Thy lightnings enlightened the world

“Thy lightnings enlightened the world: the earth shook and trembled.”  –Introit, Feast of the Transfiguration. (Ps 76:19)

hqdefault.jpg (480×360)
13 February 2013

Happy Feast! Reminds me of a certain sermon on the Transfiguration, directly comparing the Transfiguration to a pope who transfigures the nature of his papacy, morphing it into a service of quite suffering, yet while retaining the authority of the Office, allowing others to drag him where he does not wish to go, more and more allowing himself to be nailed to the cross. Those were the words of Cardinal Ratzinger, 41 years ago.

The sermon was posted by EWTN. But sometime after I published the following essay, they took it down; the link is now dead.


“He has not abandoned the OFFICE of Peter – something which would have been entirely impossible for him after his irrevocable acceptance of the OFFICE”

Have you heard about the mysterious case of Archbishop Ganswein and the obscure, “unpublished,” 41 year old sermon by Joseph Ratzinger, then Cardinal Archbishop of Munich-Freising, delivered at his Frauenkirche Cathedral (Cathedral of Our Lady) on 10 August 1978? Well, pull up a chair!

First, here is an excerpt from +Ganswein’s infamous speech at the Greg, 20 May 2016, in which he mentions the mystery sermon:

Since the election of his successor Francis, on March 13, 2013, there are not therefore two popes, but de facto an expanded ministry — with an active member and a contemplative member. This is why Benedict XVI has not given up either his name, or the white cassock. This is why the correct name by which to address him even today is “Your Holiness”; and this is also why he has not retired to a secluded monastery, but within the Vatican — as if he had only taken a step to the side to make room for his successor and a new stage in the history of the papacy which he, by that step, enriched with the “power station” of his prayer and his compassion located in the Vatican Gardens.

It was “the least expected step in contemporary Catholicism,” Regoli writes, and yet a possibility which Cardinal Ratzinger had already pondered publicly on August 10, 1978 in Munich, in a homily on the occasion of the death of Paul VI. Thirty-five years later, he has not abandoned the Office of Peter — something which would have been entirely impossible for him after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005. By an act of extraordinary courage, he has instead renewed this office(even against the opinion of well-meaning and undoubtedly competent advisers), and with a final effort he has strengthened it (as I hope). Of course only history will prove this. But in the history of the Church it shall remain true that, in the year 2013, the famous theologian on the throne of Peter became history’s first “pope emeritus.” Since then, his role — allow me to repeat it once again — is entirely different from that, for example, of the holy Pope Celestine V, who after his resignation in 1294 would have liked to return to being a hermit, becoming instead a prisoner of his successor, Boniface VIII (to whom today in the Church we owe the establishment of jubilee years). To date, in fact, there has never been a step like that taken by Benedict XVI. So it is not surprising that it has been seen by some as revolutionary, or to the contrary as entirely consistent with the Gospel; while still others see the papacy in this way secularized as never before, and thus more collegial and functional or even simply more human and less sacred. And still others are of the opinion that Benedict XVI, with this step, has almost — speaking in theological and historical-critical terms — demythologized the papacy.

You can read the unabridged English translation of the speech from Diane Montagna HERE. The original reportage from Ed Pentin is HERE.

There is a lot to unpack just in this brief excerpt, starting with “demythologized the papacy.” This concept appears over and over in the +Miller book, which lays out the desired end result of transformating the nature of the papacy, dissolving the monarchy into a synodal ministry, that was being pushed around all the best German cocktail parties of the 60s and 70s. In particular, this idea was the pet project and lifetime work of Cardinal Walter Casper, antipope Bergoglio’s “favorite theologian” HERE . Are you telling me +Ganswein had no knowledge of this fact, and randomly pulled a fifty dollar word like “demythologized” out of thin air?

I’ve already written several posts on this speech that I won’t rehash here. Just read the plain words that the man spoke. Read the headline of this post. It’s right there in front of you.

Now, about that sermon he referenced; what exactly was the “possibility which Cardinal Ratzinger had already pondered publicly on August 10, 1978 in Munich…” What in the word was he talking about, and how would he have ever known about it or remembered it unless someone (cough) tipped him off that there was some stunning clue left there 41 years ago?

Guess what? Someone conveniently made it readily available, in the strangest way. Not only was I able to dig it up in five seconds, in English, but it also turns out that it had remained unpublished until… June of 2013, three months into the Bergoglian Antipapacy. That’s quite a coincidence, folks.

Here is the intro to the homily as published by EWTN:

“Four days after Paul VI’s death, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Archbishop of Munich and Freising, celebrated Mass in his Bavarian Cathedral on 10 August 1978 for the late Pope. His homily was printed in the archdiocesan bulletin, ‘Ordinariats-Korrespondenz’. For the 50th anniversary of Pope Montini’s election (21 June 1963), ‘L’Osservatore Romano’ translated and published the text in n.141 of the Daily and a synthesis was published in the English weekly edition, n. 26. The following, however, is an unabridged translation.”

Paul VI died on the Feast of the Transfiguration, 6 August 1978. Benedict crafted his homily to draw parallels between the Transfiguration and…wait for it…the possibility of the “transfiguration” or “metamorphosis” of a pope and his pontificate. Here is the relevant passage to latch onto, emphasis mine:

The transfiguration promised by faith as a metamorphosis of man is primarily a journey of purification, of suffering. Paul VI increasingly accepted his papal service as a metamorphosis of faith into suffering. The last words the Risen Lord spoke to Peter after making him the shepherd of his flock were: “when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go” (Jn 21:18). It was a hint of the crucifixion that lay in store for Peter at the end of his journey. It was, in general, a hint of the nature of this service. Paul VI, increasingly, let himself be taken where, humanly, by himself, he did not wish to go. For him his pontificate meant more and more allowing another to clothe him and allowing himself to be nailed to the cross. We know that before his 75th birthday — and also before his 80th — he fought strenuously against the idea of retiring. Moreover, we can imagine how heavy the thought must be of no longer belonging to ourselves; of no longer having a single private moment; of being enchained to the very last, with our body giving up and with a task that day after day demands the total, vigorous use of a man’s energy.. “None of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord” (Rom 14:7-8). These words of today’s Reading word for word defined Paul VI’s life. By bearing it as a suffering he gave new meaning to authority as service.He took no pleasure in power, in position, in having had a successful career; andprecisely because he bore authority as a responsibility “another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go” — his authority became great and credible.

So we have references to bravely resisting retirement, being clothed by another, being taken you where you do not wish to go, becoming a prisoner/crucified, giving NEW meaning to authority as service, and bearing authority as a responsibility, presumably referencing the last years of Pope Paul’s life, when he clearly was no longer governing the Church himself, yet he still bore the authority as the holder of the Office. Moreover, Ratzinger thinks Pope Paul’s suffering actually increased the greatness and credibility of his authority,even though outwardly he was no longer governing.


He says of Pope Paul that he was enchained to the last, with his “body giving up and with a task that day after day demands the total, vigorous use of a man’s energy.” Compare this to the Latin Declaratio, where Benedict says a lack of vigor is to blame for his own inability to adequately fulfill all of the day to day demands:  “in order to govern the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength (literally “vigor” in the original Latin) of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry…”

He says of Pope Paul, “we can imagine how heavy the thought must be of no longer belonging to ourselves; of no longer having a single private moment…” That sounds an awful lot like what Benedict said about himself in the crucial passage from his last (so far) General Audience:

Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005. The real gravity of the decision was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord. Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church. In a manner of speaking, the private dimension of his life is completely eliminated…

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

Was Benedict a prisoner as pope 2005-2013, being crucified by his tormentors? Is he a prisoner now, enchained to the last, 2013-present? Did he, with the step he took in February 2013, “give new meaning to authority as service?” Does he see himself as imprisoned, as if in exile, and yet remaining “in a new way, so to speak, in the enclosure of St. Peter?”

Ahem. Popes in prison and Popes in exile are still the pope. Capisci?

There are breadcrumbs everywhere, folks. Sometimes they show up out of nowhere after 41 years.




The Bride of Christ, caught in adultery?

Wait for the punchline.

The Lord is purifying his Bride and converting all of us to himself. He is letting us be put to the test in order to make us realize that without him we are simply dust. He is rescuing us from hypocrisy, from the spirituality of appearances. He is breathing forth his Spirit in order to restore the beauty of his Bride, caught in adultery.

“Pope” Francis, letter to priests, 4 August 2019. HERE

Except they got the translation wrong. Here is the Italian:

sorpresa in flagrante adulterio.

Caught in flagrant adultery; caught in the very act. We even use the term “in flagrante” in English.

This is sick. Is the Bride of Christ the Whore of Babylon?

Although I wonder, maybe he is just referring to the Cardinaliate as adulterers for calling a faux conclave in March of 2013, in violation of Canon 359, because they had no authority to do so while the See was still occupied? The analogy works, because they abandoned their true pope, ran off with a fake pope, and they continue their sordid affair to this day, every one of them in silence.

Alas, no, I don’t think that’s it.

Archbishop Chaput: A brief chronology and curated quotations

I posted two weeks ago about +Chaput choosing to make public that his retirement paperwork had been accepted prior to him even handing it in HERE, and choosing to go to the margins to do it; this parish is literally three miles from the Delaware state line. HERE

In that post, I described +Chaput as an “enigma.” That is an understatement. Yesterday, he issued a statement saying that the death penalty is morally wrong, antithetical to the virtue of justice, and that it needs to be abolished. The exact quote is at the end of this post. Leading up to it, I give you a little chronology and some recent examples from the enigmatic archbishop.

1944 Born to French Canadian and Native American parents, Condordia, KS HERE

1965 Enters the Capuchins

1968 Solemn profession OFMCap

1970 Ordained by Bishop Cyril Vogel, Diocese of Salina

1976 Campaigns for Jimmy Carter, first pro-abort presidential nominee HERE

1980 Campaigns for Carter’s re-election (against staunchly pro-life Ronald Reagan, and he’s still super proud of it, see link above)

1987 Meets Pope JPII for the first time, in Phoenix, AZ

1988 Named Bishop of Rapid City by JPII

1997 Named Metropolitan Archbishop of Denver by JPII

1997 Meets Jorge Bergoglio for the first time HERE

2005 The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity.” HERE He goes on to express his personal opinion against it.

2008 “Can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate? The answer is: I can’t, and I won’t. But I do know some serious Catholics, people whom I admire, who may…Catholics can vote for pro-choice candidates if they vote for them despite, not because of, their pro-choice views. But [Catholics who support pro-choice candidates] also need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it.” HERE This is from the same First Things article during the Obama campaign where he fondly recalled campaigning for Carter…how does one square “I can’t and I won’t” with his support for Carter? Also, his use of the term “pro-choice” is absolutely disgusting.

2011 Named Metropolitan Archbishop of Philadelphia by Pope Benedict XVI

2013 “The Catholic Church respects the law, including immigration law. We respect those men and women who have the difficult job of enforcing it. We do not encourage or help anyone to break the law. We believe Americans have a right to…secure borders and orderly regulation of immigration.” HERE 

2013 Pope Benedict’s “legacy will be a body of theological reflection that is unmatched in the history of the church, actually, I think that he will be a doctor of the church someday…” HERE

One month later…

2013 Pope Francis (sic) “is a man from the new heartland of the global Church; a priest of extraordinary intellectual and cultural strengths; a man deeply engaged in the issues of contemporary life and able to speak to the modern heart; open to the new realities the Church faces; and rooted in a deep love of Jesus Christ. He is a wonderful choice; a pastor God sends not just to the Church but to every person of good will who honestly yearns for justice, peace and human dignity in our time.” HERE

2016 “I’ve been a registered independent for a long time and never more happily so than in this election season.  Both major candidates are – what’s the right word? so problematic – that neither is clearly better than the other…This year, a lot of good people will skip voting for president…or find some mysterious calculus that will allow them to vote for one or the other of the major candidates.  I don’t yet know which course I’ll personally choose. It’s a matter properly reserved for every citizen’s informed conscience. HERE This was three months before the Trump vs Hillary election. I wonder what happened to “I can’t, and I won’t?” No mysterious calculus needed.

2017 “Immigration arrests are happening all over the United States and within our own archdiocese. The broken families they leave behind are a social disaster, not just now but in the years to come…the evidence is irrefutable that bad law makes hard cases; cases of real suffering with human faces…we need to demand a better grasp of justice and common sense from the people who make our laws.” HERE 

2018 “I have written the Holy Father and called on him to cancel the upcoming synod on young people. Right now, the bishops would have absolutely no credibility in addressing this topic.” HERE “No red hat? After all I’ve done for you? Then just give me retirement.”

2019 “In late July the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) reinstituted capital punishment for persons on federal death row…U.S. bishops were quick to express their dismay at the decision, and having written and spoken against the death penalty for nearly 50 years, I emphatically join my voice to theirs…Killing persons in the name of justice is needless and wrong…We need to abolish the death penalty now.HERE 

Contraception and sodomy go together like a horse and carriage, and both are officially coming soon to the antichurch in ascendance

But I repeat myself.

From the linked article by the always excellent Diane Montagna:

In 2018, at a public lecture held at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, Fr. Chiodi said that there are “circumstances — I refer to Amoris Laetitia, Chapter 8 — that precisely for the sake of responsibility, require contraception.” When “natural methods are impossible or unfeasible, other forms of responsibility need to be found,” argued Fr. Chiodi in his lecture, entitled (KNOCK ME OVER WITH A FEATHER) Re-reading Humanae Vitae (1968) in light of Amoris Laetitia (2016).

In such circumstances, Chiodi said, “an artificial method for the regulation of births could be recognized as an act of responsibility that is carried out, not in order to radically reject the gift of a child, but because in those situations responsibility calls the couple and the family to other forms of welcome and hospitality.”

The lecture took place after Pope Francis purged the Pontifical Academy for Life, filling it with new appointees (including Fr. Chiodi), some with dissenting views on Humanae Vitae.

As any reader of these pages knows, contraception is a grave evil, because it is a usage of the reproductive system in a manner which blocks its primary function, procreation. All sexual acts which are not open to life or are intrinsically incapable of producing life are always contrary to the Natural Law, and thus, always gravely sinful. I did an exhaustive two-part essay on this, PART 1 and PART 2. I consider these two pieces to be among the most important of anything I’ve published in this space. I urge you to give them a spin.

But wait! Amoris Laetitia to the rescue!

Recognizing the influence of such concrete factors, we can add that individual conscience needs to be better incorporated into the Church’s praxis in certain situations which do not objectively embody our understanding of marriage.  … [Conscience] can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal. In any event, let us recall that this discernment is dynamic; it must remain ever open to new stages of growth and to new decisions which can enable the ideal to be more fully realized. (Amoris Laetitia ¶303)

A pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in ‘irregular’ situations, as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives…Along these same lines, the International Theological Commission has noted that ‘natural law could not be presented as an already established set of rules that impose themselves a priori on the moral subject; rather, it is a source of objective inspiration for the deeply personal process of making decisions. (¶305)

And the road from here to Sodom is not just a slippery slope, it is a bullet train. Once the antichurch approves contraception, it will take three nanoseconds for Paglia or Cupich or Marx to raise his hand and say, “But Wait! That means cornholing at Cocco’s is now totes legit!”

Helpfully, Fr. Chiodi was gracious enough to prove my point. Chiodi doesn’t draw out the rational argument quite yet, however he does let everyone know that he is totally on board with the buttsecks. From the same Montagna article at LSN:

The Italian Fr. James Martin?

More recently, Fr. Chiodi openly expressed heterodox positions on homosexuality, arguing that we need to go beyond “nature” and consider the possibility that homosexual acts can in certain circumstances be morally good.

In a July 29 interview with Luciano Moia of Avvenire, the official newspaper of the Italian Bishops’ Conference, Fr. Chiodi was asked if he agrees “with those who argue that acts within a homosexual couple should be evaluated on the basis of the spiritual fruits they produce, whether or not they are ordered to build up the good of the person?”

Initially seeming to suggest that persons with same-sex attraction are called to live in perfect continence, Fr. Chiodi said: “The homosexual person is also called, in his specific way, to follow a path of chaste, virtuous relationships, capable of friendship and brotherhood. No one can escape this commitment, which is born of the gift of God.”

However, the Italian moral theologian then suggested, on the basis of Amoris Laetitia, that sexual acts within a homosexual relationship can be good, at least in certain circumstances. 

“As Pope Francis recalled, even if regarding another issue — the ‘divorced and remarried’ — it is clear that, within a historical perspective, each person is asked not only what is possible for him, but also what is possible for him in a specific moment of life,” Fr. Chiodi said.

Because if contraception is okay, and adultery is okay, and not only okay, but what GOD HIMSELF is asking, then keep your Rosaries out of my rectal vault.

Can a true pope invalidate infallibility?

Wait, say what?

The Law of Non-contradiction sure is getting a workout these days. But the truth is becoming so clear that honest people who see what is happening are able to assess it honestly and begin to evolve their mindset.

A post appeared the other day from Never-BiPer Steven O’Reilly at his blog Roma Locuta Est HERE.  Steven has long been open to the possibility that Bergoglio could be declared an antipope, at some point in the future, which would mean that he is an antipope right now.  But he has steadfastly denied any notion that Benedict might still be pope, hence the “Never-BiPer” moniker.  Steven has always been very respectful in our exchanges on this matter, so I hope to treat him fairly here.

He highlights in this post a passage from ++Müller’s lastest attempt to rehabilitate himself among the “good guys,” after his massive failing as Prefect at CDF at the beginning of the Bergoglian Antipapacy.

July 26, 2019 (Steven O’Reilly) – When is a “pope” not a pope? A recent commentary by Cardinal Müller seems to suggest, albeit in an oblique manner, how we might know.

Cardinal Müller recently released a statement “On the Synodal Process in Germany and the Synod for the Amazon,” … In the most recent commentary, rejecting the possibility of female deacons, Cardinal Müller writes the following (emphasis added):

“The Magisterium of the Pope and of the bishops has no authority over the substance of the Sacraments (Trent, Decree on Communion under both species, DH 1728; Sacrosanctum Concilium 21). Therefore, no synod – with or without the Pope – and also no ecumenical council, or the Pope alone, if he spoke ex cathedra, could make possible the ordination of women as bishop, priest, or deacon. They would stand in contradiction the defined doctrine of the Church. It would be invalid…”

If we assume hypothetically that Pope Francis were to make such an ex cathedra declaration on the subject above, there seems to me to be two implications embedded in the Cardinal’s statement. The first — obviously — what the Cardinal says explicitly, i.e., that such an “ex cathedra” declaration, in the Cardinal’s mind, would be invalid, and thus should be disregarded by the Faithful.

However, as Catholics well know, this poses an obvious difficulty.

That, my friends, is intellectual honesty. I’m sorry to say that Trad Inc. is sorely lacking this trait.

Steven continues:

Vatican I defined the dogma of papal infallibility in the following terms (emphasis added):

“…the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that his church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.”  (Pastor Aeternus cited in Fundamentals of Catholic Doctrine, Denzinger, 1839)

In addition, this definition is followed by a canon, which states: “But if anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be anathama” (Denzinger 1840).

Clearly, a faithful Catholic will note the seeming disconnect between what Pastor Aeternus defined infallibly, and what Cardinal Müller said above. But, the Cardinal is no dummy as to suggest ex cathedra statements can be disregarded. This suggests, to me at least, a hidden, unstated and inescapable implication in the Cardinal’s statement, as well as being an indication of how he and other Cardinals are now privately viewing Pope Francis–though this is speculative.

There is only one way, in logic at least, for a Catholic to accept Vatican I on papal infallibility but reject a heretical declaration that seemingly meets the formal conditions of being ex cathedra.

Given that a true pope is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching an error ex cathedra, it follows that if a man, seemingly “pope,” were to teach something which denies or conflicts with a known truth of the Catholic Faith it must be either (1) the man thought to be “pope” was never a true pope to begin with, or (2) the man thought to be “pope” had, at some point in the past, already fallen through heresy or apostasy from the Petrine office. Those are the logical implications as I see them. Whether these are intended by the Cardinal or not with respect to Francis, in such a hypothetical scenario as he outlined, I cannot say.

If this a fair analysis, it may suggest the Cardinal and at least a few others in the Sacred College are actively considering one of these options to be a real possibility in the case of Pope Francis. If nothing else, it certainly is a shot across the bow of Pope Francis. It does suggest, along with other statements from the likes of Cardinal Brandmuller, that some in the “resistance” are reaching the point where they can bend no more. So, after so many years, we may be reaching a decisive moment.


But it gets better, because Vatican I went further than a just a simple definition of the doctrine of infallibility as it relates Ex Cathedra (the portion quoted in Steven’s post). Take a look at the teaching leading up to formal definition of infallibility, and ask yourself: If these words are infallible, which they are, then is it possible that Bergoglio is pope? 

Chap. 4. The Infallible “Magisterium” of the Roman Pontiff

3065 Dz 1832 [Arguments from public documents]. Moreover, that by the very apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff as the successor of Peter, the chief of the Apostles, holds over the universal Church, the supreme power of the magisterium is also comprehended, this Holy See has always held, the whole experience of the Church approves, and the ecumenical Councils themselves, especially those in which the Last convened with the West in a union of faith and charity, have declared.

3066 Dz 1833 For the fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, adhering to the ways of the former ones, published this solemn profession: “Our first salvation is to guard the rule of right faith [. . .]. And since the sentiment of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be passed over when He says: ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church’ (Mt 16,18), these words which were spoken are proven true by actual results, since in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved untainted, and holy doctrine celebrated. Desiring, then, least of all to be separated from the faith and teaching of this [Apostolic See], We hope that We may deserve to be in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the solidarity of the Christian religion is whole and true” *

3067 Dz 1834 [cf. n. 171 f.]. Moreover, with the approval of the second council of Lyons, the Greeks have professed, “that the Holy Roman Church holds the highest and the full primacy and pre-eminence over the universal Catholic Church, which it truthfully and humbly professes it has received with plenitude of power from the Lord Himself in blessed Peter, the chief or head of the Apostles, of whom the Roman Pontiff is the successor; and, just as it is bound above others to defend the truth of faith, so, too, if any questions arise about faith, they should be defined by its judgment” [cf. n.466].

3068 Dz 1835 Finally, the Council of Florence has defined: “That the Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to it in the blessed Peter has been handed down by the Lord Jesus Christ the full power of feeding, ruling, and guiding the universal Church” [see n.694].

3069 Dz 1836 [Argument from the assent of the Church]. To satisfy this pastoral duty, our predecessors always gave tireless attention that the saving doctrine of Christ be spread among all the peoples of the earth, and with equal care they watched that, wherever it was received, it was preserved sound and pure. Therefore, the bishops of the whole world, now individually, now gathered in Synods, following a long custom of the churches and the formula of the ancient rule, referred to this Holy See those dangers particularly which emerged in the affairs of faith, that there especially the damages to faith might be repaired where faith cannot experience a failure. * The Roman Pontiffs, moreover, according as the condition of the times and affairs advised, sometimes by calling ecumenical Councils or by examining the opinion of the Church spread throughout the world; sometimes by particular synods, sometimes by employing other helps which divine Providence supplied, have defined that those matters must be held which with God’s help they have recognized as in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition.

3070 For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth. Indeed, all the venerable fathers have embraced their apostolic doctrine, and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed it, knowing full well that the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord the Savior made to the chief of His disciples: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren” (Lc 22,32).

3071 Dz 1837 So, this gift of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair, that they might administer their high duty for the salvation of all; that the entire flock of Christ, turned away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished on the sustenance of heavenly doctrine, that with the occasion of schism removed the whole Church might be saved as one, and relying on her foundation might stay firm against the gates of hell.


Barnhardt Podcast #89 and the implicit desire to be officially excommunicated from the antichurch

We finally did a podcast! I am told it could become a regular thing.

My favorite part was an intense exchange between 22:00 – 27:00, wherein we take turns extolling the “good guys’ in the hierarchy, particularly within the Cardinaliate, to finally MAN UP and declare Bergoglio to be an antipope, declare him to have never been pope, and declare his entire faux pontificate expunged. Aggressive offense, not “prevent defense,” needs to be the gameplan. They all need to reflect on the probable outcome of their Particular Judgment should they continue to sit back and let an antipope and likely False Prophet Forerunner of the Antichrist to rape the Bride of Christ.

But oh, the fear of reprisals, the fear of losing the red hat, the fear of schism, casualties, etc… and then Ann launches into the logical progression of this:

(I’m paraphrasing) “They should WANT to be punished; they should WANT to be declared in schism; they should WANT to be EXCOMMUNICATED — by an antipope — and likely False Prophet Forerunner of the Antichrist. Who wouldn’t want that? We are all at risk of that. I hope it comes in the mail, with a wax seal. Take that puppy straight away to get matted and framed within an inch of its life, and hang it over the fireplace. When I die, put it in my coffin; place it over my heart. Can you imagine showing up at your Particular Judgment and pulling out a piece of paper proving that you defended the One True Faith with such sacred fleekness that you got tossed out of the antichurch by the likely False Prophet Forerunner of the Antichrist?”

Not to be glib, dear cardinals, but think about this rationally. Antipope is not an office, it’s a criminal status. We are talking about ontological reality here. He holds no juridical power.  At most, Bergoglio is a cardinal without a bishopric. But he has almost certainly incurred latae sententiae excommunication (from the True Church, obvi) for a wide variety of misdeeds. So what are you afraid of, red martyrdom? You do know that’s why you wear red, right?

Combox is open!

Barnhardt Podcast #089: Wacky Wabbit Holes

[Direct link to the MP3 file]

In this special episode, Ann is joined by Mark Docherty of the NonVeniPacem blog. As expected, the conversation turned out to be 80 minutes of awkward silences punctuated by deep dives into the mysteries of the Church of Rome. Trigger warning: Ann uses the racist epithet “cracker”, and both Mark and Ann state that Bruce Jenner is, in fact, a man.

Links, reading, and YouTube:

Feedback: please send your questions, comments, and suggestions to

Cardinal Cupich is having a bad day, so you can be sure it’s a good day for Truth and Justice

Go check out the whole thread, HERE. There are other riveting arguments, such as, “But but but Saint Francis de Buenos Aires just changed the Catechism, so this is not allowed any more.” He’s really got his panties in a wad, and it’s a sight to behold. Can I get an amen?

Oh, his name is pronounced “Soopitch,” or if you are a lisping acolyte, “Thoopitch.”

It isn’t a difficult concept: The Death Penalty is a requirement of Justice to the CRIMINAL, who is not to be denied this in fairness to him, and for the benefit of his repentance, reparation, and hopefully attaining the Beatific Vision in the end. There can be no harm to his “human dignity,” when his supernatural end is the focus. The only way this becomes hard to understand is if you deny the supernatural, Heaven, Hell, etc.

Reblogging some stuff:

Remember…“The judge who fails the criminal in punishment himself incurs a greater guilt.”



image1 (1)


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 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.


“The judge who fails the criminal in punishment himself incurs a greater guilt.”

If you don’t think CCC#675 is in play right now, think again. We’ve reached the point where the Vatican is attempting to deflect from the infestation of moral decay within the episcopate by publishing heresy in the Catechism. This is the Antichurch in ascendancy.

The death penalty is not unjust, it is just. It is not unmerciful, it is merciful. It is a means of repentance, forgiveness, and salvation. It forces the penitent (that’s why it’s called a ‘penitentiary’) to reflect more deeply on his sins as his time draws near, and hopefully experience a conversion. Justice demands this. Failing to dispense proportional punishment for a criminal act, is itself a criminal act. But for someone who doesn’t believe in the supernatural, doesn’t believe in the eternal life of the soul, none of this makes sense.

Anyway, I’m short on time, and Ann has already put up a bunch of proofs from Doctors or the Church and others. The title quote is from the brilliant John Senior, whom I’ve quoted many times on this site. Read it all HERE.