T -67: The Times, They Are A Changing

Tags

aberro-sexuals, Benedict XVI, Bergoglio, Bob Livingston, Camille Paglia, card. Kasper, card. Reinhard "Bling" Marx, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Kasper, Catholic Church, extremists, Francis church, Great Cardinal, heretical pope, hippies, homosexuality, Instrumentum Laboris, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Lineamenta, Modernists, MSM, narratives, Neo-Pagan, Nero, new springtime, optics, Pagan Christians, pathological, Personal Liberty Blog, Pope Francis, Raymond Burke, Roman Curia, spirit of Vatican II, Synod 2014, The Bishop of "Swank", Vatican

Today we continue our limited summer blogging with another guest post. This one is authored by Bob Livingston at the Personal Liberty Blog. (see here) The post below dovetails very nicely with what we wrote about yesterday in our post Coming Full Circle, i.e. the circular nature of the doctrine of gradualism. (see here) On an aside, for those readers who are not radical leftist political activists/strategist, like the gentlemen that we highlighted in our post The “Common Good” (see here), don’t come into contact with these concepts like gradualism or its FrancsiChurch equivalent “false graduality” on a daily basis. But for people on that side of the barricade, this dogma of the inevitability of “progress” and the strategy of gradualism is something that is first and foremost in these people’s thoughts and actions day in and day out.

The next and last thing that I would like to mention here is that even people on THAT side of the barricade, are beginning to sense that something is amiss. Yesterday’s post provided evidence of one “left of center” blogger starting to get it. Today, I am providing anecdotal evidence of another individual, who has been at the forefront of the “sexual revolution” and is now not only seeing the light, but is proposing a rather unique solution. (see here). We are living in interesting time indeed, when an avowed lesbian and atheist, who not only sees a problem with the secularization of the Catholic Church that we highlighted in the post The Public Sinners Get It (see here), but now thinks that:

“religion must be at the center of education”

Now this is what I call the advance of TRUE non-circular gradualism!

I am wondering how long it will take for Miss Paglia to figure out that the Faith of here fathers is actually the ONE TRUE FAITH and the only one that can address the issues that she raises. The solution is actually quite simple, i.e. to proclaim the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ? (see here)

At this rate that Miss Pagial is going, it should not take that long. Unfortunately, for the Modernists occupying the See of St. Peter, I am not that optimistic. (see here)

And now to the post and For The Record:

Affirmatively destroying America’s neighborhoods in the war on suburbia

Few of us understand patient gradualism. We live and have our being within a few years and mostly in an unconscious automated state of mind.

But people in power are long-term planners. They absolutely understand human nature and how to channel it to the evolution and refinement of the authoritarian state.

Authoritarianism is based on long-term planning. Authoritarianism is a philosophy of collectivism. Some call it democracy. Some call it communism. Some call it fascism. Some call it National Socialism. But whatever you call it, it is all collectivism or authoritarianism; and in its ultimate form it is globalism.

The goal is perfect docility and perfect harmony with authoritarianism (economic, social and spiritual). Until the people accept collectivism under some pretext, they are not docile and completely subdued. Once they do, rebellion and confrontation are impossible. This is the ultimate goal of the globalists, and the American system is nearing this state.

As I told you last week in “Why is the war on the Confederacy still going on today?,” the dismantling of the middle class has become the appointed, full-time task of the largest government alphabet soup agencies and Wall Street on behalf of globalism. The purpose behind this is that if those big middle-class producers and consumers can be decimated once and for all, then they can join the ranks of low-wage workers and more readily accept government largess and, thereby, become “hooked” on collectivism.

Collectivism is a certain means of social, economic and religious control. Politicians regularly espouse individualism, human liberty and democracy at the same time. Impossible! Individualism and human liberty are opposite to democracy and any other form of collectivism. The collectivist mentality or the mass collective mind is the spirit of the New World Order.

But something is standing in the way. Despite the years of indoctrination through the public (non)education system and mass programming by the national propaganda media and public (i.e., government) policy, rural Middle and Southern middle-class Americans — the “Red States” of “flyover country” — continue to resist the globalists’ dreams of a socialist/Marxist “utopia” and egalitarianism. That’s because they are, by and large, more independent and more self-reliant and also demand equitable reward for their labor and product, placing them in competition for resources and goods with the global elite.

Efforts to remove this obstacle are behind the current war on the middle class and individual liberty and the spirit of individualism through the attempts to whitewash Southern culture from existence and distort the true nature of the Confederate cause by casting it and Confederate symbols as racist and treasonous. The bigoted elites in the District of Criminals and pointy-headed “thinkers” in the prestigious institutes of learning continually promulgate the meme that whites — rural whites in particular and Southern whites specifically — are backward, racist buffoons riding in trucks looking for blacks to lynch while ridiculously clinging to their guns and religion.

The purpose is to stir up racial animosity and manipulate the people against one another. Manipulating minorities who are naturally drawn to socialism is basic political strategy to cover government crime and justify government politics and plunder.

The principle of government is that political power is maximized by forcibly leveling every individual to the same status of conformity, collectivism, egalitarianism and serfdom.

The truth goes deeper. Because of perceived social, cultural, racial and psychic inferiority, minorities desire to parasite on government force and socialism to subvert those they envy and wish to imitate. (This includes all so-called minority groups, not just racial minorities.)

Last summer, there was an invasion of illegals from Central and South America stemming from the immigration policies and statements of President Barack Obama. Over the ensuing months, the Obama regime shipped those illegals into communities and cities across the country and immediately began efforts to grant them some sort of legal status in order to ultimately provide them with voting rights in a back-door effort to change the local demographics and, therefore, the voting outcomes in these communities from a conservative bent to one more socialistic.

Third World immigrants are attracted to cradle-to-grave nanny state socialism because it is what they know and all they have known. They are also more accepting of gun control and the police state. They have no understanding of or experience with individual liberty or the concept of natural rights.

Gaining voting “rights” for non-citizens is the main driver of the federal opposition to voter ID laws.

The Obama regime attempted but failed with a mass social re-engineering scheme in 2010. That effort, fueled by corruptocrat Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), sought to fulfill the United Nation’s Agenda 21 plan, adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and signed onto by “New World Order” President George H.W. Bush.

Using a typical government “carrot-and-stick” policy, the bill sought to award or deny grants from the federal treasury to cities based on their compliance with amending or passing zoning laws to restrict housing in rural areas and force the residents into city centers.

The stick, in addition to denial of the funds, would be bad publicity generated by “Green” organizations working on behalf of the federal government criticizing local government officials for turning down free money and neglecting so-called “Green” initiatives.

Now comes Obama’s speciously titled Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing edicts from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This extra-constitutional rule change has been in the works for more than two years, but has been largely glossed over by the MSM. It seeks to do the reverse of the Dodd bill. That is, rather than drive the suburbanites into the cities, it seeks to move inner-city minorities into the suburbs.

The AFFH will have the federal government imposing preferred racial and ethnic composition on neighborhoods in exchange for federal funds provided or denied. It will change zoning laws, require a certain amount of government-subsidized housing in rural areas in order to achieve “racial balance,” control transportation and business development and remove the authority of state and local governments in the areas of zoning, transportation and education.

As National Review’s Stanley Kurtz writes:

Fundamentally, AFFH is an attempt to achieve economic integration. Race and ethnicity are being used as proxies for class, since these are the only hooks for social engineering provided by the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Like AFFH itself, today’s Washington Post piece blurs the distinction between race and class, conflating the persistence of “concentrated poverty” with housing discrimination by race. Not being able to afford a freestanding house in a bedroom suburb is no proof of racial discrimination. Erstwhile urbanites have been moving to rustic and spacious suburbs since Cicero built his villa outside Rome. Even in a monoracial and mono-ethnic world, suburbanites would zone to set limits on dense development. Emily Badger’s piece in today’s Washington Post focuses on race, but the real story of AFFH is the attempt to force integration by class, to densify development in American suburbs and cities, and to undo America’s system of local government and replace it with a “regional” alternative that turns suburbs into helpless satellites of large cities. Once HUD gets its hooks into a municipality, no policy area is safe. Zoning, transportation, education, all of it risks slipping into the control of the federal government and the new, unelected regional bodies the feds will empower. Over time, AFFH could spell the end of the local democracy that Alexis de Tocqueville rightly saw as the foundation of America’s liberty and distinctiveness.

To accomplish its goals, HUD will dig into the racial balance ZIP code by ZIP code looking for areas of segregation, with the segregation threshold being nonwhite populations of 50 percent or more. Federally funded cities deemed overly segregated will be pressured to change their zoning laws to allow construction of more subsidized housing in affluent areas in the suburbs and relocate inner-city minorities to those predominantly white areas. HUD’s maps, which use dots to show the racial distribution or density in residential areas, will be used to select affordable-housing sites, according to the New York Post.

To employ this policy, the federal government has undertaken a massive Orwellian-style data collection initiative, prying into the medical records, credit card purchases, mortgage business records, IRS filings, employment records, educational records and local government policy initiatives searching for racial “inequalities” for the Justice Department to prosecute.

The only way to resist this tyranny is for local governments to eschew all federal monies including Community Development Block Grants going forward. Of course, local residents always pressure their community leaders to accept government monies under the auspices that they have paid their “taxes” and want a return on their “investment.” But once the Feds get their hooks into the local community through the distribution of money from the federal treasury, they can exert total control over local government’s functions regarding housing, zoning and regulations far more than they do already.

The globalist agenda is the most comprehensive program for world fascism and world collectivism ever conceived. Its basis is esoteric deception, as carried out pragmatically by mass politics, international mass banking and the mass media. It operates as a whole — as an organism. Today’s democratic globalists make the communists and the Nazis look like amateur totalitarians.

T -68: Coming Full Circle

Tags

aberro-sexuals, Age of Enlightment, Benedict XVI, Bergoglio, Burning of Rome, card. Kasper, card. Reinhard "Bling" Marx, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Kasper, Catholic Church, communion for diverced remarried, extremists, Francis church, German Bishops' Conference, Glenn Beck, Great Cardinal, heretical pope, hippies, homosexuality, Instrumentum Laboris, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Liberty Blitzkrieg blog, Lineamenta, Modernists, MSM, narratives, Neo-Pagan, Nero, new springtime, optics, Pagan Christians, pathological, Pope Francis, Raymond Burke, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli blog, Sacking of Rome, spirit of Vatican II, Synod 2014, The Bishop of "Swank", Vatican, War on Toddler Terrorists

Today we return to our irregular summer posting with two posts coming from very opposite “points of view”, yet containing information (data points) that are very similar in nature. Synod Bishops, take note!

The reason that I am providing these two text for your review is twofold:

First of all, these two posts provided a historical example of the concept that is known as “coming full circle”. Hence the title.

Secondly, these two posts demonstrate that even with differing positions on the “politically left/right” continuum, information (data points) appear that are objectively true. These objectively true data points are then used to make observations that are logical. I am obviously referring here to the “left” side of the political continuum who has been waging a war on OBJECTIVE REALITY since the Age of “Enlightenment”.

As to the posts themselves, the first one is from R.V. Young at Crisis Magazine titled Saint Nero, Patron of Gay Marriage (see here). The subject matter is a historical overview of what can be described as the “doctrine of the inevitability of gradualism”. For those not familiar with left-wing dogma and this theory of gradualism, I pass on a link that should explain. (see here) And on an aside, yes this is what passes for the Bergoglian/Kasperian “graduality”. But I digress… The manner in which these two links are related is that the doctrine of the inevitability of progress is circular.

The take away from these two linked posts is this:

the OBJECTIVE REALITY of the doctrine of the gradualism of progress is that it leads back to the same place as that from which it started. I.e. the doctrine of gradualism is circular!

With respect to Western Civilization, the circular nature of the doctrine of the gradualism of progress has brought post Age of “Enlightenment” society back to a time between A. D. 64 – Nero’s burning of Rome and A.D. 410 – the fall of Rome.

With respect to the last post that I am reproducing below, it come from the Liberty Blitzkrieg blog. (see here) I have reproduced this post as a snapshot of a point in time Anno Domini 2015. While reading the below, it would appear that we have come full circle to Anno Domini 64. However, since the Roman Empire at the time of Nero faced no significant military foes, especially ones with the ability to rapidly project their military presence, the analogous time span between A.D. 64 and A.D. 410 could be much shorter this time around.

Below, is the Liberty Blitzkrieg post re-blogged for the record.

3-Year-Old London Child Deemed “Extremist” and Placed in Government re-education Program

 

The United Kingdom has gone batshit crazy. There’s simply no other way to put it. I warned about Britain’s “war on toddler terrorists” earlier this year in the post: The War on Toddler Terrorists – Britain Wants to Force Nursery School Teachers to Identify “Extremist” Children. Here’s an excerpt:

Nursery school staff and registered childminders must report toddlers at risk of becoming terrorists, under counter-terrorism measures proposed by the Government.

The directive is contained in a 39-page consultation document issued by the Home Office in a bid to bolster its Prevent anti-terrorism plan.

The document accompanies the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, currently before parliament. It identifies nurseries and early years childcare providers, along with schools and universities, as having a duty “to prevent people being drawn into terrorism”.

Never fear good citizens of Great Britain. While your government actively does everything in its power to protect criminal financial oligarchs and powerful pedophiles, her majesty draws the line at toddler thought crime. We learn from the Independent:

A three-year-old child from London is one of hundreds of young people in the capital who have been tipped as potential future radicals and extremists.

As reported by the Evening Standard, 1,069 people have been put in the government’s anti-extremism ‘Channel’ process, the de-radicalization program at the heart of the Government’s ‘Prevent’ strategy.

The three-year-old in the program is from the borough of Tower Hamlets, and was a member of a family group that had been showing suspect behavior.

Since September 2014, 400 under 18s, including teenagers and children, have been referred to the scheme.

The fact that this story broke on the same day that chairman of the UK’s Lords Privileges and Conduct Committee, Lord John Sewel, was caught on video snorting cocaine off the breast of a prostitute with a £5 note, is simply priceless. You just can’t make this stuff up.

From the BBC:

Lord Sewel is facing a police inquiry after quitting as House of Lords deputy speaker over a video allegedly showing him taking drugs with prostitutes.

The footage showed him snorting powder from a woman’s breasts with a £5 note.

In the footage, Lord Sewel, who is married, also discusses the Lords’ allowances system.

As chairman of committees, the crossbench peer also chaired the privileges and conduct committee, and was responsible for enforcing standards in the Lords.

Lord Sewel served as a minister in the Scotland office under Tony Blair’s Labour government.

Tony Blair, why am I not surprised:

He has been a member of the Lords since 1996, and is a former senior vice principal of the University of Aberdeen.

Here’s a clip, in the event you’re interested:

The UK government is so far gone that it insists on protecting the public from toddlers, rather than protecting toddlers from powerful sexual predators. In case you need a reminder:

In Great Britain, Powerful Pedophiles are Seemingly Everywhere and Totally Above the Law

In Great Britain, Protecting Pedophile Politicians is a Matter of “National Security”

Former BBC Host “Sir” Jimmy Savile Exposed as Major Player in Massive Pedophile Ring

In Liberty,
Michael Krieger

T -73: What About a Literary Deconstruction of Vatican I?

Tags

Benedict XVI, Bergoglio, card. Kasper, card. Reinhard "Bling" Marx, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Kasper, Catholic Church, communion for diverced remarried, Francis church, German Bishops' Conference, Great Cardinal, heretical pope, hippies, homosexuality, Instrumentum Laboris, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Lineamenta, Modernists, MSM, narratives, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, optics, Pagan Christians, pathological, Pope Francis, Raymond Burke, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli blog, spirit of Vatican II, Synod 2014, The Bishop of "Swank", Vatican

Today is the 73nd day preceding the start of the Stealth Sex Synod of 2015 and we get more intelligence from the Eastern Front. About 4 hours ago, this appeared on the Polonia Christiana website PCh24.pl. (see here) Since the website is in Polish, I have taken the liberty to translate the article and post below.

The significance of this article is that it appeared on the official website of the German Bishops’ Conference, therefore is was authorized by the leadership. At this point it needs to be noted that this is information THAT COULD BE, BUT DOES NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE significant in the upcoming Synod of Bishops.

The below translated post needs to be read in the proper context, i.e. as part of a wider STRATEGY. Since the appearance of the Lineamenta in December and now the Instrumentum Laboris for the 2015 Synod last month, the German heretics (German Manipulators) who will be at the Synod are trying to “suss out” what they can get away with in terms of doctrinal change. Furthermore, this cabal of German heretics that dominate the German Bishops’ Conference, i.e. Marx and Co. are desperate to find a way to get around the majority of the bishops that will be at the upcoming Synod, bishops who overwhelmingly refuse to change Catholic dogma. To this end, the German contingent has been sending out trial balloons to gauge just what route they should take to get around the upcoming Synod majority. By reading the signals that are emanating from their speeches, interviews and texts, we see their strategy coming into focus. It is in this context that the below translation is an important piece of this puzzle.

As to the strategy itself, it appears that THE STRATEGY is composed of two parts:

The first part is composed of a strategy that was adopted at the Second Vatican Council, i.e one of “strategic ambiguity”. Here is a passage that explains this quite well from the always excellent Rorate Caeli blog. (see here) The following is the key text:

The need for extreme ambiguity is in itself revealing. It is revealing in the light of Cardinal Kasper’s interview with Raymond Arroyo earlier this month. LifeSite News explains: (emphasis added)

In his televised interview with Raymond Arroyo of the Eternal World Television Network on June 4, Kasper acknowledged the opposition to his proposal of large numbers of bishops and even whole episcopal conferences, and recognized that inducing a large majority to support it would be difficult.  As a result he proposed a different approach. 

“I get a lot of agreements, but also a lot of critiques, and there are tensions there,” Kasper acknowledged.  “Now I propose to those who prepare the Synod to prepare a text which can get the agreement of the whole, of the great majority. It’s the same method also we had in the Council.” He later repeated, “My suggestion is to find now a formula where the great majority can adhere.” 

In the second part of his interview with Arroyo, which will air June 11 on EWTN, the cardinal admitted that he doesn’t have an “overwhelming majority” on his side and that more generally acceptable language will have to be sought to reach a consensus. 

“I see something more differentiated because I know many bishops who have a different position, and bishops’ conferences,” he told Arroyo. “And so it is not, ah … perhaps there will be, but we must find the solution where everybody, or the great majority — the Pope wants a certain unanimity of the episcopate and now it cannot. It’s too easy, I think, to say it’s already an overwhelming majority, no.”

This above is a very good summary of the first part of the German strategy and just another case of “putting phrases with contradictory meanings in the same sentence”. (see here)

As to the second part, it can be termed as “numbing down” the opposition. This part of the strategy is reliant on creating a false narrative that the changes are in no way doctrinal, but only pastoral.

The below translated article can be viewed as one part of the second half of this strategy. The below article pertaining to the “suggested ‘adjustment’ to the dogma of papal infallibility”. In and of itself, I would put it in the “they are not really serious about this” camp. ON ITS OWN THAT IS! It could look like Francis “Showing a Leg”. (see here)

However, this above “idea” has NOT been put out into the public domain frivolously. What is most likely the case, this information is being put out to preemptively anesthetized the vigilance of the Synod majority. What could be happening (hypothesis) is that the German Manipulators are trying to claim that since Francis will not be teaching ex-Cathedra, these issues are of a lower rank, i.e. not threatening to the Magisterium. By playing up this silly notion that “the people of God” CAN NOT BE INCORRECT, (see article below) the Synod Manipulators will try to introduce text that will nominally appear as a “feel good” factor. After all, how could the bishops “not agree” that their sheep don’t know what is best doctrinally?

But in reality, it is just another explicit attempt to play the sheep off against the shepherds.

And in this above context, I am reproducing the below…

FOR THE RECORD:

Portal of the German episcopate: Francis will not be teaching infallibly.

According to the website of the German episcopate, Pope Francis will not exercise the right of infallible teaching. According to the author of the text, the Pope will talk about the infallibility of the faithful, rather than about the infallibility of the Head of the Church. As noted by Mathias von Gersdorf, this article even suggests that it is this dogma can be the subject of discussion.

The information portal of the German episcopate suggests that the Holy Father Francis will never use the dogma of papal infallibility because he prefers to talk about “the infallibility of the faithful.” To prove this thesis the writer of the text, Simon Linder, is relying on the views of theologians like Hans Küng and August B. Hasler – the author who maintained a critical tone on infallibility in his book.

“From Pope Francis in any case, we should not expect any infallible decisions [concerning] teaching. [The Pope] does not highlight his ‘infallibility’, but in the context of infallibility speaks willingly about believers “- writes Linder.

The katholisch.de author then quotes from the Apostolic Exhortation “Evangelii Gaudium” the following passage: “I also don’t think that you should expect from papal teaching a definitive or exhaustive word on all matters concerning the Church and the world”. He juxtaposes words from another paragraph of the same encyclical. The Pope says in it that “the people of God are holy, through this anointing, which makes them infallible in credendo. This means that, when they believe, they cannot be mistaken, even if they cannot find proper words to express their faith. ” According to Linder, this means that the dogma of infallibility is merely a “signal”, which would be consistent with the will of the “majority of the bishops’ at Vatican I.

The article was commented on by Catholic journalist Mathias von Gersdorff. He noticed that Linder suggests that “the dogma was proclaimed under specific conditions and provide a basis for discussion and various other opinions”.

The article titled “Thou art Peter – 145 years of the dogma of papal infallibility” was published to celebrate the 145th anniversary of the adoption by the First Vatican Council of the dogma of papal infallibility.

Sources: katholisch.de, mathias-von-gersdorff.blogspot.de

Processes: Francis “Showing a Leg”

Tags

Benedict XVI, Bergoglio, Bishop Schneider, card. De Paolis, card. Kasper, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Kasper, Catholic Church, communion for diverced remarried, Eponymous Flower blog, FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO, Francis church, Gaudium et spes, German Bishops' Conference, Great Cardinal, heretical pope, hippies, homosexuality, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, JP II, La Nacion, Modernists, MSM, narratives, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, optics, Pagan Christians, pathological, Pope Francis, Raymond Burke, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli blog, Sandro Magister, spirit of Vatican II, Synod 2014, Vatican, Vatican II

This post and the subsequent post will be expansions of The “Jesuitical” Bait-and-Switch (“JBS”) post. Today’s post is titled Francis “Showing a Leg”. “Showing a leg” is an expression which describes an old football tactic whereby a player who is running with the ball extends a leg toward the would be tackler, only to pull it away as soon as the tackler commits himself to reaching for that leg. This allows the ball carrier to avoid being tackled and allows him to score a touchdown. And from what we have witnessed at the Shameful Secret Synod so far, Francis is desperate to “score a touchdown”. And all that is left for us to do is identify what exactly “scoring a touchdown” to Francis entails.

Introduction

In the JBS post introduction, I started by making the case that IF the Secret Synod was really about “the family”, than the natural starting point for Team Francis should have been the JP II Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Concortio (“FC”). And even if “FC” wasn’t the initial starting point, with all the changes made by the Synod bishops and the direction in which those changes went, the Final Relatio brought the discussions back to that starting point, i.e. the Familiaris Concortio. But since the “FC” is still nowhere to be found in the discussion, there is something in it that creates serious problems for Francis and his manipulators with respect for their true agenda. So a hidden agenda is being promoted, whose results will be to attain the goals of the true agenda. This hidden agenda appears to be comprised of two elements, since it is these two elements that were forced into the Final Relatio despite being voted down by the Synod And these two elements are: communion for the divorced remarried (“cdr) and changing the Church teaching on homosexuality (“cth”).

In this post I will focus on the Communion for the Divorced Remarried (“cdr”) issue.

A Third Rail Issue

With respect to the first element of the manipulator’s hidden agenda, i.e. “cdr”, in the JBS post I explained how the justification that Francis used in the La Nacion interview was clumsy at best and in reality an attempt to convince a gullible audience that he is really, really thinking about changing the doctrine practice on “cdr”. I think it is fair to say that the rationale behind the “godfather” example in the La Nacion interview was pure and utter gibberish.

And then I quoted the Scalabrinian illustrious canonist and president emeritus of the prefecture of economic affairs of the Holy See Cardinal Velasio De Paolis, who wrote the following: (emphasis added)

In the judgment of Cardinal De Paolis, this paragraph [of the final “Relatio”, dealing with pros and cons of “cdr”] is not only incoherent and contradictory in itself, but “the innovations that would be introduced if it were approved would be of unprecedented gravity,” because they would undermine the very foundations of Catholic dogma and morals.

And even if no other evidence existed, and no other supporting positions by other members of the Catholic Church hierarchy were stated publicly, this passage alone would demonstrate that Francis and his ghost writer’s proposal is nothing short of a “ third rail” issue. And just to explain the concept of a “third rail”, it is a metaphor derived from the electrically charged third rail that acts as the power source for electric train engines. If a person touches the third rail, he is electrocuted.

As to the consequences of trying to force a change in the doctrine practice of the “cdr”, a change in doctrine that would “undermine the very foundations of Catholic dogma and morals”, Francis would be risking a situation whereby:

“the hierarchical structure of the Church would require that (in the case of an apostate pope, or a heretical pope, or an invalidly elected pope), that some cardinals and bishops break with the fraud and reconstitute the hierarchy because the indefectibility of the Church preserves at least in part all the orders in the church, cardinals, bishops, clergy, religious. (H/t to the From Rome blog.)

Here is where we are entering into serious Sedevacante territory. And on an aside, it is not without meaning that cd. De Paoli is the Prefect Emeritus of the Economics Secretariate of cd. Pell, the author of the 37 false popes soundbite.

Proof that Francis will not change doctrine/practice on the “cdr”.

The proof that Francis will not do anything to risk his papacy by attempting to change either doctrine or practice with respect to the communion for the divorced remarried is of a “circumstantial evidence” variety. Therefore, the question becomes: does it meet the preponderance of evidence threshold? My case is laid out below.

Background

I didn’t spend too much time addressing this point in the JBS post because I think it is a bogus issue. On this point, as I stated above, I think Francis is “showing us a leg”.

Why do I think this? Because Francis said so. How do we know that he said so?

We know that Francis said so from an interview that Cardinal Meisner of Cologne gave to Deutschlandrundfunk, and was posted (partially) on Fr. Z’s blog on 23 December 2013. (see here) True, we are dealing here with a third person account as our source, but let’s just assume it’s true. Furthermore, please recall that this interview appeared almost two months before the Kasperian “theology done on ones knees” speech. So Francis had no reason to not tell us what he thinks simply because he did not know how the Shameful Secret Synod would play out. Therefore, on the issue of changing dogma practice on the “cdr”, here is what the good cardinal said that Francis said: (emphasis from Fr. Z)

During the flight back from Rio you were asked about people who divorced and remarried. And the pope responded frankly: People who are divorced can receive communion, people who are remarried can’t.

Do I believe what Francis said?  Yes, and without mentioning that this is a canonically proper position to hold, here is why.

There are four reasons why I think Francis will not change the doctrine/practice in this area, which support the point in the Third Rail section:

Reason 1:

First note that De Paolis has “come back” to the argument of communion divorced and remarried. De Paolis has taken a public position as early as March 27 2014, (see here) and his position was included in the Five Cardinals book. The present quote from De Paolis is a complete and utter “trashing” of paragraph 52 of the final Relatio. And it is worth repeating that De Paolis makes the case that:

“the innovations that would be introduced if it were approved would be of unprecedented gravity,” because they would undermine the very foundations of Catholic dogma and morals.

So Francis had been warned. But Francis knew there were problems with “theology on the knees” no later than when De Paulo joined the other four cardinals in the Five Cardinals Book that came out before the Synod started, and most likely much, much earlier. As early as the date of the cd. Meisner meeting.

Reason 2:

Francis would not make a change like this without cover, as per Third Rail section argumentation. This is why he called the Shameful Secret Synod in the first place. All the scheming, maneuvering and manipulation that we witnessed at the Secret Synod of 2014 was an attempt to give Francis cover. And not necessarily for the ”cdr”. We also know this from the same interview with Cd. Meisner, when he relates these words of Francis:

And the pope responded quite bluntly that he’s a son of the church, and he doesn’t proclaim anything else than the teachings of the church.

Now we can question the intentions behind the reason why Francis said what he said, but it would appear that he provides to cd. Meisner the “line of demarcation” that he will not cross. From observing what went on at the Secret Synod of 2014, the following would be an accurate statement: Francis will lie, cheat and steal, as long as Francis has cover for his lying cheating and stealing. Besides, we also have confirmation that he will not cross this line from cd. Scola. (see here)

Reason 3:

Francis does not have cover. A good case in point about Francis needing and lacking cover can be observed from the situation that developed leading up to Benedict revising his texts on just this subject matter. As we have seen, Francis has been quoting Benedict when trying to justify his “purported” changing of the doctrine practice on “cdr”. Here is a Francis quote from Fr. Z’s blog from the 27 of May 2014, (see here) given on the flight back from the Holy Land to a reporter: (emphasis added)

“Something Pope Benedict said three times about the divorced has helped me a lot. Once, in the Valle d’Aosta, another time in Milan, and the last time in the public consistory which he held for the creation of cardinals: to study the procedures for matrimonial nullity; to study the faith with which a person comes to matrimony and [NB] to clarify that the divorced are not excommunicated, and so many times they are treated as excommunicated.”

And it was not only Francis who was suggesting that his position has Benedict’s tacit support. Kasper was saying the same thing likewise. (see here). So is it any wonder why Benedict went through all his earlier work to expiate the “nuances”, at the same time depriving this “dynamic duo” of a large part of their cover. (see here) Also puts the Benedict revisions in a proper context. Yes?

Before we go to reason 4, which is really an “anti-reason” we need to make the following observation. From the above 3 reasons, it would appear that Francis “gave it the old college try” to get the “cdr” doctrine practice changed. However, it just wasn’t meant to be. The “stubborn” just wouldn’t bend to the “god of surprises” Holy Spirit, Francis can claim. As a matter of fact, he did just that in the La Nacion inteview. Funny that! But I digress…

But the question is, did he really, really try, or was he just going through the motions. And here is why I think he was going through the motions.

Reason 4:

The reason why I think Francis is just going through the motions of trying to change the “cdr” doctrine practice, and at the same time playing the German Bishops’ Conference and its president card. Marx like a cheap banjo is due to the following fact. Francis and his cohorts did not bring out the big gun to get the “cdr”practice changed, let alone the dogma changed. And the big gun was the JP II Apostolic Exhortation Familiars Concortio. And what is the evidence?

Evidence 1:

First of all, the “FC” would have given Team Francis a bridge between Vatican II Gaudium et spes, with the associated “Sacred Spirit of VII” pastoral stuff, through the “FC” and into the forthcoming final product of this Secret Synod 2014/2015. Making the final product of Francis grounded in FC, would have been easy enough to do. How do we know this would have been easy to do? Since in the run up to the Synod, cd. Kasper was quoting the “FC” in his promotional tours. (see here).

Next,  a foundation in the “FC” would have placated a larger number of the bishops at the Synod. Keep in mind that the majority were elevated by JPII, and hold him in high esteem. And that is not even mentioning the Polish bishops who were personally offended by the “FC” being completely disregarded by Team Farncis. Therefore, by totally disregarding the “FC”, the manipulators “created a defeat” for their position on the “cdr” at the Secret Synod 2014. But to paraphrase the rogue priest in the the Dirty Harry movie: ”Sacrifices have to be made”.

Evidence 2:

A lot of the disquiet outside of the Polish Episcopate Conference was due to the fact that “FC” was completely ignored. As a matter of fact, we could observe just this fact, that “the will of the Synod bishops” was to bring the Final Relatio back to this starting point, i.e. the FC. And they did just that. Refer to the argumentation in the JBS post.

Futhermore, the Thursday when cd. Pell stood up and banged his hand on the desk and shouted to Team Francis to “stop manipulating the Synod” was considered by some as an act of divine intervention attributable to JPII. (see here). And that is why this day will always be known on the Deus Ex Machina blog as the “JPII/Familiaris Concortio Miracle Thursday”. But I digress…

Evidence 3:

By not grounding this new “Product of Synod 2014/2015” in the “FC”, it is as if the manipulators are trying to start from scratch. What ever the form of the Francis magisterium that will be coming out of this process, it will be void of the lineage of JP II Familiaris Concortio and by extension Gaudium et spes of Vatican II by design, i.e. independent of all predecessors. Talk about a hermeneutic of rupture. And from the “quote fest” of Benedict XVI citations from both Francis and card. Kasper with respect to the “communion for divorced remarried” issue, it would have appeared that a hermeneutic of continuity was desperately needed. Or so it appeared.

But from the evidence above, it obviously wasn’t.

Summa Summarum

In the above text, we see that the Secret Synod of 2014/2015 was created to provide cover for making changes to Catholic Church doctrine, masked as “only a change in practice”. The “Family” was used as a proxy to changing doctrine/practice that is not in the least bit related to “The Family”. The hidden agenda was exposed at the Secret Synod 2014 by courageous clerics and according to bp. Athanasius Schneider; journalists and bloggers. (see here)  The hidden agenda centered around two issues, namely “communion for divorced remarried” and “church teaching on homosexuality”. The way we know this to be the case is that even though the paragraphs associated with these two issues were voted down by the bishop’s at the Synod, the head manipulators (or rather the Head Manipulator) had them forcefully inserted into to Final Relatio that went out to the bishops’ conferences for further consultation.

However, after a careful analysis of the process to date, it would appear that the “cdr” is not a real concern. The argumentation is explained in the above text. And just to make the final argument, we can assume that this to be the case from two before unmentioned facts. First is the comment by Francis made to cd. Meisner in the above cited interview that:

Furthermore, when there are open theological questions, it’s up to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to give detailed responses“.

And we know what cd. Muller’s position on this matter and corroborates the Francis position. (see here).  Therefore, it is really a non issue, however an non issue that is generating by far the most debate post Shameful Secret Synod of 2014. Given the argumentation above, it would appear that that the issue of “communion for the divorced remarried” is analogous to the “leg” of the ball carrier who shows it to the would be tackler, only to pull it away as soon as the tackler commits himself to reaching for that leg.

Given the above, it would appear that the real issue driving the Francis hidden agenda is the second element of the identified hidden agenda of Francis, i.e. changing the teaching on the “intrincsic disorder” which is homosexuality.

And this is the subject for the next post.

Prep Fire: Coordinating Fields of Fire

Tags

Benedict XVI, Bergoglio, card. Kasper, Card. Lehmann, card. Marx, Card. Muller, Card. Scola, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Kasper, Catholic Church, Eponymous Flower blog, Francis church, German Bishops' Conference, Great Cardinal, heretical pope, hippies, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Kirchensteuer, messeging, Modernists, MSM, narratives, new springtime, optics, Pagan Christians, pathological, Pope Francis, Raymond Burke, Rorate Caeli blog, spirit of Vatican II, Synod 2014, Tradition, Vatican, Vatican II

Returning to our Synod of Bishops 2015 theme, two new broadside shots were fired at TeamFrancis and the Kasperian “theology done on the knees” over the last couple of days.

The first shot was fired by Cardinal Scola, the Archbishop of Milan. In an interview published in the Corriere della Sera and translated and posted at the Eponymous Flower blog, the following passages were of note (see here): (with emphasis added)

Cardinal Scola was, as has been the case with Cardinal Walter Kasper, appointed by Pope Francis personally to the synod. Under the impact of the first part of the Synod the Archbishop replied with a rejection of the “new mercy.”

And the key sentence:

When asked whether he could imagine that Pope Francis will make a decision for Communion for remarried divorcees, Cardinal Scola said: “I think, rather, that he will not take it.”

If one reads between the lines, what Cardinal Scola is saying to Francis is: Don’t do it.

The reason that this is significant is due to Cardinal Scola being:

The Cardinal had been the favorite in 2013 in the conclave, and had received the most votes in the first ballot, but did not prevail. His appointment as a member of the synod was seen by observers in this context. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Milan is among one of the largest Diocese in the world with nearly five million Catholics and is considered the most important in Italy after Rome’s diocese.

And the narrative that has been emerging from the Catholic side, the narrative that will be used to counteract the “new mercy for the serial adulterers” is the following:

“How could we tell the young people who marry today that marriage is indissoluble, when they know that nevertheless there is always a way to escape?” Cardinal Scola brought his rejection to that point. In the direction of Cardinal Kasper the successor of Saint Ambrose said, “I can see no adequate justification for an attitude that claims on the one hand, that the indissolubility of marriage would not be discussed, but appear to deny it simultaneously through its acts.”

As you can see, the counter narrative that the Catholics represent is “an even newer and a more just mercy”. And the “newer more just mercy” is directed at the futures pew sitters. Those who will be putting their hard earned money into the collection plates going forward.

And now we move on to Cardinal Muller. The Prefect of the Holy Office Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith gave a interview which also appeared on the Eponymous Flower blog (see here). Cd. Muller fired with much larger caliber argument than that of Card. Scola. He not only tackled the issue of communion for serial adulterers, but took a swipe at the entire Vatican II substructure that supports this modernist version of the LUV Boat, when he said the following:

“…any separation of theory and practice of the faith would be the manifestation of a subtle Christological heresy in principle “.

Even though the good Cardinal said it with that very pleasant smile of his, the words that were spoken, especially the “H” word must have been hard on the ears of TeamFrancis. Just a reminder, the “H” word was received very badly by the apologists for TeamFrancis when the “good Jesuit” wrote a rather lighthearted post about it (see here). And reinforces the famous Twelve Words of the Great Cardinal (see here).

Further angst must have been caused by the following sentence:

The Prefect of the Vatican Congregation of Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, reiterating that there should be no gap between teaching and pastoral care in the Catholic Church.

With that statement, the Cardinal shot directly at the hull of the entire SS “spirit of Vatican II”. After all, the entire Second Vatican Council was pastoral, and defined no dogma. And the two popes who respectively opened and closed it publicly proclaimed so. And if we remember our hermeneutic of continuity, the entire New Springtime is supposedly based on “praxis” i.e. a new pastoral practice needed for a new 1960’s man, but the dogma has never changed. So by shining the sunlight on this nasty post councilor lesion afflicting the Church, cd. Muller is telling the radicals to think very very carefully about how far they want to go. Because if they go too far, he will sink their boat.

Summa Summarum

I am amazed by how far Card. Muller appears ready to go with his threat. Questioning the “spirit of Vatican II” does not end well for its’ practitioners. If we recall that a heresy is a belief that is at odds with an established dogma, i.e. allowing for the serial adulterers to receive communion, this  would make this praxis a heresy as per cd. Muller.

Furthermore, if the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith informs the bishops, including the bishop of Rome that if they cross the line, they will proclaiming heresy, this heresy cannot be considered merely one of a material nature, i.e. uttered by a person without the subjective knowledge of its being so, but rather of the formal nature. And this is where the fun can begins.

Next observation is this: when taking the statements of these two senior cardinals together with the news from that other senior cardinal, George Pell, where cd. Pell states that “100’s of millions of Euros” were found in non-disclosed and unknown to the auditors bank accounts, we begin to understand that the game has changed. The game has changed for the very simple reason that whatever leverage that the “axis of evil” of Lehmann/Kasper/Marx had at the Shameful Secret Synod of 2014 with the Kirchensteuer is no more. The Vatican is financially solvent so the Kirchensteuer becomes now a strictly German bishops ‘problem! Yes?

And finally, you just have to wonder how weak Francis is right now, since his Prefect of the CDF and the runner up at the last conclave are both in essence daring Francis to cross the line.

On a PS. I am very impressed with cd. Muller. I think that we might be watching a Catholic conversion in the making. And I am left with one thought: how long until he starts rewriting his theories about the Blessed Virgin?

Op Ed: The Thurgood Marshall Appointment

Tags

Annibale Bugnini, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop Piero Marini, Bergoglio, bp. Forte, card. Baldisarri, card. Kasper, card. Marx, Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera, Cardinal Peter Erdo, Cardinal Sarah, Catholic Church, Congregation of Divine Worship, Eponymous Flower blog, FFI, Fr. Corrado Maggioni, Francis church, heretical pope, Kirchensteuer, LBJ, Modernists, Monsignor Anthony Ward, Monsignor Juan Miguel Ferrer, MSM, narratives, new springtime, optics, pathological, Pope Francis, Rorate Caeli blog, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, Synod 2014, thurgood marshall, Vatican II

 

It is with a heavy heart that I write this post. But it must be done.

After the news of Cardinal Sarah being appointed as the New Prefect of Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, (CDW – see here) the momentary joy of reading this development dissipated quickly, and upon reflection, I was left with a feeling that a “cynical manipulation” might have taken place.

The initial joy arose from the fact that Archbishop Piero Marini (see here), a former personal secretary to the notorious Annabele Bugnini  and destroyer of the liturgy of the Roman Rite and the Holy Mass (see here), who was rumored to be Francis’s choice (see here), was not appointed. What also brought a feeling of joy was the fact that Cardinal Sarah, a solidly orthodox and Tradition friendly prelate originally from Guinea (see here) , a country in western Africa, and who is presently the head of the Pontifical Council “Cor Unum”, had received the appointment.

After the quick reflection, what caused amazement, if not a feeling that a “manipulation with sinister intent” has taken place, was the fact that the Prefecture at the CDW had been vacant for almost 3 months, while during that time very high level personnel changes were implemented. Based on information in the public domain, significant staff of the CDW was removed and replaced with followers of Annabele Bugnini, just before Cardinal Sarah’s appointment. These personnel changes had to be made on someone’s directives. Furthermore, this new personnel “designed and executed” changes to the liturgical rites for canonization of saints (see here), changes made when there was no Prefect to authorize them. So a lingering question  I have is this: what is the point of making changes before the appointment of the Prefect, in whose mandate those personnel decisions would rest? Furthermore, who authorized the changes in the canonization rites when no Prefect was in place?

And naturally, parallels immediately arose with those events which transpired at the recent Shameful Secret Synod of 2014. As we know, this Synod was one large exercise in manipulation, starting from a pre-written Relatio post disceptationem, in which fraudulent text appeared that was not discussed by the bishops, Cardinal Peter Erdo of Esztergom-Budapest and general rapporteur of the synod signed a document which he did not write (see here), and did not know what it meant and after four days of intense work by the bishops to straighten out the final version, some of those fraudulent passages were still “affixed” to the final version of the Relatio. The individuals behind the manipulation, card. Kasper, card. Marx, card. Baldisarri, bp. Forte were identified, however no disciplinary actions were taken against them. Furthermore, the latter two individuals were retained in those same position of authority for the 2015 Synod. (see here).

Therefore, give all the above, the question that has to be raised is this: is the appointment of card. Sarah a “cynically manipulative exercise as well?”

Before I answer this question, a chronology of what transpired at the CDW and then at the Secret Synod is in order.

First the situation at the Congregation for Divine Worship:

Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera was prefect of the congregation during the reign of Benedict XVI. Card. Cañizares was unceremoniously disposed of, degraded and moved to the See of Valencia in his native Spain (see here). Rumors started circulating that his demotion could come as early as Dec 2013 (see here). However, this move came in August of this year (see here).

Up to yesterday, the CDW had no head. However, during this time, there was a wholesale change of personnel. Rorate Caeli blog has the details via the French blog Riposte Catholique:  (see here)

Monsignor Anthony Ward and Monsignor Juan Miguel Ferrer learned the day before yesterday, November 5, practically at the same moment that the nomination of their successor was being made at the Daily Bollettino of the Holy See Press Office, that they were not reconfirmed in their function as undersecretaries of the Congregation for Divine Worship, and that Fr. Corrado Maggioni, until that moment head of bureau [Capo Ufficio] in this same Congregation was named Undersecretary.

It must be be made known that Msgr. Corrado Maggioni, a steadfast Bugninist, a great friend of Abp. Piero Marini, had been named to the Office of Liturgical Celebrations [of the Supreme Pontiff] at the time of the “rearrangement” of this office’s personnel at the beginning of the current pontificate.

As to the destruction wrought to the liturgy of the Roman Rite by Bugnini and his associates, this paragraph gives an excellent insight into who these new people at the CDW are:

It must also be made known that Msgr. Juan Miguel Ferrer Grenesche, who had been Vicar-General of the Archdiocese of Toledo [Spain], a great savant of liturgical matters, was the right-hand man of Cardinal Cañizares, [when the latter was] Archbishop of Toledo, who, when named Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship by his friend Pope Benedict XVI, had called him to be at his side. As favorable to the Extraordinary Form as Don Antonio, his Cardinal, Don Juan Miguel is THE expert on the Mozarabic Rite. This ancient Visigothic Latin rite, dating from before the introduction of the Roman Rite in Spain and preserved thanks to the Muslim invasions, is still celebrated in some rare spots in Toledo and Salamanca. It had, of course, been massacred by Bugnini’s reform, from which nothing escaped, not even the last evidences of this venerable liturgy of Saint Isidore of Seville! Msgr. Ferrer has therefore accomplished an intelligent “reform of the reform” [in the Mozarabic Rite] reintroducing in it in scholarly fashion venerable texts.

The reason that I reproduced the above paragraph is to give some insight into the type of damage that the followers of Bugnini had done in the area of the Roman Rite liturgy. Therefore, it is by no coincidence that these Bugnini’ites took advantage of a situation where the CDW had no head, and instituted major reforms to the Cananoization Rite as was in place after the reign of Benedict XVI.

This is the post from Rorate Caeli dealing with the changed canonization rite. (see here)  In the post, we can read the following about the “new” Rite to be used on the 21 of November 2014:

The Rite of Canonization introduced on October 21, 2012 by Pope Benedict XVI and which was largely based on the Rite of Canonization before Pius XII is now gone. (This rite had been last used, with minor modifications, for the canonization this past April of John XXIII and John Paul II.) Naturally the threefold petitions are gone, and with them the formulae that emphasized the authority of canonizations, composed under the Pope Emeritus.

But the story does not end here. Further we read:

Instead, the “reformed”, post-Conciliar rite in use for canonizations from the time of the liturgical reforms of Paul VI until the canonizations of 2011 (called from here on as the “Paul VI rite”) will mostly be brought back into use tomorrow. We say “mostly”, for this shortened rite has been subjected to further simplifications that, we genuinely hope, do not betoken more truncations of the liturgy in the coming years. (For the rest of this article we will call the rite to be used tomorrow as the “2014 rite”.)

So it’s not even the Paul VI rite, but an abridged version. What is taking place is that the “destroyers”, just like at Vatican II, are creating something new under the guise of something that exists. And since they call it nominally the Paul VI rite, only paranoid crack pot conspiracy theorists would even notice, let alone mention it.

So the question at this point is: does the new Head of the CDW have to authorize this latest novelty cooked up before his appointment, just as card. Erdo had to authorize the Relatio post disceptationem written behind his back? (see here)

But back to the issue of Card. Sarah’s appointment. Give the above, we see that ‘manipulation’ is rampant in the CDW, similar to the level observed at the Secret Synod of 2014. And since we returned to the issue of the Synod, the question becomes this, is there a relationship between the appointment of card. Sarah and the card. Kasper incident?

Next the situation that transpired at the Secret Synod of 2014:

When taking into account the above situation, further discomfort is added by the fact that Cd. Sarah is from Africa.

Here one needs to be cognizant of the situation that arose with Francis’s point man for changing the Catholic doctrine practice with respect to remarried receiving communion and “affirmation” of aberro-sexual unions at the Shameful Secret Synod, card. Kasper. (see here ) When the synod fathers revolted on the famous “JPII/Familiaris Consortio Thursday Miracle”, card. Kasper made disparaging and racist remarks about the African bishops (see here). This led to a controversy, which involved the journalist Edward Pentin. (see here). Kasper claimed that he did not say what was reported, and threatened to send out his friends in the media to destroy the reporter. But when the reporter produced the recording, Kasper backed down after a few days, and apologized. However, the question that remained, and still remains unanswered is this: if the journalist did not have the recording, would Kasper have any qualms (as in moral) with destroying the career of an honest man. (see here) This latest episode brought about the following question posed by RC blog:

Lie and threaten, lie and threaten, with the occasional disdainful remark: it seems to be his modus operandi. Does this merit a theological award or perhaps, rather, another kind of more thorough evaluation?

The answer to the above question would appear to be: absolutely not! (see here).

Nothing to see here folks, move along.

Now that we have a good idea as to the pertinent background of the present situation with respect to the appointment of Card. Sarah to the CDW, we can make some observations as to the appointment itself.

The situation is as follows: what we have is a orthodox Catholic Cardinal being appointed to a congregation where “radical” Bugnini’ite personnel were recently installed during a time when the prefecture of the CWD was vacant, between the 28th of August and the 24 of November of this year. These radicals have already made changes to at least the canonization rights in a period preceding the arrival of card. Sarah. The changes were authorized by someone who we do not know. Furthermore, we find card. Sarah taking over a Congregation with personnel changes that were made, effectively creating a situation where he accepts these appointments and changes by fiat accompli. Sound familiar?

Therefore, the above situation with respect to the card. Sarah appointment raises a serious issue, an issue of HONESTY.

To be more precise, the issue rests on a question of moral honesty on the part of religious leaders who have demonstrated behavior in the past that was blatantly dishonest. And that is being very charitable on my part.

Furthermore, the issue of honesty, or lack there of is also behind the recent spate of high ranking church officials who have asked Francis to respond to the situation that had transpired at the Shameful Secret Synod among others, a situation that has led directly to a lack of “trust” for the pontiff in the wider Church. The key issue that Francis has been asked to respond to is simply this: does he approve of the “dishonest manipulation” that had taken place at the Synod. And these requests have originated from the highest levels within the Church.

To date, Francis has yet to respond to these issues.

Not only has Francis not addressed these issues, he has appointed these same dishonest manipulators to oversee the next Synod of 2015.

And it is behavior like this which has led to the larger crisis in the Church, larger then at any time since Vatican II. This exact point was addressed by a “very wise, knowledgeable, and highly influential cleric, writing under the pen name of don Pio Pace” in the following words (see here).

Whatever may be the “profound” interpretation one may give to the current pontificate, it is quite evident that it is widening this gap. Pope Francis, with all his maneuvering skills, is a man from another age. He has committed considerable mistakes, as the affair of the Franciscans of the Immaculate and the submission to synodal vote of the indissolubility of marriage show, errors which have damaged his credibility (in depth) much more than the Williamson affair and Vatileaks cost Benedict XVI.

The above indicates that the present situation is one where Francis has lost trust within the institution that is the Catholic Church. All his actions are now suspect. He does have the Main Stream Media and the German bishops’ still on side at present. The later is explained by the situation with the German Church and the Kirchensteuer (church tax). The former is explained by the fact that once Francis stops pandering to the special interest that comprise the MSM, they will turn on him very quickly. And then the only support that he can count on is the Church, the same Church which he has damaged while pandering to the Germans and the MSM.

Which leads back to the appointment of Prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship.

So we have a new card. being appointed to head this Congregation. His personnel were appointed behind his back. They were appointed before he came into his office. He had no say. The question that Francis needs to answer is: who made those appointments? Because it makes no sense to appoint staff before appointing the head of the congregation. Furthermore, if Francis knew that a new head would be appointed, why did he allow for the rite of canonization to be changed literally a couple of days before the appointment was announce? The Pope needs to answer “what did he know and when did he know it”.

And the final question to the Pope is this: did the fact that cd. Sarah was from Africa play an important part in his being appointed?

Because quite frankly, the situation that we find ourselves in presently appears to be one where a congregation is being managed from behind the scenes, while a token head of the congregation will be appointed just to lend it credibility. This is similar to the situation where card. Erdo signed a document that he not only did not write, but one with which he did not agree. It could also be the situation similar to that the appointment of Thurgood Marshall to the US Supreme Court by the President Lydon Baines Johnson and described in the book “The Brethren” by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong.

Summa summarum:

Given the facts and assertions above, this appointment becomes very problematic. It requires Francis, POPE OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH to make a statement. This statement needs to address the following issues:

1) How is it that card. Sarah was appointed after the personnel changes in his congregation were made, and who made those changes. Furthermore, is card. Sarah in charge, or is he just a token figurehead like card. Erdo was at the Synod of 2014?

2) Is the appointment of card. Sarah in any way related to the situation with the bishops of Africa and the racist remarks made by one of Francis’s closest collaborators, card. Kasper? How is this not an issue of “crypto-racism”, whereby an African cardinal is appointed to head a congregation in which he has no control over appointing his personnel?

3) And final question, what “crypto-Lefebvrism”has been uncovered by the dishonest manipulators charged with suppressing this order. (see here) Has any actions been brought against them for not only persecuting unjustly honest clerics of the FFI, but also threatening bishops not to incardinate FFI members in their dioceses, as was the case at the Italian Bishops’ Conference.

In this bloggers honest opinion, these 3 issues need to be addressed by the POPE.

And now I will attempt to answer the question of how I view the appointment of card. Sarah. Without answers to the above posed questions, I see this appointment in the same light as the appointment of Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court:

A very good appointment made for a very bad reason.

Post scriptum: As I stated at the beginning of this post, it is with a heavy heart that I write the above. However, the level of dishonesty, manipulation and injustice that has been observed over the course of this pontificate leads me and many other faithful Catholics to say:

NON POSSUMUS.