We’re quite rambunctious in the parish here, offering the TLM at the main parish Mass every Sunday at 11:00 AM. We thought we might advertise a bit, you know, for the sake of evangelization. Many have waited for decades for the return. So, one of the distinguished members of the parish who is a good friend with the local radio station asked if this bit of religious news be broadcast:
That will be run many times a day for the entire week, for free, as it’s for religious purposes. Great!
But that, of course, will set some ecclesiastics to wondering as to whether I accept the Second Vatican Council.
Submitting to 100% of every Constitution, Decree and Declaration, every word, every syllable, every letter, has been tied in these recent tumultuous decades to the litmus test as to whether one is Catholic, you know, should one dare to appreciate the glories of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass of the Ages, the Traditional Latin Mass, as if assisting at Holy Mass as the Lord’s Little Flock has done throughout the centuries and millennia is somehow bad and evil and automatically calls into question one’s very membership in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Such brow-beating got me to thinking. What was the situation of the “Fathers” of the Vatican Council II? Did they each have to take an oath to God that they accept everything in each document lest they burned alive at the stake? No, no they didn’t. That’s not how it works. They were free to vote for against the schema. Fully 60% rejected the schemata before even starting, not the 2/3 needed, but they were discarded anyway. Later, they could disagree on points of drafts as they would be presented for review again and again and again, sometimes yes for a paragraph, sometimes no for a paragraph, being invited also to make spoken interventions. Let’s review those documents:
Gaudium et Spes
To the point: not every one of the Council “Fathers” signed every one of those documents. They didn’t have to. They were free to have their opinions and disagreements for whatever cause. That’s the reason for a Council. + Marcel Lefebvre voted against, say, Dignitatis humanae, but then signed it. See the last entry on the bottom right, and then the continuation on the top left of the next page:
Yes, his full name is + Marcel François Marie Joseph Lefebvre.
This freedom to speak even with parrhesia, as it is said, is rather more human than what is happening today. Now, those pious souls who love assisting at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered as it traditionally has been offered throughout the ages must assent to every syllable of every word of every sentence of every paragraph of every article of every document, you know, while gasoline is being poured over them and a lit match is held toward them. “Accept everything all at once, or else!”
Should someone ask me as to whether I accept all the documents with all of their content in such an impolite and discourteous manner, I would answer that we would have to sit down for a few centuries and dialogue about every sentence and part of sentences and groups of sentences, etc. Each word would need Lewis and Short. Each literary context would have to be drawn out. Historical philology would begin to be taught everywhere. This is not being difficult. It is simply that I have no idea what much of what is contained in the documents could possibly mean. There are some statements that are simple, true, pious. There are many scattered throughout that are clearly purposely ambiguous in such manner as to mislead Christ’s faithful.
Since I cannot decipher what those purposely ambiguous statements could possibly mean, and since no one has any authority to say what all those passages mean, in their dozens, hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, as if speaking infallibly for each of the “Fathers” (all of whom disagreed with each other) and for Pope Paul VI who himself had to intervene in ferocious disputes, and then proclaim somehow that all the Council “Fathers” were always and in all things of one mind and one judgement about all of these things or any of them at all, they having voted wildly differently on all these things, well then, we’re at a stalemate. I just don’t get it.
So, what is this whereby the faithful are smashed down and kicked in the face and told to accept that which no one can say what it means? This is all entirely absurd and an insult to Christ Jesus and to each member of His Little Flock.
Method is also doctrinal. And this method of kicking people in the face and spitting in the face of Jesus is not reasonable, not Catholic. It is anti-Catholic, anti-Christ. And it’s not in the “spirit” of Vatican II voting of the “Fathers”!
Diversely, put the dogmatic canons of Trent in front of me and I will instantly assent to all of them, no problem.
I mean, I can give examples of studied ambiguity in either the documents or the “spirit” of the Council, but – Hey! – I have to same something for the surely to be entertaining “dialogue” that would take place (though a waste of time).
I’ve been doing the analysis of texts for a long time at the highest levels of academia this world and this Church have to offer. It is to laugh. Of course, some of those ecclesiastics will not appreciate being presented with the truth. That’s not the point for them. It’s all about power cut off from truth, cut off from love, cut off from Christ Jesus, who, it should be said, will come to judge the living and the dead and the world by fire. Amen.
This post confirms my analysis of article 1 of Traditionis custodes, which has it that Pope Francis not only rejected the lex orandi, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Last Supper and Calvary, in all rites of Mass (including the Novus Order, the New Order of Mass), but also, in rejecting the true lex orandi (coopting external rites for that), he also rejected the lex credendi, the law of believing, which is sourced in the true lex orandi, specifically, the actual Sacrifice of Jesus, not just the external rites. See:
Just to say, the reason why he doesn’t mind at all that the Most Holy Sacrifice in the rite of the TLM be celebrated in any sewer, commanding that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (TLM) must be offered outside of any parish church, is that, for Francis, the actual Sacrifice of Jesus is nothing but a symbol, just like Pachamama is a symbol. The demon idol was thrown in the river and so Francis has no problem in reciprocating, throwing Jesus out of church into another venue.
Here’s the deal: If there is no lex credendi because the lex orandi has been rejected, then it’s the end of the Church as we knew it (it will seem as if the visible Church has disappeared from the face of the earth) and the end of the Church entirely in the eyes of Francis. It’s all tabula rasa, a blank slate, a creative field upon which Francis can project himself. He calls this new church catholic, but he alone is the new law of believing, the new Lex credendi. He wants to redefine the very constitution of the church as dialogue, but that dialogue is directed on high by him (so it’s not dialogue, just condescending bullying).
Let’s confirm all this with what is said in the opening volley for the Synod on Synodality, where we see that the faith is to be entirely made up from scratch according to consultation not only of the sense of the faith of everyone in their believing, but the “infallible” sense of the faith of everyone in their believing. This is the most far reaching heresy of Pope Francis to date.
The key paragraph of that “Note of the Synod of Bishops, 21.05.2021: XVI Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops: “For a synodal Church: communion, participation and mission” is the following:
“The objective of this phase is to consult the People of God (cf. Episcopalis Communio, 5,2) so that the synodal process is carried out through listening to all of the baptised, who are the subject of the sensus fidei – infallible –in credendo.” — [[Episcopalis communio Art. 5: Start and Purpose of the Preparatory Phase – §1. The preparatory phase begins when the Roman Pontiff officially opens the Synod Assembly, assigning one or more themes to it. §2. Coordinated by the General Secretariat of the Synod, the preparatory phase has at its purpose the consultation of the People of God on the theme of the Synod Assembly.]]
What is a “sense” of the faith? The faith is univocally provided supernaturally by the Holy Spirit, the same for all, for pope and priest and parishioner. When by a process of conscience, something is presented for the judgment of conscience (such as whether we are to repent for our sins), this decision is pushed, if you will, by the grace of faith supernaturally provided. But that “sense” of the faith on our part is fallible inasmuch as we are fallen, having all the weaknesses and fears of original sin and our own sin. We rush to suppress the faith unless, taking on this cross of weakness and fear, by grace we assent to all that which is good and holy. This is all true for parishioner and priest and pope alike.
What does it mean to be infallible? The only difference for the Successor of Peter is that he is utterly expendable before the eternal truth of God who is not at all expendable. That Successor of Peter is the only one tasked among all the baptized to be in that position as the father of the family of faith on earth, not the other bishops, not the priests, not the sheep of the Lord’s Little Flock, just the Successor of Peter. It is not something that can be called a revelation or a charism or a special inspiration. No, nothing positive like that. It is a negative provision. That’s it. Everyone, including the pope, has the same “sense of the faith” and we can be wrong about the faith, including the pope, because of our weakness and fear consequent to original sin and our own sin. It’s just that the pope is in a unique teaching position established by the Lord. The pope cannot be wrong about faith and morals when he pronounces some teaching as already being revealed in the two-fold source of revelation, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and does this as the Successor of Peter for the entire Church. If he were to make such an infallible ex-cathedra pronouncement and be incorrect, heretical, well, actually, it is not the truth that is expendable, but rather the pope, in such manner that he will not be able to pronounce such heresy. He will either drop dead before it can happen (Pope Sixtus V) or be incapacitated or stopped in some providential manner. The pope is expendable, not the Truth of the Living God.
What does it mean to be infallible in believing: “infallibile in credendo“? One can be entirely correct in believing. The Blessed Virgin Mary, because of her Immaculate Conception, had such purity of heart and agility of soul, clarity of spiritual vision, such profundity of understanding, and was so entirely lacking in unhealthy fear that she was correct in her believing. But that’s not to say she was infallible. She wasn’t ever meant to be a subject of infallibility, which is a kind of divine gag-order on the stupidity and imprudence of whatever pope might want to go against the faith. The phrase “infallible in believing” is non-sensical in that not even a pope correctly pronouncing a dogma of the faith as already present in Sacred Revelation is necessarily infallible in believing. That’s WHY there is such a protection of the church over against any pope who may well not be a believer at all, but who may try to say something against the faith. That a pope is infallible is a protection for the church that will be effected regardless of whether or not that particular pope is a believer.
But – Hey! – don’t believe me! Regardless of what is said for the Synod on Synodality, I, Father George, am not infallible!
Instead – Hey! – why not let’s look at Sacred Scripture and see the treasures that are there? Yes, let’s do that.
Warning: this analysis is not something you will find amongst the Orthodox, nor among “ecumenists” who want to pander to the Orthodox. This analysis is not something you will find among any commentary on the Scriptures that I have ever seen. No one wants to see infallibility for what it is. We are all that fearful, and therefore stupid. So – Hey! – let’s just look at what the actual words are, getting the finest nuance provided under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to the Evangelist Saint Matthew. Let’s look at the dreaded Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18. Let’s be usefully pedantic.
Matthew 16:19a — “Whatever you may bind at any given time (second person singular [Peter alone] subjunctive aorist active) upon the earth will (third person singular [Peter alone] indicative future middle) already have been made to be perfectly standing in that way (nominative neuter singular participle perfect passive) in the heavens.”
What do the verbs mean in this context?
Second person singular subjunctive aorist active –
The second person singular refers to Peter alone, not to all, not even the other Apostles: Peter alone.
The subjunctive here is not so much a kind of conditional or wishfulness, but rather depicts the state of actually choosing an option; from the perspective of the actor, there is freedom to the choice: “Whatever you may bind at any given time.”
The aorist time frame, whatever delusion your introductory Greek grammars insist on providing to you, is literally “without borders”, that which can happen in the past, present or even future (as is the case here: see below), though usually something which itself happens in a defined time frame, such as the choice to bind something.
Active simply refers to something simply being accomplished.
Third person singular indicative future middle –
The third person singular refers to any given object of the action, its state of being.
It will simply be what it is (indicative)
at that time (future).
The middle voice is here used to indicate the status quo to which the actor is also subject, that is, retroactively to his decision to bind something, the truth of that which is described by the following verb, which this singular indicative future middle (“will”) helps to describe.
The nominative neuter singular refers to the object which is being bound (passive)
that is, in an ongoing fashion (participle)
in a perfect manner (perfect); mind you, in Greek, “perfect” never refers to a perfectly accomplished action at one point in time and that’s the end of it, but rather to an action which starts in a perfect manner and perfectly continues in this perfection since its inception: it always was and will be this way, perfectly, with no change: “already have been made to be perfectly standing in that way.” This “perfect” action structures the capacity of the actor, Peter, to act subjunctively, preempting all choices of Peter except for the one which is consonant which the truth which has always been this way in the heavens. Whatever he may choose to bind at any given time will already have been the case, is the case, and will always continue to be the case in the heavens. Peter cannot choose anything which is not already perfectly established in the heavens. What is in heaven is not an affirmation of what Peter might pronounce; what is in heaven simply is what it is, absolute truth. If Peter is wrong about what he intends to pronounce upon, he simply will not be able to pronounce upon it. He is utterly expendable for the sake of the Lord’s Little Flock.
And this is why there is misinterpretation of this passage is that people are afraid of Peter being expendable. That would mean this is all very serious, and that they themselves have to pay attention to doctrine and morality themselves. That’s what people don’t want to see. They run away by saying it means that Peter can say whatever the hell he wants and heaven will have to kowtow to him. Instead, Peter risks life and limb pronouncing infallibly. Almost no popes have done this. The Orthodox and others shouldn’t be envious of infallibility. Not at all.
The bit about loosing is exactly the same, verbatim:
Matthew 16:19b — “Whatever you may loose at any given time (second person singular subjunctive aorist active) upon the earth will (third person singular indicative future middle) already have been made to be perfectly standing in that way (nominative neuter singular participle perfect passive) in the heavens.”
Let’s review Matthew 18:18 in utterly pedantic translation, as this is where it gets really interesting as to whether all the baptized are infallible or not:
Matthew 18:18a — “Whatever ye may bind at any given time (second person plural subjunctive aorist active) upon the earth will (third person singular indicative future middle) already have been made to be things perfectly standing in that way (nominative neuter singular participle perfect passive) in heaven.”
Matthew 18:18b — “Whatever ye may loose at any given time (second person plural subjunctive aorist active) upon the earth will (third person singular indicative future middle) already have been made to be things perfectly standing in that way (nominative neuter singular participle perfect passive) in heaven.”
There are some differences besides the plural heavens and singular heaven. Matthew 18:18 is addressed also to the laity about any number of things that may be under dispute. But the verbs and their meanings are exactly the same. The important thing to notice is that the context does not grant any infallibility for this other crowd, that is, for anyone except Peter (and his successors). Let’s see how:
Firstly, in Matthew 16:19, where Peter alone among the Apostles is addressed, only Peter is given the keys of the Kingdom of the Heavens. There is no reference at all to such keys for anyone else in Matthew 18:18. That they have the same access to the understanding of the faith as does Peter is contingent for them in agreeing with Peter, for, as we see in context, the process of a dispute will bring them right back to the Church for a decision of Peter. They are not infallible, he is. If they rebel they are ipso facto no longer Catholic. This is what people also forget in this equation, that we are all of us also expendable if we so choose. Peter was certainly judged by the Lord right quick:
Peter to Jesus: God forbid! The cross is not for you!
Jesus to Peter: Get behind me, Satan!
In the end, Peter also manifested in his own life, being crucified, that love and truth is stronger than our weakness, stronger than our darkness, stronger than death. Love and truth live! And Jesus, Divine Son of the Immaculate Conception, will come to judge the living and the dead and the world by fire. Amen.
“Father George! Father George! Why are you so disrespectful to Pope Francis in your pedantic clarity! You certainly ARE infallible Father George! Just like all of us! Pope Francis said so! Stop being such an old meanie! Pope Francis should excommunicate you for, like, saying stuff, contradicting him!”
But – wait… what? – I thought he thought I was infallible, so I can’t be wrong, right?
Now, if all that seems very dark, let me leave you with a wonderful note on all of this:
Remember the guy at the end of Matthew 18:15-17, the rebel, who didn’t listen to any correction from a friend, nor from multiple witnesses, nor from the church, but just kept rebelling, how Jesus said to treat that rebel like a tax collector? Yes, well, the one writing that account was Matthew himself, he being that rebel, a one-time tax collector, and Jesus says to treat that rebel guy like a tax collector, that is, how Jesus treated such rebels, that is, by making him, now repentant into an apostle and evangelist. I love that. Jesus is the best.
And if that is not sufficient to speak to my own attitude toward Pope Francis, I challenge any priest or bishop in the world to offer more publicly announced Mass intentions – the whole Mass, not just a mention in the Canon or in the prayers of the faithful – than I do. I do that, a lot. I pray for the very person of Pope Francis. I want to see him in heaven. I want to go to heaven. If I didn’t want to see him in heaven I wouldn’t go to heaven. I pray for the grace to be close to Jesus myself. I pray for him, that he has the grace to be close to Jesus.
I extend this challenge also to laity, to have more Masses caused to be offered for the person of Pope Francis than I myself have been doing.
I’m not gonna say that I’m infallible on this[!], but I think that this is the right attitude to have in regard to Pope Francis.
I’ve yet to continue with my series on Vatican Bank. I’ve yet to publicly “confess” any “money laundering” and any “financing of international terrorism.”
Meanwhile, I got a letter from the IOR (Vatican Bank). I thought it might a hard-copy of what they had sent out multiple time previously by email concerning the above possible crimes with threats of freezing any accounts for non-compliance. As expected, there’s something else going on. The letter includes graphs and shovel loads of attorney speak to hint that they are going into the red, which is not good for a bank. For instance:
“Proposta di variazione unilaterale delle Condizioni di Contratto con decorrenza 1 ottobre 2021.” (Proposal [=imposition] of unilaterally effected changes to the Conditions of Contract beginning 1 October 2021).
“In questo periodo storico, la gestione della liquidità e diventata strutturalmente negativa.” (In this period of time, the management of liquidities has become structurally negative.”)
So, what do you do? Put the Vatican up for sale? No, no. What they’re going to do is to reduce any “interest” paid into accounts, even to the point of removing funds from accounts. They take money from you for taking money from you.
This is getting tiring. I think I’ll just have them do a transfer of funds into my bank account here in North Carolina, you know, before 1 October 2021.
Meanwhile, there’s an interesting date on that letter considering the trial at exactly this time of someone indicted for multiple crimes, including fraud for – what was it? – something like 412 million dollars. To be continued.
/// This is the text of what was blocked by Vatican servers when attempting to send this as an email txt and then as a pdf file. Blocked two days in a row. That’s not mere server housekeeping. So, I publish it here. Too creepy for me. I take out the two names to whom this is addressed in the IOR, Vatican Bank. ///
Dear Mr XXXX XXXXXXX and Mr XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX,
Thank you for your continued service at IOR in such difficult times. The pressure you are all under is witnessed by the anomalous manner with which the request for the updating of personal details of (some) account holders has been proffered. Except for the fact that you work for the Holy See (Vatican City State), I would, in any other circumstances, assume such a request to be an inferior intelligence product devoid of the least effort to provide passable optics of professionalism. While I write this in a lighthearted manner for your entertainment, I find myself insufficient to the task of conveying to you the depth of the gravity of my concern regarding the matters at hand.
As we proceed in future communications to my own confessions of any “money laundering” and any “financing of international terrorism”, please accept these preliminary observations as a professional courtesy in view of the possibility that you are acting in good faith and not with the prestidigitations of those who are merely as clever as serpents. In this communication some requests are also made with the hope that you are trying to be helpful, respecting justice, which is never biased on behalf of one person over against another, never taking advantage of the circumstances of one person and using those unjustly over against another.
The IOR request for the updating of personal details of the (representatives of) clients of the IOR has the inescapably implied motivation of virtue-signaling, with the Holy See (Vatican City State) making the claim in this manner that it has the moral high ground in implementing policies regarding any money laundering and any financing of international terrorism. Perhaps this is an attempt to incite laughter among clients, to be in solidarity with the IOR amidst exasperation with the failures of the Holy See (Vatican City State), failures to which we are all subject in our fallen human nature. And one would laugh, except that it is all so sad.
All are aware that the Holy See (Vatican City State) has been under scrutiny for many decades regarding what is sometimes perceived as malfeasance specifically by way of alleged purposed incompetence resulting in the alleged but equally purposed non-implementation of best-practices. Alleged incompetents and/or malefactors, with the finesse of stilted Romanità, thus proffer an invitation to, or give into logistical demands of criminals leveraging the vice of greed, the fear of extortion, or willing fealty to that which falls under rubrical omertà.
To be detailed below are just a few unavoidable, immediate and irreversible consequences of your sending out an electronic communication (two, within hours, in my case) inescapably implying the possibility that those in reception of that missive may be guilty of money laundering and the financing of international terrorism.
Laudable, predictable interception of such an electronic communication by intelligence services who work for our common security are algorithm-flagged to the end of provoking human intervention. International money laundering and the financing of international terrorism are taken rather seriously in the midst of the always perverted machinations of geopolitical maneuvering and the unfathomable greed and lust for power also of specific individuals. At any rate, it is the discourteous and unprovoked first-instance threat of the freezing of accounts which requires an agent to take certain actions. If you’re willing to provoke a court case with all the discovery that such entails, it must all be quite serious.
While I am very happy that you are applying what might be seen to be merely regularly scheduled due-diligence-policies concerning money laundering and the financing of international terrorism (more on that in a future communication), I’m guessing that you could have refrained from any immediate unprovoked threats of the freezing of any account with IOR, just as you could have refrained from mentioning that investigations into money laundering and the financing of international terrorism is the purpose of these requests for clients to update their individual and unrepeatable details. Surely it would be normal best-practices to request clients to update their details, but without any mention of possible crimes and without any threats, with that simple updating being enough to accomplish your felicitous motivations as good members of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, sending along all updated information and activities of all clients, institutional or otherwise, for the verification and review of the OSCE in all of its 57 member countries. The intelligence services of the USA, also a member of the OSCE, are extraordinarily good at what they do, and will immediately notice any anomalies. Apriori purposed alerting of any malefactors seems counterproductive, allowing criminals to use much more care in their answers, allowing them to move funds before the freezing of any accounts. Bad as that is, that’s only the best-case scenario. There are others.
For the intelligence services of the USA, activities wrought by a foreign country on a citizen of the USA that touch on the mere possibility of such crimes related to priority security issues will immediately trigger a surveillance warrant from the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in Washington, D.C., every time, no exceptions. I’m good with that. My life has always been an open book, particularly with our intelligence services. I’m sure you are aware that any FISA warrant also covers anyone related in any manner to the subject of the warrant, including, in this case, individuals who work at the IOR, along with the IOR institutionally, and anyone who may have ordered such an investigation. But you already know that. This must be a rather grave matter.
Despite my status as a citizen of the USA in good standing, such motivation for an inquiry into priority security issues is enough to have me abruptly detained by our Department of Justice for a more thorough inquisition, effectively having me placed in custody for an indeterminate period, even years. But you knew that before you sent your first communication, didn’t you? I’m happy to cooperate in any such investigation, but I would be dismayed on behalf of Christ’s faithful, who may be bereft of a priest to care for their sacramental needs in my remote parish. Should there be any unfortunate misunderstandings it would be convenient for me to have a contact in the Nunciature in Washington, D.C. who would be able to liaise with our Department of State and our Department of Justice. Might you send me the full contact information of that person?
Despite my status as a Catholic priest in good standing, a pastor of a parish, and a Missionary of Mercy of Pope Francis, any bishop would be understandably hesitant to tolerate that such a priest under investigation for money laundering and the financing of international terrorism by the Holy See be allowed to continue in active ministry, at least until such investigations are resolved, which could take years or, much more likely, never come to a conclusion. The most likely resulting scenario of your preliminary communication would, in most every (arch)diocese in the world, be that I am removed from public ministry, probably for life. Many in the Church, perhaps hiding ulterior motivations, congratulate themselves by citing the deadly verbiage of the expedience of Caiaphas: “pro bono eccelesiae,” “for the good of the Church.” But you already knew that before you sent your first communication, didn’t you? Again, should there be any unfortunate misunderstandings it would be convenient for me to have a contact in the Nunciature in Washington, D.C. that would be able to liaise with the Holy See with the end of having me placed back in active ministry should I indeed be temporarily removed. Might you send me the full contact information of that person?
However felicitously these circumstances may be resolved, these communications will remain registered as an “incident” in my life history on both ecclesiastical and governmental levels. This may involve harassment getting an ecclesiastical assignment as mentioned above, or even harassment in travel. For instance, is it not likely, even probable, that all fifty seven member countries of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe will incorporate my name on a watch list, even a no-fly list? Will I be allowed to return to Italy, to the Vatican, for the upcoming encounter of the Missionaries of Mercy with Pope Francis? But you already knew all the possible repercussions before you sent your first communication, didn’t you?
In expectation of whatever name(s) you may be able to send me of those working in the Apostolic Nunciature in Washington D.C. (previous to my “confessing” any “money laundering” and any “financing of international terrorism”), I ask our Lord to shower His blessings upon you.
Father George David Byers, SSL, STD Pastor of Holy Redeemer Catholic Church Missionary of Mercy of Pope Francis
So, I’ll get into “confessing” “confessions” of any “money laundering” and any “financing of international terrorism” in another post. I have to write that yet. Stay tuned.
[[ UPDATE: This post was published yesterday. I saw this post as published yesterday on my phone. But it has disappeared from what is visible on the desktop computer. Interesting. Let’s try to publish it again. Only something like one in five of my posts is sent out to subscribers. If you want to follow this blog you have to come to this URL directly, you know, by putting it in the top menu or whatever your system allows. Sorry for reposting this for those who saw it. Thanks. //// ]]
[[ UPDATE: Since it is Vatican Bank which is investigating me for money laundering and the financing of international terrorism, I wonder if I’m one of the ones for whom the three bullets sent to Pope Francis are intended. There seems to have been a complaint about how the finances are being handled. Plenty of fodder for that by the way. The French police who were alerted to this already in France where they intercepted that letter said that the person sending the bullets is clearly known the Gendarmerie. That’s really creepy. Especially because I’m well known to Vatican Intel, specifically to Giani, who was fired by Francis while he was getting close to discovering all the rubbish. Giani gave my case over to Gauzzi, who succeeded Giani. ]]
[[ UPDATE: I just tried to send another short email just saying that I can’t seem to get through, and that was rejected for now two days in a row. So this is not just the temporary housecleaning of servers. I’m blocked. After attempting to post this again, I’ll try to publish my fuller response. Then I’ll “confess” publicly my “crimes” of any “money laundering” and any “financing of international terrorism.” ;-) ]]
//// Original post from 9 August 2021: ////
So, IOR (pronounced Eeyore) (Istituto per le Opere di Religione: Vatican Bank) has been investigating yours truly for money laundering the financing of international terrorism, threatening to freeze my account. Bwaahahahahaha….
I asked for names in the IOR with whom I might correspond so as to “confess” my “crimes” of any “money laundering” and any “financing of international terrorism” even while they – in first instance communication – threatened to freeze my account.
And they did send me two names. Along with all the metadata, it’s a verified email account, and it’s in proper working order. Heheheh…
Great! So now I tried to send a more fulsome response, getting closer to my upcoming promised “confessions”:
I sent that response via simple email txt. It was rejected as an email by the Holy See and sent back. ;-)
I then created a pdf of 28 kbs. Tiny. Just txt. I know they have that capability as it’s they also sent me a pdf attachment. That was also rejected as an email by the Holy See and sent back. ;-)
Then I sent just a few words in a txt email to the general IOR address, asking for an email capable of receiving more than just two or three words. That was it. That was also rejected by the Holy See and sent back. ;-)
Probably the email system of Vatican City State is down, except that they received it and automatically rejected my email, you know, by way of email. Perhaps it’s just some servers that are down, you know, of the IOR, you know, while they are in the midst of being watched while Cardinal What’s His Face is indicted on many criminal charges including fraud to the tune of 400-500 million dollars (or is it euros?). Quite a bit whatever the case.
Or, maybe they are running scared, realizing the implications of what they’ve done. Too late!
I’ll wait a week or so, and see if they come back on-line (or they unblock me?). But I am tempted to publish my response to them on this blog with some adjunct remarks. We’ll see.
This story was on Church Militant. LifeSite carried the story with heaps of details, with reference to the massive protests in twelve European cities. While idiot priests here and there banned people from the Sacraments, Francis has not yet had “Green Pass” check points at the doors of Saint Peter’s Basilica. Don’t think it’s not coming. He’s started with the Vatican Museums and Gardens and such. But Francis has banned reception of the Sacraments on his travels elsewhere and smashed down Vatican workers (just under 5,000 people).
Considering what Mt St Mary’s Seminary did in throwing out all seminarians who do not have vaccines, and considering that some bishops have “restricted” the ministry of un-vaxed priests (effectively suspending them a divinis, from providing sacraments, etc.), and considering that the vast, vast majority of otherwise even seemingly good bishops support and promote the baby-murder-sourced vaccines like any high priests of Satan, I’m guessing that it will be soon that we have a general smackdown in the entire church by both ecclesiastical and secular authorities.
And then we will see a persecution such as has never been seen since the foundation of the world, nor will be seen until the end of the world. Murdering babies for your own benefit is stepping WAY over the line.
No matter how you look at it, Francis is heading toward dismissing from the clerical state (laicizing) all priests throughout the world who do not get vaxed. Francis has already compared unvaxed people to murderers. He’s said that they are wanting suicide because they don’t get vaxed. How could you keep a priest in active ministry that is both murderous and wanting to commit suicide?
With this murder-the-children-for-self-referential-benefit attitude, Pope Francis is the most monstrous child-abuser (because of his influence) in the history of the world.
All vaccines that we have are researched and/or developed and/or tested on babies murdered for the purpose. I’m not going to be participating in the murder of the most vulnerable of the least of the brethren. Ain’t gonna happen. I can’t see myself going before the judgement and throwing baby parts in Jesus face, and in the face of dearest Mary. No.
ALSO: Now that the U.S. Department of Defense is mandating vaccines for the military, don’t think that when they are under order to enforce vaccines that they will be polite about it. In crossing this line and then being given power to force others to get vaxed, how do you think they are going to go about it?
That’s a real picture above, though taken as a joke. Those involved will recognize the office. See the “About” page on the menu up top. Below is a screen shot of my first response to their investigation of me:
This post was also tagged as “Humor” not because this isn’t a thing, but because when I mentioned this rubbish after all the Sunday Masses for a bit of humor, the congregation laughed and laughed: Father George, the international criminal! Ooooh! :-)
There is a darker side to all of this, all too sad. That’s why I’ve included those other tags of this post.
Here’s a link to a post earlier in the day for some just as humorous background:
For me, this is all entertainment, who can bait the other with more alacrity. So far, I think I’m winning. Let’s see if they send me a name. Then it will get interesting, and more humorous. Otherwise, I suppose they will merely freeze the account, you know, probably to take the money for money laundering and the financing of international terrorism.
Canon 1321 §1: everyone is considered innocent until the contrary is proven.
Great! But, oh, I forgot. The prophets were stoned to death, cut in two. Jesus was condemned and put to death. Thomas More was decapitated. Fr James Altman was smacked down…
If anyone dares to say that – Hey! It’s all good now! We’ve made progress! – pretty much they are blaspheming. The Code of Canon Law isn’t going to make those attacking the doctrine and morality and the liturgy of the Church and the Sacraments and attacking Jesus and our Blessed Mother into saints who actually obey the 10 Commandments, much less the Code of Canon Law in any iteration. Perhaps it’s a good revision. But do not put your trust in such horses.
You want proof of the foundation for that cynicism?
When I had to endure sitting through the VIRTUS® course at the Pontifical College Josephinum back in the day, a course unique to seminaries, different from that given to the laity, I had to complain about many points which were entirely pro-homosexualist. One in particular that I cite to this day regards “red flags” when deciding whether or not to report a suspicious person. Out of a long list of possible requirements, there had to be at least two in the list that were present before one would be allowed to report on the suspicious behavior of someone possibly crossing boundaries. One of the things on that list was showing pornography to minors. But you can’t report that behavior, mind you, unless you have another indicator to demonstrate not only a pattern but that which is entrenched in a number of ways.
NO! The second I would see someone showing pornography to minors (or anyone else) is the very second that they will find themselves on the ground sucker-punched, possible jaw-broken, eye-socket broken, and only then have 911 called for their medical treatment and for their arrest. I don’t care if this happened to be a rich layman or a narcissist priest or some bishop or cardinal. Ain’t gonna happen at my church. I’m not going to wait for another red flag that there has possibly been a possible boundary violation.
And I’m not going to say that the porn pusher is to be “considered innocent until the contrary is proven.” No, he’s going to out cold, on the spot. Go ahead, burn me at the stake. Hier stehe ich. I kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir.
The newly revised Penal Code in Canon Law does outlaw any such activity. However, the very Holy See are the ones who have strongly pushed VIRTUS® and the homosexualist presenters. Remember the “abuse summit” at the Gregorian some years ago? I’m afraid that however good this all sounds, those who are the top of the heap over in the Holy See ought also to be taken out of ministry regardless of prescription. Promoters of Justice will know of whom I speak, perhaps themselves. What I could only call demonic hypocrisy, scandalizing the entire Church, would seem to undo any “prescription” (time limits) on prosecution. Yes, let’s start with the Promoters of Justice, shall we, you know, the homosexualists, those who sollicit crimes under the guise of ladder-climbing and political correctness?
P.S. I note that the effective date of the new penal code isn’t until the end of 2021. That has lots of implications. But one implication is this: good Canon Lawyers can use this time to put cases together to smack down criminals on day one.
From FoxNews: “The head of the Vatican’s doctrine office is warning U.S. bishops to deliberate carefully and minimize divisions before proceeding with a possible plan to rebuke Roman Catholic politicians such as President Joe Biden for receiving Communion even though they support abortion rights.”
“Minimize divisions”? Let’s take a look at that…
Did the Dems vote God out of their party platform, dividing God from everything that happens in the world? Yes.
Do the Dems push maniacally to rip kids apart in the womb and after birth, dividing, shredding the image of God in the least of the brethren? Yes.
Do the Dems hate the elderly, attacking the Little Sisters of the Poor in their effort to assist the elderly, dividing the elderly from the care they need? Yes.
Do the Dems attack the image of God proclaimed in Genesis as male and female with family, thus dividing the image of God? Yes.
Diabolical? Yes. That’s from the Greek, meaning to throw apart, to divide. Division aimed at God and God’s image is diabolical. Do we “minimize divisions” when we not only ignore such diabolical interventions but bless them, consecrate them, proclaim them as holy, to be imitated, by giving Holy Communion to those who divisory in this way? Not at all. The divide is made all the greater between the saints and the malicious, between those who follow Jesus and those who attack Jesus both personally and in the least of the brethren.
In all of this it is very difficult to find anyone who speaks of Jesus. The “good” commentators will speak of “it”, you know, the thing.
They will be respectful, have right doctrine, but, really, it’s very difficult to find someone who will speak the Holy Name of Jesus, that in receiving Holy Communion, the Eucharist – you know, the thing – they are in fact face to Face Jesus, the Divine Son of the Living God, the Divine Son of the Immaculate Conception (she who had Jesus within her womb for nine months and did not rip Jesus to shreds with abortion).
Why can’t we just say Jesus? Why can’t we say that ripping kids up in the womb, kids who are the image of Jesus, and then receiving Jesus Himself at Holy Mass into one’s bosom isn’t consonant, and isn’t to be done, so that such horrific monsters like Joey Biden are to be flat out denied the reception of Jesus for the good of their own souls?
It’s pastorally sensitive to deny Holy Communion, Jesus Himself, to the likes of Joey Biden. Those who maliciously administer Holy Communion, Jesus Himself, to the likes of Joey Biden risk going straight to hell, even if they are merely any bishop, merely any priest, merely any Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.
It’s pastorally sensitive to be divisive, dividing the likes of Joey Biden from reception of Jesus.
Jesus said He has brought a sword of division. We had better use that sword of division lest we be divided from eternal salvation.
My first duty as a priest is to be divisive since my first duty as a priest is to bring Jesus, the Great Divider, to His Little Flock, to feed the lambs, to tend the sheep, to feed the sheep, discerning with such divisory spirit just who is a lamb and who is sheep and not a wolf in sheep’s clothing. My first duty is not to feed the likes of this:
Letting the likes of Joey Biden receive Jesus in Holy Communion is to confirm him in being a wolf and risks sending him straight to hell. Those who maliciously allow that, are they not also risking going straight to hell? Are they not wolves in sheep’s clothing as well?
Where’s a real guard-donkey when you need one?
In following up on my priestly vocation from Jesus I agreed to be divisory with Jesus. I volunteered to be a guard-donkey of Jesus’ Little Flock.
Meanwhile, what the hell is that Jesuit guy at the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith doing? He is being terribly divisory, causing division. He casting all apart: diabolical. How ironic.
Now, having said that, am I liable to being smacked down by the very Church I seek to defend, as many priests are being smacked down at this moment for that reason? No, and neither are they. But it is happening to many. Let’s take a look at the law of the Church, the Code of Canon Law to see if I’m amiss on that:
Canon 1369 A person who in a public show or speech, in published writing, or in other uses of the instruments of social communication utters blasphemy, gravely injures good morals, expresses insults, or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty.
Correcting even an ecclesiastical personage even of great rank, even the Holy Father, is none of that. Instead, it’s speaking with the pontifically mandated parrhesia (speaking the truth boldly, with charity, for the salvation of souls). Sure, the truth hurts for those who don’t want the truth. Sure, there might be retaliation from those who have great authority in lording it over the sheep, but that doesn’t mean they are either correct or are doing that charitably.
Canon 1373 A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties.
Yes, well, we have to ask if individuals in the Apostolic See or an Ordinary are acting ultra vires, that is, beyond their powers, and so are acting as individuals and not legitimately with some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry. Charitable correction sometimes has to be harsh, as we know with John the Baptist and Jesus. And because some are in need of harsh correction there may appear to be animosity or hatred from the corrector, even when there is none. It is a supreme act of selfless charity to correct someone who is breakneck running straight into hell. Provoking people to disobey administrative acts that provoke sin is not disobedience. It is supreme obedience to keep people from sin.
This modus operandi which I strive to follow in sacerdotal ministry is to fly in the face of sin, and to disregard any order to sin. The objective is the salvation of souls. I have been ordered in decades past in far away places to give Jesus in Holy Communion to manifest pro-abort politicians and to manifest grave sinners who were members of those respective parishes. It ain’t gonna happen. I suffered the consequences, which were draconian, that is, diabolical, that is, divisory. I’m just trying to do what is right in natural law, the 10 Commandments, in Canon Law, particularly before my Judge, Christ Jesus, who will come to judge the living and the dead and the world by fire. Amen.
It just struck me that there will surely be an objection that to be fair in all things “political”, I would also have to refuse Jesus in Holy Communion to, say, someone like Mother Teresa of Calcutta, you know, to make a point that the Church is not siding with any political party (as if any of that makes any sense). No, no. It would be worse: surely the reprimand would be something along the lines of administering Holy Communion to the likes of freakish pro-abortion Joey Biden but then refusing the likes of a Mother Teresa, you know, because Mother Teresa is like, you know, “rigid.”
Is is the great Father James Altman who got me thinking on all this divisoriness. Many incidents in my priestly life come to mind where the actual world divisory was used. I’ve had people say that I’m precisely 180 degrees turned away from being a “man of consensus.” I can only blame that on the Lord Jesus, thanks be God our Father.
We are not to unified among ourselves mired together in the lowest common denominator, then calling that such sharing in filth some kind of unity with God. No.
We are to be united to God and because of that, with Jesus, we are to wield the sword of division, the eternal Word of God, in such manner that we are all crucified to ourselves so as live through, with and in Christ Jesus.
That’s the end of division and the establishment of true unity in the Most Holy Trinity.
In the last few days I’ve been hearing much about Fulton Sheen’s take way back in 1948, about Padre Pio’s take way back around 1960, about Our Lady of Fatima and the great apostasy and the one about whom we would have the presentiment that he is the Holy Father (what a strange way of phrasing that description). I call to mind Don Bosco’s vision of the great battle and that the Church would be anchored between the Eucharist and Jesus’ mother (both smashed down today…). And so on and so forth…
My head has been spinning with the in fine velocior events (those untoward happenings which occur at a much faster rate when we arrive to the end), spinning, that is, until, the other day, offering Holy Mass ad orientem, I was terribly distracted, as it were, by another kind of presentiment altogether, that Jesus was very much with me at that Most Holy Sacrifice of His. I know academically and with devotion that the priest acts in Persona Christi, in the Person of Christ, at the Consecrations at Holy Mass, but this was happening just before those Consecrations. My take-away from such an experience, if you will, is – how to say – a deeper impression in my very being that Christ our God is always with us.
I’ve been preaching that mankind is always and everywhere in every culture (or lack thereof) the very same, what with all the weaknesses of original sin, so that it is only political correctness one way or the other in the swinging of a pendulum, from fake-peace to all-out bloodshed, that generally people are faking that they are good people while a fake-peace reigns or that they are good people while they openly commit the bloodshed. There are always a percentage of men who are stably with the Lord Jesus, who see and thank Jesus for those wounds of His, and who therefore admit our fallen condition and are in humble thanksgiving to the Lord right through any times of fake-peace or any times of all-out bloodshed while the ever swinging societal pendulum swings away, and there are always a percentage of men who are violently simmering with their violence just below the surface, who wish they could be more violent in times of fake-peace, and who rejoice when all-out bloodshed is countenanced by political correctness. But Jesus is always, always with us, wherever the pendulum of political correctness happens to be.
At the end of the Apocalypse we read about the attitude we are always to have, through fake-peace and through violence: we are to be crying out with great enthusiasm and insistence, “Come, Lord Jesus! Maranatha! Let’s get this done! Yay! Finally! Let’s bear witness to Jesus! Maranatha! Come Lord Jesus!”
CLAP APPLAUSE CLAP APPLAUSE CLAP APPLAUSE CLAP APPLAUSE CLAP APPLAUSE CLAP APPLAUSE CLAP APPLAUSE — IT’S THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER ! ! ! — CLAP APPLAUSE CLAP APPLAUSE CLAP APPLAUSE CLAP APPLAUSE CLAP APPLAUSE
No. And No. No to all that Promethean Self-Absorbed Neo-Pelagianism. Saint Peter is sick of it.
The homily below began with a critique of the collect for the feast day. That couple of minutes was edited out. That prayer deserves a much more incisive analysis. We get right into the rather animated homily.
HINT: What the Keys of the Kingdom are really all about is NOT whatever Peter might decide, but about what has already been established in the heavens since eternity. If Peter doesn’t comply, he’s done. If he’s going to teach something about faith or morals that is contrary to the truth already established in the heavens (God is the Living Truth), and he does this for the universal Church precisely as the Rock, personally, Peter, or his successor, especially about something controverted, pronouncing that this is in fact revealed in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, well then, he simply will NOT be able to do this. He will either be incapacitated in his health or in any way, or die for whatever reason. This is why infallibility is what it is. Peter or his successors can do all the stupid things they want as long as they are not doing such idiocies as a teaching on faith and morals to the universal Church pronouncing that such absurdities are revealed in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
There are those who say, entirely heretically, that the Pope can fail, but that he will disqualified to be Pope when he does this. No. That would be the definition of what it means to be fail-able, and the revenge that will taken out on him by those disgruntled, who thus give themselves a license to depose him, throw him into exile, or worse, they having made themselves infallible.
One more thing not mentioned: Saint Peter doesn’t have the Keys of the Kingdom in heaven. You will find those with the Pope, Peter’s successor. And don’t think that he hasn’t used them just because he hasn’t used them for an ex-Cathedra statement. The Pope mandates usage of the keys with the successors of the Apostles and the priests to whom faculties are granted for absolving sins rightly confessed by penitent faithful. That’s where you find the Keys being turned for your benefit: in the Confessional.
In the above Decree of the Congregation for Divine Worship (25 March 2020) referring to a previous Decree (19 March 2020) we now see published what went into effect for Holy Week and Easter of 2020. This is important for 2021. Let’s look at the language:
“Bishops and priests may celebrate the rites of Holy Week without the presence of the people..”
That’s said regardless of civil restrictions. Interesting. This means that Bishops and priests may celebrate with the presence of the people… regardless of civil restrictions, right?
Palm Sunday “is to be celebrated within sacred buildings…”
Interesting. That’s like baiting civil authorities…
The Chrism Mass can be transferred.
Interesting. That makes a difference, I guess… I was excluded last year. It seems like it’s considered that the Chrism Mass in only about a representation of priests for the sake of the oils. I’m concerned about the good of the priests who at that Mass are to renew their priestly promises, and no representation will do for that…
Holy Thursday washing of feet is to be omitted.
I mean, what does that rite mean anyway, after Pope Francis totally gutted it of its real meaning? At any rate, the omission of this one rite during the Mass of the Lord’s Supper means that people are nevertheless there, right? There’s a faculty to celebrate the Mass of the Lord’s Supper without the presence of the people. But that means that it can be done with the people present, right?
Good Friday indications assume that people are there.
After all, you cannot limit certain actions just to the priest unless others there are actively being excluded.
The Easter Vigil, as always, as normal, is to be celebrated in Cathedral and parish churches.
That’s always the case. So…
But that was for 2020. We now, in 2021, have a “Note” having it that the above Decree is still valid for 2021. Since that’s the case, it’s a green light for celebrating Holy Week and the Easter Triduum with the people present, right?
UPSHOT: There is NOTHING in this “Note” or last year’s Decree which has it that Bishops as “moderators” can forbid the celebration of Holy Week and the Easter Triduum. I mean, I’m no “liturgist” or Canon Lawyer, but, truly, I don’t see anything that grants any Bishop the rite to simply cancel Holy Week and the Easter Triduum. Did any of them do that in 2020? Will any do it in 2021? I stand to be corrected, but only by those who have the apostolic mandate to do so, and who are not acting ultra vires, that is, beyond their powers.
JUST MY OPINION but this just seems to be scripted by the fear mongering of the Chinese Communist Party. I mean, after Easter, it will all go back to normal again, right? I mean, we all know that the Wuhan virus is entirely aware of liturgical timing…
LET ME TELL YOU: People are extremely cynical of church leadership regarding sex abuse, regarding money, regarding political correctness. Church leadership out and out mocks Christ Jesus. It pretty much seems that pretty much all of church leadership is Marxist. I mean, to have it that the virus knows liturgical timing is so very….. [I better stop here…]
Back in the mid-1980s, I declined when a Bishop wanted me to get degreed out in Canon Law over in Rome, asking to be sent back over yet again to get degreed out in Sacred Scripture. He sent me instead to the brand new JPII Institute for Marriage and the Family, back when the on the ground founder Father Carlo Caffarra (+2017) was there I think in the second year of its operation. I eventually did get degreed out in all matters Biblical. Although at the same time – back in the day – I was trying to cross-index all the canons of Canon Law in my mind, heart and soul, I am not today any kind of Canon Lawyer at all. So, I’ll just notice some things about this “Note.” I stand to be corrected. Please, do so.
First of all, the CDW chose to publish this as a “Note.” Wait… What? It’s not a Motu Proprio, nor a Decree, nor a Directive, nor an Instruction, nor a Circular Letter, nor a Notification, nor a Declaration, nor a Response to a Doubt, but merely as a “Note.” So, the legislative umph that comes with this note is something like zero. It’s like a suggestion for priests who are wondering just how far they can go with absurdity, you know, with permission, pushing for the surreal capitalizing on a plandemic one of whose main purposes seems to have been – of all things – to kick religion in the face.
There is no time stamp for “the pandemic,” you know, like someone deputed by the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church who is taking responsibility for making a scientific decision for the “end of the pandemic” when scientists have been lying and playing politics over against religion all along. The Covid-19 drama threatens to go on for many years to come. So…? Some dioceses very many hundreds of miles in length and breadth, having wildly diverse circumstances regarding geography, demography, (non-)movement of populations, and regarding how many enjoy immunity in whatever community for whatever reason, age, history of having gotten and gotten over the virus (I know some who got it in Italy and had to stay there until it was all over), and so on. So, the “sacerdos” on the ground is to make the decision.
There is no language such as “anything to the contrary notwithstanding,” nothing about penalties, no change in the General Institution of the Roman Missal for any future or continuing epidemics, no extra rubrics. Zippo. It’s a “Note”, right now, that is offered to “the priest.” Period.
Enough of that. Let’s move on to an analysis of the text, you know, the only official, signed text, in Latin. The other languages are not signed, so I’m thinking no one is wanting to claim those as “official translations.” It’s the Latin that has claim to being the “Note.”
“Dicta oratione ad benedicendos ceneres, et aspersis eis aqua benedicta, nihil dicens…” /// In my more pedantic and correct translation than that which is otherwise proffered, the meaning is as follows: “Having said the prayer for the blessing of the ashes, and with [ashes] having been sprinkled with blessed water, saying nothing…” /// Syntactically, the entire first paragraph is one sentence. This is merely the introduction to the rest of the sentence. But so far what we have are two past participles of whatever “voice” being subordinate to the present participle which carries, as it were, both of the other preceding participles. What this means is that although the first “dicta” (having said) would otherwise also mean “having pronounced”, being that it is subject to the present participle in the phrase “nihil dicens” (saying nothing), the reference to “dicta” at the beginning actually means something along the lines of “having made pretend to say”, so that the entire blessing is not pronounced except in the priest’s head, you know, because he actually is saying nothing – “nihil dicens” – for the actions of both preceding past participles of whatever voice. There are no words provided for the ashes having been sprinkled. No pronouncement = no blessing. The content of this note is fraudulent.
This first sentence continues as follows: “…sacerdos semel pro omnibus astantibus formulam ut in Missali Romano profert:…” /// [having wrought the preceding fakery mentioned at the beginning of this sentence…] …the priest once for all of those present pronounces the formula in the Roman Missal… /// So, now, the priest is actually to speak for the first and only time.”Sacerdos” is the subject of the main verb – profert – that carries the immediately preceding present participle in the phrase – “nihil dicens” – which in turn carries both past participles of whatever “voice” in the opening clauses.
The first sentence continues with its conclusion with references to options of what the priest is to pronounce just the one time for everyone: “Paenitemini, et credite Evangelio,” or “Memento, homo, quia pulvis es, et in pulverem reverteris.” /// “Repent, and believe in the Gospel,” or “Remember, man, that you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”
So, what we have are non-blessed ashes that have holy water sprinkled on them to an unknown effect for the Novus Ordo blessing of water or to the effect of an exorcism for the traditional formula, but nothing as a particular sacramental calling on the merits of Christ and the saints (as real sacramentals do): nothing about repenting specifically from sin. And how many people in the entire world go to Confession? A few hundred? A few thousand? Out of more than a billion? I note about this note, say, in the English “translation”, that the translator found it so very absurd that he broke up the first sentence into three, changed the participles to active verbs, and changed the meanings. But as I have noted previously, even that wasn’t good enough to overcome the surreal nature of this note.
Also, to repeat what I’ve said before, if mere ashes are disrespected and at the same time subjected to hyperventilating fake rubrics, what are we to do to make this consistent with the actual rubrics of Holy Mass about Him, who is infinitely more important, Jesus, Christ our God. Are the consecrations to have been said without saying anything – Nihil dicens – so that there are no actual consecrations of any bread or wine, so that there is, then, no Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ present, so that it is all a simulation of a Sacraement? Is the instruction about the “Body of Christ” or “Corpus Domini Iesu Christi…” therefore an encouragement to commit idol worship, something that we’ve already seen with the Pachamama fiasco?
Commentary on the rest of this “Note” and the additional rubrics others have given – totally absurd – will have to wait for another day. I can only be fed so much feces before wanting to throw up. I’m too weak. Sorry.
There are rumors that Pope Francis is going to publish the Amazon Synod “document” or throw-away “dialogue point” this Wednesday, February 12, 2020.
There are rumors that priestly celibacy will be thrown away.
If that’s what you intend Pope Francis, you have in that case certainly been coprophagic. Too bad, that. Let me instruct you.
We were created male and female, for marriage and the family, as the image of God.
We lost that in original sin. To redeem us from that Jesus would marry His bride, the Church, with His wedding vows at the Last Supper: “This is my Body given for you in sacrifice, this is the chalice of my Blood poured out for you in sacrifice.” Those vows are connected to His sacrifice on the Cross: He stood in our place, the Innocent for the guilty, He therefore having the right in His own justice to make us one with Himself, He the Head of the Body, we the members of the Body.
The priest repeats those consecrations in Persona Christi. The priest is married to the Bride of Christ, the Church, by the wedding vows he recites in the first person singular at the wedding banquet of the Lamb, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
As it says in the Scriptures, we priests are to be married but once. That “one time” refers to the Bride of Christ, the Church.
If the priest was already married, say, Saint Peter, then the Church provably, demonstrably, inescapably understood this to be a Josephite marriage (in which Saint Joseph was entirely chaste in regard to the Blessed Virgin Mary, who continued to be a virgin). This is evident in the Councils to follow in those early centuries.
To disregard this marriage of Christ so as to have married men in the Amazon and then around the world who are not living a Josephite marriage just so that they can say Mass but not hear Confessions is to disregard the redemption of the image of God in us by way of Christ’s marriage with His Bride, the Church. It is to disregard Calvary. It is to disregard original sin and personal sin. It is to say that Christ is useless and did nothing for us at the Last Supper and upon the Cross. It is to say that Christ is a damn fool.
Moreover, the priesthood must therefore be male. A woman-priest would be the symbol of transgenderism and of lesbianism, a woman married to the Bride of Christ. How sick is that?
Is that what you really want, Pope Francis?
Speak to us instead about the redemption of the image of God in us, about the redemption of marriage and the family by way the Last Supper and Calvary.
Speak to us instead about who priests really are as they offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, as they forgive sin of those who are repentant.
Speak to us not of your own personal version of a Jesus who has zero power to sanctify people, making all lost hope, throwing them into despair, but speak to us instead of the Divine Son of the Living God, immortal, holy, who can bring us to a love which is consonant with truth, and to a morality which is the splendor of the truth, you know, the Veritatis splendor.
I hope you are not offended by my making brave to say such things, but it is out of love for you. You are the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ.
I am not your “yes man.” I am not your sycophant. I am your good servant, but God’s first.
Stop scandalizing the entire Church and the entire world. We want a holy Holy Father.
Just to say, it is when priests do not know that they are married to the Church that all problems start. When marriage is not open to life, it tends to be sex tending to death. If it’s just sex, then the door is open to homosexuality. If priests don’t even know they are married, and are therefore not open to the forgiveness of sin, and have no hope of anything about redemption and salvation, they turn to sin. Look at the history of it, since the rejection of Human vitae on late July, 1968. Get it? Wake up!
The worst case scenario: After getting rid of priestly celibacy, the worst case scenario would be that executive power in the Roman Curia would be reserved only to the Pope, who can only handle a case or two a day, so that all other cases of that which would have involved Rome now will be dealt with only by the local bishop. In that case all hell will break out. Zero governance. Zero discipline. Good priests will be assigned to nothing, then lose their salary, then lose their insurance, then be dismissed from the clerical state as useless creatures who only offer liability. You know the drill: pro bono ecclesiae.
Oh. I forgot. Pope Francis already promised long ago to take away executive power from the Roman Curia just after finishing publishing the “document” of the Amazon Synod.
On multiple occasions, way back in the day, a certain “papabile” Cardinal friend – well placed in the very top ranks of the Roman Curia and then high up in the College of Cardinals – insisted, saying to me on so many different occasions right through the years:
“George, Leonardo Sandri, your friend, is a friend to you, your friend. He is someone who… And then a sometimes biting analysis of Sandri’s modus operandi would then be stated, at times in some detail, how and with whom he worked… which would immediately be followed by “but he will learn.”
That last bit was not at all a criticism, but rather a compliment about quick and sharp capacities to maneuver in the fog of battle of a steep learning curve, a great skill for any diplomat. This would be followed by a report of any recent promotions or activities or friendships – I think he even mentioned once Sandri’s health – and then my Cardinal friend repeated the statement again that “Sandri is a friend to you, George, your friend.”
On some occasions this certain Cardinal friend of mine (who, obviously, was a close friend also of Sandri and would meet with him regularly), was going to say what it was in particular that instigated such proclamations of Sandri being my friend, but then he would catch himself rather abruptly and would not continue. If I remember some indications correctly, it seems that not-then-a-cardinal Sandri had made an intervention favoring yours truly at a certain meeting in which my own name had arisen.
I must say that I was quite baffled by all this unsolicited information about Sandri, particularly about the friendship thing. I never did find out more about this. As far as I know, I had never met Sandri even in passing.
There are many who are saying various and sundry things about Cardinal Sandri these days. Nota bene: I have no idea about any of that whatsoever. None. I’m sure many will draw conclusions about myself based on all this. I guess I’m baiting them to do just that. The gossip mongers are what they are and know nothing of what is actually going on, never allowing the admonition of Jesus regarding serpents and doves.
Anyway, I would like to have a chat with Cardinal Sandri about our mutual friend, and perhaps to learn what some of these mysteries were about back in the day.
If someone across the pond puts this little reminiscence on his desk, perhaps he would make a minute or two for me in the two weeks following Easter of 2021, when the Missionaries of Mercy are again scheduled be in Rome.
I also have an easy favor to ask of him regarding a rather academic project I had been working on with our mutual Cardinal friend, and would like to complete. But I need help from the movers and shakers. Cardinal Sandri is now one of them. It’s been kicked around in the CDF and the Secretariat of State and the Pontifical Family. It’s needs a final encouragement. It would be a posthumous favor to our mutual friend.
So, Pope Francis wants to strip the Roman Curia of executive power. Think it through.
The best case scenario…
All executive power in the Roman Curia is stripped away.
With no executive power, all positions can be filled by laity, men or women, just a distraction, to be praised by liberals, though it means nothing, since there is no executive power.
What’s actually happened is that all Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons are replaced, meaning that in one fell swoop, Pope Francis has cleaned out all the liberal knuckleheads in the entire Roman Curia.
Pope Francis retires, giving a clean slate as a gift to his successor. In this case, it matters not what the motivation actually is, whether he thinks this is an “irreversible move” or not. His successor can do what he wants. Period. Meanwhile, all the riffraff will have been cleaned out. ;-)
The worst case scenario…
The status quo: Many dicasteries of the Roman Curia presently enjoy varying degrees of executive power enabling them to carry out their purpose. This includes the Secretariat of State, the Doctrine of the Faith, those involved with Bishops, Priests, Religious, etc. There are hundreds of cases making their way to Rome everyday. Life goes on.
All of those cases will instead go to gate-keepers for Pope Francis, who will decide the tiny handful he might have time to decide from day to day. In other words, the Pope will effectively ignore almost 100% of cases that are brought to Rome, meaning even extremely grave injustices will be ignored on a daily basis.
Bishops will learn not to be humiliated, and will no longer involve Rome… for anything whatsoever.
Then bishops will learn that they can do whatever they hell they want in regard to doctrine, morality, liturgy, a free for all of chaos, darkness, bullying, of smashing down those priests who just want to be Catholic priests, taking them out of assignments and then… nothing… that is… until…
In any case…
Popes come and go.
Cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priests, deacons come and go.
BTW, laity come and go.
The Lord is the Lord of History. He sees all.
Jesus is the One. He’s the only One. Who cares about all this? It’s all seems so self-referential, all so Promethean. Seems that way. But, whatever. What is always absolutely true is that Jesus is the One, not these other guys. Jesus is the only One.
We have the sacraments, Mass and Confession. Frequent Mass and Confession!
We can be with Jesus in humble thanksgiving, in reverence before Him, rejoicing that He has overcome the world.
We can always be enthusiastic to bring souls to Jesus.
We can always encourage vocations of brave young men willing to lay down their lives for the Lord Jesus.
We can always, with the grace of God, be on our way to heaven. And you were worried about little chess moves in the Roman Curia? Pfft.
Thinking outside the box:
Gotta wonder with all the purposed confusion in the last few years about differences and connections between Vatican City State and the Holy See if this removal of executive power from everyone but one person will further restructure understanding of these two entities with whatever effects in international relations and international law and international finance, etc., on so many levels.
It seems to me that the only one who can out-politic Pope Francis is God. I’m not saying that I think that’s good or not. It just is what it is.
Some reporting on the Abuse Synod by Cindy Wooden of the Catholic News Service was picked up by CRUX, and indicates what Scicluna knew and when concerning Trenton N.J. priest, Msgr. Joseph R. Punderson, a senior official of the highest Tribunal of the Holy See called the Apostolic Signatura. Punderson was removed in 2018 upon the non-prosecuted “credible accusation” (whatever that means) back in 2003 regarding allegations back in 1977. Punderson was working for the Holy See since 1993. Scicluna was the Promoter of Justice for the Abuse Office in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1993 and long past 2003 and has always had a role to play until this day. But he was the Promoter of Justice when the “credible allegations” were made known and sent to his office in Rome. But don’t blame anyone else about this at the Signatura. Scicluna was the one with full authority for all this. Get it?
So, my question is this: If Fraud + Charles Scicluna can do that, a cover-up of what the real and actual policies are, did he do anything else to help cover up for connections with others? But as we have found out, that meeting on abuse in February was meant only to smack down those who thought that abuse was bad and evil. Which it is by the way.
First of all: THANK YOU POPE FRANCIS for announcing the opening of the archives in March 2020. THANK YOU! But we’ll see what the underlings do. Here’s the AP news story:
VATICAN CITY (AP) – Declaring that the church “isn’t afraid of history,” Pope Francis said Monday he has decided to open up the Vatican archives on World War II-era Pope Pius XII, who has been criticized by [some] Jews of staying silent on the Holocaust. Francis told officials and personnel of the Vatican Secret Archives that the archive would be open to researchers starting March 2, 2020.
Yours truly has been seeking a copy of a certain letter forwarding a certain matter to Pius XII. It was sent in to Pius XII directly by the Archbishop of Paris, Emmanuel Célestin Cardinal Suhard. Meanwhile, Pius XII gave this letter of the Cardinal to the Secretary of the Pontifical Biblical Commission of the day, which, back when, was part and parcel and had the authority of the Holy Office (the Sacred and Supreme of that name), what we now call the CDF, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Holy Office did offer a ferocious response to the matter which is now published. That response is perhaps an example of sarcasm against the stupidity of anti-Semitic “biblical scholars” that hasn’t been seen before or since. The problem is that the matter itself is not published, only the answer to it.
Having gotten a bishop to back up my request for a copy of this letter, a recent Prefect of the CDF (now already some ten years ago) responded to say that the letter of Cardinal Suhard relating the matter was not to be found in the archives of the CDF, but were possibly to be found in the personal (and therefore secret) archives of Pius XII himself. Those archives, he said, are to be found in the Secretariat of State. What he could have done, of course, and as is the practice, is to send the inquiry directly to the Secretariat of State. What he did is an evasion. But I digress. The opening of the archives is only a year away. I look forward to it.
From what I can gather, the matter forwarded by Cardinal Suhard detailed the anti-Semitic attitudes of some French biblical “scholars” who, immediately after WWII and the closing of the horrific concentration camps, wanted what they considered to be the idiocy of the Jewish Scriptures smacked down, you know, all the usual hatred that the Jews, wandering about in the desert, couldn’t possibly have copied mythology correctly as they simply didn’t know what they were doing and perhaps belong in concentration camps even today. I want names. “Never again!” means knowing what was going on at the time, right? But we’ll see if the cover-up continues. If it does, I will not be happy. Here’s a video I made, upset with the violence. It’s a reading of the names in the children’s memorial at Yad vaShem (The Power and the Name Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem):
I’d like to make this my next major project, even though there is a realization that there are another couple dozens major projects on the back burners. It’s just that when opportunity hits a strike has to be made. This may have to involve any number of bishops. This may take multiple trips to Rome. I’m just as determined as I ever was. Never give up. Be relentless. Anyway:
THANK YOU, POPE FRANCIS, for announcing the opening of the archives!
Pope Francis continues to assist McCarrick to be on a proper path to the Lord, first by dismissing him from being a Cardinal, and now dismissing him from the clerical state. Good on you, Pope Francis.
McCarrick was put down January 11. He appealed. At a “Feria Quarta” meeting of the members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith after this appeal the appeal was rejected. That decision was ratified by Pope Francis the next day and this has now been publicized.
Your prayers are requested for the victims of McCarrick. More than that, and I know this is difficult, but your prayers are also asked for McCarrick.
What we must do is to bring greater honor and glory to God, which is to make flourish as much as we can the saving grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who, stunningly, loved us all while we were yet sinners. Some accept this grace. Some reject this grace.
While we breathe we must have hope for all, as that is what most respects what our Lord has done for us all. Having hope for all on earth is not at all in any way the same as having hope that all are saved. Instead, having hope for all who are still alive on this earth is to say that we have doubt for the salvation of anyone, but, for our Lord who redeemed all, we must desire that as many as will allow themselves to be saved by God’s grace will in fact be saved. And that does us a world of good, an eternity of good.
The angels made the delivery to Pope Francis of what I call “The Package” possible back in September 2018. The deposition then came about in December. Three weeks later the decree in January, then the appeal, then the rejection, then the ratification, then the public decree in February 2019. Absolutely everything instantaneously fell into place beautifully. The angels made it happen. I’m guessing that since the delivery of that package and the laicization this represents possibly a turnaround time for such an action over against a [Cardinal] Archbishop the fastest in the history of the Church. As far as I know, he’s also the most senior member of the hierarchy to be laicized ever.
The “Package” I brought over, the case of a priest, is absolutely amazing. His story is a story which must be told. It speaks to fidelity amidst suffering. It speaks to the greatness of the priesthood amidst suffering. It speaks to the intercession of the angels and saints. It speaks to the greatness, yes, also of some in the hierarchy also over in Rome and also of those in the dicasteries, yes, even the midst of infidelity and politicking of others. Again, please pray for this priest, whom I consider a good friend.