Practicing what you preach: “Better to be an atheist” than a “hater”

bergoglio4

Courtesy HERE.  This was at Vespers and Te Deum, 31 December 2018. Of course he’s done this many times before, with ample photographic evidence, and the winningest caption I’ve seen so far is, “Antipope Bergoglio stares down his opponent.”

He helpfully followed it up two days later with a homily about how daily Mass-goers are a bunch of hypocritical haters who would be better off staying home and living as atheists HERE.

Have you ever wondered why they keep putting out the prie dieu when they know he’s never going to use it? Do you ever wonder why he’s not embarrassed standing there in front of it, when it’s such a jarring sight? Do you ever wonder why, in six years, he’s never told them to stop bringing it out?

Because he wants it there, that’s why. It’s there for effect, you see. It’s an enhancement, an accessory. “I should be kneeling, but I won’t bow to you. Non Serviam. And (just to reinforce the point) look at this stupid kneeler they put here for me. How pathetic.”

Remember, the biggest rush he gets is not in the power play itself, but in the getting away with it.

Are you aiding and abetting him? Do you follow this man?

 

 

Gold from the combox: That feeling when someone else does the heavy lifting and gift wraps it for you

I really hate being pinched for time when a story is out there burning a hole through the internet, especially when you know there is information readily available that will be new news, but you just don’t have time to do the research and find the citations. Having found full time employment a few weeks ago after a three month unplanned vacation, I am grateful but… busy. So I always appreciate it when someone else does the dirty work for me.

Say hello to “Smith,” an anonymous reader who helpfully helped drop the following into my combox. The question at hand, as you’ll remember, is the potentiality of splitting the papacy into a “synodal body” with two or more members. This was the topic of great debate, for ecumenical reasons, among the German theological elite in the late 60s – early 70s, Ratzinger among them. There will be several more posts about this, and let me tell you up front, the ones who backed the idea of a synodal papacy were actually the moderates or even conservatives of this group. The real radicals of the time were arguing that the structure of the papacy could not only change, but that the papacy itself could be ABOLISHED. Oh, have you bought the Archbishop Miller book yet? Not even the $9 eBook version? The paperback is now on back order at Amazon (but you can still put in your order) because for some reason there was a run on the existing inventory HERE.

I have seen in the past month a flurry of comments on several sites pondering the Two Popes question, as in, “Well, maybe there really are two popes. I mean, that’s what it looks like, right? And the pope is above the law so he can do whatever he wants, right? And Ganswein said Benedict “resigned” in such a way that had never been done before, only taking a step to the side, such that the papacy is no longer the same… expended petrine ministry yadda yadda. So maybe that is really what Benedict did.”

Well, he didn’t, because he doesn’t have the power to change the essential nature of a divinely instituted office. He did and does have the power to resign, but that’s not what he chose to do.

And so let’s examine why the bifurcation was impossible and did not happen. Without further comment, I give you “Smith:”

__________________________________________

Here is some authoritative confirmation of the Non-Bifurcatable papacy.

Vatican I, Sess. IV, Ch. I (Denzinger 1822)

St. Pius X, Lamentabili (Denzinger 2053)

St. Pius X, Pascendi (Denzinger 2091)

St. Pius X, Apostolic Letter “Ex Quo” (Denzinger 2147a)

There are numerous other quotes that would help to show that the Church was indisputably founded *by Jesus Christ Himself* as a monarchy. These quotes use the word ‘monarch’ in reference to the pope. The very word ‘monarch’ means ‘lone ruler’, for its Greek antecedents are ‘monos’ (alone) and ‘archein’ (to rule). I restrict myself to these four quotes only, simply because they make clearer reference to the fact.

Dz 1822:

“So we teach and declare that, according to the testimonies of the Gospel, the primacy of *jurisdiction* [nothing about prayer here, folks] over the entire Church of God was promised and was conferred immediately and directly upon the blessed Apostle Peter by *Christ the Lord*. For the *one* Simon [Unum enim Simonem], to whom he had before said: “Thou shalt be called Cephas, after he had given forth his confession with the words: “Thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God, the Lord spoke with these solemn words: “Blessed art thou [etc.]”… And upon the one Simon Peter [uni Simoni Petro], Jesus after His resurrection conferred the *jurisdiction* [nothing about prayer here, folks] of the highest pastor [= shepherd/guide] and rector [= ruler] over His entire fold… To this teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, *so manifest as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church*, *are opposed openly the vicious opinions of those who perversely DENY THAT THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT IN HIS CHURCH WAS ESTABLISHED BY CHRIST THE LORD; that to Peter *alone* [solum Petrum], before the other apostles, *whether individually or all together*, was confided the true and proper primacy *of jurisdiction* [nothing about prayer here, folks] by Christ; or of those who affirm that the same primacy was not immediately and directly bestowed upon the blessed Peter himself, *but upon the Church*, and through this Church upon him as the *minister* of the Church Herself.”

Important: The word ‘one’ in the above passage is to be understood in the sense of the official Latin (as always), which uses the *cardinal* number ´unus,a,um’. That number ‘one’ does not mean ‘first’. Nor does it mean ‘one’ as in ‘someone’; it means the numerically one, single (person) Simon. I’ve taught Latin for over 15 years, but you should not trust me on this. It will be a matter of minutes to look it up in a basic Latin grammar. You don’t even need to know any Latin to verify this.

The word ‘alone’ in “to Peter alone”, is in the Latin the adjective ‘solus,a,um’. The words ‘alone’ and ‘solus’ are exact synonyms.

Otherwise, the English translation given above of Dz1822 is quite literal, and speaks for itself. Anyone who does not see that Vatican I here condemns the idea of a bifurcated papacy is wilfully blind, or incapable of understanding plain language, or, worse yet…a Modernist whose intellect, even if perfectly functional, is corrupted by false philosophy…like…mmm…Ratzinger’s intellect is corrupted.

Next up:

Dz 2053 (Syllabus of Errors, or Lamentabili, of St. Pius X):

*Condemned* proposition: “The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable, but Christian society, just as human society, is subject to perpetual evolution.”

Then:

Dz 2091 (Pascendi, St. Pius X): It is a little long to quote, but in sum it condemns as a Modernist error that authority emanates from the Church itself, as a *collectivity* of consciences. It affirms that the authoritative structure of the Church is autocratic, and was given as such by an external mandate of God.

And:

Dz 2147a: “…[It is] an error, long since condemned by Our predecessor, Innocent X…[cf. Dz 1091 — quite interesting], in which it is argued that St. Paul is held as a brother entirely equal to St. Peter…[also an error] that the Catholic Church was not in the earliest days a sovereignty of *one person*, that is, a monarchy…”

Now it occurs to me that all the above is a sort of dialogue with a lunatic.

Up until the supposed bifurcation of BXVI, the *very idea* that anyone should *need* to prove to the public at large that the papacy is

1) A *jurisdictional*, non-sacramental, revocable office, with NO “spiritual essence”; no integral component, or munus, of “prayer and suffering”.

2) A monarchy; an office that only one man can hold.

3) That this one man holds the entirety of the office, and cannot share any part of it with anyone.

…the very idea, I say, of a *need* to prove to the public at large that the papacy is such as the Church has always understood it…would have been considered bat**** crazy.

But here we all are, engaging in an exercise that actually dignifies this insanity with serious consideration — all because of the colossally arrogant posturing of kooks like Rahner, Ratzinger, Neumann (and don’t forget Walter Kasper!) and all the other Mad Modernist Muckrakers, who think they know better than the Church’s +two thousand years of experience, better than all previous popes, better even than Jesus Christ.

May God do with them as He sees fit…but do it quickly.

“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. These details will be emerging from the uncovered German and Italian texts WITHIN HOURS. Trust me.

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 were 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 over come stumbling blocks, let’s say.

Said another way, these men were proposing the God of Surprises. There is always the possibility 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 messing with the doctrine of immutability, and they knew it. So they had a plan for that too.

Sorry folks, I just started a new job and I am super short on time. Click on the link, go read what Ann had to say, buy the Miller book and do your own research.

We just sprinted past the tipping point. Toothpaste is out of the tube, and it ain’t going back in.

 

Adeste Fideles, Venite Adoremus!

Adeste Fideles, Venite Adoremus!

Yea, Lord, we greet Thee, born this happy morning,
Jesu, to Thee be glory given.
Word of the Father, now in flesh appearing;

See how the shepherds, summoned to His cradle,
leaving their flocks, draw nigh to gaze.
We too will thither bend our hearts’ oblations;

There shall we see Him, His eternal Father’s
everlasting brightness now veiled under flesh.
God shall we find there, a Babe in infant clothing;

Child, for us sinners, poor and in the manger,
we would embrace Thee, with love and awe.
Who would not love Thee, loving us so dearly?

Merry Christmas, everyone!

What if Rahner and Küng were the *so called* Voice of Reason in the 1960s Church, and there was a much more radical voice?

What if that much more radical voice were Johannes Neumann?

What if Neumann were very closely tied with Joseph Ratzinger in Munich in 1967-69?

What ideas did these men share, and how might it impact the Church? Did it have anything to do with the structure of the Petrine Ministry, and if its Ontological Nature could change?

Go ahead and do some research, folks. Things are about to become a lot more clear.

SMOKING GUN: The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, starring Karl Rahner and Joseph Ratzinger

Pasting this straight from Barnhardt.biz, in two posts. Make sure you scroll well past the photos at the bottom of the first post and go on to the full German translation in the second post.

Hold on tight, folks.

——————————————————–

The Words “Ministry” and “Office” Are Not Synonyms in Any Language, Including Karl Rahner’s German

Pope Benedict’s partial attempted renunciation speech of 11 February, ARSH 2013:

I am well aware that this office [munus], according to its spiritual essence, ought to be exercised not only by acting and speaking, but no less than by suffering and praying.  Moreover, in the world of our time, subjected to rapid changes and perturbed by questions of great weight for the life of faith, there is more necessary to steer the Barque of Saint Peter and to announce the Gospel a certain vigor, which in recent months has lessened in me in such a manner, that I should acknowledge my incapacity to administer well the ministry [ministerium] committed to me.  On which account, well aware of the weightiness of this act, I declare in full liberty, that I renounce the ministry [ministerio] of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, committed to me through the hands of the Cardinals on April 19, 2005, so that on February 28, 2013, at 20:00 Roman Time [Sedes Romae], the see of Saint Peter be vacant, and that a Conclave to elect a new Supreme Pontiff be convoked by those whose duty it is [ab quibus competit].

An OFFICE and its MINISTRY or ADMINISTRATION are two different things.  Let’s take a couple of examples to understand why these words are NOT synonyms, and have never been considered such.

For the first example, let’s look at the American OFFICE of the Presidency.  When President Reagan was shot and taken into surgery wherein he lost over half his blood volume, he did not lose the OFFICE of the Presidency.  Even in an induced coma he was still 100% the sole occupant of the OFFICE of the Presidency.  What did happen is that the ADMINISTRATIVE authority passed to Vice President Bush (Alexander Haig’s claims to administrative authority notwithstanding) who immediately returned to Washington D.C., and ADMINISTRATIVE authority remained with Bush until Reagan regained consciousness.  In this period, Vice President Bush did NOT become the President, he was merely the person with Administrative authority, and was still “Mr. Vice President”.  Because, of course, there can never be two Presidents of the United States (Hillary Clinton’s claim to being co-President during Bill Clinton’s administration notwithstanding.)

Note that adMINISTRATION and MINISTRY have the same root, the Latin MINISTERIUM.

President Reagan, while temporarily unable to exercise the ADMINISTRATION of the OFFICE of the Presidency, did NOT lose his OFFICE, nor was his OFFICE conferred upon anyone else.  ADMINISTRATIVE authority temporarily passed to Vice President Bush, who remained Vice President even while holding temporary ADMINISTRATIVE authority.  Vice President Bush became neither President nor co-President in ARSH 1981.

The second example is the assasination attempt of Pope John Paul II a few weeks later in ARSH 1981.

Like Reagan a few weeks earlier, Pope JPII was rushed into surgery wherein he lost most of his blood volume after being shot, and went into cardiac arrest on the operating table wherein he had to be resuscitated.  While Pope JPII was incapacitated by anesthesia/induced coma, he was incapable of carrying out the Papal MINISTRY because… he was in a coma.  But he did not lose the OFFICE of the Papacy.  The OFFICE remained with him and him alone, and would have remained with him no matter how long he was comatose.

If you think about it, you will realize that many DOZENS of Popes have been rendered unable to perform the Petrine MINISTRY for various lengths of time – usually at the end of their lives – but retained the OFFICE until they died.  As we all know, some people get old and their death is near-instant, that is they “drop dead”.  Pope John Paul I died this way.  He dropped dead.  But, many times, the end stage of life is not sudden.  Many people “go downhill” and are bedridden and unconscious for a period of time before they expire.  Cancer, organ failure, neurodegenerative diseases, even surviving an incapacitating stroke.  Do we honestly believe that this has NOT happened to previous Popes?  Of course it has happened.  Many, many times.  The Vatican simply did not publicly announce these things up until just a few decades ago.  Popes were rarely seen, and even more rarely heard.  The era of the “highly visible Pope” began, more or less, with Pope Pius XII, and was taken into overdrive by Pope JPII himself. When a Pope would near death or merely fall gravely ill, the day-to-day running of the Vatican continued apace even though the Pope was no longer able to administer the Petrine MINISTRY. The OFFICE remained his until he died.  If he recovered such that he was able to resume the Petrine MINISTRY, he would do so as the sole holder of the Petrine OFFICE.

Let it also be noted that a Pope could also lose his ability to exercise the Petrine MINISTRY by virtue of being imprisoned – but an imprisoned Pope would still retain 100% the OFFICE of the Papacy.  An imprisoned Pope would remain Pope until he died.  If he were to be liberated from imprisonment, he would then resume the Petrine MINISTRY as the holder of the Petrine OFFICE.

So, we can clearly see and easily understand that these two terms are DIFFERENT THINGS, and are NOT SYNONYMOUS.

The notion that Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger is “too stupid” to be aware of this difference is laughable.  If an American convert gal with a degree in Animal Husbandry (but definitely NOT Latin) can see and understand this, then it goes without saying that Joseph Ratzinger does too.  To argue otherwise would be to argue that Ann Barnhardt is more intelligent than Jospeh Ratzinger.  And do we REALLY want to do that?  I mean, if you really, really want to, go ahead, but I would strongly advise against it.

But wait, there’s more….

We KNOW that Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger had heard of the false hypothesis of bifurcation of the Papacy into a collegial, synodal office precisely by having a sitting Pope renounce the MINISTRY but not the OFFICE, thus resulting in an “active” and a “contemplative” Pope simultaneously.

How do we know this?  Because Pope Benedict’s good friend and mentor, to whom he looked up tremendously, KARL RAHNER, proffered EXACTLY this false notion in ARSH 1974 in his work “Vorfragen zu einem okumenischen Amtsverstandnis”.  In the opening pages of this work, Rahner advocated the dissolution of the Petrine OFFICE such that multiple people could simultaneously exercise the Petrine MINISTRY.

Karl Rahner was greatly admired by Ratzinger, and they were close friends.  Rahner died a liberal, but Ratzinger drifted back toward orthodoxy as he grew older and saw the damage done by the very heterodoxy that he, Rahner and all of the other “Nouvelle Theolgie” (New Theology) proponents of the 20th Century inflicted upon the Church, with its zenith at Vatican II.

Pullquote from the Wiki page on the Nouvelle Theologie, with hyperlinks intact:

“The theologians usually associated with Nouvelle Théologie are Henri de LubacPierre Teilhard de ChardinHans Urs von BalthasarYves CongarKarl RahnerHans KüngEdward SchillebeeckxMarie-Dominique ChenuLouis BouyerJean DaniélouJean MourouxHenri Bouillard, and Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI)

Here is what I need, and perhaps my German readers can help with this.  I need the exact passage from Rahner’s “Vorfragen zu einem okumenischen Amtsverstandnis” and its English translation.  While I can see the book available online, even if I bought it, I couldn’t read it and find the passage because I speak ZERO German.  The German language is just squiggles on a page to me. I can see numerous references to it by others, but I can’t find the text itself.

But remember folks, there is NO EVIDENCE of Substantial Error or that Pope Benedict XVI intended to “fundamentally transform the Papacy into a collegial, synodal office” along the lines of OFFICE vs MINISTRY, and to even discuss such a thing is “grasping at straws” due to an inability to accept that Vatican I “might have been wrong”, and that Our Lord’s promise to Peter was a “pretty useless guarantee”. And also, SHUT UP. YOU’RE INSANE. </sarcasm>

As always, I hope this helps.

Here are some pictures of Rahner and Ratzinger together over the years, including at Vatican II:

    

————————————————
Second post:

And the Germans Come Through IN SPADES….

Here’s the Smoking Gun, folks….

First read the post immediately below.

Now, from the German readership:

———————

Dear Ann,
peace of Christ be with you. The complete work is not online but is discussed with citations at
http://www.orientierung.ch/pdf/1974/JG%2038_HEFT%2019_DATUM%2019741015.PDF

Scroll down a little over quarter the way down, on the right there is a heading “Gewaltenteilung?”   This is the section I am posting below with the English Translation. The sections between RAHNER and /RAHNER are his own words.

——-

Gewaltenteilung?

Noch weiter geht Karl Rahner in seinem kürzlich erschienen Buch “Vorfragen zu einen ökumenischen Amtsverständnis”. Er veranschaulicht am Beispiel der Papstwahl, dass es einen Träger einer für die Kirche äußerst wichtigen Entscheidung geben müsse, der nicht der Papst sein kann und seine Vollmacht auch nicht vom Papst herleitet, weil es zu dieser Zeit ja keinen Papst gibt. Könnte ein solcher Träger nicht auch zu Lebzeiten des Papstes in Aktion treten? Rahner denkt an ein institutionalisiertes Gremium, das eine “brüderliche” Mahnung zur Amtsführung des Papstes aussprechen kann:

RAHNER: “Ist sicher jedvede Art von “Gewaltenteilung” auf höchster Ebene in der Kirche der Lehre des I. Vatikanum eindeutig zuwider? Könnte eine solche Gewaltenteilung nicht genausogut iure humano in der Kirche denkbar sein, wie der Papst durch Konkordate eine ihm an sich zustehende Bischofsernennung mit einem weltlichen Machtträger teilt?”   (/RAHNER  Quaestiones Disputatae 65, Freiburg i.Br. 1974 ´, page 26 f)

Die Kirche als Ganze ist nach Rahner der eigentliche und ursprüngliche Träger aller Gewalten, die in den jeweiligen Einzelträgern gegeben sind. Daraus zieht er eine zweite, noch erstaunlichere Konsequenz: Man könnte fragen, ob die Kirche

RAHNER:  “wesensnotwendig als einen solchen Träger ihrer Vollmacht immer nur einen einzeln bestellen kann oder unter Umständen auch eine kleine Gruppe ( “synodal”) zu einem solchen Träger machen könnte, die natürlich jene Vollmacht tragen würde, die das I. Vatikanum der einzelnen Person des Papstes zuerkennt.”  /RAHNER Quaestiones Disputatae 65, Freiburg i.Br. 1974 ´, page 29

Muss die “monarchische” Form des Bischofsamtes und Papsttums, die sich ja offenbar im zweiten Jahrhundert erst herausbildete, die einzig mögliche bleiben?

English Translation:

Separation of powers?
Karl Rahner goes even further in his recent book “Preliminary Questions on an Ecumenical Understanding”. He uses the example of the papal election to illustrate that there must be a holder of a decision that is extremely important for the Church, who can not be the Pope and who does not derive his authority from the Pope, because at that time there is no Pope. Could not such a bearer come into action during the Pope’s lifetime? Rahner thinks of an institutionalized body that can issue a “fraternal” warning to the Pope’s administration:

(RAHNER) “Is it certain that any kind of separation of powers at the highest level of the Church was opposed by Vatican I? Could not such a separation of powers be conceivable iure humano in the Church, just as the pope, by means of concordats, shares episcopal appointments, which he alone is entitled to, with a world power?”

(/RAHNER page 26 f)

According to Rahner, the church as a whole is the real and original bearer of all powers that are given to the respective individual bearers. From this he draws a second, even more astounding consequence: One might ask if the Church

(RAHNER) “essentially as such a bearer of its supreme authority can only ever commission one individual at a time or, under certain circumstances, make a small group (” synodal “) such a bearer, who would of course carry the authority which Vatican I confers only upon the individual person of the Pope.” (/RAHNER , page 29)

Must the “monarchical” form of episcopacy and papacy, which evidently evolved in the second century, remain the only possible one?

(END OF TRANSLATION)

————————-

Now here’s a beauty for you Ann. Rahner was not even the first to come up with this crackpot idea. One Johannes Neumann came up with the idea in 1968. Neumann was a canon lawyer at the University of Tübingen

Now, who was appointed Chair of Dogmatic Theology at Tübingen in 1966? You only get one guess ;+)

(Joseph Ratzinger!!!)

Here is what the above article says of Neumann’s ideas (same page, 204) First the German, then the English.

In die gleiche Richtung gehen die Vorstöße des Tübinger Kirchenrechtlers Johannes Neumann, die synodalen Traditionen der Kirche wieder neu zur Geltung zu bringen. Seine Vorschläge zur Neuordnung des Petrusamtes : 

1. Ein Bischofsrat, der mit dem Papst zusammen die eigentliche primatiale Führungsspitze der Kirche bildet;

2. Die Frage, ob das Petrusamt nur durch eine Person verwaltet sein darf;

3. Neuordnung der Papstwahl: das Wahlgremium müßte die Gesamtkirche in echter Weise repräsentieren. (

English Translation:

In the same direction are the efforts of the Tubingen church lawyer Johannes Neumann to bring new validity the synodal traditions of the church . His proposals for the reorganization of the Petrine Office:
1. A council of bishops, together with the pope, forming the actual primatial leadership of the church;
2. The question of whether the office of Peter may only be administered by one person;
3. Reorganization of the papal election: the electoral body would have to represent the universal Church in a genuine way. (Johannes Neumann, A Constitution for Freedom, Word and Truth 23 (1968) pp. 387-400.)

———-

Anyway, that’s all I’ve got. Enjoy!

God be with you always,

S

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

It’s said that everyone has their breaking point. Anyone who continues on the “Pope Francis” train past this station should be prepared to start questioning their own sanity. How many times do you need to see the law of non-contradiction *seemingly* broken, before you start to scratch your head and think, “Wait, that can’t happen”?

You know how someone should have told Luther that you can’t just rip out the parts of the bible you don’t like, and you can’t change the verses to better suit your liking? Well, someone should have told the Argentinian the same thing about the Catechism of the Catholic Church, because not only did he change it, but now he has driven a stake through it.

Conveniently, Diane Montagna has put together a powerhouse follow-up to her initial reportage yesterday of the Bergoglian Faux Mercy Machine on the Death Penalty HERE.  Thank God for the work she is doing at LifeSite, since the general media blackout otherwise continues unabated. Her piece is a must read.

She first captures commentary by Edward Feser, and then she brings in an anonymous theologian: Dominican vs Argentinian in a steel cage death match. It’s a rather lopsided battle.  Next up is a Catholic historian, Dr. Alan Fimister, who ends the scene by quoting the great Elizabeth Anscombe. Turns out Anscombe vs Argentinian is pretty decisive as well.

God is immutable. The Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, is immutable. It’s not that difficult a concept. When true popes teach, they document their orthodoxy by generously footnoting key points with references to Scripture, Fathers, Doctors, and past popes. A true pope goes out of his way to point out, “Hey, this isn’t new.” Go to vatican.va and pull up any document from any past pope. You will quickly see, this is how it’s done.

What can one say about a “Bishop of Rome” who claims the One True Faith was wrong – long on justice and short on mercy, with an immature conscience – from 33 A.D. to 2013 A.D. How could he contradict scripture, Tradition, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and all of his “predecessors’? How can he deliberately misquote Aquinas (as he did in Amoris Laetitia as well) in trying to get support for his utterly novel teaching (which a scholar of ten years old can discover in ten seconds that Aquinas teaches exactly the opposite, and he does it in Articles 2-3 of the very same Question 64 that the Argentinian cites HERE.)

Imagine how profoundly UNPROTECTED one must be from the supernatural graces our Lord and Savior promised to Peter and his successors, to wake up one morning and decide to take on Saint Thomas Aquinas and invert his teachings. Imagine then GETTING AWAY WITH IT, cue the accompanying endorphin rush, BECAUSE SILENCE.

Oh yes, BTW he is still Argentinian, you know. Renewed his Argentinian passport, even though he’s the purported Head of State of a different sovereign entity. It’s almost like a sign, or something. He also doesn’t live where popes live. He also doesn’t wear what popes wear. He also doesn’t give the apostolic blessing like popes do. He also likes to be called bishop, not pope. Nothing to see here.