Browse By


This just in by email from one of my Vatican contacts:

Is everyone stocked up on booze? I think it would be a VERY good idea to stock up on booze today.

Let me STRONGLY advise you all to stock up on booze…

The Pope is reminding everyone that he is the Pope, the Successor of Peter. He’s essentially – and I mean, almost in words – threatening to invoke infallibility.

Developing… (as they say in the journalist-biz)


24 thoughts on “INCOMING!!!”

  1. antigon says:

    Fran’s Chicago boy bishop says when can reject Fran anyway, as long as we do it in good conscience.

  2. reconverted idiot says:

    Sorry Glen, I tried typing a reply but disqus went all wonky before I finished it so whatever is waiting in the queue is half complete, if it gets published. Anyway, what Hilary said is sound advice. I happen to worship at an Oratory (thank God for the wonderful priests I have) and they have been flawless in helping me with these matters. I do not exaggerate when I say that I owe them (so to speak) my life. My handle is a none too ironic take on the fact that prior to my reversion I was literally an idiot for not seeing what was right in front of me the whole time. Having a brain and access to information is only half the solution, one must know how to use it, and to speak in tautology, until one sees one is blind. God bless.

  3. Simon Platt says:

    Sorry, didn’t quite follow that, The part about the 43rd antipope, I mean.

  4. reconverted idiot says:

    ” We must all work out our own salvation”, or to put it more clearly, we already know what the faith teaches and we must use discernment and prudence in judging the statements of anyone. If, by the Grace of God I have faculties of reason and understanding, a history of clear teaching and example of countless saints and orthodox theology to draw on, then it is incumbent upon me to discern what is of God and what is of the devil. May God bless my efforts to do so (and everyone else, for that matter).
    As for who is authorized to depose a pope, which is what your concern boils down to, there are ways and means, as there have been in the case of antipopes in the past. Again, if we know how to recognise a legitimate, orthodox authority

  5. Hilary White says:

    Glen, seriously, you’re not working with sufficient information here. Most Catholics, especially Canadian Catholics, don’t have the knowledge base they need to sort these questions out without more research. What we have seen here from you is logic, but logic cannot give a reliable answer without complete and accurate data. Go do the reading. It’s in Bellarmine. Then if you want, talk to a reliable priest about it. Try an Oratorian. You’re just spinning yourself in circles this way, so I’m telling you to stop now. Go read the material.

  6. Glen Johnson says:

    If the Pope authoritatively teaches Doctrine is “A”, who are you to say Doctrine is “B”? What if the next Pope (e.g., Cupich succeeds Bergoglio) continues to assert Doctrine is “A”, would the Church continue to be in a state of heresy and you correct to continue stating Doctrine is “B”? You could answer “Pope X or Council Y previously taught that Doctrine is “B”. ” However, even if your private interpretation of Tradition were correct, who is to say whether the recent Popes or the previous Pope/Council is correct? What would be the true content of the faith? How could anyone be certain of anything?
    The bottom line: Either the Church’s teaching office is protected from error, or it isn’t? And if it isn’t, then the Church’s claims up to now to be an authoritative teaching Church aren’t true. If those claims are not true, why then would anyone continue to be “Catholic”? Indeed, what authority would exist to define the content of this “Catholicism”? Bergoglio? Cupich (if elected Pope)? Maybe Fellay? Maybe Williamson? Some guy who makes videos on a “Catholic” website? Some unlingual autodidact somewhere who reads a bunch of Catholic blogs?
    Actually, with respect, I think my logic on this is pretty good. Luckily, we have a lot of smoke, sound and fury right now, but no authoritative contradiction of previous authoritative teaching, at least yet. So, our fears may be well-founded, but they are still hypothetical.

    Apologies if I sound cranky.

    God bless you also (and everyone following and worried about this Synod).

    P.S.: I still believe “the Holy Spirit will provide” and protect consistent doctrine.

  7. reconverted idiot says:

    The simple way to falsify your hypothesis is to await such ‘going into (formal) error I.e. heresy and see whether or not Christ’s Church is then finished. I know it wouldn’t be.
    If you claim to be a Catholic, but you would give it all up because a heretic held the reins, then I can only worry for your future faith. If St Thomas Aquinas and other great thinkers can entertain the notion of a heretical papacy without concluding that the faith would thereby be invalidated, then I can’t imagine why you would think it should. I doubt that you know better than they, nor would you claim to. Perhaps therefore you are simply ignorant of the actual logic applying in this matter. I suggest you do some more research, there’s no shortage of information out there for those who are honestly looking to evaluate it.
    Let me leave you with a joke: my girlfriend is never late, because the moment she is late she’s not my girlfriend. See the analogy? Hope it helps. God bless.

  8. Dawg_em says:

    I’m not so sure he is “threatening to invoke infallibilty”. Coming from a South American hell hole, he may just be spouting a learned tyrannical decree. You know, second nature.

  9. Dawg_em says:

    Make it cheap booze. The more to barter with, especially since those in a hurt won’t care if it’s bathtub gin or top shelf.

  10. Ace says:

    The real Pope is still alive.

  11. Donna Ruth says:

    Decisions, decisions … a case of the sublime Glenlivet Nadurra – or 2 cases of a less-expensive one malt? And, further, how much to purchase for the Bug Bag, for, after all, booze can be currency in hard times.

  12. Barbara says:

    We have another pope in the sidelines, don’t forget. He’s even got his white outfit all ready to go.

  13. Richard W Comerford says:

    Mr. Heartlander:

    Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part:

    “Without the Pope as the visible sign of unity, how are we to determine what IS the Catholic Church? I find this very confusing”.

    Throughout most of Church history how many people even knew who was the Pope? And if they knew who he was did they know what he looked like, what he said to some paparazzi over coffee. Did Catholics even care?

    and in part:

    “If the apostolic line of succession is broken,”

    and in part:

    It is broken, so to speak, every time the Pope dies.

    “then what do we do?”

    Perhaps trust in the Holy Ghost?

    ” Isn’t that the problem with Protestantism, that they broke the line of succession from the apostles?”

    Yes; but IMO the great reformers (who were all raised to be devout Catholics and came from privileged stations) grew tired of the rigors of the One, True Faith and motivated by greed and lust fell upon the goods (and in some cases nuns) of the Church. They were supported militarily by princes who also lusted after Church power and even more lusted after unbridled political power. All of these revolts are always motivated at least in part by theft of Church property.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  14. Heartlander says:

    Without the Pope as the visible sign of unity, how are we to determine what IS the Catholic Church? I find this very confusing.

    At every Mass, we reaffirm our belief that Christ’s church is “one, holy, catholic, apostolic.” If the apostolic line of succession is broken, then what do we do? Isn’t that the problem with Protestantism, that they broke the line of succession from the apostles?

  15. Glen Johnson says:

    reconverted and Richard,

    The office of Pope is central to Catholicism. There’s no way to rebuild the Church without the Pope. If the Pope goes authoritatively bad on doctrine, the Church’s claims are invalidated, and I believe the Church is finished. It certainly would have zero credibility to any serious person.

    I understand that during the Great Western Schism, none of the claimants committed a doctrinal error.

  16. HRpuffinstuff says:

    Just revealed to my wife that this has been my fear for months: the “Pope” would declare something Ex Cathedra which is contrary to Christ’s timeless Truth. Lord, may he not, but if he does, grant us all the courage to stand up as the faithful against such an apostasy. Benedict XVI, pray for us. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us.

  17. Andy says:

    If only I could give you 100 up votes.

  18. reconverted idiot says:

    Oh yes Frankie me ole mucka. Do it. Do it. Do it. Define something totally orthodox or totally heterodox, I really don’t care. If orthodox, brilliant! Then follow it up with some anathema sits for the heretics and I’ll be all “how awesome is my pope!”. I will even overlook the past two years of confusion, in fact I will applaud your “holy cunning” and might even say something positive about that God of surprises you’re so fond of. If you decide to go the heterodox route, well, that would be absolutely splendid too. Perfect, even. You would cease being Pope, if you ever were, and we can all get on with rebuilding the Church without you. Go on, don’t be chicken. Do it. Please. For the sake of my liquor cabinet if nothing else. Just do it.

  19. Richard W Comerford says:

    Re: Holy Father Francis as alleged AntiPope

    IIRC there were, during the great Western Schism, three sitting Popes. Each one of the three was supported by folks who were later canonized by the Church. So even future Saints can get confused. The Holy Ghost does not guarantee that the Pope will be right, holy, competent, sane or even catholic. What the Holy Ghost does guarantee is that Christ will not abandon His Church.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  20. bosco49 says:

    Thanks for the link, Ann. Well reasoned piece you’ve written there. Sheep without a shepherd.

  21. Laurence England says:

    The Synod Fathers SHOULD, in that case, WALK.

    No point talking to an empty chair!

  22. Ann Barnhardt says:

    So, when Bergoglio ratifies adultery and buttsecks by invoking papal infallibility, will we be ready to put on our grownup pants and at least begin to discuss the possibility that maybe, just maybe, he is the 43rd antipope? Not the first, not the second, not even the twentieth. The FORTY-THIRD.

    Wow, it is almost as if thinking through contingencies BEFORE the catastrophe is, like, prudent or virile or something. Huh. Who knew.

  23. bosco49 says:

    William Butler Yeats (1865-1939)


    Turning and turning in the widening gyre
    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity.

    Surely some revelation is at hand;
    Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
    The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
    When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
    Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
    A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
    A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
    Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
    Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.

    The darkness drops again but now I know
    That twenty centuries of stony sleep
    Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
    And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
    Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

  24. Guest says:

    Righty-o. As soon as he declares something immoral as morally licit infallibly we can reject him as a pretender.

Comments are closed.