Reblog: Let’s Play ‘Kiss the Ring’

Below is a reblog from June of last year, where I pointed out some glaring incongruities in the two pope sitch involving new cardinals, rings, and Benedict’s not-retirement. One thing I failed to mention in the below post is the ontological reality of what we see happening in the photograph from Frank Walker’s tweet linking the Zenit article. Why is the supposed “Supreme Pontiff” kissing the ring of a mere bishop/former pope? A superior does not kiss the ring of a lesser ranking prelate. Huge red flag. “Oh, it’s just a sign of respect, it doesn’t mean anything, yadda yadda.” No, I’m sorry, but it DOES mean something. That’s the whole point, isn’t it?
For some reason in the same post I introduced y’all to AOC, with some commentary that has aged remarkably well nine months hence. Enjoy!

Fake pope kisses real pope’s Fisherman’s Ring. Also, Leftists gonna Leftist.

I have written previously about Pope Benedict’s decision to retain the Fisherman’s Ring after his faux abdication HERE. At the end of every pontificate, without exception, the ring is smashed… with a special silver hammer that is made for this exact purpose and this purpose only. Several writers described the procedure in the days following the Declaratio. Then Benedict came out and corrected them. Oh no, dear friends, he’s keeping it. Huge red flag, along with retaining the form of address “His Holiness,” and all the other papal vesture, you know, because no other clothes were available.
The occasion itself is also very interesting. Did you know that antipope Bergoglio has always brought his newly minted cardinals in front of Pope Benedict for his blessing? After the first consistory, which Benedict attended in person, Benedict receives the new cardinals at his residence/monastery, where he imparts the his blessing. Could it be any more obvious that he’s not really retired?
2018.06.28 Concistoro CPF

Anyhoo, there’s a lot going on in the world, boys and girls. Some pretty big  SCOTUS wins, the biggest being Kennedy’s retirement. The last few days have seen the Left, with now yet another thing to lose their minds over, descending further into chaos, hypocrisy, and hate. Their only acceptable immigration policy is now we must let everyone in. Most of the bishops are with them. I tried to explain to a liberal friend this week that a sovereign nation has both the right and the duty to regulate immigration. She said that doesn’t matter because these people need us. I said, well we have a formal process for that, and it starts by presenting yourself at a legal border crossing, instead of sneaking in and getting caught. That’s when the shouting started.
It’s going to be a long hot summer, folks. Be prepared.
If you want a glimpse into how far the divide is yet to go, check out Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the 28 year old Latina Democrat in Queens who just beat out the 56 year white guy Democrat Joe Crowley, one of the most powerful congressmen in the House. Her campaign was openly racist, basically claiming she was the better choice because she wasn’t white. She won with virtually zero campaign spending, running on a platform of a federally mandated jobs guarantee, and the abolishment of ICE. Sounds like a pure socialist utopia.
At least the ICE guys would be guaranteed a job in another agency, right?
While Ocasio-Cortez has no chance of being beaten in the General, other Dems in other districts will be hurt as the party turns harder and harder left. That’s a good thing, although this is such a powder keg, I hate to think about what might happen if some sort of trigger event takes place. What I do know, because they write it on twitter using their reals names, is that the left wants you dead. Not silenced, dead. They think you deserve death. it’s right there out in the open.

Engage with me in a one minute thought experiment

On 10 February 2013, you suffer an accident and enter into a deep coma.
Today you awoke, miraculously cured.
You know absolutely nothing about what has transpired in the world since the day of your accident, at which time all of the following statements were demonstrably true:
Hillary Clinton is against so-called “gay marriage.” The mere idea of Donald Trump as POTUS is laughable. Also, Donald Trump is not a Russian asset. No one has ever heard of “Fake News.” CNN is a marginally credible news source. The UK is part of the EU. The Philadelphia Eagles have never won a Super Bowl.
All of these things are now demonstrably false, except one, and that is Donald Trump is still not a Russian asset. Well, that’s assuming Brexit is “allowed” to happen. Tell me, which of these things would you be most surprised about? Probably that Donald Trump is POTUS, but I bet the Eagles are also high on the list.
Okay, that was a diversion. On with the thought experiment.
On 10 Feb 2013, Benedict was pope. But what if the first thing you saw upon awakening was this video of another prelate in white, yanking his hand away as the faithful try to reverence the ring, the symbol of the papal OFFICE. HERE  and then I explained to you that yes, shockingly, this really is the guy currently recognized as Christ’s Vicar on Earth.
Watch the video, if you haven’t already. Remember, these people are NOT reverencing the person, they are reverencing the OFFICE. Except he doesn’t hold the OFFICE. You don’t think there is some sort of significance to him doing this so publicly, with the camera literally three feet away from him? Dare I say, even something supernatural, perhaps?
If you have ever done any kind of television work, or done any sort of public speaking that involves cameras, you know that no matter how many times you’ve done it, you are always keenly aware of that camera being right there, almost like a violation of personal space. There is an inescapable and constant awareness of its presence. There is absolutely no way to “forget” you are on camera, and mistakenly get “caught” doing something you didn’t want people to see.
The video is jarring, isn’t it? There is something that makes it very uncomfortable to watch. It’s almost like watching an act of violence, in a sense.
There is another thing to watch for, which was even clearer in a longer version of the video that now I can’t find: He not only yanks away the ring hand, but he also redirects the faithful reverence to his OTHER HAND. The effect is that they are reverencing the man, not the office. Mafia style.
Don Bergoglio, having been informed of the disturbance caused by the video, sent out an underling yesterday to report to the world that this “amused” him. He finds it amusing. Knowing that biggest rush for a diabolical narcissist is not in committing the criminal act, but in the GETTING AWAY WITH IT, how much more obvious could he be making it for us?
Now what if I told you that the guy in the video usurped power via a “conclave” where a group of thugs conspired to rig the “election,” that Benedict is very much still alive, living inside the Vatican, wearing white and called “His Holiness”, because he believes the acceptance of the papacy is “always and forever”, and that he did not resign the papal munus in his abdication speech, but only tried to resign the active ministry, which means the abdication was defective and not properly manifested and likely with substantial error and under grave fear, all of these being violations of canon law, which means the conclave never took place but only appeared to, and then what if I gave you just a generalized rundown of the Bergoglian antipapacy heretical proofset of him NOT enjoying the supernatural protection promised by our Lord in Luke 22:32, and then I threw in the reminder about Matt 24:22.
What would you conclude, based on the evidence which you’ve been presented?
Thus ends today’s thought experiment.
image1 (1)

Guest Post: A Friendly Challenge to Robert Siscoe

From frequent combox contributor, “Smith.”

A Friendly Challenge To Robert Siscoe

I have the book True or False Pope, and have read it a couple of times. I think it is literally monumental; an extremely scholarly work, upon which extraordinary diligence has been exercised.
In spite of the huge respect I have for it I must admit that there were a very few assertions made therein that seemed to me to be lacking the necessary support of fact and/or logic.
One of these was the claim that, once a pope is accepted with moral unanimity of the Church, that very fact guarantees the validity of his election.
For the sake of furthering public debate, with a view to clarifying this issue, I think myself obligated to rebut this position.
I will not be preaching or pontificating here, just stating what seem to be facts, and questioning your position.
Let me say beforehand that I am personally quite comfortable with the situation in the Church, only insofar as it does not in the least shake my Faith. Moreover, it is perfectly clear to me that the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church, and all Her dogmas, are perfectly safe regardless of whether Francis is really a pope or not. There are perfectly good arguments, in either eventuality, to show that neither case impugns the fact that the Catholic Church is the true Church.
That means that I have no emotional investment levering me toward one conclusion or the other.
Let me begin.
If I have your position correct, the guts of it all is this:
1) Assertion: It is a dogma that once a pope is accepted with moral unanimity by the Church, he is a valid pope, regardless of any antecedent irregularities.
A) It was defined as such by Martin V (Dz 674)
B) It is the unanimous teaching of the Church’s theologians
2) The arguments of said theologians run as follows:
A) M — Dz 674 is infallible; it is a dogma that once a pope is accepted with moral unanimity by the Church, he is a valid pope, regardless of any antecedent irregularities.
m — Francis has been accepted with moral unanimity
c — Francis is the pope
B) M — If the Church were mistaken about a rule of faith it would not be infallible, and we know that cannot happen due to Christ’s promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against Her.
m — The pope is the rule of faith.
c — In saying Francis is pope, the Church is not mistaken.
3) All this means that it is a heresy to say that Francis is not a real pope.
I respond:
Firstly, and by far most importantly, it is utterly impossible that a determination of the *present* juridical status of anyone can be a matter of divine Faith. The thing itself is obviously not comprehended among the two primary objects of Faith; matters of doctrine and morals. It is simply a question of present juridical validity. For instance, it is certainly not recorded in either Scripture or Tradition (which obviously concern the past) that Francis is a real pope. Neither has any past pope (again, obviously!) declared that Francis’ election has been valid.
But your contention is not this, but that it is a matter of the *secondary* object of Faith; that is, you say it is a dogmatic fact. But this does not work for present popes, only past ones. Why? A dogmatic fact is one that is so connected to a *primary* fact of faith that, without it, that primary fact becomes impossible. In the present question, we can take as an example the dogmatic fact that Pius IX was a real pope. Why is this a matter of divine Faith? There are two reasons:
First and most important is that he himself defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. If he wasn’t a real pope, that is no longer, and never was, a dogma. If the Church were to come to believe a “dogma” through a supposed solemn papal declaration that never occurred because the supposed pope was not a pope at all, it wouldn’t be a dogma, so the Church would be in error on a matter supposed to be infallible, thus the Church would be fallible, which would mean the Church had defected.
Secondly, the indefectibility of the Church is a primary dogma, but that requires an unbroken line of popes, because a pope is an essential requirement in the constitution of the Church as such, as decreed by Divine Law. If Pius IX were not a true pope, the line of succession would have been broken (especially considering his long reign).
But there HAVE been interregnums, and no one knows exactly how long one could last before it constitutes a break in the line. It could be as long as a generation, and probably not longer. But therefore, as long as a *current* putatative pope reigns, there is the possibility that his election was invalid, regardless of universal acceptance. If he is a fraud, and exposed as such, there is no great difficulty in reversing all his “papal” acts. Therefore, none of his acts can be a matter of dogmatic fact; there are no dogmas whatever that depend on *the present pope* being a valid pope. Neither can his standing as a link in the unbroken chain of popes be definitively established, because if he is not a real pope then, even assuming that Benedict XVI is not still the pope, we are simply in an interregnum. Thus the current pope’s validity cannot be a matter of dogmatic fact in that regard either.
MAJOR POINT: The designation of dogmatic fact as to the validity of a papal election can only apply to *past* popes.
Your Assertion (1) is faulty on both counts (both A and B)
Re/ 1,A — It was most certainly not defined as a dogma by Martin V that a pope accepted with moral unanimity by the Church is definitely a valid pope, because:
Firstly, ALL dogmas must be stated in clear terms as to what exactly is being defined (Cartechini, De Valore, ch. 3, part I, Tradibooks ed.). But Dz 674 does not do so. It says that a Hussite recanting of his heresy must be asked: “Whether he believes that a pope, canonically elected, who lived for a time, his proper name being expressed, is the successor of Blessed Peter…”
What exactly does “who lived for a time” (quo tempore fuerit) mean?
Literally it means “in the time which he *was* [pope]”. This probably is referring to former popes, excluding the present one. In any case, it is not clear what we are being asked to believe here. As Cartechini says: “Lex dubia nulla est” (a doubtful law is null).
There are many other reasons that I could quote from Cartechini to show that Dz 674 cannot be a dogma, but I don’t want to get bogged down in details right now. Let me just add a quote from your own book, True or False Pope, p. 440, footnote 8: “A dogma…means a clear cut proposal, as we have previously explained…”
Secondly, there is grave question as to whether Francis was “canonically elected”. In fact, that’s the whole thrust of the Substantial Error argument; that he was NOT canonically elected. Dz 674 then, far from militating against that position, actually supports it, since it requires canonical regularity in an election of a valid pope.
Re/ assertion 1,B — I would like to know how one can speak of the “unanimous teaching of theologians”. You only cite five. How does such a small number constitute unanimity? Besides, excepting John of St. Thomas, all these theologians were active in modern times; there is no real theological tradition on this point, so far as I am aware, and without it we cannot speak of unanimity in any meaningful sense.
Firstly, your citation of Berry is not to the point, because the context of his discussion concerns PAST popes, not present ones. Scratch Berry. He seems to support my position, not yours.
Secondly, your citations of Van Noort:
The first citation clearly also addresses past popes, not present ones.
The second one does indeed concern present popes. His book was published in 1957, and therefore written before that, and Pius XII died in October of 1958. Here, Van Noort claims that Pius XII is guaranteed to be a valid pope by the infallible Ordinary Magisterium, as follows:
“The Church possesses infallibility not only when she is defining some matters in solemn fashion, but also when she is exercising the full weight of her authority through her ordinary and universal teaching. Consequently, we must hold with an absolute assent, which we call ‘ecclesiastical faith,’ the following theological truths:..Pius XII is the legitimate successor of St. Peter.”
Most unfortunately, there is a completely irredeemable and fatal flaw of fact in this reasoning. What Van Noort seems to forget here is that the Universal Ordinary Infallible Magisterium requires universality not only in space, but in time. In other words, the bishops’ unanimous teaching of a particular truth must be not only something they, worldwide, are agreed on NOW, but also something which they have Traditionally always agreed upon.
In support of this I have to adduce your OWN exposition of this fact, given in True or False Pope, pp. 439ff, in particular p. 440: “Ordinary acts of the magisterium…to be considered as belonging to the Church’s [infallible] teaching…are infallible only insofar as they fit into the constant teaching…reflect or echo the permanent teaching and unchanging Faith of the Church.” (Canon Berthod)
I am afraid that this does not at all jive with Van Noort’s exposition. You have to pick one or the other; it’s either Van Noort or your own opinion as supported by other authorities. Since your teaching in ToFP is consonant with the Old Catholic Encyclopedia article, Infallibility (V. 7, p. 800), which you also cite, not to mention many other authorities that could prove that this is the Traditional teaching of the Church on the OUM, I suggest you go with Tradition, and your own previous position, and chuck Van Noort here.
So scratch Van Noort too. It seems you aren’t even sure if you agree with him.
What about your next theologian, Card. Billot?
His thesis certainly supports your position. (NVP: perhaps not. It seems ++Billot was selectively quoted)
Let’s move on to Cardinal Journet.
First of all, let’s just note that he’s not exactly a paragon among theologians. And though he had the reputation of being conservative in his day, he went along with Vatican II. Call that an ad hominem if you want, but aside from that, while the quote you give from him does indeed support your position, so far as I can see, it really offers no arguments, or even authorities, just assertions. I find the citation valueless. I could explain why in detail, but I think the reader should not be subjected to such a waste of time.
Cardinal Journet is on your side too then, though I think his opinion here is worthless.
So far, I believe that theologians are *not* unanimous in agreeing with your position. We are about to find that John of St. Thomas most likely is not on your side either. If I am right, we have a grand total of two theologians that support your contention.
Now what about John of St. Thomas?
An examination of the quotes you cite from him reveals that most of his argument hinges upon a seeming presumption that the teaching of Martin v in Dz 674 is de fide.
I want to keep this as short as possible, leaving details for later if necessary, so I’m going to stab at the vitals of the matter.
1) That Dz 674 is simply not de fide, I’ve explained above. It is doubtful if John of St. Thomas even claims Dz 674 is infallible. Since he seems to be speaking of past popes, not current ones, the basic perennially known dogma of the indefectibility of the Church could be the dogma he is referring to, and he may only quote Dz 674 as support for this.
2) If he claims that universal acceptance guarantees validity, John’s whole treatment speaks not of a presently reigning pope, but only of past ones.
As to the second point, let me give a few quotes:
Quote 1: “we discuss whether or not it is de fide that this specific person, who *has been* legitimately elected…”
Note the past tense. And please don’t suggest that it is past *progressive*, thus implying something that has occurred and is continuing up to the present. I do not have John’s original Latin text, but I don’t need it in order to eliminate this possibility. I don’t need it because there is no such *thing* as a past progressive tense in Latin. This is past tense, period.
Quote 2: “It is immediately of divine faith that this man in particular, lawfully elected and accepted by the Church (past tense), is the supreme pontiff…”
One may say that the present tense “is” in the last clause qualifies the entire statement as speaking of a pope that *was* elected, but is *presently* pope. That would be hasty. Latin has no articles. Therefore, “is *the* supreme pontiff” could just as legitimately be rendered as “is *a* supreme pontiff”. The first usage would imply that we are speaking of the pontiff currently reigning. The second that we are speaking of pontiffs in general, and thus possibly past cases only. This quote is not clear enough to show anything.
As an aside, note also that, in the following context, John says “although it [the certainty of validity of election] is made much more manifest…when de facto the pope defines something.”
And you yourself correctly comment on this: “the Pope acts as the rule of faith only when he defines a doctrine to be believed by faith.” In other words, when he makes a solemn, ex cathedra definition of a dogma.
This last observation is pertinent to my point above, that it could only be a dogmatic fact that a *current* pope is a valid pope if he *has* at some time already made a dogmatic definition, as did Pius IX or others. Otherwise, all bets are off, since the only other way is for him to pass away and be dead for some decent length of time.
Quote 3: “…this matter — namely, whether a particular man has been (past tense) lawfully elected and canonically established (past tense) as the rule of faith — is something that the Church can determine as a truth of faith.”
This clearly means that the Church can determine as a truth of faith (more exactly, as a dogmatic fact), that a *past* pope has been a real pope. Again, I say this is simply because the indefectibility of the Church requires an unbroken succession of popes. It is not because Dz 674 is a dogma; Dz 674 merely gives authoritative support to that dogma, which has always existed in the Church.
Given the facts about the quotes just given, let’s come back to Cardinal Billot’s teaching.
As far as I can tell, he truly does think that the valid election of a *present* pope is a dogmatic fact. As I believe I have definitively shown, that is completely impossible. Therefore, Cardinal Billot is just plain wrong.
We have to admit that he is one theologian who is clearly on your side.
One could speculate that he read John of St. Thomas with an ultramontane prejudice. After all, he was a Jesuit, and of the good old school. He no doubt took very seriously that fourth vow of the Jesuits: to serve the pope in whatever way asked. And he was asked to serve as a papal theologian. It is not at all hard to imagine that he just went overboard a bit here.
I have completely ignored John of St. Thomas’ discussion concerning whether lack of the necessary conditions for a papal election could invalidate it. This is because I see nothing wrong whatever in his treatment — whether here or elsewhere — PROVIDED we are speaking of a pope who has already passed into history.
I conclude that it is an extravagant statement to say it is a heresy to deny that Francis is pope. While it is in normal times not prudent to question the validity of a papal election, these are most certainly not normal times, and there are very good reasons to question this one in particular. All the faithful should feel no scruples in doing so, provided they do so with prudence, with serious and objective reasons, and out of a love of the Church.
I would be very interested to hear your sed contra, if any. As I said, I am not stuck on the Substantial Error theory, or any other. I must say, however, that I don’t presently see how it is even POSSIBLE to mount a serious argument against my MAJOR POINT. I would find it fascinating to be proven wrong.
Thank you once again for that excellent book, True or False Pope.

Quick lesson in humility

By the grace of God, I’ve managed to get back into the habit of daily Mass. It really is a wonderful thing. Sometimes it can be difficult with my travel schedule, and it’s easy to make excuses for yourself if you want to.
Today my only option was an N.O. parish of the Strict Observance. Pictures of liturgical dancers and Santa on the altar promoted on their website, which I was tempted to post the pics but I will spare you. Presider/masonic sanctuary set-up in a once beautiful old church with the high altar ripped out. Confession Saturday only, 3:30-3:45pm (I’m not making this up).
I really didn’t want to go.
Then the thought dawned on me (grace): “You pathetic, pride-filled monster.”
I mean, if our Lord and Savior still lowers Himself to come down on that altar in that setting, and my response is that He’s not worth it if I have to endure even the slightest tinge of suffering or discomfort? Effeminacy much? And I seriously think I’m really prepared to be a martyr?
Anyway, I went. He was there. He helped me grow a little closer to Him today.

Calumnious projection, circular reasoning, and the law of non-contradiction

A video was posted a few days ago by Steve Skojec at 1P5 HERE.
It seems a response is in order.
A transcript has helpfully been provided by the author, so if I just cut and paste, at least I won’t be accused of hearing wrongly, am I right? Wasting no time, it takes all of 0:00:34 seconds to invoke the tactic of Projection:

“…we’ve got an in-house problem…It’s rooted in this battle over who the real pope is — Benedict or Francis — and what the repercussions of each choice are. But it goes deeper than that because it makes certain folks think it’s okay to calumniate or attack anyone who disagrees with them…

Boy, I’ll say. Specifically, the accusation leveled against those who believe with moral certainty that Benedict is pope is that we are “crazy.” Steve has lobbed the “crazy” diagnosis more times than I can count over the past two years. If you ever look at twitter, you know. Anyone who dares question the Skojec magisterium is immediately attacked, usually without any rational argument, but only with shouts of “insane.” Frank Walker of is one of the more recent victims, and it is great to see Frank fighting back (seeking a second opinion on his diagnosis, you might say). Speaking of diagnosis, a few months ago Steve’s dance partner Hilary White even went so far as to literally faux diagnose Ann Barnhardt with a specific mental illness (Borderline Personality Disorder), publicly on facebook. Those comments were eventually deleted, but not before being captured for posterity. So on this point, I agree with Steve, “it makes certain folks think it’s okay to calumniate or attack anyone who disagrees with them.”
Later in the video, Steve calls the idea Benedict is still pope “madness”, and goes on to call anyone who might believe this as being: Schismatic, heretics, sedevacantists, Protestants, and finally, Satan. Yes, he compares the actions of those who dare point out the obvious irregularities of the current situation to the actual non serviam of Satan. I’m not going to reprint those words here, so go ahead and check the video/transcript at 00:13:14. Please click the link and read/listen to the whole thing.
But the real reason for this post is to muse about circular arguments and the law of non-contradiction, so let’s not get distracted by a little calumnious projection that has almost certainly risen to the level of mortal sin. On to the main event.
We start with some rational circuity related to the faithful having no right to examine the evidence and draw conclusions, in honest pursuit of truth:

[00:02:08] “And what I think is and has always been that Francis is a problem. A big one. That he represents a danger to the Church…I am not now nor will I ever be barring some massive conversion on his part, a Francis defender… (But) we’ve made clear that it’s wrong for us to decide for ourselves. However much we feel that we have moral certitude that the pope is anyone other than who the Church says he is. The only thing I’m doing is the same thing I’ve always done: I tell people what I believe the truth is even if they don’t want to hear it.”

This argument can be paraphrased as: “Francis is a danger to the Church (and thus a danger to souls), but it’s just wrong to point out facts which might better explain the reality of the situation, and thus help those souls struggling with their faith. It’s wrong unless you’re me, because I’m always going to tell people what I believe the truth is.”
Are you getting a feel for where this is going?

[00:03:40] “…Now people don’t want to hear that Benedict isn’t the Pope. But it’s also true. And we know that because the Church is the only authority on earth who can state unequivocally who the pope is. And she has told us that Francis is the Vicar of Christ. The cardinal electors were unanimous in their acceptance of him. The sitting bishops of the world have not raised a finger to oppose the validity of his election…[00:07:44] The Church has always held that the election of a pope is what is known as a dogmatic fact…We need to know that the guy the Church says is the pope is the pope because otherwise we can’t trust anything he says…[00:10:09] If we can’t trust that the man the church says is pope is pope, then the governance of the Church falls into chaos…There are no take backs, not even for bad popes…[00:12:41] So I will say now again what I’ve said countless times before: If we cannot trust the Church to tell us who the pope is, we cannot trust her to tell us anything that we must believe…”

Paraphrasing, “The Church has universally accepted “Francis” as pope, and since the Church is indefectible, he must really be pope.”
That sounds so beautiful, so simple. Roma locuta est, causa finita est.
But here is where that nasty law of non-contradiction comes into play:

[00:14:31] “Perhaps someday…the Church will declare Francis to be an antipope. Perhaps someday his entire papacy or at least large swaths of it will be condemned by a future pope or even an ecumenical council. It’s happened before. Perhaps this disaster can only be sorted out by Our Blessed Lord Himself through an act of divine intervention we have not yet even imagined. But I’ll tell you this: if Catholicism is true we know that the influence of this pontificate in many essential things will have to be rooted out and refuted. Knowing this in the present moment as this is unfolding, as the crisis goes on, and seeing that no action is being taken is maddening…But we have a choice to make however difficult we find it if we wish to be sons of the Church, we must take our mother at her word…”

Wait, what?
It’s hard to paraphrase, because the argument is so turned in on itself, but it goes something like this: “The Church is indefectible, and the Church says “Francis” is pope, therefore he is pope. It’s dogmatic. But in the future, the Church could declare “Francis” to be an antipope, and his entire “pontificate” expunged, which would also be dogmatic. But for now, we have to sit and do nothing, be sons of the Church, yada yada.”
If the above statement were true, it would mean Truth could change, and it would mean two contradictory states could both be true. Witness the internal conflict and violation of the Law of non-contradiction of Steve’s pounding insistence that the Church cannot defect with regards to the identity of the Pope, and then claim two minutes later that in the future the Church could declare that it totally DID DEFECT in calling Bergoglio the Pope and then declare he was an antipope.  As if he is true pope today because indefectibility, but tomorrow he could be antipope because… indefectibility! Do you see that both of these things can’t be true? This logic suggests it is simultaneously IMPOSSIBLE and POSSIBLE for the Church to defect. The Church is both defectible and indefectible. 
Now, should a future meeting of cardinals or a council at some point declare Bergoglio an antipope, and they do so by reason that the conclave that elected him was invalid, due to the failed abdication of Benedict, then said council would be declaring he NEVER WAS POPE and that Benedict never stopped being pope. Despite appearances, acceptances, etc, IT NEVER HAPPENED.  If only we didn’t have to wait for some future council, and we had a few live prelates walking around right now who might want to defend their mother.
Please click the link and do go read/listen to it all. I’ve omitted many paragraphs out of brevity. He offers several paragraphs with supporting evidence for the validity of Benedict’s abdication, including quotes from the Seewald interview where Benedict claimed, inter alia, that he was forced to continue wearing white because no other clothes were available… a claim which (wink) REALLY lends weight to anything else he might have said. But there are also quotes from saints and other sources that do lend some credibility to his arguments, just very weak IMO when levered against the eternal fate of souls.

The man who drove Natacha Jaitt to the place she died has some splainin to do

Raúl Velaztiqui Duarte, 47, was Jaitt’s friend and producer. The businessman lied to investigators on three occasions about the circumstances surrounding her death at the facility, according to Buenos Aires province’s Attorney General Julio Conte Grand.
“There were some noticeable contradictions in the declarations he made yesterday…”

And it wasn’t *just* the false/contradictory statements. There is security video of Duarte lifting Jaitt’s cell phone from the scene after her demise, concealing it in a towel and absconding.
Source link HERE.  Barnhardt commentary HERE.
Oh yes, I know all the cool kids already have this all figured out. She was a former prostitute and drug user. She was a trainwreck, so who cares if she said she had damning evidence on Gustavo Vera AND DOZENS OF OTHER “CELEBRITIES” WHO ENJOY KIDDIE RAPE. So what that the trial in which she was supposed to testify was set to begin this week. Stop being such a conspiracy nut about literally everything, won’t you? Didn’t you see that the coroner immediately declared a drug overdose HERE.? I mean, it would be super duper hard for someone capable of murder (or contracting a murder) to pay off an Argentinian coroner, right? And again she was a whore or former whore, so she has no credibility anyway, so shut up.
Really? Allow me to cast her situation in a different light. Jaitt was not only a prostitute and porn model, but proud of it, with certainly no moral qualms, and then an outspoken fighter for the rights of “sex-workers” after her own departure. What would it take for a person like this to be so full of legit moral outrage so to risk her own life to bring justice to these scum? It wasn’t blackmail, because you don’t execute blackmail by publicly accusing your targets. It’s much more likely that what she learned, what she saw, or what she had physical evidence of, was so sickening that even for a person like Jaitt, it was WAY WAY WAY over the line. If you follow this line of reasoning, her background actually makes her MORE credible.
I don’t know the truth of this case, but fishy is as fishy does. #Contrails #FlatEarth
And then there was this…

Lent is upon us. Don’t waste it. Be the tip of the spear.

You are merciful to all, O Lord,
and despise nothing that you have made.
You overlook people’s sins, to bring them to repentance,
and you spare them, for you are the Lord our God.
Wisdom 11:24,25,27; from the Introit for Ash Wednesday

Lent is upon us. Don’t waste it. Repent, and believe in the Gospel.

“Secure your own mask first, before helping others.”

I fly around 120K miles a year for my day job, so I hear that phrase a lot. Maybe that’s why when I heard it referenced by Ann Barnhardt in a podcast earlier this week, it just sort of went right past me.  The analogy was referring to the need to make sure your own faith, soul, prayer life, etc is well taken care of as prerequisite to anything else.
That same day, I went off to Confession, as I had already planned to do. The penance was totally focused on the need to pray for my own needs, and really making it a priority. The priest asked me if I had prayed my daily Rosary yet, and I told him I had not (I love that at the FSSP parish, it’s just assumed you’re praying a daily Rosary).  He instructed me to go offer my Rosary, entrusting to our Blessed Mother the channeling of all necessary graces for my spiritual benefit.
The podcast and the Confession should both have been a big wake up call. But the full gravity of the situation didn’t really hit me until about halfway through that Rosary when I realized, slap upside the head, I actually could not remember the last time I prayed the Rosary entirely for myself. The Holy Ghost always knows when you need a slap upside the head. Now you already know how much I love the Rosary, so you can imagine how odd this seemed to me. I mean, obviously I’ve prayed a decade or two as a penance, for an increase in this virtue or that, but a whole Rosary just for me? I can’t remember the last time, and that’s a real problem.
In Spiritual Warfare, the Rosary is a weapon of mass destruction. I’ve written about it many times in these pages. It’s a real weapon, not a metaphorical weapon. So much so, it almost seems selfish to offer it entirely for yourself. But it’s never selfish to pray for yourself, so long as your intention is in accord with God’s will. And we need not worry about petitioning something against His will, because He’s not granting that anyway. Of course in the individual prayers of the Rosary, the Our Fathers and Hail Marys, we are praying for ourselves within those prayers. But what I am talking about here are specific, personal, spiritual intentions beyond what is asked in those prayers.
I would be willing to bet that most Catholics who are somewhat secure in their faith, who are honestly trying to live authentic Christian lives, and who have managed by the grace of God to overcome a whole bunch of entrenched wretchedness, don’t pray for themselves nearly enough. We foolishly think we’ve extracted ourselves permanently from said wretchedness and we’re now “saved”. Not in the proddy sense of “once saved always saved”, but rather in the sense of “thanks to my hard conversion/reversion to the one true faith, even though I still fall sometimes, and even though I’m totally unworthy of the honor, I am now on the side of the angels and God will surely grant me final perseverance.”
Oh man, that is so dangerous. It’s for very good reason that Jesus taught us to pray to the Father to deliver us not into temptation, and that we ask Mary to pray for us at the hour of our death. It’s for very good reason that in the Roman Canon itself, during the Hanc Igitur, the priest and faithful pray to be saved from eternal damnation and be counted among the elect. Damnation is a real possibility if we so choose it, and “once saved always saved” is one of the most pernicious lies ever told. If you are truly living an authentic Christian life, Satan views you as a hard target; he knows he needs to deploy extra resources to bring you down, and deploy he will. He’s already won the soft targets without even trying, so he’s got extra munitions reserved for you. Meditate on the blitzkrieg he has planned for the hour of your death. Be terrified by this, and use the terror to build your counterattack.
With everything that’s going on right now, all of the “confusion” surrounding all aspects of the Bergolian antipapacy, Satan is squealing with delight and has launched a huge offensive. Bergoglio himself is a soft target for Satan, easily manipulated and used to destroy souls on a horrific scale. He is a soft target not only because he is an arch-heretic and profoundly stupid, but because he does not have the supernatural protection afforded to the holder of the Petrine office, due to his invalid election. Now, when this is the unmistakable reality of the Catholic Church today, the one true Church founded by God Incarnate, do you think perhaps the effects of this might be rather… widespread? The past nearly five years since the failed partial resignation of Pope Benedict has literally been, pun intended, a huge coming out party for all manner of perversion and reprobation; a spiraling tempest of filth. Do you want a sense of how long ago five years was? Five years ago, Hillary Clinton was campaigning AGAINST same-sex “marriage.”  Yeah. The ever quickening pace of events across all sectors of civilization is so breathtaking, you would be delusional to think it’s not all connected. The demonic activity is everywhere and is even palpable at times. PALPABLE. Have you felt it? Every solid priest I speak with confirms they feel it too.
So there is certainly no shortage of things to pray about. And while some of this is about prioritization, it’s also about recognizing your role at the tip of the spear. We need to militantly pursue our own spiritual perfection first and foremost. It might not seem right when it first hits your ear, but if we are too busy praying for everyone else at the expense of praying for ourselves, it does everyone a disservice. This may sound uncharitable or lacking humility, but that’s not the case, because it necessarily means expanding our own prayer life. The mere fact that you are here, reading this tiny, tiny blog right now, means you are probably the tip of the spear. Proper training is essential. By calling down these graces in petition, and cooperating with them, our own increase in holiness in turn makes our prayers for others more efficacious. Everybody wins.
You are part of a very small, elite, specialized unit. This is the greatest battle ever fought, because the results of this battle are eternal. You need to be on your game.
St Michael the Archangel, pray for us
St Joan of Arc, pray for us
St Martin of Tours, pray for us
St Ignatius of Loyola, pray for us
Christ, have mercy on us

REBLOG: “The judge who fails the criminal in punishment himself incurs a greater guilt.”

Originally posted on 
If you don’t think CCC#675 is in play right now, think again. We’ve reached the point where the Vatican is attempting to deflect from the infestation of moral decay within the episcopate by publishing heresy in the Catechism. This is the Antichurch in ascendancy.
The death penalty is not unjust, it is just. It is not unmerciful, it is merciful. It is a means of repentance, forgiveness, and salvation. It forces the penitent (that’s why it’s called a ‘penitentiary’) to reflect more deeply on his sins as his time draws near, and hopefully experience a conversion. Justice demands this. Failing to dispense proportional punishment for a criminal act, is itself a criminal act. But for someone who doesn’t believe in the supernatural, doesn’t believe in the eternal life of the soul, none of this makes sense.
Anyway, I’m short on time, and Ann has already put up a bunch of proofs from Doctors or the Church and others. The title quote is from the brilliant John Senior, whom I’ve quoted many times on this site. Read it all HERE.

And then there was this,

It would be INSANE to suggest a valid pontiff could reverse 2000 years of doctrine, AMIRIGHT?

It’s said that everyone has their breaking point. Anyone who continues on the “Pope Francis” train past this station should be prepared to start questioning their own sanity. How many times do you need to see the law of non-contradiction *seemingly* broken, before you start to scratch your head and think, “Wait, that can’t happen”?
You know how someone should have told Luther that you can’t just rip out the parts of the bible you don’t like, and you can’t change the verses to better suit your liking? Well, someone should have told the Argentinian the same thing about the Catechism of the Catholic Church, because not only did he change it, but now he has driven a stake through it.
Conveniently, Diane Montagna has put together a powerhouse follow-up to her initial reportage yesterday of the Bergoglian Faux Mercy Machine on the Death Penalty HERE.  Thank God for the work she is doing at LifeSite, since the general media blackout otherwise continues unabated. Her piece is a must read. (UPDATE 1 March 2019 Diane followed up again today amidst the latest row with more commentary from Feser and is a MUST READ HERE.
She first captures commentary by Edward Feser, and then she brings in an anonymous theologian: Dominican vs Argentinian in a steel cage death match. It’s a rather lopsided battle.  Next up is a Catholic historian, Dr. Alan Fimister, who ends the scene by quoting the great Elizabeth Anscombe. Turns out Anscombe vs Argentinian is pretty decisive as well.
God is immutable. The Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, is immutable. It’s not that difficult a concept. When true popes teach, they document their orthodoxy by generously footnoting key points with references to Scripture, Fathers, Doctors, and past popes. A true pope goes out of his way to point out, “Hey, this isn’t new.” Go to and pull up any document from any past pope. You will quickly see, this is how it’s done.
What can one say about a “Bishop of Rome” who claims the One True Faith was wrong – long on justice and short on mercy, with an immature conscience – from 33 A.D. to 2013 A.D. How could he contradict scripture, Tradition, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and all of his “predecessors’? How can he deliberately misquote Aquinas (as he did in Amoris Laetitia as well) in trying to get support for his utterly novel teaching (which a scholar of ten years old can discover in ten seconds that Aquinas teaches exactly the opposite, and he does it in Articles 2-3 of the very same Question 64 that the Argentinian cites HERE.)
Imagine how profoundly UNPROTECTED one must be from the supernatural graces our Lord and Savior promised to Peter and his successors, to wake up one morning and decide to take on Saint Thomas Aquinas and invert his teachings. Imagine then GETTING AWAY WITH IT, cue the accompanying endorphin rush, BECAUSE SILENCE.
Oh yes, BTW he is still Argentinian, you know. Renewed his Argentinian passport, even though he’s the purported Head of State of a different sovereign entity. It’s almost like a sign, or something. He also doesn’t live where popes live. He also doesn’t wear what popes wear. He also doesn’t give the apostolic blessing like popes do. He also likes to be called bishop, not pope. Nothing to see here.