Full cross-post below; no further commentary needed. Please, pray that the truth be exposed and acknowledged. Offer Rosaries with fervor. Lay down your Mass intentions like you would lay down a steady reign of suppressing fire. You have to mean it. Folks, we are so, so close.
—————————————————
It’s all happening. Rotate Caeli is coming onside. Benedict is Pope. HERE
Rotate Caeli, the very influential international Traditional Catholic blog, just retweeted this – a response to Professor Roberto de Mattei’s piece of a few days ago.
Here is the money quote from de Mattei’s piece:
The priesthood can’t even be lost by death, because it subsists “in aternum” . The papacy, on the other hand, can be lost, not only by death, but also in the case of voluntary renunciation or of manifest, notorious heresy. If he renounces being pontiff, the Pope ceases to be such: he has no right to wear white nor impart the Apostolic Blessing. He, from a canonical point of view, is no longer even a cardinal, but goes back to being a simple bishop. Unless his renunciation is invalid: but this, in the case of Benedict XVI, should be proven. Effectively, the title of Pope today is being given to both Francis and Benedict, but one is certainly abusive, as only one [man] can be Pope in the Church.
Mark-
Could it be possible that Pope Benedict knew very well what he was doing in a supposed erroneous renunciation to keep “the wolves” at bay long enough for them to “make a massive massive mess”? His theological ability with Latin and Canon law could warrant this observation. Through the grace of God you, as well as Ann B., Brother Bugnolo and others have seen this error but with different viewpoints.
I myself, tend to lean toward a viewpoint of charity toward Benedict- maybe he has even had conversation with Our Lady and chose to be as “wise as a serpent and as gentle as a dove.”
Yes, this is entirely possible. And whether he intended it or not, it drew the wolves fully into the open, including those we previously thought were on the right side.
Can’t get on board the Benedict-is-a-mastermind train.
It’s more likely he is touched by modernism himself and God’s providence allowed the screw-up to happen for the benefit of the sheep.
Benedict is most likely a theologically compromised man, the perfect embodiment of the ‘conservative-Catholic’ cause where one is forced to serve two conflicting masters.
Benedict wants to preserve the Vatican II council, and the suppression of the 3rd Secret of Fatima. Both events in which he had a hand to play, and likely lives in denial. After all, to admit such colossal mistakes, I imagine would be enough to drive anyone into despair over what they’ve done.
Instead of wasting precious time sending dubias to Francis who’ll never acknowledge them, faithful Catholics should change tactics and begin assaulting Benedict with dubias and questions to clarify a lot of what he intended. Providing they get through Ganswein, of course, but nonetheless, the real first domino in this chain of an Antipapacy lies with Benedict alone, and he needs to be drilled.
If the man has time to co-author books, then he can answer some bloody questions about his ‘resignation and the scandal he is responsible for producing by keeping all the visible signs and titles of the Papacy. According to this we can then move forward as to whether his resignation was valid, and even if he too is a heretic like Francis and whether or not he remains Pope, or also if he wishes to hold fast to the error that he can fundamentally change the Papal Office as to whether or not Benedict himself remains a Catholic. Thus Benedict should be called to explain and renounce his errors.
@Johnno: What in your opinion is the name of the last duly elected Pope?
Johnno: “Thus Benedict should be called to explain and renounce his errors”.
That is crucial and true. We know who Bergoglio is. We need to hear from the Holy Father himself.
“What did you intend”? If renounce, issue a proper renunciation. If remain, then we need an intervention – perhaps police or military to protect the Holy Father from the rainbow colored wolves.
I imagine would be enough to drive anyone into despair over what they’ve done
Well, he could take one of two approaches based on past precedent: Peter’s or Judas’s.
Good comment Johnno. I have followed your comments on different sites and I respect your input. You have a very common sense approach. Keep up the good work.
@Johno
Ever read “Infiltration” by Dr. Marshall Taylor? And yes, good question, III, “What in your opinion is the name of the last duly elected Pope?”
I haven’t read Marshall’s book, though I’m familiar with a lot of its content.
As to the question of the last duly elected Pope –
Short Answer:
I believe it should be obvious that I acknowledge that to be Benedict XVI.
Long Answer following from above:
Of course I also acknowledge that Benedict XVI could also lose the office after valid election by virtue of obstinately holding to formal heresy publicly. As could be possible of John Paul II, John Paul I, Paul VI, John XXIII, Pius XII etc. if anyone wishes to argue, and I’m sure there are many good arguments that can be entertained.
Unfortunately many of those men are dead, so unless some new revelations come to light about them, I believe that whether or not they were formal heretics is very hard if not impossible to establish with certainty. But it is certainly evident that they were material heretics.
Therefore, I disagree with one branch of the sedevacantists that God makes Popes immune from being possessed of material heresy. I base this on the established historic facts concerning the Galileo Affair.
At one time the Church and all the Fathers and Jewish Tradition interpreted the Scriptures authoritatively and consistently as describing a Geocentric view of the universe. This was the criteria that the Holy Inquisition and St. Robert Bellarmine used under the full weight of Papal Authority to condemn the ideas of Copernicus and Galileo as FORMAL Heresy under the strictest language the Church has ever used. This was based solely on Tradition, the Scriptures, Councils and the Fathers and not on any scientific merits, which at the time were also lacking.
But by the late 1800s and into our era, modernism was already creeping its way into the Church and due to other factors such as Napoleon taking possessin of the Inquisitions archives such that the Holy See could not access them and other subterfuge and ambiguous tactics by modernist clergy, no different than in our time with Vatican II and Francis, moves were made to get the Popes to take these condemned works off the Index, further relax the rules as to what theologians and scientists could freely speculate about, and thus ignore Tradition, the Fathers and the previous 1600-1700 Pontificates on how to interpret Scripture when it came to the movements of the Earth, and the Sun. Therefore like other teachings about contraception and divorce etc. it was ignored and left to languish, despite that even today nobody can prove the Church and Scriptures were wrong. This affair was extremely influential propaganda by the atheists and Protestants to demonstrate that the Papacy had no crown, that the Catholic Church could not be the source of Truth, and this even serves as convenient propaganda today taught to schoolchildren. So as early as the 1800s we had Popes making decisions that would undermine the authority of the Church and expose generations of people around the world to error that undermines the Catholic Faith and places billions of souls at risk. Because the Church taught one thing at one time, then this was completely flipped, and as early as the 1900s, we had a Pope openly express doubt about what his predecessors defined as formal heresy in a public address.
This doubt eventually culminated in the Vatican II Council, where none other than Cardinal Ratzinger stated that this idea that the Church got it wrong on Galileo and Copernicus was used as the basis for rebellion against the Church and calls to modernize the Church in favour of homosexuality, a female priesthood, contraception and just about everything else. And according to Ratzinger, this heavily weighed and influenced the periti entering into the Council, where there were apparently even calls to correct this by publicly exonerating Galileo. Thus the Church, it was argued, could get right with the modern world by learning from the modern world, learn from other religions, learn from atheist scientists, and open up all the windows and make apologies for all of her supposed mistakes of the past. Also this was why more ambiguous language was favoured and even inserted into documents like Dei Verbum, that inferred that Scripture was inerrant only in matter of salvation, implying it could be in error on anything else, or at least this is how it could be interpreted by modernists wishing to exploit it later. But overall, the councilmen clearly had a crisis of faith over whether the Holy Spirit was helping them or not and thus didn’t want to commit too strongly to anything.
But oddly enough, Vatican II didn’t end up saying anything about Galileo. It seems John Paul II set up a commission later on precisely to try and overturn the ruling against Galileo. It seems the commission returned and told JPII that he couldn’t, so JPII did the next best thing and addressed the Academy of Sciences by saying that the ‘Church’ is sorry if it behaved too harshly towards Galileo, that both sides in this affair didn’t behave in the best way, and anyway, didn’t that Einstein guy say that according to Relativity, no-one can tell what is moving around what? So anyway, let bygones be bygones and lets all try and get along now. Cardinal Ratzinger also admitted likewise that as current science believes, there is no discernible difference between Geocentrism and Heliocentrism as both coordinate systems work mathematically, so it’s all a wash.
What’s funny is that many Catholics don’t realize that the condemnations against Copernicus and Galileo are still binding on us now. After all, before the Church could condemn Copernicus and Galileo, Galileo being vehemently suspect of heresy, they had to first define what that heresy was in order to accuse him. Which they did.
Many Catholics don’t realize that ‘Science’ has never proven the Church or the Scriptures to be in error over the Earth’s lack of locomotion. The best scientists could do was fudge the math to cover up the fact that they could never detect the Earth’s movement through space and had to bend time, space and all of physics to escape this implication; something that’s caused all kinds of stupid and untenable theories to flourish today. And likewise, because man and the natural world have a relationship to which understanding reality is crucial, because we are told that everything is relative and thus reality is subjective, we see relativism naturally extend to morality, and now boys can put on dresses and demand to be called girls, and beat them in spectator sports.
Even more oddly, the so called modernist, supposedly-false-Popes, like John Paul II and Benedict XVI, continued to maintain this, albeit under more compromising ambiguous language tonot piss off one side or the other. Which I find remarkable.
Nonetheless, the fact that Popes by the 1800s gradually undermined the previous Teaching, by allowances which ran counter to the discipline enforced by the previous reigning Popes with their full authority over the entire Christian world upon the clergy, colleges, universities and royalty, goes to demonstrate that the 1800s Papacies could’ve only done so if they had fallen prey to material heresy, thus believing that their actions were justified in accordance with what they believed was the Truth; or due to criminal negligence under pressure. So either the Holy Spirit was asleep at the wheel from 33 AD until 1800 AD, or the Holy Spirit took a vacation from 1800 onwards until Vatican II came around and tried to solve it, and apparently He wasn’t invited to that either… Thus at one time or another, Popes had to be possessed of material heresy in order to make a bad ruling or change a good one.
So whatever side of the fence you are on, only one side could’ve got it right on this affair, which was explicitly based on the consensus of the Fathers when interpreting Scripture during a time when their opponents held openly known rival descriptions of the cosmos. The Fathers are defined as dogmatically infallible in their consensus interpretation, which in this regard was unanimous. Considering this fact and the language and enforcement to censor it, it cannot be the Church of the 1600s or earlier that erred, and to say so would be logically suicide for the faith. So it had to have been after that, being as late as 1800, or even as late as 1900 that the Popes were plagued by material heresy. But if material heresy alone was the criteria for determining an anti-papacy, then we’re faced with a situation where we’ve possibly been without Popes and only a compromised clergy for 100-200 years now… which is absurd.
Nonetheless, if we are to hold that the Popes from 1800s on were legitimate, then the material heresy they held had to be due to invincible ignorance, which mitigates their culpability, but which ultimately culminates in Vatican II. This was all happening even during a time when Our Lady of Fatima appeared to warn the Church about where all this was heading, and as a demonstrable miracle, had the Sun moving in impossible ways in the Sky. It certainly wasn’t the Earth spinning around and turning and dancing. I believe the fact of this miraculous demonstration means something. After all, the Church used the account of Joshua where he called out to God to halt both the movement of the Sun and simultaneously the movement of the Moon until Israel’s enemies were destroyed to be interpreted as that the Sun and Moon were seen to be the bodies that were moving in relationship to a fixed Earth. The Earth was also described as the center of the Universe, and immovable, being God’s ‘footstool’ in the Psalms.
So the latter era Popes were skirting close to heresy, actually doubted the Church’s teaching, and aided the modernists in their campaign of undermining the faith. But if we should doubt their legitimacy as Popes, then we must also conclude that the See of Peter had failed for quite an extensive period of time.
This is why I hold that public formal obstinate heresy must be established in order to know whether or not one was or remains a Pope. I feel this is more difficult to do once such men are dead. But it is possible to determine this by confronting those who are alive today, namely – Benedict XVI, and well… Francis by association.
For the same reason that material or occult heresy doesn’t mean any layperson ceases to be Catholic either, the Popes from the 1800s on were likely convinced that Science had proven the Church ‘wrong’ (or at least that their predecessors judgements were rash) and thus sought to rectify what wasn’t wrong or at least allow more freedom to explore this. Similarly, we might imagine that the VII Popes might have likewise been constrained by personal ignorance to begin questioning the Church’s entire relationship with the ‘progress’ of the world and alter their approach; or believing invincibly ignorantly that a council like Vatican II could not err, but erroneously try to make sense of it and implement it in what they imagine was Catholic, much like many ignorant Catholic laypeople (and I was also once one of them) also likewise did out of an honest desire that they were being obedient to God and His Church or due to being raised with poor instruction. If this is so, then it does mitigate some of their responsibility even if it doesn’t save us from the quagmire they helped to build.
Thus, until some inescapable proof can be brought forward that demonstrates that the VII Popes knew they were rejecting obstinately the True Catholic Faith using what they knew was an erroneous and false Council, and were not just innocently confused in trying to harmonize the Council through some flawed ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ methodology, just as the previous 200 years of pontificates were led to believe falsely that science had made its case against the Church concerning Galileo, then I see no grounds for believing them to be anti-Popes, though I’m always open to the possibility. But as with the Galileo Affair, there is a limit as to how far back one can stretch a line of hypothetical Anti-Papacies before the Church can be considered to have lost her head and all valid holy orders permanently.
However, it’s possible to put Benedict in the dock while he’s still alive and get him to either clarify or recant his errors. And based on that determining whether his papacy ended or not. It could be that Benedict is genuinely confused and contradicts himself without realizing it, or is genuinely cowardly, and like St. Peter says different things whether under pressure or not.
But unlike everyone before, Francis is on record saying that he knows what the Church teaches on even the most basic topics that little children understand without the need of fancy telescopes and satellite data and PHD or theological degrees. And he has openly declared that he doesn’t care and obstinately wants to change it all anyway, because **** that Rigid Tradition! But of course, the question is whether Francis was ever the Pope in the first place, and that’s a different discussion. But he is openly very proud of his formal heresy that he flaunts to the public whenever given the occasion. The fact that he’ll never correct Scalfari’s claims is evident enough. And unlike St. Peter, and more like Juan Peron, Francis says different things to different people fully aware of his contradictions because power and control are his ends. But I still believe it is beneficial to call a Council to authoritatively condemn him or have him recant if possible if only for his own sake. Likewise a Council could also examine his predecessors too and make a determination. And of course I realize that the way things currently stand, this is a pipe dream, only solved by God Himself in His own time.
Interesting. I maintain a Chestertonian position on most of these matters – that we do not know whether the sun revolves around the earth or the earth the sun in the same way that we know that grass is green and the sky blue. But what would you say to the assertion that statements about the material and formal causes of, well, material things are not within the Church’s baileywick? That the Church is properly empowered and protected by God when she speaks on matters of faith and morals, but not necessarily in other fields?
Mind you, I do not necessarily hold that position either. My acceptance of positions tends to be conditional. Not that he was a good man, but – “I beseech you, from the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”
Well the answer to that is, “It depends…”
While the Church is not given knowledge or authority to explain absolutely everything in life. There are certain things granted to her to uphold and defend when they are contradicted.
For example, if we were to take any other field, like say, archaeology, and the Scriptures state that once long ago there was a fortress or group of people in such and such a place, and modern archaeologists claim they couldn’t find anything and therefore believed otherwise, then the Church must defend the fact that such a place or people did in fact exist there by virtue of the fact that it is explicitly stated in Scripture, which is inspired by God, and which it holds to be inerrant.
The Church must do so, even if the mention of such a place or people or person in Scripture is seemingly completely irrelevant to the overall content and it was just something mentioned in passing by the writer because it calls into question the reliability of the source, and therefore the enemies of the faith will use any excuse to exploit this to challenge all the rest. And it takes very very little an excuse for people to rebel against the Church and morality. “Oh, don’t historians say there’s no evidence that the Romans needed anyone to go all the way to another town for a census?”, asks the heretic, “I guess that therefore means that Jesus didn’t exist! LoL! I’m going to get married to my same-sex partner tomorrow!”
As St. Robert Bellarmine stated in the case of the Galileo affair, the thing matters because it ultimately questions not the text, but really the speaker, Who is ultimately God. And God doesn’t make mistakes. So the Church has no choice but to intervene for it is her duty.
But if it is some other unrelated matter, such that say, archaeology has some dispute over some place in China that is nowhere mentioned or discussed anywhere of any relevance in Scripture or Church history that has any bearing on her Magisterial Teachings, then the Church has no business saying anything about that issue.
Likewise, even in matters of science, where descriptions of phenomena are given in the Scriptures, these are either accurate or not. There is naturally the use of phenomenological language that is vague and inexact, like saying ‘sunset or sunrise’ or ‘the 4 corners of the world’, but there are more explicit cases where we infer certain factual statements, that when cross-referenced with other passages start to show a consistent pattern. This is the case in Genesis where we are told the Earth was created first before any other heavenly bodies, inferring that it is the only starting point of reference at this time, then the psalmist who uses the Earth’s immobility as analogously to the unchanging and fixed nature of God, called the center of the universe, and seen by the Fathers as that place upon which the Son of God would live and die and resurrect to which all the other bodies paid homage to, and defended this as such in the face of the Greeks who also were Geocentrists but regarded Earth as the universe’s ‘anus’ where only dirty human beings lived while the gods occupied the heavens and for whom the idea of the Incarnation of a god in human flesh was ridiculous. And the Fathers defended this on virtue of accounts from the Scriptures, one of the most famous being also the account of King Hezekiah where God made the shadow of the sundial move backwards.
But most importantly of all the most famous reference is Joshua’s Long Day. Joshua doesn’t call out to God to stop the Earth’s rotation. He explicitly asks to stop the Sun, and also the Moon. The reference stating that the Sun moves, like the Moon was also important for the Church to defend in the face of those particular scientists who believed that the Earth moved, but that the Sun did not move and the Sun was therefore the Center of the universe, to which the Church condemned this proposition as formal heresy to say the Sun does not move, which today is not in any way controversial. And likewise the Church also condemned as philosophically erroneous the proposition that the Earth moved. The Church was a bit more lenient here, because internal movements of the Earth were allowed, such as Earthquakes and where the Scriptures declare that God shakes the Heavens and the Earth, but condemned the proposition that the Earth revolves around the Sun, because Joshua did not ask God to halt the Earth, but the Sun. And in that regard, Joshua didn’t have to stop the Moon, but felt it necessary, and the language and command he used for the Sun is the same as the Moon. Otherwise why did no Joshua call for the only the Earth and Moon’s movements to halt? Why didn’t the Scriptures more precisely say Joshua said, “Earth, stop moving and spinning, and Moon, halt in your course?” Instead this seems inspired specifically to equate the Sun and the Moon’s movements as being the same, both in locomotion with respect to the Earth. And since this account is set in Scripture with this exact language, it therefore is being explicit. The Jews saw it that way. The early Christians saw it that way. And finally the Church under canonical trial and full Papal authority, ruled that it was so. Because this matter of the Sun and Moon’s courses was touched upon in Scripture, was assigned descriptions that can be scientifically verified, was interpreted a certain way by both Hebrew and Christian Tradition, and held in competition with competing cosmological systems, and was a matter of miraculous importance. And the fact that the Fathers interpreted geocentrism from the Scriptures matters, because they are an authority on the Scriptures where there is a consensus. Because if one can question the Fathers on matters of their interpretation of the Sun and the Earth, then one could question them on matters of the Eucharist, the priesthood, celibacy and every other matter. The Protestants and other heretics would have a field day. Hence why Church Coucils declared the Father’s consensus interpretations of Scripture on all matters infallible, as this pointed towards Apostolic teachings, and it was this ruling that the Inquisition used to challenge Galileo, who attempted to argue that Scientists should be free to interpret Scripture in limited ways for their own means against Tradition and the Church should stay out of it. So in this matter, the Church absolutely had to intervene and make a ruling.
But now say, science was debating the nature of the Sun itself, not regarding its motion, but regarding what makes the Sun work. Long ago it was thought to be a something on fire that would burn out, like a giant ball of wood. Then it was believed that the Sun was a giant ball of burning gas. Then more contemporarily, that the Sun works like a nuclear fusion reactor. But some are now speculating that the Sun is a very large transistor that is moving through a field of supercharged plasma and thus works similar to an electric bulb, and this is apparently because the Sun’s central core appears cooler than on the circumference, which is not what a nuclear powered object would exhibit where it should be hottest at the core. On this issue with regards to ‘how does the Sun work’, the Church has nothing to offer because no knowledge of this was entrusted to her anywhere, so the Church has no business telling anyone how the Sun works.
I would say that Chesterton, like most people, took the position he did, due to lack of knowledge, and being limited to what he could know in his era, where the findings of Michaelson/Morley and Michelson/Gale experiments that failed to detect the Earth’s assumed movement, were heavily reinterpreted or censored or simply spun in favour of Einstein’s new physics, where enthusiasts literally described him the following way – “The physicist and science historian Abraham Pais has described Einstein similarly. To many people, Einstein appeared as “a new Moses come down from the mountain to bring the law and a new Joshua controlling the motion of the heavenly bodies.” He was the “divine man” of the 20th century.” With such heavy marketing, anyone would be intimidated. Though not all were fooled, and even Einstein had to revise his Special theory heavily, and the General theory that remained could at best only feebly declare that both systems were possible and we’d never be able to tell which was which (which matches Chesterton’s position). And the only reason Science decided to heavily favour heliocentrism, was because the consensus were atheist naturalists who decided arbitrarily that because their personal dogma states that the universe happened and organized by chance, Geocentrism was ruled out as a more statistical impossibility, because they all knew it heavily implied Intelligent Design, and would give credibility to the Catholic Church and the Papacy against which the Galileo Affair was the most useful propaganda followed closely by Charles Darwin.
But nowadays more are questioning Einstein’s description of the universe, and the further findings of satellite missions form Kolbe to PLANCK, SLOAN and so on heavily destroy the Copernican Principle that the Earth does not occupy a special place in the observable universe, but this was always uncomfortably noted by scientists in the dark, such as Hubble, who was greatly disturbed at the implication of seeing red shifted data everywhere surrounding the Earth, which implied a central place, but rather than admit this possibility, like Einstein, he had to concoct a whole crazy view of the universe that put us all on the circumference of an expanding balloon space rather than a typical understanding of 3D space to explain that on the surface of a ball, everywhere was a ‘center’!
Thus, if one wonders today why gender dysphoria runs rampant, and why crazy Jesuits say that 2 + 2 = 5 in theology, please know that the scientists who denied the Book of Genesis and Exodus and the 1600-era Popes and Inquisitors led the way in terms of inventing new realities for themselves and demanded we all see the universe through the same crazy eyes that they do.
Let’s not even get started on Descartes and Darwin…
Given where Benedict is, if there is a loophole such as he did not renounce correctly, the insiders can close that gap by just redoing it the valid way. If Benedict is under their control, that should be fairly easy to do. Most 93 year old men aren’t capable of putting up much of a fight, and he may be easy to intimidate. One ray of hope is the book with Sarah, it does indicate a man who still has some fight left in him and cares. I think we should be concerned about his ability to express himself honestly with those minders around him.
Either way, times a wastin.
The thing is that even if Benedict re-did his resignation later. This would still mean that…
1. He remained Pope until the time of his new correct resignation.
2. The conclave the elected Francis was invalid.
3. Francis, perhaps not of his own fault, was always an anti-Pope.
Now, the Cardinals could of course, given they are stupid, then choose after the new resignation to unanimously re-elect Francis anyway and then ex post facto have Francis now considered legitimate re-issue all his heretical encyclicals, and China-sell-out deal and Synodal changes anyway…
But I imagine that even if they would not elect Francis again, there is the inescapable fact that there would be a lot of egg on their faces that this screw-up will be remembered in history and eternity forever.
So even if Benedict was completely willing to go on the record again to re-resign and put away the emeritus titles and the ring and cassock and cease the apostolic blessings, cease writing books, and just go run a quiet tavern in Bavaria, they’d encourage him against this and lock him up permanently for that reason alone. Because the only thing that matters to this lot is their public image. And this incident will make of them such a laughing stock overnight that the democrats will join hands with Trump to laugh at them together over Twitter. They fear this more than God or even jail-time for sodomy. This is why they never think to look back, it’s always “Forward!” least they discover that they are wrong. Never underestimate Pride.
Add to this now the following even simpler solution:
They could just have Benedict interviewed in front of a camera by the press corps or just Antonio Socci, and he could be asked straight direct questions about this active/inactive ministry/office enclave of Peter stuff, to which he could just wave his hands and say, “Nonsense, nonsense!”, “I was just waxing poetical. I wanted to offer some flowery meaningless comfortable words to me fans out there!”, “Hey, if you want I can get rid of the cassock and emeritus title from now on, okay?”
And that would be the end of that.
All so simple… yet they haven’t already just done this…
And I suspect they haven’t done so simple a thing because they know what answers he’s going to give, and Ganswein already tried to dip his toes to test the waters in that pond to see how the sheep would take it and it’s not going down as well as they’d hoped.
Mark–two suggestions.
1. Combox editor? Took me ten minutes just scroll down to the end. Runaway comments puts it mildly. Pithy.
2. Oakes gave me am idea. Why not celebrate Pope Benedict’s 15th Anniversary as Pope! Coming up this April.
I’ll raise a glass of Bavarian brew to that!