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.
The Walkout Petition has gathered north of 2,500 signatures.
Few, you will say.
Might be. What do you make, then, of the fact that Cardinal Pell himself has commented on the fact, and explained the reasons (weak, if you ask me; but this is not the point) why he will not walk out?
We live in horrible but, in other aspects, fascinating times. The petition has been obviously detected by more than one Synod father. It might well have been discussed. Bishops and Cardinals are clearly aware of it.
If two thousand signatures cause a Cardinal to take a stan dconcernign it, what would 20,000 signatures have done?
Mind, the Church is not a democracy, and does not decide according to “numbers”. You may say that it has abundantly reached its scope by putting the bishops in front of a concrete issue. But certainly, 20,000 signatures would have gotten more visibility than 2,000. Which tells you something if you consider what visibility the 2,000 (2,600 at the times of writing this) did.
The Church is not about numbers. Intelligent prelates know that a small minority of highly motivated Catholics express the fears of a vastly bigger number of faithful, and rightfully represent orthodox Catholicism in the middle of the present mess. Those two thousand certainly – they correctly reason – represent a vastly bigger number of sane, sensible, orthodox Catholics with a sane, sensible, orthodox fear of the Lord. For one who signs, very many think in the same way even if they either do not know about the petition, or are afraid of asking the bishops to take such a big step.
Imagine if the signatures had been 20,000. It would have made the mainstream media. It would have been impossible to ignore even for “Newsweek”. It would have been a massive kick in the Evil Clown’s nether regions even if no walkout happens.
I ask those who have not signed yet to consider signing. It’s not about being in the majority. It’s not even about being in the middle of an army. It’s about being among those happy few who, when they day, will be able to say that they have not looked the other way as their world imploded.
And as about being ignored, you see it was just not the case.
When even a New York Times journalist trashes you in front of his readership, you know your situation is rather precarious.
The simple fact is, Francis’ heresy has gone mainstream. People from all walks of life simply acknowledge the fact, and write about the possible outcomes. It’s beyond parody. It’s the Evil Clown’s papacy.
You may say Douthat is conservative for NYT standards, but he certainly isn’t based on Catholic ones. More crucially, his own boss or bosses decide he should present the situation to his readers as a Catholic and, as a Catholic, candidly telling you what is wrong with the man.
For all the atheist readers of the NYT, it must be a strange sensation. They might be inclined to, but can they really side with Judas? And if they do, with what reasoning? “I hope Francis succeeds because he is trying to destroy the Church”? How can, then, one like that blame those who resist the Evil Clown?
Francis has lost face. Even the most retarded among the Pollyannas know by now on which side he is. It is what it is. The Pope is a heretic, and proves it every day. He might not have the balls for formal heresy, but it certainly will not be for his lack of trying.
Hey, even the readers of the NYT know it by now.
Now imagine you are a bishop, and you are incensed at this obscene spectacle. What do you do, give the heresy a legitimate platform, and “discuss” about it? Or you simply put an end to such a mess?
The answer is clear. The best way to do this is to not only destroy the legitimacy of this Synod, but the legitimacy of this papacy, too.
Dear God-fearing bishops, please kick this papacy in the head.
Time to walk out.
Time to walk out.
Time to walk out.
In the absurd days we are living, with Circus Bergoglio now dishing us a number after the other, there has also been talk of allowing the individual bishops’ conference to do with Doctrine as they please. As in these cases you always need a fashionable word to cover old heresy, the idea has been called “devolution”.
The absurdity of this is apparent.
The Church has never been run by bishops’ conferences. The church is run by bishops, led by a Pope, who may or may not choose to be helped by Cardinals. The bishops’ conference as a hierarchical level in the Church simply does not exist; nor could it ever, because Christ never appointed any. The idea that a bishops’ conference may have any right to impinge on Doctrine in any way whatsoever is just bonkers.
Nor can it be said that, if bishops’ conferences have no hierarchical authority, a bishop has; and therefore any bishop could implement those “merciful” changes he thinks fit. Even my cat knows that no bishop has, ever had or could ever have such authority. The Truth is one. Therefore, the Church can only be one. There can be no multiplicity of doctrines more than there could be multiplicity of churches. Multiple doctrines would mean just that: multiple truths and multiple churches. Bishops cannot do anything of the sort, and everyone knows it. Which is, by the way, exactly the reason why bishops’ conferences are mentioned in connection with this latest madness.
Least of all it can be said that the Pope could make such changes. Whilst the Pope can be, in limited circumstances, infallible, his infallibility is always – and cannot but be – linked to what the Church has always believed. To put it in a blunt way: if the Pope wakes up one morning and “infallibly” proclaims the “dogma” of some heretical novelty he can never be infallible, he can only be heretical.
Truth can never be manipulated. The very concept of truth demands this as a logical consequence. As there can be no manipulation, there can be no devolution. As there must be unity, there can be no multiplicity.
Now, should we be scared that the Evil Clown will do something of the sort? To be blunt, with such an ass as Francis you never really know, but I don’t see it happening. I don’t see it happening because if Francis had had the gut of such a heretical feat, it is reasonable to think that he would have put it in place already, with a sudden papal ukase, counting on the shock effect and his authority as a Pope. Nor is this a new thinking of his, and he has already put his heretical reflection on record, as Rorate Caeli rightly observes. Therefore, the heresy has been in the mind of the Evil Clown for a while. Not even the most deluded mind can think this chaotic synod, causing concern and protests everywhere, brought him one inch nearer to it.
So: if Francis did not trust in the surprise effect then, why would he proclaim open heresy now? It would be far more difficult to achieve his objective now that it would have been then. He has been warned already. The opposition is worldwide spread and known everywhere. There is no realistic possibility that he can get away with it now, no matter how many sacrilegious little bastards – real or invented – are involved.
Realistically, no pope with a functioning brain, however heretical, would dare rising such a nuclear conflict.
I am sure Francis is heretical. What I am not sure of, is whether he has a functioning brain.
Ideally, he should not be given the ability to act in the first place. A decisive blow of historical import would destroy his ability to damage the Church forever. The Synod he wanted to use as an instrument of heresy would become the instrument of his undoing.
Time to walk out.
Time to walk out.
Time to walk out.
I have published a blog post inviting my readers to sign the petition for the Synod Walkout. Let me explain why.
This blog has always maintained that Francis' papacy must go down in flames. It must by now be clear to every sound thinking Catholic that Francis is an enemy of the Church. You fight against the enemies of the Church in any way you can.
There can be no doubt that a walkout would destroy Francis' papacy. It would leave a small heap of ashes where the black shoes used to be. It would be remembered in centuries to come as a grave indictment of a scheming Jesuit, planning heresy. It would completely castrate the man in his ability to cause further damage. The man would not even need to resign. He would be consigned to mocked irrelevance.
Some will say that these battles must be fought from the inside, and if you walk out you leave the ground to the enemy. I strongly disagree.
The Synod is not the Congress, or the Commons. The bishops would not be leaving a deliberating assembly, a legislative body. They would not surrender any power. They would not leave any power in the hands of those who stay. In fact, by walking out they would give this synod more relevance, more importance, more historical significance than it could ever have in any other way. In no way the defence of Catholic truth could be made clear more forcefully than by walking out and exposing the heresies Francis is trying – unsuccessfully, probably; but this is beside the point – to push down the throats of his bishops.
Nor should, in my eyes, the usual “side arguments” be listened to.
“The Bishops will not walk” may be a very correct observation, but this is beside the point. The question is not whether they will walk, but whether you think they should. They will, probably, not walk. But it would be wonderful if they would. This is what counts.
“Francis will not achieve his aim anyway” is also not relevant. To destroy heresy is much better than to contain heresy. To destroy Francis' papacy and shame him for all the centuries to come is vastly preferable to simply dissuade him from pushing his heretical agenda.
“Only a few will sign” is also beside the point. You do what you think is right, not what you think others will be doing. You are watched from heaven. You do what is right, not what is popular.
“Now is too late/too soon/too warm/too cold/too humid/too dry” and all the usual variations of “I agree with you, but…” are, in my eyes, misleading. We are living the weeks we have been dreading for two years, and we might be on the brink of a mess that could go on for many decades. Please read the blog post that I have published and pinned at the front page when the Instrumentum Laboris was published. The Bride of Christ is being raped. You do not spend your time watching and making astute observations as to what the best conduct might be. You kick the Church rapist in the head. Do you want my advice? Kick the Church rapists in the head. Sign the petition!
“A walkout would cause a schism”. This is the favourite excuse of all those who want you to accept evil. “Accept evil”, they say, “or a greater evil will come out of it”. Thank you very much, my friend, for your rather evil suggestion; but as for myself I will fight evil, full stop. If there must be a great conflict, let it come. Or else Francis can resign, simply shut up, or do that most incredible of things: start behaving like a Pope.
In the end, I think the reasoning is very simple: in these extraordinary times we must be ready to grab every occasion, however extraordinary, to expose this bunch of heretics, headed by the Pope. A Pope who, on the very day after Cardinal Erdo's reaffirming of Catholic doctrine, took the word to explain in a rather peeved tone that heresy remains on the table as a matter of legitimate discussion.
Distance yourself from this scandalous bunch of heretics and sodomites in front of the Blessed Virgin and of the entire world, and ask the bishops and Cardinals to do the same. They threatened to do it already last year. There is no reason why what would have been justified (and wonderful) last year would not be just as justified, and even more wonderful, this year.
Follow Pope Francis' advice: