There Can be No “Majority Decisions”. It Is Time To Walk Out.

“But Mary, I am obviously matter of legitimate discussion… AAARRGGHHHH!!!”

One of the absurd ideas floated around – and possibly destined to cause lasting damage in the minds of many badly instructed Catholics –  is this idea that doctrine may be disposed of with a “majority vote”. 


Truth cannot be changed. When Synods discuss about doctrinal matters, the adherence to truth is the prerequisite of every such discussion. When they take a vote the same, of course, applies.

In the past, a 75% majority was required by Synodal votes. Why? Because a 75% majority was considered a sufficient enough evidence that what was voted was in adherence to Truth. Mind, though, that no one ever said a 75% percent majority – or a 80%, 85%, or the like – can change truth. Every decision is, and can only be seen, according to its conformity to Truth. It is this conformity that makes the decision a legitimate one. Not the majority with which it has been reached.

It is, therefore, entirely absurd to think that Francis could have a motion or decision or document voted asking for a simple majority. If he did so he would admit, with his own words, that this decision is not adherent to truth. Now, I know that this Pope is an arrogant ass with a low IQ; but I do not think his IQ is as low as that. He would, basically, say to the entire Catholic world: “I am obviously a heretic: please shoot at me”.

What is far more probable is, if you ask me, that he will choose to ignore the very clear message that will come out of the Synod. Deciding, if he is smart, to even avoid a last vote that would either force him to renounce to all controversial points, or indict him as a heretic. I doubt he will want to do either. Last year he certainly did not have to balls to do it.

It is clear enough by now that the Instrumentum Laboris has gone under the bus, or rather under the steamroller. There is no way a mess criticised in almost all the group reports – more or less brutally, but most certainly criticised – will unquestioningly and uncritically receive the green light from the same people who have criticised him as inadequate, or worse, just two weeks before. Francis is pretty much in a cul-de-sac, and sees a wall rapidly approaching. If he has a brain, he will have to get into damage control mode pretty soon.

Does he have a brain? Honestly: beats me.


Which leads me, with elegant inevitability, to the main point. Why do the bishops keep giving their names and their faces to this absurd South American theatre? Why is this Bananas dictator allowed to confuse the Catholics in the first place? To save Francis’ face? To save the Papacy? To avoid a “schism”?

Francis does not deserve to have his face saved. He deserved to have his papacy dragged in the mud, ad maiorem Dei gloriam. Heresy must not be contained. It must be eradicated. The papacy as an Institution would not suffer if Francis’ one were to be destroyed. On the contrary, it would be reinstated to its authentic role and prestige. Lastly, you can’t tolerate heresy in order to avoid a schism. Such a reasoning is self-defeating as it shows that the heresy is already there, and the schism is already a fact that one simply refuses to acknowledge.

The best way forward is a decisive blow to this Papacy before worse happens, and even if a bishop thinks it will not happen.

If Obama had his thumb on the nuclear button and were just sitting there, day in and day out, humming Muslim songs and murmuring “should the infidel die”?, it would not be reassurance enough to think that “he will clearly not push the button”. Action would have to (and would most certainly) be taken before he pushes the button, because he has put himself in that situation in the first place.

Francis has had his thumb on the nuclear button for too long now, and whilst he will probably not push it I do not think the situation should be tolerated any longer. The spectacle he is giving is more than obscene. It is beyond insult. It is beyond parody. It is purely satanical, and every good bishop will realise this. 

Mary does not dialogue with the serpent. The serpent is not considered a legitimate counterpart in any discussion. The serpent gets his head crushed. This is the “dialogue” with heresy, heaven’s way. 

Time to walk out. 

Time to walk out. 

Time to walk out. 



Posted on October 19, 2015, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. 9 Comments.

  1. Obama would not be humming muslim songs because there is no music in Islam. It’s haram. Along with art, humor and your good dog spot.

    • In this country I can hear horrible whining music from the cars of those clearly of that persuasion, though.
      No idea what the “good dog spot” is.

  2. I signed, but I’m afraid nobody is walking out…

  3. This must be forwarded to all the lukewarm and wimpy small ‘c’ catholics whether they be cleric or layman…..

    Aye, fight and you may die. Run, and you’ll live… at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin’ to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they’ll never take… OUR CHURCH (Braveheart) …. Get off my ARK! (Airforce, I mean ARK ONE)

    George Brenner

  4. Muslims don’t keep dogs as pets. Too unclean, I guess. Whitney should have capitalised “Spot”, an old-fashioned dog name-the quintessential dog name, really. For many decades in the early to middle part of last century American children learned to read from a common source, the Dick, Jane and Sally series. Their dog was “Spot” and their cat was “Puff”. A slice of Americana.

  1. Pingback: Note to Canadian Brothers: Steadfastness required [I Cor 15] | Dark Brightness

%d bloggers like this: