Then he saith to them: “But whom do you say that I am?”

UPDATE 13:12 MST. From “Aqua,” a frequent combox contributor:
“Luke 12:54-57. Jesus tells His disciples, they not only can, they must use their God-given grace, intellect, wisdom and judgement to make judgement and know Truth, standing there staring them in the face, so as to follow and act:
54 And he said also to the people, When ye see a cloud rise out of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is.
55 And when ye see the south wind blow, ye say, There will be heat; and it cometh to pass.
56 Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth (the weather); but how is it that ye do not discern this time?
57 Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?”

“For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.”

2 Tim 4:3-4

As mentioned in a post a few weeks ago, God gave us a rational intellect and sensory perception, and He taught us to use these things together to discern reality (Matthew 16:13-20Mark 8:27-30Luke 9:18-20John 6:66-71). There is no greater reality in the universe than Jesus Christ, God Incarnate. What did He expect of His disciples when it came to the question of His true identity? He expected them to use their rational intellect and sensory perception to FIGURE IT OUT.

And Jesus came into the quarters of Cesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ. Matt 16:13-20

And Jesus went out, and his disciples into the towns of Caesarea Philippi. And in the way, he asked his disciples, saying to them: Whom do men say that I am? Who answered him, saying: John the Baptist; but some Elias, and others as one of the prophets. Then he saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Peter answering said to him: Thou art the Christ. And he strictly charged them that they should not tell any man of him. Mark 8:27-30

And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples also were with him: and he asked them, saying: Whom do the people say that I am? But they answered and said: John the Baptist; but some say Elias: and others say that one of the former prophets is risen again. And he said to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answering, said: The Christ of God. Luke 9:18-20

After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him. Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known that thou art the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve? And one of you is a devil. Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray him, whereas he was one of the twelve. John 6:66-71

So now we are being asked to FIGURE IT OUT in terms of how it could be, that for 2000 years, Satan was prevented from overtaking the Petrine See by a rigorous supernatural enforcement of the Petrine Promises (Matt 16:18-19, Luke 22:31-32), but the supposed current occupant is somehow capable of heresy, apostasy, and idolatry; and has officially approved adultery, fornication, and cohabitation?

And yet, now we see another attempt to correct an apostate antipope, while still trying to stay in union with him:

November 12, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – An international group of 100 priests and lay scholars published a statement today to protest the pagan worship of Pachamama that took place last month during the Amazon Synod in Rome with Pope Francis’ (sic) active participation and apparent support…

  • On October 4, Pope Francis (sic) attended an act of idolatrous worship of the pagan goddess Pachamama. (1)
  • He allowed this worship to take place in the Vatican Gardens, thus desecrating the vicinity of the graves of the martyrs and of the church of the Apostle Peter.
  • He participated in this act of idolatrous worship by blessing a wooden image of Pachamama. (2)
  • On October 7, the idol of Pachamama was placed in front of the main altar at St. Peter’s and then carried in procession to the Synod Hall. Pope Francis (sic) said prayers in a ceremony involving this image and then joined in this procession. (3)
  • When wooden images of this pagan deity were removed from the church of Santa Maria in Traspontina, where they had been sacrilegiously placed, and thrown into the Tiber by Catholics outraged by this profanation of the church, Pope Francis (sic), on October 25, apologized for their removal and another wooden image of Pachamama was returned to the church. (4) Thus, a new profanation was initiated.
  • On October 27, in the closing Mass for the synod, he accepted a bowl used in the idolatrous worship of Pachamama and placed it on the altar. (5)

Pope Francis (sic) himself confirmed that these wooden images were pagan idols. In his apology for the removal of these idols from a Catholic church, he specifically called them Pachamama (6), a name for a false goddess of mother earth according to pagan religious belief in South America.

Some visual aids, as I’ve posted before:

Maybe, just maybe, when you see the abomination, you should check your base premise.

He is not the pope. How could he be?

Scolding an apostate antipope isn’t going to get the job done. It’s true that stunts like this can be helpful in terms of getting the word out, and even the MSM is starting to pick up on things. Ross Douthat openly questioning who is the legitimate pope, in the New York Times, is certainly Overton Window worthy. So thank you, sort of, to everyone who laid out the horrid details and signed their names to the protest, but I’m afraid it’s just not good enough.

FIGURE IT OUT.

 

 

56 thoughts on “Then he saith to them: “But whom do you say that I am?”

  1. Luke 12: 54-57. Jesus tells His disciples, they not only can, they must use their God-given grace, intellect, wisdom and judgement to make judgement and know Truth, standing there staring them in the face, so as to follow and act.

    54And he said also to the people, When ye see a cloud rise out of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is.

    55And when ye see the south wind blow, ye say, There will be heat; and it cometh to pass.

    56Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth (the weather); but how is it that ye do not discern this time?

    57Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?

    1. And more to the point, as you say, “correcting the ‘Pope’, by letter”, is just not good enough – not by a mile.

      Read the “signs”. God gave us eyes to see and a brain to think.

      1. Brilliant and brave as always. I remember your comments standing out at 1P5 but I haven’t been there in a while. I am glad to be able read them again.

  2. FIGURE IT OUT.

    Blogs like this just have to continue doing what they do to appraise Catholics about our heretic Pope and the ongoing collapse of the Church particularly since Vatican II. At some point a tipping point threshold will be reached when all of what is happening will be openly debated or at least reported in the MSM. At that point the outward battle for the Church can be joined. Schism from a corrupt Catholic Church will be an option, etc. Eventually, the hierarchy of the Church will sense that the battle to turn the Church into a NGO is lost and the orthodox Catholic hierarchy can assume control.

    Anyway, something along those lines. Mainly, the future of the Church is in the hands of God.

    1. Michael, he’s not a “heretic pope”….he’s NOT a pope at all. We MUST get this wording right, and repeat it correctly OFTEN…..everything is riding on getting this absolutely right.

      1. susan says:
        November 13, 2019 at 1:37 pm

        “Michael, he’s not a “heretic pope”….he’s NOT a pope at all. We MUST get this wording right, and repeat it correctly OFTEN…..everything is riding on getting this absolutely right.”

        The anti-Pope Barnhardian wording cannot be used on many so called conservative Catholic blogs like Crisis Magazine. I was warned about this by the editor and agreed not to use such language there. The Catholics who visit this site can’t handle the truth right now. We must respect that. They will change in time and have already to a great extent. Prudence and patience is important in catechisis. A banned commenter is useless to the Lord.

      2. Mr. Dowd, is this a direct quote from the moderator at Crisis?: “The Catholics who visit this site [Crisis] can’t handle the truth right now. We must respect that. They will change in time and have already to a great extent.” Or is this in part your observation of the climate of commenters as Crisis?

    2. Michael, you’re not at any of those outlets here and you’re still using the false-base-premise language.
      But, ahhh yes…I seem to remember Our Lord making the same case when He said “the prevarication shall make you free”. The people weren’t quite ready to hear all about Him, and especially not about that whole eating His Flesh and drinking His blood thing….good thing He didn’t mention anything about that to them, otherwise they might have walked out on Him in droves. Oh….wait….

  3. Mr. Docherty, you do not need to publish this and I send it for, I hope, your benefit. I appreciate your posts. If you have a version of the Bible that has Our Lord saying “Whom do men say that I am?”, please throw it out. The grammatically correct form is “Who do men say that I am?” I am sorry, but simple grammatical errors repeated throw into doubt the writer’s interest in or capability for thinking clearly. You are dealing with complex issues. Pleae get this right.

  4. Well put. Reason and perception are gifts to be used. The idea that the laity can’t figure out these things is just nonsense. Perhaps the average layman can’t give the most erudite defense of the truth, but that doesn’t mean the average layman can’t discern the truth: “A little old woman now knows more about what belongs to faith than all the philosophers once knew” (St. Thomas Aquinas).

    1. @Cam: Well put, yourself. Aren’t we frequently admonished for “burying our talents”? Well, reason and perception are surely gifts to be used and not buried. I’d never heard the quote from St. Thomas Aquinas. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I suspect I’ll be using your observation of gifts along with not burying them when next I speak with my pastor or bishop or associate pastor or… : )

  5. Why do we have to “respect” the fact that people “can’t handle the truth” right now? How will they ever handle it, unless it is presented to them in no uncertain terms?

    1. @Helen Weir: I’ve thought about this very thing and what it has led me to consider is St. Paul in 1 Cor 9:19-23 where he says that “he is all things to all men”. It’s not because he’s wishy-washy, but it’s because his message, Jesus Christ and His Gospel, is all important.

      With that in mind, the message of BiP (Benedict is Pope) is of great import and if you hadn’t already seen them, Mr. Docherty has some mighty thought provoking questions to bandy about the holiday tables and at ‘coffee and donuts’ even. One of the shortest ones is, “How is it possible for the Pope to be at the same time the source of unity AND the vector of schism?” Or perhaps, “Would Jesus really put His little ones in a Catch-22 where the First Commandment says, ‘no idolatry’ and the man who’s supposed to be pope says, “Welcome the pachamamas!”? Who knows you might pique their curiosity enough that they’d take a look into the precise English translation of Feb 11, 2013.

  6. Every one of those signatories can hold their heads up. They can bring this with them when life is near it’s end, and say to God, “have mercy on me O Lord, I tried to love you well”. That’s something. I wish I was somebody so I could sign it. It also adds greatly to the chorus of the Church Militant, growing by the day, who see clearly enough to see what you’ve said above is absolutely true, he is an apostate. We don’t have to know Canon Law, I don’t spend much time thinking about that at all, or about whether or not he is pope. I would be astounded if any of the current crop are going to investigate that, and it certainly might be true based on what we know, but that’s out of our purview. We can resist. We can continue to bring attention to the fact the pope is an obvious apostate, bringing more and more Catholics into the tent, and we can ask the Cardinals and bishops to do their jobs, call him out. We can refuse to participate in Bergolio-church, it being the ape of the true church.
    They have gone all out, tipped their hand, the lack of subtlety has made it now so easy. They didn’t do that because they are stupid, but because they feel their power and what are you going to do about it.

    1. Let me add the most important thing that I neglected to mention, we can ask God to send the remedy. We don’t know it but He does.

      1. @Kate R: It is of the utmost importance that former Cdl Bergoglio be recognized as always having been an anti-pope because of ‘Ground Zero’–the fake or failed renouncement. If he is merely recognized as apostate “pope” and deposed or resigns while PPBXVI the duly elected Holy Father since 2005 is still alive, any other “conclave” will bring forth another anti-pope no matter his orthodoxy. As Miss Barnhardt rightly says, “We have to get this right.”

        You say correctly that we can resist. Perhaps the remedy that Our Lord awaits is for US to recognize Pope Benedict with or without an examination. I myself audibly whisper, “Benedict,” during the Canon of the Mass. Imagine what ten or twenty people whispering, “Benedict,” would sound like? (Isn’t that what Ghandi might call passive resistance?) The more and more faithful laity join in, the louder the voice of the sheep will be who call out to Christ’s Shepherd, PPBXVI.

        Can you imagine the daily Masses where the faithful few act so that God will act?

      2. Well, His remedy could simply be the natural passing of Benedict XVI and Bergoglio, followed by what would then be a valid conclave (or B XVI’s passing and a Bergoglio “resignation”). I know it would not be an emotionally satisfying resolution, but it would put an end to it. The rest would be “cured” by simply forgetting everything Bergoglio ever said.

        In fact, I would not put it past these guys to wait for B XVI to pass, have Bergoglio resign, then put a valid pope in who does not have to say a word, and just let the lesser episcopal minions continue to tout “Francis” teachings without rebuke. Let the Burkes continue dubia-dooby-dooing to their hearts’ content. Nothing will come of it.

    2. Kate R: I don’t disagree. Brave as far as it goes, yes, but it misses the mark.

      I think the best statement they could sign would be a statement of Catholic Dogmatic Truth, by Priests, Bishops, Religious, theologians, lay persons …. that Benedict’s original 3 paragraph Latin resignation statement was not valid; the subsequent Conclave thus illegal and its election an antipope.

      That would be a statement for the ages. And it would be true, in full.

      I would sign that letter.

      The original crime is the essential crime. All the various crimes that follow that are the result of the “perp” walking free as a bird. Absent that declaration, he is presumed to have rights and authority he does not in “ontological” reality have.

      1. Aqua: You would agree that Jesus was also deemed a “perp” and unbeknownst to His followers at the time, His punishment gave birth to His Church. To be clear what to you refer to as the “original crime–the essential crime”–Pope Benedict’s words or Cdl Sodano’s dereliction of duty in clarifying those words or something else?

      2. I disagree with your assessment. Jesus was not a “perp” (I say it with all due respect for His majesty) because he did not violate Jewish Law or Prophecy but, rather, fulfilled it. He spent His public life speaking clearly and in parables and with His miraculous deeds, connecting His advent to the Word Of prophecy and scripture (Jewish). They just couldn’t see it. They had eyes, they just couldn’t see. That was why Jesus wept over Jerusalem. He came to them, but they just wouldn’t accept the fulfillment of all desire because of their sin.

        Thus, *they* were the “perps” in this case, for violating Prophecy, Scripture, Law in their rejection of *the very point* of their Abrahamic existence: the promised Messiah.

        *In our day* – the essential crime are the words of Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation, Cardinal Sodano’s dereliction of duty and the Conclave of Cardinals who all failed in their duty to ensure the prior Pope, was not either dead or properly and fully resigned from his Holy Papal Munus.

      3. Aqua: Very well, I stand corrected. Thank you. Jesus was seen as a criminal when of course He is the innocent, spotless Lamb of God.

  7. An international group of 100 priests and lay scholars published a statement today to protest the pagan worship of Pachamama

    What a fantastic blow in support of true Catholicism!!! Before you know it, someone might even send him a dubia or something!

    1. @C Matt: You need a rim shot (from a drum) with that zinger. Thank you for the giggle. Frank Walker at canon 212 reports that as of today it is 1150 days since the dubia were sent.

  8. “…WHO do you say I am…” “Who” is not the object of “say,” but the subject of “am.”

    1. @Aurthur McGowan: Isn’t “Who” more precisely the predicate nominative of “am” and thus in the subjective case rather than the objective case? I don’t recall that a verb of being takes a direct object, does it?

      1. Right, Mr. McGowan. The subject of “am” is “I” and “who” is the predicate nominative, thus in the subjective case.

  9. Francis is both a false pope and an Antipope. He’s a mortal threat to souls; and a ravening wolf seeking whom he may devour. As such he must be opposed no matter what you call him.

    Rhetorical usage can—honestly, I believe—vary between false pope and antipope as both are perfectly accurate— depending on the capacity of your audience to “handle the truth.”

    You cannot let yourself be coerced into speaking a falsehood however. Therefore, it is never appropriate if I may say so to refer to Francis as “Pope Francis,” even upon pain of the dread ban.

    Really, Michael, who cares about being banned by the “He’s-The-Pope!!—You’re-an-EXTREMEST!” crowd of weigelian neocons, pompous prelates, and such fake news outlets as Crisis, first things, remnant & Skojec—Trad Inksters ($$) all (at best).

    1. @BroWulf: I suspect that many commenters at Trad Inksters would actually be relieved to end the schizoid twisting and contortions that their psyches endure under the “FiP” refrain. To hear “BiP” and know of the simplicity of ‘Ground Zero’–munus vs ministerium–was a Godsend to me via Fr. Nicholas Gruner: https://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2019/10/19/fr-gruner-on-the-resignation-of-benedict-xvi/
      (Shout out to Mr Tony La Rosa for reposting this vimeo ‘blast from the past’ and RIP dear Fr. Gruner.)

    2. It is never alright to refer to him as “Pope Francis” unless discussing a hypothetical, or talking with an individual who does not know who that guy Jorge Bergoglio is. There are more of the latter than you would think.

  10. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has spoken out on at least 2 occasions, yet HE has NOT said, “Hey, I didn’t want to resign”, or, “Hey, I know how these conclaves are suppose to work, and the one that elected Frances is suspect, at best”. Don’t you think that Benedict, of all people, would know the truth about these 2 issues? To say “No” is to fail to give him credit for his high intelligence and exceptional knowledge, or to imply that he doesn’t love or care about the Church, or that he doesn’t want to rock the boat. OK; so which is it???

    1. Why do you call him Pope Emeritus?

      Either he holds the Petrine Office or he does not hold it.
      If he does hold it, he’s not emeritus.
      If he does not hold it, he’s not Pope.

  11. Islam_Is Islam says: Also, Susan please note.
    November 13, 2019 at 11:18 pm

    “Mr. Dowd, is this a direct quote from the moderator at Crisis?: “The Catholics who visit this site [Crisis] can’t handle the truth right now. We must respect that. They will change in time and have already to a great extent.”

    My comment regarded the use of anti-Pope Barnhardian or Susanian (above) wording which can or should not be used on many so called conservative Catholic blogs like Crisis Magazine. Recently Crisis did implement a rule against using inflammatory words. Rule 3 reads: “We will not tolerate heresy, calumny, or attacks upon our Holy Mother Church or Holy Father. “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18)

    Anyway, using inflammatory anywhere is never a good idea as it turns off potential converts to your position.

    1. Michael Dowd: They like to think they are protecting the Papacy and rejecting heresy. All good Catholics do. They are, rather, nurturing it.

      To truly protect the Papacy, they need to explain what in Tradition authorizes an expansion and alteration in the Papal Office. Where is the support for and example of an Emeritus Pope side by side with an active Pope? They don’t like that discussion because there is no answer. And that, their refusal to connect the Magisterium to this innovative alteration, makes them complicit.

      *Multiple Popes* is the attack on Holy Mother Church. Resigning the Ministerium, while firmly retaining the Munus; remaining firmly and forever within the enclosure of St. Peter *with another*, is the heresy. Calumny is attacking those who merely ask for *Dogmatic answers* (show your work!) in response to this Papal transformation.

      I know this is what they do. They are wrong. And the Truth cannot be suppressed by banning it. Truth (The Word) will assert itself with force, in time. They incongruity of their position becomes more and more clear in time.

      It is not inflammatory to speak the Truth in full. It *is* inflammatory* to speak it disparagingly and in anger. But if one has there is usually no tendency to add emotion in support. There is a calm peace in the assertion of Dogma and alliance with constant Magisterial Church Teaching.

      The burden of proof is on them, not us, to prove where the Magisterium permits an Emeritus, retired, inactive Pope. I don’t see it. Neither do they, which is why they always ban and change the subject.

      1. Aqua says: November 14, 2019 at 9:02 am

        “The burden of proof is on them, not us, to prove where the Magisterium permits an Emeritus, retired, inactive Pope. I don’t see it. Neither do they, which is why they always ban and change the subject.”

        Aqua, these are folks we want to convert to our point of view. One cannot bluster in. They will just throw you out. Prudence and patience must be used and shown.

    2. Stating Francis is not the Pope, or BiP does not violate Rule 3 if that is in fact its actual wording.

      1. c matt says: November 14, 2019 at 12:55 pm

        “Stating Francis is not the Pope, or BiP does not violate Rule 3 if that is in fact its actual wording”

        That determination is made by the Editor.

    3. Michael, what exactly are you ‘catechizing’ on if not Truth? I hate to break this to you cause you’re a good, well-intentioned man, but your opinion-comments on Crisis aren’t swaying minds or hearts one way or the other. It’s just a race between you and the tractor-guy to post the very first comment (why, I haven’t a whiff of a clue), and then the thread (as do most comment threads of other sites) turns into a circle spit-ball fight with the same 4-5 guys, and that spins-up the beehive. It is the RARE and extraordinary comment that actually makes people stop and contemplate, and that comment invariably and unabashedly references Truth.

      Your obfuscatory language simply affirms people in their delusion that jorge bergoglio is, or has ever been, the pope. And that false-base-premise is the single gravest danger facing this world and humanity today. Period.

      It’s like calling a ‘trans’-whatever by their ‘preferred pronouns’ (just threw up a lot in my mouth) thinking that you’re somehow leading them gently to the Truth….how the hell does one come to the conclusion that you lead people to Truth by affirming (or rather, ‘accompanying’) them in lies?…what you’re arguing for is straight out of the false-prophet’s fake-apostolic-exhortation flaming bag of dog-Schiff, “The Joy of Butt-Secks” (aka “Amoris Letitia”) …you’re just changing the lie. Instead of “accompany them’ in the adultery (cuz after all, perhaps that’s the max can give right now and Our Lord’s just okey dokey with that), you’re saying “accompany them” in their willful ignorance regarding the false-prophet forerunner of the anti-christ who’s been raping, maiming, and destroying the Deposit of Faith while (literally) glaring at the Lord. NO!…give them the Truth and let them make their own decision whether they accept it or not. Otherwise, you will be accountable for not presenting the Truth (you knew full-well) to them. (“My people die for lack of knowledge”, “How can I know unless someone guides me?”) I’m not saying don’t be nice. Use whatever style you want; some will respond to a velvet glove, some will only respond to a swift slap, but guess what?….MOST will walk away from the Truth…they did then, and they will now. But your hands will be clean.

      Why on earth do you care about nazi-esque moderators banning you from a site? Shoot, if those places didn’t ‘ban’ me after one or two posts of Truth, I’d be worried that I should get to Confession. Let them become an echo chamber of perfidy; they’ll soon dry up and blow away. Shake the dust off your feet and start your own blog….you certainly appear to have the time. You’re a warrior….just seriously and with full commitment, get in the fight; and begin by pledging to, from this day forward, never, EVER using the false-term “pope francis” again…it is a grave insult to the Lord.

      1. susan says:
        November 14, 2019 at 1:34 pm

        “Michael, what exactly are you ‘catechizing’ on if not Truth? I hate to break this to you cause you’re a good, well-intentioned man, but your opinion-comments on Crisis aren’t swaying minds or hearts one way or the other. ”

        Oy, Susan. It is an easy thing to make comments on blogs where everyone believes as you do. I do it all the time and use the same kind of defamatory language you do. Mouthing off like this makes us feel like prophets of doom or something. This is an ego trip, useless emotionalism at best. Worst it makes us agents of the devil and the religion form of identity politics which is destroying our world.

        Why don’t you make comments on Crisis and The Catholic Thing and maybe make a few convert to the truth.
        Do this for a month or two. It would be good for you and maybe others.

        Blessing to you.

      2. Michael, there’s nothing ‘defamatory ‘ in what I said…it’s just Truth. But Truth has a way of cutting to the marrow. That’s kinda my point. All I’m saying to you is speak the Truth, and don’t make back-bending excuses for not speaking it and then calling yourself a catechist.

        As to your ‘prophets of doom’ comment, it gave me a big smile….I’m in very good company. Maybe you’ll put me in a hollow log and saw me in half, or push me into an excrement filled well? 🙂
        Did ya happen to notice what just went down in Rome? Under the aegis of the sack-of-merde impersonating a pope, St. Peter’s and multiple other churches in Rome were utterly desecrated and defiled with the most grievous sin…idol worship. Peter cannot do that. Peter cannot ordain women. Peter cannot encourage mortal sin as God’s will for a person. Peter cannot do a LOT of what this clown is doing, and countless souls are being lost for eternity because he remains largely masked. What I’m saying to you is don’t be a part of that cover-up. Be a ‘prophet of doom’ (ha!) and let people know how unimaginably BAD this all is (cause it’s even worse than that), instead of playing their game and speaking their language.

        The ‘ego trip’ is sitting for hours a day poised over a keyboard commenting on countless blogs and trying to be ‘first’, seeing your words and name ‘published’, and pulling punches and couching your words trying to stay in the good graces of moderators who will protect bergoglio at the cost of lost souls. Most (present company excluded) of the comboxes you ‘catechize’ on are only-slightly glorified twitter threads…everybody thinks they’re Aquinas2.0, and most of the posts are past each other. What’s the gain? Especially if you’re not even going to try to open eyes to the Truth?

        Call me an agent of the devil all you want….seems to me someone got accused of that in Luke 11:15 (again, I’ll take that insult with honor), I’m simply speaking the Truth and saying don’t be afraid to do likewise; in friendly and enemy territory, in season and out. But jeeeze Micheal, pick your arenas and your hills…..not everything is worth a comment. When you comment on everything, your ‘stock’ goes waaaay down, especially when you keep calling this butt-boil on the papal throne, Peter.

        And as to spending 2 months ‘commenting’ on religious twitter….Dear Lord, spare me from that kind of living hell….been there, done that. It was an ego trap and a wasteful time-suck. I’ll stick with reading a few very, very good blogs, reading the Fathers, Doctors, and Saints, teaching kids the Faith (after spending 3 years getting an advanced catechetical certification), and trying to speak the Truth in season and out.

        Peace and Blessing to you also.

      3. Thanks Susan. Keep up all the good things you do. Blessings to you and family.

        Personally, I don’t like the anger that grips me regarding the sad state of the Church and our heretic pope. So I’m trying to change the way I respond.

        Vatican II has been my big issue. It has been a catastrophe for the Church because essentially it is a breaking of the First Commandment, i.e., Man replacing God.

      4. Yes Michael…much to be (righteously) angry about, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. To not be angry in the midst of the hell we’re living through would be, I believe, a grave sin. “be angry and sin not”

        But I will say again, the Truth is the ONLY way out of this, and to continue to call this destroyer with no divine protection whatsoever a pope (heretical or otherwise) is complicity in the continuing destruction. So, it would appear that we are back to our original starting point, with you calling him a heretic pope, and me saying that’s complicity…..which kinda makes the point of my main points above.

        Blessings to you and yours also my brother in Christ….do your thing to bring Him glory and lead as many souls to Him as best you can; and may we both be prepared to meet Him and give account when He returns.
        ….which would to all appearances be possibly, if not probably, not so very far off.

  12. This brings me back to some very dark days, called high school English class, that I somehow survived.

    Ouch! My head hurts.

    1. Intended for the whom and who; nominative, subjective, objective, predicate discussion above.

      I am so glad they passed me out of that English class. Would have hated to repeat that one for a whole year.

      1. Didn’t you enjoy diagraming sentences, Aqua? I mean the elegance of the logical progression of the rules of grammar were like a geometrical proof of sorts. Or like the proof-set involving BiP–just not so eternally significant.

      2. Aqua, I know how you feel. I can’t dance, but my mother kept sending me to ballet and ballroom. Awful. So we each do what we can. I hope your head feels better.

  13. These persons who have professional credentials, and who have served and some still serve in various public roles, protested publicly.

    In my judgment, that is far more courageous than deluding oneself that a mere blog is going to have an impact on what these persons publicly confronted.

    1. “mere blogs”, as you derisively say, have mightily influenced these people, and we have much for which to thank the likes of Mr. Docherty and the great Miss B….those two are easily responsible for the red-pill consumption of 95% of those who’ve been awakened from the nightmare (particularly Ann, who is also singlehandedly responsible for more conversions to the True Faith than all the redhats put together…and Mark is a magnificent Robin to her Batman :)). It’s still ugly out there, but we’re not banging our heads against a wall trying desperately to square a demonic circle, as are so many others who are under the delusion that bergoglio is the pope.

    2. Leon Berton: You have heard of someone who serves in a “public role”, with “professional credentials” (oooh) that has protested the false resignation and subsequent antipope publicly?

      I really can’t think of anyone, except for brave, retired Bishop Gracida Of Corpus Christi. Are there others? I’m not talking about those who bemoan all the obvious heresy. False resignation. False Conclave. Antipope. Altered, expanded Papacy. Any “credentialed professional” calling ixnay on that?

      Btw, Jesus was not credentialed. Carpenter from Nazareth (the Pharisees didn’t like that hometown). The Blessed Mother, not credentialed. Not sure about St. Joseph. Jesus’ Disciples were not credentialed. The first Pope was the least credentialed of them all. Judas was the most credentialed.

      The point being, there is nothing sinful about “credentials”. They can be useful. They are not the Faith. And in our sad case, the credentialed ones are universally comfortable, craven and wrong.

      I Cor 13: 1-6 “1 If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[b] but do not have love, I gain nothing.

      4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.”

      Faith, Hope, Love … inspired by God’s Grace with which we cooperate. That is the Faith. In my little home of special needs misfits, I may not have the capacity, rank, “credentials” to act directly, but I have my part to play. We all,do.

Comments are closed.