Hellhole of mental illness: 40% of Brown Univ. students are LGBTQ+

Forty percent of Brown University students say they are LGBT, suggesting social contagion

New survey data from Brown University’s student newspaper provides further evidence that the increase in LGBT identification is driven by social pressures.

The latest data show that between 2010 and 2023, identification as LGBTQ+ has almost tripled among the student body at Brown (from 14% in 2010 saying they were not heterosexual to 38% now). “The Herald’s Spring 2023 poll found that 38% of students do not identify as straight — over five times the national rate,” The Brown Daily Herald reported. “Over the past decade, LGBTQ+ identification has increased across the nation, with especially sharp growth at Brown.”

Other sexual orientations have seen massive increases. “Since Fall 2010, Brown’s LGBTQ+ population has expanded considerably. The gay or lesbian population has increased by 26% and the percentage of students identifying as bisexual has increased by 232%,” the student newspaper reported. “Students identifying as other sexual orientations within the LGBTQ+ community have increased by 793%.”

The idea of LGBT identification as a social contagion is one that continues to draw criticism among academics. For example, the head of an academic journal that published a paper that supported the theory of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria faced a cancellation attempt, along with the Northwestern University professor who wrote the paper.

Coincidentally, Dr. Lisa Littman, who popularized the idea of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, once taught at Brown University before being forced out over the controversy…

MORE

“If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man.”

“Backwardsism” and True Progress

By Father David Nix

An article at Rorate Cæli is titled Francis confirms his hatred for the Latin Mass and it quotes him as saying:  “I certainly know that the Council is still being applied. It takes a century for a Council to be assimilated, they say.  And I know the resistance to its decrees is terrible.  There is incredible support for restorationism, what I call indietrismo (backwardness).”

I too used to say things like, “It takes a hundred years for a Council to be implemented correctly.”  But now I see this doesn’t apply to Vatican II.  It only applies to dogmatic councils that were established to dissipate confusion, not seminate it.  We have had 20 dogmatic ecumenical councils that included infallible anathema statements.  Most of these ended up ultimately growing the numbers of the Catholic Church, whereas Vatican II tanked it… and continues to do so. Such rejection of the Holy Spirit’s protection was declared quite clearly by those who initiated it:

-“There will be no infallible definitions. All that was done by former Councils. That is enough.”—Pope John XXIII, Gaudet Mater Ecclesia, October 11, 1962.

-“The magisterium of the Church did not wish to pronounce itself under the form of extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements…. ”—Pope Paul VI, discourse closing Vatican II, December 7, 1965

-“Differing from other Councils, this one [Vatican II] was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral.”—Pope Paul VI, August 6, 1975, General Audience.

About 50 million Catholics have left Catholicism in the Western Hemisphere since Vatican II.  I prove here the numbers have also tanked in the Eastern Hemisphere, contrary to all the rumors of how successful “The Council” has been in Africa over the past 50 years.  In other words, “the changes” have statistically been a total failure in both hemispheres.  To insist “we just need to implement it the right way” has finally become as preposterous as “We just need to implement Communism the right way. It has never been tried the right way!” But what the latter has executed against bodies, the former has done to souls:  Total destruction.

When are we going to admit that destruction of traditional Catholicism is not “progress” anyway we project an ideal upon the future?  In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis wrote:

We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place you want to be and if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. 

So also, we Catholics must realize that trashing Apostolic Catholicism has been the wrong road, any way you slice-and-dice the crumbling statistics.  This is why traditional Catholicism is the future. It’s a Church founded on Divine Revelation, not new enlightenment principles. are ironically the most progressive ones.  The quote from CS Lewis continues:

If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man.

InfoVaticana also counters the very notion of his backwardsism:  “The key is in the fetish word of the last council: aggiornamento, updating, updating. The Church, an institution that is not of this world but is in this world, is called to maintain its perennial doctrine, the eternal message of Christ, valid for all times, while studying the spirit of each age to adapt the form of the message so that it reaches the world effectively.”

So enough of attempting the impossible hermeneutic of continuity.  It has utterly failed.  Traditional Catholicism is not just the past of the Catholic Church.  It’s also the future.

CS Lewis’ quote continues to explain why we traditional Catholics want to return to the original Apostolic Catholicism after 65 years of tanked numbers:

We have all seen this when we do arithmetic. When I have started a sum the wrong way, the sooner I admit this and go back and start over again, the faster I shall get on. There is nothing progressive about being pigheaded and refusing to admit a mistake. And I think if you look at the present state of the world, it is pretty plain that humanity has been making some big mistakes. We are on the wrong road. And if that is so, we must go back. Going back is the quickest way on.

DARPA wants to inject a ROOMBA into your bloodstream… what could go wrong?

via Childers’ substack, via DARPA’s for real site:

DARPA Seeks to SHIELD Blood from Fungal and Bacterial Pathogens

New program looks to combat bloodstream infections, a significant battlefield health threat
DARPA Seeks to SHIELD Blood from Fungal and Bacterial Pathogens

Fungal and bacterial pathogens can cause bloodstream infections (BSI), are a persistent and deadly threat to both civilian and military populations,1, 2 and are particularly prevalent in the military due to increased risk of infection following trauma. These infections can be uniquely challenging due to delays in diagnosis, antibiotic resistance and toxicity of treatments, especially for fungal infections.

But what if you could have a Roomba-like treatment circulating within your blood that whisks away pathogens before you get sick? DARPA’s new Synthetic Hemo-technologIEs that Locate & Disinfect (SHIELD) program aims to develop broad, preventive treatments for warfighters who suffer trauma from gunshot or blast wounds, or burns. Novel therapies would be administered as combat casualty care post-trauma with the aim to bind, clear, and defeat any fungi and bacteria in a pathogen-agnostic, or broad-spectrum manner before they can become a health risk. These therapies will be designed to protect the recipient for up to a week with a single dose; be durable, non-toxic, rapidly and broadly deployable; and be effective against the many different known and emerging bacterial and fungal threats.

“SHIELD is designed to develop innovative approaches to create safe and effective broad spectrum medical countermeasures that can defeat fungal and bacterial pathogens, thereby preventing serious disease and death,” noted SHIELD program manager, Dr. Christopher Bettinger. “While many of us may be familiar with the idea of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, there are an increasing number of pathogenic fungal strains that resist even the most potent anti-fungal compounds as a result of overuse of these compounds in hospitals and agricultural applications…”

50 years ago today: Our Lady of Akita

Our Lady first spoke to Sister Agnes, a 41 year old Novice, on July 6th, 1973. The wooden statue in the chapel wept and bled, confirmed scientifically. Perhaps we should listen.

Her third message was communicated on the anniversary of Fatima, October 13th, 1973:

“My dear daughter, listen well to what I have to say to you… As I told you, if men do not repent and better themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity… Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity… the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead… Each day recite the prayer of the rosary. With the rosary pray for the Pope, bishops and the priests. The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, and bishops against other bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres… churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord. The demon will be especially implacable against souls consecrated to God. The thought of the loss of so many souls is the cause of my sadness. If sins increase in number and gravity, there will be no longer pardon for them. With courage, speak to your superior… It is Bishop Ito, who directs your community. You have still something to ask? Today is the last time that I will speak to you in living voice. From now on you will obey the one sent to you and your superior… I alone am able still to save you from the calamities which approach.”

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/message-from-our-lady–akita-japan-5167

Declaration of Independence from Antipope Bergoglio

Remember, “Antipope” is not a title, it is a criminal act, the crime being usurpation of the papacy. A non-Catholic cannot be pope. Even a material heretic places himself outside the Church, without a formal declaration. Furthermore, heresy causes automatic loss of ecclesiastical office for a cleric, according to canon law. Now since the base premise of this blogger is that Pope Benedict never validly resigned, we hold that the conclave which “elected” Bergoglio was invalid in the first place. So either way, you know, the thing.

Below is a full crosspost from Dr. Mazza today…

If Francis is Pope…

“Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you [plural: i.e. Peter & his successors], that he may sift you [plural] as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” (St. Luke 22: 31-32)

If Francis is Pope…

Then Pope Saint Lucius I, Martyr, (r. 253-254) was WRONG

when he said: “The Roman Apostolic Church is the mother of all Churches and has never been shown to have wandered from the path of Apostolic tradition, nor being deformed, succumbed to heretical novelties according to the promise of the Lord himself [to Peter]… ‘I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not…’(Lk 22:31-32) ”[1]

Then Pope Saint Felix I, Martyr, (r. 269-274), was WRONG

when speaking of the Roman Church he said: “As it took up in the beginning the norm of the Christian Faith from its authors, the Princes of the Apostles of Christ, She remains unsullied according to what the Lord said: ‘I have prayed for thee, etc.’ ”[2]

Then Pope Damasus I, (r. 366-382) was WRONG

when he said: “The First See, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish...”[3]

Then Pope Saint Innocent I, (r. 401-417) was WRONG

when speaking of the Roman Church he said: “that…all other churches might derive what they should order, whom they should absolve, whom, as being dirtied with ineffaceable pollution, the stream that is worthy only of pure bodies should avoid; so that from their parent source all waters should flow, and through the different regions of the whole world the pure streams of the fountain well forth uncorrupted.”

Then Pope Saint Gelasius I, (r. 492-496) was WRONG

when he said: “This is what the Apostolic See guards against with all her strength because the glorious confession of the Apostle [Peter] is the root of the world, so that she is polluted by no crack of depravity and altogether no contagion. For if such a thing would ever occur (which may God forbid and we trust cannot be), why would we make bold to resist any error?”[4]

Then Pope Pelagius II, (r. 579-590) was WRONG

when he said: “For you know how the Lord in the Gospel declares: ‘Simon, Simon, behold Satan has desired you that he might sift you as wheat, but I have prayed the Father for thee, that thy faith fail not, and thou being converted, confirm thy brethren.’ See, beloved, the truth cannot be falsified, nor can the faith of Peter ever be shaken or changed.”

“Consider, most dear ones, that the Truth could not have lied, nor will the faith of PETER be able to be shaken or changed forever. For although the devil desired to sift all the disciples, the Lord testifies that He Himself asked for PETER alone and wished the others to be confirmed by him; and to him also, in consideration of a greater love which he showed the Lord before the rest, was committed the care of feeding the sheep [cf. Jn 21:15ff.]; and to him also He handed over the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and upon him He promised to build his Church, and He testified that the gates of hell would not prevail against it [cf. Mt 16:16ff.]…”[5]

Then the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681) was WRONG when it repeated the words of Pope Agatho (r. 678-681):

“For this is the rule of the true faithwhich this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ [See of Rome]has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, ‘Peter, Peter, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for you, that (your) faith fail not. And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren.’ Let your tranquil Clemency therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter’s faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing: of whom also our littleness, since I have received this ministry by divine designation, wishes to be the follower, although unequal to them and the least of all.”

“…because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error (hec apostolica ejus ecclesia nunquam a via Veritatis in qualibet erroris parte deslexa est), whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church (omnis catholica … ecclesia), and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embracedand followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it, while the heretics have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred.”[6]

Then the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (869) was WRONG when it repeated the words of Pope Hormisdas (r. 514-523):

“The first condition of salvation is to keep the rule of the true faith. And because the sentence of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be passed by, who said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church,’ these things which have been said are proved by events, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept undefiledand her well-known doctrine has been kept holy. Desiring, therefore, not to be in the least degree separated from the faith and doctrine of this See, we hope that we may deserve to be in the one communion, which the Apostolic See preaches, in which is the entire and true solidity of the Christian religion.”[7]

Then Pope Saint Leo IX, (r. 1049-1054) was WRONG

when he said: “By the See of the Chief of the Apostles, namely by the Roman Church, through the same Peter, as well as through his successors, have not the comments of all the heretics been disapproved, rejected, and overcome, and the hearts of the brethren in the faith of Peter — which so far neither has failed, nor up to the end will fail — been strengthened.”[8]

Then Pope Saint Leo IX was WRONG

when he also said: “Without a doubt, it was for him alone, whom the Lord and Savior asserted that he prayed that his faith would not fail, saying, ‘I have prayed for thee, etc.’ [Lk 22:32]. Such a venerable and efficacious prayer has obtained that to this point the faith of Peter has not failed, nor can it be believed that it is ever going to fail in his throne.

Then Pope Saint Gregory VII, (r. 1073-1085) was WRONG

when in his Dictatus Papae, he said: “…the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.”

Then Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, (1090-1153) was WRONG

when he said: ““all the dangers and scandals that occur in the kingdom of God must be referred to the Holy See, but none more urgently than those which concern the faith. It is indeed just that any menace to the faith should be dealt with by the one 𝒘𝒉𝒐𝒔𝒆 𝒇𝒂𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒄𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒇𝒂𝒍𝒕𝒆𝒓. To whom else has it been said : 𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘦, 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘺 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘩 fail 𝘯𝘰𝘵? The words that follow must apply to Peter’s successor… 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘣𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘯.’?”[9]

Then Pope Innocent III, (r. 1198-1216) was WRONG

when he said: “The Lord confesses at the time of the Passion that he prayed for him: ‘I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail: and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren’ [Lk 22:32], by this manifestly indicating that his successors would never at any time deviate from the Catholic faith, but rather they would recall others and also strengthen others in such a way as to impose on others the necessity of obeying….”[10]

“Without faith, it is impossible to please God, for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. If I myself have no faith how can I strengthen others in faith? And that is one of the chief points of my function [officium meum]: for did not The Lord say to Saint Peter, “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not”, and “when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren”. He prayed, and was hearkened to,— hearkened to in all points, owing to His obedience. The faith of the Holy See has never failed in trouble: but it remains firm and invincible, so that the privilege of Saint Peter remains inviolable.[11]

Then Saint Thomas Aquinas, (1225-1274) was WRONG

when he wrote in his Lectura on the Gospel of St. Matthew: “However, the Roman Church was not corrupted by heretics because it was founded on a rock. Hence there were heretics in Constantinople, and the work of the apostles was lost; only Peter’s church remained intact (Luke 23:32). And this refers not only to the Church of Peter, but to the faith of Peter, and to the whole Western Church. Hence, I believe that the Westerners owe greater reverence to Peter than to the other apostles.”

Then the Ecumenical Council of Florence (1438-1444) was WRONG

when it said: “For with the Lord’s approval the most illustrious profession of the Roman church about the truth of the faith, which has always been pure from all stain of error shines.”[12]

Then Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church ( 1542-1621) was WRONG

when he said : “For the Pope not only should not, but cannot preach heresy, but rather should always preach the truth. He will certainly do that, since the Lord commanded him to confirm his brethren, and for that reason added: ‘I have prayed for thee, that thy faith shall not fail,’ [Lk 22:32] that is, that at least the preaching of the true faith shall not fail in thy throne.”

Then Saint Robert Bellarmine was WRONG

when he also said: “There [Pope Saint] Gregory clearly teaches the strength of the Church depends upon the strength of Peter, and hence Peter is less able to err than the Church herself.”[13]

Then Saint Robert Bellarmine was WRONG

when he also said: “The power of Peter’s keys does not extend to the point that the Supreme Pontiff can declare ‘not sin’ what is sin, or ‘sin’ that which is not sin. In fact, this would be to call evil good, and good evil, something that always has been and will be very far from the one who is the Head of the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth.”[14]

Then Francisco Suarez, (1548-1617) was WRONG

when he said: “in accord with His divine providence…[God] preserve[s] the pope from heresy in consequence of the promise that he shall never err in defining faith. Furthermore, as such a thing has never happened in the Church, we may conclude that, in the providence of God, it cannot happen.’ ”

Then the Ecumenical Council Vatican I (1870), was WRONG

when it said: “For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor…And indeed all the venerable Fathers have embraced, and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed their [Popes] apostolic doctrine; knowing most fully that this See of Saint Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error, according to the divine promise of the Lord our Saviour made to the Prince of His disciples: ‘I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not; and when thou art converted, confirm thy brethren.’”

Then the Ecumenical Council Vatican I (1870), was WRONG

when it also said: “This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.[15]

Then Bishop Vincent Gasser, (1809-1879) the principal relator at Vatican I, was WRONG

when he said: “This prerogative granted to St. Peter by the Lord Jesus Christ was supposed to pass to all Peter’s successors because the chair of Peter is the center of unity in the Church. But if the Pontiff should fall into an error of faith, the Church would dissolve, deprived of the bond of unity.”[16]

Then Blessed Pope Pius IX (r. 1846-1878) was WRONG

when he said: “This authority judges infallibly all disputes which concern matters of faith and morals, lest the faithful be swirled around by every wind of doctrine which springs from the evilness of men in encompassing error. And this living infallible authority is active only in that Church which was built by Christ the Lord upon Peter, the head of the entire Church, leader and shepherd, whose faith He promised would never fail. This Church has had an unbroken line of succession from Peter himself; these legitimate pontiffs are the heirs and defenders of the same teaching, rank, office and power. And the Church is where Peter is, and Peter speaks in the Roman Pontiff, living at all times in his successors and making judgment, providing the truth of the faith to those who seek it. The divine words therefore mean what this Roman See of the most blessed Peter holds and has held.”

“For this mother and teacher of all the churches has always preserved entire and unharmed the faith entrusted to it by Christ the Lord.” [17]

Then Pope Leo XIII, (r. 1878-1903) was WRONG

when he said: “And since all Christians must be closely united in the communion of one immutable faith, Christ the Lord, in virtue of His prayers, obtained for Peter that in the fulfilment of his office he should never fall away from the faith. ‘But I have asked for thee that thy faith fail not’ [Luke 22:32], and He furthermore commanded him to impart light and strength to his brethren as often as the need should arise: ‘Confirm thy brethren’ [ibid.]. He willed then that he whom He had designated as the foundation of the Church should be the defense of its faith. [As Saint Ambrose said.]”[18]

Then Pope Benedict XV, (r. 1914-1922) was WRONG

when he said: “The ancient Fathers, especially those who held the more illustrious chairs of the East, since they accepted these privileges as proper to the pontifical authority, took refuge in the Apostolic See whenever heresy or internal strife troubled them. For it alone promised safety in extreme crises. Basil the Great did so, as did the renowned defender of the Nicene Creed, Athanasius, as well as John Chrysostom.”[19]

Then Pope Pius XII, (r. 1939-1958) was WRONG

when he said: “The Pope has the divine promises; even in his human weaknesses, he is invincible and unshakable; he is the messenger of truth and justice, the principle of the unity of the Church; his voice denounces errors, idolatries, superstitions; he condemns iniquities; he makes charity and virtue loved.”[20]

Then Cardinal Alfons Stickler, Vatican Archivist, (1910-2007) was WRONG

when he said: “the pope stands for the Church which has never erred, which cannot err, in questions that involve eternal spiritual salvation. Therefore, he is the absolute (and, consequently, implicitly infallible) guarantor of the truth which one who wishes to be Catholic must profess.”[21]

Then Pope Benedict XVI, (1927-2022) was WRONG

when he said: “For with the same realism with which we declare today the sins of the popes and their disproportion to the magnitude of their commission, we must also acknowledge that Peter has repeatedly stood as the rock against ideologies, against the dissolution of the word into the plausibilities of a given time, against subjection to the powers of this world…Therefore the Petrine promise and its historical embodiment in Rome remain at the deepest level an ever-renewed motive for joy: the powers of hell will not prevail against it.”

Then Pope Benedict XVI was WRONG

when he also said: “The pope’s ministry is a guarantee of obedience to Christ and to his Word. He cannot proclaim his own ideas, but rather constantly bind himself and the Church to obedience to God’s Word, in the face of every attempt to adapt it or water it down, and every form of opportunism…[22]

Then Pope Benedict XVI was WRONG

when he also said: “Abraham, the father of faith, is by his faith the rock that holds back chaosthe onrushing primordial flood of destruction, and thus sustains creation. Simon, the first to confess Jesus as the Christ and the first witness of the Resurrection, now becomes by virtue of his Abrahamic faith, which is renewed in Christ, the rock that stands against the impure tide of unbelief and its destruction of man…”

“Many non-Catholics affirm the necessity of a common center of Christianity. It is becoming evident that only such a center can be an effective protection against the drift into dependence on political systems or the pressures emanating from our civilization; that only by having such a center can the faith of Christians secure a clear voice in the confusion of ideologies.” [23]

[1] St. Lucius I, Epist. I ad Episcopos Hispaniae et Galliae; This and many of the following quotes may be found at www.catholicism.io/2021/06/18/freedom-from-grave-error-in-the-apostolic-see/ [NB: A pro-Francis site]

[2] St. Robert Bellarmine,  On the Roman Pontiff, vol. 2: Books III-V (De Controversiis) (p. 157-158). (Mediatrix Press), Kindle Edition.

[3] Stephen K. Ray, Upon This Rock, (Ignatius Press), p. 85.

[4] Pope St. Gelasius, Epistle to the Emperor Anastasius in Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, vol. 2: Books III-V (De Controversiis), p. 161.

[5] Pelagius II, Apostolic Letter Quod ad DilectionemDenz. 246. This and many other quotes may be found at www.novusordowatch.org/the-catholic-papacy [NB: Sedevacantist website]

[6] Cf. also www.erickybarra.wordpress.com

[7] Letter of Pope Hormisdas included in Constantinople IV. Cf. Erick Ybarra.

[8] Pope St. Leo IX, In Terra Pax Hominibus, September 2, 1053; DS. [Denzinger] 351.

[9] Saint Bernard, Epist. 190, Ad Innocentium.

[10] Pope Innocent III, Sedis primatus  November 12, 1199, DS 775.

[11] Pope Innocent, Sermon On the Consecration of the Supreme Pontiff

[12] Session 13; 30 Nov. 1444.

[13] St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice vol. 2: Books III-V (De Controversiis) (p. 161).

[14] Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book IV, 3; 6.

[15] Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, 4.

[16] Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser, deputation from Pope Pius IV, Relatio to Vatican I, n. 7-8.

[17] Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus, n. 10-11.

[18] Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, n. 12.

[19] Pope Benedict XV, Principi Apostolorum Petro, n. 3.

[20] Pope Pius XII, Ancora Una Volta, February 20, 1949.

[21] Cardinal Alfons M. Stickler, The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 60, No. 3 (October 1974), pp. 427-441; Cf. http://www.obeythepope.com/2017/12/the-indefectible-church-of-rome.html

[22] Homily at the Basilica of St. John Lateran, May 7, 2005; quoted in Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, “Happy Catholics Don’t Make the Pope More than He Is,” One Peter Five, February 13, 2019.

[23] Joseph Ratzinger, Called to Communion, (Ignatius Press), p. 47.

Categories

I’ll be back.

Sorry, time with friends and family.

Friday was State College, PA., where every large structure built in the last ten years is the hideous colored panels on the exterior that already looked dated the day they were installed. In contrast, the buildings on campus (University Park) are much more restrained. The retrofitting of the 45 year old East Hall dorm complex has been done in such a way that they look new (and not at all hideous). Wish I took pics.

Saturday was my first trip to PNC Park in Pittsburgh, finally. it’s nice.

This morning, on a tip from a dear friend, 7:30am Mass before my flight home. Saint James church, West End (SSPX).

I’ll be back at it in the morning. Happy holidays if you have time off.