Author: Mark Docherty

SHOCK: It turns out that the Roman Catholic Church is not Indefectible. Who knew? “We all have defects”

Pope Francis offered HERE what he considers a true example of the “ecumenism of prayer,” telling journalists:

In one European city, there is a good relationship between the Catholic archbishop and the Lutheran archbishop. The Catholic archbishop was scheduled to come to the Vatican on Sunday evening, and he called me to say that he would arrive on Monday morning. When he arrived, he told me: “Excuse me, but yesterday the Lutheran archbishop had to go to one of their meetings, and he asked me: ‘Please, come to my cathedral and lead the worship.’” Eh, there’s fraternity. Coming this far is a lot. And the Catholic bishop preached. He did not do the Eucharist, but he preached. This is fraternity.

Fraternity is placed above love. Fraternity replaces the Gospel. Lying to people you call your friends, risking their eternal damnation for the sake of fraternity, is about the most uncharitable thing I can think of.

He then explained that, as cardinal archbishop of Buenos Aires, he too was in the habit of preaching in Protestant churches.
“I was invited to the Scottish church to preach a number of times,” he said. “I went there, I preached. You can do it. You can walk together. Unity, fraternity, extending a hand, looking after each other, not speaking ill of others.”
“We all have defects,” he added, “but if we walk together let’s leave our defects to the side. Let the spinsters criticize us.”

He’s not talking about PEOPLE having defects, he’s talking about all “churches” having defects, including the Catholic Church (lower case “churches” in scare quotes because they aren’t “churches” at all.
Do you submit to this man as the true Roman Pontiff?
Spinsters for Christ… UNITE!

Repost plus a bonus: “In theory, the Petrine function could be performed either by a single individual presiding over the whole Church, or by some kind of committee, board, synod or parliament – possibly with a ‘division of powers’ into judicial, legislative, administrative, and the like”

The headline quote, from American Cardinal Dulles, is from 1955. So we know for a fact that the idea of an “expanded petrine ministry,” as glowingly described by Abp Ganswein in his speech at the the Gregorianum, is at least 63 years old. We also know that the Germans ran with this idea, led by Rahner, Kung, Neumann, and yes, Ratzinger. HERE.
So Pope Benedict did NOT dream up the idea of a papal diarchy in 2012-2013. Nope. Instead, he was part of an a elite team of theologians who came up with it and developed it. Each of them had particular slant on it, if you will. While we don’t know when or if he adopted the position prior to 2013, and while I’ve not found any direct evidence he pronounced it in the 50s or 60s, the evidence is now irrefutable that the concept itself had been in his head for over half a century. Irrefutable.
It’s important to understand the false premise which is necessary to arrive at such bad theology. At the time, there was a strong undercurrent, described in Abp Miller’s book, where the ontology of divine structures was called into question. Specifically, the question was this: Can structures within the Church change to meet the changing needs of the faithful, even if said structures were directly divinely instituted, either by God the Father or by Christ.  And yes, this would include structures as important as the papacy itself. A further question was whether the structures could merely be changed, or could they be entirely eliminated… as part of an ecumenical effort to overcome this massive stumbling block of our “separated brethren.”
Said another way, these men were proposing the God of Surprises. There is always the possibility (sarcasm) that the Third Person of the Holy Trinity might swoop down and abrogate or alter things, EVEN THINGS THAT WERE DIRECTLY INSTITUTED BY THE FIRST OR SECOND PERSON OF THE HOLY TRINITY. This means everything goes, everything is on the table, nothing whatsoever can be looked at as rock solid, not even Matthew 16:18.
CHA CHA CHA CHA CHANGES. IT’S THE GOD OF DAVID BOWIE.
These men knew they were flouting the doctrine of immutability. So they had a plan for that too.
As a bonus, here is the full text of Ann’s post, 25 December 2018:

_________________________________________

The “Dissolving of the Petrine Office into a Synodal Petrine Ministry” was THE HOT TOPIC amongst German Theologians in the Church in the 1960s and 70s.

The gaslighting ends right here, right now, folks.  ENDS.
The accusation is that the notion and idea of Pope Benedict’s attempted resignation being invalid due to the Substantial Error clause in Canon 188 is “insanity” because “there is no evidence that the notion of fundamentally transforming the Papacy by bifurcating the Papacy into a “shared ministry” with a “contemplative member” and an “active, administrative member” entered Pope Benedict’s mind.”  It is further argued and cast as insanity that the distinction in Pope Benedict’s attempted resignation statement between the “munus” (Office) and “ministerium” (Ministry/Administration) has any meaning, and the words are used unthinkingly as pure synonyms.  It is argued that these very notions are “desperate grabbing at straws” and “insanity”, or indicative of insanity.
Punchline first:
Among German theologians of the 1960s and 1970s, with Joseph Ratzinger squarely and prominently at the core of the discussion, the question and desire to “fundamentally transform the Petrine Office”, namely to “DISSOLVE the Petrine Office” in favor of a “collegial, synodal PETRINE MINISTRY shared among multiple living people simultaneously” was not only discussed, it was one of the more popular topics of the day, with a veritable MOUNTAIN of texts, mostly in German, written and published.
We have found, however, a text, written in English in ARSH 1980, that is a synthesis and compendium of all of these (mostly) German theologians’ positions, written by the current Archbishop of Vancouver, J. Michael Miller.  I highly recommend that anyone with even the slightest interest in WHO THE VICAR OF JESUS CHRIST ON EARTH REALLY IS go ahead and buy this text:

“The Divine Right of the Papacy in Recent Ecumenical Theology” J. Michael Miller, 1980


Joseph Ratzinger is cited and footnoted many times throughout this book.  He was at the center of the conversation along with his mentor and close friend, Karl Rahner; Hans Kung; his close associate at the University of Tubingen with whom he co-edited a 150 year retrospective compendium of the works of the Tubingen faculty, Johannes Neumann; and wait for it… WALTER KASPER. Even the American Avery Cardianal Dulles is prominently footnoted.
Again, in the interest of getting to the point ASAP, here is a screen cap of pages 196 and 197 from Chapter 8, “Contemporary Catholic Views on Papal Primacy Iure Divino”, Section 4, “Irreversibility of the Papacy” wherein Ratzinger is footnoted, and Ratzinger’s mentor and close friend, Karl Rahner is cited in Footnoted 102 stating almost word-for-word what Archbishop Ganswein stated in his May 2016 address at the Gregorianum.  So that the text will populate onto search engines, I retype that which is shown in the screen caps below:

“[Heinrich Stirnimann, for ex-]ample, holds that “the papacy as an historical form can disappear without harming the faith, in order to allow a new expression of the Petrine Ministry.” (Footnote 101)  By making use of this terminology belief in a necessary Petrine function is affirmed; at the same time the historical form it has taken in the papacy is not absolutized.
In ecumenical discussion, theologians often use this distinction between the Petrine function and the papacy, even though it is not free from ambiguity.  Non-Catholics draw conclusions from it which most Catholics would be unwilling to draw.  Although they might leave open the possibility of some different configuration of the Petrine office in the future, the majority of Catholic theologians hold that primatial authority must be personally exercised by a bishop who is recognized as the successor of St. Peter. (Footnote 102).  Their use of the Petrine function-papacy distinction is more focused on the possibility of change in the historical form of the papacy, in order to emphasize the many realizations of the Petrine ministry which are open to the Church of the future.  They do not separate the two in any radical way which would suggest that the pope is not the necessary bearer of the Petrine ministry.
The possible changes in the shape of the papacy that theologians envisage demonstrate that irreversibility and immutability are not the same.  In order to show a degree of openness to change compatible with holding that Roman primacy is of divine right, a few proposals can be mentioned.  First, some theologians maintain that when the papacy is situated within the context of other institutions of divine right, then its own relation to the constitution of the Church as an essential element is clarified.  In spite of its importance, the papacy is still just one of the irreversible elements in the Church’s structure. (Footnote 103)  Secondly, other proposals concern the need for changes in the way in which primatial authority is exercised: from a monarchical or centralist model to a more collegial and decentralized one. (Footnote 104) Thirdly, an important change in the papacy would occur if the process was clarified by which Rome has united under a single title its unique primacy originating from a special apostolic charge conferred by Christ, and its administrative role for the Western Church originating from its patriarchal status.  The pope has not adequately distinguished his exercise of Petrine authority from patriarchal authority. (Footnote 105 Ratzinger) If a careful distinction is worked out between these two roles, much of what the pope has absorbed into his primatial authority might again be seen as an exercise of his patriarchal authority.  All these proposals demonstrate that when contemporary theologians apply ius divinum to Roman primacy they do not thereby imply that there can be no changes in the way papal authority will be exercised in the future.
Footnote 102:
In this regard Rahner does not share the opinion of the majority. He holds that the Church can distinguish between and individual and a moral person as the bearer of apostolic authority.  In the case of the episcopacy, for instance, it is not its monarchical dimension which is iure divino, but the need for the presence of episcopal authority in every local church.  It is possible therefore that a small group of persons or a central body possess episcopal authority (“Basic Observations,” 19; cf. “Open Questions on Dogma,” 215-216).  Later he applies the same argument to papal primacy (Amtsverstandinis, 25-32).  In this case the Petrine function would exist iure divino, but not need to be exercised by a single individual.  Cf. J. Neumann, “Eine Verfassung fur die Freiheit,” Wort und Warheit 23 (1968) 387-400.  Dulles makes the same point as Rahner: “In theory, the Petrine function could be performed either by a single individual presiding over the whole Church, or by some kind of committee, board, synod or parliament – possibly with a ‘division of powers’ into judicial, legislative, administrative, and the like” (“Papal Authority,” 55).  See a favorable Protestant reaction to this idea of a “shared papacy” in Andreas Lindt…. (see screen cap)
Footnote 105:
Ratzinger, Il nuovo popolo di Dio, 2nd ed. (Brescia: Queriniana, 1972) 144-146; and Ratzinger, “Primat,” 762-763…. (see screen cap)


WITHIN THE SPECTRUM of these theologians, Joseph Ratzinger was actually on the more conservative side, which is damning with faint praise, indeed.  There was OPEN TALK in this circle about the ABOLITION OF THE PAPACY OUTRIGHT by Kung, Rahner, Neumann and others. Ratzinger denied this possibility of total abolition, but did argue that the Papacy was NOT immutable (unchangeable), could be changed, and could be “synodalized” along the lines of Petrine Office vs. Ministry AND along the lines of Petrine vs. Patriarchal.

Antipope Bergoglio’s IMMEDIATE refusal to refer to himself as anything other than the Bishop (aka Patriarch) of Rome, AND his immediate citing of Cardinal Walter Kasper as his “favorite theologian”, who was up to his eyebrows in this business of, as Rahner termed it, “the dissolving of the Petrine Office” as a means of appeasing the Lutherans – now ECHOES SO MUCH THE LOUDER in the ears of every honest and Godfearing Catholic.
I’m going to wrap this post up here, just to keep it short, but there are several things that need to happen:
EVERYONE BUY THE BOOK BY J. Michael Miller and READ IT.  Chapters 7 and 8 are jaw-dropping.
I need my German readers (God bless you!!) to get to work on poring over these German texts that are cited in Miller’s bibliography and footnotes.  We need the key passages, and we need them translated into English.
We need JOURNALISTS to go to Archbishop Miller who is currently the Archbishop of Vancouver and start asking questions.

  • Archbishop Miller, when you heard the news on February 11, 2013 that Pope Benedict had announced his intention to resign the papacy were you surprised?
  • When you heard Pope Benedict’s remarks at his final audience on 27 February 2013, were you at all reminded of the 300 page text you wrote in 1980 citing Ratzinger on the expanding and transforming of the Papacy?
  • When you read the text of Archbishop Ganswein’s speech delivered at the Gregorianum on 20 May 2016, did you feel as though you had been plagiarized? (I’m being snarky here.)

Again, what this proves is that this CONCEPT of transforming the Papacy, splitting it into a synodal, collegial ministry shared by multiple people simultaneously HAD BEEN IN POPE BENEDICT’S MIND, WITHOUT ANY DOUBT, SINCE the MID-1960s AT THE VERY LATEST.

He wanted to quit, which has been a life-long habit of his, because he saw how utterly overrun with corruption the Vatican and Institutional Church were (and we will leave the question of coercion for another day) and so he retreated to this wildly erroneous “hypothesis” that he and his closest friends and colleagues had been discussing, debating and publishing on at length for OVER 45 YEARS, and actually attempted it.
His attempt to do this madness – analogized in its uniqueness and enormousness to nothing less than the Immaculate Conception by Archbishop Ganswein – of course, FAILED because the Petrine Office, instituted by Jesus Christ Himself and recorded in the Gospels, is IRREVERSIBLE AND IMMUTABLE.  Any other position is SUBSTANTIALLY ERRONEOUS, and any attempted resignation of the Papacy proffered under the false premise of a REVERSIBLE, CHANGEABLE Papacy is INVALID BY THE LAW ITSELF.
It does not matter whether or not you, I or anyone else, including Pope Benedict HIMSELF “wants” him to be Pope.  Ontological realities have NOTHING to do with “wants” nor with “numbers”.  All that matters is the TRUTH of what IS. An error held unanimously is still an error.  A truth universally denied is still the truth.  Appeals to “wants” or “numbers” are pathetic, and should be taken as de facto concessions of the argument itself.
I would like to acknowledge and thank my German readers, and also to the author of the NonVeniPacem blog, without whose invaluable help this discovery would not have come to light, at least not any time soon.
TU ES PETRUS ET SUPER HANC PETRAM AEDIFICABO ECCLSIAM MEAM.
Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us.

Dust thou art: “The impious fashion of heretics”

“For every human creature it is absolutely necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff” – Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 18 November 1302 HERE

As in, he is your Monarch, you are his Subject. His loyal subject. You must be faithful to him, because as Christ’s Vicar, he is most deserving of your fidelity.
Your salvation depends on it.
If he tells you that “The tradition of the church is always in motion”, meaning there is no rock, there is nothing that’s unchangeable, we must always move forward, then you are bound to be faithful. If he tells you that “The nostalgia of the ‘integralists’ is to return to the ashes, but that is not Catholic,” then you are bound to be faithful. If he tells you that you need to pray for the future of the EU, if he tells you that walls are sinful, if he tells you that questioning climate change is sinful, if he tells you that the death penalty is sinful, if he tells you that inviting unrepentant fornicating adulterers to sacrilegiously receive Holy Communion is “WHAT GOD HIMSELF IS ASKING,” HERE HERE HERE HERE   …just remember that the fate of your eternal soul is bound up in your fidelity to this man.
Please remember this the next time you go on social media and declare with all sincerity that Bergoglio is totally obviously universally peacefully the pope and there is zero evidence to the contrary shut up.

Modernists and their admirers should remember the proposition condemned by Pius IX: The method and principles which have served the doctors of scholasticism when treating of theology no longer correspond with the exigencies of our time or the progress of science (Syll. Prop. 13). They exercise all their ingenuity in diminishing the force and falsifying the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight. But for Catholics the second Council of Nicea will always have the force of law, where it condemns those who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind . . . or endeavour by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church; and Catholics will hold for law, also, the profession of the fourth Council of Constantinople: We therefore profess to conserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by every one of those divine interpreters the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV. and Pius IX., ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.  – Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi p.42, 8 September 1907 HERE

 
 

Re-post and commentary from the Tosatti review of Socci’s book

It may be a few days before I get through the Socci book myself, and I have a few other posts that are going to be published first. So below is the Tosatti intervention and book review from the original Italian release of the book, back in November. Enjoy!

———————————-

Tosatti via Socci: “He has intended to remain still pope”

Posted on
2018.06.28 Concistoro CPF
The ontological reality is that there can only be one

Marco Tosatti yesterday reviewed, and I excerpt here, (original Italian HERE) the new book from Antonio Socci, The Secret of Benedict XVI, Why he is still pope:  Forgive google translate, and feel free to post corrections in the combox. Emphasis mine.

“So, for Benedict XVI we must ask ourselves: did he really renounce the Petrine ministry altogether? Is he no longer Pope? ” Socci answers: “From the subjective point of view we can therefore say that his intention – which is decisive to define the act he did – was not to be no longer Pope … It is clear that – despite having made a renunciation on the papacy (but what kind?) he has intended to remain still pope, albeit in an enigmatic way and in an unprecedented form, which has not been explained (at least until a certain date) “.
And in fact we must remember that Benedict said, speaking of the Roman pontiff: “The “always” is also “forever”- there is no longer a return to private life. My decision to renounce the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this “.
…
“In light of his last speech, one understands why Joseph Ratzinger remained “in the enclosure of Peter “, Benedict XVI is still signed, he defines himself as” pope emeritus “, has papal heraldic insignia and continues to dress as pope”.
So, unlike what happened previously in the history of the Church, today there are de facto two popes; that mutual legitimacy is recognized in a more or less ambiguous way. An exceptional and unprecedented situation. WRONG. No, we don’t have de facto two popes, because that is an ontological impossibility. This is exactly the colossal error of Benedict. Socci and Tosatti both recognize that Benedict only attempted a partial abdication, but then erroneously conclude that he actually pulled it off, and the “expanded petrine ministry” is a real thing.
…
The conclusion of the canonist is clear: “The object of irrevocable renunciation is the execution muneris through action and speech ( acting et loquendo ) not the munus entrusted to him once and for all”.
And “the limited renunciation of the active exercise of the munus constitutes the absolute novelty of the renunciation of Benedict XVI”.
Items confirmed by the Prefect of the Pontifical House, Msgr. Georg Gänswein according to which the “renunciation” of Benedict XVI – who “decided not to renounce the name he had chosen” – is different from that of Pope Celestine V who – after his abandonment of the papacy – “had once again become Pietro dal Morrone “.
And he continued with one of the most surprising and sensational statements: “Therefore, from 11 February 2013 the papal ministry is no longer the same as before. It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation that Benedict XVI has profoundly and durably transformed into his exceptional pontificate ( Ausnahmepontifikat ) “.
It is the node of the dual ministry, that is, the point where the “collegial dimension” of the Petrine ministry is proposed, “almost a common ministry”.

A concept that is needed sooner or later to be unraveled. But whoever opposes and wants to challenge this conception of facts – would find himself dealing with the question of the validity of a dubious or partial waiver…

“Whoever opposes and wants to challenge this conception of facts – would find himself dealing with the question of the validity of a dubious or partial waiver.”

benedict shirt final 2

Some questions regarding the “alternate title” of English version of Socci book

UPDATE! 1 June 2016 8:16pm Arizona time: It has been confirmed that Antonio Socci himself was against the change in the book title, along with the translator. This answers questions one and two in the post that follows. Question three remains unanswered.
————–
You can’t make this stuff up.
About an hour ago, I received my paperback copy of the English version of the Socci book, “The Secret of Benedict, Why He is Still Pope.” What I noticed right away, which had escaped my attention in the past few days of nonsense, was that they
LITERALLY CHANGED THE TITLE OF THE BOOK.
The English version title reads, “The Secret of Benedict, Is He Still Pope?” Ann B. has since put up a post about it HERE, with pictures of both versions.
I mean, when you don’t like the evidence presented therein, I guess it’s totes legit to deliberately mistranslate a demonstrative statement into an open question in the title of the book. After all, words mean whatever we say they mean. You have no right to claim you know what those words meant. That’s not your realm. It was a question, see? Shut up.
I have some questions of my own:

  • Did Socci know about this? Did he approve it?
  • Was this change the work of “Giuseppe Pellegrino,” who translated the book, or did his bosses at Angelico Press do it without his knowledge?
  • Was anyone at Angelico Press influenced by Dr. de Mattei’s detailed “refutation” (sic) of Socci’s book back in January (for which, wait for it, “Giuseppe” himself was the English translator)? SEE HERE
  • Are there any other shenanigans in the other 170 pages, or is it just the front cover?
  • Did Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, who himself is employed as an editor by Angelico Press, exert any influence in this matter? SEE HERE
  • Did Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, who himself has had several books published by Angelico Press, have an obligation to disclose those entanglements when he left a Five Star review for Socci’s Giuseppe’s work on Amazon?

Before you come in the combox and start bashing me for instigating a Trad circular firing squad, ask yourself if these would be fair questions if it were Fr. James Martin on the hot seat.

Words Matter: Calling a thing X when it is really Y and then equating X with Y is either confused or dishonest

From Dr. K’s fourth and final (maybe) review of the Socci book (emphasis mine):

ADDENDUM 5/30/19: Some are claiming that in my revisions to this review, I am “backtracking” and “sanitizing” my original position. This is not so.

REALLY?
Well, I have all the screencaps. The point of this post is not to discredit the overall reputation of the good doctor. If you read to the end, I think you will agree that I give him a pretty wide berth. But bad behavior needs to be called out, even when it’s someone on “your side” who is engaged in it.
Original review, emphasis mine:

I read this book expecting to be a little skeptical of an author who would argue that Benedict XVI did not validly resign the papacy. After all, it sure looked as if he intended to do that in his famous speech of abdication, and the world seems to have accepted it as such. Socci, however, persuaded me otherwise with his careful analysis of Benedict’s XVI’s various utterances on the subject (and there are a surprising number of them!), Archbishop Gaenswein’s speeches, and, above all, the interpretations of canon lawyers — none of them traditionalists, by the way — who have proved in detail that the resignation lacks several conditions for validity.

Revised review, emphasis mine:

I read this book expecting to be skeptical of an author who would argue that Benedict XVI did not validly or fully resign the papacy. After all, it sure looked as if he intended to do that in his famous speech of abdication, and the world seems to have accepted it as such. Socci, however, gave me much to think about with his careful analysis of Benedict’s XVI’s utterances on the subject (and there are a surprising number of them!), Archbishop Gaenswein’s speeches, and, above all, the interpretations of canon lawyers — none of them traditionalists, by the way — who argue that the resignation lacks several conditions for validity.

No backtracking in sight, am I right? Later in the revised review, he made everything perfectly muddy clear:

I still consider and acknowledge Pope Francis to be the Roman Pontiff

Note well that the wrongdoing is not primarily in changing the review, provided that he really messed up and didn’t mean what he wrote the first time. I’m not sure how that can be, given the clear words he used, but it’s possible. I suspect he was probably struck at some point with the logical inconsistency of signing the Open Letter addressed to a man who isn’t pope. But I digress. The real wrongdoing in the revisions is claiming that it was merely a clarification, and that both reviews are of the same essence.
Either words have meaning, or you’re a Modernist; you can’t have it both ways. There is no harm in saying, “I used to think X, but now I think Y, I changed my mind.”  But there is enormous harm in saying, ‘I used to think X, now I think Y, but it’s the same thing; X=Y.” Honest people don’t do that. Also note, the fact that my own position on the matter is aligned with his original review and I’m mad that he changed it has zero bearing on the rational argument I just laid out.
Let me tell you what I think is really going on here. I didn’t figure this out my own, rather it was suggested to me by two contributors in the combox, and then developed into a bit of a theory. It may come off as sounding condescending, but my intent is to give the good doctor the benefit of the doubt, because everything I read and am told about him is that he’s an honorable man, to a fault. So what immediately follows here is the most charitable explanation for what has transpired in the past two days.
The theory goes like this: The situation in the Church today, where we have two living bishops in white, is itself such a dramatic tear in the fabric of reality that it’s very hard for any serious Catholic to accept as “the new normal.” When presented with fresh information that further disrupts the already chaotic backdrop, the unguarded mind tends naturally toward something between confusion and panic. There are powerful psychological forces at play in situations like this, which I will explain in a moment.
We have to remember that the vast majority of people do not have the kind of situational awareness and tactical information processing skills that many readers of this blog might take for granted. This bearing, let’s call it “Frosty,” comes about through a combination of nature and nurture. However, this trait is lacking in probably 90% of the population, and it has little or no correlation to IQ. For those who lack Frosty, the discovery of a truth that is shocking puts their brain into a short circuit. Instead of switching over to frosty mode and ice cold if-then protocol, they just can’t handle it. It’s a tidal wave of cognitive dissonance (which you can read about HERE) that gets processed into confirmation bias (which you can read about HERE) and eventually ends up as Belief Perseverance, where the person maintains or reverts to a position that has been firmly shown to be false (HERE).
The most spectacular examples can be found in cases of pilot error, battlespace miscalculations, and most recently, 2016 election night video montages (you could say that the entire Resist/NotMyPresident movement is an example of it in the broader culture). But it also sounds to me like a perfect description of what’s going on here with the good doctor, if we are going with the charitable explanation. If it’s true, he bears little or no culpability for his actions, because his actions were the result of subconscious psychology.
Or else he just got scared or threatened, and changed his review out of self-preservation.
Look, it’s easy for me to sit here and criticize someone who has way more skin in the game than I do. I’m certainly thankful that I don’t have any kind of dependence on the institutional Church that would be threatened by what I write here (which I’m now attaching my real name to, if you check the byline). I do have sympathy for those who are caught up in all this with job, friends, family on the line. However, it always comes back to the fact that the salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church. Souls are being lost. Act, and God will act.
I’m afraid I must end this post by calling out the final paragraph added to his final revision, because it contains a really dangerous message:

I think too many people in this debate are expecting (and in some cases, believe they have attained) clear answers where there are none and may never be until we quit this life or until the inexorable progress of events shows, beyond gainsaying, where the truth lies.

“Expecting clear answers where there are none and may never be…” ???
Well yeah, we do expect clear answers, because God is not a jerk. He doesn’t leave us in the dark wondering where to find the Church. This line of thinking veers dangerously close to denying the Visibility of the Church, one of the principle errors of the Protestant Revolt. You can read about it HERE. I’m sure that’s not what the doctor meant to say, yet that is the plain meaning of the words he wrote. Words matter!
The Lord our God is about order, clarity, and truth. Seek these, and you seek Him.
When you find chaos, ambiguity, and deceit, flee. Especially when these are the primary character traits of an antipope.
 

Convergence: Feast of the Ascension, St. Joan of Arc, birthday cake

We take a short break from the madness, as it’s a special day! It’s a day where an unapologetic mixed-rite Catholic such as myself gets to both enjoy two feasts for the price of one (and yes, going to two Masses in one day is an honor, not a burden), as well as… birthday cake!
Two quick reminders. First, the Ascension is also the Second Glorious Mystery, the Fruit of which is the Theological Virtue of HOPE. Take good care not to sin against hope in these trying times, my brethren.
Second, never forget what our Lord and Savior did right before He Ascended… literally the very last thing he did while He stood on this earth. Do you remember? Mark 16:14
HE UPBRAIDED THEM.

“At length he appeared to the eleven as they were at table: and he upbraided them with their incredulity and hardness of heart”

These men all died saints, and our Lord thought it best to take their leave by tearing them a new one as a parting gift. How would you say your own lukewarmness compares to that of the Apostles? What message do you think the Lord might have for you today?
Before you go complete that reflection, we need to re-post some highlights from you know who:

The Maid of Orleans, my birthday saint

Posted on 
St. Joan of Arc, convicted of heresy by Bishop Pierre Cauchon, a legitimate prelate of the Roman Catholic Church, along with a corrupt bench of judges. Burned at the stake at Rouen, 30 May, 1431.

“About Jesus Christ and the Church, I just know they are one in the same thing.”
“One life is all we have and we live it as we believe. But to surrender who you are and to live without belief is more terrible than dying – even more terrible than dying young.”
In response to the trick question as to whether she was in the state of grace: “If I am not, may God put me there; and if I am, may God so keep me.”
“It is better to be alone with God. His friendship will not fail me, nor His counsel, nor His love. In His strength, I will dare and dare and dare until I die.”
“You say that you are my judge; I do not know if you are; but take good heed not to judge me ill, because you would put yourself in great peril.”
“Children say that people are hung sometimes for speaking the truth.”
“Go forward bravely. Fear nothing. Trust in God; all will be well.”
“All battles are first won or lost in the mind.”
“ACT, AND GOD WILL ACT.”
“I am not afraid, I was born to do this.”
Upon being chained to the stake: “Hold the Cross high, that I may see it through the flames.”

Her sentence was reversed and annulled by the Church in 1455. Beatified 11 April 1909. Canonized 16 May 1920.
St. Joan of Arc, ora pro nobis

 

“Intellectual dishonesty” and “moral weakness” in the age of antipope Bergoglio

The two detestable behaviors noted in the headline were directly called out by Dr. Peter Kwasniewski in his review of Antonio Socci’s book, wherein the doctor declared that the evidence in the book PROVED that Benedict’s resignation was invalid. He lamented said behaviors in those who would lazily dismiss the evidence or shout down/calumniate those who have helped bring it to light.
After a few hours of his review going viral, the good doctor altered his review, and completely flip flopped on his assessment of the evidence. Suddenly, he is unconvinced, and he pledges his loyalty to “Pope Francis,” who is totally the Pope, obvi.
You can read the latest version of his review at Amazon, of course. But to answer those of you accusing me of slandering the doctor by willfully changing what he really wrote, I offer the original screen grab below, with the money phrase highlighted.
Screenshot 2019-05-29 at 19.36.03

Dr. Peter Kwasniewski converts to BiP via Socci, and lays down the gauntlet for critics

Dr. Peter A. Kwasniewski
5.0 out of 5 stars Ever been troubled by what looks like two Popes at the Vatican?

May 28, 2019

“I read this book expecting to be a little skeptical of an author who would argue that Benedict XVI did not validly resign the papacy. After all, it sure looked as if he intended to do that in his famous speech of abdication, and the world seems to have accepted it as such.
Socci, however, persuaded me otherwise with his careful analysis of Benedict’s XVI’s various utterances on the subject (and there are a surprising number of them!), Archbishop Gaenswein’s speeches, and, above all, the interpretations of canon lawyers — none of them traditionalists, by the way — who have proved in detail that the resignation lacks several conditions for validity. The argument is not based on the St. Gallen Mafia, but on the inherent actions and statements of Benedict XVI and others, all publicly available. In other words, this is no “conspiracy theory” but a soberly argued case. Even those who think they have a watertight case in favor of validity should, out of intellectual honesty, grapple with what Socci presents here. If they can defeat his arguments, all the better for the defense of truth. If they cannot or will not, however, this would seem to indicate a moral or mental weakness.
That is not the only aspect of this book I would praise. I also find much food for thought and prayer in Socci’s speculations about the prophetic message of Fatima and his spiritual-theological interpretation of the unprecedented situation in the Catholic Church. While I find his interpretation of Benedict XVI’s motivations overly positive, I think the way he tries to place current events in a prophetic and specifically Marian context is extremely helpful.
In short: highly recommended.”
————————
Credit to Frank Walker, canon212.com
Note well, it’s not a conspiracy theory, nor is it Gnosticism, if ALL THE EVIDENCE IS OUT IN THE OPEN.
But shut up, they explained, all the Cardinals accepted an election that never took place, therefore the election was valid even though there was no election. Gotcha.