***I confused late Cardinals Tomko from Czechoslovakia, and Lustiger who was Archbishop of Paris.  Both were fairly Catholic, but Tomko advised JPII not to mention Russia at the first flubbed Fatima Consecration.  Tomko and JPII were both cardinals from communist countries***

WWW.CANON212.COM

DONATE TO CANON212:   

POPE OF PERVCHURCH MEETS BUNCH OF LOCAL TRANNY GAY PROSTITUTES ALONG WITH ALMONER THUGCARDINAL KRAJEWSKI, WHO KEEPS GIVING THEM MONEY.  L’OSSERVATORE GUSHES ABOUT THE BLESSED HOLINESS, FRANCIS

DIRTY TRICKS: PONTIFICAL ACADEMY FOR CONTRACEPTION “DELETES” CONTRACEPTION TWEET

FRONTPAGE MAG IS ONBOARD WITH REALITY – POPE BENEDICT NEVER VALIDLY RESIGNED.

FRANCIS’S DOCTRINEMASTERS:  WHO’S “WE”, YUVAL?

THE MAN WHO ADVISED JOHN PAUL II NOT TO MENTION RUSSIA

“I WILL NOT LEND MY PRESENCE TO A WEAPONIZED LITURGY. IT WOULD BE LIKE GIVING AMMUNITION TO A TERRORIST WITH A MACHINE GUN.”

IS ‘POPE EMERITUS’ BENEDICT XVI JUST AN INTELLIGENT COWARD FULL OF EXCUSES?

CARDINAL VON GALEN: THE LION OF MÜNSTER

IS THE CHURCH’S TEACHINGS ON CONTRACEPTION IN FRANCIS’ CROSS-HAIRS?

About fgwalkers@att.net

Editor, Canon212.com

3 Thoughts on “Canon212 Update: Francis’s Favorite Event of the Year

  1. Maxine on August 12, 2022 at 2:58 pm said:

    Wanting to question Mundabor’s hatchet job against Benedict XVI yesterday. If we examine the false analogies and red herrings used as justification, the case hardly holds water.

    -For example, why twin the abdication of 13th Celestine V (pope for five months) with that of 21st century Benedict XVI (pope for eight years)?
    -Why single out Celestine V and assume his being the archetype of craven conduct , when there were plenty more so-called “runaway” pontiffs whose lives remain ignored and motives omitted? : three in the 3rd and 4th centuries, four in the 10th century, one in the 11th century, and one in the 15th century.
    -Why circle the square and make Benedict a doppelganger of the debatably debunked Celestine? These men were complete opposites. Celestine V was a canonized saint (feast day is May 19th), an ardent ascetic hermit, a holy monk whose “permanent Lent” of a life had been one of cloistered solitude, prayer, and penance in remote caves and mountains. The pomp and circumstance of the papal office were so antithetical to his nature, his conscience and vows, that Celestine absolutely needed to resign (BTW, to the great relief and delight of the Roman people and the future Boniface VIII).
    In stark contrast, the greatly beloved “Papa Benedetto” had been Archbishop of Munich, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (one of the most important dicasteries of the Roman Curia), and Dean of the College of Cardinals prior to becoming Bishop of Rome. He wrote prolifically and articulately in defense of objective, moral truth, traditional Church doctrine and the Mass. He was an outspoken foe of increased world secularization and “the dictatorship of relativism.” Benedict, unlike the anchorite Celestine, relished his role as major figure on the Vatican stage for a quarter of a century.

    -Why use Dante, Renaissance poet and formulaic storyteller, as “hanging judge” of the accused Celestine (aka Benedict)? It’s well known that the author of The Divine Comedy had quite a few axes to grind and found great catharsis (if not redemption) in condemning his political opponents and personal enemies to hell.
    The vanity and cowardice with which Benedict is charged actually belongs to Dante, known in his time as “the absconder,” he who, having been indicted for graft and insubordination, fled fines and imprisonment, exiting his native Florence and choosing exile. Vainglorious Dante dared to damn even a saint, Celestine, mostly because that resignation allowed the papacy of Boniface VIII, enabler of Churchmen and rulers who enforced his banishment and confiscated his property.

    So,playing God, Dante “punishes” Celestine (aka Benedict) by imagining him in Hell’s anteroom, a place for the uncommitted, for cowardly fence-sitters who never took a stand for either good or evil, for angels “neither faithful nor rebellious to God.” Tormented by stinging wasps and hornets, they run away naked in endless circles.

    The dual trashing of Celestine V and Benedict XVI is not poetic justice but rather just plain nonsense.

    • Maxine,
      I’ve been following that little thread. It brings to mine Barnhardt’s latest observation in reference to a correspondent of hers … (quote) “For most people, begging the question is their idea of logical thought, and pathological indifference is THE Cardinal Virtue. Also note how this woman is dutifully babbling the Antichurch boilerplate that the Novus Ordo is “THE Mass of the RC”. (end quote).

      I enjoy reading Mundabor. But it is a really strange thing – someone who constantly criticizes all the errors and errors and errors and heresies and heresies and heresies of the “*Evil Clown*” (why not Holy Father?), rightfully so, I might add, will not tolerate for a moment anyone who questions the validity of the faux-resignation that led to this disastrous antipapacy and the tidal wave of error that is drowning us. As he said to me today (quote) “you don’t get to decide whether he is in error or not” (end quote). Which, coming from Mundabor, of all people, I find highly ironic. And I told him so in a response, yet to be published.

      These Catholics will criticize every error and heresy *except for the base heresy* that drives them all: the antipapacy created by the illegal heretical resignation that left the Office (inactive) with one, the Ministry (active) with another – two (or more) visible Popes at the same time. Question one heresy – mandatory. Question the other heresy – absolutely not, must not, may not, never!

      You may call the Holy Father “Evil Clown”.
      You may not question whether Evil Clown is Holy Father.

      The uniform insistence by otherwise orthodox, traditional Catholics that the strange, basic, obvious departure from Sacred Tradition at this fundamental level may not ever be questioned is the most bizarre (also, at this point, illuminating) thing of all, to me.

  2. The O’Brien “family” (currently just him and her) have gone on a media tour to justify their impending decision to kill their unborn son because they think he might be born with a disability(ies).

    “This might happen, and that might limit him, he might have a low quality of life, he might have low cognition and … blah, blah, blah”.

    https://www.liveaction.org/news/catholic-couple-hell-give-birth-disabled-baby/

    My wife and I adopted six children with special needs. Two of them have Down Syndrome. When I read articles like this, about people like this, about to commit murder for stupid reasons like this … sometimes I look at my band of little misfits and wonder about those who think my kids would be better off dead. Because of their “disability”. Let me tell those of you who might never be personally exposed to children with “disabilities” – a little secret … (whisper) they’re no different than anyone else in the world … no, really … I have had other children with no quantifiable “disability” and they.are.all.the.same! We *all* have problems!

    The fact is, my two kids with Down … people think it is a mercy to kill little kids with Down … these two girls TRULY are the lights of my life. The best I can describe them is that they are *without guile*. What you see is what you get. Joy, usually. Disabled – bah, humbug!

    Get over yourselves, people. If you can’t do it – that’s *fine*. No judgement. Adopt them to someone else. ALL children deserve to live. ALL children are created by God, *in the image and likeness of God* with eternal souls. DON’T kill, them, please! From someone who knows because he has spent his remaining years raising children with “disabilities” … it is not at all what you think. They deserve life. They are, like all human life, precious. There is no greater gift from God than human life, in all its many facets and diversity.

    HE is the author and sustainer, never forget that.

Post Navigation