Daily Archives: December 5, 2017
The election in Alabama is now only one week away, and it is difficult to underestimate its importance. In a political environment in which RINOs hide behind every bush, ready to ambush Trump like it's Iraq in 2003, it is absolutely vital that solid Conservatives win as many races as possible. What counts here is to occupy the seat in the first place, and secure it for Trump. In the extremely improbable event that the – as it appears more and more likely, slanderous – accusations against Judge Roy Moore should prove accurate, there will always be all the time in the world to deal with it whilst occupying the seat. But again, it seems that nothing will happen, besides a number of Republican Senators asking the despicable McConnell to step aside and, possibly, retire altogether.
Moore seems to have a solid lead again, and it would appear very reasonable to think that he will win easily. However, one should never underestimate the dirt that the Democrats and his fifth columns among the Republicans – McConnell and Ryan first – can throw at a candidate they fear.
Therefore, my appeal to my Alabama readers – if any – and to their relatives and acquaintances – if any – is to resolve now to vote for Moore no matter what dirt the Democrats and the above mentioned Judases may throw at him, sending a clear signal that such campaigns are not enough to vote for the wrong candidate, irrespective of the merit of the accusations. It beggars belief that one should vote for the killing of unborn babies because the candidate against it does not satisfy one's moral standards.
Therefore, my dear – if any – Alabamian readers, stay cool and vote for Moore even if he should be accused of the most outlandish crimes.
Put that ass in the senate seat first. All the rest will be discussed afterwards.
Very probably there will nothing to discuss anyway.
Every single time Francis does something atrocious, there is the one or other theologian explaining to us that Francis has not proclaimed a new dogma, or abolished Canon 915, or the like.
Yeah, well, interesting as an intellectual curiosity. Still, I think that the approach is totally wrong, and that we must stop circling around the real problem. If there is a hurricane going on, I am not really interested in the way the ozone layer reacts to it, nor am I reassured by the newly imparted knowledge. There is a hurricane going on, this is what counts.
Canon 915 is not just another canon. It reflects perennial teaching of the Church. Therefore, the prohibition of Canon 915 cannot be changed, sabotaged, or otherwise circumvented by anyone, and be him the Pope.
Every article reassuring you that Canon 915 has not been touched actually sends these messages: a) that it could be made, legitimately, hollow at some point in future and: b) that the Canon is being sabotaged but hey, don’t worry, it’s still there!
This is, emphatically, not the case in point. The point is that the Church prohibits communion for adulterers, and Francis is going against this prohibition. Therefore, any discussion about the matter should begin and end with the obvious recognition that no one, not even a Pope, can change iota unum in the matter of communion for adulterers. All the rest is, again, walking around the huge elephant in the room, pretending not to see it.
Which leads to the second matter: heresy. I am not at all interested in the discussion about whether Francis is a formal heretic in the strict sense of the matter. For me, and for every God-fearing Catholic on the street, heresy does not begin when a dogma is officially put in question or denied, or there is an attempt to change it ex cathedra. Heresy is, in the common parlance of God-fearing Catholics, the willed promotion of heterodox thinking and the working in order to subvert what the Church has always believed, irrespective of whether a dogma has been touched or not. Pope John XXII is, rightly, considered a heretical Pope because he promoted such a thinking, even if the contrary belief of the Church had not been declared a dogma yet.
It follows from this that Pope Francis is a heretic and must be seen as such by every God-fearing Catholic; that every one of his actions meant to sabotage the Depositum Fidei in any way, shape or form must be condemned in the strongest terms, and refused obedience; and that we, the God-fearing Catholics, must demand that our Cardinals and Bishops grow a pair already, react to Francis’ endless provocations, and demand that he recants his heretical statements or face deposition.
Which, if it does not happen, does not cause the end of the world, nor the end of the Catholic faith. It merely causes the age to plunge into a deeper state of confusion, analogue to the one experienced in the time of Honorius, A situation of confusion from which, if the Bishops and Cardinals do not intervene, God will free us at some point, when the justly meted punishment for the madness of Vatican II has been recognised, and its evil acknowledged and repented.
A heretical Pope is still the Pope. Honorius was still the Pope. Marcellinus was still the Pope. Liberius was still the Pope. John XXII was still the Pope. There is no Church record stating that they were no Popes during the time of their heterodoxy. Not even the ecumenical council caused by Pope Honorius’ heresies stated such a thing.
But a heretical Pope is a Pope that should, now, be forced to change his ways or deposed (as happened with Marcellinus and John XXII, and did not happen with Honorius and, in a different way, with Liberius); failing which the bishops and cardinals who have refused to act (talking to you, Cardinal Burke!) will pay the most horrible price for their cowardice.
Catholics lived with a heretical Pope before. They are living with a heretical Pope now. Shit and Pope Francis happen. It is not for us to decide who is and is not Pope.
But it is for us to acknowledge an obvious, factual situation and ask that our shepherds do their darn job already.