T -114: The Lefebvrists

Tags

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez, Benedict XVI, Bergoglio, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Muller, Catholic Church, Evangelii gaudium, Francis church, Fraternal Society of St. Peter, heretical pope, hippies, Holy Office, Immemorial Mass of All Ages, Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, Institute of the Good Shepard, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, messeging, Modernists, MSM, narratives, Neo-Pagan, optics, Pagan Christians, pathological, Pope Francis, Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Raymond Burke, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli, Secret Synod 2015, Seminary in Zaitzkofen, Sensus Fidelium, Society of St. Pius X, spirit of Vatican II, St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary Winona Minnesota, subversives, Summorum Pontificum, Synod 2014, TLM, Tradition, Universal Church, Vatican, Vatican II

It has been a very busy two weeks for your humble blogger so the postings have been a bit sparse. A big Mea Maxima Culpa from yours truly. Furthermore, we all know that it is under 100 days to the start of the Stealth Sex Synod of 2015. Right? So today we will continue one of yesterday’s minor themes, i.e. the inevitability of TRUTH prevailing. Remember, we hear this in the Credo at every mass. (see here)

The idea for today’s post actually came from reading the comment section of Fr. Z’s blog, where many of his reader desperately need some good cheer right about now. (see here) And they have found this good cheer in of all places, an interview that Bishop Fellay, the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X gave recently. So therefore, this Bud’s post’s for you.

“O’ yea of little faith” comes to mind! But I digress…

With respect to the good news of the inevitability of TRUTH prevailing, we can observe this with our senses. One quick example is that 2+2 will always equal 4. Another example of this inevitability we can observe in the process that is underway presently in the Catholic Church, that I refer to as the “restoring all things in Christ”.

As we are probably familiar with by now, the need for this “restoration of all things in Christ” was brought about by the destruction caused by that which we call the “new springtime of the spirit of Vatican II” and the neo-modernist “pastoral” novelties that it introduced into the Catholic Church. These novelties were likewise introduced into the Sacred Liturgy. (see here) The culmination of the liturgical crisis can be dated to the promulgation of the revised rite of Mass with the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of 3 April 1969 by Pope Paul VI. However, the revised Missal itself was not published until the following year of 1970 and the full vernacular translations appeared much later. Therefore, the culmination of the liturgical crisis and the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae (banning of the Immemorial Mass of All Ages) can effectively be dated to 1970.

This “restoration” process to combat the liturgical crisis likewise commenced in 1970 when Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre founded the SSPX in the diocese of Fribourg, Switzerland. The SSPX was and is an “international priestly society of common life without vows, whose purpose is to train, support, and encourage holy priests so that they may effectively spread the Catholic faith throughout the world”. (see here) Since those fateful days of 1970, the SSPX has grown to over 600 priests and offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass according to the 1962 Missale Romanum exclusively.

Given the above, I think the case can not only be made, but can also be won, that through the SSPX, the continuity of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has been preserved since the original Mass on Holy Thursday offered by Our Lord. And if this is the case, then any priest, bishop, cardinal or pope presently offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass according to the 1962 Missale Romanum or earlier is defacto a “Lefebvrist”. Hence the title of this post.

Pure logic, yes?

So now for the good news.

Since we are coming to the end of ordination season, I thought it fitting to do a short summary of the SSPX ordinations and some of the other “Lefebvrist” orders and dioceses ordinations this year.

First we start with the SSPX where we learn that 4 new priests were ordained at their seminary in Winona Minnesota (see here), 2 new priests in the seminary in Zaitzkofen Germany (see here) and 7 new priests at the seminary in Econe Switzerland (see here).

And now for the SSPX breakaway orders/societies.

The Fraternal Society of St. Peter ordinations that took place in Lincoln Nebraska. Bishop Conley ordained 6 new priests on the 16th of June 2015. (see here). A further 2 new priests were ordained in Quebec Canada and 6 new priests were ordained outside the Wigratzbad seminary in Germany. (see here)

Another SSPX breakaway order is the Transalpine Redemptorists, where one deacon was elevated to the Sacred Priesthood in New Zealand on the 11th of April 2015 at the St. Mary’s Pro-Cathedral in Christchurch. This was the first ordination according to the proper (non-Bugniniite) rite in decades. (see here)

Next we go to the SSPX breakaway order of the Institute of the Good Shepard where 2 deacons were elevated to the Holy Priesthood in Bordeaux France on the 27th of June 2015. (see here)

Moving on to the SSPX inspired orders.

At the seminary of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest outside of Florence, ordination week is scheduled for 27 June to 6 July 2015. Cardinal Burke will be conferring the sacrament of Holy Orders like last year. Today, 11 deacons will be elevated to the priesthood as per the FB page of the ICK. Furthermore, on the ICK FB page, information about 7 more priests being ordained by Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone on the 1st of July.

Next we move on to the SSPX inspired diocese.

One example of this phenomenon is the diocese of Madison Wisconsin. I consider this diocese in the Catholic (SSPX) camp since all of its priests are proficient in offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass according to the 1962 Missale Romanum. 6 new priests will be ordained on the 26th of July 2015. Fr. Z has the scoop. (see here)

And closing, a post on Fr. Z’s blog reports of a first Immemorial Mass of All Ages in Knoxville Tennessee. (see here) Here is the relevant passage that should create as warm and as fuzzy of a feeling as any neo-modernist could possibly experience:

Following his June 27 ordination in Knoxville (TN) by Bishop Richard F. Stika (Knoxville, TN), Fr. Michael Hendershott celebrated on June 28 at Knoxville’s Holy Ghost Church his first solemn high Mass in the extraordinary form, accompanied by the Knoxville Latin Mass Schola singing Mozart’s Missa Brevis in G. His first EF Mass was an especially significant event in the life of the Knoxville Latin Mass Community–as a high school student back in 2005, he was an altar server for our first Knoxville TLM under the indult granted by (then) Bishop Joseph E. Kurtz, now Archbishop of Louisville and President of the USCCB.

So all in all, another bountiful year. I count no less than 55 new “Lefebvrist” priests were added to the sacred priesthood in anno domini 2015.

On an aside, I wonder how many more “crypto-Lefebvrists” were ordained this year?

And these ordinations are only for the Northern Hemisphere, so we have the Southern Hemisphere coming up in December.

Closing, I would just like to remind you dear reader of something that Archbishop Victor Fernandez, Francis’ ghost writer mentioned in a recent interview that we posted in the The Loose Canon post, something that we should all take to heart (see here):

“The pope goes slow because he wants to be sure that the changes have a deep impact. The slow pace is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the changes. He knows there are those hoping that the next pope will be turn everything back around. If you go slowly it’s more difficult to turn things back. He makes this clear when he says ‘time is greater than space.’”

So remember, it is important to “initiate processes” and not so much “occupy spaces”. But the Lefebvrists are occupying more and more spaces too. 🙂

And on this pleasant note, I will leave off for today.

T -144: Man Marking Fernandez – Looking Ridiculous

Tags

"theological structuring", Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez, Benedict XVI, Bergoglio, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Muller, Catholic Church, Evangelii gaudium, Francis church, Global Pulse Magazine, Harvesting the Fruits blog, heretical pope, hippies, Holy Office, Immemorial Mass of All Ages, Jack Tollers, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Louie Verrecchio, Magisterium, messeging, Modernists, MSM, narratives, Neo-Pagan, optics, Pagan Christians, pathological, Pope Francis, Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Raymond Burke, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli, Secret Synod 2015, Sensus Fidelium, spirit of Vatican II, subversives, Summorum Pontificum, Synod 2014, TLM, Tradition, Universal Church, Vatican, Vatican II

In today’s post, we pick up on a theme that we last wrote about in our post titled To Compare and To Contrast. (see here) This post was dedicated to the manner in which a couple of US ordinaries have been approaching the problem of shrinking congregations and shrinking vocations. In one case, the ordinary based his decisions on OBJECTIVE REALITY, while the other ordinary continued to base his decisions on a VIRTUAL REALITY. And the difference between the performance of these two ordinaries was quite dramatic. To demonstrate just how dramatic of a difference the decisions based on the two realities actually produce, in the post titled A Final Rendezvous With Destiny and With Death empirical evidence was provided. (see here)

Fast forward to today, we observe that this same theme, i.e. OBJECTIVE REALITY vs. VIRTUAL REALITY has crept into another area of the Universal Catholic Church, but this time at a much higher level. In the post titled Theological Structuring? Francis Don’t Need No Stinking Theological Structuring! (see here), we observed this theme play itself our in the different passages provided by the various sources at our disposal.

Our jump of point today will be a most peculiar phenomenon, a good representation of which can be found in the following quote from Sandro Magister:

The Vatican has denied that Pope Francis’ forthcoming encyclical has been delayed because the Holy Father feared the first draft would not be approved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).

If we notice, this passage above contains an obvious ERROR. A careful reading of this passage indicates, by default, AN ADMISSION that Cardinal Muller, the Prefect of the CDF has, in fact, the authority over, i.e. the “final word”, the “upcoming” papal global warming/cooling/changing encyclical.

Or to put it another way,

IF the TRUE relationship between the pope, the prefect and the upcoming encyclical was that the ” Congregation De doctrina fidei helps the Pope in the preparation and implementation phases but the “crux” consists in enouncing the faith of the Church and this is the Pope’s very own and personal ministry”,

THEN “the Vatican” would have pointed out that the PREMISE of the question, i.e. “Holy Father feared the first draft would not be approved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF)” was FALSE.

Please keep in mind that this is the “theological structuring” issue that has gone unanswered since this novelty was initially disclosed in the interview with Cardinal Muller that appeared in French Catholic newspaper La Croixon the 29th of March 2015 (see here – original article in French).

Not only did “the Vatican” not point out that the PREMISE to the question is FALSE, they did not correct and define the proper relationship as:

The Pope has everything it takes to enounce the faith of the Church.

By this most obvious and glaring omission, “the Vatican” spokesman has deliberately created the impression that Card. Muller DOES IN FACT HAVE at minimum a “veto” over what would appear in the upcoming encyclical, an encyclical that constitutes a pope’s “very own and personal ministry”.

Once again to stress the proper relationship, here is what Fr. Benoît-Dominique de La Soujeole, OP had to say on this matter: (see here)

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

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

The gravity of the above situation should be clear to all.

This is the OBJECTIVE REALITY of the matter.

So the question now become: what’s does the pope bishop of Rome think about this situation?

Although we do not have a direct answer from “the Vatican” or “Santa Marta”, i.e. Francis, what we do have is an answer from his confidant and the ghost writer of the Apostolic Exhortation Evagelii Gaudium, Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez. And just to remind you dear reader, Cardinal Burke still does not know what Evangelii Gaudium is. But I digress…

Here is what Arch. Fernandez said:

“For example, the pope is convinced that the things he’s already written or said cannot be condemned as an error. Therefore, in the future anyone can repeat those things without fear of being sanctioned,” he added.

Now the above quote would definitely fall into the category of  VIRTUAL REALITY.

So the question becomes, why is the pope being so careful with this “purported global warming/cooling/changing encyclical now?

Please recall what Francis considers as his “teaching magisterium”. Here is the quote from the La Nacion interview from the 7th of December 2014:

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

Therefore, as of the 7th of December, 2014 the above quote would be consistent with the earlier mentioned quote from Archbishop Fernandez, i.e. “the pope is convinced that the things he’s already written or said cannot be condemned as an error.”

However, since the publication of the Magister text on the 11th of May 2015, “the Vatican” has de facto admitted that Francis scrapped the draft of the global warming/cooling/changing encyclical written by Archbishop Fernandez, obviously the “thinking” at “the Vatican” or “Santa Marta”, i.e. of Francis has changed.

The reasoning above leads to the obvious inference that Francis DOES NOT BELIEVE that the above statements, i.e. “the pope is convinced that the things he’s already written or said cannot be condemned as an error”, is in fact a TRUE STATEMENT.

So what would have caused Francis to change his mind, not to mention the advent of the OBJECTIVE REALITY setting in inside the Vatican’s Sacred Walls?

The most logical and straightforward answer, and one that William of Ockham would no doubt appreciate, to the above question is provided by Archbishop Fernandez, and it is this:

The theologian widely acknowledged as the principal ghostwriter of Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium, says the Jesuit pontiff has already begun changing the Church in ways that cannot be reversed.

Archbishop Fernandez goes on to make the following claim:

The pope must have his reasons, because he knows very well what he’s doing. He must have an objective that we don’t understand yet. You have to realize that he is aiming at a reform that is irreversible. If one day he should intuit that he’s running out of time and he doesn’t have enough time to do what the Spirit is asking him, you can be sure he will speed up.

So it is safe to assume that the GOAL of Francis is IRREVERSIBLE CHANGE. However, if Francis is striving for IRREVERSIBLE CHANGE, then he surely must realize that he has to exact that IRREVERSIBLE CHANGE in a manner that is ACCEPTED by the Universal Church, i.e. ex-cathedra.

The problem that Francis has can be observed in the below passage:

“I don’t live in Rome and I can only talk about what I see when I go there. You have to make distinctions. I saw that some people in Rome were shocked at first, but now they understand the meaning of what Francis is calling for and they’re happy to be part of this path (he’s set out) for the Church, and they are helping the pope. Others tend to say: we’ll do what we can, go along with him as long as he’s here, because in the end he’s the pope. This group seems to be in the majority, even though I can’t confirm that. Others — really just a few — are, instead, going their own way. And from what one can see, they tend to ignore Francis’ teachings.”

Yes, this is the problem, i.e. “others […] they tend to ignore Francis’ teachings.”

Which is a problem when you are striving to corrupt the Ordinary Magisterium with the Bergoglian/Kasperian “theology done on the knees”. Please keep in mind that Archbishop has defined Francis’ goal as: he is aiming at a reform that is irreversible.

Just a reminder, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is defined as: (see here)

The Magisterium of Catholic Church teaches the faithful in two ways;

1) Solemn Magisterium: is Church teaching which is used only rarely by formal and authentic definitions of councils or Popes. This includes dogmatic definitions by councils or Popes teaching “ex cathedra”

2) Ordinary Magisterium: this second form of Church teaching is continually exercised by the Church especially in her universal practices connected with faith and morals, in the unanimous consent of the Fathers and theologians, in the decisions of the Roman Congregations concerning faith and morals, in the common sense of the Faithful, and various historical documents, in which the faith is declared.

And here is how the problem looks from the operational side. Over at the Harvesting the Fruits blog, the following passage appears that succinctly depicts the problem of Francis and the radicals: (see here)

Getting back to the interview, here’s another exchange that stood out to me:

Arroyo asked, “In the total, do you agree that that document [Evangelii Gaudium] is a part of the continuum of the teaching we saw with Pope John II, Pope Benedict and now Francis, and that it’s only the expression and the tone that has shifted?”

In his response, Cardinal Burke very rightly zeroed in on the word “teaching;” i.e., he understands that he is being asked if one is safe in assuming that the entirety of EG is reconcilable with the papal magisterium that predates it, namely, that of John Paul II and Benedict XVI (never mind tradition as a whole).

“I don’t know,“ Cardinal Burke replied.

This “I don’t know” strikes me as nothing less than an emphatic “NO!”

…

“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.”

So there you have it in a nut shell.

Summarizing, the problem that Francis has is that the Universal Catholic Church defines ex-cathedra teaching differently than does Francis.

After the Secret Synod of Bishops of 2014, a crisis ensued that was brought to a head by the release of the Lineamenta. This episode created a situation where, an overwhelming part of the Catholic Bishops, as represented by the delegations that will be present at the Synod of Bishops of 2015, will not accept the IRREVERSIBLE REFORMS that Francis wants to introduce into the UNIVERSAL MAGISTERIUM of the Catholic Church.

Furthermore, no matter how bad the above situation may be for the forces of IRREVERSIBLE CHANGE commonly refered to as Team Francis, i.e. Cards Kasper and Marx & co. (see here), the situation for Francis himself is much, much graver. The ignorance, incompetence and crass despotism of Francis has metastasized into a situation where an “overwhelming” majority of the UNIVERSAL CHURCH have stopped to take Francis seriously.

And this is the most likely explanation for why Francis has dumped his former advisers and confidants, and has subjected his rights and privileges as the absolute sovereign and Our Lord’s representative on this earth to the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

What he in fact has done is reached out to Card. Muller for help, in an attempt to avoid looking ridiculous.

Actually, it is exactly the same problem that the film producer Woltzy had with giving the lead role in his next movie to Johnny Fontaine in the movie The Godfather, i.e. Francis problem is that “a man in his position can’t afford to be made to look ridiculous.”

Not if the “Jesuit pontiff has already begun changing the Church in ways that cannot be reversed,” and make them IRREVERSIBLE, that is.

T -145: Apparently, Solicitation Is Not Prohibited w/Update

Tags

Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez, Benedict XVI, Bergoglian/Kasperian "theology done on the knees", Bergoglio, Bishop Stefan Oster of Passau, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Muller, Cardinal Reinhard Marx, Catholic Church, Francis church, German delegation, German President of the Bishops' Conference, heretical pope, hippies, Holy Office, Jack Tollers, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, messeging, Modernists, MSM, narratives, Neo-Pagan, optics, Pagan Christians, pathological, Polish Episcapal Conference, Pope Francis, Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Raymond Burke, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli, Rorate Caeli blog, s "theological structuring", Secret Synod 2015, spirit of Vatican II, subversives, Synod 2014, TLM, Tradition, Universal Church, Vatican, Vatican II, Zentralkomitee der deutschen Katholiken

FOR THE RECORD

I came across this below passage in the Edward Pentin article sub-titled: Bishop Stefan Oster of Passau called the appeal from the Central Committee of the German Catholics ‘incomprehensible.’ (see here)

In the article we find the following information: (with emphasis added)

The Register has learned via well-informed, high-level sources that Cardinal Marx was recently rebuffed by Polish bishops when he proposed that the two episcopates meet in Berlin to strive for a consensus on revising the Church’s approach to marriage. The Polish bishops have been firm about their continued support for Church teaching.

Well-informed sources say that Cardinal Marx made the proposal in early May, during lunch with Polish bishops at the 70th anniversary commemoration of the liberation of the Dachau concentration camp. The cardinal is understood to be anxious to win all-important Polish support ahead of the October synod.

Observers say this is another attempt by the German hierarchy aimed at increasing the pressure for change at the synod and carried out by bypassing the Vatican and, in particular, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

This would be consistent with comments from Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez, a close adviser to Pope Francis, who said in a recent interview that the Curia “is not an essential structure” and that the Pope need only rely on himself and the “College of Bishops” to serve the people.

The most relevant part of the above text is obviously the the following: The cardinal is understood to be anxious to win all-important Polish support ahead of the October synod.

The signs of desperation in the actions of the President of the German Bishops’ Conference in order to obtain backing for its heretical position presented at the Secret Synod of Bishops is confirmed by another post analyzing the Declaration of the Zentralkomitee der deutschen Katholiken (Central Committee of the German Catholics) in preparation for the XIV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops in the Vatican [October] 2015. The analysis was performed by Mathias von Gersdorff and appears in the Rorate Caeli blog titled: SYNOD BATTLES: Blackmail, Veiled Schism Threats, the Kasperization of the German Church, and the Destruction of Marriage – Document and Analysis. (see here)

The reason that this is important is because the Germans, through the promotion of the heretical Bergoglian/Kasperian “theology done on the knees” have found themselves isolated. Here is a confirmation of this very fact:

But the statement of the ZdK came at a very awkward time.

Since the (small) Synod of October, 2014, there has arisen a substantial resistance against these liberal claims.

Numerous Cardinals and Bishops from all over the world have raised their voices,  in order to defend the Catholic teaching.

The German President of the Bishops’ Conference, Cardinal Reinhard Marx, earned sharp criticism for his statement: “We are not a subsidiary of Rome.”

In the meantime, nearly all delegations of the Bishops’ Conferences for the Synod in October have now been selected. None is as liberal as the German. None, except the German, supports unanimously the ideas of Cardinal Kasper concerning the pastoral approach to remarried divorcees.

This way, the German delegation has maneuvered itself into isolation.

In many countries, the disapproving criticism towards Germany grows. One accuses Marx and Co of stubbornness and a deficient Catholicity.

The above provides more supporting evidence that the Francis “revolution is on hold”. It also provides confirmation as to the correct interpretation that we have made with respect to the part that the Synod of Bishops as proxy for the “College of Bishops”, plays in the Francis Church “Argentinian theological school”.

UPDATE: 08:02 Tuesday 19 May 2015

With respect to the “solicitation” of the Polish bishops, this is how it used to work: (see here)

Evidence of this Network is contained in the Davies interview, and the quote is as follows:

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

(Nota Bene) Since “the job” of Kasper and Lehmann is to go to the conclave and stop anyone Ratzinger supports from being made Pope”, than these two must have received instructions for carrying out that “job” from an outside “source”. This could be someone from outside the German Bishops’ Conference since Lehmann is considered the “capo di tutti capi”, which would imply that there is someone above him.

Furthermore Kasper and Lehmann have not only a “source of funding” for this job, but media protection likewise. Evidence for this assertion is from the following quote:

MD: It is interesting, Pope John Paul II wouldn’t appoint Kasper and Lehmann at first and a week later he did.

JB: Yes. Their appointment came as a shock to a lot of orthodox Catholics.

MD: Well do you know where the pressure came from? The Polish hierarchy. Because they get so much money from the Germans. So Kasper and Lehmann said, ‘You scratch our backs and we’ll scratch yours.’

Post scriptum

Looks like times, they are a changing.

T -146: Man Marking Fernandez – Catching Our Breath

Tags

Andrea Gagliarducci, Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez, Benedict XVI, Bergoglio, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Muller, Catholic Church, Francis church, heretical pope, hippies, Holy Office, Jack Tollers, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, messeging, Modernists, MondayVatican blog, MSM, narratives, Neo-Pagan, optics, Pagan Christians, pathological, Pope Francis, Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Raymond Burke, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli, s "theological structuring", Sandro Magister, Secret Synod 2015, spirit of Vatican II, subversives, Summorum Pontificum, Synod 2014, TLM, Tradition, Universal Church, Vatican, Vatican II

Today we stop to take a breath since there has been much information that has been contained in the most interesting and quite revealing article that appeared in the Corriera della Sera on the 10th of May 2015. (see here)

On an aside, today we are actually 142 days from the Monday, 5 October 2015 when all the festivities at the Stealth Sex Synod of 2015 will kick off. However, due to a busy travel schedule, your humble blogger is 4 days in arrears, which is why the above post is tagged with a T -146 designation. Mea Culpa and I will catch up. I promise! Now back to todays topic.

The interview contained in the Man Marking Fernandez – The Loose Canon post (see here) was given by what could be described as one of the closest confidants of Francis during his time as the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Archbishop Victor Manuel Ferandez. (see here – in German) This interview contains information that supports analysis that appeared in a number of posts on this blog in January of this year, on a topic that we termed the “ crisis that Francis is beyond”. Today we will go back and review this information contained in these various posts and try to put it into a logical sequence. A chronology of sorts. This should help focus our attention on the upcoming posts that will “unpack” the information contained in the Fernandez interview and provide us with a better understanding of the current lay of the land with respect to this papacy.

Here is a review of the background.

It all began in December 2014, when we observed a most peculiar phenomenon. Reading the MondayVatican blog from the 15th of December 2014, in a post titled Pope Francis beyond the crisis. Waiting to appoint new cardinals. (see here), we were struck by its rather odd headline. A literal reading of this headline would suggest that Francis: a) had a crisis and b) managed to get beyond it. Yet when we looked through the previous posts at the MondayVatican blog, we could not find any mention of a crisis. What’s more, we could not even find the word “crisis” used in any MondayVatican post written since the commencement of the Secret Synod of Bishops of 2014.

So we investigated what this “crisis that Francis was beyond” could possibly consist of. And naturally we used out Peirce/Ockham pragmatic methodology (see here) with a liberal (in the good sense of that word) application of Ockham’s (Occam’s) razor. Below is what we discovered about the said “crisis”, the one “Francis was beyond”.

As our analysis demonstrated, the “crisis that Francis was beyond” was caused by two events, namely a) the release of the Ivereigh book containing allegations of vote canvassing at the 2013 Conclave and b) the release of the Lineamenta (instructions) to the bishops’ conferences on the 9th of December 2014. And the reason that Francis was “beyond” was supposedly due to an interview that appeared in the La Nacion newspaper on the 7th of December 2014, (see here) which our analysis determined to be a preemptive move to “get beyond” the “crisis“, the “crisis” that Francis was to create with the release of the outright evil Lineamenta document two days later.

In a post from the 21st of January, 2015 titled The Razor’s Edge (see here), we summarized what we had found to date, and made the following conclusion:

The Synod of Bishops’ agenda of the Manipulators is the TRUE AGENDA of Francis. For Francis, this TRUE AGENDA is more important than any reform process that has been undertaken thus far. Furthermore, Francis is willing to go to extreme lengths to force through this TRUE AGENDA, even willing to create a “crisis” in order to get the TRUE AGENDA passed.

Given the above, and fast forwarding to the 12th of May 2015, in a post titled Francis’ Revolution Put On Hold (see here), we observed , as did Sandro Magister and Andrea Gagliarducci, that “the revolution”, i.e. the True Agenda of Francis, was in fact put on hold. The evidence that supports this contention was the information that the national bishops’ conferences were sending delegations that supported the Catholic Church Magisterium by an overwhelming majority, information confirmed by Magister and Gagliarducci. Next, it would appear that Card. Muller has taken control over that which is produced in physical form (paper form) by Francis and his ghost writer(s) through a new “functionality” implemented at the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith under the term “theological structuring”. We laid out the case for this contention in the post titled Theological Structuring? Francis Don’t Need No Stinking Theological Structuring! (see here)

Given the accuracy of our observation that the Francis has in fact put “the revolution” on hold, we have began investigating what possibly could have been the reason behind this development. Please keep in mind that Francis is an absolute sovereign and can do whatever he wants. Naturally he is limited by the Magisterium, but this in no way can force him to give up control over his teaching office. Once again, here is the relevant citation of Fr. Benoît-Dominique de La Soujeole, OP that appeared on the VASSALLO MALTA blog:

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

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

And yet, we know the below to be the case from Sandro Magister’ blog:

The Vatican has denied that Pope Francis’ forthcoming encyclical has been delayed because the Holy Father feared the first draft would not be approved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).

On an aside, please do not get thrown off track by the denial. There is a saying amongst analysts who monitor the economic affairs surrounding the European Union who claim that a statement from an EU official: cannot be considered to be true, until it has been denied. This is very much the case here, as has been demonstrated in the post titled Theological Structuring? Francis Don’t Need No Stinking Theological Structuring! But I digress…

Which led us to the ask the question: “what in the wild, wild world of sports is going on here?”

I will leave off in this exact point here for today, since I am already running long and I haven’t gotten to any new analysis yet.

Please excuse me if you are up to speed on the above, however it is critical, in this humble bloggers opinion to understand the exact nature of “the revolution”, how and by whom it being executed, and what has transpired that has put this “revolution on hold”.

We will get the last part of the above sentence in tomorrow’s post.

So stay tuned.

T -147: Man Marking Fernandez – Plan Coming Together

Tags

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez, Benedict XVI, Bergoglio, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Muller, Catholic Church, Evangelii gaudium, Francis church, Global Pulse Magazine, heretical pope, hippies, Holy Office, Immemorial Mass of All Ages, Jack Tollers, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, messeging, Modernists, MSM, narratives, Neo-Pagan, optics, Pagan Christians, pathological, Pope Francis, Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Prof. Odon Vallet fidelium, Raymond Burke, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli, s "theological structuring", Secret Synod 2015, sensus fidei, Sensus Fidelium, spirit of Vatican II, subversives, Summorum Pontificum, Synod 2014, TLM, Tradition, Universal Church, Vatican, Vatican II

Today we continue man marking Archbishop Fernandez. The interview that he gave to the Corriera della Sera on the 10th of May 2015 can be found here, a translation of  this interview can be found in our previous post titled Man Marking Fernandez – The Loose Canon.(see here) Needless to say, the interview presented to the public domain by Archbishop Fernandez was quite revealing. For our purposes, we will use the original text and provide our own translation for passages that are not translated in the previous post.

Right from the onset of the interview, we can read the following exchange:

Q: Is the Pope isolated?

A: “Not at all. The people are with him. His opponents are weaker than they think. “

This is a very interesting exchange since it deals with an observation that was made by Prof. Odon Vallet at the end of December 2014. Just a reminder, December 2014 could be considered Francis’ Horrendum Mensis, and ended with the now infamous and notorious Christmas address to the Roman Curia.

The reason that I am bringing this matter up here is that it should give you, dear reader a good idea of just who Francis’ “opponents” are, “opponents” not named by Archbishop Fernandez in his interview. But I digress…

The interview appeared at the Rorate Caeli blog given by Prof. Odon Vallet, “a liberal historian of religion who is highly influential in France (he is the “progressive” go-to man for analyses of Catholic current events in French media), that we re-blogged in the Turkey, Meet Mr. Fork! post (see here). According to Prof. Vallet, this was the situation at the end of December 2014: (emphasis added)

Q: Do these words express a difficulty in achieving the reforms he set out to do?

OV: Nothing allows us to assume that he will be able to accomplish his reforms. I gather that he has an under-50% chance of accomplishing them. The reform of the Council of Trent (16th century) took 18 years, and required six popes… Pope Francis is 78, his undertaking in the renewal of the Church will be very difficult. Even more so because he has 90% of the Curia against him.

It would appear that the situation described by Vallet above, which appeared on the 22nd of December, 2014 has had a direct impact on the progress, or rather the lack of progress of certain aspects of Francis’ Lord’s pastoral call five months on. Here is the telling exchange from the Fernandez interview:

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

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

From the above passage, it would appear that Team Francis cannot get around the Roman Curia nor can they dismantle the Curia as originally planned. Here is how the original thinking of Team Francis went about one year into the pontificate, as it was described on the 3rd of March 2014 in the MondayVatican blog: (see here)

Watch, judge, act. These are the three steps put into action by Pope Francis. After almost one year of pontificate, Pope Francis has decided on a way forward on how to reform the Curia. Those who were thinking of a wide reform, built on a solid legal framework, will be perhaps disappointed. Pope Francis seems to have taken the decision of changing everything without waiting any longer. And of starting the Curia reform without reforming the Pastor Bonus, i.e. the constitution that regulates the functions of the offices of the Curia. Rather, Pope Francis is going to directly establish a parallel Curia. When this parallel Curia is complete, he will probably let all the other structures wither away.

So that was the plan in March of 2014. I will leave the analysis of how this “brilliant” idea of a ‘parallel Curia” fared for another post, but just a hint: turkey met fork, again. But back to subject at hand.

So if, according to Archbishop Fernandez’s thinking, and by inference to Francis’, the Roman Curia, consisting of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith among others, is not an “essential structure”, what is or are the essential structures? Here is the answer provided by Archbishop Fernandez:

Q: Isn’t this idea of the pope having a direct rapport with the people something risky, while the Church’s ecclesiastical class feels marginalized?

AVF: “But the Church is the People of God guided by their pastors. Cardinals could disappear, in the sense that they are not essential. The pope and the bishops are essential. Then again, it is impossible that everything a pope does and says will please everyone. Did everyone like Benedict XVI? Unity does not depend on unanimity.

In the above passage, the thinking of Team Francis is laid out for us on a plate.

Just to recap, according to Francis, it is the “bishops” – as represented by the Synod of Bishops and the pope , i.e. Francis that are essential. Therefore it follows that everything else is non-essential. We have confirmation of just this here:

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

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

Which brings us to the final element that is essential, i.e. the “P” eolpe of God. Archbishop Fernandez did not explain how the “P”eople of God fit into the thinking of FrancisChurch, other than to tell us that these “P”eople of God just simply love Francis. Now these “P”eople of God are definitely not those that are described in this link here. But I digress…

To understand how the “P”eople of God fit in, here is the relevant passage from the MondayVatican blog post titled Pope Francis’ Real Challenge (see here):

There is a recurrent theme in all the conversations around curial reform as well as an eventual reform of Catholic doctrine on the basis of the outcome of the coming Synod of Bishops: the theme is ‘sensus fidei fidelium’ (literally, the sense of faith on the part of the faithful), that is, the intuition possessed by the faithful in understanding correctly matters concerning the Faith. Pope Francis often mentions it when he insists that the People of God, in its entirety, cannot fail. Cardinal Reinhard Marx also used this argument during the Synod of Bishops, when he affirmed that doctrine is not something fixed, but must be adapted according to the signs of times and to the sensibilities of the faithful. And in the end this is the rationale of the organization behind the Synod of Bishops – an organization that seems to be trying to use the questionnaires delivered to the bishops’ conferences as a means for pressuring the Synod Fathers into accepting more “pastoral” approaches as distinct from “the mere application of doctrine”- as the 2015 Synod’s Lineamenta suggested.

Notice the sleight of hand with respect to the definition of “sensus fidei fidelium” as nothing more than the “sensus laicorum (sense of the lay people), as if it were a charism granted to the laity in isolation from the Catholic Church hierarchy, and as if the clergy were not included among “the faithful”, an understanding that would make the “sensus fidei fidelium” a “kind of public ecclesial opinion, and invoking it in order to contest the teachings of the Magisterium”.

Hmmmmm…… I seem to have read about just this somewhere. (see here) But let’s get back and summarize what we have written above.

So now that we have identified all the moving parts, let’s connect the dots.

1. The Church is the People of God guided by their pastors.

2. Gathered around the pope, in a theological sense, is the College of Bishops in order to serve the people.”

3. The pope and the bishops are essential.

4. The “P”eople of God possess the ‘sensus fidei fidelium’ (literally, the sense of faith on the part of the faithful), that is, the intuition possessed by the faithful in understanding correctly matters concerning the Faith.

5. Cardinal Reinhard Marx also used this argument [Ed. note: argument in point 4.] during the Synod of Bishops, when he affirmed that doctrine is not something fixed, but must be adapted according to the signs of times and to the sensibilities of the faithful [Ed note: i.e. sensus fidei fidelium] .

6. And in the end this is the rationale of the organization behind the Synod of Bishops – an organization that seems to be trying to use the questionnaires delivered to the bishops’ conferences as a means for pressuring the Synod Fathers into accepting more “pastoral” approaches as distinct from “the mere application of doctrine”- as the 2015 Synod’s Lineamenta suggested. (Hint: HIDDEN AGENDA. And it was billed as being about the Family. Who would have thunk? )

7. Unity does not depend on unanimity.

8. Pope Francis often mentions it [Ed. note: sensus fidei fidelium] when he insists that the People of God, in its entirety, cannot fail.

And now let’s conclude by putting the above information into the Synod of Bishops’ narrative:

Francis calls for the Synod of Bishops’ to “accept more “pastoral” approaches as distinct from “the mere application of doctrine. The Synod of Bishops is “essential” since “The pope and the bishops are essential” and the Synod of Bishops’ is a proxy for “the bishops”. The Synod of Bishops produces a Final Relatio that the Synod of Bishops vote on. Paragraphs that are voted down are then re-inserted into the Final Relatio at Francis’ insistence. The inference here is that if these vetoed paragraphs are not in the Relatio, they can not be voted on. And since another Synod is one year later, these vetoed paragraphs, if they would be in the Synod document, can be voted on again. Or to put it another way, the Bishops, since they have the vetoed paragraphs in the Synod documents, regardless of whether they get vetoed or not, will vote until they vote correctly. Since “unity does not depend on unanimity“ a simple majority will do. Once the Synod votes correctly, the matter is in the domain of the sensus fidei fidelium’ (literally, the sense of faith on the part of the faithful), that is, the intuition possessed by the faithful in understanding correctly matters concerning the Faith. And since, the People of God, in its entirety, cannot fail, we have a result, i.e….

IRREVERSIBLE DOCTRINAL CHANGE.

It could have been just that easy if not for that dreaded…

THEOLOGICAL STRUCTURING!

T -148: Man Marking Fernandez – The Loose Canon

Tags

"theological structuring", Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez, Benedict XVI, Bergoglio, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Muller, Catholic Church, Evangelii gaudium, Francis church, Global Pulse Magazine, heretical pope, hippies, Holy Office, Immemorial Mass of All Ages, Jack Tollers, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, messeging, Modernists, MSM, narratives, Neo-Pagan, optics, Pagan Christians, pathological, Pope Francis, Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Raymond Burke, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli, Secret Synod 2015, Sensus Fidelium, spirit of Vatican II, subversives, Summorum Pontificum, Synod 2014, TLM, Tradition, Universal Church, Vatican, Vatican II

FOR THE RECORD

Today this blog had found a link to an English translation of the interview that was given by Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez to the Corriere della Sera on the 10th of May 2015. I will re-produce this post of the interview for the record below. (see here)

In the humble opinion of this blogger, this interview is another watershed event, since it helps us fill in some of the blanks as to what Francis, the bishop of Rome is thinking and why he is doing the things that he is doing.

The significance of the interview is that it was given by a longtime colleague and confidant of Francis. Furthermore, the Archbishop is someone who Francis has personally been promoting for various higher level Church positions, at times against the advise of Church hierarchy. It would also appear from this text, that this Archbishop could have been the closest confidant of Francis during his time as the Archbishop of Buenos Aires. Please recall that Francis is known to not have any close associates during his clerical career. (see here)

And if the above is not enough, some of the information that is contained in the interview is of a nature that is highly controversial by its very nature. A good primer for the above can be found here on the From Rome blog. (see here)

It is also not outside the pale to suspect that it is due to this interview, that Archbishop Fernandez has been “fired” as the ghost writer of the planned “global hysteria” encyclical. Please recall that he was the ghost writer for the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, a document that Card. Burke still does not know what to make of. Yet Francis brought the good archbishop back to write the planned encyclical. And after the below interview, it would appear that Fernandez has been fired, and Card. Muller will now determine what will be written in this encyclical as we have explained in our previous post. (see here)

An while we are on the subject, when reading below, please keep in mind the Senor Jack Tollers passage about his impression of Francis and the wider theological situation in Argentina. (see here) As a reminder here is the prescient part:

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

And from the below, it would appear that one can add the Rector of the Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina, Victor Manuel Fernandez to this lot.

Summa summarum, it is quite clear from the evidence below that what we no doubt are dealing with here is a loose, yet a very informative and a very telling canon!

‘No turning back’

Trusted theologian says Francis is stronger than adversaries inside the curia

Robert Mickens, Rome

The theologian widely acknowledged as the principal ghostwriter of Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium, says the Jesuit pontiff has already begun changing the Church in ways that cannot be reversed.

Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez, rector of the Catholic University of Argentina, said that, even if the pope’s adversaries tried to turn back the clock in the next pontificate, the People of God would not stand for it.

“The people are with (Francis) and not with his few adversaries,” he said in an exclusive published Sunday in the Italian daily, Corriere della Sera.

The 52-year-old Fernandez is one of the pope’s principal theological advisers. Francis, who had to fight Vatican opposition to name his fellow countryman university rector in 2009, appointed the theologian titular archbishop only two months after he became pope.

The archbishop said the 78-year-old Jesuit pope is patiently laying the groundwork for reforms that cannot be undone. 

“No, there’s no turning back,” he told the paper’s highly respected political analyst, Massimo Franco.

“If and when Francis is no longer pope, his legacy will remain strong,” the archbishop said.

“For example, the pope is convinced that the things he’s already written or said cannot be condemned as an error. Therefore, in the future anyone can repeat those things without fear of being sanctioned,” he added.

Archbishop Fernandez is one of the leading theological aides to the pope, who last year was appointed to a special commission inside the Synod of Bishops.

Below is our English translation of the bulk of his interview in the May 10 edition of Corriere della Sera.

*********

Archbishop Fernandez, in the two years since the pontificate began has resistance to the pope inside the Vatican increased or diminished?

“I don’t live in Rome and I can only talk about what I see when I go there. You have to make distinctions. I saw that some people in Rome were shocked at first, but now they understand the meaning of what Francis is calling for and they’re happy to be part of this path (he’s set out) for the Church, and they are helping the pope. Others tend to say: we’ll do what we can, go along with him as long as he’s here, because in the end he’s the pope. This group seems to be in the majority, even though I can’t confirm that. Others — really just a few — are, instead, going their own way. And from what one can see, they tend to ignore Francis’ teachings.”

Could you give us an example?

“I’ve read that some people say the Roman Curia is an essential part of the Church’s mission, or that a Vatican prefect is the sure compass that prevents the Church from falling into ‘light’ thought; or that this prefect ensures the unity of the faith and guarantees a serious theology for the pope. But Catholics, reading the Gospel, know that Christ assured special guidance and enlightenment for the pope and bishops all together, but not for a prefect or another structure. When you hear such things it almost seems as if the pope were their representative, or was someone who came to cause trouble and needs to be controlled.”

It doesn’t seem like that’s a line that’s being followed, though.

“It’s not, because most of the People of God love Francis. Maybe the council of nine cardinals could help to better clarify how far the jurisdiction of the most important prefects extends. But the thing that worries me most is that theologians are not offering new analyses on the Church, the theological reasons for its structures, the jurisdiction of national and regional episcopal conferences and the proper place of the Roman Curia in relation to the pope and the College of Bishops.

Some say Francis is isolated. Do you think that’s true?

“Not at all. The people are with him and not with his few adversaries. This pope first filled St. Peter’s Square with crowds and then began changing the Church. Above all, for this reason he is not isolated. The people sense in him the fragrance of the Gospel, the joy of the Spirit, the closeness of Christ and thus they feel the Church is like their home. But I would also say that he has a wide circle of people from whom he asks advice on various issues. He listens to more people than just those in the dicasteries of the curia, and in this way he is closer to the different voices in the Church and in society. I’m referring to those people he receives at Casa Santa Marta, to the requests that arrive in letters, to the encounters in the squares. It’s exactly for this reason that today the Church is listened to more in the international debates and world leaders look at her with great respect.”

No doubt, and in a deep and clear way, especially at the beginning. And yet, more recently, there’s a certain anxiety. Thing are proceeding more slowly. The reform of the curia seems to be stalled.

“The pope goes slow because he wants to be sure that the changes have a deep impact. The slow pace is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the changes. He knows there are those hoping that the next pope will be turn everything back around. If you go slowly it’s more difficult to turn things back. He makes this clear when he says ‘time is greater than space.’”

When Francis says he will have a short pontificate doesn’t this help his adversaries?

“The pope must have his reasons, because he knows very well what he’s doing. He must have an objective that we don’t understand yet. You have to realize that he is aiming at a reform that is irreversible. If one day he should intuit that he’s running out of time and he doesn’t have enough time to do what the Spirit is asking him, you can be sure he will speed up.”

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

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

Aren’t you worried that his pontificate will quickly be tossed aside after he’s no longer pope?

“No, there’s no turning back. If and when Francis is no longer pope, his legacy will remain strong. For example, the pope is convinced that the things he’s already written or said cannot be condemned as an error. Therefore, in the future anyone can repeat those things without fear of being sanctioned. And then the majority of the People of God with their special sense will not easily accept turning back on certain things.”

Don’t you see the risk of “two Churches”?

“No. There’s a schism when a group of important people share the same sensibilities that reflect those of a vast section of society. Luther and Protestantism came about that way. But now the overwhelming majority of the people are with Francis and they love him. His opponents are weaker than what you think. Not pleasing everyone does not mean provoking a schism.”

Isn’t this idea of the pope having a direct rapport with the people something risky, while the Church’s ecclesiastical class feels marginalized?

“But the Church is the People of God guided by their pastors. Cardinals could disappear, in the sense that they are not essential. The pope and the bishops are essential. Then again, it is impossible that everything a pope does and says will please everyone. Did everyone like Benedict XVI? Unity does not depend on unanimity.

Do you think a conclave would re-elect Francis today?

“I don’t know, possibly not. But it happened, and everything one could image before or after the conclave is not important. The only thing that matters and that’s important is that the voting is done in the conclave, with the special assistance of the Spirit. We believe the Holy Spirit guides the conclave and you cannot contradict the Holy Spirit. If some (cardinals) now have regrets it doesn’t change anything.”

Do you think Francis could be forced to leave Casa Santa Marta for security reasons, because of a terrorist attack by Islamic fundamentalists?

“He doesn’t think like that. And I haven’t found any decisive arguments for that to happen. Then again, I think those that organize these big attacks have a certain intelligence and are able to distinguish between the United States of Bush and the Vatican. Certainly, there could be an isolated fanatic … No, I think Francis will remain at Casa Santa Marta, strong and with great confidence.

T -149: Theological Structuring? Francis Don’t Need No Stinking Theological Structuring!

Tags

"theological structuring", Andrea Gagliarducci, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez, Benedict XVI, Bergoglio, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Muller, Catholic Church, Edward Pentin, Eponymous Flower, Evangelii gaudium, Francis church, heretical pope, hippies, Holy Office, Immemorial Mass of All Ages, Jack Tollers, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, messeging, Modernists, MondayVatican blog, MSM, narratives, Neo-Pagan, One Peter Five Blog, optics, Pagan Christians, pathological, Pope Francis, Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, puppet monarch, Raymond Burke, Robert Spaemann, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli, Sandro Magister, Secret Synod 2015, Sensus Fidelium, spirit of Vatican II, subversives, Summorum Pontificum, Synod 2014, The Radical Catholic blog, TLM, Tradition, Universal Church, Vatican, Vatican II

Today we will delve into the topic of “theological structuring” since it has become quite the hot topic and much in the news lately. To be more precise, there have been a number of developments in this new and exciting, not to mention previously unheard of discipline of neo-modernist theology, developments that this blog would like to run through its Peirce/Ockham pragmatic methodological framework. (see here)

But before we get into the subject matter, a short introduction is in order. If you dear reader will recall from our Man Marking Marx series, the term “man marking” is an English soccer expression that means to stay close to a “specific opponent to hamper his play”. So today, the Deus Ex Machina blog will pick up and be man marking Victor Manuel Fernandez, the titular Archbishop of Tiburnia and the President of the Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina. And coincidentally, the ghost writer for the former archbishop of Buenos Aires and the present bishop of Rome.

The logical place, for the purposes of this post is to begin with the interview that Cardinal Gerhard Muller, the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) gave to the French Catholic newspaper La Croix. The Vatican Insider provides us with the relevant passage: (see here) [emphasis added]

“The arrival of a theologian like Benedict XVI in the Chair of St. Peter was no doubt an exception. But John XXIII was not a professional theologian. Pope Francis is also more pastoral and our mission at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to provide the theological structure of a pontificate.” So according to Müller’s statement, the former Holy Office must “theologically structure” Pope Francis’ pontificate. And this is probably the reason why the Prefect gives public statements on such a frequent basis, like never before.

So the above words of Card. Muller were the genesis of the function of “theological structuring of a pontificate”, a new and exciting novelty theological area of FrancisChurch and a task “on-boarded” at the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. The Vatican Insider observed the following:

In one of the numerous interviews he has given over the past few weeks focusing on the next Synod, Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, spoke about a new task for his dicastery. It is a task that is never been mentioned in the documents outlining the precise competencies of the former Holy Office.

So this was the state of play until the 10th of May 2015. It was on this day that the Universal Church was notified that not everyone within the FrancisChurch hierarchy is happy with “theological structuring” of the Francis pontificate. Actually, Francis himself might not be happy with this new development brought about by the organic (?) evolution of post VII doctrine. The notifying party was none other than the titular Archbishop of Tiburnia and the President of the Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina, Victor Manuel Fernandez.  Here is how Archbishop Fernandez explained the position of FrancisChurch with respect to “theological structuring” of the Francis papacy via the Radical Catholic blog: (see here)

I have read that some say that the Roman Curia is an essential part of the mission of the Church, or that a Prefect in the Vatican is the sure compass preventing the Church from falling into ignominy, or that this Prefect guarantees the unity of the Faith and facilitates serious theology from the Pope. But Catholics know from reading the Gospel that it was to the Pope and the Bishops that Christ granted a special governance and enlightenment – and not to a Prefect or some other structure. When one hears such things, one could almost get the impression that the Pope is merely their representative, or one who has come to disturb and must, therefore, be monitored. […] The Pope is convinced that what he has written or said cannot be treated as an error. Therefore, all these things can be repeated in the future, without having to fear receiving a sanction for it.

So there you have it. Follow-up question is what do you do with a paragraph like this?

It is here that a methodological approach, such as through the Peirce/Ockham pragmatic framework becomes indispensable. Therefore, let’s start separating the wheat from the chaff, shall we?

I will leave the completely ridiculous and absurd assertion that whatever musings come out of the mouth of the bishop of Rome is equivalent to the “written Word”,  for another post or two where I can do it justice. However, I will once again provide you dear reader to the link of the interview with Senor Jack Tollers that quite neatly, explains the state of Argentinean theology and by extension a couple products of this “theological school”. Remember, Occam’s razor posits that “With all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one”.

The issue I want to address in this post is the “Francis don’t need no stinking theological structuring” part. And in this respect, what Archbishop Fernandez claims to be the case, i.e. that “it was to the Pope and the Bishops that Christ granted a special governance and enlightenment – and not to a Prefect or some other structure”, is a TRUE statement.

To support this assertion, we go over to the VASSALLO MALTA blog, where this exact question as put to Fr. Benoît-Dominique de La Soujeole, OP, a Dominican of the Province of Toulouse, France. Since 1992 he has been a member of the editorial board of authoritative journal La Revue thomiste de philosophie e de théologie. Since 1999 he has held the title of Professor of dogmatic theology (Church and sacraments) at the Faculty of Theology of the University of Fribourg (Switzerland), where he is also Prior of the Dominican monastery of St. Albertus Magnus. (see here)

The following question was put to Fr. Benoit-Dominique:

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

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

From the above, it looks pretty straightforward with respect to the “theological structuring” issue. The correct answer is indeed that, and paraphrasing again, Francis doesn’t need no stinking theological structuring since Francis “has everything it takes to enounce the faith of the Church”.

In Catholic doctrine at least!

But in practice, the case appears to be completely different.

Which brings me to this next passage which describes how Sandro Magister broke the news of the new global warming/cooling/changing encyclical will be delayed. Here is the relevant passage: (see here)

According to Vaticanist Sandro Magister [LINK], Pope Francis has decided to postpone the publication of his long-awaited encyclical on the environment. The reason, according to Magister, is that the Pope realized that the document in its current state had no chance of receiving the approval of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith under the leadership of Cardinal Gerhard Müller. If it seems somewhat improper for a Cardinal to be telling a Pope what he can and can’t write, don’t fret, gentle reader: the text wasn’t written by Pope Francis at all.

The below is the actual wording of Magister’s passage as it reads on his Italian language blog:

Perché lui passa come grande teologo, anzi, come il teologo di riferimento di papa Francesco, il suo consigliere più insigne, il suo ghostwriter sin da quando era arcivescovo di Buenos Aires. Nell’estate del 2013 si stabilì a Roma per scrivere con Francesco la “Evangelii gaudium”; e poi ancora vi si è stanziato lo scorso marzo nella settimana che il papa s’era ritagliata per scrivere la prossima enciclica sull’ecologia. Da Santa Marta è trapelato però che Francesco abbia cestinato la bozza che Fernández gli aveva confezionato, forse presago, il papa, che il cardinale Müller l’avrebbe poi comunque demolita, una volta avutala tra le mani.

Here is my translation of the questionable bit:

It has emerged from Santa Marta [FrancisChurch HQ], however, that Francis has trashed the draft that Fernández had prepared, perhaps foreboding for the pope, the cardinal Müller would then still demolished it, once having received it in his hands.

It is therefore correct to imply that Francis’ “foreboding”, or the strong inner feeling or notion of a future misfortune that card. Muller would “demolish” Archbishop Fernandez’s text was brought about by some form of “extra magisterial” arrangement between the two men. Therefore, it is correct to say, as Edward Pentin states that: (see here)

The Vatican has denied that Pope Francis’ forthcoming encyclical has been delayed because the Holy Father feared the first draft would not be approved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).

In other words, it is correct to say that there appears to be a causal relationship between what is written in the eco encyclical and an approval from the new “theological structuring” facility at the CDF is required. Furthermore, this is contrary  with Archbishops Fernandez’s assertion, and the TRUE and correct assertion that: “it was to the Pope and the Bishops that Christ granted a special governance and enlightenment – and not to a Prefect or some other structure.”

However, to both the Archbishops chagrin and dismay, this proper and TRUE understanding of the relationship between the Petrine office and the CDF (Roman Curia) does not appear to reflect reality within the Vatican’s Sacred Walls.

Concluding, what inferences can be drawn from the above?

First inference is obviously that Francis has created a theological mess. When taking into account the Spaemann, Joas and Tollers observations that we laid out in our previous post (see here), it is apparent that card. Muller had to take it upon himself to create a new and never before heard of function at the CDF on account of Francis’ and his advisers incompetence.

To be more precise, the incompetence that we are referring two is on two levels. First is the incompetence of using a theologically unsound ghostwriter and next, the incompetence of not being able to discern that which the ghostwriter has written. To prove this last assertion, please recall that Fernandez was the ghostwriter behind the Apostolic Exhortation Evagelii Gaudium, a document that poor card. Burke still doesn’t know exactly what to make of.

The next inference is that Francis feels “bound” to put the document past the Prefect of the CDF for the Prefects approval. This is highly unusual since we recall that a pope, an absolute sovereign has all the necessary faculties to produce any document that he wishes to produce, even ones that other cardinals and bishops do not know what to make of. Here is the relevant text from the VASSALLO MALTA blog post cited above for the record:

The Pope has everything it takes to enounce the faith of the Church. The Congregation De doctrina fidei helps the Pope in the preparation and implementation phases but the “crux” consists in enouncing the faith of the Church and this is the Pope’s very own and personal ministry. By “structuring”, Cardinal Müller may have meant this, above all preparatory, work.

This point cannot be stressed strongly enough!

Next, the observation that Francis appears to have “bound” himself to an approval from the CDF, an approval that he doesn’t need, goes a long way in suggesting that Francis’ power over the Curia and the Vatican apparatus has been limited. One supporting assumption to this new situation is the firing of Archbishop Fernandez. If you recall dear reader, Francis would not remove Msgr Ricca from the IOR and is still living at the hotel that is managed by this notorious deviant (see here), whose transgressions were of a much more serious nature. But two years on and one disastrous Secret Synod of Bishops later, it would appear that now, terms are being dictated to Francis.

It is as if a palace coup has taken place and we have a puppet monarch on the throne?

And the price for that appears to have been paid by the monarch, is the “suspension of the Francis revolution”?

It would go a long way in explaining the Magister and Gagliarducci observations outlined in the The Cruelest “god” of All post.

Given the above, the question arises: what in the wild, wild world of sports is going on here?

For the answer, tune in tomorrow and the next day and most likely a few more days after that.

But one thing is for certain. Francis has brought the reality that is South American governance into the Sacred Walls of the Vatican and squarely into the middle of the Universal Church.

Post scriptum:

In the mean time, please familiarize yourselves, dear readers with the following definitions:

A coup d’etat is defined as follows: (see here) with emphasis

A coup d’état (/ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/ ( listen (help·info)); French: blow of state; plural: coups d’état), also known as a coup, a putsch^{[citation needed]}, or an overthrow, is the sudden and illegal seizure of a government,^[1][2][3] usually instigated by a small group of the existing state establishment to depose the established government and replace it with a new ruling body. A coup d’état is considered successful when the usurpers establish their dominance. If a coup fails, a civil war may ensue.

We are obviously referring to what is commonly called a “soft coup d’etat” or what is termed as a “veto coup d’etat” where the visible figurehead is not removed, but he loses this sovereign powers, while the soldiers Curia plays the role of “guardian of the existing order”.

And a puppet monarch is defined as follows: (see here)

A puppet monarch is a majority figurehead who is installed or patronized by an imperial power in order to provide the appearance of local authority, while allowing political and economic control to remain among the dominating nation.

Figurehead monarch, as source of legitimacy and possibly divine reign, has been the used form of government in several situations and places of history.

There are two basic forms of using puppets as monarchs (rulers, kings, emperors):

figurehead: the monarch is a puppet of another person or a group in the country, who are ruling instead of the nominal ruler.

puppet government under a foreign power.

T -150: The Cruelest “god” of All

Tags

Andrea Gagliarducci, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Benedict XVI, Bergoglio, Cardinal Burke, Catholic Church, Concilium, Evangelii gaudium, Fr. Father Linus Clovis of the Archdiocese of Castries, Francis church, heretical pope, hippies, Immemorial Mass of All Ages, Jack Tollers, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, messeging, Modernists, MondayVatican blog, MSM, narratives, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, optics, Pagan Christians, pathological, Pope Francis, Raymond Burke, Robert Spaemann, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli, Sandro Magister, Secret Synod 2015, Sensus Fidelium, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, St. Lucia in the West Indies, subversives, Summorum Pontificum, Synod 2014, Tagged 1968, TLM, Tradition, Universal Church, Vatican, Vatican II

Today we pick up from where the post titled Francis Revolution Put On Hold left off. (see here) If you recall dear reader, in that post we outlined the chronology of the Francis revolution that Francis tried to implement sneak and then force through the Secret Synod of Bishops of 2014 with respect to changes in the Catholic practice doctrine with respect to communion for divorced and remarried and homosexuality as being an objectively intrinsic disorder. In other words, the Gender ideology.

Just so that we are clear about how one (read Francis) goes from changing the definition of aberro-sexuality from objectively disordered to Full Monty Gender ideology, I will allow Sandro Magister to explain. In his post titled “Francis’ patient revolution” Magister describes exactly this process, that is outlined in the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, i.e. the “program of his pontificate”: (see here)

“Because this is how Bergoglio’s revolution proceeds, “long-term, without obsession over immediate results.” Because “the important thing is to initiate processes rather than possess spaces.” Words from “Evangelii Gaudium,” the program of his pontificate.”

You see dear reader, it is not about “possessing space”, i.e. does the Church bless a “marriage” between two shepherds or between two shepherds and their two sheep, or four educated attorneys (see here) for that matter,  but rather what is key is to get the process started. Her is the relevant quote from the Relatio post disceptationem as we explained in the post titled The “Jesuitical” Bait-and-Switch (see here):

The question of homosexuality requires serious reflection on how to devise realistic approaches to affective growth, human development and maturation in the Gospel, while integrating the sexual aspect, all of which constitute an important educative challenge.

And it is all there in Evangelii Gaudium, the Apostolic Exhortation, ghost written by that infamous “kissing expert” Fr. Victor Emanuel Fernandez (see here) wrote and that Card. Burke still does not understand what it is. (see here)

Now back to the subject at hand. In the previous post, we outlined how the Francis revolution has been put on hold. The confirmation of this hypothesis comes from Sandro Magister and Andrea Gagliarducci. Assuming that both these gentlemen are correct, the question that we posed was this:

So the question now becomes this: why has Francis put the “revolution” on hold?

From observing the bishop of Rome over the past two years, it is quite apparent that Francis has not put his revolution on hold because he has either changed his mind on counsel received from the cardinals (read Card. Muller) or has acquired more in-depth theological knowledge and now sees the error of his previous ways.

The supporting evidence we have for these two assertions comes from two unlikely sources.

Over at the Rorate Caeli blog, excerpts from an interview appeared recently titled The Bergoglio Pontificate: “One Does Not Get Fully Rid of the Impression of Chaos” and “Autocracy” (Interview with Robert Spaemann)(see here). The subjects of the interview provide the following observations:

Question: But what follows from this attitude of the Pope? Francis once formulated in one quote that he warns against a Christianity of ideas and requests a Christianity of deeds. How do you assess this [statement]?

Spaemann: I find this formulation awkward. Both have to come together. Francis divides the two areas of the Church – theology and practice. And wants to keep them separate. The theologians shall do their work, but the shepherds shall not pay much attention to them. It seems to me that he does not read much, and does not care much about theology. However, in my view both have to be brought together. The theology becomes bloodless and abstract when the pastoral experience does not flow into it. But vice versa, the pastoral care also becomes empty and does not know what it shall teach if it does not have a theological foundation.

The key is the observation here is the It seems to me that he does not read much, and does not care much about theology. Now this observation is supported by the observations of another individual, one that knows Bergoglio, Senor Jack Tollers. In our post titled, Guest Post: The Real Jorge Bergoglio, (see here) we re-produced an interview that Senor Tollers gave the From Rome blog in which he said the following:

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

Which bring us back to the second part of the observation, i.e. did someone, hint Cardinal Muller, put pressure on Francis to cease and desist from the doctrinal revolution. Here we are blessed to have the second interviewee share with us his observations. He is Hans Joas who represents the opposite philosophical school from that of Robert Spaemann. Here is what Herr Joas observes: (emphasis added)

Joas: With regard to the changes in the Vatican, I considered the public humiliation of his employees in the speech of the Pope before Christmas to be problematic. A critique of such a manner has to happen either in a non-public form or there must be the possibility of expressed disagreement. To humiliate people publicly I consider to be autocratic in a negative sense.

To which Herr Spaemann adds:

Spaemann: This Pope is one of the most autocratic [popes] that we have had in a long time.

So the answer is that it is highly unlikely that Francis, “one of the most autocratic [popes] that we have had in a long time” put his revolution on hold on the basis of council that he received from the cardinals.

Just to summarize, the evidence above indicates that Francis is both generally disinterested in theology, theologically challenged and is not predisposed to take council from his peers, such as members of the Curia. Given these two characteristics, the question then needs to be asked is this: what kind of “power” could have exerted such pressure on Francis, the bishop of Rome to have forced him to put the revolution on hold as per Magister and Gagliarducci?

For an answer to this above question, I would like to introduce you to Father Linus Clovis of the Archdiocese of Castries, St. Lucia in the West Indies. Fr. Clovis held a press conference in Rome recently a press conference that we will analyze in greater detail in a future post. In the presentation, Fr. Clovis related a quote from a person who knew Archbishop Bergoglio in Argentina and provided follow-up commentary, commentary that will no doubt put us on the right path to answering the above posed question. Here is what that person from Argentina observed: (it starts at about the 11:00 mark)

Apparently he loves to be loved by all and pleases everybody. So that one day, he may make a speech on TV against abortion, the next day on the same television show, bless the pro-abortion feminists in the Plaza de Mayo. He can give a wonderful speech against the Masons, and a few hours later, be dining and drinking with them in the Rotary Club.

So how can you make a decision on a man like this, who is everybody’s friend?

Father Clovis goes on to explain it this way:

Our Lord tells us, nevertheless, this is John 12th chapter, St. John’s Gospel, nevertheless, even many of the authorities believed in him, that’s in Our Lord, but for fear of the Pharasees they did not confess it less they should be put out of the Synagogue, for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

This observation and commentary by Fr. Clovis, as it turns out goes a long way in helping to understanding the higher power that is most likely behind the putting on hold of the revolution. Which leads us back to something that we have been observing on this blog for the past year.

Over the course of the last year, we have observed a phenomenon that is contradictory by its very nature. On the one hand, Francis is obtaining high approval ratings from various polling data taken by various news and polling agencies. On the other hand, the number of Faithful who have been attending the general audiences and have come out to St. Peter’s Square on feast days and in the general attendance figures are very meager to say the least. This dichotomy between the Virtual Reality and Objective Reality of the Francis papacy we have outlined in various posts.

These observations, as it turns out could be the key to understanding the higher power that is most likely behind the putting on hold of the revolution. Here is one conclusion that we have reached in the post titled Francis is “Home Alone”: (see here)

What we could be seeing is Francis becoming more and more isolated inside the Sacred Walls of the Vatican. The continuous reports of the internecine conflict inside the Vatican is most likely taking its toll. (see here) It is beginning to dawn on all concerned that the abysmal failure that is the legacy of the Bergoglio reign in the Buenos Aires dioceses is being replicated in Rome, in the Universal Church. The Bergoglio papacy, which is grounded in a “sugar-coated” media narrative and favorable optics, is nothing more than a “Soap Bubble Papay™” (see here) Francis’ populist antics and attacks on the Catholic faithful might have translated into an appealing “media buzz” initially, but have simultaneously translated into low attendance figures at his audiences and low turnout in St. Peter’s Square for the feast days. And since the entire Francis papacy is constructed on the media narrative and optics, this chronic lack of bodies is nothing short of a death-blow to the Francis strategy Lord’s pastoral call.

As to the situation inside the Roman hierarchy, these clerics are cognizant of this situation and are rebelling. The “clique” that has helped Francis with administrating his “revolution”, i.e. the homo-lobby, is most likely seeing the writing on the wall and receding into the shadows. This abandonment by his supporting troops is leaving Francis “home alone” and looking for new friends. And it is this situation that explains the new overtures to Benedict, and appears to be a belated effort in “how to win friends and influence people”. (see here)

We concluded this post with the following observation:

Summa summarum, the Francis “Soap Bubble Papay™” is beginning to “dry up” from the very same causes that created it in the first place.

And it is this dichotomy between the Virtual Reality that is apparent in the polls and the Objective Reality that is observed at the general audiences and in St. Peter’s Square, that could be the most likely explanation for Francis putting the revolution on hold.

Concluding, George Elliot once quipped that: Cruelty, like every other vice, requires no motive outside of itself; it only requires opportunity. From the above text, it would appear that the opportunistic Bergoglian “god of surprises” can be the cruelest of all.

T -151: Benedict XVI – The Ultimate Subversive.

Tags

Annibale Bugnini, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Benedict XVI, Bergoglio, Cardinal Burke, Catholic Church, Concilium, Francis church, heretical pope, hippies, Immemorial Mass of All Ages, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Liturgical Reforms, messeging, Modernists, Moto Proprio, MSM, narratives, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, Novus Ordo, optics, Pagan Christians, pathological, Pauline Reforms, Pope Francis, Raymond Burke, Roman Curia, Secret Synod 2015, Sensus Fidelium, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, subversives, Summorum Pontificum, Synod 2014, Tagged 1968, TLM, Tradition, Universal Church, Vatican, Vatican II

FOR THE RECORD

One theme that frequently arises not only on this blog but in many blogs that are not “against” the Immemorial Mass of All Ages (TLM) is the issue of the offering priests.

To be more specific, the issue is the effects that “returning” to offer the TLM has on the priest and the changes to his… let’s call it his psychological make-up, that this “return” entails. In fact, we are speaking about the priest’s sensus fidelium, or rather how he functions in the sensus fidelium of the Universal Church.

The cause of the issue that arises with respect to the sensus fidelium of the “returning” priests is caused by the complete dichotomy of the role of the priest in the two rites. On the one hand, he has to preside over protestantized gathering of the “people of God” where the priest in essence is superfluous. On an aside, it has even gotten to the point where “self service masses”, where the confection of the Eucharist takes place outside the N.O. Eucharistic meal, are beginning to appear. But I digress… On the other hand, in a proper Catholic mass, the priest acts “ in persona Christi” offering himself up to the Father in an un-bloody sacrifice. These two roles that the priest engages in are not only different by their very nature, but also break the logical law against self-contradiction.

Moreover, if the priest in the Novus Ordo rite is superfluous, and at the same time indispensible when offering the TLM, then what we have is a situation where the priest assumes two roles which are mutually exclusive.

In other words, something can’t be essential and inessential at the same time. It must follows then that by no logical formulation can it be claimed that the two are the same rite but in two different forms.

And this above, is the reason that Paul VI and the Concilium had to repress the offering of the TLM in the Universal Church after the Pauline reforms in 1968 and 1969. They knew, whether consciously or not, that the two rites could not co-exist, and could not co-exist for this very reason alone.

Therefore, the propagation of the Moto Proprio Summorum Pontificum and granting the Faithful wide access to the TLM was nothing short of a time bomb that Benedict XVI released onto not only the Pauline liturgical reforms, but the entire Second Vatican Council infrastructure itself.

Closing, it must be seen as the greatest of ironies that Benedict XVI, in this case appears to be the ultimate subversive while the openly subversive Francis is faced with fighting a rear-guard reactionary action. No wonder they say that reality is stranger than fiction.

A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics

Below is excerpted a most important post from Fr. Peter Carota. It speaks to a matter of conscience afflicting more and more priests, that is, those priests outside explicitly traditional communities such as the ICRSS or FSSP, who take up offering the TLM and over time find the cognitive dissonance between the pre- and post-conciliar Rites and practice of the Faith almost insurmountable. Some of these generally diocesan priests have come to the conclusion that they cannot, in good conscience, continue to offer the post-conciliar Rites (Novus Ordo Mass and all the rest).  This is a problem that will likely only continue to grow if Summorum Pontificum continues to stand and more and more priests take up the traditional practice of the Faith.  May God bless all who do with abundantly, with the strength to always act in accord with His Will.

Fr. Carota addresses the matter head on.  It is…

View original post 1,369 more words

T -152: Francis’ Revolution Put On Hold

Tags

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Benedict XVI, Bergoglio, Big Gender, Cardinal Burke, Catholic Church, Christmas Message to the Roman Curia, Francis church, gender, German Bishops' Conference, heretical pope, hippies, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Kirchensteuer, Lineamenta, messeging, Modernists, MSM, narratives, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, optics, Pagan Christians, pathological, Pope Francis, Raymond Burke, Roman Curia, Secret Synod 2015, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, Summorum Pontificum, Synod 2014, Tagged 1968, Tradition, Vatican, Vatican II

Today we transition away from Poland, but will return in two weeks time to see how the Catholic candidate fared in the upcoming presidential elections. The reason that this blogger sees this election as an important event is that it is the first national elections since the downfall of what has been known in Poland as the “Lagiewniki Church”. Just as a reminder, the Lagiewniki Church was an artificial creation of the domestic ex-communist elites, the purpose of which was to create dissent within the Catholic Church in Poland in order to split the Catholic vote. We explained this situation in our post How The Mighty Have Fallen (see here). But more about the wider implications of this election for the Polish Episcopate Conference and the Church in Poland will be provided in the future post.

In today’s post, the first of two, we turn our sights onto another “revolution”, or to be more precise, a subversive operation that has failed. This revolution is the one created by Francis in order to change Catholic doctrine with respect to the Gender ideology, an ideology that is being heavily promoted by the German Bishops’ Conference. We explained the relationship between the German Bishops’ Conference and BIG GENDER in our post Meet Big Gender (see here).

The manner in which Gender Theory ties into the Francis papacy in general and the Synod of Bishops in particular we outlined in our post titled The Three Paragraphs. (see here) In this post, we laid out our case for why the Synod of Bishops was called for no other reason than to “do something” about the “intrinsically disorder” description of sexually aberrant behavior contained in the post Vatican II papal magisterium. The change in this area of Catholic doctrine could then be used to open the Catholic Church to the zeitgeist of our times. Here is what we wrote:

The Synod was controlled and manipulated by a group of clerics who were taking their directives from Francis himself. The way in which the Manipulators wanted to change Church teaching was first by discarding the Church’s existing Magisterium and the foundations for the Church teaching on homosexuality, replace this body of teaching with something new, only grounded in the speeches, newspaper interviews, musings at the Domus Sanctae Marthae and off-the cuff remarks the magisterium of Francis. They tried to find the magic formula,i.e. Modernist Magic Words that would allow for this change in teaching to slip past the Synod bishops.

Since the above analysis was written on the 18th of December 2014, the Francis revolution has come to a screeching halt. Looking back at what transpired in that fateful month of December 2014, and what has happened since, one can clearly identify the moment when TeamFrancis lost the initiative by over-playing their hand. That critical moment occurred on the 9th of December when the Synod secretariat released the Lineamenta (instructions) to the upcoming Synod of 2015. Here is how we described this event:

And finally, the “Lineamenta” (the preparatory outline for the next synod of bishops) has been sent to the episcopate conferences on the 9th of December with not only the corrupted text containing the discarded paragraphs on the “objectively intrinsic disorder” of homosexuality, but also with instructions for the bishops to “disregard the Church doctrine and do whatever Francis wants”.

Looking back with 20/20 hindsight, we now can more accurately assess the significance of the Lineamenta, the reaction of the Synod bishops and the Roman Curia to this evil document, the counter-response of Francis to the Bishops and Curia’s reaction i.e. the Christmas message to the Roman Curia and the subsequent change of strategy Lord’s pastoral call undertaken by Francis.

Just to refresh our collective memory, Francis’ response to the reaction of the Church hierarchy to the Lineamenta, was his Christmas message to the Curia. The background to this episode and the resulting violent and abusive speech given by Francis to the Roman Curia was outlined in our post titled A Time of Reflection of Sorts. (see here)

The A Time of Reflection of Sorts post was published on the Monday, the 19th of January 2015. Today we will bring this thread up to date. To this end, Sandro Magister has done a great service since he has provided us with a list of what has been said by Francis since the end of 2014 and his own interpretation of Francis’ statements. In his blog titled The Closed Door of Pope Francis (see here), the following assessment of the of the present situation is provided:

Until the synod of October 2014, Jorge Mario Bergoglio had repeatedly and in various ways shown encouragement for “openness” in matters of homosexuality and second marriages, each time with great fanfare in the media. Cardinal Kasper explicitly said that he had “agreed” with the pope on his explosive talk at the consistory.

Continuing, Magister observes the following:

From the end of 2014 until today, there has not been even one more occasion on which he has given the slightest support to the paradigms of the innovators.

On the contrary. He has intensified his remarks on all the most controversial questions connected to the synodal theme of the family: contraception, abortion, divorce, second marriages, homosexual marriage, “gender” ideology. And every time he has spoken of them as a “son of the Church” – as he loves to call himself – with ironclad fidelity to tradition and without swerving by a millimeter from what was said before him by Paul VI, John Paul II, or Benedict XVI.

And the reason behind Francis’ actions, according to Magister is the following with emphasis added:

But the reality is entirely different. As a perfect Jesuit, Bergoglio is a great realist and has already understood – even just from scanning the names of the delegates elected by the various national episcopates – that the next session of the synod will be even more unfavorable for the innovators than the previous one.

In the above passage lies the true cause for the abandonment suspension of the revolution by Francis and something that this blog has been pointing out in numerous posts.

To confirm what is written above by Magister, I would like to point to another post written by the Vatican watcher and very pro-Francis journalist Andrea Gagliarducci. In his MondayVatican blog, in a post titled Pope Francis, the diplomacy of freedom (see here),  the author makes the following observation:

But there is no revolution in this Vatican, and a single anecdote can confirm this. The only new body to arise out of the reform was the Secretariat for the Economy, 85% of whose current employees were taken from other economic bodies of the Holy See. Commenting on this fact, a source involved in their selection stated that “(these people) were good and skilled: why should we get rid of them?”

The above observations obviously refers to the “revolution” with respect to abolishing restructuring the Roman Curia. For a single anecdote to confirm that the doctrinal “revolution” has been put on hold, the hysterical speeches being put out by Reinhard “Bling” Marx, the cardinal of Swank provide us with proof. The relevant passage is contained in our post titled When Doves Cry (see here) and reads as follows:

We are no subsidiaries of Rome. Each conference of bishops is responsible for pastoral care in its culture, and must, as its most proper task, preach the Gospel on our own. We cannot wait for a synod to tell us how we have to shape pastoral care for marriage and family here”.

Obviously, for Card. “Bling” Marx, the proverbial wheels came of his wagon and he started to throw his toys out of his pram. Excuse the mixed metaphors.

So the question now becomes this: why has Francis put the “revolution” on hold?

I will finish here for today and keep you dear reader in suspense.

Tomorrow this blogger will examine the cause behind why Francis has decided to put his revolution on hold.

So stay tuned.