In his excruciatingly bad article on the death penalty (, Dr. Robert Fastiggi argues that while popes have previously interpreted Scripture concerning the death penalty, their interpretation is not necessarily definitive (which would seemingly make irrelevant anything the current Holy Father says, for if previous popes are not definitive in their interpretation of Scripture, then why can’t a future pope come along to say something different again from Pope Francis…anyways). He gives an example of another papal interpretation that is not definitive, in his mind at least:

“Another example of a biblical text understood in a certain way by a pope is Gen 2: 21–23. Pope Leo XIII, in his 1880 encyclical, Arcanum, writes: ‘We record what is to known to all, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep’ (n. 5). Pope Leo XIII here refers to something ‘known to all,’ namely that Eve was formed from the side of the sleeping Adam. Does this mean that Catholics must believe in the literal formation of Eve from the side of the sleeping Adam? Some might argue that this is the case, but St. John Paul II did not feel bound by this interpretation of Leo XIII. In his 1988 apostolic letter, Mulieris dignitatem, the Polish Pontiff states: ‘The second description of the creation of man (cf. Gen 2:18-25) makes use of different language to express the truth about the creation of man, and especially of woman. In a sense the language is less precise, and, one might say, more descriptive and metaphorical, closer to the language of the myths known at the time.’ (n. 6).”

Now then, the question I have is whether it’s possible to believe other than Eve being formed from the side of Adam? I may be naive, and correct me if so, but is this not necessary to believe? Wouldn’t the typology pointing to the Bride of Christ pouring forth from His pierced side on the cross be ruined if it were all just a nice metaphor? Wouldn’t the doctrine of Original Sin be ruined if Eve were not formed from Adam, as then he would not be the head of all humanity, in whom we are thus all represented in that corporate personality?


A lot of people were speculating about the possibility of some dramatic sign  or event occurring on Friday, the 100th anniversary of the miracle of the sun. This speculation is perhaps connected with the fact that, according to Sr Lucia, our Lord spoke of the failure of the pope and bishops to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart in these words:

Make it known to My ministers, given that they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My requests, they will follow him into misfortune.

This gave rise to the speculations about 100 years because, it is said, 100 years after St Margaret Mary received the command from our Lord that King Louis should consecrate France to the Sacred Heart, the Revolution broke out.

However, it was not in 1917 that the request or command to consecrate Russia was received. The consecration was mentioned in the apparition of July 1917, but only as something that would be called for later. The second part of the secret which was given on that occasion included these words: ‘I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays.’

When then did our Lady come to ask for this? According to Sr Lucia, it was on June 13th, 1929. Our Lady appeared to her in the chapel of her convent in Tuy, Spain, saying:

The moment has come when God asks the Holy Father to make, in union with all the bishops of the world, the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means. So numerous are the souls which the justice of God condemns for sins committed against Me, that I come to ask for reparation.

So, if we are interested in what might happen if the consecration is not made as our Lady asked, the year to speculate about seems to be 100 years after this, i.e.  2029.

According to NASA, an event that only takes place on average every 1000 years is due to occur that year. On April 13th, 2029 an asteroid is due to pass near to the earth in an ‘an eye-popping close encounter’. It is about 320 meters wide, reputedly big enough to devastate a region the size of Texas, if it hit land, or causing widespread tsunamis if it hit the ocean. However, they think it will miss. On June 12th, the day before the 100th anniversary, there will be an eclipse of the sun.


Fourth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople

Though the old and new Testament teach that a man or woman has one rational and intellectual soul, and all the fathers and doctors of the church, who are spokesmen of God, express the same opinion, some have descended to such a depth of irreligion, through paying attention to the speculations of evil people, that they shamelessly teach as a dogma that a human being has two souls, and keep trying to prove their heresy by irrational means using a wisdom that has been made foolishness.

Therefore this holy and universal synod is hastening to uproot this wicked theory now growing like some loathsome form of weed. Carrying in its hand the winnowing fork of truth, with the intention of consigning all the chaff to inextinguishable fire, and making clean the threshing floor of Christ, in ringing tones it declares anathema the inventors and perpetrators of such impiety and all those holding similar views; it also declares and promulgates that nobody at all should hold or preserve in any way the written teaching of the authors of this impiety. If however anyone presumes to act in a way contrary to this holy and great synod, let him be anathema and an outcast from the faith and way of life of Christians.

Ecumenical Council of Vienne

We reject as erroneous and contrary to the truth of the catholic faith every doctrine or proposition rashly asserting that the substance of the rational or intellectual soul is not of itself and essentially the form of the human body, or casting doubt on this matter. In order that all may know the truth of the faith in its purity and all error may be excluded, we define that anyone who presumes henceforth to assert defend or hold stubbornly that the rational or intellectual soul is not the form of the human body of itself and essentially, is to be considered a heretic.

St Pius X – 24 Thomistic Theses

16 This rational soul is united to the body in such a manner that it is the only substantial form of the body. By virtue of his soul a man is a man, an animal, a living thing, a body, a substance and a being. Therefore the soul gives man every essential degree of perfection; moreover, it gives the body a share in the act of being whereby it itself exists.

We have to be ready for the possibility, and I think the likelihood, that the present darkness will not soon be dissipated, but rather intensify. Two or three cardinals will no doubt soon make some kind of declaration, which may or may not be called  a ‘formal correction’, but it will probably serve at best to encourage the faithful, and not to relieve them. It is extremely unlikely that any of the cardinals will declare the pope pertinacious and thus guilty of the canonical crime of heresy; nothing in their known characters or public statements suggests it. Even if they did so act, it does not seem that a Catholic could follow such a declaration with security. There is not a sufficient consensus that even the entirety of the college of cardinals has the divine right to judge of the self-deposition of a pope – Billot, one of the principal ecclesiologists of the 20th century doubted or denied it, and John of St Thomas explicitly says that the task belongs to an ‘imperfect ecumenical council’ (which appears to me a chimerical concept), not to the sacred college. And I know of no authoritative writer of any century who suggests that 2 or 3 cardinals could ever judge of the self-deposition of a pope in a way that would give Catholics the right, let alone the duty, to follow a successor that those same cardinals might choose.

It may be that the evil does not end with Pope Bergoglio. It is quite easy to imagine that a successor, and perhaps a line of successors, will pursue the same policy that he has instituted, promulgating ambiguous documents and using other words and deeds to interpret them in a heretical manner. It may be that inter-communion with Protestants will be established in this way, lawlessly and yet by the lawful possessors of divine authority. It may be that a successor, or several successors, to Pope Bergoglio will continue to utter heresies in this or that discourse or interview. It may be that jurisdiction will be removed, diocese by diocese and abbey by abbey, from every prelate who resists the evil. Why should it not happen? “Very great wrath came upon Israel” in the time of the Maccabees, and the faithful were driven out of the holy city, and into such forts and strongholds as they could find; who will say that the people of God stands less in need of purification now than then?

It may be that the destruction of the Church will proceed apace, and that there will be nothing that the faithful can do to reverse or halt or retard it, nothing that they can do but seek to save their own souls and succour those who by nature and by chance (that is, by divine providence) are entrusted to them. It may be that the sacraments will be profaned more and more, the celibacy of the priesthood destroyed, the dogmas audible less and less.  It may be that the mystical body of Christ will be drawn toward its passion as was His physical body by the word of the high priest. It may be that not only by reason of famine and plague will the living come to envy the dead.

And the Lord said to me: Take to thee yet the instruments of a foolish shepherd. For behold I will raise up a shepherd in the land, who shall not visit what is forsaken, nor seek what is scattered, nor heal what is broken, nor nourish that which standeth, and he shall eat the flesh of the fat ones, and break their hoofs.


Each time he gets more explicit. Well perhaps Pope Francis is worried about Our Lady’s wrath on the 13th and is hoping to inject as much poison as he can into the ecclesiastical blood stream before the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart. This seems pretty much as explicit as it gets. Scripture is wrong. The Fathers are Wrong. The Doctors are wrong. The Ecumenical Councils are wrong. The Popes are wrong. The changing consciousness of the Christian people has told Pope Francis that the death penalty is always and everywhere inadmissible and he is jolly well going to change the Catechism to reflect it. “In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.”

(Sancrucensis will like this one)

The Chaldicotes set, as Lady Lufton called them, were in every way opposed to what a set should be according to her ideas. She liked cheerful, quiet, well-to-do people, who loved their Church, their country, and their queen, and who were not too anxious to make a noise in the world. She desired that all the farmers round her should be able to pay their rents without trouble, that all the old women should have warm flannel petticoats, that the working-men should be saved from rheumatism by healthy food and dry houses; that they should all be obedient to their pastors and masters—temporal as well as spiritual. That was her idea of loving her country. She desired also that the copses should be full of pheasants, the stubble-field of partridges, and the gorse covers of foxes; in that way, also, she loved her country. She had ardently longed, during that Crimean war, that the Russians might be beaten—but not by the French, to the exclusion of the English, as had seemed to her to be too much the case; and hardly by the English under the dictatorship of Lord Palmerston (‘Framley Parsonage’, chapter two).

 A system of morality based exclusively on human reason robs man of his highest dignity and lowers him from the supernatural to the merely natural life. Not but that man is able by the right use of reason to know and to obey certain principles of the natural law. But though he should know them all and keep them inviolate through life-and even this is impossible without the aid of the grace of our Redeemer-still it is vain for anyone without faith to promise himself eternal salvation. ‘If anyone abide not in Me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up and cast him into the fire, and he burneth’ (John XV., 6). ‘He that believeth not shall be condemned’ (Mark XVI., 16).

–  Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus 11

It would be a very serious error to conclude that the Church’s teaching is essentially only an ‘ideal’ which must then be adapted, proportioned, graduated to the so-called concrete possibilities of man, according to a ‘balancing of the goods in question’. But what are the ‘concrete possibilities of man’? And of which man are we speaking? Of man dominated by lust or of man redeemed by Christ? This is what is at stake: the reality of Christ’s redemption. Christ has redeemed us! This means that he has given us the possibility of realizing the entire truth of our being; he has set our freedom free from the domination of concupiscence. And if redeemed man still sins, this is not due to an imperfection of Christ’s redemptive act, but to man’s will not to avail himself of the grace which flows from that act. God’s command is of course proportioned to man’s capabilities; but to the capabilities of the man to whom the Holy Spirit has been given; of the man who, though he has fallen into sin, can always obtain pardon and enjoy the presence of the Holy Spirit

– St John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor 103