“The entire situation is contrary to our faith”

So true, Laurence, so true.

Link at the bottom of this post; here is a small taste:

Let us not mince our words. God’s ways are indeed inscrutable, but, (forgive me, Lord, if I speak in presumption) He seems, from what I can see, to be using the evil man we know as Pope Francis to gather all those who will be condemned, together, along with him, into one Hellish tent. We must ask: Would Almighty God use a genuine Successor of Saint Peter to do that, when He has promised the precise opposite, or would that not indeed renege entirely our faithful Lord Jesus Christ’s own promises to Peter, to his Successors and to His Holy Catholic Church? Would that not make Almighty God a liar?

Please do go over to the The Crushed Bones and read the whole thing. It is very well done. Very clear and unambiguous. There is a flow to it that is distinctive of a rational thought process, which lends a certain beauty to the piece.

  1. We know that A is true
  2. We also know that B is true
  3. We also know the law of non-contradiction is true
  4. Therefore, C must also be true

The truth is so beautiful! He is almost unconcerned with the proof set. He knows his conclusion is correct because he has removed the logical fallacy that has befallen the vast majority: He has removed the false base premise. Once you fix that, the rest of it falls into place seamlessly, not a chemtrail in sight. That is, unless your intellectual dishonesty or fear of declining revenue gets the better of you.

READ IT ALL HERE

Hang in there, Bones. Haters gonna hate.

11 thoughts on ““The entire situation is contrary to our faith”

    1. I don’t know about that, Mary Ann. While the rules laid down in UDG were certainly violated at the 2013 “conclave,” there is a very strong argument that the nearly universal acceptance of Bergoglio as pope is a heavenly assurance of God’s acceptance that he really is pope. The only sure resolve here is that the “conclave” itself never really took place, because Benedict’s resignation was null. It appeared that a conclave took place, but that’s impossible, because you can’t have a conclave and elect a new pope if the real pope is still alive and reigning.

      1. Respectfully, the UDG is not based on “universal acceptance.” Otherwise one could say the same about Benedict’s abdication. That too has been “universally accepted.” The difference here is since UDG is based on procedure and not “intent,” therefore it is objective and not subjective.

        If Benedict were to come out tomorrow and say, “Oops my bad. I really DID intend to abdicate. I just misspoke.” Then everyone is left with Francis. The UDG means the subjective intent (which only Benedict can truly prove) is irrelevant. Whether Benedict is or isn’t becomes immaterial to whether Francis is. He is NOT. Based on the objective requirements of the UDG, not the subjective requirements in Benedict’s head. Mary Ann is right!

  1. Dear dcomx001, I tried posting the following on the Bones Blog, but it never saw the light of day. I was not a little upset; you’ll understand when you read what I wrote. Just thought you would want to know.

    The first quote listed at the top of this section for quotes [Bones Blog], posted by “Anonymous.” stated: “Mundabor. Glad to see you have cleaned up the language.” It would be interesting to know if the “Mundabor” referred to in the quote is the same Mundabor at Mundabor’s Blog. The reason for asking is that I had posted, in a very brief way, an argument very similar to what is given in this blog (not that that matters to me), but it is the fact that my argument was refused posting, i.e. blocked–it never showed up on the Blog. I have a right to the truth here so please be honest, and humble. My post was as follows”

    “Now, when Christ established His Church He assured Peter that It would be indefectible and infallible, a Divine Promise. It is also of Divine Law that the Pope cannot be judged by anyone save God. However, what we have is a situation where a so-called Pope is destroying the very purpose of the Church (which concerns Indefectibility, and also “officially” promulgating laws which are contrary to the immutable Faith. This gives rise to a unsolvable contradiction: either the Pope must be judged [which, obviously, logically means he really isn’t Pope]; or the Church can be destroyed and effect the damnation of souls. The all-knowing God could NOT ALLOW such a contradiction to exist.”

    It should also be noted that Miss Barnhardt’s argument, if one hasn’t realized it, is a bit weak because since she holds that Benedict was forced or did so through fear, or for others that he made a mistake (it doesn’t matter which), then he actually knew he was lying (when he repeated several times, including in his Resignation itself, that he was FREE) or that he knew he made a mistake. Why? Because from the very beginning of his retirement–8:00 p.m. of 28 February 2013 Rome time–he wore the Papal attire, demanded that he be called His Holiness Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, lived in Rome as the Pope does, and had the Prefect of the Papal household as his Secretary! The burden is on Miss Barnhardt to prove that Benedict is “cheating.”

    However, as I have shown in my analysis of the official Latin text of Benedict’s Renunciation Announcement he intended and actually resigned from the “exercise” of the Powers of Governing and Teaching, while continuing the “exercise” of the Power of Sanctifying. Since the “exercise” of a Power is distinct from the Power which belongs to an Office, otherwise the holder of that office would have to be constantly “exercising” that Power, Benedict actually intended and freely preserved the Petrine Office from the hands of one under the control of Satan.

    Fr. David R. Belland

    1. Benedict’s intent does not bear on his attempted resignation. He didn’t resign the Office, whether or not he intended to. The theory of Substantial Error is still likely correct, based on all the evidence I have reviewed, but there is no question that canon 332.2 was violated, even if canon 188 might not have been.

      1. Dear dcomx001, What does this mean: “He didn’t resign the Office whether he intended to or not?” One’s intention is always a factor in a moral act (manslaughter is not the same as homicide, putting money into the collection basket for the purpose of making people think one is so generous is not true charity) and when it is specifically indicated in writing, all the more is it a necessary part of the act–this I have shown in my analysis of the official Latin text of Benedict’s Renunciation–all official Vatican translations are incorrect.

        First, let’s get things straight; c. 188 is a canon specifying the matter (grave fear, deceit, substantial error, simony) that interferes with FREEDOM, which is the condition for a valid Papal resignation (c. 322.2). So, if you’re contesting Benedict’s freedom due to substantial error, what precisely was his error? Most likely, the answer is bifurcation, but then the Intention must be proved! What documentation can you or anyone else provide that he intended to bifurcate? Or are you just making a judgment on his intention (in which case, your statement about intention not bearing on his “attempted resignation” is disingenuous). Let’ have the FACTS. Furthermore, how do you know Benedict was NOT acting on something that was stated in the Third Secret and which is still top secret?

        Actually, you really missed my whole point: Benedict says his resignation IS valid, and hence the onus falls on those who say it is invalid via c 332.2 to PROVE he lied or is a deceiver (knowingly “made a mistake,” “became a coward,” “just playing stupid” or whatever you want to attribute to him), but then also explain why he acted like a Pope right from the get go if he didn’t lie or try to deceive. The basic philosophical principle “Actio sequitur esse” (Action follows being) cannot be disposed of because it doesn’t support your argument. Once again, where are the FACTS. God bless and Our Lady protect you always.

      2. It is a fact that in the original Latin written and read out loud by Benedict, he resigns the Ministry but not the Office. This is a violation of Canon 332.2 (the resignation was not “properly manifested”).

        It is a fact that Benedict was extensively involved in discussions among elite theologians of an expanded synodal papacy in 1960s Germany, and that a synodal papacy is exactly what he describes in his final General Audience of 28 Feb 2013 and later by +Ganswein in his speech at the Greg in May 2016, violating Canon 188 (substantial error).

    2. Fr. Belland,
      Mundabor at Mundabor’s Blog is harsh, often correct but is also pigheaded. Once you have his ire by disagreeing with an important position of his, such as B16 not “really” resigning, it is doubtful whether or not he’ll allow your post to become public ever again. It’s his blog, so be it. I still post there, so he has to read my comments but he never allows my post to be public.

  2. The vast majority of catholics accepted the election of Francis and that peaceful universal acceptance is infallible evidence thane is Pope an that Benedict XVI resigned

    1. You already got banned from this site years ago. Literally one of only two people I’ve banned. You can’t just change your name and come back. I approved this comment, but your subsequent ones I deleted.

Comments are closed.