Acute False Base Premise Syndrome: Someone needs to work on a vaccine

Fred Martinez over at Catholic Monitor has really been nailing it lately HERE.
He draws some high quality commentary, too.
This one today is priceless. I hope he doesn’t mind me posting it.

Jack said…
People who imagine that Vatican I’s definition of papal infallibility is circular, tautological, or otherwise redundant imagine that the dogma goes like this: “Solemn papal definitions are infallible, because the pope has the power of infallibility.” Which is like saying, “it’s right because the pope says it’s right.”
This would be to set up the pope as a kind of god, since only God is truly self-justifying like this, right simply because He is right, because He is Truth itself by His very essence.
I think in the wake of liberalism and its undermining of all authority, Catholics rallied to the pope and after Vatican I made this kind of mistake, at least implicitly, that the pope is right because he is right. But this is just another human error, setting up a man in God’s place, undermining authority in an even more subtle way.
The pope is not right because he says he’s right, and he’s not infallible simply because he has the power of infallibility (although he is and he does). Vatican I is very clear. The pope is infallible BECAUSE Christ gave the keys to Peter and his Successors, and HE guaranteed by HIS divine power that the pope would never err in his solemn teaching capacity. This is perhaps a subtle distinction, but it makes a profound difference. It means that our faith is not centred on the person of the pope, but centred on Christ just has it has always been.
So when we come across a pope who appears to be erring in doctrine, the first thing we should ask is whether he is really erring or not. And if he is erring, the next thing to ask is whether his papacy is legitimate or whether he’s an antipope. But for people with a worldly mindset who are too willing to accept the world’s opinions and maintain their public image, and who’s faith is more centred on the person of the pope than on the person of Christ, they would rather deny Vatican I and become heretics than accuse a possible antipope (despite there having been many, many antipopes in history) and fall temporarily out of favour.
To be honest at this point I would not be surprised if Skojec is a kind of double agent and 1p5 a false-opposition operation designed to keep potential critics of the regime confused and pigeonholed. Keep traditionalists as a whining bunch of scandalmongerers rather than united in any useful purpose.

Jack’s comment would have been equally relevant with regard to another post which appeared today, which I mirror here for the sake of this combox:
—————————————

The Dr. Pepper Tautology – How “Francis is Pope” Inevitably Leads to Heresy, Schism, and Apostasy

As people keep trying (with ever-more desperation and flailing) to defend the false premise that Jorge Bergoglio is or ever has been the Pope, which he obviously is not and has never been, one of the arguments that they keep having to make is the argument regarding Papal Infallibility.  Now, it is clear to any honest, clear-thinking person that Antipope Bergoglio is so far outside any possibility of the negative supernatural protection of Papal Infallibility that the only way people can reconcile the two is to make the standard of Papal Infallibility universally applicable, which is to say meaningless to the point of non-existence.
The current argument which you can see on a near-daily basis from most “Trad Catholic” sites, bloggers, pundits, whatever is this:

Papal Infallibility only applies to those magisterial statements which are true. Those statements are infallible, and are manifestations of the Petrine Protection.  All magisterial statements that are false are not infallible, and do not fall under the Petrine Protection, and thus in no way violate the Dogma of Papal Infallibility.

Now think about this, folks – and here is where the culture-wide inability to think in a logical progression rears its ugly head yet again.
Everything Bergoglio says that is true is infallible.
Stop.  Think about that.

Everything ANYONE says that is true is infallible.  The truth IS infallible.  It’s a completely circular argument. And thus, by logical extension, anything that is false is not infallible.

This argument, which actually says nothing at all, applies to every man, woman, child and angelic being that ever has and ever will exist.  Everything satan has ever said that was true was infallible.  Everything Hitler ever said that was true was infallible.  Everything Hillary Clinton has ever said that was true (and that set is SMALL) is infallible.  Thus, what we have here is a TAUTOLOGY, which is a statement that is true by virtue of its logical form.
The set of “truth” is infallible, because infallibility is freedom from error, which the truth, by definition ALWAYS IS.  The root of the word “infallible” is the Latin fallere, which means “to deceive”.  The truth cannot be both true and false. 

And so, once again, we see the wrong-headed defense of Antipope Bergoglio qua Pope accomplishing EXACTLY what satan wants, which is completely destroying the entire notion of the papacy itself.

If Our Lord’s promise to Peter was nothing more than an empty rhetorical trick, a TAUTOLOGY, and the Petrine Protection is actually a UNIVERSALLY APPLICABLE AXIOM, then no real promise was ever made, and the Papacy has been a joke all along – which is EXACTLY what the various SCHISMATICS; Lutherans, Anglicans, all Protestants and the Orthodox, have all been saying all along. And satan squeeeeeeals with delight.

The truth is, Papal infallibility is real, it is a supernatural promise and gift, absolutely intrinsic to the Papacy, proceeding necessarily out of Our Lord’s infinite love for His Holy Church, and for us as individuals, and the fact that Antipope Bergoglio so very clearly does NOT enjoy that supernatural protection, is just one more clear, obvious “red flag” sign that somehow his “election” was invalid.  With even the most superficial examination of events, it is perfectly clear to any who care to look with open, honest eyes that Pope Benedict XVI’s attempted partial resignation was Canonically invalid twelve ways from Sunday, and that Pope Benedict never validly resigned and has been the one and only Pope all along per
Canons 188,
332.2,
131,
359, etc. etc.  Like I said, twelve ways from Sunday.
The fact that Antipope Bergoglio is so flagrantly outside of the domain of the true definition of Papal Infallibility – which is real, as history AND the words of Our Lord in the Gospels attest – is a blinking neon sign of a red flag pointing BACK to the events of February ARSH 2013 and the faux-abdication, and thus total invalidity and nullity of the conclave of March ARSH 2013.

If your position always leads to the tearing down of the Papacy, and matches up EXACTLY with the founding objective of Freemasonry to destroy the Papacy, which has been satan’s goal since day one, then dontcha think that MAYBE your base premise – namely the IDENTITY of the Pope – is WRONG?

So, now that Trad, Inc. has pretty much fully embraced the Freemasonic agenda to discredit and destroy the Papacy in their own minds and the minds of the faithful, the next step, which one can see coming like a freight train across the Western Kansas plains, will be to start going after SCRIPTURE ITSELF, declaring certain passages and eventually entire books of the Bible to be wrong, useless, and to be ignored or disregarded.  Mark my words. The Luther-esque Bible editing will commence in 3..2..1…
I covered this in my Part 1 video presentation on the Bergoglian Antipapacy at the 01:57:07 timestamp, to which the embed below is cued, if you prefer video.
Pray for Pope Benedict XVI, the Papacy, and Holy Mother Church.
Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us!
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh_CIoVvaOk?start=7027&feature=oembed]
I’m infallible
He’s infallible
She’s infallible
We’re infallible
Wouldn’t you like to be infallible, too?
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvCTaccEkMI?feature=oembed]

 
 

++Burke says The Expanded Petrine Ministry simply won’t float. Um, no kidding!

From the Patrick Coffin interview with Cardinal Burke a couple weeks ago, through the lens of a shrieking @DawnofMercy:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoUq6sWqaTE
I’m only covering a five minute clip of this interview. If you want a crack at the complete transcript intertwined with Dawn’s pearl clutching, go HERE.
First of all, forget about St. Gallen Mafia and the shenanigans at the “conclave.” Coffin starts in about that around 18:00, referencing Bishop Gracida’s claims, but this will get us nowhere. Since Benedict attempted a partial abdication, which was wholly invalid and therefore a null act, no conclave actually took place. The conclave was rendered invalid ipso facto the invalid abdication.  It was a Cardinals’ Retreat, nothing more. Think about this. Any effort to invalidate a conclave that is already invalid would, if successful, only result in another invalid conclave, because the one true living pope is still alive and kicking. The failed partial abdication is the True Premise from which the resolution must proceed.
So start at the 23:00 mark. ++Burke is addressing the question of the validity of the abdication. The audio is pretty terrible, so here is the transcript and commentary from Dawn; sorry, but it’s the only source available. Ignore the sections that she highlighted, and concentrate on the second and third paragraphs.

Burke reluctantly admits that Socci’s claim that the papacy is split between two popes “won’t hold water.” But as for whether Benedict is still the pope, “the whole matter is a bit confused.” And Socci is “an outstanding, … saintly man,” Burke adds; “it merits to read him.” …That’s enough to show Burke is too close to the schismatic rails. Given that @NCRegister@cnalive, and @EWTN often run stories portraying him as a guardian of orthodoxy (though @cnalive wisely ignored his Declaration of Truths), they owe it to their readers to report on this …

Do you see what’s going on here? He mixes truth with error. Frankly, though, he is so close to the whole truth that he is looking straight past it.
First, ++Burke asserts that a pope must govern in order to be pope. “There is only one pope and the pope must govern the Church.” Well yes, that’s how it’s supposed to work, governance being one of the three components of the ministry, the others being teaching and sanctifying. However, failure to govern does not unpope a pope. A pope in a coma, a pope in exile, a pope in prison… none of them can govern, but they still remain pope. This is not a difficult concept. Yes, a pope is SUPPOSED to govern, but the failure/inability to govern has exactly ZERO effect on the ontological reality of who is pope. Popes remain pope until they die or validly resign. Period, full stop.

“That someone could hold the office and someone else is actually carrying out the ministry — that simply won’t float.”

YES. EXACTLY. THAT SIMPLY WON’T FLOAT.
THERE’S A TERM FOR IT: SUBSTANTIAL ERROR.
Pope Benedict’s faux partial abdication was based on delegating the governing aspect of the ministry, while retaining the office. This is Substantial Error, per Canon 188. Cardinal Burke correctly makes reference to the last Wednesday Audience and +Ganswein’s speech at the Gregorianum in 2016. There is also evidence in the original Latin Declaratio itself, where he fails to resign the Office. These actions nullified the abdication, per the very clear words of Canon 332.2, a canon which specifically addresses the conditions for a valid papal abdication. Therefore, the Cardinals had no jurisdiction nor authority to convoke a conclave, per Canon 359. You don’t need to be a canon lawyer to understand the plain meaning of the words of the law (a concept which itself is part of the law, as explained HERE).
What really is going on here is ++Burke falling headlong into the old False Base Premise trap. He first gets tripped up by the notion that whomever is governing must be pope, which frankly is just not very bright, in that it ignores the counterexamples I gave and the fact that we’ve obviously had antipopes who’ve governed the Church in the past. Then from the “Francis is pope” false assumption he proceeds to lay out the evidence that Benedict is pope, but he’s unable to apply said evidence back to the question of the effectiveness of the abdication.
Allow me to restate the block quote in the form of a rational argument, from ++Burke’s worldview, and you will see it more clearly:

  1. “Francis” is pope
  2. Socci provides evidence Benedict attempted an expanded petrine ministry
  3. Benedict laments inadequacy to GOVERN, retains vesture and remains in Vatican
  4. Ganswein in May 2016 defined the structure of a faux expanded petrine ministry
  5. Burke asserts there can be only one pope
  6. Therefore, “Francis” is pope

Do you see how that works?  All of your assumptions throughout the argument (#2 through #5) can be true, but it will never lead you to a true conclusion if your base premise is false.

  1. “Francis” is pope – FALSE
  2. Socci provides evidence Benedict attempted an expanded petrine ministry – TRUE
  3. Benedict laments inadequacy to GOVERN, retains vesture and remains in Vatican – TRUE
  4. Ganswein in May 2016 defined the structure of a faux expanded petrine ministry – TRUE
  5. Burke asserts there can be only one pope – TRUE
  6. Therefore, “Francis” is pope – F-A-L-S-E………….

I need to write a letter.
Dear Your Holiness Pope Benedict, c.c. Cardinal Burke,
Since you didn’t resign the Munus (violating can. 332.2), and you attempted to split off the governance aspect of the ministry while retaining the Munus (violating can. 188), quite possibly coerced (also violating can. 188), and you allowed a conclave to be convoked while you still held the Munus (violating can. 359), and you remain in the Vatican, wearing white, being addressed as His Holiness, signing your name Pope Benedict, bestowing your Apostolic Blessing, not smashing your fisherman’s ring, writing books, granting interviews, all while an antipope and likely False Prophet forerunner of the Antichrist has usurped the throne, endangering millions of actual souls…
…would you mind calling a press conference, and reclaiming your pallium? I would have it dry cleaned first; you never know where it’s been. You could clear up a lot of this mess of the past 6.5 years, and it might even reassure some people that the Church really is who She says She is, that Christ keeps his promises, pillar of fire pillar of truth, and all that good stuff. If not, and if CCC675 really is in play, could you at least do me a solid and have +Ganswein email me the Third Secret?
Sincerely,
NVP

  1. Benedict is pope – TRUE
  2. Socci provides evidence Benedict attempted an expanded petrine ministry – TRUE
  3. Benedict laments inadequacy to GOVERN, retains vesture and remains in Vatican – TRUE
  4. Ganswein in May 2016 defined the structure of a faux expanded petrine ministry -TRUE 
  5. The papacy is a divinely instituted monarchy, which cannot be “demythologized” –  TRUE
  6. Burke asserts there can be only one pope – TRUE
  7. Therefore, Benedict is pope – TRUE
  8. All logical fallacies nuked from orbit DING DING DING

“You shall be hated by all men for my name’s sake. But he that shall endure unto the end, he shall be saved.”

If the Church has you dejected, you’re sinning against Hope. If you are considering apostatizing, you’re sinning against Faith. If you question the Truth or you encourage others to question the Truth, you’re sinning against Charity.
Truth is a Person. He speaks to us in Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21.
Of course, no one knows if we are in the run-up to the Big Show or not. The point is, gird yourself and be prepared. I’m pasting here from biblehub because of the spiffy links they provide between the verses in these three gospel chapters. The formatting looks a little wonky, but oh well.

Mark 13

Temple Destruction Foretold

(Matthew 24:1-4Luke 21:5-9)

1And as he was going out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him: Master, behold what manner of stones and what buildings are here. 2And Jesus answering, said to him: Seest thou all these great buildings? There shall not be left a stone upon a stone, that shall not be thrown down.

3And as he sat on the mount of Olivet over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him apart: 4Tell us, when shall these things be and what shall be the sign when all these things shall begin to be fulfilled? 5And Jesus answering, began to say to them: Take heed lest any man deceive you. 6For many shall come in my name saying, I am he: and they shall deceive many. 7And when you shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, fear ye not. For such things must needs be: but the end is not yet. 8For nation shall rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places and famines. These things are the beginning of sorrows.

9But look to yourselves. For they shall deliver you Up to councils: and in the synagogues you shall be beaten: and you shall stand before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony unto them.

Witnessing to All Nations

(Matthew 24:9-14Luke 21:10-19)

10And unto all nations the gospel must first be preached. 11And when they shall lead you and deliver you up, be not thoughtful beforehand what you shall speak: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye. For it is not you that speak, but the Holy Ghost. 12And the brother shall betray his brother unto death, and the father his son; and children shall rise up against their parents and shall work their death. 13And you shall be hated by all men for my name’s sake. But he that shall endure unto the end, he shall be saved.

The Abomination of Desolation

(Matthew 24:15-25Luke 21:20-24)

14And when you shall see the abomination of desolation, standing where it ought not (he that readeth let him understand): then let them that are in Judea flee unto the mountains. 15And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house nor enter therein to take any thing out of the house. 16And let him that shall be in the field not turn back to take up his garment. 17And woe to them that are with child and that give suck in those days. 18But pray ye that these things happen not in winter. 19For in those days shall be such tribulations as were not from the beginning of the creation which God created until now: neither shall be. 20And unless the Lord had shortened the days, no flesh should be saved: but, for the sake of the elect which he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days. 21And then if any man shall say to you: Lo, here is Christ. Lo, he is here: do not believe. 22For there will rise up false Christs and false prophets: and they shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce (if it were possible) even the elect. 23Take you heed therefore: behold, I have foretold you all things.

The Return of the Son of Man

(Matthew 24:26-31Luke 21:25-28)

24But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened and the moon shall not give her light. 25And the stars of heaven shall be falling down and the powers that are in heaven shall be moved. 26And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds, with great power and glory.27And then shall he send his angels and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

The lesson of the Fig Tree

(Matthew 24:32-35Luke 21:29-33)

28Now of the fig tree learn ye a parable. When the branch thereof is now tender and the leaves are come forth, you know that summer is very near. 29So you also when you shall see these things come to pass, know ye that it is very nigh, even at the doors. 30Amen, I say to you that this generation shall not pass until all these things be done. 31Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my word shall not pass away.

Be Ready at Any Hour

(Genesis 6:1-7Matthew 24:36-51Luke 12:35-48)

32But of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father.

33Take ye heed, watch and pray. For ye know not when the time is. 34Even as a man who, going into a far country, left his house and gave authority to his servants over every work and commanded the porter to watch. 35Watch ye therefore (for you know not when the lord of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cock crowing, or in the morning): 36Lest coming on a sudden, he find you sleeping. 37And what I say to you, I say to all: Watch.

Douay Rheims Version – Bishop Challoner Revision
Bible Hub

I have great news about the newly announced Consistory!

Great news! On 5 October 2019, there will still be exactly ZERO laywoman active lesbian Cardinals. None! I mean, the Cardinaliate is not a clerical state. Sure, the current discipline is that only ordained men can wear red, but that’s only since the 1917 code. There is no reason we can’t revert to laymen, and in this day and age, laywomen. Give it time. Give it time. Keep bowing down to the Heretic in Chief and Argentinian usurper.
Or, check your false base premise at the door, and keep your faith.

  1. Benedict’s renunciation was a null act, per canons 332.2 and 188
  2. When a juridical act is null, the situation reverts to the status quo
  3. If you hold that Benedict has delegated the Governance, he stills hold the office, per canon 131.1
  4. Since the See was never vacant, the conclave was ipso facto invalid, per canon 359

The following re-post lays out the foundation of why we are where we are. It’s three months old, but it got some unexpected traction on twitter yesterday, and some people got excited. It’s coherent and linear. Happy Sunday.
—————————

Words matter, in law and in actions: Canon 131.1 and the retention of Office

Towards the end of my “Perverse opinions” essay, I wrote this:

“I don’t have a degree in canon law, nor any advanced degrees of any kind. I have a diploma from a public high school and a B.S. in Food Marketing (from a Jesuit institution, no less… AMDG, y’all). But I can tell you this: Words have meaning; in the law, and in actions. That words are to be taken at face value, both in the law and in specific acts, is actually part of canon law (more to come on this). Everything presented here is done so according to the plain meaning of words, and you don’t need to be a genius to decipher it. Otherwise, it would be Gnosticism.” HERE

Well, this here essay is the “more to come” referenced there. Let’s start with Canon 17:

Can. 17. Ecclesiastical laws must be understood in accord with the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context. If the meaning remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places, if there are such, to the purpose and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.

When it comes to the law, words matter; the plain and proper meaning of the words. This idea is so important, they wrote this canon specifically to address it.
In addition to the importance of words in the law itself, there is also the importance of words in any individual act, as found in Canons 36 and 38. These appear in the section of the code called:
TITLE IV. SINGULAR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTS (Cann. 35 – 93)

Can. 36 §1. An administrative act must be understood according to the proper meaning of the words and the common manner of speaking. In a case of doubt, those which refer to litigation, pertain to threatening or inflicting penalties, restrict the rights of a person, injure the acquired rights of others, or are contrary to a law which benefits private persons are subject to a strict interpretation; all others are subject to a broad interpretation.

As we saw in Canon 17, the phrase “the proper meaning of the words” is used, but this time it’s about administrative acts. It then goes on to explain, more or less, that in juridical matters pertaining to persons, those words are subject to a strict interpretation, whereas in other matters they are subject to a broad interpretation.

Can. 38. An administrative act, even if it is a rescript given motu proprio, lacks effectinsofar as it injures the acquired right of another or is contrary to a law or approved custom, unless the competent authority has expressly added a derogating clause.

Canon 38 seems to be stating the obvious… an act which is contrary to law lacks effect. But the kicker is the last clause, which stipulates that if the competent authority expressly adds a derogating clause, the act DOES take effect, despite it being contrary to the letter of the law.  This means an administrator, facilitating an act which he knows goes against some portion of the law, is able to validate the act by specifically (“expressly”) calling out the conflict, and exempting (“derogating”) his specific act from that aspect of the law, provided that the administrator has the “competent authority” to do so.
Now you may have heard it said that the pope is above the law; that canon law does not apply to him, because he is the supreme administrator. That notion is false. The law is of divine origin, it does apply to him, and we know this because we have canons that specifically apply to popes and no one else. However, as supreme administrator, the pope does have the “competent authority” to derogate whatever he wants, as we just saw from Canon 38. The thing is, he has to actually do the derogation.
Let’s take a look at two very specific canons related to Pope Benedict’s failed partial attempted resignation, and apply what we just learned to the proper words of Benedict’s act and the proper words of the law. Example #1:

Can. 332.2 If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

We’ve beaten this one to death, right? He did not resign the Munus, he “resigned” the ministerio, so the resignation did not take effect. The combined force of Canons 17, 36, 38 tells us that his proper words did not properly manifest resigning the Office according to the proper words of the law, nor did he derogate any portion of the law in the Declaratio. The effect of his act was, as eye can plainly see, a mere delegation of the power of governance. Which conveniently bring us to Example #2:

Can. 131 §1. The ordinary power of governance is that which is joined to a certain office by the law itself; delegated, that which is granted to a person but not by means of an office.

Canon 131.1 appears in the section of the code called,
TITLE VIII. THE POWER OF GOVERNANCE (Cann. 129 – 144)
This canon is very interesting in light of all the uncovered theological discourse about a “demythologized” synodal papacy, or a scenario where the ruling monarch might “delegate” part or all of his proper power of governance to a surrogate(s), in an arrangement akin to a Regency. In fact, I seem to recall that this notion was so widespread among contemporary theologians of the 1950s and 60s that someone actually wrote their doctoral dissertation on it, and then, the Gregorianum thought so highly of it, they published it as a book, which now can be yours for the low low price of USD$4.87.
Screenshot 2019-06-15 at 08.06.32
Free preview (pg. 197, parenthetical mine):
“When contemporary theologians (i.e. Kung/Rahner/Kasper/Ratzinger/Dulles/Neumann) 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.”
To wit:

“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” – Cardinal Dulles, 64 years ago

Let’s get back to Canon 131.1. Since we are talking about separating the governance of an office from the actual office itself, we better check the Latin to see if this really says what we think it says. It’s the only way to be sure.

Can. 131 — § 1. Potestas regiminis ordinaria ea est, quae ipso iure alicui officio adnectitur; delegata, quae ipsi personae non mediante officio conceditur.

Look. At. The. WORDS.
The ordinary power of governance is that which is joined to a certain office by the law itself. Now in the case of the Petrine Office, we are obviously talking about the active governance of the whole Church. So…. what if the power of governance for the Petrine Office was “delegated” from the monarch to a regent? What does Canon 131.1 say happens in such a case? Look at the words.
It says that in such a case of delegation, the power of governance is transferred to the person of the regent, but not by means of an officeThe monarch fully 100% retains the office and fully 100% retains his monarchy. Remember, Benedict could have chosen to derogate this clause (delegata, quae ipsi personae non mediante officio conceditur), in accord with Canon 38 as explained above, when he attempted to “resign”/delegate the active governance of the Church, but he did not. And since he did not, the force of the law remains in effect: Benedict is the sole occupant of the Office, even though he is no longer exercising the power of the office for the governance of the Church. Here, let him explain it:

“The “always” is also a “forever”…My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. I do not return to private life…I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.” – Pope Benedict, Last General Audience (so far), 27 February 2013

News Flash: Your Particular Judgment will not be a negotiation

When I see people who think “bible lawyering” is somehow going to be accepted as legal tender when they come before Perfect Justice, oh man, does it make me mad. Mostly because of other souls they lead astray. Miss Barnhardt had a good go at this yesterday:

Stop calling them “theologians”. They are “Bible lawyers”.

Or “Bible shysters” if you prefer.
St. Athanasius was a theologian.
St. Augustine was a theologian.
St. Thomas Aquinas was a theologian.

These hacks today calling themselves ‘theologians’ are simply people who pride themselves on their ability to argue that the Word of God means the diametrical opposite of what it actually says.

Hence, “Bible lawyers”: shystering everything true and holy until everything false and evil is not only permitted, but violently demanded.

She was riffing on a piece over at Vox Day, “A Dark and Deceptive Art:”

Churchianity is rapidly descending into open blasphemy, as wolves in sheep’s clothing attack Christianity and the nations:
It won’t be long before they reject Christianity’s claim that the Devil is the enemy of Man too. If you ever wondered why I despise theologians and hold them in naked contempt, this letter should help you understand why.
Theology is the dark and deceptive art of explaining why the Bible means the opposite of what it actually says. HERE

This in turn was a riff on the disgusting Open Letter that appeared at Commonweal on 19 August, signed by a stable full of cat’s meow “theologians” HERE.  It’s a pretty good sign that you don’t really even believe in God if you think He can be deceived, like the creatures you are deceiving.
So much for the bible shysters. This next part is for everyone, because the Four Last Things are reality for everyone. It’s a bit harsh, but with a happy ending.
Your Particular Judgment will not be a negotiation. In fact, your Particular Judgment won’t even be a dialogue in the normal sense. To the extent that any back-and-forth does take place, there certainly won’t be any sort of quid pro quo, bargaining, splainin, whining, rationalizing, or blame gaming. There will be zero deceit or falsehood. It will be pure Truth, pure facts, pure and perfect Judgment. You won’t be able to lie anymore, not to God, not to yourself, nor to anyone else. You shall be shown what you have done, and you shall respond, “Yes.”
Our Lord will be there, pointing to Himself on Calvary while he plays back your life choices, and then you will nod, saying, “Yes. I know you did that for me, and yes, I chose to do what I did anyway.” The only participation you will have is admission of guilt. It’s not a trial, nor a negotiation. Your life was the trial. You will literally have nothing up your sleeve at that point. No lawyer to get you out of it. Your Guardian Angel will be by your side, and on your side, but you’ve really put him through the wringer too, haven’t you?
If you look at anything in scripture and it makes you uncomfortable, it’s for your own good. And if you see something that makes you think you just can’t go on living your life unless the words must mean something other than the plain meaning of the words, go look in the mirror. Those are God’s words, and the problem is never with God, it’s always with you.
Lest you think that you’ll be due some disproportionate show of mercy at your own Particular Judgment, because all the good that you’ve done will surely make you totally irresistible in the eyes of God at that moment, think again. Every ounce of good you have ever done was nothing more than you responding properly and proportionally to the graces being offered to you. “Doing good” is simply you acting the way God designed you to act, ordered toward your own spiritual gain. You don’t get extra credit for that, and it doesn’t “make up” for your wretchedness. This is why no one can “earn” nor “merit” Heaven on their own. You will never, ever, “deserve” Heaven. The time to beg for mercy isn’t then, it’s now. Repent, beg for mercy, and start making better choices.
Does that sound harsh? Depressing? Unfair?
On the contrary, this is exactly the Good News. Your eternal reward has already been purchased for you. Someone else accomplished that for you. Your role is to admit that you are powerless to get there on your own, be sorry for your sinfulness, promise to try to do better, and really mean it. REALLY. MEAN. IT. You have to actually do something about it. It is by rooting out sin and conforming your life to the Will of God that your personal relationship with Jesus Christ is founded and fostered. He doesn’t give us rules to be a jerk or to make it hard. Yes, some of the rules are harder to live out than others, but all of it is there for our own good, because He loves us. Everything has been done for you out of love, and He desires your love in return.
“Yes, I know that You died for me, brutally, so that I might live, and yes, I chose to make those terrible choices anyway.” Every human being is going to have to say these words.
The thing you want to be really sure about, I mean really, really sure, is that you can count yourself among those who will be able to add:
“But You know that I am truly sorry, not just here at the end, but every time I failed you. It was I who betrayed you in the Garden, it was I who scourged you at the pillar, it was I who crowned you with thorns, it was I who nailed you to the Cross. But I am truly sorry. Through your grace, I learned to know, love, and serve you in this world, and I desire to be with you forever in the next. I detest all my sins, I love You with all my heart, all my soul, until my dying breath and unto now, and You know I always did EVERYTHING I could to conform my will to Yours. ‘I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith.’ (2 Tim 4:7)”
Get on your knees and start now.
 

The Decollation of the Forerunner

Can anyone help me think of a good example to help the red-wearing Cardinals to understand the proper response to someone in power (or seemingly in power), an antipope, and possibly the False Prophet Forerunner of the Antichrist, who chooses to abuse the moral law; specifically, the moral laws regarding marriage, divorce, “remarriage,” etc?
It’d be great if there were something biblical. Some example where a man was willing to be jailed, and ultimately murdered, for standing up to the immorality.
It would also be great if there were something strikingly visual about it. Something that could be framed and hung in the chancery or the halls of the rectory.
Can anyone think of anything?
Here, let me start:

847px-Salome_with_the_Head_of_John_the_Baptist-Caravaggio_(1610)
Salome with the Head of Saint John the Baptist, Caravaggio, 1610

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Panic mode: CINO bloggers are getting nervous… turn up the heat!

Mike Lewis, who I don’t see much because he blocked me, is trying to bring his A-game. It boggles the mind that these lib ‘c’atholics see no irony in calling for iron fist loyalty to a heretic antipope, after they spent decades lauding the ethics and efficacy of full frontal DISSENT. Yeah. Go ahead and click over to wherepeteris.com and sample the dreck from he and others over there. This is a good example of why it’s good to get out of your bubble and see how the other half thinks… or doesn’t think.

Well, as Ann stated so adroitly on a recent podcast, to which I wholeheartedly agreed, “BRING IT ON.” Go ahead and listen to the simple four minute instruction from 22:00 to 26:00:

Are these people incapable of following a simple rational argument? Should BiP folks be concerned about excommunication from an antipope or the antichurch? Should it be worrisome to reject a “pope” who spews heresy on a daily basis and preaches that all religions are willed by God, this “god of surprises?” I mean, maybe someone needs to be forced to write Hebrews 13:8 on a blackboard 10,000 times.
Do these people seriously think that the threat of canonical penalties is going to cause some sort of moral crisis in someone who adheres whole and entire to the Catholic faith as handed down for 2000 years, and who also happen to believe that Pope Benedict is the only true living pope, and has been since April 2005? Don’t they understand that a fake pope has ZERO jurisdiction and ZERO legitimate authority?
I thought these CINOs held Primacy of Conscience as the core dogma of the Church…. Silly me.

“All these years, I thought being in communion with the successor of Peter was a significant mark of Roman Catholicism.”

Finally! I am in total agreement with Michael Sean Winters of Fishwrap fame, and I’m tickled! Well, not exactly, but more in the way that a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Being in communion with the successor of Peter is indeed a big deal. It is for this reason that those voicing the harshest criticisms of Bergoglio, while also pledging “loyalty” to him as true pope, have a very big problem on their hands. You CANNOT disobey the teaching authority of a true pope and still remain Catholic. Because Christ told us, promised us, that the office of the papacy would be supernaturally protected from error, forever.
I’m enjoying Sunday family time, so that’s all I’ve got. The full MSW article is HERE. It’s worth a read, because it proves the other side is beginning to panic. It’s a good thing.