The last pope

Pope Benedict XVI was the last Roman Catholic Pope. It is unlikely that there will be any more. There will be people called popes, but they will be megaphones for progressivism, not Roman Catholicism.

Progressivism is an entryist movement, the last major entryist movement standing, having fully assimilated the remaining communist movements. The progressive believes in Jesus the community organizer, Marx the moderate progressive, Mohammed the prophet of progressivism, Adam Smith the anticapitalist, and so on and so forth. He also believes in Christ the Redeemer, where by redemption is meant bringing people to progressivism, and in Salvation, where by salvation he means electing a progressive government that does everything a progressive government is supposed to do, including, indeed especially, those things that are impossible for a government to do.  Jesus would drive a prius were he here today, and his mission, rightly understood, is to save the earth from man.

Similarly, the progressive, and no doubt Jesus, Mohammed, Karl Marx, Adam Smith, etc, believes in capitalism and markets in the sense of “Carbon Markets”, “Cap and Trade”, and “Health Care Exchanges” (If you, like most people, are wondering what a “Health Care Exchange” is, it is an online welfare application, to make us all dependent on government as conveniently as possible, with the least amount of embarrassment.)

Is this what Pope Francis is preaching – well, you cannot quite tell what he is preaching, which is characteristic of entryists, but what he is preaching sounds enough like progressivism that it is mighty hard to tell the difference, enough like progressivism that the average person cannot tell the difference.

In the first step of entryism, entryists enter the group, whether the Communist Party, the Republican Party, the Roman Catholic Church, the State Department, or whatever, claiming to agree with group beliefs and support group goals, while in fact supporting the progressive interpretation of group beliefs and supporting progressive goals incompatible with group goals.

In the next step of entryism, non entryists are removed from power, or destroyed by character assassination, (someone remembers being fondled as a child forty years ago, though he never mentioned it until recently) or destroyed physically by actual physical assassination.

In the next step of entryism, entryists are quietly in power, still purporting to agree with group beliefs and support group goals, while in fact supporting the progressive interpretation of group beliefs and supporting progressive goals incompatible with group goals. The organization officially pursues its original goals and officially adheres to its original beliefs, but not really. It starts to wither away.

In the next step, the organization officially and overtly supports the progressive interpretation of group beliefs and supports progressive goals.

In the final step, the organization disappears altogether, its assets and personnel fully absorbed into the Cathedral.  The physical Vatican will become a tourist attraction, and the organizational Vatican will become a letterhead issued from the desk of a minor NGO minion, whose physical location and postal address will probably be rather close to Harvard.  The letterhead, to the extent that it is used at all, will be used to directly support progressive goals, such as transexuality, higher taxes, open borders for the non working underclass, and gay marriage, without referring to the now forgotten reinterpretation of Roman Catholic goals.

At first it will not be that people realize that the papacy ended with Pope Benedict, but rather that they will forget that it supposedly continues, just as the Roman Empire in the west supposedly continued, until people forgot that it was supposedly continuing.  Later, historians will wonder when it ended, and will set a date, and will set a last Pope, and that last Pope will have been Benedict.

Progressives and communists practiced entryism against each other, or, as they would doubtless describe it, for each other. At first communists were clearly winning, due to greater zeal, certainty, and greater willingness to use physical assassination. After Stalin halted the left singularity, announcing that socialist utopia had already arrived, and shooting anyone who wanted it to be even more socialist and more utopian, the communist entryists became less effective, and when the Soviet Union fell, of course they withered on the vine, having been always dependent on a physical headquarters in a communist country and funding from communist regimes.

Progressivism has been markedly less murderous than Communism even if you count those dying because of environmentalism, so initially it seemed as if the progressive victory was a good thing. Trouble is, the progressive victory occurred because progressivism still is heading to its left singularity. A government run, centrally planned economy, is a very bad thing, but a government run economy with no central plan is a worse thing.

Tags: ,

69 Responses to “The last pope”

  1. I think you are neglecting to consider the institutional safeguards built into the governance of the Catholic Church. The hierarchy is growing more reactionary over time, has been for at least 30 years. Oh you should hear the moans of the (now retired) 60’s generation about JPII and Benedict. Most young priests are coming out of seminary quite stoutly traditional.

    Additionally the “vocations crisis” means a lot of Polish and Hispano-world Catholic men are coming to the states to study. 3rd worlders may not be particularly pro-free markets, but they make up for it by being pretty severe on the more embarrassing of the 10 commandments. The Polish ones are totally no-nonsense and immune to or at least very cynical of politics (like you find in most East Europeans).

    So more conservative priests make for more conservative bishops, who serve collegially, i.e., Bishop really IS the highest ordinary rank in the church. We are already seeing the old liberal Bishops die off and younger more fiery ones take their place even in the strangest places (like Portland and NYC, and quite promisingly in Philadelphia).

    More and more conservative Bishops will exist and, all things equal, i.e., unless there is an active ideological conspiracy in the Vatican against them, more and more of them will ascend to become Archbishops and Cardinals, who as you know elect the Pope.

    I seriously doubt that the leftists in the Vatican have any more shit together than the so-called reactionaries did under JPII, who did a TERRIBLE job of disapproving idiot Bishops and idiot Bishop promotions. It is customary for the Pope to rely on the recommendations of other Bishops nearby, and when they said Mahoney, JPII rubber stamped it. BXVI probably did a passably better job and he remains responsible for about half of the current Cardinals (JPII the other more aged half). Either way, it is very hard to imagine that Francis is going to have an active conspiracy against conservative Bishops. Sure the odd firebrand might get rejected but in general the College of Bishops and finally Cardinals will get more conservative.

    We also have to take account of the fact that JPII was certainly more conservative than either John XXIII or Paul VI (don’t know enough about JPI to comment)… and BXVI yet moreso. So really Francis breaks a bit of a trend. I am certainly not happy about that, but say he bumbles along for only a few more years and doesn’t manage to energize the (by now mostly quite ancient) Marxists of the RCC, it really isn’t that hard to believe that we get a rather non-progressive Pope the next time around. I dunno if he’ll be Catholic enough for you Jim, maybe not me either, but I think at least he’d be more Catholic.

    • spandrell says:

      “Most young priests are coming out of seminary quite stoutly traditional”

      How many are they again? How many of them are white?

      • Well seminaries are the ONLY supply so it doesn’t really matter how many they are. They WILL replace the retiring and dying ones.

        How many are white? Well, Francis is quite white, so that doesn’t count for nearly as much as one might think. Truly, many US seminarians are native Spanish and Polish speakers. Among the Spanish speakers they tend to come from educated classes, and you know all about that. Among the Poles, well they’re Poles.

    • Red says:

      If what you’re saying is true, then the young priests will be purged and you won’t even hear about it in the media.

      • Purged by WHOM? If it weren’t for the stoutly trad seminarians, there would be NO ONE in seminary? 40 years ago gay Catholics would become priests… today they’re happy to be gay and don’t go to seminary. That’s the problem with deracination—if no one’s immortal soul depends on certain stuff, then no one will do that certain stuff. Leftists don’t go to seminary anymore (and probably find a rather adverse environment if they do).

        This is what seminarians do these days:

        RCC Leftists would gladly have the seminaries empty, to parse out ever more parish power to women and laity, all leftists. But there are only be so few priests you can have. It’s theological: only the priest can confect the Eucharist. So the seminarians that DO exist are of a certain, non-deracinated sort. They are becoming priests every year. Many wear birettas. The old deracinators are greying and dying.

        • Ooops Jim’s blog doesn’t take embedding:

          This is what seminarians are up to these days. Producing videos like this:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkO40uHGZUo

          • jim says:

            So, Jesus is divine merely by adoption, as are the rest of us. Thus one may piously mouth Trinitarian words while giving them Unitarian meaning.

            When a church transitions from holier-than-jesus progressive Christian, to lefter-than-thou militantly atheist progressive, it briefly goes through a unitarian phase.

        • jim says:

          I see organized outside attacks not only on the libertarian movement and the Republican party, but on every obscure innocent random organization, to coordinate them all to the common line. I am therefore disinclined to believe that the Roman Catholic movement leftwards is internally driven.

    • Red says:

      Think about it like this: Once we got a true commie in charge, the US military was finally purged of all non progressive elements. You’ve got a true progressive in charge of the catholic church and he’ll do it what Obama did to the US military.

    • jim says:

      More and more conservative Bishops will exist and, all things equal, i.e., unless there is an active ideological conspiracy in the Vatican against them, more and more of them will ascend to become Archbishops and Cardinals, who as you know elect the Pope.

      The thing is, there is a state backed active ideological conspiracy against them.

      say he bumbles along for only a few more years and doesn’t manage to energize the (by now mostly quite ancient) Marxists of the RCC, it really isn’t that hard to believe that we get a rather non-progressive Pope the next time around. I dunno if he’ll be Catholic enough for you Jim, maybe not me either, but I think at least he’d be more Catholic.

      The Marxists are dead in the water, have been ever since the Soviet Union fell. They relied on Moscow for funding and coordination.

      Either way, it is very hard to imagine that Francis is going to have an active conspiracy against conservative Bishops.

      Francis is not part of an active conspiracy against conservative Bishops. He is a manifestation of such a conspiracy. The leading entryists never take high visibility positions until the entered organization is near death.

      • Francis is not part of an active conspiracy against conservative Bishops. He is a manifestation of such a conspiracy.

        I don’t doubt this, but the conspiracy—the entropy really—doesn’t have roots. It doesn’t replicate in the Catholic Church the way it does in the larger (Hyper)Protestant society at large.

        Who will the conspirators be in another generation? No one, that’s who. All the boots on the ground hate what the 60s generation did to the Church. Not all are as angry and reactionary as me. But I think you’ll find a majority of Catholics want the Catholic Church to remain irreformably Catholic. The deracinating elements are in power but they have nothing to keep them there. When they die or get too tired, they’ll just slowly vanish. Power feeds more from the bottom (young new priests and the faithful, esp. the young, who always love them ) than it does from the top.

        It’s a terrible system in which to get real reform, as history has well shown. But that same mechanism that makes it so damn slow to act, also makes it very hard to DE-form easily as well.

        • jim says:

          I don’t doubt this, but the conspiracy—the entropy really—doesn’t have roots. It doesn’t replicate in the Catholic Church the way it does in the larger (Hyper)Protestant society at large.

          I don’t have direct evidence of external roots in the Roman Catholic Church, but progressive entryists into the libertarian movement, for example Jeffrey Friedman received direct and massive funding through and from Harvard. Radical left Entryists into the Republican party such as Scozzafava were and are directly funded through Acorn, which was directly funded both by the American government, and Harvard. Progressives in the Zionist movement are funded by NGOs, which are indirectly funded and directly organized by the USG State Department. By and large entryists receive external funding and organization from organizations indirectly or directly funded by the US government.

          Anyone in the Roman Catholic Church can, and quite possibly will, have a big news story based on six degrees of separation to pedophilia dropped on him. Suddenly it is on the six o’clock news that Bishop X is some how connected to Y, who is somehow connected to Z, who is reported, forty years after the alleged incident, to have fondled a little boy. So entryists have the power of the press and the judiciary and the public prosecutor backing them. They don’t need roots in the Church. They have roots in the Cathedral.

    • VXXC says:

      As in times of trouble past if the Church endures it’s in the Monasteries.

      Mind you Nick, Jim doesn’t believe in God’s grace.

      • jim says:

        Monasteries are going museum. If the Church survives, it will be by going mustard seed, holding services in the catacombs.

  2. Johnny Caustic says:

    Sometimes you’re just a little too cryptic. Please list some things that a progressive government is supposed to do that are impossible for a government to do.

    • Erik says:

      Make everyone equal.

    • jim says:

      For example make women and blacks equally represented with white males and equally performing with white males.

      The current tendency to over represent females in college is because females continue to under perform in college. Since they continue to under perform, obviously they must be discriminated against, so more measures in their favor are necessary to bring up their performance. These measures increase their representation, and decrease male representation, but, strangely, fail to improve female performance.

      • Dr. Faust says:

        Where are you deriving the theory of female under performance in college?

        • jim says:

          I do not understand the question.

          Obviously women in academia underperform, or as the official truth has it, are discriminated against in the more difficult disciplines. This necessitates ever sterner measures to remedy this “discrimination”, which measures result in ever fewer males and ever more women attending college, but somehow, the “discrimination” continues.

          • Dr. Faust says:

            I thought you were referring to test scores or something. I assume you mean the majority of men in STEM.

            • jim says:

              Stem fields are being dumbed down to promote female involvement, with the result that a degree in computer science is no longer an indicator that someone can write a program – and other fields are also being dumbed down.

              So it looks like the problem of “discrimination” is across the board, not just stem fields.

  3. Steve Johnson says:

    “Progressivism has been markedly less murderous than Communism even if you count those dying because of environmentalism”

    Hey, don’t forget crime.

    • ecclea says:

      “A rose is still a rose by anyother name” Progressivism is communism. To lable oneself communist is still not accepted (yet) so change the word with a new and improved word, tone the words down until you have the majority of the people thinking you aren’t that different from everyone who wants good things for everyone and then tadaa you have pushed your agenda into the mainstream as something that will seem “cool” and “forward” and then you just keep doing little changes while leading the sheep in the direction you want to lead them. Much the same as the changes that were put in the Mass via V11, until the point of now where no two V11 Masses are the same and all look like Luthern services. The idea that you are actually supposed to be like the Priest and yet the Priest is actually standing in the place of Christ himself therefore you are not supposed to act like you are a Priest. You (we non-Preiest) are not standing in the place of Christ at the last supper, at calagary, at golgatha, at the ressurection. We get to witness and receive the graces at Mass by our presence (silent). This was the practise for almost ewo centuries and it worked to convert over a billion people of the earth. Research V11 was supposed to merely change the Latin to the language of the area. That was the buy-in. Now what worship do we have of the Real Presence? Corruption like spying always works better from within where no one dreams the corrupt or the spies would be.

      • ecclea says:

        Please excuse the spelling, no spell check and with my new windows I am more clueless than normal on how to use it more easily:)

  4. red says:

    This is trully a sad day. 1500 years was a good run for a such a fine institution.

  5. VXXC says:

    Sad day, sad day. Nothing to be done.

    Because you know, to be done implies doing things.

    Not even bugs give up and die this easy.

    • Thales says:

      Please, don’t tease — tell us all your grand plan for action…

    • Red says:

      I’m never heard of any institution purging itself of progressiveness once the progressives take over. You’d have to execute every progressive person in the hierarchy at this point. And that’s not going to happen.

      • Mar says:

        If the (Catholic) Church were a human institution, true, it could not purge itself. But it was instituted by divine mandate and has the promise of Jesus Christ that it will exist till the end of time. Many secular and worldly men, indeed non-believers, have remarked that if the Church were a secular orgasnisation it would have disappeared long ago. The reality is that in one scandal after another in its long history saints have sprung up amidst the corruption to purge and renew the Church.

        As to the name Cathedral, why pejorate this icon which is a powerful reality and symbol – both, and depreciate the Catholic Church? Synagogue would be a far more appropriate term.

        • Mar says:

          P.S. The sedevacantists seem to have been much quicker off the mark than you, Jim. Reacting to the damage done by ‘entryists’ specifically at Vatican II – albeit recognising that it was merely the successful culmination of a far longer process (and program) – they have pronounced Pope Pius XII the last Pope. ‘Entryism’ has been around since the year dot. The quintessential ‘entryist’ is Satan, especially when he appears as an angel of light.

    • jim says:

      I know what needs to be done. Entryism is an old problem, and it has an old solution. The organization under attack imposes a loyalty oath, or catechism, or whatever it chooses to call it, that the most menacing and frighteningly powerful group of entryists cannot honestly swear to. And then it makes it a horrible crime, fiercely demonized, and punished by the most drastic sanctions it can command, for anyone in the hierarchy to falsely swear this oath, or to quietly change their mind about what they have sworn without resigning from the hierarchy.

      Some people claim that the prohibition on cooking a lamb in its mother’s milk originated as a rule to exclude entryists – to exclude people who claimed to be Jewish, but retained non Jewish customs.

      Among the progressive heresies are:

      • Utilitarianism, that good is the greatest happiness for the greatest number, whereas the bible tells us charity should start close to home.
      • The state as salvation, that good is voting for the state that does good with other people’s money, that good is voting correctly.
      • That the important mission of the church, or one of its most important missions, is to maximize the utility of the worst off

      Paul’s pro family position on Charity is a good antidote to utilitarianism and caring for the worst off – that it is morally wrong for charity to undermine the functions of the family. Forget about contraception and homosexuality. Time to take a stand on state funding for fatherlessness. That will clean out the rats.

      Identify a bunch of progressive deviations from Christianity, and make every single member of the church apparatus, every person with church authority or control over church assets, repudiate those heresies.

      • Contaminated NEET says:

        >Entryism is an old problem, and it has an old solution. The organization under attack imposes a loyalty oath

        What are some examples of organizations that have successfully repelled entryists with loyalty oaths? I can’t think of one off the top of my head.

        • jim says:

          The thirty nine articles worked for a long time, from 1660 to around 1810 or so. Outsiders remade their religion so that they could pro forma comply, and the thirty nine articles were not updated to remedy this antigen change, so the vaccine ceased to be effective.

          That the vaccination imposed strong selective pressure on the disease indicates it was somewhat effective.

          The use of loyalty oaths akin to the thirty nine articles was widespread. I would assume that their wide spread use indicates effectiveness. Why have a loyalty oath if entryists are not a problem? In recent times, entryists have had much success, which I attribute to failure to use loyalty oaths targeted at the antigens of major entryist groups. They don’t seem to have had comparable success in earlier times.

          Rather, I would ask you, where is an example of entryism succeeding against an organization with a loyalty oath designed to exclude the entryist group?

          Now one might suppose that a loyalty oath is easily defeated by simply lying. This works for the individual, but entryism is a group activity. If the entryist group asks its members to lie, it can never be sure whether they are lying to the entered group, or the entryist group. You wind up with a large proportion of double and triple agents.

          • Red says:

            ” The Achilles’ heel of a pyramidal organisation based on obedience is that if you can capture the fellow at the top the whole thing falls into your lap.”
            If the church had really viewed it as a mortal threat they would have treated the pope resending it as heresy and depose the pope.

            Progressive tend take over organizations slowly to avoid triggering natural self defense mechanisms that hierarchies normally adopt. Of course if you strong resist they’ll crush you state instead.

            • jim says:

              From what I know about modernism, the oath against modernism would have been 100% effective against modernism, and would still be somewhat effective against progressivism. However, the antigens of progressivism are a bit different. Could do with a substantial update to be truly effective in protecting the church against progressivism. Modernism was already mutating in ways that might get it past the oath by understanding the words in what Saint Pius refers to as a “pantheistic sense”. It has mutated further. The problem now is not that the divinity of Jesus is doubted, but that his divinity consists merely of pointing the way to vote for Obama.

          • Alex says:

            @Red:

            “If the church had really viewed it as a mortal threat they would have treated the pope resending it as heresy and depose the pope.

            “Progressive tend to take over organizations slowly to avoid triggering natural self defense mechanisms that hierarchies normally adopt.”

            Not possible in this case as there’s no higher authority within the Church with the power to depose a pope, not even an ecumenical council. You’re stuck with him. (The only way to do it would be to show his election as pope was invalid, ie he was never a pope to begin with.)

          • Red says:

            “Not possible in this case as there’s no higher authority within the Church with the power to depose a pope, not even an ecumenical council. You’re stuck with him. (The only way to do it would be to show his election as pope was invalid, ie he was never a pope to begin with.)”

            Elect a new pope and ignore the old one. It’s been done before.

      • Alex says:

        It’s been tried. Pretty effective it was too — until a subsequent pope suppressed it. The Achilles’ heel of a pyramidal organisation based on obedience is that if you can capture the fellow at the top the whole thing falls into your lap.

    • Hixa says:

      “Sad day, sad day. Nothing to be done.

      Because you know, to be done implies doing things.

      Not even bugs give up and die this easy.”

      Try and be more like Nick B. Steves and less like yourself.

  6. Baduin says:

    Two points:

    Francis agrees. He consistently calls himself the Bishop of Rome, never Pope.

    St Malachi’s prophecy agrees too.

    Second point:
    This opinion is called sedevacantist. As for now, however, there is no good reason to accept it.

    Francis is going to do various funny things, and pretty soon. However, he is damaging Church politicially and organisationally – and those things are really irrelevant for him being the Pope. He could personally blow up the Basilic of St Peter (it seems he would very much like to do it) and shoot some of the more conservative priests, and it would make little difference.

    The only thing which would seriously prove him to be an anti-Pope would be if he started messing with theology. He won’t do that. He will (he already did) appoint notorious homosexuals to high positions, but will never say anything clearly incorrect about homosexuality.

    • jim says:

      He will (he already did) appoint notorious homosexuals to high positions, but will never say anything clearly incorrect about homosexuality.

      If notorious homosexuals are promoted, announcing Church acceptance of homosexuality is a mere formality. By the time it is formally done, it will be far to late to oppose or resist.

      That would make part of a good loyalty oath – that no practicing male homosexual can be any part of the Church apparatus, and everyone in the apparatus has to condemn homosexual acts as foul, filthy, disgusting, and abhorrent. Have every single member of the apparatus condemn homosexuality in the same language that they have been condemning pedophilia. Instant firing on continued homosexual practice, or on failure to repudiate male homosexual practice. I predict that approximately half the apparatus would resign, rather than say something so religiously correct, but politically incorrect.

      And, most importantly, make it male, and only male, the religious justification being that the bible no where specifically condemns female homosexual acts, while strongly and specifically condemning male homosexual acts, and the actual reason being that progressives will be more efficiently filtered out by being required to make a distinction between men and women.

      Indeed, it will be a lot harder for a progressive to swear a loyalty oath that acknowledges that men and women are morally different, and that different rules apply, than to swear a loyalty oath repudiating homosexuality.

    • Alex says:

      But there’s the rub. The enemy is quite happy to let orthodox teaching remain ‘on the books’ so long as nobody reads the books or acts on them. His aim is not to destroy the Church but to suborn it, and for that a Magisterium teaching clear heresy is no use as it would clarify matters enormously by forcing a choice on the faithful — either Catholicism is a pack of lies or we have an antipope acting without authority.

      The evil genius of the Vatican II revolution was that it was cultural rather than doctrinal, encouraging heteropraxis rather than teaching heterodoxy. You promlgate documents sufficiently ambiguous to savour of heresy without declaring it outright; you relax internal discipline among both the hierarchy and lay faithful; you foster an attitude of benign openness to all things non-Catholic; and presto — heresy flourishes unchecked through the ranks and the institutional Church ceases to be a source of militant opposition to modernity.

      The beauty of this strategy is that as long as the official teaching remains orthodox — or at least can be shoehorned into an orthodox interpretation with a little intellectual gymnastics — there will be no shortage of ‘conservative’ Catholic apologists rushing to defend each new postconciliar enormity as “in line with tradition”, “not heretical”, “not really saying what the liberal media says it says” etc. They provide the inertia which allows the revolution to keep going, issuing futile and irrelevant denunciations of the more egregious liberals while helping keep traditionalists safely marginalised.

  7. Dr. Faust says:

    Well the pope declared universal salvation even for atheists. I’m glad I’m going to heaven

  8. VXXC says:

    “The man was a good priest and did sterling work for the poor in a needy part of town. The building contractor had been involved in a good number of church projects so he said to the pastor, “We always invite the pastor to share the faith with our building team during their lunch breaks, and we’d love you to share with the men what your faith in Jesus Christ means to you and how they might share it.” The priest was bewildered by such a request and turned down the opportunity. When the Christian builder asked me what was up I said that the priest in question probably didn’t feel that he needed to sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ with anyone because they were all going to be saved anyway. It was his job to bring justice, help the poor and heal the sick.”

    Jim is right. This Pope is the best thing to happen to the Orthodox Church ever. When actual CATHOLICS get tired of Fr. Social Justice they go to Orthodox mass.

  9. I’m not a Catholic, but I attended a Catholic wedding recently in Northern California and the young asian priest had the soft round features of a man without much testosterone. Without his priestly habit, he would ping bright on my gaydar.

    Catholicism has always had a problem with attracting men who are unambitious with regards to traditional sexuality. But with the emergence of homosexuality as a potent political force, it could provide an easy infection vector for progressivism (and other, more traditional, infections)

    • jim says:

      The progressive conspiracy in the Vatican is, in large part, the homosexual conspiracy.

      • If that’s true, then it will certainly fail, because Catholics generally neither have status, nor very much want to get it… more like Hobbits than Middle Earthian men or elves. They therefore are less capable of overcoming their natural, visceral disgust for this class of “men”. Individual Catholics may of course be corrupted and play the holier than thou game, a fortiori the best and brightest among them, but the Church (vox populi) as a whole will not be turned against nature so easily, nor at all quickly in geologic reckoning.

        • jim says:

          Have you noticed that there is a long form marriage ceremony, in which the duties of the wife and husband are listed, and a short form marriage ceremony, featuring only the duties of the husband.

          The short form is progressive marriage, the long form Roman Catholic marriage.

          And that somehow the long form never gets used.

          So, I would say that it is all over. The basic business of the church is hatch, match, and dispatch, and when people show up, they get the progressive hatch, match, and dispatch, not the Roman Catholic.

          • VXXC says:

            It’s not over if you don’t accept the Prog machine as unstoppable, they are HUMAN. Sort of. Certainly frail.

            It’s also not over if you accept there’s a providential God with his own plans.

            However this Providential God requires some effort on mans part, and this is what is lacking.

            There’s nothing written that either side win. History is written by men.

            It’s never been written for good or ill by cowards.

            • jim says:

              The underlying cause of the progressive takeover of the Roman Catholic Church is that progressives conquered America, and then the world, thus, to fix the Church, have to roll back the progressive takeover of the world. There can be no cure for the church in a world absolutely dominated by progressives.

              Greek Orthodoxy is OK because Russia has nukes.

          • There was a man with two daughters. And said unto them, “Go ye, each of you and marry these men of whom I approve, and marry in the traditional form and live traditional lives.”

            And the first said unto him, “I will.” But after five years of married life and reading divorce porn, grew fat and decided to go Eat, Pray, Love. And lo, she divorced her husband and, yea, did financially rape him in court.

            The second said unto him, “I will not, I will marry for luv.” But after a short while she saw the degeneracy of her ways. She regretted it, and married her father’s second choice for her. She stayed slim and bore many children, who carried on the traditional faith.

            Which daughter did the will of her father?

            • jim says:

              You analogy treats the church as a person. Trouble is that it is an organization. Organizations are vulnerable to hostile takeover by outside organizations, people are not vulnerable to hostile takeover by outside people.

          • If the traditional ways are written on human nature as a long-term adaptively competitive strategy, as I believe they are, it’s going to take more than a generation or two of evil clerics to wipe them out.

            • jim says:

              Obviously they are not going to wipe them out, but the Roman Catholic Church has changed from an organization that preserves civilization and ancient wisdom, to an organization that attacks civilization and ancient wisdom. (For example the short form marriage ceremony in place of the long form marriage ceremony. In the short form, they save time by omitting the duties of the wife)

          • Steve Johnson says:

            Nick,

            Progressivism is a giant human breeding project – it selects against humans who are well suited for traditional roles and selects for feral humans.

  10. […] Benedict the last Catholic pope? A good discussion in the comments. Related: The problem of Pope […]

  11. prospero says:

    This reads like a Yahoo article. There is no evidence of Pope Francis being anything but a masculine and faithful Bishop.

  12. […] Jim on the Pope: “There will be people called popes, but they will be megaphones for progressivism, not Roman […]

  13. Konkvistador says:

    Jim has proven to be likely right on this. Here is just a taste of how desperately hard Francis is trying to enter full communion with the most holy NYT:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/world/europe/an-interview-with-pope-francis.html?ref=europe

    The NYT approves of his efforts. Let me just quote a few lines from the article:

    “criticized the church for … prioritizing moral doctrines over serving the poor and marginalized.”

    “In a remark then that produced headlines worldwide, the new pope said, “Who am I to judge?” At the time, some questioned whether he was referring only to gays in the priesthood, but in this interview he made clear that he had been speaking of gay men and lesbians in general. ”

    ” Francis said some had assumed he was an “ultraconservative” because of his reputation when he served as the superior of his Jesuit province in Argentina. He said that he was made superior at the “crazy” young age of 36, and that his leadership style was too authoritarian.

    “But I have never been a right-winger,” he said. “It was my authoritarian way of making decisions that created problems.” ”

    He is clearly much wiser and more holy now.

    “Now, Francis said, he prefers a more consultative leadership style. He has appointed an advisory group of eight cardinals, a step he said was recommended by the cardinals at the conclave that elected him. ”

    … and its gone. What do I mean is gone? The Papacy.

    The Catholic Church has shown that it is just lagging 20 years behind Anglicanism.

    • Konkvistador says:

      ” [Complaints of lack of Orthodoxy] “are better dealt with locally,” or else the Vatican offices risk becoming “institutions of censorship.” ”

      Reread that and let it sink in, let me rephrase:

      “Pope fears Vatican risks becoming institution of censorship of unorthodoxy.” YOU HAD ONE JOB!

  14. ecclea says:

    There seems to be more speculation than study by many people. Words do matter and the words of the past Popes (and lack thereof) since V11 have spoken volumes in the millions of Catholics who have left the one true faith.
    This is not opinion but fact the selfprofessed Catholics who don’t speak out against the many sins of our society today. The humanism that is anything but humane. The oath the Pope took when he became Pope was to uphold the teachings and dogma which has been handed down from the beginning of the church. The prior councils to increase the knowledge and not to change it. The changes are the same as what Luther installed in his “new” church. As Christ said “the gates of hell shall not prevail against My church”. The truth is we have every means to learn the truth and act upon it that is our salvation, as God has made each of us accountable to Him. Fatima is happening as Our Lady predicted so be knowledgable about what to do and all will eventually be well.

Leave a Reply