Tomorrow will be a busy day, so I wanted to get this post—which I’ve been mulling over for a few days—done. I had been contemplating a longer, more detailed post on this topic, but decided not to go there. So instead I offer this rather rambling, whatever. For non-Catholics and non-interested readers, I urge that in the global scheme of things—resisting the anti-human globalist, climatist, agenda—this is important. The Church still has influence in the world and the misuse of that influence matters.
Those readers who follow events in the Catholic world are probably aware that George Bergoglio is conducting a long Gramscian march through the institutions that used to be known as the Catholic Church. Typical headlines on his activities run along these lines:
Pope Francis appoints Jesuit who attacked Jesus as ‘callous’ to prominent Vatican post
Why does he insist on hanging out with corrupt old leftists implicated in covering up sex scandals? Seriously, Mr President, this is not a good look for you.
Quote
Edward Pentin
@EdwardPentin
The Clinton Foundation has announced that Pope Francis is to take part in a "special conversation" with President Bill Clinton on "what it takes to keep going on the most pressing global challenges of our time like climate change, the refugee crisis, the welfare of children, and… Show more
Pope Francis to address pro-abortion Clinton Foundation conference on ‘climate change’
Those are just samples that could be multiplied. There’s just too many such outrages to list.
Currently Bergoglio’s conducting something called a Synod on Synodality, which is a Gramscian cover for turning the institutions he heads to the purposes of the trans-humanist Globalist movement. A former high Vatican official named Mueller describes it like this:
Q-Are there more and more bishops and faithful expressing concern about what might happen during this Synod?
A-Yes, the false prophets (nebulous ideologues) who present themselves as progressives have announced that they will turn the Catholic Church into an aid organization for the 2030 Agenda. In their opinion, only a Church without Christ fits into a world without God. Many young people returned from Lisbon disappointed that the focus was no longer on salvation in Christ, but on a worldly doctrine of salvation. Apparently, there are even bishops who no longer believe in God as the origin and end of man and the Savior of the world, but who, in a pan naturalistic or pantheistic way, consider the so-called Mother Earth as the beginning of existence, and climate neutrality as the goal of planet earth.
Q-Do you think that changes in matters of faith and doctrine can be approved, as some groups and movements within the Church claim?
A-No one on earth can change, add to, or take away from the Word of God. As successors of the apostles, the Pope [i.e., the bishop of Rome]] and the bishops must teach the people what the earthly and Risen Christ, the only Teacher, has commanded them to do. And it is only in this sense that the promise that the heavenly host and the Head of His body always remain with his disciples (Mt 28:19). People confuse — not surprisingly, given the lack of basic theological education even among bishops — the content of faith and its unsurpassable fullness in Christ, with the progressive theological reflection and growth of the Church's understanding of faith throughout the ecclesiastical tradition (Dei Verbum 8-10). The infallibility of the Magisterium extends only to the preservation and faithful interpretation of the mystery of faith entrusted once and for all to the Church (depositum fidei [deposit of faith] or sound doctrine, the teaching of the Apostles). The Pope [i.e., the bishop of Rome] and the bishops do not receive a new revelation (Lumen Gentium 25, Dei Verbum 10.)
Peter Kwaśniewski explains how things came to this pass with reference to the First Vatican Council, where the notion of “infallibility” was promulgated—it’s more complicated, historically, than that but it’ll work for our purposes:
The spirit of Vatican I, however, was decidedly mixed: on the one hand, ultramontanism raised the dignity of the Apostolic See and recognized the authority of the common father of Christians at a time when the Catholic Church was everywhere under attack and the faithful needed a shining beacon to look to; on the other hand, a tendency to absolutize papal monarchy and infallibilize papal statements took hold throughout the Church, paving the way for an increasing pastoral passivity among bishops and a thoughtless, almost mechanical obedience in their flocks.
This strange evisceration of hierarchy and infantilization of the faithful was, of course, unsustainable, and a tidal wave of opposing errors submerged the Church after Vatican II, in which bishops frequently ignored traditional teaching emanating from Rome (of the many examples that might be cited, recall John XXIII’s Veterum Sapientiae, Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, John Paul II’s Veritatis Splendor, and Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum) and the laity, egged on by those renegade bishops, claimed exemptions of conscience from any teaching they preferred not to follow, if indeed they still bothered to practice.
We have come full circle now, with a progressivist pope who nevertheless employs ultramontanist tactics and surrounds himself with curial and episcopal sycophants who have quite suddenly rediscovered, after decades of dormancy, an almost latreutic devotion to the supreme pontiff, while the orthodox are few in number and beleagured. It is in this precise context that we must understand the possibility and indeed the necessity of some bishops digging in their heels to say—whether it be to politically-motivated demands for resignation, manifestly ideological depositions, the schismatic Synodal Way, the heretical rewriting of catechisms, or the ongoing demolition of matrimonial morality:
Non possumus. Non licet. We cannot do it. It is not allowed.
Just as progressives in politics are willing to abdicate their very lives to goofball bureaucrats who mandate experimental injections, etc., so progressives in the Church are willing to surrender their reason and free will to a bishop who claims that he—alone among all bishops—has a direct line to the Holy Spirit.
The heterodox new Vatican doctrine chief said that @Pontifex's ‘unique charism’ is equal to the ‘deposit of faith.’ https://lifesitenews.com/news/archbishop-fernandez-claims-opposition-to-pope-francis-unique-charism-risks-heresy-and-schism/?utm_source=twittercath… #popefrancis #vatican #catholicnews
Now, what Kwaśniewski is specifically referring to is the fact that Bergoglio has taken to hounding Catholic bishops and religious out of their positions. He offers the example of Bishop Daniel Fernández Torres from Puerto Rico, who sadly allowed himself to be bluffed and bullied into resigning.
Bergoglio’s current target is Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, TX. Rumors are circulating widely that Strickland’s resignation will also be demanded. There’s a problem, however. While most people are probably under the impression that the bishop of Rome is basically a CEO who hires and fires at will. That isn’t the case. As Kwaśniewski puts it:
[A bishop] is not a “vicar of the pope,” that is, one who stands in for the pope like a branch manager beholden to Vatican, Inc., but a vicar of Christ in his own diocese, …
Bergoglio can demand Strickland’s resignation, but Strickland is not somehow required to comply. Indeed, these rumors seem to have reached Strickland, who has stated that he will not resign:
Shane Schaetzel
@ShaneSchaetzel
Bishop Strickland says he won’t resign if Pope Francis requests, which is within his [Strickland’s] right. This will force Pope Francis to canonically depose him, which is a radical and unlawful move, considering the bishop has done nothing wrong, other than encourage Catholics to remain faithful, which increasingly appears to be a crime under this pontificate.
If Francis goes ahead with this insane move, then it would be morally justifiable for +Strickland to ignore it and continue on as the Bishop of Tyler, Texas. This would force Francis to excommunicate him, but he could not be physically removed, because this is the United States and the United States government does not recognize Roman Catholic Canon Law. +Strickland would remain the chancery and Francis would just have to cope.
Francis could set up a missionary outreach to the 13 Catholics in the Diocese of Tyler who actually agree with him, but the rest of the faithful there likely won’t care and continue on with their lives as normal.
Actually, this has happened in the past, as Kwaśniewski also explains: Resisting Papal Overreach: The Story of Bishop Isidore Borecky.
I’m certainly rooting for Strickland to flip off this jumped up Argentine caudillo. Others are, too:
Should the Synod approve the “blessing of homosexual couples [or] female diaconate,” ++Müller said “every ecclesiastical official would have lost his authority & no Catholic would be obliged any longer to religiously obey a heretic or schismatic bishop.” My final English text:
Bishop Schneider: Future popes will thank Bishop Strickland for his fidelity to the Catholic Faith - LifeSite
Dear Bishop Strickland, thank you, that you are resolved 'to serve the Lord, and not the time.'
Pray for Strickland, that he stands firm in the faith. It really is important.
Obama’s pressure that ended up changing the pope, continues to bear fruit.
I’m surprised this pope has not allowed all the branches priests to marry, since some already can. It would help a lot with the priest shortage, and cut down on moral corruption. Or perhaps the moral corruption is part of the reason it has not changed.
https://www.ncronline.org/news/father-josh-married-catholic-priest-celibate-world
I grew up Catholic in a strange sort of way. I grew up 10 miles north of Boston. My father is a radical leftist who rebelled against his Irish Catholic immigrant parents. My mother - now gone - was a libertine in many ways but tempered by a sense of decorum that came from her Swedish roots (I think). This caused me to be raised as a kid who went to Sunday school but never finished because my parents didn't really care one way or the other. In my adult life, I got myself confirmed but don't go to Sunday services. It's all a bit complicated ans I'm working through it.
What does all this mean? I feel a tug towards the Catholic Church and care what happens to it. This current Pope and what he is trying to do is probably more damaging to the Church than what occurred around Boston when I was a kid. I hope he fails and is run out on a rail.