They don’t think they’re too smart or desperate, They know the law always wins; They’ve been shot at before, But they do not ignore That death is the wages of sin.
Some day they’ll go down together; And they’ll bury them side by side, To a few it’ll be grief— To the law a relief— But it’s death for Bonnie and Clyde. [Bonnie Parker]
This is by far and away and without a shadow of doubt the most important media election article of the year. It exposes what a number of us have to varying degrees suspected and furthermore makes it clear why no one should take seriously anyone or anything that is pushed by the mainstream media, social tech giants, etc....
[A] healthy skepticism of anything and everything these outlets have been pushing is no longer just advisable but is now mandatory. Another requirement is presuming defacto that any story pushed by these outlets is false until proven to the contrary beyond a reasonable doubt. And that is the bottom line.
Briefly...
For four years, we had leftist dipshittery from lunatics on the left who said Trump was "not my pwesident." Now, I am seeing in the social media feeds that same leftist dipshittery becoming the mantra of some on the right as if the presidency is a subjective determination based on feelings.
The childish bullshit continues, it just changes political sides.
The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election
This is by far and away and without a shadow of doubt the most important media election article of the year. It exposes what a number of us have to varying degrees suspected and furthermore makes it clear why no one should take seriously anyone or anything that is pushed by the mainstream media, social tech giants, etc.
It is not a license to believe any crackpot conspiracy kook shit out there of course. However, a healthy skepticism of anything and everything these outlets have been pushing is no longer just advisable but is now mandatory. Another requirement is presuming defacto that any story pushed by these outlets is false until proven to the contrary beyond a reasonable doubt. And that is the bottom line.
Briefly...
10 Superbowls played, 7 wins. You do not have to like the guy to recognize what he has accomplished. He joins Ruth, Jordan, Nicklaus, and Gretsky as the greatest to ever play their sports.
There is not a shred of doubt now that where football is concerned, Tom Brady is the GOAT.
The debate is over.
Lincoln Project Predator: What Did They Know, And When Did They Know It?
Basically, the pompous grifters at the Lin-Con project posed as More Moral Than Thou during the past four years. It was just a pose because they endlessly tut tutted about the specks in President Donald Trump's eye while the beam in their own eye (harbouring a sexual predator) went conspicuously ignored.
On Q, Conspiracies, "Patriots", "The Plan", Etc.
This is taken from a social media platform. My words will be in regular font. Without further ado...
We know for absolute certain that Q was never a larp.
We do?
There's way too many Q proofs and hat tips from the likes of Trump, Scavino, Pompeo and Flynn etc.
Or you are artificially imposing a pattern where one does not actually exist.
So, with that said, and in view of what happened today, I only see 3 possibilities:
There are more than three.
1) Q, Trump, Scavino, Flynn, Pompeo etc are all deepstate agents participating in a massive scam/psyop, for who knows exactly what reason.
Or some are agents while others are not and there is no massive scam/psyop involved other than Rudy Guiliani, Sydney Powell and Linn Woods' incompetent attempts to grift.
2) All those people are patriots, and there was a plan, but the plan has failed and perhaps patriots didn't have as much control as they thought.
You forgot the possibilities that (i) some or none are patriots and (ii) there was no plan. You brush up against probability when surmising that "perhaps patriots didn't have as much control as they thought."
3) The plan is still unfolding and patriots are still in control.
There is about as much "control" here as the 1986 Challenger explosion was a successful space mission.
Personally, I discount number 1. If the deepstate were always in control it doesn't make any sense that they wouldn't have installed Hillary and instead woken up millions of people to who they are.
Or you are hung up on the idea that Hillary is a necessary part of "the plan" when she is yesterdays trash and far less useful than you presume.
So, for me it's between 2 and 3.
I already pointed out that there are more possibilities than just the ones you noted.
Maybe I'm hopelessly optimistic, but I'm still leaning towards 3.
Well, the word "hopeless" does come to mind. For weeks now, I have told folks like you nothing was going to happen and that Trump was going to leave office on 1/20. The responses were always variations of gibberish grand plans with claims I had to "just wait" and "[I] will see when all is revealed" and all that jazz.
Wait another week when we will win this or that court case which never happened. Wait and see 45 days after the election when Trump will enact his executive order on election fraud and take federal actions which did not happen. Wait until we challenge the certification and get Trump delegates installed in the controversial states which did not happen. Etc, etc, etc.
Every time, it was yet another "just you wait" prediction which falls flat. And now, rather than just man up and admit you and others like you were raving and drooling fools engaging in fantasyland bullshit that was never going to be, you again play the "well, something has to happen" card. It is a desperate attempt to try and salvage something from the mountains of conspiratard drivel you swallowed in the naive hope that those who conned you were right all along instead of just admitting you were had. No one wants to admit that they were so gullible as to be fooled like this but the sooner you do, the easier life will be for you.
Trump seems to have 'given up' way too easily. He seems not to have played any of his 'Trump Cards' yet. He's never conceded and keeps insisting 'the best is yet to come'. We all know there's absolutely no way that life could possibly get better under Biden.
You presume there are "Trump cards" left to play. The truth is, the moment none of the cases were taken up by SCOTUS is the moment the train ran out of track. You have spent five weeks only fooling yourselves and now you cannot accept the reality that Trump is now a private citizen again and there is no plan to try and change that in the immediate future.
So don't give up yet folks. It may seem hopeless (and maybe it is). But I have a sneaking suspicion that it's not over yet and that the Trump Card has yet to be played.
And you will be played for a fool once again if you keep this up. Plugs is president now. Whether you like it or not, that is the reality you need to face and the sooner you do, the easier it will be deciding where to go from there.
Briefly...
Will any of those leftist lunatics who hyperventilated about Trump not turning over power apologize for their stupidity, admit they were morons, and acknowledge that no one should take them seriously again? Fat chance! We never got those concessions from the folks on the right who did the same shit with Obama. Many of those same leftists whined in like fashion about Bush43 as rightist douches whined about Clinton back in the day. Etc, etc, etc.
And yet not a few wonder why I do not take much of politics seriously but instead view it as less authentic than pro wrestling!
Today is the Biden/Harris inauguration. Gas is currently $1.95 per gallon. Interest rates are 2.25% for a 30-year mortgage. The stock market closed at 30829.40 though we have been fighting COVID for 11 months. Our GDP growth for the 3rd Qtr was 33.1%. We had a strong economy until COVID and it is recovering well. We have not had any new wars or conflicts in the last 4 years. North Korea has been under control and has not been testing any missiles. ISIS has not been heard from for over 3 years. The housing market is the strongest it has been in years. Homes have appreciated at an unbelievable rate and sell well. And let us not forget the peace deals with 4 countries in the Middle East that were signed with Israel.
Unemployment sits at 6.7% in spite of COVID. Joe Biden becomes president today at noon. Let us see how the next 4 years go...
American Thinker disables its comment section
Just a taste...
The demise of comment sections has been happening for a decade.
Publishers mostly were disgusted with the vulgar tone of comments, which they didn’t have the time to moderate, so it was easier just to shut it down.
A Tale of Two Packages...
It was the worst of shipping times, it was the even worse still of shipping times...
Two packages were ordered and shipped recently. Package #1 was of a decent size and shipped standard FedEx, Package #2 was via standard USPS.
Package #1 was originally to ship out of Shanghai on 12/10, a delay meant it did not actually ship until 12/13. It arrived in Anchorage, AK on 12/14 and shipped out same day to Memphis, TN where it arrived on 12/15 and had to clear customs. After a 5 day customs delay, it cleared customs on 12/20 and departed Memphis arriving in Jamaica, NY at 7:21pm. From there, it was a short turnaround to get to Stamford on 12/21 and finally to my residence at 5:00pm on 12/22. Halfway around the world in 9 days with a 5 day customs layover? Not too bad considering the circumstances with understaffing due to Covid and all.
Package #2 is in a very small box and was ordered on 12/14 at 11:00pm and shipped out of Philadelphia, PA on 12/15. It took four days to get out of Philadelphia and to Jersey City, NJ on 12/19. From there it departed Jersey City arriving in Stamford, CT on 12/20 whereupon for the past four evenings, I have been told it was "arriving late" only to not arrive. Fortunately on nights I am not home, my neighbour is available if said package were to arrive to retrieve it for me but now we are going on 5 days of "arriving late tonight" texts from USPS and no package. To recap:
Package #1:
-Big Package
-Shipped FedEx
-Shipped from 8,387 miles across the world
-Took 12 days to arrive but involved two separate delays including an unavoidable customs delay of 5 days
Package #2:
-Small Box weighing not even half a pound
-Shipped USPS
-Shipped from Philadelphia or 134 miles away
-Took 6 days to get to Stamford and did not have to clear customs
-Has been in Stamford for 3 days with false promises of late delivery on 3 straight nights so far and it has not arrived as of this status
Exit Questions:
1) Which outfit would you prefer handling your parcels?
2) Why on earth should we give USPS any more money?
More on the End of the Road For 2020:
This was brought to my attention after my most recent election musings were put up on social media the other day. My response to it is to follow.
All the states have been certified.
Almost all lower courts are rejecting these cases on procedural grounds and the ones that are not are being appealed to courts that likely will.
SCOTUS is rejecting election cases that come before it on standing.
The electoral college meets [tomorrow] to vote and they will vote as the certified states indicate.
The new Congress on January 6th will not fail to certify the electoral college results. From there, nothing stops #SkeevyAndTheHo from being sworn in at noon on 1/20/21.
The train has run out of track.
More on the End of the Road For 2020:
This was a response to my most recent election musings were put up on social media the other day. My response to it is to follow.
2022 might be too late
For what? Secure the Senate January 5th and Biden is about to be the most ineffective president since Jimmy Carter and that is even before the 2022 bloodbath to come. And I am not even counting the about to be bigly gerrymandered district map which will lock Dems out of holding the House for about ten years. Whether it is Skeevy or the Ho after 2022, they will face opposite party control in both chambers and about half the country viewing them as illegitimate: not exactly a good recipe for effective governance.
On the End of the Road For 2020, Etc:
The path forward is clear now with no election cases even getting heard on merits; namely, pivot to Georgia. Win there, solidify the Senate, and prepare for 2022.
Remember, fraud makes a difference only in very close races. The way to fight it is by winning the governorships of MI, WI, PA: all of which are up in 2022. From there, there can be a push of Republican state lawmakers to clean up their state election system. The emphasis above all needs to be on vote security.
And those thinking any other cases are getting past procedural rejections are only fooling themselves.
Today was our first trip to the mausoleum where my wife's parents are buried since they finished engraving the names. The latter was done a few months back but my wife was not able to visit again after the internment until today.
Please pray for the eternal repose of the souls of Raffaelina Illiano Barone and Frank Diego Barone.
Eternal rest grant unto their souls oh Lord and may thy perpetual light shine upon them...May their souls and all the souls of the faithfully departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.
On Dogmatic Facts and Pope Francis' Election as Pope:
This is in response to the following poll which was sent to me from social media.
A few musings come to mind when reading the above; namely:
1) Those people saying Benedict XVI are still Pope are schmucks.
2) Dogmatic facts are "any fact connected with a dogma and on which the application of a dogma to a particular case depends." [Catholic Encyclopedia: Article on Dogmatic Facts (circa 1913)]
3) The Church is infallible in dogmatic facts:
"According to Catholic doctrine, the infallibility of the Church's Magisterium extends not only to the deposit of faith but also to those matters without which that deposit cannot be rightly preserved and expounded." [CDF: Instruction Mysterium Ecclesiae 3 (circa 1973) referencing Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium 25 (circa 1964)]
"With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts)." [CDF: Doctrinal Commentary on the Profession of Faith (circa 1998)]
4) Pope Benedict XVI abdicated the papacy by his own free choice in February of 2013.
5) The College of Cardinals elected Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina as Pope in March of 2013. He chose the name of Francis.
6) Pope Francis is the lawfully elected Pope of the Catholic Church.
7) As the Church could not err in a matter of dogmatic facts and the selection of Pope involves dogmatic facts, upon the man selected accepting the election, he becomes at that moment Pope.
8) The identity of Pope Francis as Pope as a dogmatic fact falls under the secondary realm of truths connected to revelation by logical necessity. Ergo, the fact that Pope Francis is Pope is considered infallible.
9) Those voting for Benedict XVI as the current Pope in that poll are in dogmatic error which if willfully doubted or denied means they should not present themselves for communion and priests or deacons aware of said willful doubt or denial by said persons should refuse to give them communion.
10) Benedict recognizes Francis as the lawful Pope along with the rest of the Catholic faithful.
Briefly on Non-Dogmatic Statements of Fact:
My words will be in regular font.
No. when the Church rules that the conditions do not exist in these times, claiming that they do is disobedience.
You are ascribing to the Church a power beyond its competence. There is no special protection by the Holy Spirit when it comes to non dogmatic statements of fact. Period.
Pretending there is such a charism is basically is to fulfill William Gladstones nineteenth century caricature of Catholics as mind numbed robots completely dependent on Rome. The church is no more qualified to pronounce on the efficacy of modern penal systems than she is on the best way to build a dam, design a ship, conduct meteorological experiments, or prepare breakfast.
Prudential judgment helps us determine *how* to best obey Church teaching, not *whether* to obey it.
Prudential judgement is subjective. It is also not free from possible errors as even the Vatican admits in Donum Veritatis.{1} It is certainly erroneous to automatically dismiss any and all prudential judgments of the Church the way many do. But it is no less erroneous to treat every prudential judgment as if it is carved on stone tablets from Mt. Sinai as you are in essence doing. The truth is between the Scylla of frequent and flagrant disobedience and the Charybdis of your kind of faith asphyxiating neo-ultramontanism.
Note:
{1} For further reading on this and other magisterial matters, see the following thread:
On the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, Obedience, and the Requirements of Faithful Catholics
Miscellaneous Musings on Neoscholasticism:
Whatever one wants to say about the Second Vatican Council, the intentions of the Fathers, of Pope St. John XXIII and all, one thing bears nothing. Namely, whatever fits and starts, whatever incomplete elucidation were involved in the process, one unquestionable good was the Second Vatican Council smashed neo-scholastic crap and more or less buried it. However good the intentions of its promoters were initially in wanting to recover authentic scholasticism, the actual result was a sham and at best a shell of authentic scholasticism.
This increasingly fraudulent form of scholasticism was dominant in the Church in roughly the century prior to the Second Vatican Council. The Council to its great credit oriented the Church towards viewing the faith in a far more genuinely traditional way: incarnationally and a faith manifested through charitable service. What was so damaging about neoscholastic methodology is it asphyxiated the faith by making of it not a lived faith but instead a series of dogmatic theological propositions.{1} When the latter become the primary point of focus to the detriment of an incarnational understanding, it causes ones faith to become very sterile and unlifelike.
We can all take issue with some of the things that came out of the Council, things that could have been said or expressed or formulated better. However, one undeniable benefit was the Second Vatican Council to its great credit smashed the sclerotic neoscholastic approach to the faith and set about expressing the faith more incarnationally as a faith that is lived through embodying the corporeal and spiritual works of mercy, not merely a jumble of verbal formularies.
Note:
{1} It was also based less on the original scholastic sources than on later commentators and various glosses they put on their commentaries on original sources which were often erroneous but confused with the thoughts of the schoolmen.
The Dogma Doesn't Live Loudly In Him
To take a bit of issue with the above article, pastoral theology presupposes dogmatic theology. What many of my fellow conservatives fail to grasp is repeating dogmatic formulations into a void accomplishes next to nothing in moving people towards the faith. Faith without works is dead. For his occasional stumbles Pope Francis understands this. It often seems many conservatives do not or at least beyond paying lip service to the concept at best.
Here is my dilemma: the same big media and big tech sources insisting all is well and there is nothing to see here viz potential widescale fraud and all have proven themselves repeatedly over the years to be a bunch of untrustworthy fucking liars and scum.
So when proven untrustworthy fucking liars and scum march in lockstep trying to censor legitimate inquiries, I instinctively will support the latter because I have zero trust with the untrustworthy fucking liars and scum of big media and big tech. I would not piss on them if they were on fire and I will immediately distrust apriori everything they say about anything.
I have been pretty clear from the get-go that I did not trust Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano the way not a few should have known better who frequently raised his name as some all-certified shibboleth in years past did. Rather than spell it out anew at this time, I will put in a footnote{1} links to prior postings where his material was touched on in varying degrees of detail.
The release of the long awaited McCarrick Report has no shortage of interesting material in it but among the most interesting is a signal failure of Archbishop Vigano in late 2012 to initiate an investigation as requested by Cardinal Marc Ouellet of the Congregation of Bishops.{2} This and other oversights by Archbishop Vigano listed in the McCarrick Report provide ample vindication of my prior enunciated positions on Vigano.
Notes:
{1} I went over in detail a couple of years ago the red flag that from the outset poisoned the well in my eyes where Vigano's credibility was concerned. Subsequent testimony installments of his or responses of other clerics to installments of his did not acquit him any better to put it nicely.
{2} See the McCarrick Report pgs 380-389 for details.
I may have more to say on this subject after familiarizing myself more with the contents of the report.
Purgatory Project Names 2020:
Richard Dunn McElhinney
The Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous site has been updated!!!
The above site is rarely updated but when it is, the material posted there is basically in a final form and I have no intention of revisiting the substance of those materials again. In this case, I have taken the unprecedented step of linking four Rerum Novarum expository musing threads to that site as these are subjects of no small importance. Those threads are as follows:
On Magisterial Interpretation (circa January 4, 2020)
On Clarifying and Retracting Some Prior Statements on the Magisterium (circa March 8, 2020)
More On Magisterial Interpretation (circa October 23, 2020)
I have said all I ever plan to say on the subjects contained therein. Ergo, it seems appropriate to post them there considering how much misunderstanding persists on the material covered in those threads.
All things to the contrary notwithstanding.
It helps to remember at the outset of treating on this subject matter that "a simple sentence, even spoken by the Sovereign Pontiff, is not an act of the Magisterium; we know that all statements have different degrees of authority."[...] So those who conflate airplane interviews[...], purported statements of non-dogmatic fact[...], speeches on geopolitical matters[...], or musings on economics particulars[...] are going outside what the Church requires. This also applies to those who make too much out of statements about historical events,[...] personal opinions on various subject matters from papal exhortatory comments,[...] as well as papal empirical surmises.[...]{4}
On Positive Arguments For Voting For Biden/Harris in 2020:
My words will be in regular font. Without further ado...
So far I've managed to detect only two positive arguments for Harris/Biden from left-leaning Catholics: he's "minimally rational," and he'd aim to raise taxes. All the other arguments are fulminations against Trump and/or against the ASP. Not a bad endorsement of voting for somebody other than Harris/Biden.
I dealt with the American Solidarity Party (ASP) earlier in the year so I am not going to reinvent the wheel here. As for the rest, raising taxes is never a positive argument. It is instead the lazy politicians attempt to avoid exercising fiscal discipline. If Biden was to push for zero based budgeting coupled with sequestration automatically cutting 5% of all essential and unquestionably constitutional programs every year{1} until the budget was balanced then the creation of a sinking fund to pay down debt{2}, that would be a great combination of reasons. But raising taxes is both lazy as well as deceptive because "only the rich" is the camels nose in the tent to raise taxes on everyone and is always what happens. So point one is a highly negative reason not a positive one and ergo stands debunked.
So you only have one and if "minimally rational" is the argument, Trump meets that low threshold so it is a wash/push.
Notes:
{1} And 10% of all non essential or constitutionally controversial programs.
{2} See this thread for more details:
A Plan To Pay Off The National Debt (circa August 14, 2020)
'Unverified' is a (false) excuse for ignoring The Post’s Hunter Biden scoops
This article is spot on. The same sources using the "inverified" excuse here have used a trove of anonymous sources to supposedly "verify" their stories in the past where President Trump is concerned.
"On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’ When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained'." [John 20:19–23]Catholics along with all Apostolic Christians believe that the Apostles as the first bishops sent others as they were sent, etc down to the present day.
"In church confess your sins, and do not come to your prayer with a guilt conscience. Such is the Way of Life...On the Lord's own day,assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins,so that your sacrifice may be pure.” [Didache, 4:14,14:1 (circa 70 AD),in ACW, 6:18,23]The Didache is quite possibly the oldest Christian non-New Testament writing and is even older than some of the books of the Bible. It was used as a catechesis text from very early on. It speaks of confessing one’s sins which implies they were confessed to someone.
"For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ." [St. Ignatius of Antioch: Letter to the Philadelphians 3 (circa 110)]How were they to know what penance was assigned to them? Through confession to a bishop or priest of course. Ignatius of Antioch was the third Bishop of Antioch and a student of the Apostle John. Obviously, Ignatius took the Gospel of John at face value on this matter.
"O God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Father of mercies and God of all comfort, Who dwellest on high yet hast respect unto the lowly, who knowest all things before they come to pass; Who didst give ordinances unto Thy church by the Word of thy grace; Who didst foreordain from the beginning the race of the righteous from Abraham, instituting princes and priests and leaving not Thy sanctuary without ministers; Who from the foundation of the world hast been pleased to be glorified in them whom Thou hast chosen; And now pour forth that Power which is from Thee, of the princely Spirit which Thou didst deliver to Thy Beloved Child Jesus Christ, which He bestowed on Thy holy Apostles who established the Church which hallows Thee in every place to the endless glory and praise of Thy Name. Father who knowest the hearts of all grant upon this Thy servant whom Thou hast chosen for the episcopate to feed Thy holy flock and serve as Thine high priest,that he may minister blamelessly by night and day,that he may unceasingly behold and propriate Thy countenance and offer to Thee the gifts of Thy holy Church. And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority to forgive sins..." [Hippolytus of Rome: Apostolic Tradition,3 From Prayer for the Consecration of a Bishop (circa 215 AD), in AT, 4-5]The prayer for the consecration of a bishop as recorded by Hippolytus of Rome specifically mentions the grant of authority by the Holy Spirit to the bishop being consecrated to forgive sins.
"The Pontifex Maximus--that is, the bishop of bishops--issues an edict: 'I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirements of) repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.' " [Tertullian of Carthage: Modesty,1 (circa 220 AD), in ANF, IV:74]The issue that Tertullian had was not the Pontifex Maximus (Pope Callistus I) forgiving sins but the specific sins involved. (A topic for another time perhaps.) Tertullian’s witness from Africa (specifically the region of Carthage) is more of a hostile one but it still shows how widespread the practice of confession to bishops and priests was back in the early third century.
"There is also yet a seventh, although hard and laborious, the remission of sins through penitence, when the sinner 'washeth his bed with tears, and his tears become his bread day and night', and when he is not ashamed to declare his sin to the priest of the Lord, and to seek a remedy; according to him who says: 'I said, I will confess against myself mine injustice to the Lord, and Thou hast forgiven the wickedness of my heart.' (Psalm 31:5) In which that also is fulfilled, which the Apostle James says: 'But if any one is sick amongst you, let him call the priests of the Church.' (St. James 5:14). [Origen of Alexandria: Homilies on Leviticus,2:4 (circa 248 AD), in JUR, I:207]The above text is self explanatory and is a witness from the region of Alexandria in Egypt.
"God cannot be mocked, nor deceived, nor deluded by any deceptive cunning. Yea, he sins the more, who, thinking that God is like man, believes that he evades the penalty of his crime if he has not openly admitted his crime. Christ says in His precepts, 'Whosoever shall be ashamed of me, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed.' And does he think that he is a Christian, who is either ashamed or afraid to be a Christian? How can he be one with Christ, who either blushes or fears to belong to Christ? He will certainly have sinned less, by not seeing the idols, and not profaning the sanctity of the faith under the eyes of a people standing round and insulting, and not polluting his hands by the deadly sacrifices, nor defiling his lips with the wicked food. This is advantageous to this extent, that the fault is less, not that the conscience is guiltless. He can more easily attain to pardon of his crime, yet he is not free from crime; and let him not cease to carry out his repentance, and to entreat the Lord's mercy, lest what seems to be less in the quality of his fault, should be increased by his neglect of atonement. I entreat you, beloved brethren, that each one should confess his own sin, while he who has sinned is still in this world, while his confession may be received, while the satisfaction and remission made by the priests are pleasing to the Lord." [Cyprian of Carthage: To the Lapsed, 28-29 (circa 251 AD), in ANF, IV:445]The above text is a second witness from the Carthage region in Africa of confession of one’s sins and remission of sins being made by a priest of the Lord.
"This (forgiving sins), you say, only God can do. Quite true: but what He does through His priests is the doing of His own power." [Pacian of Barcelona: Ep. I ad Sympron., 6 (approx 365 AD) in P.L., XIII, 1057.]The witness above is from Barcelona in Spain and again speaks of the priest mediating forgiveness of sins through his priests.
“Just as a man is enlightened by the Holy Spirit when he is baptized by a priest, so he who confesses his sins with a repentant heart obtains their remission from the priest. [Athanasius of Alexandria: On the Gospel of Luke 19 (circa 373 AD)]A second witness from Alexandria, this time Bishop Athanasius one of the champions of orthodoxy against the Arian heretics of the fourth century. He speaks of confession of sins to a priest and receiving remission of sins from a priest.
"It is necessary to confess our sins to those whom the dispensation of God's mysteries is entrusted." [Basil of Caesaria: Rule Briefly Treated, 288 (circa 374 AD), in JUR,II:26]This witness comes from Bishop Basil of the region of Caesaria in modern day Turkey. He speaks of the necessity of confessing sins to those who God has entrusted to dispense forgiveness of sins. (In short, to a priest of the Lord.)
“Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed.’ Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding; but they can only bind the body. Priests, in contrast, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself and transcends the very heavens. Did [God] not give them all the powers of heaven? ‘Whose sins you shall forgive,’ he says, ‘they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’ What greater power is there than this? The Father has given all judgment to the Son. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men [Matt. 10:40; John 20:21–23]. They are raised to this dignity as if they were already gathered up to heaven” [John Chrysostrom of Constantinople: The Priesthood 3:5 (circa 387 AD)]The above witness is from the region of Constantinople in modern day Turkey. Like all the prior examples,John Chrysostrom of Constantinople takes the Gospel of John and Jesus’ words on these matters literally.
"The Church holds fast its obedience on either side, by both retaining and remitting sin; heresy is on the one side cruel, and on the other disobedient; wishes to bind what it will not loosen, and will not loosen what it has bound, whereby it condemns itself by its. own sentence. For the Lord willed that the power of binding and of loosing should be alike, and sanctioned each by a similar condition. So he who has not the power to loose has not the power to bind. For as, according to the Lord's word, he who has the power to bind has also the power to loose, their teaching destroys itself, inasmuch as they who deny that they have the power of loosing ought also to deny that of binding. For how can the one be allowed and the other disallowed? It is plain and evident that either each is allowed or each is disallowed in the case of those to whom each has been given. Each is allowed to the Church, neither to heresy, for this power has been entrusted to priests alone. Rightly, therefore, does the Church claim it, which has true priests; heresy, which has not the priests of God, cannot claim it. And by not claiming this power heresy pronounces its own sentence, that not possessing priests it cannot claim priestly power. And so in their shameless obstinacy a shamefaced acknowledgment meets our view. Consider, too, the point that he who has received the Holy Ghost has also received the power of forgiving and of retaining sin. For thus it is written: 'Receive the Holy Spirit: whosesoever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.' So, then, he who has not received power to forgive sins has not received the Holy Spirit. The office of the priest is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and His right it is specially to forgive and to retain sins. How, then, can they claim His gift who distrust His power and His right?" [Ambrose of Milan: Concerning Repentance, I:7-8 (circa 388 AD), in NPNF2, X:330]The above witness is from Bishop Ambrose of Milan in modern day Italy. He also speaks of the office of the priest being one gifted by the Holy Spirit with the right and power to forgive and retain sins.
"All mortal sins are to be submitted to the keys of the Church and all can be forgiven; but recourse to these keys is the only, the necessary, and the certain way to forgiveness. Unless those who are guilty of grevious sin have recourse to the power of the keys, they cannot hope for eternal salvation. Open your lips, them, and confess your sins to the priest. Confession alone is the true gate to Heaven." [Augustine of Hippo: Christian Combat (circa 397 AD)]Bishop Augustine of the Hippo region of Africa continues with the early church witnesses of the importance of confession of sins to the bishops and priests who possess the keys of binding and loosing sins.
"Just as in the Old Testament the priest makes the leper clean or unclean, so in the New Testament the bishop and presbyter binds or looses not those who are innocent or guilty,but by reason of their office, when they have heard various kinds of sins, they know who is to be bound and who loosed." [Jerome of Dalmatia: Commentary on Matthew, 3:16,19 (circa 398), in JUR, II:202]Jerome had spent time in Rome and also in Bethlehem but was from the region of Dalmatia in modern day Albania. He makes it eminently clear that the New Testament enjoins bishops and priests with the authority to forgive and regain sins.
Briefly...
I propose the definition of a new argumentation fallacy to explain something that has become more prevalent in recent years; namely, the attempted dismissal in a discussion of something said by a man to or about a woman without rational justification metely to distract from the issue at hand.
Or if you prefer Latin: Argumentum ad Homo Explicate!
I have not read Pope Francis' latest encyclical letter but I intend to before the year is out. While many documents of varying authority come from the Vatican, encyclical letters in general are among the most authoritative. However, that being noted, there is still usually a diversity of statements of varying magisterial weight in an encyclical latter much as with any document issued either by the pope or in his name.
I went over the subject of the magisterium in detail earlier this year{1} both in scope{2} as well as the matter of proper interpretation thereof{3} so I see no need to reinvent that wheel. However, I do want to point out at least in passing that there will inevitably be no shortage of pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists who will treat this text as if each part of it is of equal weight.{4}
Too often documents issued by the Vatican are treated as a pretext by self-proclaimed More Moral Than Thou sorts for beating others over the head with parts that appear to support their preconceived presuppositions while ignoring or downplaying parts that appear to oppose said presuppositions thereof. Then there will be those who claim to be a faithful Catholic who will dismiss this encyclical wholesale lest they have to acknowledge something that is contrary to their particular worldview. Neither approach is correct for a faithful Catholic to take.
Having noted these things briefly, one final point: since most folks do not actually read Vatican documents except to prooftext them, be wary of those who seek to make too much or too little of the contents of the new encyclical letter. The truth on these matters is usually more nuanced than most folks either know or care to admit.
Notes:
{2} See footnote one and also this thread:
On Clarifying and Retracting Some Prior Statements on the Magisterium (circa March 8, 2020)
{3} On Magisterial Interpretation (circa January 4, 2020)
{4} This is of course wrong but since when has that stopped those more interested in conflict than in genuine dialogue.
Her site is worth reading even if only for the summary of other articles on the matter from Rerum Novarum recommended sources such as Little Green FootballsThough we have soured some on Michelle Malkin{1} over the years, that is not the purpose of this posting.
