Apologies and invitations issued to unrepentant adulterers to be in union with the “Roman Pontiff”

Do you see the problem with that headline? If Catholicism is true, then that headline is impossible.

Bishop apologizes to unrepentant adulterers, invites them back to the sacraments

ROME, November 25, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — In a remarkable pastoral letter, issued by Bishop Renato Marangoni of the northern Italian diocese of Belluno-Feltre, those who have separated from their legitimate spouses and attempted marriage in a civil forum have received an apology for the Church’s prior fidelity to her unbroken apostolic discipline, which had hitherto prevented them from receiving absolution and the Eucharist.

The bishop also invites them to attend a “friendly and familiar meeting,” where they will reflect on the words of Pope Francis in his 2016 post-synodal apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia. Chapter 8 of the document, titled “Accompanying, discerning and integrating weakness,” ignited a doctrinal dispute over fundamentals of the Catholic faith on marriage, the sacraments, and the moral life.

Addressing divorced Catholics who have begun “new experiences of union” through civil remarriage or without attempting marriage to their new partners, Bishop Marangoni opens his letter saying: “There is a first word I wish to confide to you: Sorry! This word contains our awareness that we have often ignored you in our parish communities.”

Read the rest at the link above, including Diane Montagna’s full translation of the bishop’s letter.

Are you starting to understand that there will be no end to the heresy, for centuries, even if Bergoglio dies tomorrow? All of his lies will be used against us, against the Church, against Christ, UNTIL THE END OF THE WORLD, if he is indeed true pope. Do you understand this? The enemies of truth have been supplied with an arsenal of error with magisterial backing. If Jorge Bergoglio is true pope, none of this can be walked back. Active adulterous cohabitating couples, who have abandoned their true spouses, are now issued an APOLOGY and welcomed, unrepentant, on the road to Hell disguised as union with the Roman Pontiff. Unity with the pope as a vector of damnation.

Tell me again how, at this point, what difference does it make? Tell me again how “we just need to wait for him to die. Hush hush, sweet child, don’t worry your pretty little head. Place your bets on “Francis,” dear brethren. He’s universally accepted! A bet on “Francis” is a bet for Christ, you know.” <not sarcasm… trad priests are preaching this line>

Everyone out there telling you we’ve had plenty of evil popes before, who all were heretics, no big deal… please note that these people need to openly attack the papacy in order to defend the papacy. Do you see how that doesn’t work? Ask them this: Can you point out a single time in 2000 years that a true pope officially taught, as part of the ordinary magisterium, that objective mortal sin can actually be a moral good, willed by God Himself, and that the faithful who find themselves in such a situation should remain there, unrepentant?

Oh, and the next logical step on this path of Amoris Apologies is for the bishop to tell all the abandoned spouses in his diocese to stop honoring their vows and go get laid, already.

Just sayin’.

“The goal of this most iniquitous plot is to drive people to overthrow the entire order of human affairs”

Screenshot 2019-11-26 at 09.02.54

For the Holy Father (sic), inequality is the “root of social ills,” though he fails to explain precisely why a society of unequal wealth but a relatively high standard of living would somehow be less reflective of Gospel values than a society that shares equally in poverty.

Going further still, Evangelii Gaudium calls for structural transformation that would “restore to the poor what belongs to them.”

If property is possessed not by its owners, then, truly, “property is theft,” to quote 19th-century French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s famous phrase. HERE

Ah yes, let us create an earthly utopia, with no private property, all goods in commune, no inequality. Why hasn’t anyone thought of this before?

Socialism and Communism, raison d’être of Antipope Bergoglio, were condemned by true popes for centuries.

The graphic below is meant to be a tri-fold pamphlet in hardcopy form, with the second page printed on the reverse of the first, and then folded on the axes of the two vertical thirds. So the front of the pamphlet is the right-hand third of the first page. It may be too low resolution to read here, especially on your phone, but you can print the PDF and order actual pamphlets HERE.

This is my favorite quote:

The goal of this most iniquitous plot is to drive people to overthrow the entire order of human affairs and to draw them over to the wicked theories of this Socialism and Communism, by confusing them with perverted teachings…

Pope Pius IX, Nostis et Nobiscum, 8 December 1849 

Screenshot 2019-11-25 at 16.01.33

Screenshot 2019-11-25 at 16.02.09

There came to him a woman having an alabaster box of precious ointment, and poured it on his head as he was at table. And the disciples seeing it, had indignation, saying: To what purpose is this waste? For this might have been sold for much, and given to the poor. And Jesus knowing it, said to them: Why do you trouble this woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. For the poor you have always with you: but me you have not always.  Matt 26:7-11

And when he was in Bethania, in the house of Simon the leper, and was at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of precious spikenard: and breaking the alabaster box, she poured it out upon his head. Now there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said: Why was this waste of the ointment made? For this ointment might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and given to the poor. And they murmured against her. But Jesus said: Let her alone, why do you molest her? She hath wrought a good work upon me. For the poor you have always with you: and whensoever you will, you may do them good: but me you have not always. Mark 14:3-7

“Another animal came up from the earth. It had two horns (aka bishop’s miter) like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon”

Forgive the algorithmic translation from German, but it’s all I’ve got. This is from the group of priests calling themselves Communio Veritatis, issued 23 Nov 2019:

The Scriptures speak clearly of the appearance of the adversary and his entrance into the temple, of the great apostasy, the deceptive signs and the seduction (2 Thess 2: 2-3-12). The Catechism states: “Before the coming of Christ, the Church must undergo a final trial that will shake the faith of many. The persecution that accompanies their pilgrimage on earth will reveal the ‘mystery of wickedness’: A religious delusions of delusion will give people a sham solution to their problems at the price of their apostasy from the truth “(CCC 675).

The coming of the Antichrist is prepared by his forerunner the False Prophet (see Rev 19:20). The apocalypse states: “Another animal came up from the earth. It had two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon”(Rev 13:11). This is a reference to the hierarchy of the church in which the miter – with two horns – indicates the fullness of the priesthood. The beast that rises from the earth looks like a servant of Christ the Lamb, but is a stooge of Satan, the dragon. The False Prophet is the pseudo-religious leader of the antichurch. Through grave heresies and abominable sacrilege he drives the great apostasy from the top forth. He deceives and deceives the inhabitants of the earth (compare Rev. 13:14) and wants to lead people to the worship of the Antichrist (compare Rev. 13:12).

this agenda is related to the coming of the Antichrist, who seeks to destroy true religion in order to put himself on the throne. “He will build a counter-church, which apes the church; because the devil is the ape of God. It will have all the characteristics and customs of the Church, but it will be emptied with the opposite sign of its divine content. There will be a mystical body of the Antichrist, who in all outward appearances will be like the Mystical Body of Christ.”

Read the rest HERE. The post is actually titled, “The Abyss of the Antichurch,” but google translate isn’t quite up to the task.

“The Antichrist will succeed in influencing and persuading almost everyone.”

Address of Cardinal Biffi on the occasion of the centenary of the death of Vladimir Soloviev, 13 August 2000: HERE

Vladimir Sergeievich Soloviev: an unheeded prophet
H.E. Giacomo Cardinal Biffi, Archbishop of Bologna

Vladimir Sergeievich Soloviev passed away 100 years ago, on July 31 (August 13 according to our Gregorian calendar) of the year 1900. He passed away on the threshold of the 20th century — a century whose vicissitudes and troubles he had foreseen with striking clarity, but also a century, which, tragically, in its historical course and dominant ideologies, would reject his most profound and important teachings. His, therefore, was a teaching at once prophetic and largely unheeded.

A Prophetic Teaching

At the time of the great Russian philosopher, the general view — in keeping with the limitless optimism of the “belle epoque“‘ — foresaw a bright future for humanity in the new century: under the direction and inspiration of the new religion of progress and solidarity stripped of transcendent elements, humanity would enjoy an era of prosperity, peace, justice, security. In the “Excelsior” — a form of dance, which enjoyed an extraordinary success in the last years of the 19th century (and which later lent its name to countless theaters and hotels) — this new religion found its own liturgy, as it were. Victor Hugo proclaimed: “This century was great, the one coming will be happy.”

But Soloviev refused to allow himself to be swept up in this de-sacralized vision. On the contrary, he predicted with prophetic clarity all of the disasters which in fact occurred.

As early as 1882, in his “Second Discourse on Dostoevsky,” Soloviev foresaw — and condemned — the sterility and cruelty of the collectivist tyranny which a few years later would oppress Russia and mankind. “The world must not be saved by recourse to force.” Soloviev said. “One could imagine men toiling together toward some great end to which they would submit all of their own individual activity; but if this end is imposed on them, if it represents for them something fated and oppressive… then, even if this unity were to embrace all of mankind, universal brotherhood would not be the result, but only a giant anthill.” This “anthill” was later constructed through the obtuse and cruel ideology of Lenin and Stalin.

In his final work, The Three Dialogues and the Story of the Antichrist (finished on Easter Sunday 1900), one is struck by how clearly Soloviev foresaw that the 20th century would be “the epoch of great wars, civil strife and revolutions” All this, he said, would prepare the way for the disappearance of “the old structure of separate nations” and “almost everywhere the remains of the ancient monarchical institutions would disappear.” This would pave the way for a “United States of Europe.”

The accuracy of Soloviev’s vision of the great crisis that would strike Christianity at the end of the 20th century is astonishing.

He represents this crisis using the figure of the Antichrist. This fascinating personage will succeed in influencing and persuading almost everyone. It is not difficult to see in this figure of Soloviev the reflection, almost the incarnation, of the confused and ambiguous religiosity of our time.

The Antichrist will be a “convinced spiritualist” Soloviev says, an admirable philanthropist, a committed, active pacifist, a practicing vegetarian, a determined defender of animal rights.

He will also be, among other things, an expert exegete. His knowledge of the bible will even lead the theology faculty of Tubingen to award him an honorary doctorate. Above all, he will be a superb ecumenist, able to engage in dialogue “with words full of sweetness, wisdom and eloquence.”

He will not be hostile “in principle” to Christ. Indeed, he will appreciate Christ’s teaching. But he will reject the teaching that Christ is unique, and will deny that Christ is risen and alive today.

One sees here described — and condemned — a Christianity of “values,” of “openings,” of “dialogue,” a Christianity where it seems there is little room left for the person of the Son of God crucified for us and risen, little room for the actual event of salvation.

A scenario, I think, that should cause us to reflect…

A scenario in which the faith militant is reduced to humanitarian and generically cultural action, the Gospel message is located in an irenic encounter with all philosophies and all religions and the Church of God is transformed into an organization for social work.

Are we sure Soloviev did not foresee what has actually come to pass? Are we sure it is not precisely this that is the most perilous threat today facing the “holy nation” redeemed by the blood of Christ — the Church?

It is a disturbing question and one we must not avoid.

A Teaching Unheeded

Soloviev understood the 20th century like no one else, but the 20th century did not understand Soloviev.

It isn’t that he has not been not recognized and honored. He is often called the greatest Russian philosopher, and few contest this appellation.

Von Balthasar regarded his work “the most universal speculative creation of the modern period” (Gloria III, p. 263) and even goes so far as to set him on the level of Thomas Aquinas.

But there is no doubt that the 20th century, as a whole, gave him no heed. Indeed, the 20th century, at every turn, has gone in the direction opposed to the one he indicated.

The mental attitudes prevalent today, even among many ecclesially active and knowledgeable Christians, are very far indeed from Soloviev’s vision of reality.

Among many, here are a few examples:

  • Egoistic individualism, which is ever more profoundly leaving its mark on our behaviors and laws;
  • Moral subjectivism, which leads people to hold that it is licit and even praiseworthy to assume positions in the legislative and political spheres different from the behavioral norms one personally adheres to;
  • Pacifism and non-violence of the Tolstoyan type confused with the Gospel ideals of peace and fraternity to the point of surrendering to tyranny and abandoning the weak and the good to the powerful;
  • A theological view which, out of fear of being labeled reactionary, forgets the unity of God’s plan, renounces spreading divine truth in all spheres, and abdicates the attempt to live out a coherent Christian life.

In one special way, the 20th century, in its movements and in its social, political and cultural results, strikingly rejected Soloviev’s great moral construction. Soloviev held that fundamental ethical principles were rooted in three primordial experiences, naturally present in all men: that is to say, modesty, piety toward others and the religious sentiment.

Yet the 20th century, following an egoistic and unwise sexual revolution, reached levels of permissivism, openly displayed vulgarity and public shamelessness, which seem to have few parallels in history.

Moreover, the 20th century was the most oppressive and bloody of all history, a century without respect for human life and without mercy.

We cannot, certainly, forget the horror of the extermination of the Jews, which can never be execrated sufficiently. But it was not the only extermination. No one remembers the genocide of the Armenians during the First World War.

No one commemorates the tens of millions killed under the Soviet regime.

No one ventures to calculate the number of victims sacrificed uselessly in the various parts of the earth to the communist Utopia.

As for the religious sentiment during the 20th century, in the East for the first time state atheism was both proposed and imposed on a vast portion of humanity, while in the secularized West a hedonistic and libertarian atheism spread until it arrived at the grotesque idea of the “death of God.”

In conclusion: Soloviev was undoubtedly a prophet and a teacher, but a teacher who was, in a way, irrelevant. And this, paradoxically, is why he was great and why he is precious for our time.

A passionate defender of the human person and allergic to every philanthropy; a tireless apostle of peace and adversary of pacifism; a promoter of Christian unity and critic of every irenicism: a lover of nature and yet very far from today’s ecological infatuations — in a word, a friend of truth and an enemy of ideology.

Of leaders like him we have today great need.

“The throne of Peter has a demonic spawn squatting on it, orchestrating Hell’s circus”

Sometimes the combox is better than the blogger.

Below, you will find the excellent opining of “Aqua” and “Susan” on matters regarding:

  1. The impossibility of a divinely-instituted catch-22, whereby the Standard of Unity is also the Vector of Schism
  2. The moral obligation to not calumniate a true pope
  3. The grave error of those who would rather tear down the papacy than admit their base premise might be wrong
  4. The realization that a man who obviously does not enjoy any sort of supernatural protection from leading the faithful into heresy, idolatry, and apostasy cannot be true pope
  5. Otherwise, if he were a true pope, then the Petrine Promises have been broken, which means Christ is not divine, and Catholicism is a false religion.

Have a happy and holy weekend, everyone!

  1. Mundabor actually broaches no talk of antipope or invalidity either.

    I was shut down there long ago. Been back periodically and attempted *respectful* discussion – it is his blog after all; I do respect the privilege of those who do this work, but he’s got me on embargo there. Fine, but my opinion of Mundabor is thereby colored.

    My main problem with Mundabor, as with all the others is that if you insist Bergoglio is Holy Father, *then*, you cant really call him a horse’s ass or evil clown. If he is an evil clown and a horse’s ass, then you might consider your base premise, because those terms absolutely apply to an antipope inspired by the devil (it *has* to be one or the other), not to God’s chosen Vicar, Cornerstone of our Church. Correction yes – up to and including removal from Office. Insults and calumny of our rightful Pope, no.

    All of these so-called Trads who despise the “Holy Father” and all of his evil deeds are actually doing more harm to the Papacy than those who merely go along and are neutral. These “Trads” connect all that is good to all that is evil and say such a thing is possible. They normalize insults, the most despicable and vile insults to our Pope, successor of St. Peter. It is now a “thing” to pray for our “Pope’s” death. Hate of our “Pope” is normal, accepted among orthodox Catholics.

    That is where this type of thinking and false premise leads. Hate for our “Pope”. That is so wrong. And the walls are high among our “Unite The Clans Catholics” that prevent even discussing this fundamental base error and re-forming in unity around our true, rightful Pope.

     

  2. Aqua; your post at 10:16 is beyond insightful and spot-on. In a few words you’ve presented the ”francis’ is pope crowd’ their catch-22. There is NO way to square that very round diabolical circle. If ‘francis’ were indeed Peter, then pack it up gang…the whole Catholic thing is BS; it crumbles with no foundation, because the promises of Christ of divine negative protections for Peter…Christ’s foundation stone upon which the whole edifice will be built….would be shown to be smoke and mist. Peter canNOT worship false idols and call it kosher; Peter canNOT teach that the soul-not-saved is annihilated, and then call it (and his 1,000 other taught heresies) Magisterium, cause guess what?, if he’s really Peter, then what he claims is magisterial, is…he’s proclaimed it as official teaching; that’s one step down from ex-cathedra; Peter canNOT teach in an AL that people in an objective, manifest, continuing state of adultery are just hunkey-dorey to receive the Holy Eucharist if they’re totes OK with it in their own opinion (true conscience has nothing to do with anything anymore in the church of bergoglio…there’s no formation of conscience other than to eco-humanist-modernism).

    Peter can be a moral reprobate; Peter can commit mortal sins; but Peter canNOT be the arsonist burning down the Deposit of Faith. He canNOT. And those who follow bergoglio as pope are walking head-first into the flames of a false religion. This is really not a difficult thing to see and to accept….it just takes an act of the will to follow the Truth, no matter how painful it is. The monster’s been unmasked…multiple, multiple times, and yet the FiPers keep moving the red-line further and further down the flaming road; (“well, if he ever commits human-sacrifice on the altar, well THEN, we’ll have a problem!”)

    So the question ya gotta ask yourself, punk, (sorry…channeling a li’l Clint Eastwood there :), is “is Christ Who He said He was, or isn’t He?…did He leave a recognizable Church or didn’t He?”; and if He is, and if He did, then bergoglio’s carnage of spiritual ‘ultra violence’ shows him to be the demonic fraud that he is….he’s not teaching what the Apostles taught and handed down for 2,000 yrs….his edifice is not Apostolic (it’s humanist and free-masonic); it’s no longer One (he has divided as his father has since the beginning, introducing strange and ‘new’ doctrines, antithetical to the ‘old’ ones); it’s not Holy (sodomy for everyone!…check-in with my door man Coco); and it sure ain’t Catholic….in ANY sense of the word.

    The world is the flaming bag of horse-Schiff that it is today BECAUSE the Church is in such dire straights, and we have exactly ZERO shepherds willing to speak the clear, obvious Truth (except the good +Gracida; but even he gets the base premise wrong :(. The Vatican (and indeed St. Peter’s itself) has been turned into a ‘gay’ bathhouse, and the throne of Peter has a demonic spawn squatting on it, orchestrating hell’s circus. There is nothing…NOTHING….of more import in the entire world than getting this right, and (Please God!) fixing it. Say it loud, say it often, say it with confidence and evidence committed to memory…..bergoglio is NOT the pope.

Remember that time Pope Benedict invited Cardinal Biffi to preach about the Antichrist being an Ecologist?

YEP.

Pope’s Retreat Preacher Speaks on Antichrist as a “pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist”

VATICAN CITY, March 1, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Papal watchers are wondering what message Pope Benedict XVI was giving when he selected retired Bologna archbishop Cardinal Giacomo Biffi to preach the annual Lenten retreat to the Pope and the top members of the Vatican…

This year’s selection…created a stir since Cardinal Biffi, while he is known for orthodox faith and frank words, is most well known, at least in the secular media, for his preaching on the Antichrist.  In fact, the Times of London reported in 2004 that the Cardinal described the Antichrist as “walking among us”.

The Lenten retreat did not disappoint.  Cardinal Biffi picked up on his oft repeated theme of the Antichrist, basing his remarks on the works of Vladimir Soloviev, a Russian religious philosopher who has received praise from Pope Benedict prior to his elevation to the pontificate.

Quoting Soloviev, the Cardinal said “the Antichrist presents himself as pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist.”

“He will convoke an ecumenical council and will seek the consensus of all the Christian confessions, granting something to each one. The masses will follow him, with the exception of small groups of Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants,” he said according to a Zenit translation of a Vatican Radio summary here: http://www.radiovaticana.org/it1/Articolo.asp?c=120479 . (Feb. 20, 2017 – Translation is not longer available on Zenit and the only Zenit report on the 2007 retreat mentions only the first day’s talk and not the later one on the Antichrist)

In his “Tale of the Antichrist” Solovyov foresees that a small group of Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants will resist and will say to the Antichrist: “You give us everything, except what interests us, Jesus Christ”.   For Cardinal Biffi, this narrative is a warning: “Today, in fact, we run the risk of having a Christianity which puts aside Jesus with his cross and resurrection.”

The 78-year-old cardinal added that if Christians “limited themselves to speaking of shared values they would be more accepted on television programs and in social groups. But in this way, they will have renounced Jesus, the overwhelming reality of the resurrection.”

The cardinal said he believes that this is “the danger that Christians face in our days … the Son of God cannot be reduced to a series of good projects sanctioned by the prevailing worldly mentality.”

The preacher of the Spiritual Exercises added that “there are relative values, such as solidarity, love of peace and respect for nature. If these become absolute, uprooting or even opposing the proclamation of the event of salvation, then these values become an instigation to idolatry and obstacles on the way of salvation.”

Cardinal Biffi affirmed that “if Christianity—on opening itself to the world and dialoguing with all—dilutes the salvific event, it closes itself to a personal relationship with Jesus and places itself on the side of the Antichrist.”

Cardinal Biffi’s reflections, in fact, are very similar to remarks Pope Benedict made last Fall in a meeting with Swiss Bishops.  While Pope Benedict did not speak of the Antichrist, he spoke of a new false or “substitute” religion, calling it also a “successor” of religion.

“Modern society is not simply without morality, but it has, so to speak, ‘discovered’ and professes a part of morality”, the Pope told the Swiss bishops. “These are the great themes of peace, non-violence, justice for all, concern for the poor, and respect for creation.”

However, the Pope warned that these “great moral themes” have “become an ethical complex that, precisely as a political force, has great power and constitutes for many the substitute for religion, or its successor.”

“It is only if human life is respected from conception to death that the ethics of peace is also possible and credible,” concluded the Pope. “It is only then that non-violence can express itself in every direction; only then that we truly welcome creation, and only then that we can arrive at true justice.”

And then, twelve years later, this happened:

Pope Francis proposes adding ‘ecological sin’ against ‘common home’ to catechism

VATICAN CITY, November 15, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Pope Francis said today that he is thinking about adding the “‘ecological sin’ against our common home” to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

“We have to introduce―we are thinking about it―to the Catechism of the Catholic Church the sin against ecology, the ‘ecological sin’ against our common home, because a duty is at stake,” Pope Francis told his hearers. The Argentinian pontiff made the remark in a speech he gave today to the 20th World Congress of the International Association of Penal Law in Rome.

Don’t worry, Antipope Bergoglio is far too crude, far too stupid, and far too, um, *unattractive* to be the Antichrist. But he sure is paving the way, like a good Forerunner should.

Screenshot 2019-11-17 at 08.41.54

“Using canon law as a cudgel against theological opponents”

Earlier this year, an essay appeared at the “A Sign of Hope” blog by Charlie Johnston, which was in response to another post where he had printed some disparaging remarks about the “Benedict is Pope” crowd. After first questioning motives, he then makes a nonsensical conflation of ontology with politics. It got my attention.
Here is the passage, followed by my comment, followed by a new development.
Comment thread HERE.

Excerpt from Mr. Johnston: “Even those who advocate for it (Pope Benedict’s invalid resignation) would know very well that it was NOT mounted out of love for rigorous application of procedure, but as a fig leaf over a political coup against an inconvenient Pope. Once that precedent is established, you have politicized canon law as a tool to be used as a cudgel against theological opponents. Open that Pandora’s box and you have created all sorts of new opportunities for the evil one to make mischief and attack the Church.”

My comment: “Charlie, with respect, I guess that depends on whether you believe in objective reality. The evil one hates objective reality, being the Father of Lies and all that. We are called to seek reality by assenting to revealed truths and by acknowledging observable data through our rational intellect.

“Let’s set aside the entirety of canon law for a moment, and simply consider the observable facts. Benedict didn’t resign the Office, neither in the original Latin declaratio, nor in his spoken word as he delivered it in Latin (video easily searchable). Then he created a number of peculiar novelties specific to his “new role”, and even lied about some of them, e.g. “No other clothes were available.” He continues to be addressed as His Holiness and continues to do things that only popes do, like go by his papal name and impart his apostolic blessing. The situation is entirely unprecedented in the history of the Church. There is tremendous confusion, souls are at risk, and people are losing their faith over this (or rather, what has been born of this).

“Let’s go back to his not resigning the office, but only the active ministry. If that happened, which it did, or rather it’s what he tried to do, the effect would be that he resigned none of it (per Canon 332.2). Whether he intended to split the papacy, or he intended to retain the whole thing, the effect is the same. But we don’t even need to explore intent. He didn’t resign the office; that’s the ontological reality. Neither cardinals nor anyone else has the power/jurisdiction to “accept” a pope’s resignation (also per Canon 332.2). Their acceptance of it, or willingness to go along, has zero effect on ontological reality. And so, the conclave they convoked was invalid (per Canon 359).

“Reality is not determined by popular vote, otherwise Arianism would be a matter of dogmatic certainty.”


 

I wish only fraternal charity to Mr. Johnston, and I acknowledge the good work he does. But then I discovered that, after locking the combox, he changed the relevant passage of his original post to read as follows:

“The whole idea (Pope Benedict’s invalid resignation) is based on a minority interpretation of canon law. If there were an actual deficiency, it would need to be clear, compelling, and indisputable. Otherwise, it would rightfully be seen as the fig leaf covering over a coup against an inconvenient Pope. Set that precedent and you will never see the end of rival factions seeking advantage in legalisms rather than the large truths of the faith. It would reduce the College of Bishops to roving bands of rival warlords. Frankly, I think it a satanic seduction to a “fix” of current controversies that would permanently enfeeble and introduce disorder into the hierarchy.” HERE

“Introduce disorder into the hierarchy…” <raises hand> YES, Charlie, it was 100% Miss Barnhardt who introduced disorder into the hierarchy on 19 June 2016. Hierarchy solid as a rock before that.

Dear readers, compare the edited passage with the original at the top of this page. I’m sorry, but if you edit something in order to change the entire meaning, even on a blog, you need to call it out as an update and point out the edited portion.

Open letter to Charlie: In this edited passage, it seems you’ve gone from castigating our motives and means, to acknowledging the possibility that this “minority interpretation of canon law” could actually be true, if it could be shown clearly (ahem HERE, HERE,  and HERE), but oh it’s probably just a bunch of warlording legalisms. Essentially, you are saying:

“This minority interpretation had better be clear and compelling, otherwise it’s satanic.”

REALLY?

Well, I am seeing a LOT of things that look satanic these days, but they always seem to be coming from Team Bergoglio.

Screenshot 2019-11-05 at 12.19.08Screenshot 2019-11-05 at 12.27.59Screenshot 2019-11-05 at 12.28.53Screenshot 2019-10-19 at 12.50.56

via vaticannews.va:

The first chapter of Our Mother Earth…highlights the need to protect our common home through the union of “the whole human family in the search for a sustainable and integral development”. This premise is developed in the second chapter…Pollution, global warming, climate change, and loss of biodiversity, the effect of uncontrolled exploitation, are destined to grow exponentially if there is no change of direction in the short term. We need an “environmental conversion”, Pope Francis (sic) says, that is possible through the promotion of a truly ecological education that would create, especially in the young, a renewed awareness and ultimately a renewed conscience.

In the new article that concludes Our Mother Earth, Pope Francis (sic) turns his gaze upwards, in order to offer an even wider vision of a discourse that is not focused solely on the concern for the protection of the environment…In this final chapter, Pope Francis (sic) develops the “theology of ecology” in a profoundly spiritual discourse.

Creation is the fruit of God’s love…especially for man, to whom He has given the gift of creation, as a place in which “we are invited to discover a presence”. He continues:

 “This means that it is for humanity’s capacity for communion to condition the state of creation […] It is therefore humanity’s destiny to determine the destiny of the universe.”