No Mercy For Francis

 This coming Sunday, for Traditionalist Catholics, is commonly known as "Low Sunday;"the Sunday immediately following Easter. In the Vatican II sect two falsehoods will take place; the so-called "canonizations" of Wotyla (Antipope John Paul II) and Roncalli (Antipope John XXIII), as well as the celebration of "Divine Mercy Sunday." The Modernists destroy all things traditional and holy---Low Sunday being no exception.  The whole "Divine Mercy" devotion was CONDEMNED by the Holy Office. (For an awesome article on this fact, please search on www.novusordowatch.org). Not only does this phony devotion detract from the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, the last thing the Vatican II sect needs is more emphasis on mercy and less on God's Justice.

  Containing within it the idea of universalism (the heresy that all people, perhaps even the fallen angels too, will be saved), they grant an "indulgence" for going to "reconciliation" and eating the Novus Bogus cracker. Over 90% of the sect's members probably don't even know what an indulgence is since every time someone dies they receive a de facto canonization at the "Mass (sic) of Christian Burial." Ironically, even the false teachings are turning on apostate Bergoglio (Antipope Francis). A phony "seer" known only as "Maria Divine Mercy" has a website claiming she has received visions and messages since 2010. You can (naturally) buy her books on her false messages, too. (See www.thewarningsecondcoming.com).

 Maria has hidden her identity and is located somewhere in Europe. She claims on her site:
"Maria was told by Jesus that she is the 7th Messenger, the 7th Angel sent to reveal to the world the contents of the Seals in the Book of Revelation which can only be opened by the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ. He will open the Seals and reveal, in advance, the contents. Maria has to publish them as each Seal is opened. He has told her she is the end time prophet."

 A doomsday prophetess, I'm not sure if she implies that she is an angel in human form, a human turned into an angel, or something equally absurd. Also, if she is the 7th Angel, who were the first six? Obviously a fraud, Maria made a prediction that Ratzinger (Antipope Benedict XVI), would be "forced out." Given his health and the pedophile scandals hanging over his head, it wasn't such an incredible "revelation." What is interesting, is that she claims Ratzinger is the last "pope".

• In Pope Benedict's place, a new antipope will be elected: "The false prophet will now take over the Seat in Rome" . "[T]hey will bring God’s children under the rule of the little horn, who will sit in pompous splendour in the Seat of Peter" .
• This antipope will announce a plan to merge world religions: "Seated in the Chair of Peter, this imposter will shout aloud and proudly proclaim his solution to unite all churches as one.  Hailed as a modern innovator, he will be applauded by the secular world because he will condone sin. He will bring in new laws, which will, not only contradict the Teachings of the Catholic Church, but which will go against all Christian laws".

  Well, Vatican II has had as its goal a one world religion all along, Ratzinger was certainly no exception. But, is it possible that just as she guessed that Ratzinger would resign, we might see Bergoglio ('applauded by the secular world") condoning sin ("communion" by remarried adulterers, praying to heretics like Wotyla) and going against all Christian laws (he's a moral relativist)?  Even a broken clock is right twice every 24 hours!

 So on the day Bergoglio declares two heretics as phony "saints" on a  feast of a false apparition, even a false prophetess who adheres to that bogus devotion declares Begoglio a "false prophet" who will "bring God's children under the rule of the little horn"(i.e. Satan).

One can only wonder if Divine Justice can be far behind when even the most absurd Vatican II devotees of Divine Mercy show Antipope Francis  no clemency. 

In Defense Of An Ordination

   To be quite honest, I don't enjoy getting involved with needless controversy within Traditionalist Catholicism. Remember well the words of Galatians 6:10, "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith." I especially abhor those with an ax to grind against good clerics. However, times will arise when we must make our Catholic way the best we can with no Magisterium in place during this time of near universal apostasy.

     After putting to rest the unsubstantiated accusations and fallacious reasoning of the boors at the blog Pistrina Liturgica regarding the ordination of Bp.Daniel Dolan, I never thought I would revisit the case of an ordination called into question again. A reader of this blog has recently moved to Cincinnati and wants to attend Immaculate Conception Church run by the Society of St. Pius V (SSPV).  The Church is run by Frs. William Jenkins and Joseph Greenwell. This person does not feel comfortable receiving the sacraments from Fr. Greenwell due to an article written circa 2006 by Fr. Anthony Cekada (for whom I have the greatest respect and admiration). The article, "Bishop Mendez and the 1990 SSPV Ordinations," takes the very serious step of calling into question the validity of the ordination of SSPV Frs. Paul Baumberger and Joseph Greenwell by Bishop Alfred Mendez. I had remarked on another site that I did not believe this to be the case, and the reader of my blog asked if I would write a post explaining my reasons.

   Some preliminary remarks are in order:

1. I am not a theologian, nor have I ever claimed to be such
2. I am not beholden to any Traditionalist order or priest, especially those with a "follow me or die" mentality
3. I'm expressing an opinion which is my own on a matter that is not of Faith, and I would never expect anyone else to hold it because of any authority on my part. I have no authority, and if you agree with me fine, if not, that's OK too.   
4. I hold no animosity against any of the clerics mentioned herein.
5. Some remarks which are aimed at Traditionalist priests are not done with malice; we cannot fall into the trap of treating them as those endowed with Magisterial authority--and worse, treat them as above any/all reproach. Many did just that in the 1950s and it enabled the heretics and perverts to take over at the parish level easily with nary a whimper of protest    

  With all that in mind, I do consider the ordinations of Frs. Greenwell and Baumberger to have been valid. I recommend to all reading this to first read Fr.Cekada's article referenced above at www.traditionalmass.org. In this way I need not rehash any background information, but may proceed directly to the crux of the issue.

The arguments of Fr. Cekada boil down to these:

• There was a change to one of the words of the essential form ("quaesumus") by Bp. Mendez, thereby substantially altering and invalidating the rite
• There were conflicting reports as to mode of pronunciation, number of times the form was pronounced, the grammatical number, and which ritual book was used.

   The SSPV holds to two opinions which I do not share: the invalidity of the Thuc consecrations, and the necessity of using two hands as the matter of the sacrament in the ordination of priests and consecration of bishops (no, Deo gratias, they have nothing to do with the boors at Pistrina Liturgica). Traditionalist priests and bishops can be quite intransigent when it comes to changing an opinion, admitting an error in judgement, and bickering among themselves. Bp. Kelly, a good and holy bishop, is overly zealous when it comes to the sacraments. He has a misguided notion as to what constitutes a "qualified witness" and the SSPV actually cast doubt on the episcopal consecration of Richard Williamson because they couldn't clearly see on the video if Archbishop Lefebvre placed BOTH hands on his head. (When I asked an SSPV priest, "Even if it was one hand, what about the co-consecrator, Bp. Antonio Castro Mayer? He's not to be found on the tape, and he's supposed to use two hands, right?" He quickly changed the subject).  I mention this because scrupulosity will play a role in the instant case. 

 As to the first argument of Fr. Cekada, the word "quaesumus" (part of the form defined by Pope Pius XII) was pronounced as "quae" "sumus" due to a hypenation that occured because the word began on one line and continued on the next. If the word was made into two words, it changes the meaning of form substantially, thereby invalidating it. Bp. Kelly admits to hearing a separation of syllables in his book The Sacred and the Profane (pgs.210-212, hereinafter SP)

Assuming, ad arguendo, that a separation of syllables was made, does that ipso facto render the sacrament null and void? According to theologians McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology Vol.2, #2655: 

"Rules on the Invalid Use of the matter Form of the Sacraments. (b) Since the matter and form are parts of a single composite sign, it is sacrilegious to invalidate a Sacrament by substantial separations, which destroy

the continuity or unity of signification.There is a substantial separation within the form when such long

intervals occur between the pronunciation of its syllables or words that it is not in common estimation

a united sentence or proposition; for example, if the celebrant says, "Hoc est cor -," then sneezes two or

three times, and (instead of repeating the words) concludes "-pus meum," or says "Hoc est. corpus" and

after an interruption of several minutes (instead of repeating) finishes with: "meum." "

   "Long intervals," it says. The separation of syllables startled Bp.Kelly because by his own admission in  SP, he was "being too careful." Fr. Jenkins, and Bp. Mendez said everything was pronounced correctly. Fr. Zapp had no problem with the ordination for over two years! Apparently, he thought everything was said correctly as well. It reminds me of several clerics who brought up a "problem" with Bp. Dolan's priestly ordination fourteen (yes, that's 14) YEARS after working with him and the "problem" was allegedly apparent from the start! If there was a separation, it appears to have been only slight and therefore not a substantial change. 

 Moreover, according to theologian Jone, Moral Theology, # 446: 

"b) Separations of individual words and syllables  constitutes a substantial change if the interval is

long enough to alter the meaning of the sentence. Thus, the form remains valid if one says" Ego te

baptizo," coughs and then completes the form. Similarly, if one interrupts the form by some

incidental remark, as" Turn the page," "Keep quiet,""This water is too cold." The formula of absolution is

likewise valid if the confessor, after saying: " Ego te absolvo," notices the penitent leaving the

confessional and says: "Come back! Always wait till the priest finishes! -a peccatis tuis." 

The form is invalid if interrupted for several minutes, e.g., after saying: " Hoc est enim corpus,"

one has a coughing spell, after which he should add "meum." If individual syllables are separated a shorter

interruption makes the form at least doubtfully valid; thus, if after saying" Hocest enim cor- " one 

should sneeze several times and then conclude "pus meum." In such cases the word begun should be

repeated. c) In judging whether a form has been altered substantially or only accidentally one must consider

whether the minister acted inadvertently, ie., mispronounced the form by mistake or whether he

intended to give the form a different meaning." (Emphasis mine). 

   Please notice that it is shown, in both of these references, that to render a sacrament invalid or

doubtful the "pause" or "interruption" must be more than just a brief one and according to Jone: "one must

consider whether the minister acted inadvertently,ie., mispronounced the form by mistake or whether he

intended to give the form a different meaning." Is there a doubt that Bishop Mendez didn't have the

intention to ordain? Even Fr. Cekada's own citation to theologian Halligan clearly says, "Substantial alteration may also be risked by faulty articulation or by clipping words through haste. In practice, where a complete word is de facto interrupted through a pause between syllables, it is advisable to repeat the word, unless the interruption is extremely slight." (The Administration of the Sacraments pg. 16; Emphasis mine). The interruption was slight enough that Fr. Zapp had no worries, Fr. Jenkins had no worries, nor the Bishop himself. Bp (then Fr) Kelly did, but this comes from someone who looks though video tapes looking for two handed consecrations. In other words, it disturbed him because he was guilty of scrupulosity. 

    What about the second argument of Fr.Cekada, the various conflicting reports? Since I see no merit to the mispronunciation in the first place, and personally spoke with one of the priests who was there, I'm satisfied that I don't need to reach the merits of the attempts (in my opinion) to save face by the SSPV due to an ordination that was done in private and a mistake (albeit non-invalidating) on the part of those who like to admit none. Maybe there was a third recitation of the form, but I'm satisfied with the first two anyway. This much is known:

1. The ordination by Bp. Mendez took place; he would know best if the form was singular or plural, and if the form was pronounced correctly
2. The separation of syllables was slight enough not to worry even a later detractor (Fr. Zapp)
3. Bp. Kelly is know to be overly zealous, so even the briefest pause would give him concern
4. Bp. Mendez had the intention to ordain, and this coupled with a brief pause does not constitute a substantial change 

 For the foregoing reasons, I'm satisfied with the validity of the ordinations of Frs. Baumberger and Greenwell. On a personal note, I believe (with no external evidence) that if any of the SSPV clergy had doubts, they would have performed a conditional ordination in secret with Bp. Kelly or Bp. Santay to avoid the scandal of disturbing the peace of mind of the faithful. Also on a personal note, I'm glad Fr. Greenwell is no longer on Long Island. Validity aside, the joke was that if your arrived  five minutes late when he was offering Mass, he'd be at the Last Gospel. One of the bishops should speak to him about the slovenly and rushed way he offers Mass. He also is the ONLY SSPV priest who refused to answer if he used the name of the Antipope in the Canon. "It's MY Mass" was his response. No, Father, the Mass belongs to the Church, in whose name you offer it--in persona Christi ("in the person of Christ" for validity) and in persona Ecclesiae ("in the person of the Church" for efficacy). We faithful have a RIGHT to know if the name of an Antipope is inserted in a Mass we attend. The Mass is not your personal possession. Contrast this with the devotion and love with which Fr. Baumberger offers the Holy Sacrifice and edifies the faithful. 

   To my inquisitive reader,  I suggest you go to Mass without fear of invalidity, but attend with Fr. Jenkins whenever possible. To all Traditionalist priests and faithful out there, let's be more discreet and charitable with each other whenever possible. The real enemy is Bergoglio and his ecumenical Vatican II sect monstrosity. Let's save our energy, whenever possible, so we can better fight him. 

The Real Walking Dead

 The number one show on television is the drama The Walking Dead. The program is about the "zombie apocalypse." For reasons unknown to the viewer, a disease has broken out infecting the world's inhabitants. Once someone dies, the disease controls the brain, and moves the body in a quest to feed on flesh, living or dead. The show centers on the actions of one group of survivors trying to make their way in the post-apocalyptic world--and make sense as to what has happened. They are lead by former small town sheriff Rick Grimes. Unlike most shows, main characters are routinely killed off, so you never know what to expect. The plot and dialogue, as well as character development, are superior to most of what's out there. I'm a fan myself; it's the only show I watch.

  I bring this up because of an incident that happened this week. Another lawyer I know went on a tirade against belief in God and anything supernatural. His vitriol was such that our exchange started to get heated, and another had to intervene for us to calmly walk away.  Luckily, I don't need to work with Ken, but he is your typical "victim of Vatican II." For a trained lawyer, his research was poor and his argumentation was either weak (at best) and fallacious (at worst).  The Vatican II sect no longer trains the minds of their followers in the things of God. "Draw a picture of what God's love means to you" is the typical Vatican II sect's religious assignment given at one of their schools (now devoid of vocations who teach) and their so-called "CCD" classes. The greatest intellects defending the existence of God today are Protestants (e.g. Dr. William Lane Craig) or even Eastern Orthodox (e.g. Prof. Richard Swinburne).

 Those who believe in the existence of the soul were singled out for ridicule by Ken for not wanting to face the fact that after death we just become "worm food." Until recently, the Novus Bogus service which replaced the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, had eliminated all references to the soul. "The Lord be with you" was met with "And also with you" in place of "your spirit.  Likewise, "Lord, I am not worthy to receive Thee, but only say the word and my soul will be healed" became "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you (sic) but only say the word and I shall be healed." These are but two examples of how Modernists downplay the supernatural. Their "saints" are not more than secular role models, miracles are downgraded or derided as superstitious along with statues, scapulars, holy water, and indulgences. As a matter of fact, Purgatory along with Hell have almost disappeared as "negative theology." Everyone goes to Heaven (just ask Antipope Francis).

 It's become popular in some circles to deny the soul. God will simply sustain your existence somehow in happiness. A few bad characters, like Hitler, will simply be annihilated. Eternal punishment is replaced by a sort of eternal punishing. Many Protestant denominations, breeding grounds for Modernist ideas a long time before Vatican II, have adopted this heretical notion of no soul and no Hell. How many people are aware of the serious practical consequences resulting from a denial of the soul?

 In philosophy of mind, there are two basic positions on how the brain relates to the mind. Physicalism  says that the mind and brain are one and the same. You are your brain. Substance dualism teaches that the mind is distinct from the brain. The brain is the instrumental cause through which the mind (soul) operates, and it survives death. In the first season of The Walking Dead, the final episode has a scientist explaining to Rick's group a video of the inside workings of a live human brain. There are complex webs of what appear as wires and lights flashing around. He then declares that the electrical activity is the real you. When those lights go out, you cease to exist. There is no soul. You are your brain.  

 If physicalism is true, there are some practical consequences, apart from doctrinal ones, that my acquaintance Ken never bothered to consider.

1. Personal Identity. If I were to take a wooden table and replace it, bit by bit, with metal parts, is the final metal table which results the same as the wooden table with which I began my project? The answer would clearly be "no." Humans have all of their cells completely replaced approximately every seven years. Do I maintain a literal, absolute identity throughout the changes? Are my baby pictures of me, or of some "ancestor" of mine? For the substance dualist, the soul is what remains constant throughout our physical changes. For the physicalist, a person is no more than an ancestral chain of successive "selves" which are connected to each other in some way. At each moment a new "self" exists since the body is always losing and gaining cells, and each self resembles the one before it, held together by the passing on of memories. In the 1960s show Star Trek, the transporter would break down the molecules of the persons to "beam down" to a planet. Since there is no soul, the characters were no more than the collection of their cells and memories. Take Mr. Spock apart and put him back together again. If a person suffers from amnesia, they are not really the same person but someone different. Further, why should "I" fear the future? It won't really be me when it arrives. Moral responsibility goes out the window. Why should "I" be held responsible for what another organism did in the past before handing on his memories?

2. Free Will. Simply put, no soul= no free will. If I am matter then my actions are not the result of free choice. They are determined by the laws of chemistry and physics plus boundary conditions. Despite common sense notions of the ability to choose, it is simply an illusion. You had no choice. What does this do to our legal system constructed on the very basis of the notion of free acts? How can anyone praise St. Francis of Assisi or condemn Adolph Hitler? Neither had a choice in what they did.

3. Abortion and Euthanasia. These are a couple of those "small minded rules" Bergoglio says we should not obsess over. Under the idea of no soul it makes sense. We are made in the image and likeness of God. In His image by virtue of an immaterial soul. In His likeness by sanctifying grace. We cannot kill a person who has a soul which makes him special, nor even a body that COULD have a soul (as there were debates as to when the soul is within the unborn baby). With the notion of a soul gone "quality of life" supersedes "sanctity of life." This also ties in with the aforementioned view of some Protestants that there is no soul and the wicked are annihilated. God annihilates the person because his quality of life in a place like Hell  would be horrible. However, God would not annihilate something in His image, so the free will of that person makes eternal quarantine (Hell) and its attendant pains the only (and logical) alternative.

I believe my acquaintance Ken was raised a Vatican II sect member. Not only is he typical of the loss of the True Faith, his lack of knowledge about the things of God results in dire consequences he never even considers. I pray for him and pity him. Like a zombie, the loss of Faith has millions going about with no theological knowledge in their minds and no grace in their souls. They may never (God forbid) come to the life-giving grace of Christ. Bodies with souls devoid of sanctifying grace. The fruit of Vatican II. They are the real "Walking Dead."

 

Will "Ecclesiological Dynamite" Blow The Lid Off The SSPX?

 The Society of St Pius X (SSPX) is once more trying to justify their absurd position of recognizing Francis as "pope" and the Vatican II sect as "the Roman Catholic Church" while refusing to submit to them. There was a theological conference at the formerly Catholic Georgetown University on the first year of Antipope Francis' "papacy." The conclusion was reported by The National Catholic (sic) Reporter. (The conclusion of) more than a dozen academics evaluating Francis, one theme was constant: Francis, the experts said, is a complete break from his predecessors, especially Benedict and John Paul II. The report will be in black and my comments in red. 

 How so, you ask? "In the words of Gerard Mannion, a theologian who helped organized (sic) the one-day event centered on Francis' apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium ("The Joy of the Gospel"): "There is no sugar-coating [it.]"

Calling the exhortation "ecclesiological dynamite," Mannion said "it is difficult for anyone working in fields such as ecclesiology to reach any conclusion other than the simple fact that on so many of the most important issues, there is very, very little substantive continuity with the ecclesial agenda of Pope Francis' predecessors."

This is Modernism at its worst. Wotyla and Ratzinger were heretics. Bergoglio is a complete apostate. He goes so far as to deny an objective moral order.  Pope St. Pius X condemned the proposition of the Modernists: 58. Truth is no more immutable than man himself, since it evolved with him, in him, and through him. Read on. 

The first session, focused on the apostolic exhortation's ecclesiology, or vision of the shape and structure of the global church, brought the most agreement among the experts present.

While they all did not put it in as sharp relief as Mannion, who at one point said Francis "wants to radically change how the church goes about its practice and business," they all agreed the shift in emphasis is real.

"This shift is new and substantial," said Dennis Doyle, a professor of religious studies at the Marianist-run University of Dayton in Ohio, who said Francis is bringing about a new "synthesis" between theological ideas and pastoral practices in the Catholic church.

Doyle said a small but key change you can see in Francis' exhortation is his repeated references to the church as the "People of God" -- the phrase used most frequently during the Second Vatican Council -- rather than the "Mystical Body of Christ," the phrase often preferred by Benedict or John Paul II.


Francis' focus on the "People of God," Doyle said, evinces "a church on a journey ... a church as yet unfinished." It is a church "that includes everyone, not just the clergy and the vowed religious," he said.

There are two important points to note: (1) The Church as "unfinished" and (2) the phrase "the People of God." As to the first, the idea of an unfinished Church should be as alien to the logical Catholic mind as a "married bachelor." According to Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei: "This society is made up of men, just as civil society is, and yet is supernatural and spiritual, on account of the end for which it was founded, and of the means by which it aims at attaining that end. Hence, it is distinguished and differs from civil society, and, what is of highest moment, it is a society chartered as of right divine, perfect in its nature and in its title, to possess in itself and by itself, through the will and loving kindness of its Founder, all needful provision for its maintenance and action." (Emphasis mine). 

 As to "People of God" replacing the term "Mystical Body of Christ", theologian Van Noort teaches: "The Roman Catholic Church is not merely the embodiment of the religion of Christ; it is, in a very real sense, the Body of Christ Himself.....This doctrine has been a treasured part of the deposit of faith right from the beginning. It came from the lips of the Master Himself during His earthly ministry." (Dogmatic Theology, II:216). "Feminist theologian" Rosemary Radford Ruether has written about the significance of this change from the "Mystical Body of Christ to the People of God; "Thus the shared baptism of all Christians (including members of non-Catholic churches) became the foundational ground of the church (sic). The ordained hierarchy were situated within the whole People of God as servants of a common mission and call to holiness, [that] they all share, rather than outside and above them as their source." (Emphasis mine). 
Once again from a real theologian (Van Noort): "Members of the Church are all and only those who have received the sacrament of Baptism, and are not separated from unity of the profession of the Faith, or from hierarchical unity." In order to be a member of the Mystical Body of Christ which is identical to the Roman Catholic Church you must be (a) validly baptized, (b) not heretics, (c) not schismatics, and (d) not excommunicated.  The People of God is "Frankenchurch." They "subsist" in the "Church of Christ" according to how many "elements" they possess. The Vatican II sect claims to have all the elements, but to have just some is ok too, and leads to salvation. (See Vatican II's Lumen Gentium). According to Pope Leo XIII, "To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God." (op. cit. Paragraph #31). 

 Who but the willfully blind cannot see that the Roman Catholic Church is NOT the Vatican II sect, and Bergoglio cannot be pope? Well, the SSPX, "Fr" Z, and the other Vatican II apologists fall into that category. Antipope Francis gives an "encyclical" which his own theologians admit ruptures with the past--not merely pre-Vatican II--but even with notorious heretics Ratzinger and soon to be "saint" Wotyla. The SSPX has just put out an article entitled "Avoiding a False Spirit of Resistance" in which it is written

That being said, can we really consider this authority ("pope" and his so-called bishops) as working for the destruction of the Faith? It would seem more accurate to call it an authority that does not profess the Faith, or does not confess it in its integrity, and that professes truths that are dangerous or even against the Faith. For there is a distinction to be made between an intention to destroy the Faith and a effect that was not directly wished for. It is clear that this loss of the Faith is a consequence of the conciliar doctrine that has been professed for the past 50 years, but can we say that this was and still is the intention of its promoters? If such were the case, these authorities would no longer have the Faith and would no longer be formally Catholic, and to believe this would be implicitly sedevacantist. Absit. (Latin, loosely translated as "God forbid"). 

 Are they for real? They didn't intend all this destruction? They now seem to want to use a weird "Principle of the Double Effect" to exonerate Bergoglio and the Modernists. Yes, they INTEND to preserve their delusion because they won't face the facts. Bergoglio is pushing for a One World Church and is getting there faster than anyone before. If his "ecclesiological dynamite" doesn't knock some Catholic sense in them, the next explosion they hear will be the last remnants of what was once Catholicism collapsing around them as they negotiate with the devil. Absit.