theology done on the knees” past the Bishops’ Synod, is based on a desperate cry for “mercy”, then the fog of war begins lifting and the answer starts coming into focus.
With respect to the regular readers of this blog, individuals who are more than casual observers and even bloggers themselves, will automatically recognize that there is a problem, the same problem actually, with the two “issues” of absolution for sin/crime of abortion and the faculties of the SSPX to absolve sinners,i.e. valid confessions, that pops up right from the outset.
The problem is that these two issues are not real issues.
Let’s start with the easy one first.
With respect to the sin of abortion and the “expanded faculties to forgive abortion” given to the priests by Francis, this is a non issue. The reason that it is an non issue is that the “sin“ of abortion was always considered a sin and absolution was given through the sacrament of Confession.
As to how the pre 1983 Code of Canon Law (CIC) treated abortion, the Code of Canon Law that was binding was the 1917 CIC and the relevant article for our purposes is Canon 2350. Under the 1917 CIC, there was a distinction between the sin of abortion and the crime of abortion. The requirement for absolving the “crime“ of abortion under the former Code contained the “expressed limitation that only “ordinaries” could lift the excommunication for the crime of abortion“. But in the 1983 CIC, the “crime“ of abortion language was dropped. Furthermore, JPII gave all priests the faculties to absolve for the “sin“ of abortion. (see here)
So why are we speaking about the pre 1983 CIC and the “crime“ of abortion and the associated latae sententiae or “automatic excommunication” now? Well because Francis needs the latae sententiae or “automatic excommunication so that he can have something for his missionaries of mercy to do.
Note bene, the reason that there is a need to drag the penalty of latae sententiae into the picture is that it is a penalty for a legitimate “crime”, a penalty that would need to be lifted by the pope. (see here) By dragging this topic into the discussion, it would actually justify the need for these “missionaries of mercy” that Francis will be calling. And since the NO Church types are desperate to find a way to drag the issue of latae sententiae into the picture, the penalty for committing the canonical crime of abortion, based on language that was dropped from the 1983 Code of Canon Law, we now have confusion.
A nice illustration of the twists and turn and general confusion of this issue can be found in the above linked post by the canonist Ed Peters on the Fr. Z blog.
So taking Francis at his word, what we have is Francis giving faculties to priest who already have those faculties under the 1983 Canon Code and faculties given them by JPII.
And now to the second non-issue at hand.
The SSPX and the “temporary” faculties that Francis has so generously bestowed on them by giving them “supplied jurisdiction” to hear confessions and absolve sins.
The SSPX already has the faculties to absolve sin through what is termed “extraordinary supplied jurisdiction”. The “supplied jurisdiction” is granted to the Society under “Normae generals” or general norms of the Code of Canon Law. The following is the true situation as laid out by the SSPX: (see here)
Consequently we must base our activity on the juridical analogy taken from the general norms of the Codes (Canon 20 in the Old Code and Canon 19 in the New Code), which state that if there is no express law concerning a special situation, the rule must be taken from:
1) laws promulgated for similar circumstances. The similar circumstances are those in which the Church supplies jurisdiction on account of the grave danger to souls.
They are the cases of: • common error concerning a priest’s jurisdiction: Old Code [i.e., the 1917 Code of Canon Law, forthwith “OC”] Canon 209 (New Code [i.e., the 1983 Code of Canon Law, forthwith “NC”] 144). • positive and probable doubt: OC 209 (NC 144). This can be concerning jurisdiction or common error or danger of death. • non-cognizance to the fact that jurisdiction has expired: OC 207. • danger of death: OC 882 and 2252 (NC 976 and 1357). Those who cannot find a suitable confessor for a long period of time and who are consequently in danger of spiritual death must be assimilated to those in danger of death, according to the principle of Canonical Equity (see below).
2) the general principles of canon law, which inspire the particular laws. The two principal ones are: • the salvation of souls is the highest law (NC 1752). • the Sacraments are on account of men.
3) recourse equity. This is recourse to the mind of the legislator (when there is nothing explicit in writing), who never wants his legislation to be too onerous (burdensome), but always wants it to be interpreted in a just and favorable manner. That it is indeed the mind of the Church to be generous in the granting of jurisdiction and not overstrict or onerous is also apparent from the following two canons:
• OC 2261 §2 (NC 1335). The Church suspends its prohibition for an excommunicated or suspended priest celebrating the Sacraments or posing acts requiring jurisdiction, provided it be in favor of the faithful who request it for any reasonable cause at all, and especially if there is no other minister.
• OC 878 §2 (NC 970). Ordinaries and superiors are not to restrict jurisdiction. If the priest is suitable and the good of the faithful requires his services this jurisdiction cannot be refused to him. Clearly traditional priests should in justice receive personal jurisdiction and that everywhere (NC 967).
It is clear that, given the present circumstances of crisis in the Church and the principles of Canonical Equity, given the general principles of the law, and the Church’s continuous practice of supplying jurisdiction for the good of the faithful whenever it foresees that this lack of jurisdiction would be to their detriment, traditional priests receive supplied jurisdiction from the law. This is with the understanding that personal jurisdiction is unjustly refused to them simply because of their attachment to the Faith and its traditional expression (inseparable from the Faith), and that the faithful cannot be expected to continually search out and judge for themselves which confessors in the Conciliar Church might be acceptable and might give them the spiritual advice they need (given that the vast majority do not).
So the above is a very clear and concise explanation of the SSPX position that the SSPX has the necessary faculties to hear confessions and absolve sins through “supplied jurisdiction” brought about by the “state of necessity” in which the Catholic church finds Herself in since Vatican II.
Given the above, the issue then turns to: who determines whether the Catholic Church is in a “state of necessity”?
This has been an issue that has been discussed by canonist from all the traditional communities.
That is until yesterday.
The big news yesterday was actually missed by most bloggers and reporter. Who did not miss yesterday’s big news was Mr. Louie Verrecchio. The really big news yesterday was that Francis settled the above debate among the canonists. And he sided with the SSPX position.
To understand how Francis ended the debate, we go over to the Harvesting the Fruits blog and commentary from Louie Verrecchio. (see here) Here is the relevant passage:
Pope Francis stated:
A final consideration concerns those faithful who for various reasons choose to attend churches officiated by priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X. This Jubilee Year of Mercy excludes no one. From various quarters, several Brother Bishops have told me of their good faith and sacramental practice, combined however with an uneasy situation from the pastoral standpoint. I trust that in the near future solutions may be found to recover full communion with the priests and superiors of the Fraternity. In the meantime, motivated by the need to respond to the good of these faithful, through my own disposition, I establish that those who during the Holy Year of Mercy approach these priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation shall validly and licitly receive the absolution of their sins.
Louie Verecchio goes on to explain the significance of this passage:
So, what does this mean?
The canon lawyers and the neo-cons can parse the Code and argue over its meaning until they’re blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is that Pope Francis just confirmed that the Society’s argument with respect to supplied jurisdiction has always been correct.
In a video dated July 15, 2015, the SSPX presented its understanding of the matter saying:
Traditional priests do have a jurisdiction that is neither territorial nor personal but supplied in view of the needs of the faithful in a state of necessity.
NB: The justification for insisting upon this jurisdiction, supplied extraordinarily by the Church, is the “state of necessity.”
Pope Francis, in his letter concerning the Year of Mercy, invoked the very same justification; namely, “the need to respond to the good of these faithful.”
Game, set and match.
Or to paraphrase it another way, what Francis has in fact confirmed is: that because of the need for the Church to respond to “these faithful”, he is invoking the same justification as that which the SSPX invokes.
In other words, Francis and the SSPX are both operating under the same “supplied jurisdiction” brought about by a state of necessity in the Catholic Church, a supplied jurisdiction that is given to all traditional priests under the 1983 Code of Canon Law as per SSPX explanation above.
So concluding for today, what we have is very big news. The nature of the very big news is that Francis, the Roman pontiff and the bishop of Rome has corroborated the position of the SSPX and their canonist that they in fact have “supplied jurisdiction” in the area of hearing confessions and absolving sins. What is also of major importance is that Francis confirms, through his act, that he understands “supplied jurisdiction” in the same maner as does the SSPX and applies it in the same manner as does the SSPX.
Let’s take a second and let that sink in!
Summa summarum.
At a higher level, the above text illustrates that that Francis has given faculties in two areas, i.e. sins/crimes of abortion and hearing confessions/absolving sins to the SSPX, that are superfluous.
Which leaves us with the question of why did he do this.
I will pick up with this subject matter tomorrow.
In the mean time, have fun watching the neo-modernist tie themselves in knots with the “supplied jurisdiction” issue.
Even though the Armaticii family is still on vacation and I have been observing radio silence (i.e. not posting) since I have been spending time with the family, because as we all know, a man who does not spend time with his family can not be a real man, as per don Vito (see here), a development popped up that I just can’t resist commenting on.
But before I start, a gentle reminder that the Stealth Sex Synod™ of 2015 is only 38 days from today. Excuse the digression…
Now back to the matter at hand.
The reason that I am breaking radio silence is due to a post that I noticed over at Fr. Z’s blog. This post pertains to a theme that this blog has been writing about since its onset. This theme we have described as the REAL FRANCIS EFFECT and have given it a formal name: THE SOAP BUBBLE PAPACY™. The last post I wrote before vacation 2015 pertained to just this. The post was titled Francis Effect Upgraded to Francis Disaster. (see here)
And a Francis Disaster it is. Here’s how Fr. Z introduces this theme and the supporting evidence provided by Sandro Magister: (see here) [emphasis added]
Shortly after the election of Pope Francis, the Wednesday General Audience and the Sunday Angelus made the area around San Pietro a complete madhouse. I would usually be at the Augustinianum at those times for study or for lunch with a friend and I experienced it myself.
Then, over the next couple years, I noticed that it was easier and easier to get around near San Pietro at those times. Fewer people were coming.
For the 100th general audience of Pope Francis’ pontificate, the Prefecture of the Papal Household released the average attendance of audiences from 51,6K in 2013 to 14,8K in 2015. HERE
Well, the Deus Ex Machina blog has noticed just this, i.e. how easy one can get around St. Peter’s Square too. And in addition, has also been writing about it from time to time.
Continuing with Fr. Z’s post, here is the source data from Sandro Magister (Translation is your humble bloggers, [comments by Fr. Z]):
On the occasion of the hundredth general audience [On the occasion of the 100th general audience] of the pontificate of Pope Francis, Wednesday, August 26, the prefecture of the pontifical household announced that at these appointments in total, 3,147,600 people took part, distributed as follows Year by year:
– 1,548,500 present at 30 hearings of 2013, – 1,199,000 present at 43 hearings of 2014, – 400,100 present at 27 hearings of 2015.
This means that year by year, the average present at each hearing were as follows: [the average at each audience]
– 51,617 people in 2013, – 27,883 people in 2014, – 14,818 people in 2015.
So each subsequent year had half the attendance of the previous year. [Each year, half the number of the year before.]
Lean attendance was not averted, as at the hundredth hearing last Wednesday, it was announced that in attendance was only “no more than ten thousand.” [At the 100th there were “more than 10K”]
The photo above was taken during the general audience on Wednesday, February 11, 2015, which was also the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes and the Day of the Sick, with the influx of delegations UNITALSI. [Photo at the audience of February 11, 2015, Day of the Sick.]
Please recall, the attendance at the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes was provided by Antonio Socci and we presented his information in our post titled The Soap Bubble Papacy™. (see here)
Summa summarum, please notice how consistent the attendance figures are between that which Fr. Z posts, the figures which Sandro Magister provides, those figures that Antonio Socci provides and the numbers that are derived from our other sources.
But back to Fr. Z’s post, here is how he concludes this sad topic:
Benedict’s audiences exceeded those of John Paul II at times.
The square is emptier and emptier.
And it’s not because of the general secularization.
Romans aren’t going either, so it isn’t the economic slump.
No, it is not because of “general secularization” nor is it because of an “economic slump”.
What it is, is the REALFrancis Effect that is driving the Soap Bubble Papacy™.
I have not posted lately since I am on vacation. I am spending time with the family, as per video above. However, that does not mean that I do not follow current events. A big Deo gratias for Pew Sitter website is in order here. But I digress…
The reason that I am breaking my radio silence a few days early is due to a post that appeared on the Fr. Z blog that I just couldn’t resist commenting on. The post is titled Coming Soon! The “Eleven Cardinals Book”! (see here) The reason that I am bringing this post to your attention is due to a certain name that appears as a contributor. In other words, one of these contributors is not like the others! 😉
For those who have been following this blog, you will notice it right off the bat. That cardinal is non other than the President of the Episcopate of the Netherlands Willem Cardinal Eijk, who we featured in our post titled The Neo-modernist “Theology of Death”! (see here)
And the reason that I am bringing this to your attention dear reader is for its historical perspective. Please recall that a predecessor of Willem Cardinal Eijk was the notorious Bernardus Johannes Alfrink the Archbishop of Utrecht from 1955 to 1975 and a major player at the Second Vatican Council. The manner in which Cardinal Alfrink figures into the destruction of the Catholic Church we described in two posts, i.e. Man Marking Marx – Dei Power Ball (see here) and Man Marking Marx – The Network (see here).
The significance of this development, as you can no doubt figure out, is that in the span of 50 years, the Dutch Catholic Church, whose representative lead the charge to institute the neo-modernist agenda at Vatican II, now finds itself in total disintegration. The FORCED realization of this OBJECTIVE FACT has led his successor to revert back a “more Catholic” agenda. Hence his contribution to the 11 Cardinal Book.
Below is the Fr. Z post that I am reproducing… (original see here)
The Italian site La Nuova Bussola has learned that, in advance of the upcoming Synod of Bishops on the family, yet another “Cardinals Book” is being released.
This time, however, its the “Eleven Cardinals Book™”!
This is sure to strike terror in the hearts of the Kasperites!
Eleven Cardinals, as the headline runs, are trying to stop the “Protestantization of the Church”.
Baselios Cleemis, Arcivescovo maggiore della Chiesa cattolica siro-malankarese e Presidente della Conferenza episcopale dell’India;
Paul Josef Cordes, Presidente emerito del Consiglio pontificio «Cor Unum»;
Dominik Duka, O.P., Arcivescovo di Praga, Primate di Boemia;
Willem Jacobus Eijk, Arcivescovo di Utrecht;
Joachim Meisner, Arcivescovo emerito di Colonia;
John Olorunfemi Onaiyekan, Arcivescovo di Abuja (Nigeria);
Antonio Maria Rouco Varela, Arcivescovo emerito di Madrid;
Camillo Ruini, Vicario generale emerito di Sua Santità per la Diocesi di Roma;
Robert Sarah, Prefetto della Congregazione per il culto divino e la disciplina dei sacramenti;
Jorge Liberato Urosa Savino, Arcivescovo di Caracas, Santiago de Venezuela
The editor is the German professor of Canon Law Winfried Aymans, at Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in Munich.
It seems that Cardinals and only Cardinals are the writers. I am pleased to see Card. Sarah in the list, as well as Caffarra.
It doesn’t say anything concrete about the publisher. It doesn’t mention the title. It doesn’t say anything about the languages, though given that this is in an Italian site we can assume Italian is – at least – one of the languages.
The Five Cardinals Book (which everyone ought to have, especially every priest and bishop) came out simultaneously in five languages. HERE
Also, in the same Bussola piece there is a hint that another book is coming with contributions of 11 bishops and cardinals… all Africans!
You can guess what side of the marriage and the sodomy issues they will be on!
Yesterday we linked to a post which falls into the category that we termed: The Francis Effect. As to the definition of what constitutes the Francis Effect, it is nothing more than the rate of change (disintegration in our case) in the number of Catholic Faithful (practicing) since Francis became the pope bishop of Rome.
Using a mathematical definition, one can assume that in our case, the institution of the Catholic Church as measured by the total population of practicing Catholics (total number of Faithful making contributions pursuant to Canon 1271 of the Code of Canon Law) would constitute the real variable and that the rate of this growth/declinein the population of practicing Catholics would constitute the dependant variable. We further assume that the growth/decline in the general population of practicing Catholics can be defined as a mathematical function, therefore the rate of change of this mathematical function would be our first derivative. This first derivative is what we call The Francis Effect.
To summarize, The Francis Effect is nothing more than the rate of change (decline) with respect to the number of practicing Catholics in the universal Church since Francis’ investiture.
Given the above, and further given that there is no set of data in existence that can provide the numbers needed to make the above measurements, your humble blogger is resigned to use more limited sets of data, i.e. samples in order to make inferences as to the general situation within the entire population.
Without going into the different types of sample data sets that your humble blogger uses, below is a list of recent posts which contain various types of data samples that your humble blogger uses and resulting inferences made as to the general state of the Catholic Church as an institution:
T -223: Only 9,000 Gather With Francis For Ash Wednesday’s Angelus (see here)
Major Development – Francis Suffers Significant Drop in Polls ( see here)
In the below section, both visual and quantitative evidence will be used to add to our growing body of evidence as to the nature and rate of decline disintegration of the population of practicing Catholics caused by the Francis Effect. Over at the Rome Reports website, a video appeared in a post dated from the 4th of August titled Pope prays Vespers with more than 9,000 altar servers (see here).
Below I took a few screen shots from this video and provide them with limited commentary for your general information.
Screenshot #1 Notice the empty spaces at the top of the screenshot.
ScreenShot #2 Notice the novel garnment worn by Francis at Vespers.
Screenshot #3 More empty space at an official papal function on St. Peter’s Square.
Screenshot #4 A post from the last time (5 years earlier) that a Pope prayed Vespers with altar server. This event occurred under the papacy of Benedict XVI in 2010 and was attended by over 50,000 alter servers.
Concluding, all one needs to do is look at the math.
2010 50,000
2015 9,000
Growth/Decline = – 82%
Therefore, the Francis Effect as it pertains to Faithful Catholics who come to St. Peter’s Square and as measured by the attendance at Vespers by altar boys, is an 82% decrease of the level during the Benedict pontificate.
But that is not all.
Please notice that the drop during the attendance at the Vespers with altar boys in 2015 was a negative 82% (- 82%){(50,000-9,000)/50,000}. In the post titled Only 9,000 Gather With Francis For Ash Wednesday’s Angelus, the number of attendance in the last year of Benedict XVI’s reign was given as: “A measly 50,000 Faithful showed up for B XVI last Ash Wednesday”. Again we see this proportion of Faithful attending Francis events versus Benedict events of 9,000 and 50,000 respectively. Therefore, the attendance figures for the Vespers event confirms the attendance figures for the Ash Wednesday Angelus. The further significance of these two independent and unrelated data points, data points that provide almost identical attendance figures and by extension the same proportions, is not without significance. What we could be dealing with here is a quantitative representation of the destruction that Francis has wrought on Catholic Church as an institution in just two short years of his reign.
Today we jump around a bit due to an interesting post that appeared on the SSPX Canada website recently. The post contains a letter that was written to Friends and Benefactors by Fr. Daniel Couture, District Superior of Canada. The title of Fr. Couture’s post is Post-conciliar Language (see here), which highlights a phenomenon that we can call the corruption of language. A phenomenon that we identify and comment on quite often.
Your humble blogger has noticed that this corruption of language phenomenon “afflicts” Francis quite frequently, but also “afflicts” many of the leading neo-modernist clerics. We highlighted exactly this issue in a series of posts titled Man-Marking Marx (see an example here). In this series, we analyzed one of the main practitioners of this corruption the language methodology and the driving force behind the Stealth Sex Synod™ of 2015, one Cardinal Reinhard “Bling” Marx.
With respect to Fr. Couture’s post, the reason that it caught your humble blogger’s eye is because it serves as a good follow-up to an earlier post titled When Words Have No Meaning (see here). Today’s post will attempt to explain the genesis of this phenomenon of corrupted language and its derivative “meaningless words”. We often observe this phenomenon in documents and texts produced at the Second Vatican Council and in the post-conciliar church, hence the title of this post.
Before we get to Fr. Couture’s post, a few words about the genesis and context this meaningless words phenomenon. As Fr. Couture’s rightly observes, this phenomenon was already present at the time of Pope St. Piux X and mentioned in his Pascendi encyclical in 1907. The phenomenon of meaningless words can be traced to what is known as the Structuralism movement of the early to mid XXth century. Structuralism is defined as “a theory [which claims] that elements of human culture must be understood in terms of their relationship to a larger, overarching system or structure” (see here). Of the areas of study that the Structuralism movement infected were linguistics and literary criticism. Structuralismdeveloped as a theoretical framework in linguistics by Ferdinand de Saussure in the late 1920s, early 1930 (see here) and was seen as a “reaction to ’modernist’ alienation and despair”(see here). And as we can observe from the Pascendi passage, the Modernists were already alienated and despaired by 1907, which should provide context for what is written below.
So to address the general alienation and despair, Structuralism was conceived. As mentioned earlier, one area in which Structuralism took hold is in the field of linguistics. And as you no doubt by now can figure out dear reader, the reason for this development was due to a small problem that the Modernist’s encountered, i.e. a dictionary. To be more precise, the problem was the FACT that there is an objective meaning of words and their usage. The manner in which Structural linguistics got around the problem of the dictionary i.e. the objective meaning of words and their usage is through the novel theory that words were only symbols (signs) and the meaning was much less important than the underlying “structure” that those words represent. Hence the designation “structuralism”. Here is a good explanation of the above (see here):
Structuralism developed as a theoretical framework in linguistics by Ferdinand de Saussure in the late 1920s, early 1930s. De Saussure proposed that languages were constructed of hidden rules that practitioners known but are unable to articulate. In other words, though we may all speak the same language, we are not all able to fully articulate the grammatical rules that govern why we arrange words in the order we do. However, we understand these rules of an implicit (as opposed to explicit) level, and we are aware when we correctly use these rules when we are able to successfully decode what another person is saying to us (Johnson 2007: 91).
From the above, one can appreciate the powerful weapon that Structuralism provided the Modernist in their fight against the dreaded dictionary. Also notice the “space” that “understanding these rules of an implicit (as opposed to explicit) level” can provide for the activities of the “god of surprises”. But I digress…
The bad news however, was that this movement itself soon faded into obscurity due to a small design flaw, i.e. the inherent logical fallacy of contradictory conditions. In other words, Structuralism implicitly breached the rule of non self-contradiction. The specific problem was this: in order to use Structuralism, i.e. a theory that states that words DO NOT have an objective meaning, one needs to use words that DO have aobjective meaning. This realization led to the next big linguistic movement, i.e. Deconstructionism, which partially rectified this obvious logical flaw with Structuralism. Deconstructionism in turn states that the meaning of words is ambiguous. But I digress…
Partial communion anyone?
Which brings us to Pascendi and theology. This problem with Structuralism described above, i.e. the fallacy of contradictory conditions was addressed in the area of linguistics, but it is was not addressed in the neo-modernist post-conciliar theology. Whereas the linguists had a problem with the objective meaning of words in general, the neo-modernist “theologians” problem can be reduced to a problem with one word: TRUTH.
On an aside, it is for this reason that we termed this theology as The Neo-modernist “Theology of Death” (see here). It is also dying, but unlike Structuralism, only its ultimate demise is taking much longer.
To get a good understanding of what exactly is the problem with post-conciliar neon-modernist “theology”, we refer back to a staple post of this blog, i.e. the John Lamont essay titled Attacks on Thomism (see here). Here is the relevant passage: (emphasis added)
The neomodernist position, when stated clearly,is not liable to attract many people. Although its conception of truth has been defended by the pragmatist school of philosophy, most lay opinion agrees with the majority of philosophical opinion in rejecting the pragmatist understanding of truth.
In other words, TRUTH is an OBJECTIVE REALITY. Aristotle in turn described truth by saying: of what is, that it is. And to continue this thought to its logical conclusion, using mathematical notation: (what is, that it is = TRUTH = GOD).
But it gets better…
In addition, no great philosophical expertise is needed to see that the historical perspectivism of the neomodernists is self-refuting. Historical perspectivism is a universal philosophical claim about the nature of human concepts and human knowledge, a claim that is presented as being true for all people at all times, and as being known to be true by the neomodernists. But such a claim contradicts historical perspectivism itself, which denies the possibility of knowledge of this sort.The success of neomodernism thus seems mystifying, and requires explanation.
So not only do the neo-modernists have a problem with understanding what constitutes TRUTH, they also constructed their “theology” on a logical fallacy.
As to the explanation to the question regarding the “success of neo-modernism”, the most likely explanation is that the neo-modernist post-conciliar church is living off the patrimony that they captured inherited post Second Vatican Council. A good proof of just this case, can be derived from the observation between the income generated by the Holy See (Modernist Rome) and the Vatican City State (Eternal Rome) that was observed in the post Giving an Accounting to Peter (see here).
Which brings us to the Fr. Couture’s post. By far the most important observation that Fr. Couture makes is the corruption of the word “encyclical”. Fr. Couture correctly observes that: (emphasis added)
There is something wrong with calling Laudato si an encyclical. According to the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia: “In modern times usage has confined the term encyclical almost exclusively to certain papal documents (…) which in their superscription are explicitly addressed to the patriarchs, primates, archbishops, and bishops of the Universal Church in communion with the Apostolic See.
Whereas, in the Laudato Si, we read the following:
Pope Francis’ new encyclical is not aimed at Patriarchs, Archbishops, etc., but is rather an appeal to “everyone” (nn. 14, 64, 79, etc. – 17 times in the document in English) and “addressed to all people of good will” (n. 62). Moreover it does not intend to teach (the normal act of a teacher, a Magister in Latin, thus of a Magisterium) but to dialogue, to converse, to debate: “I urgently appeal, then, for a new dialogue about how we are shaping the future of our planet. We need a conversation which includes everyone, since the environmental challenge we are undergoing, and its human roots, concern and affect us all.” (n.14)
So what conclusion does Fr. Couture come to:
Thus the Pope admits that he is not teaching; nevertheless he wants his encyclical to become part of the Church’s teaching: “It is my hope that this Encyclical Letter, which is now added to the body of the Church’s social teaching…” (n.15)
In one word: confusion.
But also a proper key by which to assess just what in fact Laudato si, and by extension the Francis magisterium is.
Which brings to mind another commentary about another papal document provided by Cardinal Raymond Burke. When asked to comment about the Evangelii Gaudium Apostolic Exhortation, here is what Card. Burke observed: (see here)
“To me, it’s a distinct kind of document, and I haven’t quite figured out in my mind exactly how to describe it. But I would not think that it was intended to be part of papal magisterium. At least that’s my impression of it.”
Concluding, from reading the above, what becomes apparent is that the issues that Fr. Couture has with the “encyclical” Laudato si exists on many different levels.
At its root, the issue with Laudato si is the same problem that is at the root of all of Francis speeches, homilies and daily musing emanating from the Domus Sanctae Marthae, collectively known as Francis’ magisterium. This problem can be reduced to the fact that the words he uses are meaningless. In linguistic circle, Francis would be a genuine Structuralist.
The second problem that Francis’ magisterium has is derived from his “theological Structuralism”, and that is this. To an educated reader, Francis’ is a walking and talking and writing example of the logical fallacy of non self-contradiction. Fr. Couture provides a great example. Francis contradicts himself by calling this document an “encyclical”. One can only explain this problem as one of Structuralist linguistics. Furthermore, the more serious problem is that in the text of the document itself, Francis says that he “admits that he is not teaching; nevertheless he wants his encyclical to become part of the Church’s teaching“. This sentence is nothing short of gobbledygook (written gibberish).
And then there is the example of the oxymoron “living Tradition”, which I will leave for you dear reader to savor.
Which brings me to the final thought: how a Faithful Catholic should interpret the Laudato si and Evangelii Gaudium for that matter. Are they part of Francis’ teaching or are they not part of the Francis’ teaching?
To correctly interprest this above posed question, one needs to turn to Francis himself and guided oneself by his often repeated phases: I am a loyal son of the Catholic Church.
In other words, regardless what Francis says or writes, a Faithful Catholic MUST interpret his speeches, homilies and daily musing emanating from the Domus Sanctae Marthae, collectively known as Francis’ magisterium through the hermeneutic of continuity.
Regardless even of what Francis says.
There is no other way.
And here is a good example of how this can done. (see here)
Today we change from our theme of the circular nature of what leftists understand as gradualism or the novelty of Francisgraduality as per Secret Synod of 2014 as we have explained (see here), and turn to the theme of the circular nature of history. For my regular reader, you will no doubt recognize this as the theme of the Visibilium Omnium, et Invisibilium post (see here) And you are correct. The following passage from this post is of major relevance:
The reason that I am drawing your attention to this passage [from the Credo] is due to the fact that when we recite the part about the …Maker […] of all that is, […] unseen, we are dealing with all the “processes” in the natural law that govern the behavior of us fallen human beings.
The reason why the above passage explains our assertion of the circular nature of history is that just as in the Santayana observation at the top of the page, the “processes” contained in natural law – et Invisibilium are universal. A better term here would be “omnipresent”. In other words, they hold in all time and in all spaces. Therefore, if the above is true, and it is true, then the question becomes one of conforming to these universal processes. Actually, the issue is really to what degree any entity possessing free will, regardless of whether we are dealing with a single individual or an organization consisting of two or more individuals, conform to the omnipresent processes contained natural law.
As a rule of thumb, we can infer that the higher the degree of conformity in the actions of the entity to natural law, the more positive will be the result. And vice verse, the lesser the degree to conformity, the worse the results. We can also infer a general principle that the degree of non conformity is positively correlated to the degree of negativity of results. For a visual representation, think of the actions of a sinner and how they relate to that sinner finding himself on the heaven/purgatory/hell continuum.
Not only can we infer that this general principle holds in the spiritual realm, but we can also infer that this same general principle holds in the here and now. In the post titled Visibilium Omnium, et Invisibilium, we superimposed a situation that is playing itself out in the post conciliar church, and the Vatican specifically onto an economic analysis of the situation that is playing itself out in Greece presently. We can readily see that a parallel process very similar in nature is playing itself out in both these instances.
Today we take this analysis of the situation in Modernist Rome derived from the above post and try to project it into the future. We see that although the consolidated financials of the Vatican are fine, as we have laid out in our post titled Giving an Accounting to Peter (see here), we have also observed evidence of the disintegration of the universal church, or at least that part that contributes to the Vatican budget under the contributions made pursuant to Canon 1271 of the Code of Canon Law. We have also made the observation that whereas the Vatican City State is consistently operation in the black, the Holy See operates in the red. And by using the Holy See’s results as a proxy for that part of the Vatican that is the descendant of the “new springtime of the spirit of Vatican II”, we see that this will not end well.
Given the above, we now look to find an example of “non-conformity” in the area of national fiscal policy and economics that is more advance than that of Greece. (see here) The reason that we are doing this is to see not only what the future of Greece holds, but also to ascertain how a parallel process could look with respect to Modernist Rome. And as good fortune would have it, this sort of post-Greece situation is playing out with another regime that Francis is close to, i.e. the one in Venezuela. For reference, please see our Road Kill post. (see here)
The below comes from the ZeroHedge website and is titled Venezuela Increasingly Looks Like A War Zone (see here). I think that this post will provides a good indication of the process going forward for both Greece and the Vatican under their anthropocentric/socialist regimes. Also please keep in mind, that the country whose economic situation is the closest to that of Greece in the Eurozone (the Euro currency regime) is non other than Italy, so the comparison is timely to say the least.
And now on to the ZeroHedge post and it is…
FOR THE RECORD
Venezuela Increasingly Looks Like A War Zone
Over the years, we have repeatedly poked fun at the transformation of Venezuela into a “socialist utopia” – an economy in a state of terminal collapse, where the destruction of the currency (one black market Bolivar is now worth 107 times less than the official currency’s exchange rate) and the resulting hyperinflation is only matched be barren wasteland that local stores have transformed into now that conventional supply chains are irreparably broken.
Just this past Wednesday we showed a clip of what is currently taking place inside Venezuela supermarkets, noting that “the hyperinflationary collapse in Venezuela is reaching its terminal phase. With inflation soaring at least 65%, murder rates the 2nd highest in the world, and chronic food (and toilet paper shortages), the following disturbing clip shows what is rapidly becoming major social unrest in the Maduro’s socialist paradise… and perhaps more importantly, Venezuela shows us what the end game for every fiat money system looks like (and perhaps Janet and her colleagues should remember that).”
Unfortunately, while mocking socialist paradises everywhere is a recurring theme especially once they have completely run out of other people’s money to burn through, what always follows next is far less amusing – completely social collapse, with riots, civil war and deaths not far behind.
That is precisely what the video shown below has captured. In the clip, a demonstration against Venezuela’s poor transportation services quickly turned violent. End result: one person dead from a gunshot wound, more than 80 arrested and four shops looted on the Manuel Piar Avenue in San Felix.
What is most distrubing is how comparable to an open war zone what was once a vibrant, rich and beautiful Latin American country has become.
This is just the beginning: with the ongoing collapse of the economy, the resultant acts of social violence will only deteriorate and claim more innocent lives, until the “socialist utopia” ends as it always does: with the arrival of a military coup or a full blown civil war.